Is there anthing to be gained by using a flight simulator?

[Treadstone1]

Seneca Add on

Hi,

Does anyone know where i can get a Seneca add on for F.S. 2000?

Thanks

[cjm_2010]

there's a good 'pay' add on site called 'justflight'. I recently purchased a tomohawk model from there and it's been superb to practice with.

[chillindan]

Dredged back from the dead

Hello again!

I thought I'd resurrect this thread as after a long absence from flying (had to stop gliding after a few months) I'm back at it and have started working towards my NPPL in a fixed wing microlight (Eurostar). The tenuous link to this thread is that what got me excited again and interested in flying was a 1hr flight sim experience in a 737 simulator (which I highly recommend, it was very VERY realistic, I actually felt like I was flying the approach to Manchester...).

I've taken all the comments on board from various posters and am practising my procedures etc. on MSFS but I am just trying to fit as many flying lessons in as possible now the weather has improved!

Anyway I'm loving my flying and hope to be contributing more to the forum now.

[Flying Tooth Driller]

Dredged back from the dead

Lovely title to the post, Chillindan!

Our home sims have come a long way since the last 2010 posts. Forgetting the heavy iron, which is simulated amazingly now, we do have some gems, such as the A2A C172 trainer which, with some good scenery, can be pretty realistic. However, as always pointed out, "it's as real as it gets" is still not real - and the control forces and seat of the pants feel of real flying just aren't there. Never mind. It's still a very useful tool, particularly in practising instrument flying, or (especially with photo scenery) flying a planned flight! Also, X-plane 10.25 (PC or Mac) is now superb, and flying characteristics are much more accurate than MSFS. Flight simming is, in itself, a great hobby.

It's also a lot cheaper than the real thing, but it can't compare to turning up at the airfield (better with friends), checking the plane, doing some flying and then the eggs and coffee, mutual debriefs and hangar flying.

Good for you in getting going again. Might it be better to go for the EASA LAPL now, rather than the NPPL?

[Desert185]

For background purposes, I have held a CFI since 1968.

When I was with Civil Air Patrol we would give cadet orientation flights, and I would always let the right seater fly the airplane after takeoff. To keep it interesting, yet personal, I would ask him/her to show me where they lived. Some of them would be really good at taking me there and then back to the airport from where we came. I always asked each cadet if they had previous flight experience. Generally, the answer was no.

Thinking back to my initial experience flying an airplane with an instructor, I marveled at how good some of them were at altitude control combined with pretty good spatial orientation. Finally, the secret was revealed. Those who did really well were FS "pilots". How can any of that be a bad thing?

To answer the OP's question, in my experience flying FS dramatically aids in piloting knowledge, and if I were still a practicing CFI working for a living, I would welcome any student with FS time. Any experience related to flying contributes greatly to the learning experience and FS experience indicates a real desire to fly, which is a good thing for a student to have.

IMO...

[Lightning Mate]

None of these computer programmes can teach airmanship, situational awareness, or lookout.


These aspects are more important than pure flying skills.


NO.

[SpannerInTheWerks]

None of these computer programmes can teach airmanship, situational awareness, or lookout.

No they can't, nor are they in anyway designed to, but by enabling the student pilot to practice procedures and use of checklists they can be of benefit by freeing up mental capacity for threat and error management, situational awareness and lookout when flying for real.

Even the simplest flight simulator, if used imaginatively, can be of benefit in some way or another.

The only bad habit I have found is that students can become glued to the instruments rather than looking out when flying visually - in that sense I agree entirely.

[Lightning Mate]

Rubbish.................

[chillindan]

@flyingtoothdriller thanks for your comments. What's the difference in the licence types you referred to in your post? Also, not sure if I can do anything other than NPPL on a microlight?

All - I think flight sims have helped me. I've been 'flying' them since I was about 8 on a zx spectrum. They are good for helping understand the instruments etc. and also recently I've been practicing the procedural stuff that some posters have referred to. Also things like remembering to use a but of elevator in a turn etc. Totally agree they don't really replicate the feel of real flying but on days like today when I've had my planned lesson cancelled due to 30knt winds it's better than nothing!

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Rubbish.................

Best tell Elite Systems and other FNPT II simulator manufacturers to pack their bags and go home then!!!

Unless you're in an full-motion simulator with TCAS simulation and 'real World' projection how are you EVER going to teach airmanship, situational awareness, or lookout in ANY simulator?!

These, to a greater or lesser extent, are procedure trainers - whether MS FS, X-Plane, Elite or to FNPT II standard.

Were you taught airmanship, situational awareness or lookout in a Lightning simulator?

Last time I saw a F4 simulator at Coningsby the 'cockpit' was 'white washed' with no view outside whatsoever!

[Flying Tooth Driller]

Chillindan, a quick (or not so quick!) read of the following should help:

http://www.iaopa.eu/mediaServlet/sto...b12/p16-18.pdf


I think the LAPL would be more useful in the end and, like all these things, if you go for it now, you wouldn't have to convert to it later.

Worth thinking about.

Yes, FSX won't bounce you around like a 30kt. wind in a microlight

[Heston]

Lightning Mate is spot on. I loathe teaching students who have played on flight sims to any degree. They think they know how to fly and they WILL NOT LOOK OUTSIDE. It takes a lot of time (and their money) to sort out the bad habits they've got into.


There is a world of difference between sitting in your bedroom with a toy and using a professional simulator under proper supervision in the way that it was designed to be used.


Anybody that is serious about learning to fly should avoid sims and spend the money on an air experience flight instead.

[Armchairflyer]

While I wholeheartedly endorse that playing PC sims (whether FSX or X-Plane or whatever) is not even a remote substitute for actual airtime, I wonder how much of this "PC sim loathing" is based on actual experience let alone reliable data.

