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

[bjratchf 80]

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.

 

Do you know if this inspection is required on some sort of schedule? I inherited back my flight school's BATD (consists of PFC C2 console, a radio stack, pedals) since they use a redbird system now. We used x-plane software that ran through a "check" each time it was started to make sure all components passed FAA standards- it was certified by LOA for up to 10 hours of IMC time towards an instrument rating, and for currency if the student was within the 6 month approach window (i.e. not for IPCs as we weren't 141).

 

I was going to set this up in my home in NYC and offer recurrent training if needed. I'm a bit on the fence for all this as well with all the TSA record keeping requirements (which I have no patience for, all things TSA). I have the original LOA documentation as well. Can I just set it all up as a private entity, or is something more formal required since I'm not part of my old Part 61 shop anymore... 

 

http://d1w64oc8h3jaiy.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/20160308162319/CAT-III-LOA.pdf

 

http://d1w64oc8h3jaiy.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/20160225120012/FAA-Loggable-Time.pdf

[KenG 492]

Brendan,

 

 The notice that I read suggested that BATDs and AATDs would be subject to a sort of "ramp check" as opposed to a formal inspection like is done on FTDs and FFS. Best bet would be to call your local FSDO and discuss your plans with them. Since they would be the guys responsible for inspecting you and each FSDO is a little different in how they interpret policy they can give you the best possible information. Yeah I know, I just said phone the feds. 

 

 The letters you provided, specifically the ...CAT-III-LOA , looks like Precision Flight Controls has already meet the new requirement and have an LOA with a 60 month expiration date. There should also be documentation that comes with the device that states the configured hardware and software. The notice was written in typical FAA legalize, but it is my understanding that the FAA is now checking for add-ons and other software that was not part of the original configuration.

 

 The loggable time letter has the specific parts of FAR Part 61 and you can read through those. If you are an AOPA member their magazine is publishing the upcoming changes expected with ATDs. AOPA also has a course on the TSA requirements that is geared more to the individual CFI and the briefing is part of your FIRC. As a CFI you already have record keeping requirements I would just add the TSA requirements to that.

 

 You have to realize that I work for a major company that specializes in pilot training and I am mostly insulated by corporate procedures and policies that are designed to meet or exceed the FAA and TSA requirements. When it comes to simulator inspections we have technicians that perform all maintenance and are responsible for keeping the sims in a certified standard. The company deals with coordinating with the FAA. With the TSA we have a person who deals with all of that paperwork and as an instructor I am responsible for the annual training and checking that clients have met the requirements before going on motion for the first time. Running an independent device out of your home is going to be different. Meeting the FAA and TSA requirements may be the easy part as opposed to NYC's residential business requirements and insurance implications.

 

 Your local flight school where you got this device from may be able to provide you better information regarding the specifics of ATDs then I. While I am always interested in the continued evolution of ATDs and their future, my day to day work is in the much larger and more regulated world of FFS. 

 

Good luck.

[windycloud 30]

I'm a flight instructor, full motion sim instructor and a Falcon 900 pilot, and a simmer for over a decade.  That said, I would say the sim certainly helps.  One important factor that you have control of is how you approach the sim.  Some of us kick the tires and light the fire, and do loops in a 737.  And some follow checklists and real world procedures.  Guess which way better prepares us for real flying.  When we spend a ton of time on the sim, the habits good or bad get carried right over to the real cockpit. 

[computerflyer 6]

I'm a flight instructor, full motion sim instructor and a Falcon 900 pilot, and a simmer for over a decade.  That said, I would say the sim certainly helps.  One important factor that you have control of is how you approach the sim.  Some of us kick the tires and light the fire, and do loops in a 737.  And some follow checklists and real world procedures.  Guess which way better prepares us for real flying.  When we spend a ton of time on the sim, the habits good or bad get carried right over to the real cockpit. 

I agree with the idea that how a sim is used is very important in determining whether or not the sim is useful in the real world.  One of the major criticisms of home sim use is that a sim can allow the development of bad habits.  But, to a certain extent, that's not really a criticism of the sim itself, but rather a criticism of how the sim is used. Hypothetically, if a person were able to hop into a real plane and teach himself/herself how to fly without an instructor, the person would probably also develop some bad habits (in addition to destroying some planes and maybe getting killed).  So, I'd say that the real-world usefulness of a sim is dependent on a serious, disciplined use of the sim, and is greatly enhanced by some oversight from an experienced instructor pilot. (I suppose I should add the disclaimer here that I'm NOT saying or advocating that a sim should replace all training in real airplanes).  

[MarkJHarris 128]

Remember this folks.

 

There are two sides to flying. Steering and operating. to quote from Mr John Farley, ex Test Pilot.

