Sims that look like the aircraft
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sims that look like the aircraft
I was having a look round Bristol Flying Centre at the weekend and their FNPT2 sim has a Seneca panel that looks exactly like the panel in a real Seneca. I have seen others though that boast a Seneca flight model but have just a generic panel.
Now, I would assume that if it looks exactly like the aircraft it may be a more effective training aid than a generic one - even if only down to the procedures and learning the locations of all the switches etc.
Does anybody have any views on this or does it even make a difference? Thoughts welcome.....
Hufty.
Now, I would assume that if it looks exactly like the aircraft it may be a more effective training aid than a generic one - even if only down to the procedures and learning the locations of all the switches etc.
Does anybody have any views on this or does it even make a difference? Thoughts welcome.....
Hufty.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it does make a difference.
The CAA approvals can either have the sim as representative of a class (e.g. multi-engine) or a type. For example our new sim is a Duchess - all buttons in the same place, the ASI even says "Beechcraft" on it. In fact it is a Duchess airframe with simulator installed (shipped over from the US, I assume it was somehow written off), for the greatest realism we could manage! This will be used and approved both as a specific Duchess and a generic twin, allowing greater flexibility. The GPS is a real Garmin 430, stimulated not simulated for GPS training.
The improved fidelity from this not only makes for obvious improvements in the training available on the simulator, making transition to the aircraft simpler therefore cheaper, but I believe it also allows a greater variety of training on the sim under CAA approvals. I think we are even going to offer multi-engine ratings with some simulator time.
Certainly a panel with everything in the same place will reduce the time taken to refamiliarise with the aircraft for that stage of the training. This of course reduces the overall costs, and makes you look good when you come to apply for jobs, having passed IR on minimum hours!
The CAA approvals can either have the sim as representative of a class (e.g. multi-engine) or a type. For example our new sim is a Duchess - all buttons in the same place, the ASI even says "Beechcraft" on it. In fact it is a Duchess airframe with simulator installed (shipped over from the US, I assume it was somehow written off), for the greatest realism we could manage! This will be used and approved both as a specific Duchess and a generic twin, allowing greater flexibility. The GPS is a real Garmin 430, stimulated not simulated for GPS training.
The improved fidelity from this not only makes for obvious improvements in the training available on the simulator, making transition to the aircraft simpler therefore cheaper, but I believe it also allows a greater variety of training on the sim under CAA approvals. I think we are even going to offer multi-engine ratings with some simulator time.
Certainly a panel with everything in the same place will reduce the time taken to refamiliarise with the aircraft for that stage of the training. This of course reduces the overall costs, and makes you look good when you come to apply for jobs, having passed IR on minimum hours!
Last edited by Send Clowns; 14th May 2003 at 19:27.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You also have to decide if you want to have the hours in your log book or not.
If you take a FNPT II IR you come out with relatively low hours logged.
The course I did at leeds Flying School was done in a FNPT 1 and the Cougar and it was cheaper than the others using FNTP II. Which if you do the CPL in the twin as well gets you over 50 hours in a MEP when combined with your MEP rating. I prefered to get the hours in my log book.
And although they are very good for learning the basics in, they don't simulate real wx and real ATC. The FNPT II might look sexy but as you going to be flying with a grey screen in front of you most of the time why do you need visuals?
MJ
I might add the FNPT 1 at leeds is very close to there cougar the flight model is spot on. The only differences are
1. The seat is to comfy in the sim
2. The instruments are a bit more spread out.
3. You don't freeze your but off if you sit in on someone elses session
If you take a FNPT II IR you come out with relatively low hours logged.
The course I did at leeds Flying School was done in a FNPT 1 and the Cougar and it was cheaper than the others using FNTP II. Which if you do the CPL in the twin as well gets you over 50 hours in a MEP when combined with your MEP rating. I prefered to get the hours in my log book.
And although they are very good for learning the basics in, they don't simulate real wx and real ATC. The FNPT II might look sexy but as you going to be flying with a grey screen in front of you most of the time why do you need visuals?
MJ
I might add the FNPT 1 at leeds is very close to there cougar the flight model is spot on. The only differences are
1. The seat is to comfy in the sim
2. The instruments are a bit more spread out.
3. You don't freeze your but off if you sit in on someone elses session
Last edited by mad_jock; 14th May 2003 at 01:01.
The sim is a tool.
Its purpose to learn the selective radial scan. The interpretation of instruments. And checklists.
