Simulator Use

[ComeFlyWithB]

Hi All,

Just looking for some opinions on how beneficial using a simulator during the early ish stages of the ppl ? Practicing procedures and what not when cancellations are in abundance due to the weather.

Thanks in advance

[scifi]

I don't think it can do any harm, as long as you employ the correct methods as taught by your instructor. I used to 'fly' the 747 on long flights, using just the auto pilot, from T/O to Landing. I also used to shadow commercial aircraft, by listening to them on a scanner, and doing the same on my Flight-Sim. (had to keep the speed similar.)
.

[T4RG4]

I do not believe it's of any use if you already understand that pushing forwards lowers the nose, pulling up raises the nose etc. i.e. not completely oblivious to how an aircraft works.

When reaching nav and radio navigation it can be useful to create a PLOG, fly your route etc.

[rarelyathome]

Hi All,

Just looking for some opinions on how beneficial using a simulator during the early ish stages of the ppl ? Practicing procedures and what not when cancellations are in abundance due to the weather.

Thanks in advance


You would be better served by spending time on theory and really getting to grips with it (not just doing enough to pass the exams). I'm not implying that would be your approach but really understanding the theory does help with the practical stuff too.

Students that have spent a lot of time on PC simulators tend to be fixated on the instruments and it takes a long time to break the habit so I discourage it for my students. PC sims are great for radio nav practice but that is quite a way into the syllabus.

[Groundloop]

I used to 'fly' the 747 on long flights, using just the auto pilot, from T/O to Landing.

How does that help anyone starting a PPL?

[ComeFlyWithB]

I do not believe it's of any use if you already understand that pushing forwards lowers the nose, pulling up raises the nose etc. i.e. not completely oblivious to how an aircraft works.

When reaching nav and radio navigation it can be useful to create a PLOG, fly your route etc.

Currently on 14.5hrs and 6/9 exams passed just prior to first solo, I envisage its a good idea as you've mentioned prior to the nav work so you feel more comfortable perhaps when it comes to the real deal. I just wasn't sure how beneficial it would be at this stage of training considering its essentially going over the basics / nothing too complex that hasn't been committed to memory. I was more interested in opinion of those with more experience than myself to offer some pointers as to if it would help develop my piloting skills :)

You would be better served by spending time on theory and really getting to grips with it (not just doing enough to pass the exams). I'm not implying that would be your approach but really understanding the theory does help with the practical stuff too.

Students that have spent a lot of time on PC simulators tend to be fixated on the instruments and it takes a long time to break the habit so I discourage it for my students. PC sims are great for radio nav practice but that is quite a way into the syllabus.

Completely agree, for example with my flight being cancelled today I brushed up on Meteorology despite passing the exam with 93% for instance rather than pushing on with PoF.

I might not have been clear so apologies, I meant a full flight simulator at the school I'm learning at as opposed to a PC one. The reading I have done though tends to suggest people pick up bad habits and rely on instruments too much.

[TheOddOne]

We were lucky enough to acquire a Frasca 142 simulator earlier in the year. We use this for practicing the applied stages of instrument flight, for which it is superb. It is pretty useless for post PPL students who haven't yet started their IMC/IR(R) courses or indeed for those in the early stages of such a course. I'd strongly advise against any students who have yet to gain their PPLs going anywhere near such a device, even when the weather clamps in for seemingly weeks on end, as recently.

In order to become competent at instrument flight, I feel that you need to be able to fly in VMC and compare what the picture outside is like and what the instruments are showing you. Then develop basic selective scan skills, before moving on to the applied stuff, where a simulator might be beneficial.

As advised above, spend time reading and practicing test papers etc, ready for the exams.

[Jan Olieslagers]

You would be better served by spending time on theory and really getting to grips with it (not just doing enough to pass the exams). I'm not implying that would be your approach but really understanding the theory does help with the practical stuff too.

Students that have spent a lot of time on PC simulators tend to be fixated on the instruments and it takes a long time to break the habit so I discourage it for my students. PC sims are great for radio nav practice but that is quite a way into the syllabus.

