AOPA has an interesting article about "Flight Training Devices and Desktop Simulators" here:

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/topics/training_devices.html?WT.mc_id=130125epilot&WT.mc_sect=sap

 

What's especially interesting to me is what program is missing from this list, all things considered! :LMAO:

That is a strange ommision.... to be unbiased though Aopa has been doing some things like a wine club and waging battle with Sporty's that has raised quite a few eyebrows in the pilot community as of late....so I am considering all things! :unsure:

 

http://www.aero-news...f8-85bc3864415a

What's especially interesting to me is what program is missing from this list, all things considered!

 

Which one is missing?

 

Personal computer programs, such as Microsoft Flight Simulator X, are also great training tools for simulation and proficiency. Though the time does not count toward any certificate or rating, it can be a fun and inexpensive way to practice and stay proficient.

 

Must be Prepar3D

 

Hook

Actually, is the absence of X-Plane that I found most curious! :Thinking:

That is a strange ommision.... to be unbiased though Aopa has been doing some things like a wine club and waging battle with Sporty's that has raised quite a few eyebrows in the pilot community as of late....so I am considering all things! :unsure:

Wow! What an interesting -not to mention disturbing- article. I somehow missed this controversy.

Actually, is the absence of X-Plane that I found most curious!

 

Could that mean that no hardware supplier has chosen to use it in a device even though X-Plane meets the FAA's requirements?

It could mean that the writer was just giving an example of a popular flight simulator, not trying to enumerate a list of all possible platforms.

 

Just for grins, what would that entire list be?

 

Hook

Just curious, how is AOPA waging was against Sporty's? I wasn't aware of that...

Just for grins, what would that entire list be?

I didn't see the FAA excluding anything and some requirements from this pdf sound rather basic. http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC61-126.pdf I think I saw some XP systems getting sold as certified training device.

Just curious, how is AOPA waging was against Sporty's? I wasn't aware of that...

 

Click the link in my above post to read about it...

I think I saw some XP systems getting sold as certified training device.

 

There's a discussion going on in another thread that mentions a post on the XPlane forums from 2 years ago where a flight school was talking about not renewing its four licenses because of a flight model problem where aircraft exhibit a constant left rolling tendency.

 

Update: It turns out there are some ways to fix this using tools provided with XPlane.

 

Hook

XPlane supporters seem to be defending the left rolling tendency in small aircraft as being normal.

 

Hmm.. In my Mooney 210, C150, C172, C182 and my measly 1 hour in a 1947 Luscombe tail dragger, I never experienced a tendency to roll to the left. I experienced a lot of other things that would cause both cheeks to slam shut, but that wasn't one of them. Both the Mooney and the Luscombe cockpits smelled like a gasoline bomb was sitting in your lap, but no left roll tendency. So, how do they explain that?

So, how do they explain that?

 

Some say it's normal, but I think that's more a response to people complaining about XPlane. All part of the ongoing FSX vs XPlane mystique. I have no idea why it hasn't been fixed out of the box, but as long as an easy fix exists, I'm not gonna complain. I mean, it's not like you don't have to do similar things to many FSX aircraft. Microsoft Flight had the same left roll problem after the last update, and you can bet we complained.

 

Hook

Actually, is the absence of X-Plane that I found most curious! :Thinking:

 

Precision Flight Controls uses X-Plane for its FTD, so it's not missing.

Precision Flight Controls uses X-Plane for its FTD, so it's not missing.

That's absolutely correct, but nonetheless X-Plane itself isn't explicitly mentioned, yet MSFS is...

 

...and I simply thought that more than a bit ironic. :lol: