I've read the FSXisms in the tutorial, but I want to know more about SIMisms. What is it that we simmers are doing that really shouldn't be doing?

I've tried my hardest to learn everything from the documentation provided by PMDG, the procedures, checklists, etc. Watching some of these youtubes, people are making tutorials as if they were experts, while they're not even following basic procedures.

For example, I've been given the impression from this site that autoland is the exception, not the rule. For this reason I stopped using the autoland a few weeks back and have since learned how to properly land.  I know some simmers are using the autoland for every landing - which would be a simism because that's not what happens in real life.

 

I know some could write a novel, but I'm more looking for like a top ten.. or more I guess. If I have bad sim habits, I'd like to stop doing them, so the more people point out the more I can learn what not to do.

 

Thanks!

First, have a good disk imaging program. That changes an ohoh from a disaster/reinstall to half an hour waiting for your computer to be restored to an earlier time.

 

True Image

ShadowProtect

Macrium Reflect (has free version)

EaseUs ToDo (has a free version)

 

Treat those new to the hobby with courtesy and respect. We all started off in a place where we were newbies. We appreciated the kindness shown by those with more knowledge. Just as we wondered at what motivated the know-it-all/defenders-of-the-faith types, who looked down their long noses and pontificated; leaving us feeling a little cheap for asking the question.

 

EDIT: I may have inadvertently missed the point of the thread. If it's procedural, please delete this post with my apologies.

Curiously, a deleted post hit the mark. Graham, I was thinking more procedural, but I appreciate the courtesy and respect idea. I haven't run into the "get a clue rookie" responses in this forum.

Another example might be setting the takeoff trim to the hundredth decimal place instead of just eyeballing it (although my original comp's graphics were so bad I couldn't eyeball it very well). Or deleting discontinuities, or eliminating vectors in the FMC, or obsessing over the Cost Index, Overusing the derates without any concept of what they are (and so on). 

​

 I stopped using the autoland a few weeks back and have since learned how to properly land.  I know some simmers are using the autoland for every landing - which would be a simism because that's not what happens in real life.

That's a good start. Try hand flying as much as practical. It's not necessarily simism and some pilots do hit the CMD button as soon as 400' AGL.

​

You don't really need to know your arrival and runway when preflighting your flightplan in the FMC. These things can change. I leave them blank unless it's a very short flight, or if I need an accurate fuel estimate. In fact, for fun you can pretend to receive a new arrival when you're near your destination and reprogram it!

​

​Weights are weights. 127.1 ZFW is 127.1 thousand pounds. It doesn't matter if it's mostly pax and some cargo, or mostly cargo and no pax. (Realistically, more pax would make a warmer cabin and is more demanding to the PACKS, but... whatever).

Try starting the clock prior to your take off run and stop it when you're vacating for that extra line pilot realism.

I mostly use my imagination on what I might see. Maybe today the APU is inop, so I'll start #2 at the gate and then crossbled start after the pushback. Runway change, gate change. A simism is that everything has to go according to plan. Not always! Try changing something and see how you deal with it!

Another example might be setting the takeoff trim to the hundredth decimal place instead of just eyeballing it (although my original comp's graphics were so bad I couldn't eyeball it very well). Or deleting discontinuities, or eliminating vectors in the FMC, or obsessing over the Cost Index, Overusing the derates without any concept of what they are (and so on). 

Yes, those are good examples, too. And speaking of "overly accurate", try loading a slightly different weight than you planned. If PFPX tells me my ZFW is 127.1, I might load 126.8 or 127.3 in the sim.

I've tried my hardest to learn everything from the documentation provided by PMDG, the procedures, checklists, etc. Watching some of these youtubes, people are making tutorials as if they were experts, while they're not even following basic procedures.

 

This will sound a bit backward, since I have some videos on YouTube of my own, but that place is by far one of the worst places to go to learn. It can also be the best, but knowing good from bad takes some effort on the part of the viewer to learn enough to know the difference. Some of the flashiest videos can also have some of the worst content.

 

It's also a simple fact of the aviation realm in general, though. Some of the personalities attracted to aviation tend to be a little sophomoric. That's not just a pointed observation at other people; I was that way for a while, particularly right after getting my private pilot certificate. There are a number of people who will claim to be pilots, but won't specify at what level. The problem is that a lot of the airline stuff requires in-depth instrument rating (and above) knowledge, which many of them do not have even if they do hold some form of certificate. Moral there is to be careful, and find someone who will acknowledge where they got their knowledge, or at least discount the fact that it may not be precise, or follows a different procedure.