I too totally concur. I had spent hours and hours playing u$ FS and it took my poor instructors endless patience to get my eyes away from the instruments. I'll never forget the one who, in despair, put an A4 sheet before the instruments to force me to look outside. Which, by the way, makes an excellent exercise for any pilot (the A4 sheet, I mean).

[Sam Rutherford]

Yup. Simulators for IR/IMC training. Real world for VFR anything.

[ComeFlyWithB]

We were lucky enough to acquire a Frasca 142 simulator earlier in the year. We use this for practicing the applied stages of instrument flight, for which it is superb. It is pretty useless for post PPL students who haven't yet started their IMC/IR(R) courses or indeed for those in the early stages of such a course. I'd strongly advise against any students who have yet to gain their PPLs going anywhere near such a device, even when the weather clamps in for seemingly weeks on end, as recently.

In order to become competent at instrument flight, I feel that you need to be able to fly in VMC and compare what the picture outside is like and what the instruments are showing you. Then develop basic selective scan skills, before moving on to the applied stuff, where a simulator might be beneficial.

As advised above, spend time reading and practicing test papers etc, ready for the exams.




Superb informative answer. Taken onboard! Thankyou

[clackerbag]

I started my PPL having significant time flying on flight sim beforehand, particularly online on VATSIM etc., "flying" the 737 all over Europe. I did this for 10+ years, starting at a very young age, always trying to learn more and more. I learned a lot about various aspects of aviation: the principles of flight, techniques of flying an aircraft, IFR navigation, aircraft systems etc. I always just tried to fly the sim like a real pilot would fly the real aircraft. I learned a whole lot about flying in general (as well as a lot of things specific to a 737!) which made the PPL exams a non-issue. VATSIM in particular, whilst it can enforce bad habits, was invaluable when it came to R/T.

I think the whole thing about "sim pilots stare at the instruments too much" has credibility to a point, however I learned quickly within the first couple of lessons what VFR flying is all about. My instructor was a younger guy, and a big fan of flight simulator. One of the first questions he actually asked me if I used flight sim or not. After discussing various aspects of the sim and how I used it, he was more than happy to let me use the radio, taxi, take off and even (attempt) a landing on my first lesson. Throughout the PPL course, I very rarely had to be taught anything about R/T or general flying technique. The thing which I had to study the most was: VFR navigation, flight planning, mass and balance calcs, wind correction, etc. - things which you don't tend to do in the simulator.

I am certainly not trying to toot my own trumpet here, everyone is different, I am an engineer now and it probably shows in how obsessive I was in learned everything I could about anything aviation. I always took the sim quite seriously when it came to "getting it right", and not everyone will be like that. However, I did manage to get my licence in minimum hours with a first time pass - which I credit to my experience with the sim to a large degree, and also my instructor's ability to harness what I had learned and apply it to the real world.

Hope this helps.

[First_Principal]

The right FTD may be useful for some specific non-instrument work as well.

In my view a full-size unit that reasonably emulates the machine a student will be using is useful for initial familiarisation and mnemonic work.

I have also witnessed significant improvements in students who have used a FTD to deal with certain aspects of flying that they were having issues with - for example crosswind landing. The ability to pause, rerun etc just on the base leg has proven to be invaluable for some...

[airwave45]

If you already have a decent flight sim, then loading in an aircraft as close as possible to what you will be flying (in most cases, you'll be able to get an identical one right down to the panel)
Will let you figure out where everything is, you can do proper "Hanger" flying and get familiar with your surroundings.
You can play with manifold pressure, throttle, prop settings and see what they do in an environment where you are not going to break anything.

Sims are great places to practise everything.

[hobbit1983]

PPL instructor with 1500 hrs + FI time;

I'm sure there is the odd student who will benefit greatly from using a sim in the early stages of their PPL; but I never met that gal/guy...

...I did meet plenty of people that had used flight sim or whatever, and whilst there were top marks for enthusiasm, their utter obsession with staring at the dials prolonged their training; it took waay more time to get them out of that habit than it should have. The early phases of PPL training centre around attitude flying; this is crucial. If you've already gotten into the habit of flying on simulated dials, it will most likely be harder to learn.

Sure, you can learn about radios/mixture controls etc. But the utility of doing that on a computer screen is no more than reading about it in a book.

