 |
AirTalk.org
Aviation discussions newsgroups
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
C. Paul Williams, MD
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 10:40 pm Post subject: Dumb Question |
 |
|
Does simulator software (e.g. X-Plane) offer any value in terms of
simulating pattern work and landings? Do the skills involved
translate to a real plane?
Thanks. CPW
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chris Ehlbeck
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:14 pm Post subject: Re: Dumb Question |
|
|
I can't speak for X-plane but my experience was that MS Flight Sim didn't
help with pattern work or landings at all. If anything it was a negative.
On the other hand it's handing in teaching you intercepting or flying VOR
radial and use of ADF.
--
Chris Ehlbeck, PPASEL
"It's a license to learn, have fun and buy really expensive hamburgers."
"C. Paul Williams, MD" <cpw (AT) traverse (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: | Does simulator software (e.g. X-Plane) offer any value in terms of
simulating pattern work and landings? Do the skills involved
translate to a real plane?
Thanks. CPW
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roy Smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:33 pm Post subject: Re: Dumb Question |
|
|
"Chris Ehlbeck" <cessnapilot (AT) bellsouth (DOT) net> wrote:
| Quote: | I can't speak for X-plane but my experience was that MS Flight Sim didn't
help with pattern work or landings at all. If anything it was a negative.
On the other hand it's handing in teaching you intercepting or flying VOR
radial and use of ADF.
|
Sims (at least the low-cost PC-based ones with toy controls most of us
can afford at home) are fine for teaching procedures, especially
instrument procedures. They really suck for visual and motor skills
training. I can't imagine using one for teaching pattern ops, and
especially landings.
Again, I'm just talking about the stuff you see advertised in the
Sporty's catalog. The full-motion sims the airlines use are a
completely different universe.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marc Chametzky
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:00 am Post subject: Re: Dumb Question |
|
|
Chris Ehlbeck wrote:
| Quote: | I can't speak for X-plane but my experience was that MS Flight Sim didn't
help with pattern work or landings at all.
|
I have to agree with Chris. While Flight Simulator is a great way to
spend some time at home pretend-flying, it's just not the same.
I think that as a student pilot, flying the pattern is one of the worst
things to do in Flight Simulator because you need the immersion
experience to position yourself around the pattern. Even with a yoke and
using the hat to switch views, you don't see the ground in the same way
that you do in a plane.
That said, I did use Flight Simulator to help me with my landings,
though. I set up a saved session where I was on a long, final approach
to my home airport (although the ground in the game looks nothing like
what it really does, of course), and then proceeded to land. I'd try
various combinations of flaps, approach speeds, and pitch angles to see
how they'd work. I'd then use the instant replay to watch the plane land
from a side view so I could see how my descent rate fared with those
control inputs.
| Quote: | On the other hand it's handing in teaching you intercepting or flying VOR
radial and use of ADF.
|
I think that this is good practice for it, too. One of the things that
shocked me in my lesson today (my first time doing VOR and ADF flying in
a real plane) was that in Flight Simulator, the VOR indicator is
rock-solid, while in the plane, it swung back and forth a lot. I wasn't
expecting that.
--Marc
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dudley Henriques
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:43 am Post subject: Re: Dumb Question |
|
|
"C. Paul Williams, MD" <cpw (AT) traverse (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: | Does simulator software (e.g. X-Plane) offer any value in terms of
simulating pattern work and landings? Do the skills involved
translate to a real plane?
Thanks. CPW
|
Not a dumb question at all. It gets asked all the time around here
I've4 pasted in some information below that might help supply an answer
for you.
| Quote: | Dudley Henriques writes;
I've done some consulting on this issue for various interests in the |
flight instruction community and have also worked with MS on the
simulator as a flight dynamics advisor.
My opinion, after doing considerable research on the issue , was that
the sim should be totally avoided by new students during the initial
stages of flight training.
It's during this period that physical cues as far as control pressure
and response are in direct conflict with the simulator due to software
and controller inconsistancies. Much of the initial training in the real
airplane deals directly with a learning curve not only dealing with
control use and interrelationship, but required control PRESSURES,
mostly in combination (aileron/elevator/rudder) as this combination
relates to the aircraft's constant movement though it's air environment
through a constantly changing dynamic in both aircraft speed and wind
velocity both real and relative.
It's an extremely complicated environment and dealing with it requires a
protracted period of exposure that can actually be prolonged and made
more difficult for the student if the student has to deal with any
outside artificial influence such as the desktop flight simulator.
I agree totally that once the basics are ingrained in the student and
the student reaches the PROCEDURES stage, and that includes instrument
work, the sim has some limited use as a training tool, IF used, and I
stress the word IF used, in conjunction with a competent CFI.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Fisher
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 1:33 am Post subject: Re: Dumb Question |
|
|
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques (AT) nowhere (DOT) invalid> wrote in message
| Quote: | My opinion, after doing considerable research on the issue , was that
the sim should be totally avoided by new students during the initial
stages of flight training.
|
I agree. The US Armed Forces should completely abondon any sort of flight
sim training for students. So should Flight Safety International. Take
those IFR trainers out of the classroom, by golly! It just isn't the same,
you know?
.. . . .Which is hogwash.
