fsx-ms If I manage to master high-end add-on planes, would I be able to fly them in real world?

[Manny 1,293]

Yes, while your passengers are admiring the view, you on the other hand are assessing every patch of passing green as a potential emergency landing spot. :smile:

 

HA Ha Ha!

 

So True!

 

Flying around Texas is not a big deal, plenty of places to put it down...but flying in Connecticut gave me the Heebie-jeebies. Too many wooded areas and not much flat areas.

 

 

[scottb613 1,188]

Yes, while your passengers are admiring the view, you on the other hand are assessing every patch of passing green as a potential emergency landing spot. :smile:

Hah - yeah - flying for real is work - if I do two (4) hour legs in a day - I'm totally wiped... Unless I'm just sputtering around the home drome - I'm usually 100% focused on flying, navigation, and communication (while always looking for the next landing spot - Northeast - Mid Atlantic)...

 

Regards,

Scott

[Flyin_thong 2]

Hah - yeah - flying for real is work - if I do two (4) hour legs in a day - I'm totally wiped... Unless I'm just sputtering around the home drome - I'm usually 100% focused on flying, navigation, and communication (while always looking for the next landing spot - Northeast - Mid Atlantic)...Regards,Scott

Having flown the in RW, in total agreement.

 

Flight simulation is not even close to anything in the real world.

[KenG 492]

Flight Simulators are defied by the FAA as Full Flight Simulators (FFS) and certified as levels A through D. EASA has a similar program certifying simulators. In fact someone mentioned that Redbird makes simulators. They do not. Redbird makes low level Basic Aviation Training Devices (BATD) and Advanced Aviation Training Devices (AATD.) Despite some of their hardware being motion it does not make it a simulator. They are training devices.

 

What about FSX? It is a game and as of changes to AC 61-136A and inspection criteria can no longer be used as the base software for an Aviation Training Device (ATD.) You may still find an old PCATD that is out there, but all manufactures were suppose to put in for a new LOA.

 

P3D or XPlane can both be used in BATD and AATD but with certified software only. The FAA has a tool when checking compliance of these devices if unauthorized additional software is found the device will no longer be certified for training. The authorized software is per the LOA by the manufacture of the device. The average person cannot put together a P3D or Xplane ATD.

 

There are also ATDs certified as Level 1 through 7 and Flight Procedures Trainers.  

 

The Appendix in the ATP PTS is the best guide of what can be done in simulators and training devices. Other than that you have to carefully look at Part 61 and 142 to determine when a simulator or training device can be used in lieu of an aircraft. In most cases you cannot not just go use a simulator or device, it has to be under a course of instruction provided by a certified Part 142 school. 

 

What about the "simulator" at the local flight school or FBO? In most cases these are devices and not simulators. Why it is common to call them sims when they are not sims and do not meet the FAA's definition of a simulator? In many cases young CFIs ignorantly call them by their improper name or the school will call them a simulator in a marketing attempt to make their device sound better then it is. Think about it, if you are looking for training would you choose a school with a simulator or an aviation training device. Most likely you will never even know the difference until you are well into your training.

 

How good are the real FFS simulators? It depends on when they were certified and what level of new software has been added. The newest simulators are certified to train pilots in Upset Recovery and Prevention. This is a level that many considered unattainable in simulation and even today you have a few companies offering UPRT in aircraft because of the controversy. While this is an extreme capability, the ability to type rate a person in a particular aircraft is done hundreds of times a day. 

 

FSX, P3D and even Xplane can be used as an effective education tool despite the FAA and EASA stating they are not simulators. Many companies produce various types of computer based training (CBT) which while not logable is still very good training. As already mentioned such things as avionics integration, instrument procedures, and flight deck familiarity are also good uses. I have even used FSX to practice for the technical interview for a job, practice an approach at an unfamiliar airport, checklist procedures and knock the rust off my instrument scan. 

