4 hours ago, Franz007 said:

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? 

You said real pilots, not real students. The default avionics in MSFS are used by real pilots to help keep them current all the time.

5 hours ago, Krakin said:

You said real pilots, not real students. The default avionics in MSFS are used by real pilots to help keep them current all the time.

Well the initial post was about a help for passing a PPL, that’s why I was talking about them in a first place.

6 hours ago, ark said:

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.

Absolutely! This was something my instructor told me as well. It became better with some practice and we made an exercice where he covered the whole panel from time to time, forcing me to look outside only. And the funny thing is that when we did, I flew the best and could for example also keep my altitude pretty accurately when doing an orbit, better than with the instruments uncovered 😄

11 hours ago, Franz007 said:

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? 

EASA simply states you need "difference training" for operating EFIS equipped planes, it's up to the ATO to decide appropriate syllabus. 

How that syllabus is constructed depends on what aircraft you train on or transition to during your training.

If you use our aero clubs modern trainer with state of the art G3X touch with Stability protection in all 3 axes, automatic levelling system etc (it's basically a bizjet in terms of functionality) you are in for at least one day instructor lead classroom session, written test and up to 3 sessions in the air - for the G3X alone.

You are required to know how the avionics work in reversionary/degraded mode, what features are unavailable if you lose GPS altitude and or terrain altitude data, for example (hint: auto leveller will not work)

My opinion, since these modern avionics are there to potentially save your life, it's prudent to actually learn them. 

That's why having a sim with authentic EFIS is of great value. And right now one sim is a clear cut above the others.

Edited October 19, 20232 yr by SAS443

4 hours ago, Franz007 said:

And the funny thing is that when we did, I flew the best and could for example also keep my altitude pretty accurately when doing an orbit, better than with the instruments uncovered 😄

Well that is one one real world technique you can practice in MSFS , transfer your current attitude and bank to the outside view versus the horizon and then hold your/turn/climb/descent/level flight without looking at the instruments, even turning them off in a glass cockpit.

Of course once you do that in MSFS, suddenly stuff like holding straight and level suddenly becomes much easier - just like in real life - what a surprise.

The other huge issue sim pilots suffer from in real life training is lazy feet.

3 hours ago, SAS443 said:

EASA simply states you need "difference training" for operating EFIS equipped planes, it's up to the ATO to decide appropriate syllabus. 

How that syllabus is constructed depends on what aircraft you train on or transition to during your training.

If you use our aero clubs modern trainer with state of the art G3X touch with Stability protection in all 3 axes, automatic levelling system etc (it's basically a bizjet in terms of functionality) you are in for at least one day instructor lead classroom session, written test and up to 3 sessions in the air - for the G3X alone.

You are required to know how the avionics work in reversionary/degraded mode, what features are unavailable if you lose GPS altitude and or terrain altitude data, for example (hint: auto leveller will not work)

My opinion, since these modern avionics are there to potentially save your life, it's prudent to actually learn them. 

That's why having a sim with authentic EFIS is of great value. And right now one sim is a clear cut above the others.

Thank you @SAS443 for your insight on how the avionics and EFIS in MSFS can help real life pilots learn better. I would like to hear more viewpoints from unbiased real life pilots (as opposed to the obviously biased one who has an axe to grind against MSFS).

1 hour ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

Well that is one one real world technique you can practice in MSFS , transfer your current attitude and bank to the outside view versus the horizon and then hold your/turn/climb/descent/level flight without looking at the instruments, even turning them off in a glass cockpit.

That doesn’t really help to be honest. I’ve tried that many times and wasn’t able to reproduce that accuracy, mostly because the viewpoint in a sim is never exactly the same as in the real aircraft and this may lead to bad habits in my opinion.

Edited October 19, 20232 yr by Franz007

4 hours ago, SAS443 said:

That's why having a sim with authentic EFIS is of great value. And right now one sim is a clear cut above the others.

Some people are bent on characterizing that sim as "just a game" so they will do what they can to downplay something that clearly disproves that sentiment.

12 minutes ago, Krakin said:

Some people are bent on characterizing that sim as "just a game"

It's whatever you make of it. That's what so great about simming.

The news article in OP is certainly evidence of that. 🙂

24 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

That doesn’t really help to be honest. I’ve tried that many times and wasn’t able to reproduce that accuracy, mostly because the viewpoint in a sim is never exactly the same as in the real aircraft and this may lead to bad habits in my opinion.

