To what extent can "flying" personal computer simulators contribute towards the knowledge and skills required to fly real aircraft?

I believe this has changed a lot in recent years. Most pilots over a certain age still stubbornly think of sims as pure evil. In my experience though (I fly both) I've never seen any of the things instructors complain about, only positives. Indeed when I went for my very first lesson years ago, the instructor asked me repeatedly if I was sure I'd never flown before. You'll still find real pilots who refuse to even acknowledge them, but in my opinion there's no doubt that they help.People also used to say that the pc sim is good for learning procedures and nothing else. This is also not true anymore. The way some of these modern addon aircraft fly in the sim is amazing. It's damn near the real thing. I'd reccommend a good sim to anyone who wants to prepare for the real thing.The thing that frustrates me most of all is that we have students going through our school, doing their IF sim training on our approved, legal simulator. My PC at home with FSX and all its addons is at the very least one hundred times better in every single way, including realism. And it cost 10% of what the "proper" sim cost. Strangely, it's about time the real world of aviation caught up to the virtual world of aviation.One instructor was amazed the other day to discover that the school's sim made the sky go black at night. This is how outdated most anti-sim opinions are and should not be taken seriously at all.

20 hours of sim time can be used for the Instrument Rating in all class/categories.50 hours of approved sim time can be used towards total time for Commercial Pilot Airplane certification.50 hours is a chunk of time, so the FAA realizes the importance simulators can have when used properly. As far as contributing towards knowledge and skill to fly real aircraft, that depends on how seriously the user takes it, what sort of knowledge they posses, and even what hardware is being used (among other things). In other words, if you've got no training background whatsoever and no knowledge of proper habits, techniques, and procedures, I suppose it can actually do a bit of damage that the CFI will have to undo.That being said, I endorse the use of home flight simulators for one reason: Instrument work. I used my sim when going for the instrument rating years ago to practice scan and the approaches at all surrounding airports I was going to possibly get on my Instrument check ride. It helped me commit frequencies and MDAs/DAs to memory.Finally, here's a short take. The only skill I believe can be worked on in the home sim is instrument related. Knowledge depends on the user's goals and ability to properly self teach.

I agree. For sure there are plenty of RW pilots who get all sniffy about PC simulators - but they and their forebears probably also got all sniffy about autopilots, ILS, fly-by-wire and GPS. Same in any profession, and just as misguided. There are bound to be limits to the realism of any computer simulation. Even with payware addons, FS can't properly simulate icing, contaminated runways, microbursts or wake or building-induced turbulence, for instance. Its management of other traffic is pretty ropey and unless you fly online there is no fully realistic ATC. But those are relatively minor niggles about something which cost (even when it came out) less than half as much as an hour's flying lesson. Add some decent payware and you've got pretty good flight dynamics, systems and instrument procedures and a reasonable representation of the weather and its effects. Master all of those and you have a fair idea of some of what's going on in the real world, yes. It can be a fairly unbalanced set of knowledge, for sure - knowing how to program an FMS or execute an NDB/DME approach without knowing how to check a fuel tank for contamination is not something you'd see in a RW pilot. But it's knowledge all the same.That said, it is still a simulator. Someone once described RW flying as involving "hours of tedium punctuated by moments of sheer terror". With FS, if you get the tedium you can go and do something else... and you'll never get the sheer terror. What's more, you can stop, change, slow down or speed up time, get rid of other traffic, change the weather at will, switch aircraft in mid-air, taxi through other aircraft or buildings, roll a 737, land on whichever runway you want, ignore ATC, and generally do lots of other things that would be impossible or career-ending in real life, without FS stopping you in any way. In other words, getting the most out of it means treating it seriously - adding your own self-imposed realism if you like. If you remember religiously to switch seat belt signs on and off at the right times - even though they actually have no effect at all in FS besides going 'ping' - you're on the right lines.

20 hours of sim time can be used for the Instrument Rating in all class/categories.50 hours of approved sim time can be used towards total time for Commercial Pilot Airplane certification.50 hours is a chunk of time, so the FAA realizes the importance simulators can have when used properly.

This has been the case for a long time and certainly has nothing to do with the advancement of the home simulator in recent years. All of the above was decided when most flying school simulators used for such training didn't even have a screen to show scenery, just an instrument panel. I found that I had a vastly more valuable experience using my own sim, whereas very little knowledge was gained from the school's sim. Yes, the FAA realizes the importance simulators can have, but none of this is based on the sims we know today.

