53 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

The disctinction beetween SRM and CRM doesn’t change the point being discussed.

The FAA checklist isn’t just paperwork — stalls and other maneuvers are included because the device must actually demonstrate them to gain approval. And there is a difference between BATD and AATD: the latter allows credit for more advanced procedures and scenarios, which is exactly why they exist.

Just think one second: why would they even bother building such certified settings if you can train procedures on your home flightsim with the exact same result?

 

 

 I actually trained in both BATD and AATD so I'm well aware of the value of each.

Answering your question why build and certify sims? The answer is clear - because sims sell and make money! Big flight schools can afford to own expensive sims and can easily include sim time in their FAA approved Part 141 syllabus. So for flight schools that can afford commercial grade sims, benefit are obvious - low running cost comparing with maintenance of actual training aircraft.

I personally think that wisely used home none-FAA approved stand alone sims like P3D, MSFS, X-plane can bring value as training aid.

As for puppy mill 141 certified pilots I can tell you a lot horror story when they show up in the flight line from my personal experience. I'd say nowdays flight school focus on monetary preparation to pass exam rather than on quality safe and proficient pilots material.

11 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

 I actually trained in both BATD and AATD so I'm well aware of the value of each.

Answering your question why build and certify sims? The answer is clear - because sims sell and make money! Big flight schools can afford to own expensive sims and can easily include sim time in their FAA approved Part 141 syllabus. So for flight schools that can afford commercial grade sims, benefit are obvious - low running cost comparing with maintenance of actual training aircraft.

I personally think that wisely used home none-FAA approved stand alone sims like P3D, MSFS, X-plane can bring value as training aid.

As for puppy mill 141 certified pilots I can tell you a lot horror story when they show up in the flight line from my personal experience. I'd say nowdays flight school focus on monetary preparation to pass exam rather than on quality safe and proficient pilots material.

If it were only about saving money, schools could just use home sims. The fact that the FAA certifies BATDs and AATDs tells you it’s about more than economics — it’s about recognized training standards, exactly like Boeing recognizing the quality of training using the PMDG. You may dislike this or even question the results, it’s still how it works. Or is this Boeing-PMDG announcement just hot air in your opinion?

5 hours ago, Franz007 said:

If it were only about saving money, schools could just use home sims. The fact that the FAA certifies BATDs and AATDs tells you it’s about more than economics — it’s about recognized training standards, exactly like Boeing recognizing the quality of training using the PMDG. You may dislike this or even question the results, it’s still how it works. Or is this Boeing-PMDG announcement just hot air in your opinion?

Franz, it all about money! Boeing already paid heavy price for taking shortcuts on safety by focusing on increasing profit margins. 

The fact is that FAA does a lot of things and not all of them contributing for safety. Without doubt technology helps safety in different forms, but it's not all that great - you just have to be in it to understand better.

Industry would pursue anything that save them money on flight training and technology here to help. Boeing is all about cutting cost. If you don't know that 737 line is 1968 design  heavily modified in four generations. You can read more here:

https://www.cpajournal.com/2025/06/02/the-story-of-boeings-failed-corporate-culture/

 

As I stated before BATD, AATD are great for polishing procedure and reducing cost of training. I used FAA sims before they were classified as BATD or AATD. In my time sims were all about emergencies training , but I must tell you there is a still a big difference to practice emergency scenarios  in the sim and have an actual emergency in real life. In my opinion, nothing beat practicing emergencies in real airplane when it possible. 

I think this is very smart on the part of Boeing and PMDG. I have annual recurrent training coming up in the CRJ and have actually found the Aerosoft product with all of its flaws and limitations to be a really nice resource for drilling procedural flows and callouts for things that we just don’t see very often on the line. Even if the emergency or abnormal scenario isn’t simulated or the system doesn’t respond exactly like it should on my desktop sim, the switches are all there (even if they don’t work exactly right) so I can pull out the appropriate procedure and be solid on the steps before I head back in the actual sim. I can definitely see a big value in using PMDGs expertise in an official procedural training product, especially if it is available on some sort of on demand platform that doesn’t require you to schedule a dedicated sim/trainer session…again speculation as to what this is actually all about. 

I too have used Redbird BATDs and AATDs as a both a student and an instructor. In both cases, the training was solely focused on the procedural. Trying to “hand fly” them was counterproductive. One of my clients and Cirrus owners purchased the certified RealSimGear Cirrus ATD running XP in preparation for his instrument training. That was a very nice setup from a hardware perspective, but again we focused  almost entirely on the procedural aspects of instrument flying, not the hand flying itself. 

16 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

I have annual recurrent training coming up in the CRJ and have actually found the Aerosoft product with all of its flaws and limitations to be a really nice resource for drilling procedural flows and callouts for things that we just don’t see very often on the line.

I am not a RW pilot but I love the CRJ series from Aerosoft.  I have a question for you if you will:  I notice w/ the suggested takeoff trim setting the plane wants to rotate itself.  It's the only plane in my hangar that behaves like this.  So to offset this I have pretty good forward pressure on the yoke all the way to TO.

