Use of FTDs for learning to fly visually

[training wheels]

Is there a paradigm shift in how flight training devices are used in flight schools these days? Before, they were used purely for IFR training on instruments, but it appears that now, with better visuals available today, there's a shift to using FTDs for practicing VFR manouevres as well. Is this a good thing or is it better to be using a real aircraft to learn to fly visually?

XbVpirPW1xs

[mcgrath50]

It's cheaper. In terms of 1 hour in a sim v 1 hour in a plane.

Having flown a red bird I could imagine it would be useful for repetition training. Ie; to really practice what you do on navigation legs. It feels generic and although the terrain is recognisable it looks generic. But I can't see it being a good environment to teach some how to navigate visually.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Airitalia Australia - SCA200 FFT Simulator (http://www.vulcanair.com.au/movie/sca.html)

And then there's full six axis motion sims that are electrically driven rather than hydraullic. IMO they sh:mad:T all over the redbird for fidelity.

Peter Kristoudious (sorry if I spelled that wrong) at Broome Air Services markets another version and has a Baron specific type at the business for staff currency.
Good effort that man!:ok:

A visual synthetic trainer (no motion) is one of the most underutilised resources available. Having a cockpit that accurately replicates the layout of a training aircraft is a huge leap forward in cementing the flows and procedures that are going to be utilised throughout their initial training.

Running a software packaga such as MS Flight Sim with a local expansion pack makes the visual nav component exceptionally good. I have checked out Reg Grundy's setup (C172R/S base) at AF and was very impressed with the fidelity. Everything from cockpit layout and controls (dual) to visual attitude replication and scenery was outstanding.:ok::ok::ok:

[ross_M]

If used too copiously during early VFR training how much danger is there that the perceived gravity of mistakes gets diluted. i.e. Could the student get lulled into a sense of false complacence where a "reset" cures even the worst mistakes?

I'm not at all detracting against simulator use; just a general question about whether this danger might exist especially if simulators get better and cheaper?

Perhaps every sim-crash should come with painful in-seat electric zaps? :E

[SgtBundy]

Maybe the more fully realistic simulators may help, but I found in my initial lessons that years of flying PC simulators meant I spent too much time looking at instruments for reference (as needed to get any reference in a PC simulator) and not visual references for attitude etc. Even when I went back to FSX to practice my real lessons as the cash ran out, then I could not seem to get a good "visual" reference, everything had to keep going back to the instruments to get any feel.

[Oktas8]

Airsickness is not usually a problem.

You can teach good lookout in a simulator by requiring head movements prior to every manoeuvre. It is not as good as a real aircraft, but one sim session prior to each real aircraft lesson yields good cost-effective rewards. Naturally ten VFR sim sessions in a row won't teach much of anything useful!

[Aimpoint]

I'm guessing some of the posters above have never trialled such aids and the positive impact they have on ab initio training. This isn't a glorified version of Microsoft flight sim. If used properly teaches the student the correct application of power and attitude to achieve performance.

[Centaurus]

Is there a paradigm shift

What the hell is a "paradigm shift":ugh:

[training wheels]

What the hell is a "paradigm shift":ugh:

When I saw that you had responded to this thread, Centaurus, I was looking forward to hearing your valued opinion on this issue, ie, the use of FTD's for enhancing visual flying techniques, as opposed to how they have been used in the past, purely as a device for developing instrument flying skills. Anyway, in answer to your question, this is what I meant by 'paradigm shift', from Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/paradigm-shift);

A dramatic change in methodology or practice. It often refers to a major change in thinking and planning, which ultimately changes the way projects are implemented.

[training wheels]

I'm guessing some of the posters above have never trialled such aids and the positive impact they have on ab initio training. This isn't a glorified version of Microsoft flight sim. If used properly teaches the student the correct application of power and attitude to achieve performance.

Yes, this is the point the video above is making. I'm most interested in how the premium yoke (http://www.redbirdflightsimulations.com/fmx/fmx-options-yoke/) option replicates the control loads felt under various flying conditions, eg, in trim, out of trim, during steep turns, stalls and during the flare for landing. If control loads for such can be realistically simulated, then such FTDs would be very useful as a teaching aid for ab-intio training.

MakeItHappenCaptain, thanks for the link to the video. Seems like a much more superior product to Redbird, especially with all CASA certifications it comes with. With zero flight time instrument rating renewals, BFRs and 50% of NVFR training being approved entirely on this FTD, it's a wonder why there aren't more flight schools using this.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

TW, yup, the cost being the only major hurdle.

Cynical, completely incorrect perception of the issue.

Used to get up for an RAAF cadet course to give their first mass brief.
First question.
"Who here uses MS Flight Sim?"
Three quarters of the hands go up.
"Well STOP USING IT AS OF NOW!":=

The issue (besides people thinking "with you" is an acceptable form of Australian phraseology, which it IS NOT unless you're a visiting American, hint hint, nudge nudge) is that unsupervised, young un's will watch the instruments like hawks, neglecting the visual attitude. You get a half decent visual (fixed base included) trainer with matching decent visuals and you sit beside the student doing exactly the same ad if you were in the aircraft. Piece of puss!:ok:

The ideal way to utilise this marvellous tool is to perform the deired sequence, correcting mistakes and introducing procedures and flows without the added distraction of motion and then duplicate the sequence in flight. Student already has 90% of the lesson anticipated and maximises their time in the air. Any instructor worth their salt knows the aircraft in flight is a terrible learning environment.