My personal experience aligns well with most of the older posts in this thread: quite useless for aircraft handling, but potentially useful for training procedures, navigation (radio-based, and with a good scenery also VFR), and R/T if flying online.

(Apart from being fun, immersive, and comparatively cheap, even with add-ons and hardware gimmicks like yoke/joystick, pedals, TrackIR etc.)

[worldpilot]

The flight simulator itself is absolutely a learning tool that helps me save time and money.

I use it a lot to familiarize myself with aircraft configurations, cockpit layouts and handling characteristics and procedures in advance of engaging an aircraft in practical flying.

For example, the use of FS shortened my transition to technically advanced aircraft like the Cirrus glass cockpit environment, enabling me to fly both the Avidyne Entegra and Garmin G1000 Perspective cockpits comfortably.

My experience shows that using the FS brings substantial benefits and would advice anyone engaging in aircraft flying to use the FS as part of their tool set to reduce flight envelope risks and costs.

WP

[thing]

Last time I saw a F4 simulator at Coningsby the 'cockpit' was 'white washed' with no view outside whatsoever!

So was the Lightning sim.

I have MSFS on my PC. Occasionally I''l use it to practise some VOR intersections or such but as an actual sim to replicate flying it's useless. Great for procedures, don't have a problem with it for stuff like that but it ain't like flying a real aircraft, how can it be, it's a few quid and it sits on a home PC.

We have it at my club, three screens, all the yokes pedals and levers and no one uses it.

[dubbleyew eight]

interesting comments here.

actual pilots say that the flight sim is useless and teaches bad habits that then must be unlearnt in a real aircraft.

flight simmers say that it is of incredible value.

my suggestion is that we don't burst the flight simmer's bubble. let them think what they like. if they give up flying real aircraft because they are too difficult and go back to flying the sim that is actually a valid path for them.

makes real pilots seem like gods and gives them an out for failing.

I took my niece's boyfriend, an ardent flight simmer, out for a long flight and taught him the subtleties of turning. eventually he was flying figure eights through his prop wash.
his comment after landing "The sim is nothing like a real aeroplane".

[worldpilot]

The flight simulator is not there to substitute practical flying.

To reiterate again, it is a tool (right, TOOL) that could be used to improve proficiency in aircraft flying.

For example, during the winter period when weather conditions might not be conducive for flying for an extended period of time, the flight simulator is an alternative for maintaining awareness, skill set and currency in cockpit technology configurations.

I won't take the risk of not flying for six months due to winter conditions.
I alleviate the situation by engaging the flight simulator environment to help me keep up with aircraft flying challenges.

WP

[thing]

I took my niece's boyfriend, an ardent flight simmer, out for a long flight and taught him the subtleties of turning. eventually he was flying figure eights through his prop wash.
his comment after landing "The sim is nothing like a real aeroplane".

It's not supposed to be though is it. It's a bit of entertainment that's all, which if you are choosy about which bits you use can be of use to a pilot. People who become immersed in the sim world (and I have nothing against that at all) perhaps can loose sight of the fact that it's not actually almost like the real thing. It's nothing like the real thing. At all.

I give the software guys their due, some of the cockpits in add on aircraft are fantastic other than they aren't covered with bits of old chocolate and salt from bags of crisps and the paint is still fresh. It's the actual flying experience that is totally unrealistic, and as I've already said, how can it be realistic? The only way to make it realistic is to climb into an aircraft and do it.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by Heston

Lightning Mate is spot on. I loathe teaching students who have played on flight sims to any degree. They think they know how to fly and they WILL NOT LOOK OUTSIDE. It takes a lot of time (and their money) to sort out the bad habits they've got into.


There is a world of difference between sitting in your bedroom with a toy and using a professional simulator under proper supervision in the way that it was designed to be used.


Anybody that is serious about learning to fly should avoid sims and spend the money on an air experience flight instead.

As an active flight instructor I cringe when I hear a prospective PPL student say "I have lots of MSFS time !"

The problem with flight simmers is exactly as Heston says. The MSFS guys don't look out the window. When I teach Attitudes and Movements I cover all the instruments and the AI and DI don't exist presolo and I have found that the folks with lots of MSFS often take longer to get good at the foundation skills than students with no exposure to a sim.

I think there is also a more fundamental problem. It is not the flight sim that is in itself the problem, it is that the exposure to the flight sim is largely self taught. There is a reason flight schools don't just give you an airplane and then expect you to figure it out yourself, yet that is in effect exactly what you are doing with MSFS.

My experience is that because there was no structured instruction for new students who had a lot of sim time, they had acquired a lot of bad habits. This was exacerbated by the fact that the sim doesn't closely replicate the whole experience of actually flying a live airplane, therefore they had habits that worked in the sim but not in the airplane.

So the bottom line for me is I would rather have a student who is a blank sheet, rather than arriving with a preconceived set of ideas and habits he/she got from the sim.

Where MSFS has real value is in training for the IFR rating. The flight models are generally more difficult to fly than the real airplane so it builds a good scan but again the most effective use of the sim is completing exercises assigned by an instructor that follow a syllabus that is complementary to the rest of the course, not just random driving around playing with the radios and instruments.

[Desert185]

When I was instructing in little airplanes, I always enjoyed the enthusiastic student. If today that means someone has time with FS, so be it. I'll work with the person to do him justice. I found a long time ago that a CFI has to adapt to each student's ability rather than the other way around. That's part of being a CFI, unless one has the pleasurable option of cherry picking his students to suit his own foibles on instructing. I never had that option.

Again, I feel any exposure to the art of flying is a positive development. My opinion doesn't make it right for every CFI, but it works for me.