Radio Nav. and Flight Simulators.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: gone surfin'
Age: 58
Posts: 2,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radio Nav. and Flight Simulators.
I have just completed my cross country qualifier. I am now looking forward to the radio nav. part of the PPL. Spent 30 mins. in ground school yesterday revising the principles from an earlier ground school course.
It all looks rather interesting, would it be useful to perform some exercises on my duaghters (honest) aged Microsoft 1998 Simulator ?
I did put the simulator to rest 12 months ago, as I found that it interfered with my ability to handle an aircraft for real, although I think I've outgrown this stage now.
I would be keen to gauge opinion on the subject, and would welcome suggestions for exercises. (Tracking/position fixing/intercepts).
In real life I fly a Cessna 172 with a King Bendix (whatever that means!).
Cheers !
It all looks rather interesting, would it be useful to perform some exercises on my duaghters (honest) aged Microsoft 1998 Simulator ?
I did put the simulator to rest 12 months ago, as I found that it interfered with my ability to handle an aircraft for real, although I think I've outgrown this stage now.
I would be keen to gauge opinion on the subject, and would welcome suggestions for exercises. (Tracking/position fixing/intercepts).
In real life I fly a Cessna 172 with a King Bendix (whatever that means!).
Cheers !
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think trying out radio navigation techniques in the comfort of your own home is an excellent learning aid. It is obviously much cheaper than a real lesson and more valuable than just drawing lines and little aeroplanes on a map.
Whilst there are lots of improvements overall, from memory there is not much that the latest Microsoft flight simulator (2002) adds to the 1998 version in the area of learning about radio nav. If you want a more realistic flight model (in my opinion) try X-Plane, another simulator.
However, better than a flight simulator, at least in the early stages, is this online nav simulation: http://www.visi.com/~mim/nav/. This allows you to experiment with various navaids (ADF, VOR, RMI, HSI) using two beacons, effect of wind, etc. It is even better when it comes to the more advanced topics (not required for your PPL) like intercepting a radial from an NDB when flying outbound from on it in strong wind.
Whilst there are lots of improvements overall, from memory there is not much that the latest Microsoft flight simulator (2002) adds to the 1998 version in the area of learning about radio nav. If you want a more realistic flight model (in my opinion) try X-Plane, another simulator.
However, better than a flight simulator, at least in the early stages, is this online nav simulation: http://www.visi.com/~mim/nav/. This allows you to experiment with various navaids (ADF, VOR, RMI, HSI) using two beacons, effect of wind, etc. It is even better when it comes to the more advanced topics (not required for your PPL) like intercepting a radial from an NDB when flying outbound from on it in strong wind.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It kinda sounds like a good idea, but from my own experience, I'd suggest that you try and do everything at least once in the real aircraft first, or at least in a FTD with an instructor.
I've found that using flight sim to practice an exercise really only helps once I've done it for real at least once.
I think flying approaches, and doing tracking and stuff is much different in the real plane cos there is so much else going on. Learn to do it in that environment first, then hone your skills a bit on the PC.
5 minutes with a good instructor is easily worth 10 hours messing about on your own if they teach you the easy way to do NDB tracking for instance (mine did !!).
My instrument rating is going ok so far, and has been based on getting some good solid skills under the hood, on partial panel, and on doing xc and shooting lots of different practice approaches.
Flying flight sim has never much improved my real world flying, but improving my real world flying has done wonders for me in flight sim ... ;-)
I've found that using flight sim to practice an exercise really only helps once I've done it for real at least once.
I think flying approaches, and doing tracking and stuff is much different in the real plane cos there is so much else going on. Learn to do it in that environment first, then hone your skills a bit on the PC.
5 minutes with a good instructor is easily worth 10 hours messing about on your own if they teach you the easy way to do NDB tracking for instance (mine did !!).
My instrument rating is going ok so far, and has been based on getting some good solid skills under the hood, on partial panel, and on doing xc and shooting lots of different practice approaches.
Flying flight sim has never much improved my real world flying, but improving my real world flying has done wonders for me in flight sim ... ;-)
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too recommand RANT from PPL thru IMC thru to IR.
