34 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

They are, but it's not as if these students are using x plane to do this.  I had an interesting discussion with a Redbird engineer about this.  Xp is used as a starting point for base physics, but Redbird is running a lot of their own code to adjust control feel and response.  Other than the visuals, nothing about these devices is a pure XP experience. 

Everything else you're discussing comes back to procedures vs flying.  The stuff that, like I said, we genuinely used to do while sitting in front of posters.  Maneuvering flight cannot be practiced on these devices because the physics simply aren't exact, they're approximations.  Good for familiarity and procedures, yes... But not for actually flying.

Actually, it is part of certified flight training when integrated into FAA-approved AATDs like Redbird. The physics engine is modified, yes—but it’s still that base-sim underneath, and the FAA signs off on it for maneuvers, procedures, and CRM. So students are using it, just not in the raw consumer form.

Btw. AATDs are not “just posters”. This view can be considered outdated. Modern AATDs like Redbird FMX and MCX offer immersive visuals, motion platforms, and scenario-based training that go far beyond static poster drills.

17 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

Actually, it is part of certified flight training when integrated into FAA-approved AATDs like Redbird. The physics engine is modified, yes—but it’s still that base-sim underneath, and the FAA signs off on it for maneuvers, procedures, and CRM. So students are using it, just not in the raw consumer form.

Btw. AATDs are not “just posters”. This view can be considered outdated. Modern AATDs like Redbird FMX and MCX offer immersive visuals, motion platforms, and scenario-based training that go far beyond static poster drills.

As for pilot training AATD can only be used as procedural trainer. For example for private pilot can log 2.5 hours on AADT that is it. Those 2.5 hours you can't even count for 61.109 as 3 hours "solely by instrument".

As Stearmandriver  pointed out most of the approved FAA sims are the best as procedural trainer. But then would you pay for $89 000 Red Bird sim just to get 2.5 hours that you can actually do cheaper in airplane? I'd say a better choice to get MSFS or X-plane and polish your procedures on your own (or under supervision). Sure you can't log those hour but it will get the job done.

 

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

As for pilot training AATD can only be used as procedural trainer. For example for private pilot can log 2.5 hours on AADT that is it. Those 2.5 hours you can't even count for 61.109 as 3 hours "solely by instrument".

As Stearmandriver  pointed out most of the approved FAA sims are the best as procedural trainer. But then would you pay for $89 000 Red Bird sim just to get 2.5 hours that you can actually do cheaper in airplane? I'd say a better choice to get MSFS or X-plane and polish your procedures on your own (or under supervision). Sure you can't log those hour but it will get the job done.

 

Thank you @sd_flyer and @Stearmandriver for the information and for correcting the record!

Edited November 9, 2025Nov 9 by abrams_tank

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

As for pilot training AATD can only be used as procedural trainer. For example for private pilot can log 2.5 hours on AADT that is it. Those 2.5 hours you can't even count for 61.109 as 3 hours "solely by instrument".

As Stearmandriver  pointed out most of the approved FAA sims are the best as procedural trainer. But then would you pay for $89 000 Red Bird sim just to get 2.5 hours that you can actually do cheaper in airplane? I'd say a better choice to get MSFS or X-plane and polish your procedures on your own (or under supervision). Sure you can't log those hour but it will get the job done.

 

Thanks for sharing your perspective—there are definitely nuances in how AATDs are used in training.

You're right that AATDs like Redbird have limitations in terms of how many hours can be logged toward specific certificates. For example, private pilot applicants can log up to 2.5 hours toward the total time requirement, but instrument rating candidates can log up to 20 hours in an AATD, and commercial pilots can also benefit from simulator time depending on the curriculum.

That said, calling them “just procedural trainers” doesn’t quite reflect their full capabilities. Modern AATDs like the Redbird FMX and MCX are FAA-approved for a wide range of training tasks—including maneuvers, approaches, CRM, and emergency scenarios. They offer immersive visuals, motion platforms, and scenario-based training that go far beyond basic switch flows or poster drills.

While it’s true that desktop consumer sims are great for self-directed practice, certified devices offer structured, supervised training that meets regulatory standards—and that’s a big distinction when it comes to logging time and preparing for checkrides.

1 hour ago, Franz007 said:

That said, calling them “just procedural trainers” doesn’t quite reflect their full capabilities. Modern AATDs like the Redbird FMX and MCX are FAA-approved for a wide range of training tasks—including maneuvers, approaches, CRM, and emergency scenarios. They offer immersive visuals, motion platforms, and scenario-based training that go far beyond basic switch flows or poster drills.

I don't believe that AADT can teach student steep turns, lazy eights, eight on pylons or chandelle. Emergency or normals procedures - yes.

The only way to get a stick and rudder  skills is in actual airplane. In my personal opinion sims are more useful for people who already certified skillful flyers but need sims to work on proficiency or another type rating. But hey if you bring someone who spent time in Redbird FMX  instead of real airplane and nails all maneuvers at ACS standard during next flight, I will agree with your statement above! 

9 hours ago, Franz007 said:

Btw. AATDs are not “just posters”. This view can be considered outdated. Modern AATDs like Redbird FMX and MCX offer immersive visuals, motion platforms, and scenario-based training that go far beyond static poster drills.

I've taught in them, I know what they can do.  I definitely see them as useful for procedures but not maneuvering flight as they don't feel enough like an airplane (hence why you can't do much private or commercial work in them).  Their main value is in instrument training, which, even if you're talking about flying approaches, is more procedural in nature.  It's about scan, workflow and SA - you're barely applying control inputs.  But also, you're not flying X Plane in this scenario; you're flying a Redbird.

We also use fixed base procedures trainers at the airlines, and these resemble a 737 the way the Redbird resembles a 172: just enough to demonstrate procedures and workflow.  They're nowhere near in the same league as a real simulator.  But, they allow trainees the ability to practice and get through the procedural gate event without wasting the time of a full flight sim.

But what I was talking about before was the other uses you were talking about, for DCS and P3d. These are procedural, and replace or augment the cockpit familiarization and flows practice we used to do with posters.  It's chair flying with visual aids, if you will. 

7 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

I don't believe that AADT can teach student steep turns, lazy eights, eight on pylons or chandelle. Emergency or normals procedures - yes.

The only way to get a stick and rudder  skills is in actual airplane. In my personal opinion sims are more useful for people who already certified skillful flyers but need sims to work on proficiency or another type rating. But hey if you bring someone who spent time in Redbird FMX  instead of real airplane and nails all maneuvers at ACS standard during next flight, I will agree with your statement above! 

That‘s not what I said. Of course you have to learn the basics in the real plane.

2 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

I've taught in them, I know what they can do.  I definitely see them as useful for procedures but not maneuvering flight as they don't feel enough like an airplane (hence why you can't do much private or commercial work in them).  Their main value is in instrument training, which, even if you're talking about flying approaches, is more procedural in nature.  It's about scan, workflow and SA - you're barely applying control inputs.  But also, you're not flying X Plane in this scenario; you're flying a Redbird.

We also use fixed base procedures trainers at the airlines, and these resemble a 737 the way the Redbird resembles a 172: just enough to demonstrate procedures and workflow.  They're nowhere near in the same league as a real simulator.  But, they allow trainees the ability to practice and get through the procedural gate event without wasting the time of a full flight sim.

But what I was talking about before was the other uses you were talking about, for DCS and P3d. These are procedural, and replace or augment the cockpit familiarization and flows practice we used to do with posters.  It's chair flying with visual aids, if you will. 

Yes, I basically agree with that. AATD’s are not used for full manoeuvers training in the same way as FFS are. But talking about „chair flying with visual aids“ doesn‘t really reflects it in my opinion They can still be used for emergency procedures and scenario-based training. And modern AATD‘s have evolved a lot. Have you taught recently on the modern ones?

 

3 hours ago, Franz007 said:

That‘s not what I said. Of course you have to learn the basics in the real plane.

But you wrote "wide range of training tasks—including maneuvers, approaches, CRM, and emergency scenarios"   Can you elaborate on that?

What manuvers ? Also how sim help one to learn CRM for solo private pilot?

Hmm looks like Sky Blue Radio got a statement from Robert Randazzo: https://skyblueradio.com/boeing-unveils-virtual-airplane-training-platform-for-next-gen-pilots/
Also see https://fselite.net/content/pmdg-confirms-involvement-with-boeings-virtual-airplane-procedures-trainer-program/

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.”


So if the 737 Max on the screenshots are Asobo's I wonder how exactly PMDG contributed (first of all is it easy enough to verify the screenshots are Asobo's max?, or maybe for whatever reasons for the press release they decided to show the Asobo 737 Max).
 

Edited November 10, 2025Nov 10 by lwt1971

I must say I’m happy for PMDG.. this means they will be around for a long while and they make good planes. As one of the premier devs for the platforms, anything that makes them stronger is good for all of us. 

6 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

But you wrote "wide range of training tasks—including maneuvers, approaches, CRM, and emergency scenarios"   Can you elaborate on that?

Stalls, slow flight, instrument approaches, traffic patterns, and emergency scenarios (source: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_61-136B.pdf)

6 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

Also how sim help one to learn CRM for solo private pilot?

They help by safely practicing workload management, situational awareness, and decision‑making under distractions or emergencies. That’s why FAA includes SRM/ADM in private pilot training. (Sources: https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/safety-briefing/single-pilot-crew-resource-management and https://www.faa.gov/regulationspolicies/handbooksmanuals/aviation/phak/chapter-2-aeronautical-decision-making)

18 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

Stalls, slow flight, instrument approaches, traffic patterns, and emergency scenarios (source: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_61-136B.pdf)

They help by safely practicing workload management, situational awareness, and decision‑making under distractions or emergencies. That’s why FAA includes SRM/ADM in private pilot training. (Sources: https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/safety-briefing/single-pilot-crew-resource-management and https://www.faa.gov/regulationspolicies/handbooksmanuals/aviation/phak/chapter-2-aeronautical-decision-making)

Those maneuvers under tasks is for "The FAA will use the following checklist during the evaluation of an ATD and must be included in the Qualification and Approval Guide" 

CRM is not SRM. 

 

Here is list of FAA approved sims

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/FAA_Approved_Aircraft_ATDs.pdf

For example: This Elite PI-1000 AATD

This BATD P-135 

 

I don't see much difference between basic or advanced. Good luck practice stalls in any of them! LOL

 

 

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Those maneuvers under tasks is for "The FAA will use the following checklist during the evaluation of an ATD and must be included in the Qualification and Approval Guide" 

CRM is not SRM. 

 

Here is list of FAA approved sims

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/FAA_Approved_Aircraft_ATDs.pdf

For example: This Elite PI-1000 AATD

This BATD P-135 

 

I don't see much difference between basic or advanced. Good luck practice stalls in any of them! LOL

 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

3 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

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.”

When they say PMDG's "simulation technology", I'm assuming this includes the aircraft systems simulation. This would mean a feedback loop exists between PMDG and Boeing, which would ultimately result in improved consumer products from PMDG.

Maybe the question of what plans Microsoft has for the commercial space should be posed to Jorg on the next dev stream.