Flight simming at a young age got me into flying in the first place. Flight
simming during my initial training kept my head in the clouds, so to speak,
and allowed me to advance much quicker than I would have without plain ol'
FS 98.
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that flying the pattern in a
sim isn't nearly as realistic as the real thing. I dumped my expensive yoke
and pedal set after the first five minutes. However, that very early
training allowed me to cement the procedures in a rapid manner in my early
primary training.
Even the bad habits I learned were helpful in building my framework for more
advanced training. Any competent CFI will point out those habits and
correct them quickly.
The most common complaint I hear about folks that use a sim is their
inability to keep their eyes outside the cabin which is hardly a complaint
since it is so easy to cure with "real" training.
I practiced 2300 RPM downwind, 1800 base and 1500 final. Elementary stuff
but I practiced it on the sim and know it helped me. VOR training? Perfect
exercise for the sim. ADF? Perfect for simming. Pre-flying your route
before your first cross country? Perfect for simming. Practicing
procedures for engine outs? Perfect.
Expecting flaps to give you some kind of realistic feedback? Sucks. Trim?
Sucks. Landing practice? Sucks.
I firmly believe that ANY time spent thinking, reading, simming, Usenetting
or committing aviation is time very well spent.
--
Jim Fisher
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dudley Henriques
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 1:52 am Post subject: Re: Dumb Question |
|
|
"Jim Fisher" <spamaddyREMOVE (AT) bellsouth (DOT) net> wrote
| Quote: | "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques (AT) nowhere (DOT) invalid> wrote in message
My opinion, after doing considerable research on the issue , was that
the sim should be totally avoided by new students during the initial
stages of flight training.
I agree. The US Armed Forces should completely abondon any sort of
flight sim training for students. So should Flight Safety
International. Take those IFR trainers out of the classroom, by
golly! It just isn't the same, you know?
. . . .Which is hogwash.
Flight simming at a young age got me into flying in the first place.
Flight simming during my initial training kept my head in the clouds,
so to speak, and allowed me to advance much quicker than I would have
without plain ol' FS 98.
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that flying the pattern
in a sim isn't nearly as realistic as the real thing. I dumped my
expensive yoke and pedal set after the first five minutes. However,
that very early training allowed me to cement the procedures in a
rapid manner in my early primary training.
Even the bad habits I learned were helpful in building my framework
for more advanced training. Any competent CFI will point out those
habits and correct them quickly.
The most common complaint I hear about folks that use a sim is their
inability to keep their eyes outside the cabin which is hardly a
complaint since it is so easy to cure with "real" training.
I practiced 2300 RPM downwind, 1800 base and 1500 final. Elementary
stuff but I practiced it on the sim and know it helped me. VOR
training? Perfect exercise for the sim. ADF? Perfect for simming.
Pre-flying your route before your first cross country? Perfect for
simming. Practicing procedures for engine outs? Perfect.
Expecting flaps to give you some kind of realistic feedback? Sucks.
Trim? Sucks. Landing practice? Sucks.
I firmly believe that ANY time spent thinking, reading, simming,
Usenetting or committing aviation is time very well spent.
--
Jim Fisher
|
As I said, I personally do NOT recommend the use of a desktop flight
simulator during the initial stages of flight training for the reasons
stated. These reasons have absolutely no connection to any
"inspirational" characteristics that might be gained from the use of
such a simulator.
If you, as a Private Pilot non CFI who has not worked directly with
either student pilots in a dual environment with or without a simulator
believe that the use of desktop flight simulators pose none of the
issues I have mentioned here, it is your privilege to offer such opinion
on Usenet.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dudley Henriques
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 2:23 am Post subject: Re: Dumb Question |
|
|
"Jim Fisher" <spamaddyREMOVE (AT) bellsouth (DOT) net> wrote
| Quote: | "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques (AT) nowhere (DOT) invalid> wrote in message
My opinion, after doing considerable research on the issue , was that
the sim should be totally avoided by new students during the initial
stages of flight training.
I agree. The US Armed Forces should completely abondon any sort of
flight sim training for students. So should Flight Safety
International. Take those IFR trainers out of the classroom, by
golly! It just isn't the same, you know?
. . . .Which is hogwash.
Flight simming at a young age got me into flying in the first place.
Flight simming during my initial training kept my head in the clouds,
so to speak, and allowed me to advance much quicker than I would have
without plain ol' FS 98.
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that flying the pattern
in a sim isn't nearly as realistic as the real thing. I dumped my
expensive yoke and pedal set after the first five minutes. However,
that very early training allowed me to cement the procedures in a
rapid manner in my early primary training.
Even the bad habits I learned were helpful in building my framework
for more advanced training. Any competent CFI will point out those
habits and correct them quickly.
The most common complaint I hear about folks that use a sim is their
inability to keep their eyes outside the cabin which is hardly a
complaint since it is so easy to cure with "real" training.
I practiced 2300 RPM downwind, 1800 base and 1500 final. Elementary
stuff but I practiced it on the sim and know it helped me. VOR
training? Perfect exercise for the sim. ADF? Perfect for simming.
Pre-flying your route before your first cross country? Perfect for
simming. Practicing procedures for engine outs? Perfect.
Expecting flaps to give you some kind of realistic feedback? Sucks.
Trim? Sucks. Landing practice? Sucks.