Leave it until you're doing instrument flying. Before that, don't. Plenty of other things you can be usefully doing to help your training along :ok:

[Less Hair]

They are pretty good for IFR training. But you need the proper planning, maps and procedures. Teaching yourself might just teach you wrong habits.

Look at historical Link trainers and how simple they were. Still good enough to train bomber pilots for serious stuff in WWII.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy8mEq6Ok7o

[airpolice]

There seems to be an almost universal opinion in instructor circles, that home built simulators are bad.

Unsupervised use of any sim will of course reinforce and embed any small mistakes because you get away with them.

Just like the millions of pounds worth of full motion airliner sim, you will get more out of it if someone is watching you and checking your actions against a list. I was lucky enough to be able to persuade my wife to assist by watching and listening for various actions.

The staring at instruments is an old fashioned issue, easily avoided by use of photo realistic scenery and no instrument panel. Just "fly" the machine based on what you can see out of the window.

A simple key press will show/hide the panel and allow the student to plod along without the distraction of instruments and gauges.

I wonder how many of the instructors who are against the use of sims, have experience of the latest thing available to students.

[ZFT]

Simulators, whether BATDs or Level D FFSs are only training tools and provided the tool is used for its purpose, it will provide meaningful benefit. Outside of this, it will provide no benefit.

[Less Hair]

It is certainly better to do some IFR sim flying to keep "current" than to not fly at all over the winter or similar. More routine emergency decision making might be some good use as well.

VFR sim flying might be only good for preparation, like how valleys look from above or runway layouts. But I don't see PC sim "feels and looks" come close to any real airplane. Just compare taxiing in a real C172 versus taxiing on your PC. Or winds, gusts and such. Way too complex for small computers. And you need to have some guarantee that the airplane behavior is similar to the real thing. Only very few sims are technically, physically driven aside from "gaming" and "eye candy". Some are even modeling the passenger cabin experience better than the flying and piloting itself.

[rarelyathome]

There seems to be an almost universal opinion in instructor circles, that home built simulators are bad.

Unsupervised use of any sim will of course reinforce and embed any small mistakes because you get away with them.

Just like the millions of pounds worth of full motion airliner sim, you will get more out of it if someone is watching you and checking your actions against a list. I was lucky enough to be able to persuade my wife to assist by watching and listening for various actions.

The staring at instruments is an old fashioned issue, easily avoided by use of photo realistic scenery and no instrument panel. Just "fly" the machine based on what you can see out of the window.

A simple key press will show/hide the panel and allow the student to plod along without the distraction of instruments and gauges.

I wonder how many of the instructors who are against the use of sims, have experience of the latest thing available to students.

Many of us. Staring at instruments is most certainly not an old fashioned issue. You seem to be challenging the experience that most of us have with students coming to the real world of flying from simulators. I can assure you that I’m not imagining the fixation with instruments and other poor habits. PPL level simulators have their place. They are good instrument procedural trainers and can help get your mind around RNAV. However, as you suggest, to get the most out of them at that stage of training you do need supervision, but with the greatest respect to your wife, from an instructor.

[airpolice]

My point is that the student's instrument fixation issue you have identified is possibly more prevalent with students who have used a PC Sim with a full panel on display. When you educate them to use is as a proper vfr only aid, they should not be so instrument centric, as their sim experience has none.

[scifi]

Some of these instructors forget that they are logging the flight as P1, so they should be looking out of the window. It's called CRM.. Cockpit Resource Management. The student is PF and should be left to fly the airplane. If the pilot wants to maintain x.thousand feet +- 50 ft. how is he going to do that without looking at the altimeter..?



The same goes for controlling the heading +-3 degrees..
.

[Heston]

Some of these instructors forget that they are logging the flight as P1, so they should be looking out of the window. It's called CRM.. Cockpit Resource Management. The student is PF and should be left to fly the airplane. If the pilot wants to maintain x.thousand feet +- 50 ft. how is he going to do that without looking at the altimeter..?



The same goes for controlling the heading +-3 degrees..
.

Wonderful wonderful post! Complete tosh of course, but I enjoyed reading it ;)
Scifi the student is learning to be a pilot and captain of the aeroplane. They have to practice good lookout from the first lesson.
In vfr flying maintaining height and heading are done by reference to things outside the aeroplane with occasional glances at the instruments to check all is well. Trying to follow the instruments doesn't work.