What bad habit? Taking less than ideal viewpoints in the real cockpit? Anyway the solution to this in the sim is VR.

12 minutes ago, Krakin said:

"just a game"

Well, that's what it is. Just like all the other homebased flight simulation games. But I agree they can all help with real life flight training. When somebody flies with me for the first time and they are quickly comfortable with the controls of the aircraft it often turns out they are using a flight simulator at home.

17 hours ago, Franz007 said:

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.

And you'd be wrong (unsurprisingly).. the interim ground handling fixes/improvements put into SU10 (FM parameters for wheel friction and cross-wind handling characteristics, until fully reworked in the future) have been taken advantage of by some aircraft like the default Cessna (and 3rd party birds like the Fenix/PMDG/etc) and that's made for an appreciable if not marked improvement over previous behavior. Quite obviously nothing like a deeply simulated GA like the Comanche or one of the many fine Milviz/FSW/JustFlight/etc high fidelity 3rd party GA offerings we have for MSFS, but for a default bird the MS/Asobo Cessna + G1000 avionics combination makes for a compelling GA simulation. And I'd much rather have the current MSFS in-cloud turbulence than the feeling-like-being-in-a-blender unrealistic bounciness of certain other sim(s).

Obviously there are areas that could use improvements and flaws exist, but the author makes it clear how MSFS proved to be an all-rounder with the whole package for him, and I'd easily agree with him as do many others:

"I think the best Cessna 172 in home simulation is still found in Microsoft Flight Simulator – the flight model is excellent, and this aircraft is perfectly suited for MSFS’ VFR-friendly environment."

"Of all three variants, the “default” G1000 C172SP had the flight characteristics that most closely matched the aircraft I flew in real life (Both S- and N-model 172s). It was the only one out of all four I tested that matched the docile stall behavior of the real 172, for example. Working Title’s excellent improvements to the G1000 avionics suite, meanwhile, were instrumental in preparing me for a few flights in the school’s only G1000-equipped aircraft so that I could keep flying while half the fleet was down for maintenance."

"The four key areas in which MSFS concretely helped me were: the ability to “chair fly” and practice procedures, using MSFS’ incredible representation of the world to practice the visual aspects of flying, mastering the fundamental principles of flight with the consequence-free ability to experiment, and finally becoming proficient with avionics and my EFB application without wasting valuable cockpit time."
 

Edited October 19, 20232 yr by lwt1971

If you could only see the desktop cockpit training tools used in real world type rating training , you’d be amazed at just how stale and boring they are.

I had 24 hour access to one during a type rating a couple of years ago but even as a flight simulator enthusiast I couldn’t bring myself to use it, it was just miserable.

The desktop flight sims we now have in our homes are way more advanced, and more importantly fun to use, learning through play I believe it’s called.

https://services.boeing.com/training-solutions/flight-training/virtual-procedures-trainer

Edited October 19, 20232 yr by jon b

1 hour ago, fsiscool said:

What bad habit? Taking less than ideal viewpoints in the real cockpit? Anyway the solution to this in the sim is VR.

Yes exactly that. And I don’t use VR so that I cannot comment on that.

Flight sim (not FS2020 but FS95) was enormously helpful to me when I took my instrument check ride in the mid 90s.

I knew that the examiner was big on holding patterns: direct, parallel and teardrop entries, all done under the hood using the local VOR (ULW), and I would be using a steam gauge Cessna 172 with a simple DG and OBS/CDI. FS95 had a reasonable emulation of that. I also knew that the prevailing wind was usually either southwesterly or occasionally northwesterly. 

So I set the weather to put myself in solid IFR with appropriate wind, and practiced extensively doing all three types of holding patterns (hand flying without autopilot). It was a heck of a lot cheaper than using the real aircraft and instructor, and when I did a practice flight test with my instructor he was very impressed at how well I did. I also repeatedly practiced the three approaches that I would have to demonstrate on the check ride - an ILS and NDB at KELM, and a VOR approach at KITH, which were all simulated in FS95.

Although the sim 172 did not perfectly emulate the flying characteristics of the real airplane, it was great for practicing maintaining heading and altitude within test standards, while in solid IFR, and really helped when I took the actual check ride.

Edited October 19, 20232 yr by JRBarrett