I firmly believe that ANY time spent thinking, reading, simming,
Usenetting or committing aviation is time very well spent.
--
Jim Fisher
|
Actually, after re- reading your post, I find that the examples you are
giving are not at all in conflict with what I have said about the use of
desktop simulators as being not advisable for the initial stages of
flight training where control use is of paramount importance.
Procedural work and instrument practice are well within the area of
accepted use for flight simulators, and their early use by the military
now involves two completely different scenarios. The first is a pre
flight "incentive" and motovational exposure to the simulators which is
more or less what you experienced when using one, and the second
involves the PCATD program which is highly experiemental at the moment
and in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM interferes with the actual pre solo flying
of the real aircraft which is the TOTAL gist of my initial post on this
issue.
For use in general aviation as far as MS flight simulator goes, the
recommendation is still for a non use of the sim during initial stages
of flight training for the reasons stated. The desktops available now
don't meet as yet the rigid standards of the PCATD program regs and can
actually be detrimental if misused during the early stages of flight
instruction. Be advised that even the full compliant PCATD is not
forcasted to replace the actual airplane during the pre solo stages of
flight training for the exact reasons I have given.
For clarity, and for anyone who wishes to view the PCATD program
regulations as they exist at the moment, I have enclosed below a
synopsis of the issue as it's being handled now by the FAA and the
Military.
BEGIN-----------------------------------------------------------BEGIN
Subject: QUALIFICATION AND APPROVAL OF
PERSONAL COMPUTER BASED AVIATION TRAINING DEVICES
Date: 5/12/97
Initiated By: AFS-840
AC No: 61-126
1. PURPOSE. This Advisory Circular (AC) provides information and
guidance to potential training device manufacturers and aviation
training consumers concerning a means, acceptable to the Administrator,
by which personal computer-based aviation training devices (PCATD) may
be qualified and approved for flight training toward satisfying the
instrument rating training under the provisions of Title 14 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) parts 61 and 141. While these
guidelines are not mandatory, they are derived from extensive Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and industry experience in determining
compliance with the pertinent parts of 14 CFR. Mandatory terms used in
this AC such as "shall" and "must" are used only in the sense of
ensuring applicability of this method of compliance. PCATD's are
distinct from flight training devices (FTD) qualified under AC 120-45,
Airplane Flight Training Device Qualification, and flight simulators
qualified under AC 120-40, Airplane Simulator Qualification. It also
provides acceptable criteria under which the airplane or FTD flight-hour
training time required for an instrument rating may be reduced by using
PCATD's that have been determined to meet acceptable FAA standards.
This AC details only one means of determining the acceptability of such
devices for use in instrument training curricula.
2. RELATED 14 CFR SECTIONS. Sections of the regulations to the
information in this AC are in parts 61 and 141.
3. DEFINITIONS.
a. PCATD. A device which:
1. Meets or exceeds the criteria shown in Appendix 1.
2. Functionally provides a training platform for at
least the procedural aspects of flight relating to an instrument
training curriculum.
3. Has been qualified by the FAA.
b. Qualification Guide. Design criteria to assist in the
evaluation and qualification process for PCATD's. A Qualification Guide
is included in Appendix 1.
4. BACKGROUND. During the past several years, there has been
significant development in training aid and training device technology.
This includes the development of aviation-related computer hardware and
software applications. There is considerable interest in making use of
new technology which may provide increased training capability at
decreased cost. This AC reflects the FAA's objective to formally
recognize the potential of aviation training devices for use in general
aviation instrument flight training.
a. Flight Task Procedural Skills. Flight task procedural skills
have traditionally been trained almost exclusively during in-flight
training. Ground training has been used to impart required aeronautical
knowledge. Recent studies, however, have suggested that procedural
understanding of instrument flight tasks can be taught during ground
training using devices such as those described in this AC. Two of the
most recent studies were conducted by the Embry Riddle Aeronautical
University and the University of Illinois.
b. Evaluations of PCATD's and Associated Aviation Training
Software. The FAA has evaluated several computer hardware and software
applications at the request of manufacturers and potential users. These
evaluations were conducted to determine whether certification of airman
recency of experience requirements reasonably could be met using such
devices under applicable provisions of part 61 or part 141. A study
conducted by the University of Illinois, titled "Transfer of Training
Effectiveness of Personal Computer-Based Aviation Training Devices:
Final Report", dated October 1996, examined each task addressed in the
AC. The director of the study affirmed that all instrument training
tasks allowed by this AC have a positive transfer effectiveness, or no
statistically-significant negative transfer effectiveness. Given this
background, the FAA has determined that there is sufficient
justification to allow the use of PCATD's meeting acceptable standards
as creditable devices for meeting some of the training requirements for
an instrument rating under the applicable provisions of part 61 or part
141.
5. AUTHORIZED USE.
a. Instruction by an Authorized Instructor. Qualified PCATD's may
be highly beneficial when used under the guidance of an authorized
instructor to achieve learning in certain procedural tasks such as area
departures and arrivals, navigational aid tracking, holding pattern
entries, instrument approaches, and missed approach procedures.