 

 

For example, I've been given the impression from this site that autoland is the exception, not the rule. For this reason I stopped using the autoland a few weeks back and have since learned how to properly land.  I know some simmers are using the autoland for every landing - which would be a simism because that's not what happens in real life.

 

Definite simism, and I hate that it's perpetuated. It really does cheapen the public view of pilots.

 

 

 

I know some could write a novel, but I'm more looking for like a top ten.. or more I guess. If I have bad sim habits, I'd like to stop doing them, so the more people point out the more I can learn what not to do.

• ANC - Aviate. Navigate. Communicate. - In. That. Order. If a controller says do something, do it, and then read it back unless you are unsure of the instruction. Do not read it back and then take several seconds (or even minutes - yes, seriously) to do it.

   

• Autoland - An exception and not the norm. It's also only (currently) available on ILS installations, regardless of CAT.

   

• "ILS landing" - *shudder* - It's an ILS approach. What follows is (hopefully) a landing, regardless of its automatic, or manual nature.

   

• Removing discontinuities - Unless you're sure it should be removed, leave it. Generics: Middle of a route? Check to ensure current nav data. If current nav data, question Dispatcher for route validity (made using current nav data). SID/STAR? Leave it, unless it's between your core route and the SID/STAR (in which case, fuss at your dispatcher for giving you a weak route - transitions are there to connect to your core route, so a correctly created route will route from and to SID transitions where available).

   

• SIDs/STARs, Always - No. Not always. If you're not departing/arriving to/from a popular direction at an airport, you might not need a SID/STAR.

  Example: BWI departures directly to the north are simply vectored onto V31/33/93, despite the presence of SIDs.

   

• Hyperfocusing on various things - Weight is weight; you don't have cockpit tooltips in the real plane; and CIs usually change. Though the same weight on a different seating layout will cause CG (and therefore trim) to change, obsessing over it isn't going to add to your sim experience. The trim calculations in the real plane are going to be off since every airline uses some form of assumed passenger weight, so eyeball it. You're going to adjust it in the air anyway. Many if not most operators vary CI. Stop contributing and linking to "databases" of them.

   

• Requesting clearance "as filed" - As opposed to...? This is what goes through my head every time I hear that: "Hey, ATC, I know I filed a flight plan, but I'm requesting clearance via whatever routing you're feeling like giving me today." Just leave the 'as filed' part off. If you must fill that 'void,' simply add the destination: "...clearance to Denver."

   

• "With you" - This one is kind of nitpicky, but it does rub some controllers the wrong way. Keep it simple: "Washington Center, Cactus 123, FL360." Done.

   

• Asking for the runways in use - Can you pick up the ATIS? No? Then wait. (If you're online and there is no ATIS, the generic approximation is: "Are you in the descent? No? Then wait.") If you need to select a STAR (which in many cases is valid), simply look at the METAR and guess. Change it later if you need to.

   

• Specifying VFR/IFR in a taxi clearance request - Not sure if other countries do this, but it is not standard FAA phraseology.

   

• Misquoting various regulations - My favorite one to get people on is the 250/10 rule. If you're going to quote a reg, make sure you read the whole reg first.

   

• "My friend who's a pilot said [something different than what is being discussed]" - Really? That's cool. Chances are one of the following:

  a - That person was speaking generically in an effort to avoid the 30 minute discussion that would have otherwise been required.

  b - That person doesn't understand that different operators have different procedures (or didn't mention it when you asked).

  c - That person doesn't know the realm being discussed (common when asking non-airline pilots about airline operations; or airline pilots about ATC things).

  d - That person doesn't know what they're talking about at all.

  ...also, see hearsay, and its general acceptance as proof, regardless of legal setting.

   

  Basically, when in aviation discussions, try to use verifiable sources so that people can find the truth for themselves instead of simply taking your word for it.

Tried to fit that into 10 points. Hopefully that's effective, but short enough.

I don't have any additional payware... the ZFW gets pre-loaded... what happens if you get the zfw weight wrong?

I was confused about the arrival runway too at first. It was mostly due to unfamiliarity with the FMC. Nowadays I load static real world weather and can guess the runway arrival. 25% of the time though I guess wrong, but will hear about it when ATIS starts working - giving me enough time to prepare (most of the time). Seems like I'm using the spoilers too often though - I can only remember once in all my flights as a passenger where they had to deploy the spoilers on descent.

I use FSX default ATC to get taxi / takeoff / landing info, sometimes too they'll put you on a different runway you'd expect. Practice makes perfect, even practicing the unexpected I guess.

Clock starting, good idea.