[rarelyathome]

Some of these instructors forget that they are logging the flight as P1, so they should be looking out of the window. It's called CRM.. Cockpit Resource Management. The student is PF and should be left to fly the airplane. If the pilot wants to maintain x.thousand feet +- 50 ft. how is he going to do that without looking at the altimeter..?



The same goes for controlling the heading +-3 degrees..
.

Must be a troll. Don’t bite.

[Heston]

Spoilsport! I was hoping to have some fun.

[scifi]

Hi Heston... 'They have to practice good lookout' Well yes, in this part of Wales that is all they would be doing.. practising. You can go for months without seeing any GA aircraft in this area.


However if you are flying a glider in a thermal with two other gliders, then lookout is very important, when the nearest will be just 200yards away . Or if you are Ridge-Running with 4 others then it is also necessary, especially if some of the more exuberant pilots are performing some un-orthodox manoeuvers. This is why gliders always have an audio variometer, so that the lookout can be maintained, whilst finding lift.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um3zzSUItaI
.

[Heston]

Hi Heston... 'They have to practice good lookout' Well yes, in this part of Wales that is all they would be doing.. practising. You can go for months without seeing any GA aircraft in this area.


However if you are flying a glider in a thermal with two other gliders, then lookout is very important, when the nearest will be just 200yards away . Or if you are Ridge-Running with 4 others then it is also necessary, especially if some of the more exuberant pilots are performing some un-orthodox manoeuvers. This is why gliders always have an audio variometer, so that the lookout can be maintained, whilst finding lift.
.
Oh come on scifi, try to be a bit more convincing!
Personally I'd be looking out for fast pointy things as well as GA aircraft if I was flying in Wales or anywhere really.
And gliders in thermals get MUCH closer than 200yds.
You're right about the audio Vario though.

[A and C]

Sims are useless for VFR flight, even the top of the range commercial sims lack the depth perception to be a good VFR tool.

For IFR it is almost the opposite, they are very useful but I still hate the things........ only another six visits to the Sim until I retire !!!!!!

[Kolossi]

Right off the bat let me say as a 100hr ppl I'm not trying to disagree with the instructors views on here about e.g. instrument fixation, but just offer a couple of things from my experience.

1) Having played with PC jet fighter flight sims long before I got the bug to learn to fly, I knew(TM) that stick forward was down, stick back was up and throttle faster/slower. When I started following the built-in lessons in FSX, it took me a while to break that and relearn forward faster, back slower, throttle up/down approach technique. Using the sim I was able to break the old and learn the good new technique before I even got around to starting lessons. I'm very glad I did that rather than pay an instructor rate to do it. I don't think it made instrument fixation any worse than it already was from my previous "playing" (you are allowed to play with computer sims before you know you want to train to be a pilot :ok: )

2) I bought a second hand full cessna control set of yoke, throttle and rudder pedals. I sold it after finishing my training for pretty much exactly what I paid for it, so no cost to me to have it for 3 years or so. With that I learnt to use the rudder pedals instinctively. As someone who grew up on a pushbike, the pedal steering in a plane felt back to front for me. Again I'm glad I retrained the brain on that for free rather than instructor rate.

3) I got photo-real scenery and rehearsed nav exercises both before and after I had done them looking for landmarks and never looking at the sim map display. It's easy to forget how hard it is for a new flier to actually recognise there's a bl**dy great town below them and to make out the shape to be able to compare with a map whilst not upsetting the aircraft. All very usefully practised on a PC.

So YMMV and don't think a PC sim will make you a sky god, but it can help learn (or unlearn) some techniques if you use it seriously and don't be tempted to "play" with it once you've decided to learn to fly.

Having said all this, if you've got time on the ground, don't feel the above applies, are confident you are ready for your exams and haven't read it - please use the time to read Stick and Rudder by Wolfgang Langewiesche.

I took the decision not to contradict my instructor by risking reading any different messages and saved reading it until I had passed PPL. But I wish I'd read it sooner. My continuous problems with trim and altitude chasing, whilst they had been improved by behavioural training immediately and completely disappeared with the alternative thinking of trim in this book. You won't regret it.