Can't see how at most every second flight in a ground trainer is going to make vertigo worse.

Bundy, woulda said the same years ago. You get a good graphic accelerator, wrap around screens and expanded location specific add ons and the fidelity is spectacular. You even experince some of the motion illusions.

[jas24zzk]

The ideal way to utilise this marvellous tool is to perform the deired sequence, correcting mistakes and introducing procedures and flows without the added distraction of motion and then duplicate the sequence in flight.

I found 'MS flightsim' highly useful at 2 stages in my training.
1. When I first restarted my training and was trying to learn my powered checks. The old argument of just go and sit in the plane didn't really work for 2 reason's. a) I didn't have to wait around until 9pm when everyone had finished flying it
b) using the sim, there was no chance of running the battery flat whilst i went through the procedures.
That $85 investment in MSFS saved me hundreds in the cockpit. I was probably under more self imposed pressure to get things done in the cockpit, as at the time I had many hours gliding under my belt with about 10 hours incl some solo power. I was desperate to attain solo standard again, which put pressure on me to learn the power checks again quickly.

2. Learning the easily confused world of navaids.
MSFS allowed me to play with the aids, see how it worked, make sense of the training notes and get a better understanding of what was happening, even if i did use the autopilot for altitude hold, i still had to plan my intercepts, work out the basics and make it work. again money saved for real flying.

Flightsim's come in a variety of forms. When used within their limitations, they can be powerful but inexpensive tools. :ok:

[T28D]

If the real reason in ab initio training is to get the student to "feel" the way the aircraft responds to touch and learn the judgement that is needed to place it where it should be visually I have difficulty seeing where the "box" helps.

No doubt training IFR the "box" is useful, but VFR, learning to feel and listen to what the airframe is telling youi is important, I doubt the "box" has any use at all, maybe a Wii would be better, in any event it smacks of overkill using a computer game to teach tactile and motor skills.

[Oktas8]

T28D, it sounds like you are thinking of flying training as it sometimes used to be, where the instructor exists mainly to protect the student from himself until he becomes competent to fly solo. (Or herself, she).


From personal experience, with good instruction a sim is good for
- recognising, setting & maintaining the correct attitudes for normal cruise, powered or glide descents, normal climb, turns etc;
- looking out prior to & during turns while maintaining the correct attitude;
- precisely adjusting attitude when changing configuration;
- pressing right rudder when increasing power or reducing speed, & vice versa;
- doing checks & drills while maintaining lookout & attitude.

Students really can get more from sim + aircraft than from just aircraft, providing good instruction is provided. It certainly isn't unsupervised playtime by any means.

[T28D]

The trap in wrote learning is exemplified here:

pressing right rudder when increasing power or reducing speed, & vice versa;

Only if the engine/propellor config is american tractor, if it is English watch out.

Wouldn't it be smarter to teach them which pedal to step on to stop yaw, stepping out of a P 51 into a Spitfire has bought a number of very skilled people undone.

Stick and rudder shills are best taught in something that requires contstant attention, a good horizon and an engine that talks to the pilot.

You cannot teach stick and rudder skills in front of a flat panel TV.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

T28 & Cynical,

You can't seriously expect that a new student is able to feel the aircraft drifting on takeoff due to prop slipstream? I certainly don't and I bet if you close your eyes, you won't either (not for one second suggesting that you attempt it).

Look at the attitude (wings level (roll), coaming height ie where the horizon crosses the windscreen divider (pitch), reference point (yaw) if you want to break it down for a beginner) and if it isn't where it's supposed to be, change it! Who gives a crap whether it's a Yak, Cessna, Tiger Moth, Piper or an Antonov. If you are in the mindset of remembering which way it's going to swing to work out which rudder pedal to push, you're one step closer to stuffing it up already. You apply the correct control to maintain the desired attitude.

An attitude trainer (probably a better term for the device) is not the be and end all of learning to fly, as you seem to be perceiving the arguments supporting as being. It is merely a tool that prepares the student for the coming flight. If anything it will actually improve the attitude recognition and maintenance as the student will not have the sensation of movement giving them cues as to deviations from an attitude.

Why do we actually use synthetic trainers for IFR training?
1) They are cheaper than the real thing,
2) Flying under the hood is very easy to "cheat" as opposed to actual IMC (shadows, peeking at the bottom left corner of the windscreen) and a synthetic trainer removes all of those little cues including motion.

As an aside, I believe JAR regs don't allow hoods or foggles. They use angled louvres and another technique I've heard of was using a polariod film on the windows with the student wearing opposed orientation lenses. Perfect IMC!

This encourages the student to (hopefully) scan correctly in order to maintain the desired attitude. Both of these reasons are just as valid for VFR attitude recognition, with the added bonus (as opposed to IFR training under a hood) that it is easier to sit beside the student and see where they are looking (outside vs. inside).

I guarantee if I was given twins (two identical people, that is) to train and I flew one of them purely in the aircraft and one with at least every second flight practised beforehand in an attitude trainer, the second would be at their GFPT with less hours in the air. (This of course, may not equate to cheaper, as the attitude trainer still costs money, and the flight cost savings probably wouldn't offset the reduced flight hours, then there's the fact that a commercial pilot still must have 150/200 hours anyway. Different story with the motion simulators as hours can be credited eg. up to half of the NVFR can be done in some types.)