Accordingly, the FAA has determined to continue the policy that any time
instruction is to be used to log time toward meeting any requirement of
the regulations, an authorized instructor must have presented the
instruction.
b. Reducing Flight Hours Through Ground Training. This AC provides
for some training time on PCATD's meeting acceptable FAA standards to be
used to reduce the total flight hour that otherwise would have to be
accomplished in an aircraft or a flight training device to meet the
requirement for an instrument rating under part 61 or part 141. PCATD's
determined to meet the criteria established by this AC may be used in
lieu of , and for not more than, 10 hours of time that ordinarily may be
acquired in a flight simulator or flight training device authorized for
use under part 61 or part 141, However the FAA has not authorized the
use of PCATD's for conducting practical tests nor for accomplishing
recency of experience requirements.
6. GUIDELINES FOR QUALIFICATION OF PCATD's.
a. One qualification is required for each model of PCATD.
Normally, the qualification will be obtained by the manufacturer. It
will be valid for all serial numbers of that model, provided that no
value for criterion in Appendix 1 is changed.
b. Should a PCATD be modified in any manner, a revised
Qualification Guide must be submitted to the FAA, accompanied by a
request for qualification as modified, as described in paragraph 6d
below.
c. Qualified PCATD's may be used by part 61 schools without further
approval, and should be used in accordance with the guidance provided in
paragraph 7. Qualified PCATD's may be approved for use in a part 141
pilot school as outlined in paragraph 8.
d. To request qualification of a PCATD, manufacturers should send a
request for qualification to the General Aviation and Commercial
Division, Airman Certification Branch, AFS-840, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591. The request for qualification must include
a qualification guide stating a value for each item in Appendix 1. Each
value must meet or exceed the minimum value sated in Appendix 1. The
request for qualification should be submitted at least 60 days before
any training using the PCATD involved is scheduled to commence. This
time frame is necessary to permit the FAA to properly review and
evaluate the PCATD. Upon Finding the PCATD acceptable, the FAA will
approve the qualification guide and return it to the manufacturer. The
manufacturer must ensure that the PCATD meets the criteria stated in the
qualification guide. The PCATD may be evaluated at the manufacturer's
facility or at another site that may be mutually agreeable to the
manufacturer and the FAA.
7. ACCEPTABILITY OF PCATD's FOR USE UNDER PART 61
a. To be acceptable for use in part 61, a PCATD must:
1. Be capable of providing training in all elements for
which it will be used. Those elements should be specified in a
curriculum.
2. Meet the description and criteria established in this
AC.
b. The PCATD should be used in a curriculum which will
provide for:
1. A scope and content which should be in general
compliance with part 141.
2. Not more than 10 hours of flight instruction in a
PCATD in lieu of 10 of the 20 hours of flight instruction allowed for a
flight simulator or FTD. The 20-hour allowance for a flight simulator
or an FTD and the 10-hour allowance for PCATD's are not additive. If a
PCATD is used for the maximum of 10 hours, that 10 hours shall be a part
of the 20-hour maximum allowance for a flight simulator or flight
training device.
3. Instructional materials for flight events.
4. An outline of stage (phase) checks and criterion
levels of performance.
8. APPROVAL OF PCATD's FOR USE UNDER PART 141.
a. To be approved for use under the provisions of part 141,
a PCATD must:
1. Meet the description and the criteria established in
this AC.
2. Be capable of providing training in all elements in which it
will be used, as specified in the syllabus.
3. Be used for not more that 10 hours of flight
instruction time in lieu of 10 hours of the flight instruction time in a
flight simulator or flight training device time allowed by part 141.
The 10-hour allowance for use of a PCATD and the 15-hour allowance for
flight simulator or flight training device under the provisions of part
141 are not additive. If a PCATD is to be used in the certificate
holder's part 141 curricula. It is not the intent of the FAA to require
each user to seek individual PCATD qualification from the jurisdictional
FSDO.
9. REPORTING PCATD TRAINING DATA. While there is no requirement to do
so, annually, during the anniversary month of FAA qualification or
approval of a PCATD, as applicable, pilot schools and other persons
utilizing PCATD's under part 61 or 141 in accordance with this AC in an
instrument rating curriculum are requested to provide the General
Aviation and Commercial Division with the information shown below. This
information will be used to validate the permissible use of PCATD's and
to determine whether additional permissible use or regulatory amendment
to provide for such use is warranted. The information provided should
be sent to the address shown in paragraph 6d. The report should
contain:
a. The name and address of the individual, organization, and pilot
school certificate number (if applicable) providing the training;
b. The number of persons enrolled in the instrument rating course
in which the PCATD is used;
c. The number of flight hours each graduate required to
satisfactorily complete the course of training;
d. The number of graduates who passed the instrument rating
practical test the first time; and
e. Any other information deemed helpful in determining the level of
effectiveness of the devices used as authorized under the provisions of
this AC; e.g., the portion of the curriculum attributable to the PCATD
used, the grading scheme used, and how the instructional management of
training using the simulation device differs from that using an
aircraft.
10. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION. Requests for additional information or
guidance about using training devices should be directed to AFS-840 at
(202) 267--8196.
W. Michael Sacrey
Acting Deputy Director
Flight Standards Service
APPENDIX 1. PERSONAL COMPUTER-BASED AVIATION TRAINING DEVICE (PCATD)
QUALIFICATION GUIDE
This qualification guide provides a means for qualifying PCATD's for use
as FTD's in part 61 or approved part 141 instrument training curricula.