As far as contributing towards knowledge and skill to fly real aircraft, that depends on how seriously the user takes it, what sort of knowledge they posses, and even what hardware is being used (among other things). In other words, if you've got no training background whatsoever and no knowledge of proper habits, techniques, and procedures, I suppose it can actually do a bit of damage that the CFI will have to undo.

This is exactly the argument I still hear from many instructors, but I've never seen any proof of it. I stepped from the sim into the real thing with no "bad habits learned in the sim". I've also never seen a student bring these bad habits from the sim to the cockpit, and the things they are doing wrong are quickly put right. Hardly a habit then. There's no doubt that students with lots of sim time, and I mean sim time in a decent sim like we have at home, not the awful things they still have at flying school, are better prepared in terms of instruments AND flying the aircraft.Stepping into a real aircraft is such a far cry from sitting at home, I don't see how any "bad habits" can creep into a real cockpit from home simming. It's a completely different environment and I've never skipped a checklist in the air because I did so at home in the sim when I was messing around. I just don't see how these two could ever be confused, and indeed I've never seen a student do so.Now of course there's no way a sim is ever going to get even close to teaching someone the more intricate delicacies of aircraft handling. That can only come from real world flying. But we aren't talking about that, we're talking about how a sim can prepare someone who wants to start flying the real thing, and for that I see nothing wrong with our awesome home sims. Some of the older ones they actually make students fly at schools though... those don't teach anyting at all about what an aircraft feels like to fly.

Finally, here's a short take. The only skill I believe can be worked on in the home sim is instrument related. Knowledge depends on the user's goals and ability to properly self teach.

Sorry but I disagree. If anything I took more aircraft handling skills to my first flying lesson than instrument and systems knowledge. The knowledge part is always going to be up to the student, but the student who gains lots of knowledge while simming is a student interested in aviation. Those who don't bother to go reading up on things while simming are usually the same ones who don't take a real interest when it comes to the real thing too. The sim itself can't be judged for "imparting knowledge".Of course once you start flying for real you learn at least a million times more, but as far as learning the basics of handling an aircraft, our home sims are very useful. The old sims they have in flying schools are absolutely NOT useful for this, and I will agree that THOSE sims will teach you bad habits. Those sims are indeed only useful for learning about instrument flight. Then you also have to fork out the price of FSX+many addons per hour to use this dinosaur of a simulator that is approved by the FAA etc. It's all very backward.I think lots of anti-sim sentiment comes from higher hour com pilots who have developed finely tuned physical flying skills, who then get back to the sim and don't get anywhere near the real experience. I get that completely, of course the sim can't reach that level of realism. That's not the point at all though, this is about new students learning the basics of flight, and the home sim is not going to teach you anything that isn't useful. Certainly saved me hours of flying when I first did my PPL.Many hours and a com later I still encourage new pilots to get simming. I only see positives from it, and even for a higher hour pilot, the sim isn't going to magically drain your fine flying skills. It's still a hell of a lot of fun and there is still much to be learned. I use my home sim all the time, and it still teaches me things. The sim at the flying school is useless for all of this. The only time I ever go near that thing is to renew IF ratings, and it's so far removed from any real aircraft I've ever flown I almost struggle to see the relevance. Yet this is what the FAA requires, and you have to pay a fortune to use the thing. It's definitely time to move on and get rid of those sims.