HTH

[rarelyathome]

It's easy to forget how hard it is for a new flier to actually recognise there's a bl**dy great town below them and to make out the shape to be able to compare with a map whilst not upsetting the aircraft.
HTH

:= Chart to ground not the other way 'round

[Maoraigh1]

"Chart to ground not the other way 'round"
You've never been lost!

[rarelyathome]

"Chart to ground not the other way 'round"
You've never been lost!

That’s the point. If you are unsure of your position, it is too easy to convince yourself that what you think you see on the ground corresponds to a point on the chart. If you are unsure, you should have a reasonable idea within a few miles radius, assuming you have been using a good nav cycle, and you should use your chart to relate to the ground. There will always be the risk of confirmation bias but less on the chart to ground method.

Of course, if you have been following the magenta line and it has misled you or disappeared, you will be learning a good lesson about check nav.

I think in some 30 years flying, I have only been lost once due to a host of inop nav kit, poor vis and a non-standard departure from an AG airfield which got me disorientated close to controlled airspace; a quick call to ATC sorted that.

[Maoraigh1]

In 30 years regular flying, I've got lost many more times than you, so I am MUCH more experienced in getting lost. Cz:)
Flying over terrain with few noticeable features, if I encounter one, I check it on the map. Often below the height where ATC can help, and dodging weather, and without GPS/VOR.

[rarelyathome]

In 30 years regular flying, I've got lost many more times than you, so I am MUCH more experienced in getting lost. Cz:)
Flying over terrain with few noticeable features, if I encounter one, I check it on the map. Often below the height where ATC can help, and dodging weather, and without GPS/VOR.

I bow to your much larger ummm .... bank of experience :)

[Big Pistons Forever]

My personal experience after holding an Instructor Rating for over the 30 years is that I have yet to meet an ab initial student that benefited from using a personal computer sim program. In fact my experience is that it extended training time because I had to get the student to un learn bad habits.

However a totally different story for Instrument Rating students. I encouraged my students to use MS flight sim or equivalent. I gave them scrips to follow starting with basic figure 8 patterns moving on to more complicated patterns. The flight model of MS flight sim is so Shyte that you need a very good scan to hand fly one accurately.

Master flying one of the crap GA airplanes in the sim and you will be an ace in the real machine. Having a really solid scan is the secret to success in Instrument Rating training.

[Unusual Attitude]

Seems I am in the minority here as a big advocate for simulator use for flight training, that's however assuming you use it in the right way. I'm a great believer that a large amount of preparation on the ground before any demanding flight can take the pressure off in the air and flight sims can play a very valid part of this.

Going back 20+ years ago I first used MS Flight Sim during my PPL training, not for the physical handing aspect however purely to drill in procedures and processes. For example flying circuits, I'd fly 100's of them on the sim between lessons so that when I got back in the real aircraft the downwind checks and whole process of when to do what and at what height was drilled into my brain, one less thing to have to think about in the air.

Several years later when it came to doing my CPL I wanted my visual and Radio Nav to be spot on and was able to use FSX again with photo real scenery to practice nav routes with unknown winds so I was forced to calculate corrections and also to practice establishing my position using VOR/DME / VOR crosscuts. Yes of course I also did this in the real aircraft but I could practice it 100s of times in the sim so I was able to do it without a second thought.

Fast forward to modern day and home Flight sim technology has evolved to an unbelievable level, especially with the introduction of home VR systems giving you the ability to actually sit and look around inside the cockpit with full depth perception. The graphical capabilities of high end modern PC's are also able to produce incredible terrain and cockpit detail.

I used an example of this technology in 2016, I contacted the developers of AeroFlyFS 2 and asked them to place some pylons at Reno Stead airport to represent the Formula 1 course so I could practice ahead of the 2016 air races. They kindly did this for me and I was able to fly 100's of laps of the Formula 1 course from 5000 miles away, the terrain was so detailed I was able to pick up the scrub lines to follow and dirt roads to use as a turn in point.
This actually saved me making a complete ass of myself on my first qualifying session when I was first out on the course and 2 of the pylons had not been raised, at 50' and 250mph its very easy to get lost when you cant see the next pylon if you don't know where its supposed to be! In the end this was a great help and probably contributed to me winning the F1 Silver class despite one of the toughest fields for years.
The Aerofly guys have also made custom courses for a couple of the Red Bull guys to practice flying in VR so it really is proving its worth at all levels.