This Qualification Guide may be used to determine that a PCATD meets or
exceeds minimum acceptable FAA design criteria. PCATD's qualified in
accordance with this AC may be used for instrument training tasks only.
They may not be used for testing or checking.
Each qualification Guide submitted to the FAA for evaluation must state
what type airplane or family of airplanes is being replicated and used
as the basis for the following criteria.
PCATD DESIGN CRITERIA
Controls. A PCATD must provide some physical controls and may provide
some virtual controls.
1. Physical controls should be recognizable as to their function and
how they can be manipulated solely from their appearance. Physical
controls eliminate the use of either a keyboard or mouse to control the
simulated aircraft.
2. For the purposes of this guide, virtual control is any input
device to control aspects of the simulation (such as setting aircraft
configuration, location and wind) and to program, pause, or freeze the
device. Virtual controls should be primarily for instructor use.
Control Requirements.
1. A physical, self-centering, displacement yoke or control stick
that allows continuous adjustment of pitch and bank.
2. Physical, self-centering rudder pedals that allow continuous
adjustment of yaw.
3. A physical throttle lever or power lever that allows continuous
movement from idle to full power settings.
4. Physical controls for the following items, as applicable to the
aircraft or family of aircraft replicated:
a. Flaps
b. Propellers
c. Mixtures
d. Pitch trim
e. Communication and navigation radios
f. Clock or timer
g. Gear handle
h. Transponder
i. Altimeter
j. Microphone with push to talk switch
k. Carburetor heat
l. Cowl Flaps
5. Control Inputs.
a. Time from control input to recognizable system response
(transport delay) must be 300 milliseconds or less. This standard must
be certified by the manufacturer in the qualification guide submitted
for qualification. Users will not be required to verify this standard
when requesting approval of a PCATD. Normally, FAA inspectors will not
be expected to measure or verify this maximum delay time as a part of
the PCATD approval process.
b. The control inputs must be tested by the computer and software
at each start and displayed as a confirmation message or a warning
message that the transport delay time or any design parameter is out of
original tolerances. This test must consider the items listed under
Display Requirements (see paragraphs 1 through 4 below.)
Display Requirements.
1. Instruments and indicators.
a. An adjustable altimeter with incremental markings each 20
feet or less, operable throughout the normal operating range of the
aircraft or family of aircraft replicated.
b. A heading indicator with incremental markings each 5 degrees
or less displayed on a 360 degree circle. Arc segments of less that 360
degree may be selectively displayed if desired or required, as
applicable to the aircraft or family of aircraft replicated.
c. An airspeed indicator with incremental markings as shown on the
aircraft or family of aircraft replicated; however, airspeed markings
of less than 40 knots need not be displayed.
d. A vertical speed indicator with incremental markings each 100
feet per minute (fpm) for both climb and descent, for the first 1000 fpm
of climb and descent, and at each 500 fpm climb and descent for the
remainder of a minimum 2000 fpm total display, or as applicable to the
aircraft or family of aircraft being replicated.
e. A turn and bank indicator with incremental markings for a rate
of 3 degree per second turn for left and right turns. The 3 degree per
second rate index must be inside of the maximum deflection of the
indicator.
f. A slip and skid indicator with coordination information
displayed in the conventional skid ball format where a coordinated
flight condition is indicated with the ball in the center position. A
split image triangle indication may be used if applicable to the
aircraft or family of aircraft being replicated.
g. An attitude indicator with incremental markings each 5 degrees of
pitch or less, from 20 degree pitch up to 40 degree pitch down or as
applicable to the aircraft or family of aircraft replicated. Bank
angles must be identified at "wing level" and at 10, 20, 30, and 60
degree of bank (with an optional additional identification at 45
degrees) in left and right banks.
h. Engine instruments as applicable to the aircraft or family of
aircraft being replicated, providing markings for normal ranges and
minimum and maximum limits.
i. A suction gauge or instrument pressure gauge, as applicable, with
a display applicable to the aircraft or family of aircraft replicated.
j. A flap setting indicator which displays the current flap setting.
Setting indications must be typical of that found in an actual aircraft.
k. A pitch trim indicator with display that shows zero trim and
appropriate indices of aircraft nose down and aircraft nose up trim, as
would be found in an aircraft.
l. Communication radio(s) with display (s) of the radio frequency in
use.
m. Navigation radio (s), including an ADF and a VOR with ILS
indicator (each with an aural identification feature), and a marker
beacon receiver. As applicable, the incremental markings noted below
must be present.
1. One-half dot or less for course/glide slope deviation (i.e.,
VOR/ILS)
2. 5 degree or less for bearing deviation for ADF and RMI, as
applicable.
n. A clock with sweep second hand and incremental markings each
minute and second or a timer with a display of minutes and seconds.
o. A magnetic compass with incremental markings each 10 degrees or
less. The compass should display the proper lead or lag during turns.
p. A transponder panel which displays the current transponder
setting.
q. A fuel quantity indicator(s) which displays the fuel remaining,
either in analog or digital format, as appropriate for the aircraft or
family of aircraft replicated.