 

I have spoke with many instructors who have had the guy who learned on FSX prior to starting their real world training. It is mostly a mixed bag, some are well rewarded while other are utterly disappointed by not progressing as fast as they think they should. Most CFIs prefer people with no bad habits that they have to untrain. While you cannot unlearn what you have already been doing, be honest with your instructor and ask what tasks can you continue to practice at home. As a professional instructor with tens of millions of dollars of FFS and Cockpit Procedures Trainers at my disposal, I still will tell a student to "chair fly" some things. If I know they have a home hobby level device, then I can certainly adjust my homework assignment to utilize their software.  

 

BTW, I started with FS2 and am now a professional flight instructor for the worlds largest flight training company. I have reached the pinnacle of my career and it all started pushing pixels. 

[Great Ozzie 101]

Ken,

Good post / interesting points. I know the regs for simulators have been in flux until recently. Seems maybe the dust is starting to settle.

 

What about the "simulator" at the local flight school or FBO? In most cases these are devices and not simulators. Why it is common to call them sims when they are not sims and do not meet the FAA's definition of a simulator?

 

Probably too because the terms "sim"  and the "device" (such as Frasca) have been around forever. And it's not like the recent terminology "aviation training device" rolls off the tongue that easily.     And... we've had a "flight sim" since the days of subLogic. I think I would refer to an ATD "colloquially" as a simulator (unless told

) and get to the specifics at the opportune time. Course I'd imagine having an FSTD would give one bragging rights.  :Big Grin:

The FAA Safety Briefing came out with an article in the Sept/Oct 2012 Issue "Real Learning through Flight Simulation: The ABCs of ATDs" if anyone interested (that's a direct download link). May not be completely up to date with the current regs, but reiterates / expands a bit on Ken's points.

 

-Rob

[Wobbie 938]

So, reading through the above, we have a game that simulates a simulator, a simulator than is a simulator under certain conditions, but can be a game under other conditions, and a game that is a game, under most other conditions, colloquially speaking.

 

Non of which make us better pilots unless we have professional instructors.

We cannot learn to fly properly and correctly without trained human instructors who pass on their hard earned knowledge.

[vololiberista 205]

FS9, FSX, P3D and XPL on a desk top are simulated simulators. Whereas ESP or P3D linked to proper equipment are real simulators.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHwhQ0_QNyk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3OI_dElne0

 

Both of these were using ESP.

[Great Ozzie 101]

Non of which make us better pilots unless we have professional instructors.

We cannot learn to fly properly and correctly without trained human instructors who pass on their hard earned knowledge.

 

 

Yes, it was hard earned knowledge. It was terribly expensive to earn knowledge. And it was at times, "putting the fear of God in me" knowledge.

 

In the last decade using FSX, I have made a number of great friends, had a lot of great times (multiplayer) and been incredibly impressed with the level of knowledge many here have - and have never stepped foot inside an aircraft! Incredibly impressed! And those guys have helped me (yes I learned from them) in my journey of learning to fly. I am still learning.

 

But knowledge does not equate to experience. Or ability.

 

So I don't know man... try and find out without an instructor. I am sure it can be done. In fact, it obviously was done a hundred years ago. But then, alot of people died tryin'. And a lot of people have died throughout the years trying. And people still die today trying - with an instructor.

 

You can fire off a smart aleck comment like the above and think you are cute doing so. But I think it very disrespectful toward the individuals who have spents years of hard work obtaining advanced licenses - who are willing to share that hard earned knowledge with people, many of whom will never get the chance to actually fly.

 

I have already stated I think sims like FSX can be a valuable training aid. And the information exchange that takes place on sim forums I find, not just fun, but valuable. I have said a number of times, it is like "iron sharpening iron." But I will tell you, it's comments like that which make me wonder, "Why do I bother to come here."

 

 

 

Whereas ESP or P3D linked to proper equipment are real simulators.

 

Hi vololiberista,

 

To Ken's point, to be approved for use in the U.S. as part of a flight training program, they will need an FAA LOA (letter of authorization).

 

Rob

 

re: the links... impressive.

