PC Simulators - Any Benefit?

[Okavango]

Hi. I'm about to complete my PPL and after steering clear of them during this initial stage of training I was thinking that a PC simulator might be helpful on two fronts from here on. Firstly as a dry run before a new cross country to an unfamilial airfield (if the representation is good enough?), and secondly for instrument flight practice. Are the commercially available software options any use for these purposes? If so, which is best, Microsoft Flight Simulator X or X-Plane?

[flightlevel1985]

Flight sim X is quite good, but unless you have all the kit, including a high powered graphics computer and the pedals and all, I am not sure just how much of an advantage it would be for VFR flying. For IFR flying it is good building up that scan and for practicing approaches, but then again there is no ADF dip, so that is another limitation. Never really tried any other PC sim, apart from RANT, but thats a different kettle altogether.

[BelArgUSA]

You could use the display for IR classes, to explain the RMI, compasses, HSI etc.
I am as good to explain all that on a classroom board with drawings.
As far as "practice instrument flying" - forget it.
Now of course, there will be 187 kids who play with PC simulators who will tell you the opposite.
Well, I am a 747 captain, 23,000 hrs, and TRE... are they...?
xxx
Repeat after me - PC simulators are worthless.
If they were that good, you could "log" instruction received on these...

Happy contrails

[papa600]

PC Simulators might be worthless to a 747 Captain with 23,000 hours but for a mere PPL about to start training I found it a great experience several years back in terms of understanding how an aeroplane works, principles of flight etc etc.

The biggest problem I had and my instructors hated it was that my eyes were inevitably in the cock pit looking at instruments - there is not alot else to do looking at a PC screen.

Each to their own but even today I brush up on procedure for flying stalls, PFL's, and yes I do simulate the odd XC trip though the realism in that regard is lacking in detail although the airfields are very well represented in FSX.

It does have its uses and VFR tracking, use of ADF and even the GARMIN GPS are very good in FS.

I would not advocate it was a training tool for professional pilots but for those with an interest in aviation it represents a remarkable insight to life in the cockpit.

Besides my C172 which I can legally fly, I can also fly the full Airbus fleet and Boeing fleet all over the World from the comfort of my spare room - who said flying commerical jet aircraft was difficult!

[Mikehotel152]

Ha ha ha Papa600!

I've always loved pc games, particularly those involving aircraft and I have FSX. I didn't think it helped at PPL level because those early days are all about getting 'the feel' for how a light aircraft handles. All the procedures can be learnt sitting in an armchair being tested by your other half or in the car on the way to your lessons.

In terms of learning routes, use Google Earth. It's far better. To get any realism in FSX you need add-ons, which look lovely, but are expensive. Why bother when Google Earth is free?

When on the CPL, trying to get my head around tracking an NDB using the ADF, I used FSX and it was helpful but the flight dynamics are inaccurate and therefore off-putting IMHO. But it helped.

Doing the IR, Rant XL is excellent for really understanding the way the instruments act and react. I tried FSX and even bought add-ons that allowed me to fly the exact aircraft I was using for my MEPR, but most don't have an ADF or have other limitations.

IMHO the biggest problem with flight sims is the lack of realistic ATC. I know there are ways of getting round this - internet groups and add-ons - but the former are a little hit and miss and the latter US-centric.

Just my humble opinions. Always better to try these things yourself as what worked for me probably won't work for you as I'm a little odd...

[BigGrecian]

At the FTO where I work;
Generally at PPL level we strongly discourage the use of flight sim as it leads to a reliance on the instruments and the PPL is all about VFR attitude flying.

At CPL/IR level we encourage it for the use of NDB/VOR tracking etc, but in all honesty RANT is much better than flight sim.

Totally agree with papa600:

I would not advocate it was a training tool for professional pilots but for those with an interest in aviation it represents a remarkable insight to life in the cockpit

[tigermagicjohn]

I took my PPL around 21 years ago, did not fly a real aircraft for around 15 years, but did sometimes use Flight Simulator FSX and older versions.

Yes it is correct it can not replace the real thing, as the feel is not there, however for me it has been very usefull, and I also believe it can be good to practise basic learning of instrument approaches, instrument flying, various wind conditions etc.
I also used it to familiarize myself with my local flying area, as I used added on scenery, and I have nothing but praise to say about Microsoft flight sim.

Yes I am going to test and use both Rant XL and Elite flightsimulator, as I have heard these are better to learn real instrument flying.

However I would also set up flights and conditions in FSX, for navigation, instrument flying etc, as it does teach you the basics, and gives confidence when doing it in the real thing.

I did not fly for more than 15 years, went back had 2 hours, and did 10 perfect landings, excerises etc., and I would say all was because of FSX, it really helped me.