Again just this year I turned to a PC sim when I was due to re-qualify on a vintage Military Jet that I hadn't flown for 10+ years in airspace I hadn't flow in for several years.
I managed to build the exact cockpit of the real aircraft in MS Flight Simulator and was able to practice all the startup, shutdown and in flight checks and emergency procedures in the sim before getting back in the real jet.
I also downloaded the photo real scenery of the area I would be flying and used to it to fly from VRP to VRP so I knew how to find my way around visually.
End result was being 100% comfortable in the cockpit as soon as I strapped in and knowing my way around the airspace, very useful as the controllers were messing us around somewhat. I was signed off again after the 90 mins required to cover everything in the check flight despite not having seen the jet for over a decade.

So yes, for me, sims have proved to be extremely useful over the years for drilling things into my brain before taking to the air and the above are just a few examples of how I've personally benefited. I would however point out that in addition to this I keep myself very current on a wide variety of types and consider myself a pretty experienced stick and rudder guy.
No sim will every be a substitute for actual hand flying experience but i have to say some like AeroflyFS2 do a pretty decent job of it, MS flight sim certainly doesn't but still has its uses.

[S-Works]

The students we have the greatest problem with during PPL training and who generally take more than The minimum hours are flight simmers.

[Kolossi]

I'm not disagreeing with Bose-X and all the instructors who cite problems teaching those who have used flight sims. It seems a pretty clear case of the "Law of Primacy" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_learning#Primacy), but then again there may also be an element of confirmation bias - do instructors always ask their minimum hours sky gods if they've used a simulator, or only the "problem students"? Maybe the "problem students" already have bad mindset of thinking they've got nothing to learn and so brag about the simulator use, whereas those with a better mindset don't actually mention it at all? (Personally I've never understood the fascination with "minimum hours", but that's definitely veering too far off topic for me.)

As well as primacy effects, I know for a fact there's no chance that my real flying will ever eclipse in hours the time spent on various computers and numerous simulations ranging from basic games to simulators. I started with things like Acornsoft Aviator (http://www.migman.com/sw/Aviator/Aviator.php) on the BBC micro back in the early 80s. Did that teach instrument fixation - you bet, there was hardly anything to look at "out of the window"!

So using flight simulators may in some students cause a whole bunch of bad habits that are hard to train out. I don't think anyone would disagree with that would they? Bear in mind though instructors - without the enthusiasm imparted by the simulator they may not have turned up at the flight club ready to help pay your mortgage! :)

But back on topic (at last I hear you say!) - even if the simulators have imparted initial bad habits to a given student, it doesn't mean that happens to all. And even if it has, that's already happened by the time they present for a first lesson. The question in this thread is could someone already in training use it to help their learning? Whether or not they have learned bad habits from a simulator, could they use a simulator NOW to learn useful things?

Many of the answers seem to conflate use before lessons as entertainment to use during lessons. For many students - not all - they will have a changed mindset once they start to learn whereas before they were just playing, now they really want to learn.

Can they use some time on a pc, with a serious, ready-to-learn-not-play attitude, to learn checklist drills, circuit routines, speed/profile/up/down/dont-forget-carb-heat approach techniques, navigation, rudder pedal steering etc. As an addition to, not a replacement for, instructor time.

It seems to me that for those using it with right mindset, the answer is a pretty clear yes! :ok:

[Bravo Mike]

I obtained my JAR PPL in 45 hours. I practiced a fair amount using MS Flight Sim. I do not recall discussing this with instructors. Thus I believe it may help or hinder depending on how it is used. I still use it if I have not flown for months, in order to refresh the neural pathways. :O

[Big Pistons Forever]

The best simulator is a cold airplane. Sit in the parked airplane and practice your flight including moving all controls as appropriate. This is IMO a far superior method of learning checks and flows and practicing actions because you develop muscle memory by virtue of practicing in the exact actual environment you will be using the skills.