A generic sim does for the purposed of basic IR training does this just as well as one that has tarted up to look exactly like an aircraft.
In actuality it is rare for your test aircraft to be exactly the same as ones you trained on - never mind the sims.
Nice sims are generally ones that don't break down, are readily available and aren't nearly as expensive as the aircraft themselves.
The shineness factor is purely a bonus.
Not to mention that is not the tool but the craftsman that is paramount.
WWW
Its purpose to learn the selective radial scan. The interpretation of instruments. And checklists.
A generic sim does for the purposed of basic IR training does this just as well as one that has tarted up to look exactly like an aircraft.
In actuality it is rare for your test aircraft to be exactly the same as ones you trained on - never mind the sims.
Nice sims are generally ones that don't break down, are readily available and aren't nearly as expensive as the aircraft themselves.
The shineness factor is purely a bonus.
Not to mention that is not the tool but the craftsman that is paramount.
WWW
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with WWW on this one.
To be honest dont really care what the sim looks like inside as long as it has all the requisites. Where it does come into its own, as WWW says, is getting your scan, checklist and general cockpit procedures spot on in a controlled environment and more importantly MUCH CHEAPER!!!
No point learning procedures in the air and spening all that hard earned money cocking it up! Wait until you are happy with what you have to do and the principle of how to achieve it on the ground and then go and do it for real.
The other beauty of sims is you can plot out what you have been doing (can be very embarressing sometimes!) and also if you do get confused you can pause it (NB : This does not wotk in real aircraft
)
Julian.
To be honest dont really care what the sim looks like inside as long as it has all the requisites. Where it does come into its own, as WWW says, is getting your scan, checklist and general cockpit procedures spot on in a controlled environment and more importantly MUCH CHEAPER!!!
No point learning procedures in the air and spening all that hard earned money cocking it up! Wait until you are happy with what you have to do and the principle of how to achieve it on the ground and then go and do it for real.
The other beauty of sims is you can plot out what you have been doing (can be very embarressing sometimes!) and also if you do get confused you can pause it (NB : This does not wotk in real aircraft
)Julian.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWW
Then why is it that the CAA allow more hours to be completed on a realistic sim as part of training?
When this thread had gone unanswered for a while I spoke with our sim instructor about the issue, knowing he was going to great efforts to make the sim realistic. What I posted is my interpretation of his comments, as a former CAA examiner with some 30-odd years experience as a flight instructor. Remember that all students move from sim to aircraft. Schools I have trained at and worked for have aircraft for IR training configured almost identically (less so for CPL aircraft, as it is less important). If the sim is identical too then the conversion is easier.
Mad_Jock
You should be logging your sim time as well. Which "others" were you comparing the prices with? Remember some published prices include less than maximum sim time, so can be reduced if you change the course structure.
Then why is it that the CAA allow more hours to be completed on a realistic sim as part of training?
When this thread had gone unanswered for a while I spoke with our sim instructor about the issue, knowing he was going to great efforts to make the sim realistic. What I posted is my interpretation of his comments, as a former CAA examiner with some 30-odd years experience as a flight instructor. Remember that all students move from sim to aircraft. Schools I have trained at and worked for have aircraft for IR training configured almost identically (less so for CPL aircraft, as it is less important). If the sim is identical too then the conversion is easier.
Mad_Jock
You should be logging your sim time as well. Which "others" were you comparing the prices with? Remember some published prices include less than maximum sim time, so can be reduced if you change the course structure.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that making sims actually look, feel and smell like a real aeroplane helps the realism and improves the quality of training. Sure, you can build down to the minimum spec - but it shows.
Our Seneca sims are actual Seneca cockpits, our Hawker 800 sim is a 100% accurate copy using aircraft instruments, switches etc. These facts bring positive comments from people who have seen and used lesser (certified) machinery which is at the bottom end of the realism scale.
Our Seneca sims are actual Seneca cockpits, our Hawker 800 sim is a 100% accurate copy using aircraft instruments, switches etc. These facts bring positive comments from people who have seen and used lesser (certified) machinery which is at the bottom end of the realism scale.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that the more realistic the better. The main reason I chose Atlantic Flight Training for the IR last year (apart from the obvious geographic proximity) is that they do the sim part on an FNPT II with visuals etc. OK, it's meant to be IFR, but it helps for cloudbreak, and the airports are not generic - they actually represent Coventry, Leeds, etc.