2. All instrument displays listed above must be visible during all
flight operations. The update rate of all displays must provide an
image of the instrument that:
a. Does not appear to be out of focus.
b. Does not appear to "jump" or "step" to a distracting degree
during operation.
c. Does not appear with distracting jagged lines or edges.
3. Display update must be 10 Hz or faster. Each display must sense a
change and react at a value less than the stated. Display updates must
display all changes (within the total range of the replicated
instrument) that are equal to or greater than the values stated below:
a. Airspeed indicator: Change of 5 knots
b. Attitude indicator: Change of 2 degrees in pitch and bank.
c. Altimeter: Change of 10 feet
d. Turn and bank: Change of 1/4 standard rate turn.
e. Heading indicator: Change of 2 degrees
f. VSI: Change of 100fpm
g. Tachometer: Change of 25 rpm or 2% of turbine speed.
h. VOR/ILS: Change of 1 degree for VOR or 1/4 of 1 degree for ILS.
i. ADF: Change of 2 degrees
j. Clock or timer: Change of 1 second
4. Displays must reflect dynamic behavior of an actual aircraft
display; e.g., a VSI reading of 500 fpm must reflect a corresponding
movement in altimeter, and an increase in power must reflect an increase
in the rpm indication or power indicator.
Flight Dynamics Requirements.
1. Flight dynamics of the PCATD must be comparable to the way the
training aircraft represented performs and handles. There is no
requirement for a PCATD to have control loading to exactly replicate any
particular aircraft. An air data handling package is not required for
determination of forces to simulate during the manufacturing process.
2. Aircraft performance parameters (maximum speed, cruise speed, stall
speed, maximum climb rate) must be comparable to the aircraft or family
of aircraft being replicated.
3. Aircraft vertical lift component must change as a function of bank,
comparable to the way the aircraft or family of aircraft being
replicated performs and handles.
4. Changes in flap setting, slat setting (if any), and gear position
(if any) must be accompanied by changes in flight dynamics, comparable
to the way the aircraft or family of aircraft replicated performs and
handles.
5. The presence and intensity of wind and turbulence must be reflected
in the handling and performance qualities of the simulated aircraft and
must be comparable to the way the aircraft or family of aircraft
replicated performs and handles.
Instructional Management Requirements.
1. The instructor must be able to pause the system at any point for
the purpose of administering instruction regarding the task.
2. If a training session will begin with the aircraft already in the
air and ready for the performance of a particular procedural task, the
instructor must be able to manipulate the following system parameters
independently of the simulation:
a. Aircraft geographic location
b. Aircraft heading
c. Aircraft airspeed
d. Aircraft altitude
e. Engine power
f. Wind direction, speed and turbulence
3. The system must be capable of recording both a horizontal and
vertical track of aircraft movement for later playback and review.
4. The instructor must be able to disable any of the instruments prior
to the beginning of a training session, and to simulate failure of any
of the instruments during a training session without stopping or
freezing the simulation to effect the failure.
5. The PCATD must have at least a navigational area data base that is
local to the training facility to allow reinforcement of procedures
learned during actual flight in that area. All navigational data must
be based on procedures as published in 14 CFR part 97.
Task Requirements List.
A PCATD having the features specified above will be qualified for use in
procedural training in the instrument flight tasks listed below. These
instrument tasks must be incorporated in an integrated ground and flight
instrument training curriculum:
1. Flight by Reference to Instruments
a. Straight and level flight
b. Change of airspeed
c. Constant airspeed climbs
d. Constant rate climbs
e. Constant airspeed descents
f. Constant rate descents
g. Level turns, including standard rate turns
h. Climbing turns
i. Descending turns
j. Steep turns
2. Abnormal and Emergency Procedures
a. Timed turns
b. Compass turns
c. Instrument failures
d. Procedures for turbulence
3. Radio Navigation Procedures
a. VOR navigation
b. NDB navigation
c. Localizer and ILS navigation
d. VOR holding pattern
e. NDB holding pattern
f. Localizer holding pattern
g. Intersection holding pattern
h. Use of RNAV, including GPS
i. Use of DME
4. Instrument Approach Procedures
a. Precision approaches
b. Nonprecision approaches
c. ILS back course approach
d. Missed approach
5. Communications Procedures
a. Air traffic control clearances
i. Departure clearances
ii. Enroute clearances
iii. Arrival clearances
b. Radio advisories and warnings
i. ATIS and CTAF
ii. SIGMETS, AIRMETS, NOTAMS, FSS communications, and
flight plan changes.
6. Cross-country Procedures
a. Departure
b. Enroute
c. Arrival
END------------------------------------------------------------------------END
Thank you.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Icebound
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 2:55 am Post subject: Re: Dumb Question |
|
|
"C. Paul Williams, MD" <cpw (AT) traverse (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: | Does simulator software (e.g. X-Plane) offer any value in terms of
simulating pattern work and landings? Do the skills involved
translate to a real plane?
Thanks. CPW
|
There are flight schools that heartily endorse the use of Microsoft Flight
simulation 2002 and 2004, and even offer instruction in the set up and use
of the program. For a modest fee, of course, you get to use their equipment
for a few evenings, and learn to set it up and run it on your own machine.
I have never taken such a course but have heard rave reviews about it, AND,
having been created specifically for those planning to learn to fly, I
assume that it will point out what pitfalls to avoid. Perhaps if Dudley is
so adamant students are using the Flight Simulator incorrectly, he might set
up a similar course for his own students so that they would use it right.
Dudley continues to insist that the skills do not translate. It appears
that some other instructors have a differing opinion. However, whether the
SKILLS translate directly or not is probably not as important as the
INFORMATION which translates very well.... the requirement to apply back
pressure in a turn, to crab for wind correction, to maintain an angle of
attack that will not stall, etc., etc., etc. If you conscientiously follow
through the instructional modules within the simulator, do some reading....
and have the slightest amount of reasoning ability.... you will walk into
your flight training with a huge leg up on the rest of the class, and you
will easily make whatever adjustments are necessary once you get into a real
aircraft.
Based on Dudley's posts, however, DO NOT TELL your flight instructor that
you are using a simulator at home.... obviously, for some instructors, it
will immediately set a red flag and he is going to try to "correct" you,
instead of "teaching" you. Do what you do, let him be amazed at the flight
knowledge you do have, and if he finds you doing something wrong, it is his
job to teach you how to do it correctly. If it proves to be "different"
than the simulator, so what... as I said, if you and any reasoning power at
all, you will work out what adjustments need to be made.
Probably the only legitimate complaint that flight instructors have about
simulator users, is the fact that the simulator user looks at the
instruments more than he should.... This is because your ability to see
left-front-right in a single sweep is much more limited (unless you have an
expensive multi-monitor setup) ... and you don't yet realize that they will
initially want you to determine your attitude and your bank-angle from the
way the horizon appears, not from the artificial horizon instrument.
So you know that going in, and do your simulator "play" consciously trying
to use the horizon more and the instruments less.
Dudley: give your students some credit.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Colin Gibb
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 3:23 am Post subject: Re: Dumb Question |
|
|
I have MS Flight simulator with the yoke and rudders, and it is good for
some things, but no good for others....for example:
Great for having fun, trying different planes..
As far as pratical purposes, it's good for navigation practice using VORs
DMEs, etc, and it's great for practising setups for takeoff, landing,
maneuvers (ie. carb heat on, full flaps, RPM setting, etc) -- allows you to
do the repetition over and over without paying for an hourly rental charge.
Now for the bad, it's pretty much useless (in my opinion) for practice doing
take offs, landings, pattern work for a number of reasons....
1) Taking off/landing requires feel...you don't get that with FS.
2) Pattern work is all about the visual, you really need ground reference
to effectively fly the pattern, and you just don't get that with the FS.
I don't find it overly useful for flight training, but it definately is fun
:)
Enjoy!
"C. Paul Williams, MD" <cpw (AT) traverse (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: | Does simulator software (e.g. X-Plane) offer any value in terms of
simulating pattern work and landings? Do the skills involved
translate to a real plane?
Thanks. CPW
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Colin Gibb
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 3:37 am Post subject: Re: Dumb Question |
|
|
Actually, interesting you mention about the inability to keep your head
outside the cabin after using FS....I actually usually use the view where
the few instruments are shown on the bottom of the screen, but the outside
view is full screen....then I use the horizon for levelling, etc..helps me
to remember to use the outside, not the instruments...
"Jim Fisher" <spamaddyREMOVE (AT) bellsouth (DOT) net> wrote
| Quote: | "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques (AT) nowhere (DOT) invalid> wrote in message
My opinion, after doing considerable research on the issue , was that
the sim should be totally avoided by new students during the initial
stages of flight training.
I agree. The US Armed Forces should completely abondon any sort of flight
sim training for students. So should Flight Safety International. Take
those IFR trainers out of the classroom, by golly! It just isn't the
same,
you know?
. . . .Which is hogwash.
Flight simming at a young age got me into flying in the first place.
Flight
simming during my initial training kept my head in the clouds, so to
speak,
and allowed me to advance much quicker than I would have without plain ol'
FS 98.
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that flying the pattern in
a
sim isn't nearly as realistic as the real thing. I dumped my expensive
yoke
and pedal set after the first five minutes. However, that very early
training allowed me to cement the procedures in a rapid manner in my early
primary training.
Even the bad habits I learned were helpful in building my framework for
more
advanced training. Any competent CFI will point out those habits and
correct them quickly.
The most common complaint I hear about folks that use a sim is their
inability to keep their eyes outside the cabin which is hardly a complaint
since it is so easy to cure with "real" training.
I practiced 2300 RPM downwind, 1800 base and 1500 final. Elementary stuff
but I practiced it on the sim and know it helped me. VOR training?
Perfect
exercise for the sim. ADF? Perfect for simming. Pre-flying your route
before your first cross country? Perfect for simming. Practicing
procedures for engine outs? Perfect.
Expecting flaps to give you some kind of realistic feedback? Sucks.
Trim?
Sucks. Landing practice? Sucks.
I firmly believe that ANY time spent thinking, reading, simming,
Usenetting
or committing aviation is time very well spent.
--
Jim Fisher
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dudley Henriques
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 3:43 am Post subject: Re: Dumb Question |
|
|
"Icebound" <ice_bound (AT) rogers (DOT) !!!EXTRACT!!!.com> wrote
| Quote: |
"C. Paul Williams, MD" <cpw (AT) traverse (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:303749db.0410041440.7de7e769 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com...