Re simulators - neither the online simulator (which I have played with - and can be downloaded & used offline) nor RANT are simulators. They are radio nav trainers.
Instrument flying & radio nav is one of the few area where PCs can really excel at training. You see - its not about experiencing it in the air..the problem is one of mental capacity - and if you have to think about which way the needles are pointing and what it all means in the air then you are using up vital capacity and wasting vital airtime (incl money).
By using these nav aid tutors on the ground you can truely start to understand how to use & interpret these instruments. I cannot say enough good things about using these tutors...particularly RANT.
However. for PPL RANT is possibly a little expensive..mainly due to the actual content of he PPL is really only VOR, ADF homing (not tracking....just homing with no allowance for wind) and DME, possibly GPS if fitted and you have a kind instructor...
RANT is really aimed at the IMC Rating & IR - and foir these its invaluable....and I recommend it to my students.
So if you intend to get an IMC rating at a later date the RANT product certainly is worth the money and is one of the best on the market - and the ONLY one I know that covers ADF dip.
FF
Re simulators - neither the online simulator (which I have played with - and can be downloaded & used offline) nor RANT are simulators. They are radio nav trainers.
Instrument flying & radio nav is one of the few area where PCs can really excel at training. You see - its not about experiencing it in the air..the problem is one of mental capacity - and if you have to think about which way the needles are pointing and what it all means in the air then you are using up vital capacity and wasting vital airtime (incl money).
By using these nav aid tutors on the ground you can truely start to understand how to use & interpret these instruments. I cannot say enough good things about using these tutors...particularly RANT.
However. for PPL RANT is possibly a little expensive..mainly due to the actual content of he PPL is really only VOR, ADF homing (not tracking....just homing with no allowance for wind) and DME, possibly GPS if fitted and you have a kind instructor...
RANT is really aimed at the IMC Rating & IR - and foir these its invaluable....and I recommend it to my students.
So if you intend to get an IMC rating at a later date the RANT product certainly is worth the money and is one of the best on the market - and the ONLY one I know that covers ADF dip.
FF
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: gone surfin'
Age: 58
Posts: 2,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some very valid advice.
Stan evil/drauk-thanks for the pointers, will spend some time at the w/e looking at the programmes.
FF/SZ5 thanks for the input.
Kabz, I can identify with the usefulness of a few "tips of the trade" from my instructor. Knowing the rules has always helped before when I've been under pressure in the cockpit. I am tempted however, to improve my grounding in spatial awareness before getting in to the cockpit.
Stan evil/drauk-thanks for the pointers, will spend some time at the w/e looking at the programmes.
FF/SZ5 thanks for the input.
Kabz, I can identify with the usefulness of a few "tips of the trade" from my instructor. Knowing the rules has always helped before when I've been under pressure in the cockpit. I am tempted however, to improve my grounding in spatial awareness before getting in to the cockpit.
Guest
Posts: n/a
When I did my IMC I read all the books, did the theory exam. Spent two weeks practicing radio nav and instrument approaches on a very early MS flight sim, and then did an intensive course on the flying.
My radio nav worked straight out of the box. I had also done about 100 VOR/DME letdowns on the sim, and again I was able to do it right first time out! It saved me a fortune.
Rod
My radio nav worked straight out of the box. I had also done about 100 VOR/DME letdowns on the sim, and again I was able to do it right first time out! It saved me a fortune.
Rod
Resident Brewer
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: .
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd also recommend RANT. I finally managed to crack tracking to and from NDBs using it. Saved plenty of money on trying to figure it out while airbourne.
It's probably over the top for PPL purposes, but if you're intending to do and IMC, it's invaluable.
It's probably over the top for PPL purposes, but if you're intending to do and IMC, it's invaluable.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Paros, Greece
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it quite useful for playing about with VOR's, as I have particular trouble getting these 'straight' in my head, particularly while flying the aircraft as well.
The problem comes when I climb back into an aircraft to try the same thing - there's so much going on that I get all mixed up again. I think it'll just take time, but I'm convinced that any extra experience must be helping.