I recommended this to all students I taught. The ones that got serious about pre lesson preparation all completed their training in minimum time.

I always asked my PPL students if they used home flight sims. If they answered yes then I told them to stop.

While I am sure there is somebody out there that completed their training faster because of the use of a flight sim I can only say I have personally never seen this and talking to other instructors I have never met one who thought use of a home sim was a good idea for PPL training.

[Heston]

It should be pretty obvious that using a driving simulator on a home pc isn't going to help anybody pass their driving test quicker, so it continues to amaze me that people think that a home pc with MS Flitesim is of any value. Sims on the pc are a game. They are for entertainment, end of story.
An earlier poster (apparently with relevant experience) says that professional SIMs even don't work well enough for basic visual flight training. I concur with this view, having tried to use more sophisticated Sims than you get at home to do that. Key things that you need visually just aren't there - like the ability to judge the height above the ground in the final stages of the landing.

[S-Works]

Our Embraer Sim at work is a full motion 4 axis sim. Absolutely state of the art. I hate it. It has no depth perception and it turns on the ground by yawing which makes me airsick.

It’s a great tool for our required currency testing but I could think of nothing worse than flying for fun.

[Unusual Attitude]

Sims on the pc are a game. They are for entertainment, end of story.

Funny, when i was learning the G1000 glass cockpit i was provided with a PC based sim of the system to study. Garmin clearly think PC sims have some value. God knows how many hours that saved me in the real aircraft...

[airpolice]

How sad that so many instructors seem to think that the lower the number of hours required to pass a skills test, is in some way equal to the quality of the pilot capabilities being endowed.

When there are so many different types of flying, how can the use of a PC based sim, of which there are varying levels, be so black and white? Should the RAF stop using PC based sims, despite the results showing how much they help the students?

Hang gliders, Flexwing Microlights and LSA to C172 and PA28 are all used as the first aircraft that a student flies. We can't really say that one is right, and therefore the others are wrong.

I can't see how a one size fits all type of rule can be appropriate. This really smacks of four legs good, two legs bad.

[S-Works]

How sad that so many instructors seem to think that the lower the number of hours required to pass a skills test, is in some way equal to the quality of the pilot capabilities being endowed.

When there are so many different types of flying, how can the use of a PC based sim, of which there are varying levels, be so black and white? Should the RAF stop using PC based sims, despite the results showing how much they help the students?

Hang gliders, Flexwing Microlights and LSA to C172 and PA28 are all used as the first aircraft that a student flies. We can't really say that one is right, and therefore the others are wrong.

I can't see how a one size fits all type of rule can be appropriate. This really smacks of four legs good, two legs bad.

Let me break this down so you can understand it......

Hours are being paid for by the student and they for some reason expect to pass the course in as close to minimum hours as possible. Experience has shown VERY extensively that those teaching themselves to fly on a PC simulator take much longer to pass than those who adopt the standard process. This is because the simmers arrive with pre conceived ideas gained from sim flying on how the aircraft should fly. There are no PC sims that replicate a light GA trainer.

Next, you are wrong on the RAF. They do not use PC simulators for training. I am a QFI on 45Sqn and can assure you that flight training is done in the aircraft and that when they do move to the sim it is for procedure training and nothing to do with basic flight training. Even the G1000 simulators are real G1000 units not PC simulators.

Where simulators really come into their own is for IFR procedures and advanced type training. They do not provide any useful experience at ab initio level. Thats an opinion formed on several thousand hours of teaching and examining.

[rarelyathome]

How sad that so many instructors seem to think that the lower the number of hours required to pass a skills test, is in some way equal to the quality of the pilot capabilities being endowed.

When there are so many different types of flying, how can the use of a PC based sim, of which there are varying levels, be so black and white? Should the RAF stop using PC based sims, despite the results showing how much they help the students?

Hang gliders, Flexwing Microlights and LSA to C172 and PA28 are all used as the first aircraft that a student flies. We can't really say that one is right, and therefore the others are wrong.

I can't see how a one size fits all type of rule can be appropriate. This really smacks of four legs good, two legs bad.

I assume from this that you are not an instructor. Why not become one and you can see for yourself. Sims are great procedural trainers but for the ab initio, they just don’t have a place.