Sim versus Aircraft time for the IR

[no sponsor]

I am in the process of deciding on which school to do my CPL/IR and ME.

A fair few of these schools offer both SIM and time in the aircraft, although some lean heavily on sim time when compared to flying time with the IR. Others offer virtually no time in the sim, all being time in the aircraft.

My gut feel is that although some sim time is OK, too much is a bit of a cop out. This rash statement comes from my IMC, where I trained before each flight using Elite at my school. This was OK for practicing a route, SID or STAR but it was nothing like the real thing. Of course, going round the hold again because I screwed something up cost money, but somehow flying the aircraft made ones experience better.

It also seems that some of the most expensive schools offer the most sim time? How does this work?

I'm not interested in what people say about what employers look for, just the feelings of Sim time versus real IR work in the aircraft, and if it affected your decision in any way. Additionally, any ideas of the right sort of mix between sim and aircraft time would be appreciated.

[mad_jock]

Personally I think aircraft time offers more value for money.

You can't put sim time towards your total time or twin time.

I don't really hold with FNPT II's either.

You can learn all the skills required in your IR on a FNPT I. The FNPT II's are great looking sales tools but they were really bought for doing MCC courses in. They cost way more per hour than a FNPT I with no real benifit in real terms compared to min hours on a FNPT I and max hours in the twin.

Don't get me wrong they are great fun. But if you put a FNPT II student next to a FNPT I at the end of the IR test you wouldn't be able to tell the difference apart from one will have an extra 20 hours in there log book.

Sims are great for doing things you would prefer not to do in an aircraft or for intial skill learning allowing freezing etc. But I would go for the real thing.

The cost of the different cources are much the same which ever one you do. Something to ask about is if you get free solo sim time. Its a huge benift at the beginning to be able to practise by yourself after the instructor has told you what you need to do.

And how ever good the sim its never the same as the real thing. Some of the modern ones get near but they cost millions.


MJ

[High Wing Drifter]

Just an opinion formed from doing an IMC so not entirely valid but:-

As all the instrument appreciation stuff can be practiced at home on your PC, the only thing training sims seem to be good for is secretly failing instruments and seeing what happens. I believe a FRASCA will do that just fine, so why the expense of an FNPT at all?

I agree, tis a marketing excersise or to reduce costs. Therefore, some sim time seems to be a good thing (say 5 hours), but 25-35 hours seems more like a waste of money as I can't imagine there being much benefit after a while.

[rotatrim]

Some sim time before getting airborne at £350 per hour is very sensible and a good way of practising hold entries, holds, instrument procedures, etc., especially if your real life experience is limited. However, I'd suggest 20 hours dual sim as a maximum. The sim and the aircraft feel different and I disagree with those who say "if you can fly the sim, you can fly the real thing". I progressed in a huge leap as soon as I got airborne.

Beware of schools who stick you back in the sim on days when the weather isn't flyable or the aircraft is tech - it'll cost you £50-£150 per hour for negligible benefit.

I used the sim solo just before the IR test to reinforce things like climb checks, cruise checks, setting the altimeter at the appropriate time, power settings, setting up navaids and radios, etc. - far more realistic than flying a route in an armchair at home.

[iflysims]

I think Sims play a critical role in your training. But before I expand on that i have to say that is greatly depends on the type of device...not all FNPT are created equal..even though they may have the same certification level.
Having said that...IMHO a well developed training program should use the sim to introduce the training task and then you use the airplane to check whether you have actually learned the task. This is where we get back to capabilities of the sim...if its not capable of even flying straight and level or stabilized then obviously the device will not be as beneficial in your training.

Look at emergencies…how often to you practice V1 cuts in the airplane? Hope not too many… Decision making and scenario based training…there is a lot more to flying then knowing how to intercept the holding pattern. Sims are getting better but many times its like so many other things… Where can I find the cheapest FNPT?!? You get what you pay for!

[mad_jock]

And how many times do you do a v1 cut in your intial IR training?
Or for that matter any dangerous situation?

Yes they great for simulating emergencys which would be down right dangerous to do in real life. Great stuff for type ratings.

Basic scan and procedures FNPT I as cheap as you like. Followed by plenty of loggable real life twin time.

MJ

[EGBKFLYER]

I did 15 hours in an Elite FNPT 2 for my IR. I already held an MEP rating beforehand, which made the sim slightly more difficult at first - people are right when they say there is a large difference between the sim and the real thing and the sim is harder to fly.