It all depends how you see it, see it for what it is, practise basics, forget the BS like landings and the RT there, but navigation, instrument flying, bad weather flying is not that bad. Of course if I was flying a 747, I would not bother looking at FSX either, but until I do, it is not a bad learning tool, if you accept it for what it really is.

[fadedfootpaths]

Flight simulator is for kids and old fags

[JugglingSpence]

Turn auto-rudde off

I've found FSX really useful for practicing flying. If I ever find myself in a position where I need to fly under tower bridge, compete in the Red Bull Air Race or land an overloaded DC3 on a remote strip in Africa I'll be ready!

I'm glad I saw this thread as I was wondering the same things myself.

I would be geniunely interested to know if anyone has used VatSim (real people providing ATC service). I was thinking of joining up to practice RT but I don't really know if it's any good, I'm a bit nervous that it's a step to far for a computer game if it isn't usefull. My housemate already gives me enough stick for turning the seat-belt signs on and off when I'm flying the 737!

One tip I do have is to turn the autorudder off in the realism settings as it makes control a bit easier/ slightly more realistic.

I'm lucky in that I live with a self confessed geek with a really good machine, playing in two screen means your not as likely to focus on the instruments as you can have a full screen for view and one for instruments/ GPS/ outside view.

[velj]

The one exception was PS1, a highly sophisticated 747 400 computer based training programme which was used by many 747 pilots to practice procedures etc. Very realistic sim and a total replication of all the systems.

[a797]

I can say hand on heart, 100% without a doubt that without flying countless approaches on the 737 on microsoft flight sim x (with a proper usb yoke), i wouldnt have passed the sim check at my airline interview.

Especially after youve done an mcc its very useful - because its alot harder to fly an instrument approach properly on microsoft x than it is in a proper full motion sim. When you get into the real thing it feels alot easier.

[Mikehotel152]

Have you got the Justflight 737 expansion for FSX?

[SVoa]

Yeah, on a side note.... A major B744 cargo operator uses a B744 software based on FS9 for training purposes...


SVoa

[nanocas]

Hi! From my own experience, during the ppl stage, flight simulator did not really help any more than regular "chair flying".
But I am now about to start my IR and, even though I have MS flight simulator, it makes my computer so slow I don't use it. I have instead purchased an IFR trainer pc simulator from cockpitweb.com which is really just a panel with all the instruments (no fancy scenary, it is not necessary), but it all works very well, you fly it with a regular joystick and the program gives you exercises to do like the real IR syllabus, then you can see what you actually flew versus what you should have flown. Hoping it will save me some time on the sim!!
just my 2p's worth.

[preduk]

I would be geniunely interested to know if anyone has used VatSim (real people providing ATC service). I was thinking of joining up to practice RT but I don't really know if it's any good,

I've got a buddy (whos actually in the middle of his NATS training at the moment) who gave it a try. He said there were some real world controllers (or so they said) but the majority of them were a bunch of kids that thought they knew everything about ATC.

When I was practising my RT I used to visit my local airport/airfield and have a listen in. Was good fun to see it all happen.

[BelArgUSA]

OK - My opinion then...

As I mentioned before I am basically "against" these PC "simulators"...
Great toys, YES... You are 12 years old and play 747 captain...
xxx
Now if you want to use a PC "simulator" seriously, try this...
Suppose you are practicing for IMC or IR...
Select a simple "single engine" presentation of airplane instruments.
Flight instrument basics, engine instrument basics.
Something flying at some 100 KIAS, climbs 300-500 FPM.
Maybe has retractable gear, so you "learn" to think "gear down/gear up".
xxx
Things you could learn in such simulators...?
Holding patterns, standard, non-standard, entry/timing etc.
VOR and ADF orientation. DME use.
Instrument Departures and Arrivals.
No need to have "engine noise" etc... that is worthless and ridiculous.
Rudder pedals? Worthless too for "single engine"...
xxx
At a stage you are a 50 hrs or a 200 hrs PPL/CPL, worthless to "practice" in a 747 "PC Simulator".
A good friend of mine offered a "747 whatever simulator" last Xmas to his son.
He asked me to help his son to "fly it"....
Well, I tried to fly it as I would a real 747 (or a 747 real simulator)...
Nothing works like a real airplane. I crashed a few times.
xxx

Happy contrails

[AirRabbit]

The fact is a modern turbojet, multi-million dollar flight simulator is several levels above the common computer program. The limitations are several: speed and memory of the computer; the completeness and accuracy of the data used to program and validate the computer; the size and placement of controls, panels, instruments, switches, gages, etc.; whether or not there is control “feed back” that is something other than generic or provided by springs or bungee cords, and the list can go on for quite some time.

