Sorry but I have to take exception to that. While FS is great for learning, you cannot log any time with it, it is not an FAA certified and approved sim.

No apologies needed.. But I'll take re-exception. I've set up FAA approved PCATDs using both FS9 and FSX. There's one sitting in our club's training room as I type this. And, the other club at our airport (KOSU) uses this : http://www.flypfc.com/pcatds/cat%20iv/CAT%20IV.html(look at the bottom of that page for the approved software)Here's a link from their club:http://www.capitalcityaviation.com/aircraft.asp(You'll see that simulator listed among their "Aircraft")I logged 10 hours of my instrument training on both FS9 & FSX (with the approved hardware)

Great thread. I remember the first time I learned about this was in Lago's original Maddog tutorial. I've been interested ever since, and recently got some navigraph charts, but they are not useful for this, as I don't see any with compass roses (and printing out, etc. would be impractical.)Love the mini-tutorial. Now make adjusting for wind as simple and I'll be really happy :-)

No apologies needed.. But I'll take re-exception. I've set up FAA approved PCATDs using both FS9 and FSX. There's one sitting in our club's training room as I type this. And, the other club at our airport (KOSU) uses this : http://www.flypfc.com/pcatds/cat%20iv/CAT%20IV.html(look at the bottom of that page for the approved software)Here's a link from their club:http://www.capitalcityaviation.com/aircraft.asp(You'll see that simulator listed among their "Aircraft")I logged 10 hours of my instrument training on both FS9 & FSX (with the approved hardware)

FSX alone on a PC is of no use for legal logging as far as the FAA is concerned. The addition of appropriate hardware may change that.However, legalities aside, as far as just practice that is not intended to be loggable, FSX is perfect for instrument flight. Where it falls down is in the visual illusions that relate to VFR flight. If you have never flown, then the chances are that using FSX is introducing distortions that will be hard to overcome later if you ever attempted real flight. It's all to do with presenting a 3D world on a 2D screen that is only several feet away from your eye, there is no depth of field at all. This becomes an issue as new pilots learn by visualization, and it's hard to do that when your brain has been learning from a computer screen.But, if you already have your private VFR license and are practising IFR, it is perfect. One of the hardest things to do for a VFR pilot is to focus on instruments that are only several feet away from your eye. And of course if you never intend to fly, then none of this matters.Bruce.

No apologies needed.. But I'll take re-exception. I've set up FAA approved PCATDs using both FS9 and FSX. There's one sitting in our club's training room as I type this. And, the other club at our airport (KOSU) uses this : http://www.flypfc.com/pcatds/cat%20iv/CAT%20IV.html(look at the bottom of that page for the approved software)Here's a link from their club:http://www.capitalcityaviation.com/aircraft.asp(You'll see that simulator listed among their "Aircraft")I logged 10 hours of my instrument training on both FS9 & FSX (with the approved hardware)

I'll have to take your word on that, last I knew only 'On Top' and now a version of X Plane were certified for use. I poked around the FAA site but I don't have the time to wade through all that stuff today. If it's true you can use FS to log time, thats great, and certainly is an eye opener.

FSX alone on a PC is of no use for legal logging as far as the FAA is concerned. The addition of appropriate hardware may change that.However, legalities aside, as far as just practice that is not intended to be loggable, FSX is perfect for instrument flight. Where it falls down is in the visual illusions that relate to VFR flight. If you have never flown, then the chances are that using FSX is introducing distortions that will be hard to overcome later if you ever attempted real flight. It's all to do with presenting a 3D world on a 2D screen that is only several feet away from your eye, there is no depth of field at all. This becomes an issue as new pilots learn by visualization, and it's hard to do that when your brain has been learning from a computer screen.But, if you already have your private VFR license and are practising IFR, it is perfect. One of the hardest things to do for a VFR pilot is to focus on instruments that are only several feet away from your eye. And of course if you never intend to fly, then none of this matters.Bruce.

Exactly... In fact, in some ways, it's even better than real instrument flying (especially hood flying), because you usually DO have some sort of periferal reference (unless you fly in the clouds ..lol). It forces you to relyy soley on the instruments. Even the stubourn FAA finally gave in, admiting that PCATDs are very valuable instrument trainers. Not only can you limit visibility... there are no physical sensations at all. Just you, the controls and a set of instruments.Personally.. it helped me master compass turns. It replicates them perfectly.