I couldn't have imagined doing the IR on a Frasca 141. Another added bonus with an FNPT II is that the CAA allows up to 35 hrs. (out of 50) to be done on the sim before transition to the "real thing" (Cessna-310 in my case), so lowering the overall cost of an IR.
I couldn't have imagined doing the IR on a Frasca 141. Another added bonus with an FNPT II is that the CAA allows up to 35 hrs. (out of 50) to be done on the sim before transition to the "real thing" (Cessna-310 in my case), so lowering the overall cost of an IR.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please remember these devices are not sims they are flight nav procedure trainers.
As www says the FNPT is good at teaching you the scan, the checks, procedures, and how to use all the nav gear (why you need a stimulated GPS for intial IR training I don't know) . In a nice controlled enviroment which can be stopped, reversed put into hyperdrive whatever. It dosn't simulate real life.
No proper ATC
No beam bends in the NDB (fecking Leeds)
No wind changes
No turbulence
No other traffic
No ...... all the other things which rear there ugly heads in a real life trip.
After you have got the scan and the techniques. Its time for the aircraft. The FNPT then should be used to allow cockups to be revisted in a controlled enviroment where the student isn't as stressed out and can reflect and learn more easly. Having a big grey screen in front of you instead of a fibreglass board makes no difference.
FNPT time can be placed in your log book but it means nothing outside the requirments of the course for IR and CPL etc.
It dosn't go toward your total time or MEP time for the purposes of solo hire of a twin if it has a min 50hrs restriction. Or i might add when someone is looking through a batch of CV's and decides to cut the numbers down by dumping all CV's below 25hours twin time.
From a FTO's point of view I can see why they want to go down the FNPT II route
1. FNPT's don't go tech as much as planes and don't have down time for maint
2. You get alot faster through put of punters on the machine
3. You are not governed by wx.
4. No hassels with ATC booking slots on the beacon
5. Brillant marketing toy. Lots of glassy eyed punters thinking that it looks the dogs bits
6. MCC course can be run on it, which must be one of the highest profit margins in flight training.
7. IR renewals can be done alot cheaper than in an aircraft.
Although on paper they can drive the price of a course below doing it on a twin. The student might not be getting the same value for money as doing it in a twin from both a training point of view and useful logged hours.
All it takes is 1 extra trip pre 170a at @250+ an hour and your looking at an additional 500 quid minimum which has removed any savings.
www said
Not to mention that is not the tool but the craftsman that is paramount.
I agree 100% with this statement its the person that sets the thing up and pushes the students in a manner that makes them learn that makes the difference. Not some fancy box which looks flash.
MJ
As www says the FNPT is good at teaching you the scan, the checks, procedures, and how to use all the nav gear (why you need a stimulated GPS for intial IR training I don't know) . In a nice controlled enviroment which can be stopped, reversed put into hyperdrive whatever. It dosn't simulate real life.
No proper ATC
No beam bends in the NDB (fecking Leeds)
No wind changes
No turbulence
No other traffic
No ...... all the other things which rear there ugly heads in a real life trip.
After you have got the scan and the techniques. Its time for the aircraft. The FNPT then should be used to allow cockups to be revisted in a controlled enviroment where the student isn't as stressed out and can reflect and learn more easly. Having a big grey screen in front of you instead of a fibreglass board makes no difference.
FNPT time can be placed in your log book but it means nothing outside the requirments of the course for IR and CPL etc.
It dosn't go toward your total time or MEP time for the purposes of solo hire of a twin if it has a min 50hrs restriction. Or i might add when someone is looking through a batch of CV's and decides to cut the numbers down by dumping all CV's below 25hours twin time.
From a FTO's point of view I can see why they want to go down the FNPT II route
1. FNPT's don't go tech as much as planes and don't have down time for maint
2. You get alot faster through put of punters on the machine
3. You are not governed by wx.
4. No hassels with ATC booking slots on the beacon
5. Brillant marketing toy. Lots of glassy eyed punters thinking that it looks the dogs bits
6. MCC course can be run on it, which must be one of the highest profit margins in flight training.
7. IR renewals can be done alot cheaper than in an aircraft.
Although on paper they can drive the price of a course below doing it on a twin. The student might not be getting the same value for money as doing it in a twin from both a training point of view and useful logged hours.
All it takes is 1 extra trip pre 170a at @250+ an hour and your looking at an additional 500 quid minimum which has removed any savings.
www said
Not to mention that is not the tool but the craftsman that is paramount.
I agree 100% with this statement its the person that sets the thing up and pushes the students in a manner that makes them learn that makes the difference. Not some fancy box which looks flash.