Sorry but I disagree. If anything I took more aircraft handling skills to my first flying lesson than instrument and systems knowledge. The knowledge part is always going to be up to the student, but the student who gains lots of knowledge while simming is a student interested in aviation. Those who don't bother to go reading up on things while simming are usually the same ones who don't take a real interest when it comes to the real thing too. The sim itself can't be judged for "imparting knowledge".Of course once you start flying for real you learn at least a million times more, but as far as learning the basics of handling an aircraft, our home sims are very useful. The old sims they have in flying schools are absolutely NOT useful for this, and I will agree that THOSE sims will teach you bad habits. Those sims are indeed only useful for learning about instrument flight. Then you also have to fork out the price of FSX+many addons per hour to use this dinosaur of a simulator that is approved by the FAA etc. It's all very backward.I think lots of anti-sim sentiment comes from higher hour com pilots who have developed finely tuned physical flying skills, who then get back to the sim and don't get anywhere near the real experience. I get that completely, of course the sim can't reach that level of realism. That's not the point at all though, this is about new students learning the basics of flight, and the home sim is not going to teach you anything that isn't useful. Certainly saved me hours of flying when I first did my PPL.Many hours and a com later I still encourage new pilots to get simming. I only see positives from it, and even for a higher hour pilot, the sim isn't going to magically drain your fine flying skills. It's still a hell of a lot of fun and there is still much to be learned. I use my home sim all the time, and it still teaches me things. The sim at the flying school is useless for all of this. The only time I ever go near that thing is to renew IF ratings, and it's so far removed from any real aircraft I've ever flown I almost struggle to see the relevance. Yet this is what the FAA requires, and you have to pay a fortune to use the thing. It's definitely time to move on and get rid of those sims.

You've basically restated in more words the point I was trying to convey.Though I doubt you took away aircraft handling "skills" (It's not that I don't believe you, I've just heard this a million times). What I bet you did get from the home sim was a fundamental understanding of how the controls work and the basic coordination needed between hand and feet (hopefully you were using rudder pedals) So for the primary student I can see the "value" of the home simulator as far as I mentioned, but not much past that and basic VOR/GPS navigation. Which leads to my next pet peeve: Most students used to a simulator tend to be 80-95% inside the aircraft ("bad habits learned in the sim"), rarely looking out for traffic avoidance and land references. I could go on but It's Christmas Eve so I can't be bothered to sit in front of this screen for long. :Nerd:PS. Notice I'm referring to the home sim, not the little junk FTDs. Apparently, though, you've never had a run in with Redbird Simulators! They're wonderful.PSS. I'm definitely not an adopter of the anti-sim attitude. On the contrary. I just don't want it getting more credit than it deserves.

It doesn't teach you anything about "seat of the pants" or "stick and rudder" flying that I do. lol

It doesn't teach you anything about "seat of the pants" or "stick and rudder" flying that I do. lol

Stick and rudder is non-tangible; Not just something learned or studied from a book, but natural ability and honed through experience (the right experiences).Nothing can replicate the things you, I, or some other regular pilots have experienced, either. That's the beauty of knowing and experiencing what we do! Cub flying is the best practice I get. Eyes outside, everything is felt through the finger tips and toes. It's truly a one of a kind feeling.

When that radial engine spools up I feel it all throughout my body, I cant describe it with words.

You've basically restated in more words the point I was trying to convey.Though I doubt you took away aircraft handling "skills" (It's not that I don't believe you, I've just heard this a million times). What I bet you did get from the home sim was a fundamental understanding of how the controls work and the basic coordination needed between hand and feet (hopefully you were using rudder pedals) So for the primary student I can see the "value" of the home simulator as far as I mentioned, but not much past that and basic VOR/GPS navigation. Which leads to my next pet peeve: Most students used to a simulator tend to be 80-95% inside the aircraft ("bad habits learned in the sim"), rarely looking out for traffic avoidance and land references. I could go on but It's Christmas Eve so I can't be bothered to sit in front of this screen for long. :(

Beyond the basics actually. What about all the first lessons a PPL does. Climbing & descending, relationship between pitch & power, turns, steep turns, approach speeds... Now of course in the real aircraft this all feels different, but if you have an understanding of all these things, you should be able to do it pretty easily. You do need to read and learn while you use the sim of course, but I took all of the above with me and ended up having to fly around aimlessly for 20 hours on a student license to get the hours required for a PPL. Other students who arrive, who have taken their home sims seriously, all show a similar advantage. As for the "head-inside" thing, yeah they all do that, but so do all the students who don't have home sims. Seriously, I find that most new students do it, irrespective of their simming background.

PS. Notice I'm referring to the home sim, not the little junk FTDs. Apparently, though, you've never had a run in with Redbird Simulators! They're wonderful.PSS. I'm definitely not an adopter of the anti-sim attitude. On the contrary. I just don't want it getting more credit than it deserves.

Oh there are some awesome sims out there, but few small schools have the money for them! I completely understand what you're saying about sims getting more credit than they deserve, but for me that's really only applicable within the flightsim community. In real flying schools with real instructors, with their FTDs and pre-1995 knowledge of sims, the home sim deserves a lot more credit, not less.