That said, I think it was very useful time. I got a chance to work on some of the basics in detail, and the chance to look at your 'pattern' after the flight is also useful if debriefed. I would agree that 15-20 hours is about the most I'd want to do though. After that, I think you'd get too used to the sim.

I haven't had a go at an FNPT I, but I think it's unfair to say the II is only a marketing tool. Sure, the basic skills can be taught well in either type, but practicing the instruments to visual phase on finals, circling approaches etc is quite useful and reasonably realistic on the II. If, as in my case, you test from a different filed to where you train, it also has its uses as an aid to learning all the taxi routes!

Worth mentioning also that not all schools will use the sim as a money-making machine. Mine gave us unlimited free use of the sim and we were encouraged to go and look at specific debrief points as well as using it for general procedural practice.

[pink flamingo]

I could not agree more wiht rotatrim.
On my personal experience i would therefore steer well away from all those FTO's which use any type of FNPT for more than 20 hrs for the IR training.

It is already a very demanding and expensive training therefore i believe nobody wants to prolong their training because after 35 hrs in the sim they realize the airplane flies differently.

Furthermore if you fly routes and all sequence in the airplane you get a better understanding of what real life is and be ready for those nasty unexpected surprises you get during a skill test for example.

The only way to learn and understand the approach is by flying the airplane as it acts differently everyday, you do understand the strenght required to correct and maintain it stable all the way down.

As personal experience i would also pay extreme attention and stay away from those FTOs which gives you 35 hrs in the sim and 15 hrs in the plane and their location is not even where you are taking the skill test. (those will certainly are planning to rip you off)

I would greatly appreciate a PM from all of those who agree with me as I am about to bring to the attention of the CAA.

Kinds regards
PF

[carbonfibre]

Hi all,

I have to say that the FNPT11 was good for me, and heres why!!

I started at 1 school that uses an FNPT11 which they said was configured for the aircraft, which it wasnt, very poor layout, standardisation was non existant, and the AI was like an EFIS screen it was HUGE which made it very difficult to get used to the tiny AI back in the aircraft. So besides the cruddy instruction i had,i dumped them and went to a school which had an exceptional reputation.

He lies the story, there FNPT11 was exactly as the aircraft except a digitally enhanced AI but was identical in looks, size and radios were same. They used it only for Procedural training and they gave free time on an old frasca to practice your scan, and if you can scan well on that you can scan on anything. So i got to the point where i transferred to the aircraft and low and behold it seemed like the sim but with turbulance, there lies the difference, wind changes and the like, but if you were taught well, with good understanding with none of the BS it wont be a problem.

I did relatively few hours in the aircraft in comparison, first time pass, but mainly down to these reasons.

1. firstly and foremost the instruction

2. being able to practice my emergencies and drills at a relatively lower cost and being able to make the mistakes without costly flying time and extra worry.

3. The sim being identical to aircraft (as it can be)

However like most people on here i would recommend as much flight time as possible, but I believe with the right instruction a split of 50 / 50 sim to aircraft if you have a multi or complex time is ample for average Joe and would be a good mix

Here lies my opinion, really down to instruction

:ok:

[BraceBrace]

The sim is a better teaching environment with better flexibility. You don't need FNPTII at all for initial IR. A Frasca is perfect.

A good sim requires a piston engine cockpit layout, a freeze and a slew functionality.

These functionalities are monster money saving items. A sim allows you to learn right there where you are. You make a mistake? In a real aircraft you have to continue, no way out. You have to wait for the debrief. Something went wrong on the ILS. In the real thing it's a go-around, go-back, start all over. That's not very efficient. Sometimes it leads to overloads, just doing "something" that does the trick, but not the good thing.

In the end, it's a "school", you need to learn something. In the sim... reset to a previous position and voila! Freeze, go over the mistake, do it again. You can also check if the student is really doing what he is supposed to do. Fail the VSI for the ILS, is it still stable? No? Then he's not using the AI as primary reference.

A sim is not the real thing but a procedural trainer, and the better you know the procedures, the less money you'll throw away in the more expensive real thing.

How many hours in the sim do you need? You don't know. But I'd say you need to know all instrument procedures, how to fly them, with a good time-management giving some "take a breath and relax" time.

But no, you don't learn to "fly" on a sim, not at all!

Every year I fly about 40hrs on a Frasca 142 in a very cheap arrangement. This makes my IR prof check a pretty boring flight. BUT, on the other hand, there's plenty of time left to concentrate on what's really important: "flying" and creating a safe flight.;)

[Biscuit]

carbonfibre,

Please could you let on which school you did your IR at finally? They sound quite good.

