FSX as a training aid

[Guest TPT82]

Hi,I can only speak for myself here. I believe that FS9/FSX makes a great training tool. I earned my private pilot certificate in May 07. I "played" with FS since 1991. A couple of years ago I started ground school just so that I could really understand FS. I wanted to "fly" it more realistically. I enjoyed flying by the numbers very much. I enjoyed it so much, I started flight lessons.Once my lessons began, I continued using FS9. It worked great for reinforcing my checklist discipline, pattern work, navigation, and traffic scan (keeping head out of C/P). After a lesson, I would come home and fly the lesson all over again. I would correct whatever mistakes I had made during the flight. During my first lesson my instructor was very impressed with my knowledge of the instruments, and basic airplane handling. He said several times..."you get it".OK, here is the reality check. Nothing is perfect. Prior to my first solo, I really had problems landing. My instructor felt that the sim was responsible for those problems. My approaches were always on the high side and my flare was nonexistent. Did that cost me a few extra bucks? Probably. Looking back, I think that FS was a good thing and the pros outweighed the cons. I passed my check ride with a total of 44 hrs. Only four over what the FAA requires. I just wanted to share my experience. I am in no way implying that my way is correct, and others are wrong. I hope it is of value to others who are contemplating learning to fly (for real ;) ).I flew a C152 during my training. On my PC I used the Flight 1 C152 (the panel was almost identical to the airplane I flew), Track IR, FS Genesis, Ultimate Terrain, Ground Environment Pro, and Active Sky for weather. I always flew my cross-country flights on the PC (and still do) before I ever left the ground. I borrowed that idea from reading some of Geofa's posts over the years.Forgive me if this is too lengthy. But as you can see I feel very strongly about FS's usefulness to aspiring pilots.Nick

[LAdamson 240]

> Prior to>my first solo, I really had problems landing. My instructor>felt that the sim was responsible for those problems. My>approaches were always on the high side and my flare was>nonexistent. This wouldn't surprise me at all. Landing technique and the flare is something that is practiced over and over to get the "sight picture". It's why it's done hundreds of times during flight training. Until you know what it's about in real life, you wouldn't know if you're missing it in the sim.But I don't know for sure, as I had done the real landings before simming. Yet, when it comes to the "can a simmer land a real airplane" scenarios; I always have doubts on how well the flare will be accomplished.However, once you know what it's like, the brain can certainly fill the gaps, and sim landing along with the perfect flare can be quite fun. In fact, it's what I enjoy most. L.Adamson

[ryanbatc 12,772]

I'm agreeing with Larry here, I used it before getting my PPL, and I definitely had an edge... Just knowing about the basics, like airspace and traffic patterns, and basic aerodynamics I learned from flight sim.....yeah... good stuffI used FS a lot during my training to set up for procedures, ie checklists (ER and abnormal, and normal hehe), and some of the planes are just great, the Dreamfleet planes looked similar to what I flew, and the Garmin avionics were very similar so I knew how to operate the radios in the real plane!I highly recommend a flight sim for any real flying

[BobP 56]

I can't disagree with experienced pilot's perceptions of the benefits, however, there is a caution. It's the same whether using FSX or a full motion commercial flight simulator or a nuclear power plant simulator. There is a point during upset conditions (malfunctions etc) that test data runs out and simulator variables go beyond the laws of physics, flight, nature etc. Simulator's are quite capable of delivering negative training. It is particularly troublesome when pilots start doing "what ifs" and the simulation starts extrapolating data based upon empirical data never proven. Subject matter experts can generally sort out when a simulator has gone tilt and freeze the simulation. However, the limitations (and FSX has many) should always be on the mind of student and seasoned pilot. Bob...

[Guest thx1137]

Yep, simulators are generally only good at procedures within a 'normal' flight envelope. From whjat I read stalls and spins are handled pretty badly in FS although some sim aircraft at least perform a little like their supposed to in stalls and a basic spin, (from reading what really happens and comparing with the sim behaviour). I tried some stalls and spins using the RealAir machines but they arn't the machines I fly so I don't know that it will compare well.Failure simulation is one of the things I would love to practice in FS but I _never_ do because I think a lot of it is unrealistic, besides, my normal flying needs to get better first :-). Engine out and instrument failures I think might be ok but flight surface and hydraulic failures I think migh be a little suspect.Steven.

[Guest jshyluk]

I am working on the review for Flight Simulator X For Pilots, which is an extensive training manual for pilots who also want to fly in FSX. The authors, Jeff Van West and Kevin Lane-Cummings are both CFIs with lots of writing background. They clearly explain the differences between real-world flying and FSX, including details that are different in the GA aircraft, the ability to control simulation environments, and the dreaded eye-lock on instrumentation.Personally, I think that the TrackIR goes a fair way to getting the sim pilot to look out of the window more. Before TrackIR, I used to be a confirmed 2D cockpit guy, and those 2D cockpits will usually emphasize instruments over viewscreen size. That, and even with the VC, you are locked into snap views or slow, unnatural joystick hat moves, or a cumbersome two-handed mouse view. Look out for my review, which should be coming out fairly soon!Jeff ShylukAssistant Managing EditorSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

[McCrash 3]

I find FSX to be a good training aid for learning how to debug problems.

[Guest Roymcm]

http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Flight-Sim...00506114&sr=8-1http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Flight-Sim...pd_bxgy_b_img_b

[perigee 0]

This is a bit off topic, but I feel the need to update some comments I made about Voyager versus ChartCase. Over the past few days, I spoke to sales and technical support at both companies and have new information.As it turns out, Voyager and ChartCase share the same data and approach plates. A problem in one will show up in the other. Both companies verified this, and I demo'd ChartCase (30 day trial) and confirmed that the same geo-referenced chart problems exist in ChartCase as well as Voyager. Seattle Avionics support responded quickly and actually fixed the charts I brought to their attention, and will also be working with the data provider to have it fixed at the source.Given this new information, I can truly recommend Voyager and their excellent support. After demo'ing ChartCase, I'm sticking with Voyager. In my opinion, Voyager wins, hands down, as a flight planner. ChartCase has some nice things in flight, but the new 4.0 version of Voyager coming out soon (and included as a free update) will pretty much make up for anything I see that ChartCase does better.Anyway, just wanted to clear that up since I made it seem like Voyager's data cannot be trusted in my earlier post... when infact, the data between each is from the same source.

[dbw1 444]

I'm 54, been flying for a living for 30+ years, the last 7 in forest fire suppresion which is mainly vfr ops and we maintainn ifr currancy. I've been using flight sim for fun since the late 80's and I've found it to be a great help for keeping sharp ifr since transitioning to this type of work from being capt on a saab340 where ifr was the environment there.You can grab your approach plates, pick interesting aapproaches from the Alaska panhandle to Nepal and go fly them. Helps keep the brain sharp and the ifr skills good. If you want to develope and keep a good "scaan" fly something with an aanalogue cockpit - not efis. In past years when we come back to work in the spring after the winter off I have had no trouble whatsoever with ifr. My co-workers noticed this and some of them are now into flight sims, whether x-plane or msfs. It's all how you approach it in your attitude and if you want to get something out of it. FS9 is a fabulus sim and fsx is even better. Have a look at the addon aircraft available. Some have manuals of +/- 500 pages. Infact many years ago a popular 767 sim was reviewed by a Northwest 757 capt and one of his comments was that he wished it had been available during his type training. An aquaintance several years ago was transitioning from the 737-200 to the 700, I introduced him to the pmdg version and he found it helpful. He put me in his company's 737-700 level D sim a couple of years ago, finding my way around the cockpit and flying it was good.Anyway, just some thoughts. msfs and others can be a great training aid.

[Geofa 108]

What a great post!My hat off to firefighters! I used to watch the fire planes daily at O05 when I vactioned there, and watched the helo's on Lake Chelan this summer put out live fires. You guys are simply amazing and we owe much to your line of work! (San Diego-my old hometown owes you guys much!). On the boat ride up Lake Chelen to Stehekin this summer I happened to sit next to an ex 747 check pilot-we both were admiring the unreal airmanship of the firefighters who were putting out fires on the hillsides along the lake and both agreed that your flying skills put most to shame!http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Guest jshyluk]

Here is my AVSIM review for FSX For Pilots, a Gold Star winner, no less:http://www.avsim.com/pages/0208/Wiley/Book.htm

[Guest JoeBidon]

Hi there.My advice would be to stay away from ChartCase. I've used it and it sometimes crashes (and usually on an approach). I'd always back it up with paper charts and I would of been in trouble had I not done so. The flight planning software is not as strong as Voyager. It seems written by non pilots. For instance the flight plan shows intersections by lat/long (which is not useful) instead of by VOR intersections which can be used in the cockpit. The rubber banding, reroute features do not always work as expected, the program is not very intuitive or flexible and radar and echo tops do not load automatically and can't be superimposed on charts. The vertical picture does not give MEA's or terrain information along victor airways, which is a huge drawback too.Also the company does not have the most honest business practices. They charged me at the rate of $150.00 /hr !! when I had trouble with the software but never bothered to tell me that there was a charge or what the rate was. Instead I find that they drew on my credit card without authorization.