I'll have to take your word on that, last I knew only 'On Top' and now a version of X Plane were certified for use. I poked around the FAA site but I don't have the time to wade through all that stuff today. If it's true you can use FS to log time, thats great, and certainly is an eye opener.

FSX (even FS9) are better than OnTop or X-Plane. Arguably they're "equal", for instrument replication.. so that leaves model-utility and what little, scenic emerssion there is. Popping out of the clouds with a runway in sight while running OnTop, is an ugly, clunky thing. ... especially transitioning into a flare, or executing a go-around. FSX is far superior there. I have no experience with X-Plane on a PCATD

Great thread. I remember the first time I learned about this was in Lago's original Maddog tutorial. I've been interested ever since, and recently got some navigraph charts, but they are not useful for this, as I don't see any with compass roses (and printing out, etc. would be impractical.)Love the mini-tutorial. Now make adjusting for wind as simple and I'll be really happy :-)

Welll.. if you notice.. I allow for the fact that your best-estimate will not be good enough... The chances of you hitting your imaginary waypoints exaclty are slim. By the time you make the first correction (after intercepting just one radial, and seeing how far you must fly before both needles center), you'll get a good feel for the next leg.Remember.. winds aloft forecasts are never perfect; in neither direction nor velocity... So not only are these excersises fun.. they hone your skills. The drills that they put student pilots through, are mis-leading. They make you take your true heading, and then E6B it by the winds aloft forecast.. and then adjusting for true vs magnetic.. and then allowing for even the silly compass deviation (errors due to the airframe and compass itself).... and you end up with an "EXACT" heading to fly. That heading is of no more use than an experienced pilot's estimations. As mentioned.. the wind forecasts are never perfect.. and no pilot alive can hold a heading +/- 1 degree for more than a mile ... Those drills are to drill the concepts into heads that here-to-for have NO navigation experience. For that, they are invaluable. You can't make educated guesses, until the fundemental forces in play are understood.

Exactly... In fact, in some ways, it's even better than real instrument flying (especially hood flying), because you usually DO have some sort of periferal reference (unless you fly in the clouds ..lol). It forces you to relyy soley on the instruments. Even the stubourn FAA finally gave in, admiting that PCATDs are very valuable instrument trainers. Not only can you limit visibility... there are no physical sensations at all. Just you, the controls and a set of instruments.Personally.. it helped me master compass turns. It replicates them perfectly.FSX (even FS9) are better than OnTop or X-Plane. Arguably they're "equal", for instrument replication.. so that leaves model-utility and what little, scenic emerssion there is. Popping out of the clouds with a runway in sight while running OnTop, is an ugly, clunky thing. ... especially transitioning into a flare, or executing a go-around. FSX is far superior there. I have no experience with X-Plane on a PCATD

I agree. I have owned many "serious" ifr sim platforms and fsx imho does the whole experience better. It isn't just about looking at instruments-it is also clouds/weather effects, sounds, terrain, and I always found if you are flying a "generic" aircraft that doesn't resemble the one you fly in terms of instruments and instrument location that the value is much less.Fsx allows this.Mastering complex instrument procedures-being able to push a pause button if needed so one can understand what is going on is very valuable.The new Real Air Duke has just as much smoothness in instruments in addition to more real "feel" than some of those "serious" ifr trainers. (If I recall-on top doesn't use rudder pedals-at least the version I had!). I have been zooming in on the Duke's panel like a virtual hood-and I don't think there is much closer to flying a complex twin on instruments than what you get here-and besides it really feels like a Beech!On the other hand-it is much easier for a layman like me to make a custom panel of their own aircraft and tweak the flight model to get it just right-and my case the multi engine/systems failures of xplane make it just as compelling-so I use both fsx and xplane.

That zoomed in, "hood" effect is great.. done it many times.. But I prefer to to set the visibility to something less than a mile, and see how many times I can catch myself "cheating" a peek over the panel (and STILL not seeing anying but white !)That Duke looks amazing.. I'm gonna grab it tonight. I'd imagine that shooting a complicated, DME-arc, multi-step descent, VOR-A approach, with one dead engine can leave you soaked in sweat..LOL.. My cousin (5,000 hour, law enforcement helo-pilot) and I used to get together for on-line, shared-cockpit, instrument approaches. It can get pretty intense when there's someone there to keep you honest..