MJ
Flashy looking sims are great marketing thats a fact.
Sure, the more realistic the better. But if that realism comes at increasing hourly rate I'll take the basic version thanks.
Multi Million all singing dancing Jet sims less than a year old in my limited experience don't actually capture realism that well. I sure as hell can land the real aircraft better than the Sim for example. Same for all line pilots.
There are some nice sims out there these days and the only reason I got involved on this thread Send Clowns was that other schools complained about you advertising your employers doubtless nice new machine.
BAe have a nice enough proper sim albeit one thats getting on a bit now on a bizjet type that is dissimilar to the one you are likley to take a simcheck on.
OATS often seem to imply that their FNPT is a 737 Sim which it isn't. SFT's sim always seemed to be broke. blah blah.
Some of the best Sim instruction I ever had (that includes a 737 course) was on a pretty tired Frasca 145 thats sole highlight was having NDB dip. The chap two feet over my shoulder knew exactly what, how and why he was teaching me. He did this with flair and passion and in the end that counts for far far more than the gimmicks, the computer playbacks and the various audio visual box of tricks.
What was even better was that it was cheap so I could afford more hours AND it was free after hours which meant I could rehearse ad nauseum. Taught me 90% of what I know about IFR panel flying that tired old Frasca did.
WWW
Sure, the more realistic the better. But if that realism comes at increasing hourly rate I'll take the basic version thanks.
Multi Million all singing dancing Jet sims less than a year old in my limited experience don't actually capture realism that well. I sure as hell can land the real aircraft better than the Sim for example. Same for all line pilots.
There are some nice sims out there these days and the only reason I got involved on this thread Send Clowns was that other schools complained about you advertising your employers doubtless nice new machine.
BAe have a nice enough proper sim albeit one thats getting on a bit now on a bizjet type that is dissimilar to the one you are likley to take a simcheck on.
OATS often seem to imply that their FNPT is a 737 Sim which it isn't. SFT's sim always seemed to be broke. blah blah.
Some of the best Sim instruction I ever had (that includes a 737 course) was on a pretty tired Frasca 145 thats sole highlight was having NDB dip. The chap two feet over my shoulder knew exactly what, how and why he was teaching me. He did this with flair and passion and in the end that counts for far far more than the gimmicks, the computer playbacks and the various audio visual box of tricks.
What was even better was that it was cheap so I could afford more hours AND it was free after hours which meant I could rehearse ad nauseum. Taught me 90% of what I know about IFR panel flying that tired old Frasca did.
WWW
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Bournemouth, England
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I work at a flight school which has recently taken delivery of an FNPT2. Unlike Send Clowns, I feel that it is wrong to advertise in postings on this forum so I will not mention the school’s name.
However, I would like to respond to the various posts on this subject.
We looked very carefully at the two options of a generic twin procedure trainer and a type specific one. We decided to select a type specific one. After all if you are going to spend 30 to 40 hours in the simulator and only 15 to 20 hours in the aircraft you need the simulator to replicate the aircraft as closely as possible. You actually need your hands and eyes to go to exactly the same places in the simulator as in the aircraft, otherwise you need
to relearn it all when you move into the aircraft.
We therefore had the simulator designed to look exactly like our aircraft. All the instruments, switches, trim controls, cowl flaps, carburettor heat controls etc are in the same position and all are the same as the ones in the aircraft. We actually took digital
photos of all of the instruments in our aircraft and sent them to the manufacturer.
In addition, the simulator flies like the aircraft. Our boss spent 5 days at the manufacturer’s premises carrying out factory acceptance procedures to ensure that it did.
But, to answer Mad Jock.
It CAN simulate real life. It depends upon how it was designed and how you operate it.
It allows for a wide variety of weather including different winds at different altitudes, plus turbulence, icing etc. In addition, you can change all of these halfway through a flight.
It allows you to record ATC messages, including other traffic, and play this back at appropriate intervals, e.g. the ‘lost‘ VFR pilot coming in just as you are trying to tell ATC that you are localiser established!
Our intention is to increase the workload throughout the simulator training phase so that by the time you are ready to fly the final aircraft phase, you are virtually ready for the CAA IR test.
Anyone with a well designed FNPT2 and some imagination and ingenuity should be able to do this.
www said ‘Not to mention that it is not the tool but the craftsman that is paramount’.
This is true and it is our intention to make the simulator training as close to real life as possible.
He also mentions how much he learnt in a Frasca 142. The facilities in our FNPT2 are much greater than those in our Frasca 142. Think how much better prepared you can be for the test with these additional facilities.
If you are considering doing your IR on an FNPT2 ask some questions about its design and the way it is operated. Check that the above facilities are included. Don’t just assume that because it is an expensive good looking piece of kit the training will be good.
Finally, our simulator, which replicates both our twin-engined aircraft and our complex single, was given 40 hours credit by the CAA when they carried out their certification tests in the middle of April. We understand that we are the first school in the country to be given full certification on the initial CAA visit so they obviously thought it was good!
However, I would like to respond to the various posts on this subject.
We looked very carefully at the two options of a generic twin procedure trainer and a type specific one. We decided to select a type specific one. After all if you are going to spend 30 to 40 hours in the simulator and only 15 to 20 hours in the aircraft you need the simulator to replicate the aircraft as closely as possible. You actually need your hands and eyes to go to exactly the same places in the simulator as in the aircraft, otherwise you need
to relearn it all when you move into the aircraft.
We therefore had the simulator designed to look exactly like our aircraft. All the instruments, switches, trim controls, cowl flaps, carburettor heat controls etc are in the same position and all are the same as the ones in the aircraft. We actually took digital
photos of all of the instruments in our aircraft and sent them to the manufacturer.
In addition, the simulator flies like the aircraft. Our boss spent 5 days at the manufacturer’s premises carrying out factory acceptance procedures to ensure that it did.
But, to answer Mad Jock.
It CAN simulate real life. It depends upon how it was designed and how you operate it.
It allows for a wide variety of weather including different winds at different altitudes, plus turbulence, icing etc. In addition, you can change all of these halfway through a flight.
It allows you to record ATC messages, including other traffic, and play this back at appropriate intervals, e.g. the ‘lost‘ VFR pilot coming in just as you are trying to tell ATC that you are localiser established!
Our intention is to increase the workload throughout the simulator training phase so that by the time you are ready to fly the final aircraft phase, you are virtually ready for the CAA IR test.
Anyone with a well designed FNPT2 and some imagination and ingenuity should be able to do this.
www said ‘Not to mention that it is not the tool but the craftsman that is paramount’.
This is true and it is our intention to make the simulator training as close to real life as possible.
He also mentions how much he learnt in a Frasca 142. The facilities in our FNPT2 are much greater than those in our Frasca 142. Think how much better prepared you can be for the test with these additional facilities.
If you are considering doing your IR on an FNPT2 ask some questions about its design and the way it is operated. Check that the above facilities are included. Don’t just assume that because it is an expensive good looking piece of kit the training will be good.
Finally, our simulator, which replicates both our twin-engined aircraft and our complex single, was given 40 hours credit by the CAA when they carried out their certification tests in the middle of April. We understand that we are the first school in the country to be given full certification on the initial CAA visit so they obviously thought it was good!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Linda - I couldn't agree more. If the FNPT II is EXACTLY like the aeroplane then you make an easier, more effective and more cost efficient transition from one to the other. That is why ours are actual aircraft cockpits configured to exactly the same spec as our aeroplanes (which are all, incidentally, to the same fit - again, continuity is so important).
A good FNPT II (MCC) can do so much more than the minimum - we don't just do MCC courses, we do Jet Orientation Courses which use the motion system and explore a great deal more of the SOP and airmanship skills that the airlines require.
OK, so as WWW says ours is a bizjet, but it flys in a VERY similar fashion to a 737, we operate it to 737 profiles and with an EFIS fit that is very similar to the BA 737-400 it makes a great transition tool. It was also previously certified as a full flight simulator which means that it was required to have a much higher degree of funtionality and fidelity than an FNPT II (MCC) - and although only certified to the lower standard, all that funtionality and fidelity is still there to make the training more realistic.
It has a control column sticking out of the floor and two turbojet engines - more like the likely simcheck device than a KingAir or A320 FNPT II, I would suggest (most people seem to use 737 sims form my experience).
Craftsmanship counts, of course, but a skilled craftsman can do so much more with good quality tools!!!!
WWW: Did you ever get to fly our hawker before you left for easyCome, easyGo?
A good FNPT II (MCC) can do so much more than the minimum - we don't just do MCC courses, we do Jet Orientation Courses which use the motion system and explore a great deal more of the SOP and airmanship skills that the airlines require.