However, there is little doubt that someone can get a good photograph of the cockpit of any airplane and use a computer to develop and present a reasonably good representation of that instrument – and this can be done for the entire cockpit – eventually. Now, the aerodynamic math model that is used can probably be either developed by a smart aerodynamics student in college or purchased rather cheaply from several sources. It is how you modify that basic model that will allow the “simulation” to perform anything like the a real airplane. Obtaining the information about what to modify and how to modify whatever it is can also come from several sources. For example, there have been line pilots who have been approached to copy down (or video) observed instrument responses in certain situations and provide that information to be used to modify the math model. The problems come when a given system on the “simulation” is asked to operate in conjunction with another simulated system – or even asked to operate at its limits. And things get really interesting when all the simulated systems are asked to operate in an integrated manner. Of course aerodynamic things like side-slip (and other non-linearities), slow speed and high speed operation, all of the stability and damping factors are completely or almost completely missing, control displacement and control feedback are completely subjective in all axes, and again, the list goes on and on. And, there are issues of sound, visual systems, and motion cueing that all come into play.

However, having said all that – there are some good things that can be derived from the use of a relatively inexpensive computer program that reasonably represents the systems operations of an airplane (this usually costs substantially more than MSFS or similar, however) – and if such a system is used in a spatially correct environment – checklist useage, cockpit flows, systems knowledge, and to whatever degree is allowed by the sophistication of the programming – this may include systems interoperability; crew interactions, and the like, may be accomplished quite respectably …again, dependant on the degree of accuracy involved and the limitations on the use of the device.

The whole idea of “simulation” is that it’s not real – it’s “simulated.” How well it is simulated becomes the question of the hour … and following closely behind is the question, how good does the simulation have to be to get acceptable training? Without trying to be overly pragmatic, the answer is dependant on the realism of the goals involved. Currently ICAO is considering a submission from the UK’s Royal Aeronautical Society that would, if adopted, provide a listing of what simulation features can be used to train pilots – depending on the pilot license level, the type of training involved, whether or not the pilot will be going to a more advanced simulator or to the aircraft for further training, and so forth. Simulation is here and its going to stay – what is needed is an acceptance of what is needed and what can provide that need.

MSFS can provide some things – but, as has been pointed out, a competent pilot will likely have more difficulty, initially at least, in trying to “fly” that particular computer “game,” and will have difficulty until he or she learns to adapt their existing skills (and that would be to “downgrade” those skills) to a degree that will allow them to successfully "fly" the game – and, personally, I can’t imagine why anyone would want to do that.

[tigermagicjohn]

I do agree BelArg, the game is useless for flying larger aircraft. Developing instrument skills on a Cessna 172, is fairly good, but the larger aircrafts, 747, is complete BS, would not even waste my time on it.
I personally woud NOT use it for learning to fly any complex aircraft, as it not good for that.

Also depends what equipment you use with it, example size of screen and controls, but I do agree the 747, or other larger jets are not really good learning tools, with exception of practising with FMC etc.

To do that, put it on AUTO pilot, to learn functions, as the controls are to unrelastic to use on larger AC, and has nothing to do with real flying.

But fly the Cessna to learn basic instrument skills.

[Coffin Corner]

The hardest students to teach were those who have had their heads in MSFS for eons, their lookout was non existent, they spend 85% of the time with their head in the cockpit, it should be 99% of the time out the cockpit.
That said, when I did my CPL many moons ago I found flight sim a great tool for learning checklists and procedures, I'd conduct a flight from A-B-C making sure I had the checks and briefs rolling off the tongue, for this it was great. Of course I could have done it in the armchair but it isn't as much fun.

When I did my IR I bought "Flying School", an add on which had a seneca. Again I used to fly routes with it to gain route knowledge and gain experience of what I expect to see on the needles etc. During the sim stage we had to do a STAR into BHX which I thought was quite complicated, I practiced this 4-5 times on FS and when I did it in the sim my instructor said he'd never seen it done so well, of course I didn't let on the secret, it wasn't because I was a good pilot, it was purely the practice.

Regarding VATSIM, I struggled when I was doing my PPL with R/T, I signed up with VATSIM and one day it all "clicked", it was as instant as that, so yes it did help.
Also before my IR test I used to get onto VATSIM and practice hold NDBs, Missed approaches etc etc at various airfields and it certainly helped.

Then came the sim assessment for the airlines, again I used flight sim to "do it to death", and it certainly helped.

As with all this Flight Sim didn't help with the flying aspect, because it cannot accurately model the flight dynamics, but it's a great procedural trainer for learning when to do checklists, and to get the checklists flowing off the tongue. Also for IR procedures.
Personally if you're a PPL student, keep away from it

[corsair]

I signed up for VATSIM and ventured in once. I was more nervous on RT than in the real thing.

When I have used it for practice approaches etc. I turn down all the realism settings. What's important to me in those situations is the procedure as such not the actually 'flying'.

I agree with Coffin corner. It has it's uses but not good for PPLs.

I do have to say that in terms of realism, no 'toy' sim even comes close.