I know I'm lucky because of this, but the systems operation and cockpit layouts of essentially any airplane come quite simply to me. To fly an aircraft well, you must have knowledge of its characteristics at all ends of the flight envelope, especially at low speeds. So when I have a new plane, I sit down with systems off, and start it up, after reading the manual (depending on the plane; a new GA piston is obvious). Then, I taxi to the runway, and will do a first takeoff, or in a large plane/high performance (i.e. P-51 Mustang) I will do a high-speed taxi, followed by an RTO, to get its runway feel. The next time I takeoff, fly enough to pull up all the flaps, and I run around the pattern maybe a dozen times (I find for an airliner, 5 is enough, because you aren't hopping around between airports like in a Cub). After maybe three or four landings, I'll take it to the brink of a stall, to get a feeling for its stalling behavior, and sensitivity. For an airliner, I'll do a short, regional trip regardless of its size, to get a feel for takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, approach, and landing.

 

I'm probably not going to buy the 777 because flying Boeings is so similar in flows and proceedures. Once you have the NGX down, the transition will be relatively easy.

 

Now, the DC6 - that's another story and I am really looking forward to the challenge of learning that beast.

 

Clin WAre

 

As an instructor for a living, I'd stress the following:

Practical application trumps everything else. The effect of intensity (being there, interacting with something) is hugely important in learning. That said, if you love reading, that's great, but don't think reading alone will get you to learn it all. Words are just words until the brain gives them meaning. Most of that meaning comes from using the words, which in this case, is flying the sim.

.....

 

Technical manuals aren't generally made to be read. They're made to be referenced.

 

I'll agree 100% with the first part, and disagree 100% with your last 2 sentences. Your technical manuals (system description) are indeed meant to be read. Unless you've read them, you'll forever be wondering why something happens. 75% of the questions posted in the first few weeks after a new FS product is released are answered explicitly in the manual. What you don't generally need to do is memorize the technical manual. After reading it, you have an idea what's in there. When something happens, you know where to look to find infomation.

 

When you go do a type rating, you'll be very familiar with the technical manual before they even let you into the simulator.

 

The last new plane in FS was the MD11. First I read the manual. While reading, I made mental note of how the MD11 differs from my usual plane- the 767. That way, I don't try and operate it like a 767, I have an idea of how to operate it like an MD11. Some chapters (hydraulic) will put you to sleep, and since it's flightsim, you tend to skip over a lot of it. Others (autoflight) you must read word by word.

 

Once the product is released, I plan a short flight- usually under 2 hours. The first few trips will be short, so I get a chance to go through everything multiple times before I try to cross the Atlantic. Somewhere in the mix, I'll throw in a few circuits to get a feel for the plane. On those short sectors, I play with all the new features the plane has to offer, so that when I finally go online on VATSIM, I can execute the ATC instructions.

 

Never be afraid to disengage the AP and fly the plane. I beat that into my students all the time. They jump into an airplane with an AP, and as they try to figure out why the LOC won't capture, we've blown through the approach course. If it isn't doing what you want it to do, especially online, disconnect the AP and just fly it.

 

Paul

For the most part if you know one modem Boeing then you know the fundamentals of them all... There's going to be differences mostly on the overhead - the autopilot, FMC etc are going to be very similar if you know the NGX well. If fact I think I may include a guide for transitioning from the NGX to the 777 that explains any major differences worth knowing about.

When you go do a type rating, you'll be very familiar with the technical manual before they even let you into the simulator.

[...]

Some chapters (hydraulic) will put you to sleep, and since it's flightsim, you tend to skip over a lot of it. Others (autoflight) you must read word by word.

 

I just said they're not meant to be read. The way in which they are written is purely informational, which doesn't lend well to reading. They're actually intended to be referenced in parts, as I mentioned earlier. The FARs are the same. None of them were meant to be read.

 

The fact that they have to be known before certain parts of life (checkrides, tests, other checks and so on) is external to those who wrote the manuals. If you ask any technical writer, they'll tell you the same. Sure, they're required in some ways to be "read" in order to understand the information in some cases before the opportunity to practice it in person, but that's not how they're intended.

 

If anything, though, in order to meet the requirements you listed, you'd definitely need to read up on certain sections. Still, though, the information won't be fully understood until that person steps into the simulator. Our advantage is that we don't need to show up with knowledge, and it would be a better use of our time to use the manuals as they're intended: reference. This is especially more the case with us because we also have tutorials and intro manuals that are written in conversational terms, that are meant to be read.

For the most part if you know one modem Boeing then you know the fundamentals of them all... There's going to be differences mostly on the overhead - the autopilot, FMC etc are going to be very similar if you know the NGX well. If fact I think I may include a guide for transitioning from the NGX to the 777 that explains any major differences worth knowing about.

 

I have one under construction.... Shouldn't take that long anymore.

 

Hey Aleksi,

 

That looks like a good read. I hope it comes to a PDF reader near me very soon!

I just said they're not meant to be read. The way in which they are written is purely informational, which doesn't lend well to reading. They're actually intended to be referenced in parts, as I mentioned earlier. The FARs are the same. None of them were meant to be read.

 

 

Unfortunately for us, the people who write professional manuals (not just talking about airplanes here) don't necessarily have "ease of reading" as a high priority when they make the manuals. They are most certainly meant to be read. Now if some people don't learn well that way, it's tough, but that's just the way it is.

 

The fact that they have to be known before certain parts of life (checkrides, tests, other checks and so on) is external to those who wrote the manuals. If you ask any technical writer, they'll tell you the same. Sure, they're required in some ways to be "read" in order to understand the information in some cases before the opportunity to practice it in person, but that's not how they're intended.

 

Again, I'll disagree. That mentality is way too prevalent in flight instruction today- "do it so you can pass your checkride". Whenever I get a new student, I make it clear that I'm not teaching him in order to pass a checkride. I don't expect my students to read just to pass checkrides. They're expected to read for knowledge and understanding. A checkride can only test so much. When you're out there in the real world, you're going to need to have a thorough understanding of the systems in those moments where quick decisions are needed.

 

If anything, though, in order to meet the requirements you listed, you'd definitely need to read up on certain sections. Still, though, the information won't be fully understood until that person steps into the simulator. Our advantage is that we don't need to show up with knowledge, and it would be a better use of our time to use the manuals as they're intended: reference. This is especially more the case with us because we also have tutorials and intro manuals that are written in conversational terms, that are meant to be read.

 

 

I agree with this. in FS, we have it pretty easy, as we can afford to make lots of mistakes while we don't know what we're doing. I can read about the AFDS all day, but until I start to use it, my understanding will probably be fragmented.

 

The manuals may not be "intended to be read", as you put it, but they are expected to be read. One way or another, you're going to wind up reading those manuals. If you don't you'll never make it through your training.

 

Paul

Unfortunately for us, the people who write professional manuals (not just talking about airplanes here) don't necessarily have "ease of reading" as a high priority when they make the manuals. They are most certainly meant to be read. Now if some people don't learn well that way, it's tough, but that's just the way it is.

 

Based on how you ended your post, it seems that there's a misunderstanding of my main point here.

 

My point is that the technical documentation is not meant to be read through as you would a text book, or a novel. That's a simple fact of life. As an example, no effective instructor/tutor/mentor/facilitator would ever hand a copy of the FAR/AIM to a student and just say "read." Similarly, that same person would never just drop an FCOM in someone's lap and say "memorize." If anything, they'll have someone go in and absorb specific sections at a time (the definition of referencing).

 

Little to no understanding comes from simply reading the manuals, which I know you agree with based on your comments in the last post. As such, reading the manual does you little to no good without a framework (in this case, practical application of said knowledge in FS).

 

My reason for making these statements is to discourage the casual simmer from the idea that they have to read the manual fully beforehand. This idea, of course, develops into a distaste for the manual and they won't reference it when they have questions, and then it gets brought here every week. If they know it's more for reference and no one is forcing them to read it like a book, then it's less intimidating, especially if they know it's mostly there to reference in sections.

 

Again, I'll disagree. That mentality is way too prevalent in flight instruction today- "do it so you can pass your checkride". Whenever I get a new student, I make it clear that I'm not teaching him in order to pass a checkride. I don't expect my students to read just to pass checkrides. They're expected to read for knowledge and understanding. A checkride can only test so much. When you're out there in the real world, you're going to need to have a thorough understanding of the systems in those moments where quick decisions are needed.

 

That's fine, but you may want to have a conversation with yourself:

When you go do a type rating, you'll be very familiar with the technical manual before they even let you into the simulator.

 

I didn't reference that to say I accept that mentality. To be honest, if you read some of what I've written elsewhere, you'd see that I'm a huge proponent of revisions to how training is done. Training people simply to pass gives them a very poor foundation.

 

I said it in order to address your comment in an earlier post about how people are expected to show up with knowledge before certain events. As a fact of life, these events are certain training sessions, and checkrides. This requirement is not placed on those who write the manual. Rather, this requirement is placed on the individual by someone else. Had it been placed on the individual by the writers, it would have been written differently.

 

...or, in your own words, I meant this:

The manuals may not be "intended to be read", as you put it, but they are expected to be read. One way or another, you're going to wind up reading those manuals. If you don't you'll never make it through your training.

Start > load sim> push all the buttons> if the plane starts, unisnstall it, unrealistic. If it doesn't> search manual for startup instructions> takeoff. If incounter problem PUSH ALL THE BUTTONS! If it doesn't work, search manual again.