It doesn't teach you anything about "seat of the pants" or "stick and rudder" flying that I do. lol

I'd argue that it does a good job of relaying to the user how stick-n-rudder work translates into; pitch/roll/yaw.. climbing, descending, level-flight, climbing-turns, descending-turns... and it's all replicated very well for learning how the instruments display it all... ala.. pitching for airspeed, and powering for vertical speed, co-ordinating turns.. accounting for flap-use, stabilizing an approach, flaring, stalling, adjusting to winds.And the theories and use of everything from dead-reckoning, to instrument navigtion.. understanding and applying the differences between; course, heading, track, bearing, and relative-bearing... using a compass, and accounting for compass errors, and executing compass-turns..It also makes a good, "seeing is believing" when you go from even the simplest fligh-plan, actually accomplishing it..

And... it has definately made me a better, safer pilot (been flying since 1979).. by keeping that piloting, "in the cockpit", frame of mind sharp during long periods between actual flying..

My other interest is medical simulation. Much harder to simulate a human being than an aircraft. But there is no doubt that medical professionals learn useful skills from simulation. The interesting question is what is learnt well and what is learnt poorly through any type of low or high fidelity simulation.In medicine, you learn: practical skills, crisis resource management, critical thinking/clinical reasoning. You try and make up for the things that a mannikin can't do by anticipating them and working around them so real learning still occurs.If you get it right, the 'terror' mentioned above still happens to a reasonable extent! I see no reason why you can't get the same emotional involvement in a home flight simulator. Like medical sim, you'll need some suspension of disbelief and you need to take it seriously. You need to care about the outcome. Fly something like the ngx and do it 'by the book'. Use thenright software and peripherals to increase immersion. Simulation never intends to relace reality, but it does aim to augment and reinforce what the real world teaches you.

I have no experience in flying real aircraft (unfortunately), but lets think of simulation from the hardware perspective. Airline companies and airforces have used simulators for a long time to train their pilots for flying the real thing. Simulators are not the only tools, but part of the pilot training. They are considered necessary part of the training for at least 20 years or so, so simulation itself is nothing to be underestimated. Of course, these extremely expensive simulators include fully operational cockpits and in many cases live operator who is simulating air controller etc.So where are we now? We (at least most of us) have no true cockpit in our homes, just some sort of joystick, keyboard and possible a throttle and pedals. But our computing power is most likely superior to those multimillion dollar simulators 10 or 15 years ago, so rendering and modeling should be far better if handled properly by the software. So, my point is, our addons at least _can_ be better to those in terms of physics calculation or at least, on par with those dedicated simulators. And, as I said, we lose on the proper systems modeling when it comes to the cockpit: no VC can ever replace physical cockpit. Also commercial simulator software also is more or less a compromise: if you had to model a single aircraft, you could write code for just that especially, but FSX or Xplane has to simulate very different kind of aircraft. There is of course plugins and addons, like A2A accusim, which take modeling further from the host sim, but they are still limited by certain restrictions by the host sim. But overall, I think we are in a situation which is far better than it was with certified training sims in the 90's when you compare processing power and calcultations of the physics engine.Main gripe IMO, with every simulator for PC is the lack of feel. This is main problem with combat simulators. Even if you have force feedback, you have none or very artifical feel about the aircraft. In a dogfight it is often very difficult to fly, when you don't have the proper response to your stick and how the plane is handling when pushing it to its limits: how near it is to stall, is it trimmed in the optimal way etc. For example, I find my aircraft often very suddenly stall in a tight turn, because I have no response to my controls. I have to learn the simulator behavior to know how the plane is doing in different situations, I'm not learning the plane as to say.My point is, and this is how I _think_ it is: with proper models, such as A2A or PMDG we can have near true aircraft behavior, same as professional sims a little while ago, but we never can have that "butt feeling" needed to fly real aircraft. That's why probably real pilots don't get their certificates based on purely very accurate simulators even today.

As for the "head-inside" thing, yeah they all do that, but so do all the students who don't have home sims. Seriously, I find that most new students do it, irrespective of their simming background.

I disagree. Most non-sim newbies don't know what each gauge is for or how to use it anyway. Regardless, from the first flight on I have eyes outside of the aircraft, instruments as support. That's what a Private Pilot is supposed to do.