OK, so as WWW says ours is a bizjet, but it flys in a VERY similar fashion to a 737, we operate it to 737 profiles and with an EFIS fit that is very similar to the BA 737-400 it makes a great transition tool. It was also previously certified as a full flight simulator which means that it was required to have a much higher degree of funtionality and fidelity than an FNPT II (MCC) - and although only certified to the lower standard, all that funtionality and fidelity is still there to make the training more realistic.
It has a control column sticking out of the floor and two turbojet engines - more like the likely simcheck device than a KingAir or A320 FNPT II, I would suggest (most people seem to use 737 sims form my experience).
Craftsmanship counts, of course, but a skilled craftsman can do so much more with good quality tools!!!!
WWW: Did you ever get to fly our hawker before you left for easyCome, easyGo?
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mad_jock
Any reputable FTO will offer the student choice as to how much sim time to do. For example our headline rate for the CPL includes no sim time. We then have "plan B" with the more usual 5 hours FNPT1, and soon will be able to offer a third option with 10 hours FNPT2. It is entirely up to the student which option is taken. Most of the advantage you attribute to the school actually have more effect on the student. FTOs all charge more for the aircraft than sim to take these into account, it is the student who pays. The student should be able to structure the course as he or she sees fit within the requirements.
Of course for parts of the training a sim is better. It can more realistically simulate emergencies. At the start of the course some of the pressure can be taken off, so procedures can initially be practised with a convenient wind and no ATC nuissance, introducing these complications as a student progresses. Intelligent use of a realistic sim can be extremely helpful.
A simple sim, even RANT can be used very effectively for training. There comes a point, though, when a decent FNPT2 standard of sim is essential to take into account the very points you mention, such as weather.
On the marketing side I think most pilots prefer to see real aircraft. Few of them have an obsession with simulator flying!
Sim time does count towards your total time, for example a certain amount of sim time is allowed when calculating 1500 hours for a full ATPL.
Linda
I have had complaints from WWW when I deliberately have not mentioned my employer so as to avoid accusations of advertising. He insisted I mention my employer to give warning I may be biased. This time WWW has decided the opposite, and I have amended my post to comply. Of course since it is easy to find out who each of us work for from the profile, it seems to me an inconsequential point.
Any reputable FTO will offer the student choice as to how much sim time to do. For example our headline rate for the CPL includes no sim time. We then have "plan B" with the more usual 5 hours FNPT1, and soon will be able to offer a third option with 10 hours FNPT2. It is entirely up to the student which option is taken. Most of the advantage you attribute to the school actually have more effect on the student. FTOs all charge more for the aircraft than sim to take these into account, it is the student who pays. The student should be able to structure the course as he or she sees fit within the requirements.
Of course for parts of the training a sim is better. It can more realistically simulate emergencies. At the start of the course some of the pressure can be taken off, so procedures can initially be practised with a convenient wind and no ATC nuissance, introducing these complications as a student progresses. Intelligent use of a realistic sim can be extremely helpful.
A simple sim, even RANT can be used very effectively for training. There comes a point, though, when a decent FNPT2 standard of sim is essential to take into account the very points you mention, such as weather.
On the marketing side I think most pilots prefer to see real aircraft. Few of them have an obsession with simulator flying!
Sim time does count towards your total time, for example a certain amount of sim time is allowed when calculating 1500 hours for a full ATPL.
Linda
I have had complaints from WWW when I deliberately have not mentioned my employer so as to avoid accusations of advertising. He insisted I mention my employer to give warning I may be biased. This time WWW has decided the opposite, and I have amended my post to comply. Of course since it is easy to find out who each of us work for from the profile, it seems to me an inconsequential point.
Stop being precious about your sims people. I'm sure they all have their different merits and costs.
Moggie - yes I used the Hawker sim at Jerez. And the one at Gatwick GECAS. Easy come - Easy Go - Easy Money for all employees - thanks.
Send Clowns - I have asked in the past for you to ensure your employer was in your profile. You do have a habit of making a helpful Wannabes post that just happens to reflect well on your employer. You Poacher - Me Gamekeeper and don't take it so seriously.
I see a lot of people explaining how good their sims are. I see nobody rushing to say how much they charge per hour.
Shame West Michigan aren't still doing JAA training - they could come here and trump everyone with their amazing Sim facilities.
WWW
Moggie - yes I used the Hawker sim at Jerez. And the one at Gatwick GECAS. Easy come - Easy Go - Easy Money for all employees - thanks.
Send Clowns - I have asked in the past for you to ensure your employer was in your profile. You do have a habit of making a helpful Wannabes post that just happens to reflect well on your employer. You Poacher - Me Gamekeeper and don't take it so seriously.
I see a lot of people explaining how good their sims are. I see nobody rushing to say how much they charge per hour.
Shame West Michigan aren't still doing JAA training - they could come here and trump everyone with their amazing Sim facilities.
WWW
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turned out to be an interesting thread this 
MJ - I take your point about the extra hours in the aircraft and am probably going to end up going to Jerez for my modular flying training - they do the CPL test on a Seneca so adding to my multi time.
I feel that having the sim replicate the aircraft as closely as possible is the way to go - with so much of the IR (as I understand) being about cockpit management, having everything in the same place must be of value given only a limited amount of time to get familiar with the aircraft.
MJ - I take your point about the extra hours in the aircraft and am probably going to end up going to Jerez for my modular flying training - they do the CPL test on a Seneca so adding to my multi time.
I feel that having the sim replicate the aircraft as closely as possible is the way to go - with so much of the IR (as I understand) being about cockpit management, having everything in the same place must be of value given only a limited amount of time to get familiar with the aircraft.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FNPT stands for Flight & Navigational Procedures Trainers. The I and II are different levels then there is also a FNPT II MCC which stands for Multi Crew Co-operation training. These are all identifications given by the JAA and are considered 3A devices.
Devices are further categorized by:
JAA-STD 1A - Full flight Simulators
JAA-STD 2A - Flight Training Devices (type specific no motion)
JAA-STD 3A - FNPT
JAA-STD 4A - Basic Instrument training Devices (also known as PCATD in the US which are devices on PC's)
Then there are also levels for Helicopters but dont want to bore you with them
Devices are further categorized by:
JAA-STD 1A - Full flight Simulators
JAA-STD 2A - Flight Training Devices (type specific no motion)
JAA-STD 3A - FNPT
JAA-STD 4A - Basic Instrument training Devices (also known as PCATD in the US which are devices on PC's)
Then there are also levels for Helicopters but dont want to bore you with them
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can we stop refering to these devices as simulators.
As seen above they are way down the pecking order of devices.
They are just above Micro****e Flight sim for gods sake.
They CAN'T simulate real life because they are a computer which handles x to the power of 3 variables when mother nature has infinate variables.
FNPT time can be counted toward you ATPL so what, it isn't real hours which employers look at. At the end of it you still have less hours than a MEP FNTP 1 trained pilot. And less REAL experence.
yes Linda the FNPT II's can be set up as you say. But....
It all comes down to the Instructor as usual.
****e in ****e out.
Can the FNPT do coastal effect NO
Can the FNPT do dawn dusk effect NO
Can the FNPT do real localised beam bends NO
Can the FNPT give you the same trust your Instruments not the seat of your pants feel NO
Can the FNPT do all the multiple cock ups which occur in REAL flying. NO
In my IR
1. Dodgy Indian/Yorkshire ATCO bloke at Sheffield which only the Greek bloke in the back could understand.
2. Gear warning alarm going off on the go around when we wanted the gear up and it was up and were at full pwr.
3. Mountain wave **** I have busted 300ft. CAAFU "dosn't matter it was mountain wave".
4. Some **** in his Europa crashed at leeds don't decend below 400ft. Oh **** alt 1 onto QFE or will i do the sum, go around remember to change back to QNH bastard where did i write it, sod it, thank christ i set Alt2 with it.
5. pulling the ATIS off RVR below 800m diversion to HUM. **** pull the Jeppys out and get the plates. Instructor quite rightly saying deal with it.
And that was the ones that really stuck in my head. All totaly unplaned but happend because it was REAL life.
If you do it in the aircraft you KNOW you are getting the real thing.
Whats the point being charged 200 in a FNPT II when you could park your backside in a twin for 50 quid more and get to log real hours and real experence. FNPT II hours arn't even as useful as single hours and thats a fact.
Or in crude terms you can stay in with a dirty video and an inflatable doll (or in www,s case a inflatable sheep with a sheep skin rug on its back) or go out on the town and pull the real thing.
MJ
Hufty go with your gut feeling and remember that pilots for year s have been passing there IR's with FNPT 1's. I wanted the hours in my log book as well. 25dual FNPT, 30Hours twin time, about 30 hours solo time FNPT for free, for 10k. Which if you did it the FNTP II route you would have to shell out an additional 2k just to get the twin time up to the same state of play as me. Same qualifications less time in the book.
edit to add in below
FNPT 1 has no visuals so all you have infront of you is a fibreglass wall usually.
