FSNews editorial on how MSFS helped him pass PPL checkride

[jon b 2,083]

18 hours ago, RichieFly said:

Especially the instrument rating. I think I used something like MFS 3 to approximate instrument flights and it was pretty useless beyond rough theory.

When I was doing a solo nav exercise during my PPL the weather closed in and I accidentally entered cloud, the basics of instrument flying gained on my Commodore 64 and SUBLOGIC flight simulator saved my bacon.

I was then able to navigate back to base on the island of Guernsey from my present position using VOR navigation, in now VMC conditions.

When my instructor asked how I’d managed to find my way back I told him I’d used VOR navigation he went ape, saying I wasn’t trained in it and didn’t know how to use it. 
 

I said I’d learned VOR navigation using my flight simulations. By this stage he was positively bouncing around in a rage. He started drawing various VOR radial instrument depictions on the white board asking me to explain where my aircraft would be relative to the VOR , and trying to trick me with the use of the TO/FROM flag. 

Much to his incomprehension and increasing anger I managed to bat off all of his questions with correct answers !

[F737MAX 5,844]

29 minutes ago, jon b said:

saying I wasn’t trained in it and didn’t know how to use it. 

Brilliant! I can just imagine the spluttering "What? What? What?!" for having the audacity to put to use the skills you learned on your own instead of becoming disorientated and crashing.

[abrams_tank 7,552]

Also, MSFS has the best default G1000, G3000, G5000, GNS 430, and GNS 530 (I'm referring to default here, not paid avionics add-ons). I'm not a real life pilot, but I would think that's just a plus if you're going for your PPL and you are using one of these default avionics in your real life PPL training.

Edited October 18, 2023 by abrams_tank

[ahsmatt7 1,213]

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

You are correct. However, if my reading is trash how  did you assum I would comprehend your reply LOL

 

Sorry for being a Richard towards you. That wasn’t nice. Please forgive me. 

[jon b 2,083]

27 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

Brilliant! I can just imagine the spluttering "What? What? What?!" for having the audacity to put to use the skills you learned on your own instead of becoming disorientated and crashing.

I suppose I should state for the record that there is no substitute for formal IFR training, but it’s amazing what you can learn from putting in the effort at home with even the most basic of sims.

Todays sims are just in a different league, they’re an incredibly powerful learning tool should you wish to use them in that way.

Edited October 18, 2023 by jon b

[Fielder 3,834]

Avsimer guy goes for interview...

 

 

[Flic1 1,015]

1 hour ago, jon b said:

I suppose I should state for the record that there is no substitute for formal IFR training, but it’s amazing what you can learn from putting in the effort at home with even the most basic of sims.

I remember using a sim called 'Elite' (??) back in 1993 that helped me ace my Instrument rating checkride.  Ran it off a floppy on my 486 machine. It was pretty basic (no scenery) and analog gauges (of course!) but it was great help in practicing procedures for VOR/NDB approaches/Holds, etc

[Franz007 609]

2 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Also, MSFS has the best default G1000, G3000, G5000, GNS 430, and GNS 530 (I'm referring to default here, not paid avionics add-ons). I'm not a real life pilot, but I would think that's just a plus if you're going for your PPL and you are using one of these default avionics in your real life PPL training.

Well I doubt that so many real pilots would use default add-ons and that this is a great help, knowing all other flaws (ground-behaviour, inertia lacking, missing turbulences in stormy-clouds, no density altitude simulated, inaccurate atmosphere resulting to unrealistic climb or descent rates etc.). They would rather use an add-on like the A2A Comanche that for sure is very accurate and well simulated. But I may be wrong, how knows.

[Krakin 5,992]

27 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

But I may be wrong, how knows.

Yes, you are very wrong. When it comes to learning from simulators for real world application, knowledge of instrumentation is king. Most pilots would tell you that. Looks like you just came in here to snipe but that's your right lol. The work WT have done is a monumental achievement and nothing you mentioned (especially the inaccurate ones) will change that.

[jon b 2,083]

54 minutes ago, Flic1 said:

I remember using a sim called 'Elite' (??) back in 1993 

I remember in 93 there was a room in the airport terminal building where I was doing my Cessna Citation training that was dedicated to the demonstration and sale of Elite. They let me have a go, I remember it having super smooth instruments, and being very expensive, but very cheap in comparison to an hours IR training.

I believe @jcomm flies elite.

[Franz007 609]

41 minutes ago, Krakin said:

Yes, you are very wrong. When it comes to learning from simulators for real world application, knowledge of instrumentation is king. Most pilots would tell you that. Looks like you just came in here to snipe but that's your right lol. The work WT have done is a monumental achievement and nothing you mentioned (especially the inaccurate ones) will change that.

Not really. Such advanced avionics are not required to pass your PPL. It‘s simply not part of what a student-pilot needs to know. Or did you pass your PPL on such an aircraft having a G3000 and did you have to know in details how it works? 

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,799]

To be perfectly honest a new student is better off getting off the sim and diving into the books and brushing up air law and basic aeronautical knowledge and weather and all the other stuff they are going to need to know.

[jcomm 6,091]

2 hours ago, jon b said:

I believe @jcomm flies elite.

Good memmory @jon b! ! 

Great ifr trainning desktop sim indeed. Used the full version since v7 until the latest v9 GTN. 

Also had the chance to ser the ATC trainning room in Langen where they use mockups of the b200 for the pilots that participate on the ATC trainning scenarios.

Edited October 18, 2023 by jcomm

[F737MAX 5,844]

1 hour ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

To be perfectly honest a new student is better off getting off the sim and diving into the books and brushing up air law and basic aeronautical knowledge and weather and all the other stuff they are going to need to know.

Well, yes.

What a flight simulator is good for is radio navigation and instrument training, practicing procedures and how to use the buttons on a particular GPS unit.

Another benefit could be radiotelephony, especially if a pilot is in FAA land and has a Pilot Edge sub.

[ark 1,297]

I would have loved to have a sim like MSFS when working on my IFR rating a "few" (ah, pre-GPS) years ago because in spite of the sim's various limitations, in my opinion it does provide valuable practice in the procedural and mental aspects of IFR flying. And I also agree although not perfect, the general "big picture" familiarization it proves with tools such as the G1000 and GTN750, etc., is also beneficial. 

It is also good to be aware of some potential aspects of a home sim like MSFS that can be detrimental, especially at the PPL level. For example, I've read that some PPL students with a lot of sim time tend to spend way to much time with their eyes inside the cockpit when they should be looking outside. Maybe some CFIs here can comment on this.

Al

Edited October 19, 2023 by ark