From Flight Sim to real world pilot. Experience/opinions

[Brett_Henderson 5]

As far as costs go... don't focus on some arbitrary total cost for the initial PPL; there are too many variables. You'll have your hands full during training, and trying to fit it into a pre-determined budget is not only impossible, it's a distraction. If you've "set aside" $10,000 for training, and end up near that total well before you're ready for the checkride, then what ?My point is.. it's a process determined not only by your aptitude, but your training schedule too. The guy who trains for a couple hours every weekend, will end up spending much more than the guy who trains three times per week. And the guy who takes each training flight only as money is available, will have spent a fortune by the time he's licensed.Then of course the next question is; what do you plan on doing with the license ? If it's more of a personal accomplishment thing, and you fully understand that several month periods between flights require those flights to begin with an instructor on board.. kinda like never-ending training .. then the initial license cost has a bit of relevance. But, if you plan on flying regularly, and staying current enough to safely take passenger up with you.. the initial training cost will become an isignificant fraction of what flying ends up costing. By the time you're a competent instrument pilot, passing the mere 1000 hour total-time mark, you'll have spent enough on flying to have paid cash for a nice house :( (quite a bit more if airplane ownership became part of it)RE: the original topic.. (Flight Sim to real world pilot).. it's been covered pretty accurately in this thread. I'll just add that simming software/hardware will more than pay for itself .. especially if you get to intrument training. That a potential pilot might pick up a bad habbit or two, is a self-correcting thing. In other words, if you can't learn to discern and accout for sim vs real short-comings.. you'll likely "wash out" in short order.. :( Glass vs Steam ... is an ever-changing topic. G1000 equipped trainers are gonna become more and more common.. if for no other reason that they are much less expensive in the long-run, for an FBO/School to maintain. Mecahnical gauges are heavy, and are subject to wear, and calibration problems. For PPL training purposes, there's nothing special about a G1000 panel. Things like GPS , terrain-overlays, and weather-interfaces are non-issues to the new pilot learning to hold heading/altitude, fly a pattern, and to find his way around by VFR. And for a VFR pilot, even a G1000 failure (lose the display and you've only got a couple of backup instruments), it's a non-issue, because he's flying VFR. My personal opinion about G1000 in 180HP single-engine training airplanes, they're over-kill.. but on the same note; a club's Skyhawk is also going to be flown by experienced members who will appreciate all the data at their finger-tips. That a pilot would willingly take passengers into IMC in a Skyhawk, is a whole, different discussion.

I'd go for the G1000. I don't believe in the basics (VOR nav) much anymore. A few years back, a group of students were divided into two groups. One group went with the basic six pac, and the other with the G1000. Since navigation began on day one, with the G1000, the glass panel students ended up with their PPL's with less time than the steam gauge students.

A G1000 cockpit has fully funtioning nav-radios, and has a classic, albiet "glass", HSI. That HSI has indicators for VOR use, ILS use, and even NDB use. G1000 cockpits do not "replace" radio navigation "basics". If the instructor was able to accelerate the student's navigational learning curve because of a G1000 GPS interface, I'll suggest that those students are less fundementally sound pilots, and their instrument training will suffer through "remedial" navigation re-training... not to mention how "lost" they'll be if they find themselves in a traditional cockpit.. or how white-knuckled they'd be if the G1000 display flickers out, regardless of GPS interface, or if there's one present at all. Maybe we need a new PPL endoresment for these pilots.. "Aircraft must be GPS equipped" .. :(

[Brett_Henderson 5]

Problem is..................what is really fundamental? Some flight instructors still believe that the VOR system is a skill and right of passage in order to fly. Other instructors can't wait for the day that all VOR's disappear. Two years ago, two long time civil air patrol pilots flew into a mountain in darkness, while fiddling with the pages of a Garmin 1000. While they knew the VOR system well, they didn't yet have the minimal skills to use the glass. Therefor, it's really the definition of "skills".The basic VOR navigation system came into use in 1943. It's very outdated compared to the extremely useful information you can get from the GPS systems. IMO, if you rent a plane with the basic six & nav system, then carry along a handheld GPS. If the instructor turns off the GPS with a "smirk" on his face............then throw him/her out! I have a database of flight into terrain accidents since the 1940's. I have thousands of reasons to use the "much" improved technology. L.Adamson

Pssssst... nobody is suggesting that "improved techology" should not be used, or that radio navigation means ignoring GPS. As for the smirking instructor... there will be plenty of time for learning GPS, but it's important that a student hone his navigation and situation awareness skills FIRST. Flights into terrain aren't a concern when you're learning to position report, and enter a pattern, and fly the pattern :(

[msalo 1]

I am a long time simmer. Been simming since the mid-80's. Just this past year (2010), I decided it was time to take it to the real world. My simming experience, I believe gave me a head start. My instructor was very impressed with my knowledge, and natural skills. As a long time VATSIM user, I was comfortable on the radio as well. My instructor was impressed with my radio skills right from the start. When it was all said and done, I completed my PPL and check ride in 46.1 hours total time. Getting my real world PPL is the best thing I ever did! My only regret is that I waited way too long to do it. I should have done it years ago!Regardless of whether you have sim experience or not, if you want to fly for real, just do it. You will be glad you did!

[ZachLW 37]

As far as costs go... don't focus on some arbitrary total cost for the initial PPL; there are too many variables. You'll have your hands full during training, and trying to fit it into a pre-determined budget is not only impossible, it's a distraction. If you've "set aside" $10,000 for training, and end up near that total well before you're ready for the checkride, then what ?

Absolutely agree 50% :( . Trying to make part of my student loan get a certain number of ratings has been killing me :( BUT setting a budget is mandatory if one exist in the first place... I set $7000 for my PPL. Got to $6500 there about. I looked at it as more of a goal than a distraction. With the instrument I set a goal of $5000. got it in $4800. Commercial etc...

[LAdamson 240]

Until then, if you can't fly a plane as safely with only the equipment listed in 91.205( b ) as you do with a big LCD moving map, then you have a problem.

Yes, unfortunately, history has shown many problems!In the "old days"............it was call the FSS for weather. The briefer would run through the current weather scenarios and make the suggestion if weather on your route is VFR. While in flight, the pilot would once again contact an FSS station for weather updates, if the pilot feels there could be a problem.Then things improve a bit. We get computers and the Internet. We can now look up real time weather on the Internet before flight. But my "big" GPS moving map goes a step farther. As I'm in flight, I get constant weather map overlays on that moving map. I don't have to call an FSS, as I can see the weather and wind patterns for hundreds of miles in all directions. I can make much better decisions in regards to a change in flight path if needed.If a TFR just happens to come into affect while I'm in flight, or if I somehow missed it before flight, it will show up on that big moving map of mine, as well as the exact boundaries. Speaking of boundaries, it's much easier to see military, airport, and other restricted airspace areas on the GPS, rather than looking for land marks or at the sectional ....as a bird or other aircraft heads towards my windscreen.When I land at an airport, there is a good chance that a full Jeppeson airport map (data base has 850+ airports)will appear on the GPS screen, with my aircraft's location. I can easily see the runways, taxiways and ramps from a birds eye view. Much better than an airport diagram on paper............especially when the tower/ground is telling you to follow specific taxiways, etc. You've probably heard of commercial aircraft, that have took off on the wrong & too short runway....... I wish they had, what a new Cessna 172 has. In fact, many airliners are sorely outdated in comparison to the abilites of a newer Cessna 172 with a Garmin 1000, Avidyne, etc.Now................ I could go on with accident, after accident scenarios/reports....in which the pilot/pilots lost track of it all, with the normal set of instruments you'll find in an IFR equipped aircraft. They've even done it by ignoring a moving map GPS. But I choose, to not waste the bandwidth here.... by listing just a portion of these reports. I'll just say that in the future, it will be a large "primary flight display" right in front of the pilot.........that will save the day, with it's "synthetic vision"............when worse goes to worst. I have far too many reports, that will prove just that. Thankfully, it's the future, and we might as well "discover" it now.L.Adamson

[KevinAu 441]

Yes, unfortunately, history has shown many problems!In the "old days"............it was call the FSS for weather. The briefer would run through the current weather scenarios and make the suggestion if weather on your route is VFR. While in flight, the pilot would once again contact an FSS station for weather updates, if the pilot feels there could be a problem.Then things improve a bit. We get computers and the Internet. We can now look up real time weather on the Internet before flight. But my "big" GPS moving map goes a step farther. As I'm in flight, I get constant weather map overlays on that moving map. I don't have to call an FSS, as I can see the weather and wind patterns for hundreds of miles in all directions. I can make much better decisions in regards to a change in flight path if needed.If a TFR just happens to come into affect while I'm in flight, or if I somehow missed it before flight, it will show up on that big moving map of mine, as well as the exact boundaries. Speaking of boundaries, it's much easier to see military, airport, and other restricted airspace areas on the GPS, rather than looking for land marks or at the sectional ....as a bird or other aircraft heads towards my windscreen.When I land at an airport, there is a good chance that a full Jeppeson airport map (data base has 850+ airports)will appear on the GPS screen, with my aircraft's location. I can easily see the runways, taxiways and ramps from a birds eye view. Much better than an airport diagram on paper............especially when the tower/ground is telling you to follow specific taxiways, etc. You've probably heard of commercial aircraft, that have took off on the wrong & too short runway....... I wish they had, what a new Cessna 172 has. In fact, many airliners are sorely outdated in comparison to the abilites of a newer Cessna 172 with a Garmin 1000, Avidyne, etc.Now................ I could go on with accident, after accident scenarios/reports....in which the pilot/pilots lost track of it all, with the normal set of instruments you'll find in an IFR equipped aircraft. They've even done it by ignoring a moving map GPS. But I choose, to not waste the bandwidth here.... by listing just a portion of these reports. I'll just say that in the future, it will be a large "primary flight display" right in front of the pilot.........that will save the day, with it's "synthetic vision"............when worse goes to worst. I have far too many reports, that will prove just that. Thankfully, it's the future, and we might as well "discover" it now.L.Adamson

That's all great. Except that none of that is required equipment under 91.205b. Until a moving map GPS is required to be installed in all planes, you are unfortunately going to have to learn how to fly safely without one. Or until there is a "GPS equipped aircraft only" restriction for licenses, then maybe then you can get a license without having to learn how to fly safely with only the bare basics.

[LAdamson 240]

That's all great. Except that none of that is required equipment under 91.205b. Until a moving map GPS is required to be installed in all planes, you are unfortunately going to have to learn how to fly safely without one. Or until there is a "GPS equipped aircraft only" restriction for licenses, then maybe then you can get a license without having to learn how to fly safely with only the bare basics.

I'd like to see them required. In the meantime, handhelds can be rather cheap. We don't have to learn to fly without them. And...........in terms of safety, the bare basics always haven't worked out........have they? Complacency & loss of situational awareness have took their toll.A US Government study (1997), said it best....------------------------------------------------The safety issue is one that the USAF must address in cooperation with civil aviation organizations.Controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) is a significant problem for the USAF. The T-43 “RonBrown” crash in Croatia is probably the most publicized, but other events are troubling. The CFITby a USAF C-130 at Jackson Hole, Wyoming; the A-10 crash in Arizona; and, perhaps, the recentB-1 low-level accident are all indications that more attention must be paid to CFIT. The civilcommunity was galvanized by the American Airlines CFIT in Cali, Colombia; by anotherAmerican Airlines incident at Hartford, Connecticut; and by the recent KAL accident in Guam. Inthe past five years, civil aviation has incurred more than 40 CFIT accidents at the cost of morethan 2,000 lives. Perhaps the most emotional issue for the public, though, is midair collision(MAC). Close encounters between USAF aircraft and civilian airliners in the Northeast receivedmuch notice. The apparent collision between a C-141 and a German Air Force aircraft off thecoast of Namibia also has been widely reported. Modern technology has matured to the pointwhere CFIT and MAC need never occur. The issues are cost and implementation method.----------------------------------------------Regardless, I can go on with case after case,.........it's a sideline of my existence, I guess...L.Adamson

[vololiberista 205]

You will only be able to obtain your PPL with steam gauges AND hand held maps. Some people think that the sim is the bees knees but you will find that real flying is really very very different. Your attitude to your task in hand will be so focussed you may even end up with a headache until you get used to it.If you want to go on eventually to ATPL the road is long and hard and enormously expensive unless you are sponsered by an airline or you can get into a University Air Squadron.I got my licence in 1987 and then luckily went on to get my ATPL with BOAC later BAThe other question you need to ask is a personal one:-Q.Is flying better than sex?A. If it less than equal then you are not of the right stuff!!vololiberista

[LAdamson 240]

You will only be able to obtain your PPL with steam gauges AND hand held maps.

The author of this thread, with the original question is from California, in the USA. Garmin 1000's come standard on today's Cessna training aircraft. Diamond has them, and so do numerous others. In other words, you can get your PPL with "glass" (as I don't know all the regs in other countrys. But you'd need the maps too (but maybe not, as there are paperless rules). BTW--- I bought one of the first decent Garmin aviation GPSs. It was a moving map, but very simple by todays standards. It was 1993. Before that, it was pure steam. I do carry up to date "paper" sectionals all the time.L.Adamson

[KevinAu 441]

I'd like to see them required. In the meantime, handhelds can be rather cheap. We don't have to learn to fly without them. And...........in terms of safety, the bare basics always haven't worked out........have they? Complacency & loss of situational awareness have took their toll.L.Adamson

Neither have all the moving maps worked either. Flying just published another story about somebody who nearly crashed a plane despite their brightly lit GPS moving map in their latest issue. The moral of that story and of all other stories is that you must learn to competently use the equipment that you have, whether it be a sectional chart, vor, loran or gps.Yes, LAdamson, we understand they are great tools. But they are optional tools to be used over and above the basic tools. As a flight instructor, once I've signed you off, how do I know that you are not going to end up flying cross country in a beat up old bare bones taildragger with your trusty handheld dead out of batteries one day? Unless 91.205 is amended to require a working moving map gps in all planes or I can make an endorsement in your book that restricts you to only fly planes equipped with a working moving map gps, it would be criminally negligent of me to allow you to go on without proving to me that you function just as competently without your moving map gps as you do with it. That is why as a flight instructor, I will risk you pushing me out of the airplane at 3000', and turn off your moving map with a smirk on my face. I do that for your safety and my conscience.

[vololiberista 205]

The author of this thread, with the original question is from California, in the USA. Garmin 1000's come standard on today's Cessna training aircraft. Diamond has them, and so do numerous others. In other words, you can get your PPL with "glass" (as I don't know all the regs in other countrys. But you'd need the maps too (but maybe not, as there are paperless rules). BTW--- I bought one of the first decent Garmin aviation GPSs. It was a moving map, but very simple by todays standards. It was 1993. Before that, it was pure steam. I do carry up to date "paper" sectionals all the time.L.Adamson

In the UK, Europe and the Rest of the World you must carry and use a map by law. In other words it is a criminal offence not to! GPS is allowed ony as a secondary means to confirm your position. If for example you landed after declaring a PAN PAN thinking that you were lost and it was dicovered that you had no map, then you have no licence!!!!!!!! Plus a BIG fine plus imprisonment!! Whether an a/c is equiped with a GPS map or not YOU must use your mark 1 eyeball with reference to a map over here. There are no exceptions!!vololiberista

[Brett_Henderson 5]

I've gone back through this thread... still don't see were anyone has disparaged the wonders of technology.. not one reference suggesting that we should not embrace it... yet somehow, a discussion about being fundementally sound FIRST, has been taken down the path as though it's, "anti-technology". How does this keep happening ? Very strange.

[LAdamson 240]

I've gone back through this thread... still don't see were anyone has disparaged the wonders of technology.. not one reference suggesting that we should not embrace it... yet somehow, a discussion about being fundementally sound FIRST, has been taken down the path as though it's, "anti-technology". How does this keep happening ? Very strange.