[KenG 492]

The visual systems of an FFS or FTD can use any number of visual scenery generators. When I was in the military we tested a product from Lockheed-Martin that looked remarkably like Prepar3D. If a simulator or device manufacture can take a commercial product and have it meet the provisions of AC 120-40B or AC 120-45 and FAR Part 60 then that saves a company some money. However, most major simulator manufactures use their own in house custom visual system. I don't build simulators but according to our tech, commercial software such as P3D or Xplane does not meet the FAA's requirements for Level C or D simulation.

Also realize that the military is not subject to any of the FAA's rules when it comes to the design and certification of military flight training systems.

Finally simulators have to undergo periodic inspection by the FAA to retain their certification. The FAA maintains a list of active simulators, if the sim is not on this list then it cannot be used for pilot training. I don't deal with ATDs but it is my understanding these devices are now subject to "ramp check" and Aviation Inspectors now carry a USB drive with FAA software to check these devices for compliance.

Thank you for pointing out ESP, I mistakenly left that product off the list as it was my understanding that LM now owns the rights to further development and distribution of what was ESP. But, there are still some devices that used this software and according to what I read is still authorized by the FAA based on their LOA.

[LAdamson 240]

So, reading through the above, we have a game that simulates a simulator, a simulator than is a simulator under certain conditions, but can be a game under other conditions, and a game that is a game, under most other conditions, colloquially speaking.

 

Non of which make us better pilots unless we have professional instructors.

We cannot learn to fly properly and correctly without trained human instructors who pass on their hard earned knowledge.

I was just thinking how many times instructors, save students when it comes to all the different ways of stalling an airplane (which can make one bite the dust).  From level flight, banking in a turn, climbing, etc. The instructor will watch for it. Desktop sims don't have the feel, and more than not, they don't respond accurately. Sometimes, even the instructors don't catch the students in time.

 

edit:  The more I think about it, desktop sims don't teach the feel, look of the ground references, nose attitude, and some more, when making a circling approach to the ground. This is where a mess-up will really bite. Full size airplanes, as well as too many RCs end up in a crunched mass, just because of this. It's real easy to stall, if you haven't learned what to look for. Do it too low, and that's it. 

[HighBypass 2,339]

....Desktop sims don't have the feel, and more than not, they don't respond accurately. Sometimes, even the instructors don't catch the students in time.

.......It's real easy to stall, if you haven't learned what to look for. Do it too low, and that's it. 

 

 

True words LA.

 

There may be some add-ons out there which shake the screen image and there are some basic ones for FS and the like which make the sound of a stick shaker, but there's nothing like the feel and response of the real world.

 

I've only had 16 flights in gliders so far, but even during that time I've had pre-stall buffet demonstrated to me and been told to deliberately stall the glider a couple of times. In addition it goes really quiet in the cockpit when you get below 40 knots  :Nail Biting:

 

Real life aviating won't stop me simming though!.... Except on the days when I AM actually learning to fly (glide?). Now there's another topic for discussion  .

[Manny 1,293]

for things like stall training (no power  or power on) etc our P3D/FSX  doesn't come anywhere close. But for IFR training even a  lowly FSX/P3D is mighty powerful and useful.

 

for VFR, instructors find simmers coming in for real world training, staring at their instruments instead of flying by looking out the front. and they hate that.. LOL

[vololiberista 205]

 It's real easy to stall, if you haven't learned what to look for. Do it too low, and that's it. 

In the upgraded Super VC10 panel I in fact modelled the stick pusher action. To recover from a stall it actually momentarily disconnects the yoke. So the desktop simmer does get a flavour of what can happen. They are pulling back on their stick/yoke as hard as they might and suddenly the aircraft amidst all the cacophany of stall warning klaxons etc sharply dips the nose entirely by itself witohut the users control input. It does take one by surprise just as in real life.

[HighBypass 2,339]

In the upgraded Super VC10 panel I in fact modelled the stick pusher action. ........

 

Well done that man! You VC10 panel is a thing of legendary beauty anyway.

[vololiberista 205]

Well done that man! You VC10 panel is a thing of legendary beauty anyway.

Thanks for that!