Send me a PM if you'd rather not go public.

Cheers,

Biscuit

[GuinnessQueen]

No Sponsor,

I'm also in a similar situation (if I get the last few exams nailed in October).

When you say ' those schools that offer more sim time appear more expensive', be sure to check that the cheaper schools included everything, eg approach and home landings, budget solo rates for the tests etc.

Some of the schools I've contacted after reading their adverts, admit that the quoted price is the basic aircraft and instructor rates.....so if you are planning on making any approaches, or even contemplating a home landing (shock) add on the pennies!!

Cheers

GQ

[machonepointone]

I assume that we are talking about a modular IR course and not integrated. On the latter, if the school has an FNPT2, students will do 40 hours of sim time in that device plus some on a Frasca during their single engine training.

One reason that schools offer a syllabus with more than 50% of traing time on a sim is to try and reduce the cost to the customer and thereby make the course more marketable. As an instructor I do not entirely agree with the philosophy, but in this cut throat world in which accountants rule it does make a certain amount of sense.

As to how useful it is (or not), I have to agree with carbonfibre in that it is the quality of the instruction that really counts. BraceBrace hit the nail on the head talking about the ability to freeze a situation, debrief it, rebrief it and the reposition to refly it.

I may have missed something in the posts on this subject, but I get the impression that in many cases subscribers are talking about doing all the sim time before starting on an aeroplane. In this case I heartily agree that it can be counter productive. However, if the syllabus is properly conceived then flying and sim time should be integrated. Initial training (10 hours perhaps) on the sim to learn procedures and revise instrument scan, then a mix (2 to 1 sim v flying for example) till near the end then the final run up to the IRT in the aircraft.

One other reason for all this sim time has not been mentioned. If we are talking about modular training, it is highly likely that a student will have done very little IF recently, (apart from the basic stuff required for the CPL Skill Test). It is equally likely, as I have seen at first hand, that the student may never have flown a departure, hold or instrument approach before. I suggest that this is not the time to learn these skills at aircraft hire rates. By the way, I wish to state here and now that I am not trying to belittle anybody going the modular route.

In summary, a good sim, especially if it is an FNPT2 that accurately represents the aircraft, is an extremely useful and money saving device. It has many features that no aircraft can possibly have, and if used in conjunction with a good instructor, is well worth spending all that time in.

[GuinnessQueen]

Machonepointone,

I think you are right in assuming that the sim time comes at the beginning of the course. But assuming (and I have made that assumption) that we are talking about an MEIR, won't the student previously have done the ME rating? Hence will have learnt how to fly the A/C, then gone on to start the instrument stuff in the sim?

Oh, back to lasors for me!!

GQ

[machonepointone]

GuinessQueen

You are absolutely correct in that the the CPL Skill Test doubles as the ME Class Rating. The point that I was trying to make is that, despite having the class rating and quite a few flying hours, it could well be that practically none of the student's experience (if any) would be directly applicable to the profile required on the IRT. Hence the need for quite a bit of sim time before starting on the aircraft but then integrating the two to try and get the best of both worlds. Also, it could be that the aircraft used on the CPL is not the same one as used on the IRT - remember that on the modular route you are not obliged to do all your training with the same FTO.

Good luck with your studies.

M1.1

[carbonfibre]

Biscuit,

I have no problems recommending the school i went to to complete my IR, it was PAT at Bournemouth.

My instructor was Drew, patient as a saint and gave me instruction without all the BS that some schools like to throw in.

I flew with all the instructors and they had a good idea of what the examiners wanted, this being the main part of the flying of course, being safe and ensuring that the outcome of any part of the flight was never in doubt. Sure i had my bad days, real bad days and some bloody good ones.

However i would give advice to anyone who is making this journey and i have learnt the hard way is to:

1. Visit the schools

2. Go on a ride with one of there students when they are being taught before you go to them.

3. Check the environment, do they suit you and you them

4. Do they have a reasonable reputation

5. If they offer discounts for upfront payment, i would personally discard them straight away. Nothing is cheap in the IR

6. Aircraft type and availability, are there enough, are they too difficult to get to grips with etc

7. Support staff

8. Check there flexibility to work with you, i.e. weekends, earlies, lates, splitting sim and plane, minimising your pain.

9. Check the small print, landing fees approach fees etc some places keep all the prices in there cost and it looks high where as others dont and you thihnk its a bargain.

And one last time, instruction is worth its weight in gold, there is no such thing as cheap with the IR.

Hope this helps and good luck with your flying:ok: