A question for any IR pilots that fly FS9 for practice:I'm using the RealAir C172SP for some early practical practice approaches. I will be flying a C172SP while I go through the formal IR practical training. I also have an ASA sim ("IP Trainer"), which is much more technical and much more unforgiving :).But when I fly FS, it's so much more fun to pretend I'm flying an airliner. However, those with FMC's and the like won't give me any experience that will be of any use to me on my check-ride (unless they upgrade the C172SP avionics a lot!). But something like the CS B727 is all manual with those old steam gauges. Would using a heavy jet (which I assume bears no relationship to flying a Cessna) to shoot an approach be something that would be detrimental to my upcoming training? Or helpful? For any pilots that use FS to supplement instrument currency (not loggable of course), do you always use the same category of a/c in FS as you fly in the real skies?Thanks,Bruce.

I often do IFR paractice in the DF Archer. I mostly fly GA piston single and twin aircraft in FS, though I don't have a multi rating. So no, I don't always stick to aircraft I'm rated in.

Bruce,It has been my observation that flying something heavy (provided it is a good realistic aircraft) provides some valuable training for your overall airmanship abilities since it teaches you to plan everything well in advance and not fall "behind" the airplane. So no, flying a heavy won't be harmful to your C172 flying abilities if this is what you are afraid of. On the other hand I find it it is better to stay generally within a similar category of airplanes - for example if I fly Piper Archer in real life I wold prefer to practice on something like Piper Meridian - it is 'only' slightly heavier, faster and its avionics are more similar to what I would encounter in the world of general aviation. Michael J.

I use the Baron and the C421 by Flight1 to practice my IFR before my PPC rides. I've got my Chieftain PPC coming up late January early February so I'll be hammering the old ILS and NDB approaches pretty hard in the next little while. I personally don't like flying the heavies when simulating an IFR PPC since it doens't allow me to do the full piston twin emergency drills.Chris

Thanks everyone for your replies. I guess as long as I don't learn the pitch-power-performance relationships of a B727, as they apply to tracking a G/S down to minimums, then I should be OK. :)Thanks again,Bruce.

I personally don't think there is a harm in using the 727 on the sim, after all an ILS is an ILS.. If you can fly a 727 in at 140 knots down the slope, you can fly a 172 down the slope.. the 727 just happens a "little faster" Where you might start getting messed up is the timed non precision approaches where you have to be conscious of groundspeed to your Missed Approach Point. Obviosuly the 140 knots in a 727 is going to eat the time up alot quicker than the 90 knots in a 172. The best advice I can give on any approach is don't chase the needles, make nice smooth gradual changes, watch what happens, and correct accordingly.Chris

When I studied for my IR, I used FS5 exclusively for approach practice with a C172. I found that the dials and instruments were more what I could expect in the actual approach, especially when we got a round to localizer backcourse and ADF approaches. If hte heavy metal has too many avionics, then I think situaltional awareness gets too easy and a the C172 will be a little more unforgiving in hte informational displays. So, my vote goes for the C172 for IFR practice before a test...Good luck on your ticket...

Hi Chris,You make a good point about the "sameness" of an ILS approach, regardless of the category of aircraft, no doubt as long as it runs on "steam gauges" and doesn't offer the enhancement of an FMC, etc.Thanks,Bruce.

Thanks for the helpful advice. I agree that using the same type prior to an actual test is essential. It would appear that using different categories might be OK when practicing the basics of a manouver earlier in training too.I read in the November issue of Aviation Safety a great article by Ron Levy (I know him from AOPA), dealing with the pros and cons of using PC simulators (even FS) when practicing instrument flight.Thanks,Bruce.

>I read in the November issue of Aviation Safety a great>article by Ron Levy (I know him from AOPA), dealing with the>pros and cons of using PC simulators (even FS) when practicing>instrument flight.>Bruce, it would be great if you could share with us most important points of this article. I am very curious.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Hi Michael,No problem.The article primarily deals with using sims to maintain instrument currency (although not loggable). So, it's relative to actual flying, not just the comparison of sims to actual flying."Sims" are referred to primarily as Elite, On Top and Jepperson, although FS is mentioned as a "low-end" product ("......has no offically recognized place in the instructional environment..." [quoting Aviation Safety and the author, Ron Levy] ). FTDs and fully-blown simulators are also mentioned.A study is referred to, where a bunch of pilots were given an IPC, then another 6 months later. In the intervening time, some did no flying at all, some did real flying and some did only FTD simulation. Disturbing was he fact that some "passed" the IPC in the sim, but could not in actual flying. On the other hand, those that used the FTD were better than those who did not fly anything real or virtual.Several advantages are pointed out. Obviously the fact that one can repeat a certain instrument procedure over and over in the sim, with no time wasted getting to the practice area, etc. Also pre-flying a trip to a new airport.I believe that the most important point made is that when bad habits are learned, they are hard to unlearn. And even when they appear to be unlearnt, when those skills are required in earnest one day, the first-learned habits often automatically over-ride hours and hours spent in unlearning them. The point here is that while a sim may be useful in helping maintain currency for an experienced IR pilot, it is not so for a person who has still to learn to fly by instruments (as those bad habits may be formed first). Of course, if one never intends to actually fly, it doesn't matter.This is an excellent article, and Ron is well known in aviation circles and a credible reference in aviation. There is no reference to VFR flying, and I think that we might all agree that the visual references in the sim are so different to actual that it's of doubtful advantage to use a sim for that. Bruce.

A couple thoughts here. I have a bit over 1,000 hrs military instructor time in the Cessna 172 (T-41), T-38s, and the C-141B. I believe that while you're actually training for a real IFR ticket, you'd be best served to stick with airplanes of similar characteristics to the one you're training in. Early in the game, developing a sense of timing and a single set of cues and references for pitch and heading corrections are important. When I was doing my first Air Force staff job (3+ years behind a desk) I wanted a way to keep some instrument proficiency without spending $thousands of my own money on private flying. I looked at MSFS (I think version 4 was current then) and ended up spending around $1000 for Elite, and it served the purpose well.Since then I have seen a tremendous amount of convergence in the capabilities of expensive specialized programs like Elite (which is an FAA-certified PC-ATD that can be used in the right circumstances to log creditable dual IFR flying instruction) and what I once considered a "toy" in the form of MSFS. FS9, with a high-quality add-on panel or something like Enrico Schiratti's Project Magenta general aviation panel, is an effective GA IFR training/practice tool...in the right hands and properly set up. With either, you can drill the procedural aspects of an approach, and exercise your instrument crosscheck. You won't get the "feel"...the acceleration, sounds, and even smells this way, but I will say unabashedly that I really wish I had tools like this available when I was first learning to do it. As I understand it, the U. S. Navy now issues MSFS and a T-34 add-on to every one of their flight training students when they in-process to Aviation Indoctrination. That says something about our "hobby."RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Washington, D.C.

Interesting, Bob. Thanks for providing another perspective.I have On Top, a program that only simulates the 172 (older "N" variant), and has a virtual CFII (which is much more unforgiving than the real type). Subsequent forum discussions with the author of that article do not even support that as good pre-emption of the actual IR practical, due the missing "interactivity" brtween the CFII and instrument student. (I can't clip his message to this forum for obvious copyright reasons, and the link to the thread will only work for AOPA members).Thanks again. This thread has given some intesting perspectives.Bruce.

I agree with Bob's sentiments-and have certainly found simming very valuable for all my training-including my ppl way back with fs4.With that in mind-when I did my ifr years ago-at a certain point I found the ifr sim I had (ift pro and later jepp flitepro)-while good for practicing certain aspects such as holds, & situational awareness etc. left me flat in other aspects -especially in that they didn't really resemble the particular plane I flew-both in numbers, and instrumentation. In ift's case the instruments didn't even look like real instruments-and at a certain point after getting the basics I felt like it wasn't so useful-looking at unrealistic instruments in all the wrong places and not necessarily all that helpful.That is why I ended up doing my plane from photographs in fs-it just added that much more use for training. Add the real weather, atc etc.-it ain't perfect but it gets you pretty close in the mental areas. (I do wish the instruments were smoother-fs2000 of course took a lot of heat over the smooth instruments vs. the stutter outside view-but I was pretty happy there-hoping for fs2006!).When I recently did my comm. inst. multi rating-likewise the first thing I did was make a fs cockpit from photos of the duchess I was using.I know for a fact it saved me hours, money, and contributed to sharpness. Using the default Baron would have been somewhat helpful-but not to the same extent.So I guess-the closer to the real experience you can make it the better.I would personally suggest trying to make a cockpit-perhaps from photos of what you use-and then of course upload it here!I had to laugh when reading a training manual from way back-talking about making a cardboard mockup of a cockpit or sitting in a chair visualizing "in the cockpit" so one could practice mentally the procedures. Way past that now! :-)http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/55888.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/55889.jpghttp://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/Geofdog2.jpg

Hi Geof,Your own experiences are testimony to what is possible with sims. Thanks for the perspective.I started real flying way before I had sims, gave it up at around 30 hours in 1993 (had soloed and done most of the PP XC time by then out of a Class D airport in the SFO Bay Area). Then I got FS5 for a present and was faced with the challenge of actually using a computer (which I now build, thanks in part to sims :) ). I took up real flying again in 2001, and immediately recognized the differences from some 8 years of only simming. But I had that initial first feel at flying doing actual hours.The IR, on the other hand, is far more intimidating to me. Sure, I now fly XC's on VOR radials and airways alone (VFR). But I also recognize that there's a lot of complexity in this rating. I'm at that stage of taking the IR written in a few weeks, and then will look at starting the practical, so it's not far off (I have also the 50 hours XC, including into Class C airspace). Most practical work will be very new to me, so I'm hesitant to do anything that will make it harder or somehow dilute the teaching. And it's obvious that from a range of reputable sources there are various opinions right across the board on this topic. (Just some perspective to what lead to this thread).Once again, thanks for your reply.Bruce. (145 hours TT)