FNPT II has visuals so after take off you can look at a grey screen 5 meters away from you instead of a fibreglass screen 50cm away from you, either way you are looking at the panel which is in its usual place. Only thing you can do in the FNPTII that you can't on the FNPT 1 is a visual circuit to land. Even its pretty crap because you only have 30deg each side to look so thay start teaching start the stopwatch passing the numbers wait 30sec then turn in . Not much really for an extra 100 quid an hour.
As seen above they are way down the pecking order of devices.
They are just above Micro****e Flight sim for gods sake.
They CAN'T simulate real life because they are a computer which handles x to the power of 3 variables when mother nature has infinate variables.
FNPT time can be counted toward you ATPL so what, it isn't real hours which employers look at. At the end of it you still have less hours than a MEP FNTP 1 trained pilot. And less REAL experence.
yes Linda the FNPT II's can be set up as you say. But....
It all comes down to the Instructor as usual.
****e in ****e out.
Can the FNPT do coastal effect NO
Can the FNPT do dawn dusk effect NO
Can the FNPT do real localised beam bends NO
Can the FNPT give you the same trust your Instruments not the seat of your pants feel NO
Can the FNPT do all the multiple cock ups which occur in REAL flying. NO
In my IR
1. Dodgy Indian/Yorkshire ATCO bloke at Sheffield which only the Greek bloke in the back could understand.
2. Gear warning alarm going off on the go around when we wanted the gear up and it was up and were at full pwr.
3. Mountain wave **** I have busted 300ft. CAAFU "dosn't matter it was mountain wave".
4. Some **** in his Europa crashed at leeds don't decend below 400ft. Oh **** alt 1 onto QFE or will i do the sum, go around remember to change back to QNH bastard where did i write it, sod it, thank christ i set Alt2 with it.
5. pulling the ATIS off RVR below 800m diversion to HUM. **** pull the Jeppys out and get the plates. Instructor quite rightly saying deal with it.
And that was the ones that really stuck in my head. All totaly unplaned but happend because it was REAL life.
If you do it in the aircraft you KNOW you are getting the real thing.
Whats the point being charged 200 in a FNPT II when you could park your backside in a twin for 50 quid more and get to log real hours and real experence. FNPT II hours arn't even as useful as single hours and thats a fact.
Or in crude terms you can stay in with a dirty video and an inflatable doll (or in www,s case a inflatable sheep with a sheep skin rug on its back) or go out on the town and pull the real thing.
MJ
Hufty go with your gut feeling and remember that pilots for year s have been passing there IR's with FNPT 1's. I wanted the hours in my log book as well. 25dual FNPT, 30Hours twin time, about 30 hours solo time FNPT for free, for 10k. Which if you did it the FNTP II route you would have to shell out an additional 2k just to get the twin time up to the same state of play as me. Same qualifications less time in the book.
edit to add in below
FNPT 1 has no visuals so all you have infront of you is a fibreglass wall usually.
FNPT II has visuals so after take off you can look at a grey screen 5 meters away from you instead of a fibreglass screen 50cm away from you, either way you are looking at the panel which is in its usual place. Only thing you can do in the FNPTII that you can't on the FNPT 1 is a visual circuit to land. Even its pretty crap because you only have 30deg each side to look so thay start teaching start the stopwatch passing the numbers wait 30sec then turn in . Not much really for an extra 100 quid an hour.
Last edited by mad_jock; 16th May 2003 at 08:22.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oop north
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who is soon to choose a school at which to do my IR I have found this a very interesting thread. It supplies answers to a lot of the questions that I have been trying to find answers to for the last year and gives an insight from both sides of the fence. Only it leaves me just as confused so I'm back to square one - choose the school I prefer overall.
The one point I would like to make though is that in my comparisons of courses from different schools there seems to be very little price difference between them. It seems to me that although FNPTII are cheaper then an hour in a twin, its not by much and I have to admit I would personally prefer to have more actual time in the air for 12k then less for 11k.
I suppose its a similar argument to the old MCC in a full motion B737 or a static FNPTII MCC, its all personal preference
The one point I would like to make though is that in my comparisons of courses from different schools there seems to be very little price difference between them. It seems to me that although FNPTII are cheaper then an hour in a twin, its not by much and I have to admit I would personally prefer to have more actual time in the air for 12k then less for 11k.
I suppose its a similar argument to the old MCC in a full motion B737 or a static FNPTII MCC, its all personal preference