 

Steering is a motor skill that evolves from practice and feedback in visual, and haptic feedback. You need to real flight to experience the g forces, the turbulence, the feel of the yolk in pitch and roll, the feel of your buttocks as you press the pedals. It all should add up to the feedback to enable th esignals to your hands and feet to steer the aircraft where you want it to go.

 

Operating is how you push the buttons and turn the knobs. THIS is the part of flying that a FSX, P3D, XP10 or other simulation game can actually help you with. I can play on PDMG quite happily wit hno yolk or throttles even plugged in, and this is the key, certainly to tubes. 99% of what you do in a 737/777 or Scarebus is a result of mode selection, data entry and SOP systems operation. 

 

DCS. fantastic. I can fully prep, start up and operate an A10c now. But I'll be damned if I could actually work out how to climb up into a real one, if ever I was allowed to.

 

I actually learned a lot from PDMG's NGX, and spent most of my 737 type rating spoting differences rather than learning from scratch.... There is quite a few BTW. The NGX is good, but it isn't spot on by any standard.

 

Where you intend to have fun, great, if you want preparation for real flying, then go ahead. Certainly modules like the A2A Cessna give great training benefits for walkaround, checklist management and general systems and airplane awareness. Sounds, sights et al.

 

Just don't expect too much help in the feel. As a 4 seater it is very heavy when not in trim.....

 

For steering, there is nothing like the real thing.

[n4gix 4,947]

"Yolk" is the yellow stuffing in an egg...

"Yoke" is the thing you steer an aircraft with...

[vololiberista 205]

"Yolk" is the yellow stuffing in an egg...

"Yoke" is the thing you steer an aircraft with...

Otherwise known as control column or spectacles.

[MarkJHarris 128]

I have a particularly agressive spelling checker and I sometimes don't notice it "correcting" my spelling. Not being able to edit these posts afterwards is a pain too.

 

Sorry.

[n4gix 4,947]

Mark, I was 'tweaking your nose' so to speak, no harm was intended.

 

I really hate those darn spell checkers as well. That's why I turn off any such nonsense. I'm perfectly capable of making my own mistakes, I don't need a silly program to make them for me!

 

I am curious why the topic of this thread keeps coming up over and over again. This must be the 4,243rd time I've seen it over the past twenty years!

[charliearon 3,022]

I am curious why the topic of this thread keeps coming up over and over again. This must be the 4,243rd time I've seen it over the past twenty years!

How about a thread of aircraft related HOMONYMS??

 

Yoke-Yolk       Hangar-Hanger.....dang! there's gotta be more.

[N400QW 205]

The primary differences between real and sim flying, from my own perspective, are staying ahead of rather than behind the airplane.

 

Get behind, or become unaware of the edges of the "envelope", and bad things happen quickly..

[him225 51]

If you manage to keep your cool so that you know what you are doing probably you could fly through whatever is possible with the computer part (I.e. programming the autopilot). Manually you might be able to keep it under some control in flight, but takeoff and landing you are almost going to crash, as even in the real world they are more of instinct (built from experience) than real time mindful control. So no amount of flying information (which includes flight behavior experienced in the sim) is going to be useful in those phases more than serving as reference and checkpoints.

[fnav77 56]

The answer to the OP's question is simply no. However, the simulation is so good that it will give you an overall overview of the flight deck layout, of the autopilot functions, the FMC, etc...

 

But it won't help "feeling" in control of a real 350t 777.....

[Boomer 1,619]

If I can auto land a PMDG 777 then I can auto land a real 777.  I find it amusing to hear otherwise.  Now, could I hand fly it safely?  Maybe not.

[KenG 492]

I am curious why the topic of this thread keeps coming up over and over again. This must be the 4,243rd time I've seen it over the past twenty years!

 

People really wanting to believe they can bypass the whole formal certification procedure and take a short cut to flying. Why should someone pay thousands of dollars in aircraft rental and instruction fees when there is a $50 game and a few hundred dollars worth of add-ons that might do the trick. They look at an ATD and think, gee my home setup is as good or better... 

 

You can find Youtube videos of people with no formal training, just time in FS doing a traffic pattern in a real Cessna and this unfortunately expands the myth. These people don't see the difference of a traffic pattern with a CFI close at the controls in a highly controlled 'experiment' and planning and executing a solo cross country. Their lack of experience simply tells them if you can take-off and land you have mastered flying.

 

I can find a few NTSB reports of non-certified 'pilots' attempting to fly on their own that ended up in the total loss of aircraft and life, but I somehow doubt that will make any difference on those who already decided FS can tech them to fly better and cheaper then a CFI.

 

Unfortunately, you have those looking for shortcuts who really want to believe the marketing hype, "As real as it gets." Thus this question will continue to linger...