I don't have any additional payware... the ZFW gets pre-loaded... what happens if you get the zfw weight wrong?

 

The plane thinks you're heavier/lighter than you really are. It's not a huge deal, but if you think about it:

 

An airline might assume everyone is 180 pounds. If you have a plane full of 200 pound people, then you're going to be heavier than assumed by 20 * [# of Passengers]. So, that figure you got from dispatch is only truly an estimate anyway.

 

In the sim, if you're setting the ZFW on the Payload page, then it should be the same on the INIT REF page (since the weight on the Payload page is a known value, because you were the one who set it specifically to that value).

 

 

 

"ILS landing" - *shudder* - It's an ILS approach. 
 

 

I never really thought of it that way. You're right, the landing is separate from the approach. ILS gets you there, you still gotta land the thing. 

I like the ATC simisms. I'll be looking for more of that when I move on to Vatsim someday.Two of your ATC simisms are perpetuated by FSX itself. The first thing the FSX pilot does when he contacts ATC he says "....with you" and the ATC response is "cleared... VFR / IFR....as filed" It would take someone telling me not to say that in order for me to stop saying it cause I would have figured the FSX ATC chatter was desired and correct. 

 

 

 

 

I never really thought of it that way. You're right, the landing is separate from the approach. ILS gets you there, you still gotta land the thing. 

 

I like the ATC simisms. I'll be looking for more of that when I move on to Vatsim someday.Two of your ATC simisms are perpetuated by FSX itself. The first thing the FSX pilot does when he contacts ATC he says "....with you" and the ATC response is "cleared... VFR / IFR....as filed" It would take someone telling me not to say that in order for me to stop saying it cause I would have figured the FSX ATC chatter was desired and correct. 

 

MSFS is presumably where those ATC simisms originated. Simmers learn to say it because that is how FSX ATC phraseology works. Default FSX autopilot behaviour also teaches simmers bad habits. Far too many people imagine the autothrottle is the only airspeed control and that when climbing you always set a vertical speed and have the A/T in speed mode.

I'm not sure if MSFS is entirely to blame; I've heard "with you" in real life quite a bit. I think it just sounds better to some (other) people, even though it's not standard phraseology. 

"Good morning Houston Chancellor N8104 Qeebek climbing through one-two-thousand," is standard phraseology in Texas, ya' gotta get the emphasis just right like a dialed back Robin Williams "Gooooood morning Viet NAM!".... we also say sir and ma'am on the radio when appropriate.

I'm not sure if MSFS is entirely to blame; I've heard "with you" in real life quite a bit. I think it just sounds better to some (other) people, even though it's not standard phraseology. 

No doubt and that's probably where MSFS picked it up in the first place. But most simmers won't have heard it in real life first.

 

If you use editvoicepack (an absolute must have if you use MSFS ATC) it gives you the option to change phraseology from US style to European style. I can't remember if it still says "with you". Shame it doesn't yet have a Texas version. Yeee Hah.

Watching some of these youtubes, people are making tutorials as if they were experts, while they're not even following basic procedures.

Could you please give some people who do this? As someone who is trying to learn how to use the 777 and NGX it would be nice to know which channels to avoid. 

Could you please give some people who do this? As someone who is trying to learn how to use the 777 and NGX it would be nice to know which channels to avoid.

I can't give a specific example as I don't use youtube very often, but it's a tip off when you read the comments section and it comes up that the person who made the video is a high school kid or sometimes even younger and they're trying to teach aviation or airline flying techniques.

 

One simism that cracks me up is when people say "yeah, I fly mostly IFR", meaning they mostly fly airliners in the sim, and then think that every landing must be done using an ILS approach with or without autoland. Mainly because they can't actually fly the plane past 400 feet before hitting the AP or hand fly an approach to landing.

 

The other simism that gets me is the person who has absolutely no aviation knowledge or experience, gets FSX or P3D, then immediately jumps head first into planes like PMDG level aircraft without even flying the default Cessna and learning the basics. Even worse is the said simmer, who then after a short time of being able to fly his NGX from point A to B using the AP the entire time, decides now is the time to start doling out their expert aviation advice to others.

 

 

Sean Campbell

I dare say that a lot of themes mentioned here--not the purely aviation-related items--are intrinsic to the general internet experience. The free flow of information has undoubtedly changed humanity for the better but with some, er, side-effects.

 

And if I could add an item: not reading the manuals. This is of course important for aircraft but also for any product you may buy. I tend to gather that flightsim community is predomintantly male and, of course, we don't like to read manuals. But doing so would prevent a lot of repetitive posts and threads asking about issues that are plainly covered in the manual...