So is this the way the plane works in the RW, or is it a bug?  

Thanks in advance!

2 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

Franz, it all about money! Boeing already paid heavy price for taking shortcuts on safety by focusing on increasing profit margins. 

The fact is that FAA does a lot of things and not all of them contributing for safety. Without doubt technology helps safety in different forms, but it's not all that great - you just have to be in it to understand better.

Industry would pursue anything that save them money on flight training and technology here to help. Boeing is all about cutting cost. If you don't know that 737 line is 1968 design  heavily modified in four generations. You can read more here:

https://www.cpajournal.com/2025/06/02/the-story-of-boeings-failed-corporate-culture/

 

As I stated before BATD, AATD are great for polishing procedure and reducing cost of training. I used FAA sims before they were classified as BATD or AATD. In my time sims were all about emergencies training , but I must tell you there is a still a big difference to practice emergency scenarios  in the sim and have an actual emergency in real life. In my opinion, nothing beat practicing emergencies in real airplane when it possible. 

I don’t think we actually disagree that much. My point is simply that certified sims exist to provide recognized training standards. Of course you need real aircraft time and some emergencies can only be practiced there, but others are too dangerous and that’s why sims were created. You can repeat the same in a home sim, but it won’t be officially counted — just like studying at home without sitting the exam won’t give you a recognized diploma. Without certification, every school would set its own rules and standards would be all over the place. You may fnd it usefull or not, that’s not the point. It’s simply how it is organized. By the way, almost everything is about money at the end. Welcome to this world 😉

6 minutes ago, Noel said:

I am not a RW pilot but I love the CRJ series from Aerosoft.  I have a question for you if you will:  I notice w/ the suggested takeoff trim setting the plane wants to rotate itself.  It's the only plane in my hangar that behaves like this.  So to offset this I have pretty good forward pressure on the yoke all the way to TO.

So is this the way the plane works in the RW, or is it a bug?  

Thanks in advance!

Interesting, I haven’t observed that behavior. In fact, I find it a little too reluctant to rotate at VR, although it is noticeably better since the last update. I do know that setting fuel and payload using the tablet/EFB is finicky so maybe that’s a possible cause?

Just now, snglecoil said:

 I do know that setting fuel and payload using the tablet/EFB is finicky so maybe that’s a possible cause?

Thanks Chris, good to know it's not normal.  When you say finicky, I've hit some buttons to pass data to avionics and have on occasion, rarely I believe, noticed fuel didn't get updated, etc.  So have to be careful how quickly you hit the various buttons moving data to avionics.  Maybe that's the source I'll pay closer attention.  Thanks!

For those who were speculating on the role PMDG played in this project, please see the following link that reports more details on the VAPT

Boeing Unveils Virtual Airplane Training Platform for Next-Gen Pilots - Sky Blue Radio

Here's a brief excerpt:

Quote

Currently supporting the Boeing 737 MAX family, with additional aircraft in development, the VAPT is the latest example of Boeing’s push toward scalable, digital-first training solutions. PMDG, whose simulation technology powers the platform, played an essential role in its development.

PMDG CEO Robert Randazzo in a statement to Sky Blue Radio, “PMDG has long been recognized for the high-fidelity and technical accuracy of our simulation technology. We were proud that Boeing saw the value in our capabilities and selected our technology to assist them in reaching their goals.”

Probably, this can end speculation concerning PMDG's contribution to this Boeing product....

24 minutes ago, jrw4 said:

Probably, this can end speculation concerning PMDG's contribution to this Boeing product....

It was already ended, you're a bit late.

Thank you for pointing that out. Might I ask where PMDG's role had been confirmed prior to the statement by RSR?

7 minutes ago, jrw4 said:

Thank you for pointing that out. Might I ask where PMDG's role had been confirmed prior to the statement by RSR?

The previous page...  

 

"Only" 48 hours late. My bad. Thanks for the correction.

1 hour ago, jrw4 said:

"Only" 48 hours late. My bad. Thanks for the correction.

Yes, this was resolved over two days ago. 

I just filed next year's budget requests to buy some iFly based training software for 737NG, now this landed, yeah, let me see how can I persuade my boss to get both🫠

For ground training (that's means learning in classroom, CBT or IPT, NOT including FTD and FFS, "flip the switch in proper order" as you said), there is no regulatory requirement on device/software use, only the company's training department have "proper procedure" to approve their own training material, let it be just few papers, some ppt, a video clip, a HTLM5 based FMC interact tool or a flight simulation software with 3D vision.

Of course if you want use other's IP you'll need proper licensee to do so, otherwise I'd like to just login my steam account and fire up XP12 with zibo737 to show some points to my trainees ,kid you not, many times I really want, that's why I tried hard to persuade my boss to get iFly for it.

Edited November 13, 2025Nov 13 by C2615