Because "fundamentally sound"..............means different things to different people. We've already played these thoughts, to different audiences last year. I consider the VOR/NAV system to be just what it is............1943 technology. We might as well dump the cell phones, and revert to covered wagons. And I'm far from alone, as I polled this question last year. Some instructors still embrace radio nav, while others can't wait for it to disappear. :(:(:(:( Okay, it's not quite that bad! :) While looking up GPS versus the VOR on the Internet, I ran across an interesting thread. A flight instructor was trying to push his weight on a student pilot forum. This was in the year 2004. I hope he has changed his mind, and if not, then good riddance. He'd pat the student on the back for using VOR to VOR, but essentially slap a student for using GPS. To him, GPS was nothing more than a toy. A pretty and seductive one.........he'd say. As far as he could see (which isn't apparently much, future wise), the VOR system was/is the NAV system of the USA, and that's it! He's the guy I'd certainly throw out. At least I had an IFR instructor who was very interested in my Garmin GPS that had approach overlays at the time. Around 1997. He fly's Boeing 737-800's these days, which update the FMS through the GPS system.......BTW.Anyway, we argued this to death last year. Flight sim forums, and perhaps a few instructor forums, are not the best place to make points. When I left this argument last year, I had been reduced to just hitting the GPS direct button, not looking at maps in mountain country,and being essentially foolish...........all because I don't believe in VORs much. Of course, all that talk was simply rediculous. But I'll keep supporting GPS as long as I'm around. L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

Neither have all the moving maps worked either. Flying just published another story about somebody who nearly crashed a plane despite their brightly lit GPS moving map in their latest issue. The moral of that story and of all other stories is that you must learn to competently use the equipment that you have, whether it be a sectional chart, vor, loran or gps.

I'm looking for that story. Is it in Jan or Feb? While looking through the Feb. issue, I did see the story of a pilot who busted a Vice President TFR because he was on a local flight, didn't get a briefing, and left his Garmin 696 with XM weather home. Had he had the Garmin, as I do, the TFR would have shown up in bright red. That's another advantage of today's technology. Real time, in the cockpit weather, as well as TFR information and exact location.

Yes, LAdamson, we understand they are great tools. But they are optional tools to be used over and above the basic tools. As a flight instructor, once I've signed you off, how do I know that you are not going to end up flying cross country in a beat up old bare bones taildragger with your trusty handheld dead out of batteries one day? Unless 91.205 is amended to require a working moving map gps in all planes or I can make an endorsement in your book that restricts you to only fly planes equipped with a working moving map gps, it would be criminally negligent of me to allow you to go on without proving to me that you function just as competently without your moving map gps as you do with it. That is why as a flight instructor, I will risk you pushing me out of the airplane at 3000', and turn off your moving map with a smirk on my face. I do that for your safety and my conscience.

My "experimental" catagory aircraft (a Van's RV6A) had to pass the 91.205 requirements with an FAA designated inspector. But..............it doesn't have NAV/COMMs or DME. It does have two Comms, a Garmin 696 GPS tied into the aircraft's power, plus it's batteries, a backup GPS, a handheld nav/comm, two axis auto-pilot, night lighting, transponder, compass, leather seats, constant speed prop, and more. Just as I built my plane with no NAV/Comms............many others do the same. And these others, include many airline pilots, military pilots, and so forth. Unless the aircraft is to be certified for IFR, the NAV/comms are not required.L.Adamson

[Brett_Henderson 5]

But I'll keep supporting GPS as long as I'm around.

And I'll support it too.. and would take issue with an instructor who ridculed a student for using it. No sane airman is "anti-gps".We never argued any of this.. all our past discussions were based on you taking a thread, and turning it into a GPS debate, where one didn't exist. It's always this same, weird position that when someone embraced radio navigation, you have to come to the GPS rescue.. This thread started out on how simming relates to PPL training, and you're citing accident statistics again.. It's getting bizarre..