I'm not sure about FS2000, but 2002 is VERY accurate for all the VOR's and NDB's I use for my real flying in the UK. The radials and distances of airfields always seem to agree exactly with what it says in Pooleys, which is more than can be said for real life
The problem comes when I climb back into an aircraft to try the same thing - there's so much going on that I get all mixed up again. I think it'll just take time, but I'm convinced that any extra experience must be helping.
I'm not sure about FS2000, but 2002 is VERY accurate for all the VOR's and NDB's I use for my real flying in the UK. The radials and distances of airfields always seem to agree exactly with what it says in Pooleys, which is more than can be said for real life
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hehhe...re errors in real life:...
Thats be cause the simulators believe in a perfect world with perfect mathematics and nglect the fact that a VOR can have up to 7.5deg of error in total (tx & rx error combined). Indeed the ADF is really only 5deg as well. Given that DME is based on slant range - never expect it to match ground distance - because at 6080' it will read 1nm.
And that is where the real art of flying comes in....oh yeah and ive never yet met a simulator that jiggles your body soooo much its hard to see the screen
Thats be cause the simulators believe in a perfect world with perfect mathematics and nglect the fact that a VOR can have up to 7.5deg of error in total (tx & rx error combined). Indeed the ADF is really only 5deg as well. Given that DME is based on slant range - never expect it to match ground distance - because at 6080' it will read 1nm.
And that is where the real art of flying comes in....oh yeah and ive never yet met a simulator that jiggles your body soooo much its hard to see the screen
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: South Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just got my IMC rating (well, had to tell someone!) and found FS2000 invaluable.
I could set up my local field (EGNF) with clag at 1000' and practice tracking VORs, NDBs, ILS approaches to my heart's content.
Of course if you've done it first for real you know where your weaknesses lie and can then practice just those bits without the cost of real flying. But it really helped with instrument approaches as I could practice all the local approaches before the test so I knew the headings and profile - this really reduces workload in the real thing. After all, in your course you are unlikely to do more than a couple of ILS approaces unless your home field has ILS (or other instrument approaches for that matter) which most don't.
If I'm flying anywhere else for an instrument approach in future I'll try it out on FS first to get some familiarity before doing the real thing.
and found FS2000 invaluable.I could set up my local field (EGNF) with clag at 1000' and practice tracking VORs, NDBs, ILS approaches to my heart's content.
Of course if you've done it first for real you know where your weaknesses lie and can then practice just those bits without the cost of real flying. But it really helped with instrument approaches as I could practice all the local approaches before the test so I knew the headings and profile - this really reduces workload in the real thing. After all, in your course you are unlikely to do more than a couple of ILS approaces unless your home field has ILS (or other instrument approaches for that matter) which most don't.
If I'm flying anywhere else for an instrument approach in future I'll try it out on FS first to get some familiarity before doing the real thing.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well recommended. I never really got my brain wired to radio nav doing my PPL.
After passing, I bought FS2002 to while away the winter and 'flew' a few routes based on VORs. The first time I got to try it for real was a revalation - everything fell into place perfectly.
After passing, I bought FS2002 to while away the winter and 'flew' a few routes based on VORs. The first time I got to try it for real was a revalation - everything fell into place perfectly.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radio/Nav in the PPL syllabus is designed to suppliment VFR navigation (map reading). As you cannot see anything useful out of your simulator window, it really is not much use at this stage.
There is no point learning to track beacons and fly with your eyes in the cockpit when the intention is that you obtain a bearing or series of bearings to verify which town you are looking at out of the window.
Simulators, STDs and PCs etc are very good for practicing procedures; but there are no procedures in the PPL syllabus, other than being able to track towards or away from a beacon; to stop you flying past the airfield you really want.
You could of course practice obtaining a VDF bearing; most students don't seem to have a clue about this simple procedure.
There is no point learning to track beacons and fly with your eyes in the cockpit when the intention is that you obtain a bearing or series of bearings to verify which town you are looking at out of the window.
Simulators, STDs and PCs etc are very good for practicing procedures; but there are no procedures in the PPL syllabus, other than being able to track towards or away from a beacon; to stop you flying past the airfield you really want.
You could of course practice obtaining a VDF bearing; most students don't seem to have a clue about this simple procedure.