Does simulator software (e.g. X-Plane) offer any value in terms of
simulating pattern work and landings? Do the skills involved
translate to a real plane?
Thanks. CPW
There are flight schools that heartily endorse the use of Microsoft
Flight
simulation 2002 and 2004, and even offer instruction in the set up and
use
of the program. For a modest fee, of course, you get to use their
equipment
for a few evenings, and learn to set it up and run it on your own
machine.
I have never taken such a course but have heard rave reviews about it,
AND,
having been created specifically for those planning to learn to fly, I
assume that it will point out what pitfalls to avoid. Perhaps if
Dudley is
so adamant students are using the Flight Simulator incorrectly, he
might set
up a similar course for his own students so that they would use it
right.
Dudley continues to insist that the skills do not translate. It
appears
that some other instructors have a differing opinion. However,
whether the
SKILLS translate directly or not is probably not as important as the
INFORMATION which translates very well.... the requirement to apply
back
pressure in a turn, to crab for wind correction, to maintain an angle
of
attack that will not stall, etc., etc., etc. If you conscientiously
follow
through the instructional modules within the simulator, do some
reading....
and have the slightest amount of reasoning ability.... you will walk
into
your flight training with a huge leg up on the rest of the class, and
you
will easily make whatever adjustments are necessary once you get into
a real
aircraft.
Based on Dudley's posts, however, DO NOT TELL your flight instructor
that
you are using a simulator at home.... obviously, for some instructors,
it
will immediately set a red flag and he is going to try to "correct"
you,
instead of "teaching" you. Do what you do, let him be amazed at the
flight
knowledge you do have, and if he finds you doing something wrong, it
is his
job to teach you how to do it correctly. If it proves to be
"different"
than the simulator, so what... as I said, if you and any reasoning
power at
all, you will work out what adjustments need to be made.
Probably the only legitimate complaint that flight instructors have
about
simulator users, is the fact that the simulator user looks at the
instruments more than he should.... This is because your ability to
see
left-front-right in a single sweep is much more limited (unless you
have an
expensive multi-monitor setup) ... and you don't yet realize that they
will
initially want you to determine your attitude and your bank-angle from
the
way the horizon appears, not from the artificial horizon instrument.
So you know that going in, and do your simulator "play" consciously
trying
to use the horizon more and the instruments less.
Dudley: give your students some credit.
|
The main issue with desktop flight simulators isn't that they don't have
their use in the flight training program. It concerns their use during
the pre solo stage of the learning curve. Actually, it's ONLY in this
stage of training that I don't recommend their use as I have stated many
times on this forum.
Let me reiterate what I'm saying again just in case you and Fisher might
be misinterpreting what I've been saying here.
The problem is directly related to the physical cues that are absolutely
necessary in the learning curve as these physical cues relate to control
pressures being felt by the student pilot while flying a specific
aircraft (the aircraft being used for the dual instruction). These
physical cues to specific control pressures VITAL in allowing the
student to become familiar with his specific airplane throughout that
airplane's entire flight envelope as all this relates to changing
dynamic pressures on the control surfaces through constantly changing g
and airspeed. In other words, the student has to be able to "feel" a
specific airplane's responses to varying control pressures in order to
be able to safely fly that airplane.
This in no way should be construed to mean that learning control
DIRECTIONS and USE by using a flight simulator isn't a good thing to
know going into the first hour of dual. Of course this would be an
advantage! All you can learn about how things work before actually
getting in the airplane with the instructor is beneficial. There's no
harm at all in using a simulator to familiarize yourself with the flying
experience and how everything functions.
Naturally, someone who has used a simulator before taking that first
hour of dual will be better prepared than someone who hasn't used a
simulator. But there's a necessary break in there that should take place
the moment you take that first hour with the instructor. It's at this
point that the simulator should be put aside and complete concentration
devoted to how the actual aircraft feels when you're flying it. This
can't be duplicated on the simulator...period! In fact, it's been our
finding that continued use of the simulator can even be detrimental to
the learning experience as the student mentally goes back and forth
between what he's feeling in the actual airplane and what he's NOT
feeling on the simulator at home.
The 'away from the sim" period we're talking about here isn't all that
long. How long to solo? I did it in 8 hours. Today it's a bit longer
The main point is that in this all important pre-solo period, the
student should have no other input to relate to control use other than
the actual airplane. The reason as I have stated, is that knowing how
controls work and the direction in which to move them is fine,,,,but
once you begin flying, it's the varying control PRESSURES we want the
student to learn to handle.
Later on in the training curve, after solo and during the period where
procedures become a factor, the sim has limited uses and can again be
used, although I still like it used under a CFI's direction.
It is notable that even in the programs Fisher mentioned that are
experimenting with the FAA PCATD program, there is absolutely NO mention
as of this point in time of this program, (MSFS isn't PCATD qualified )
being used in any way whatsoever as a replacement for actual dual during
the pre-solo period. The main stress on even the PCATD program is for
limited use as a training tool for instrument and other procedures, the
key word being "procedures".
So you see, I'm not "against" the use of simulators per se'; just their
use during the period between dual hour one and solo.......no big deal
at all ))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tony roberts
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 7:17 am Post subject: Re: Dumb Question |
|
|
| Quote: | Flight simming at a young age got me into flying in the first place. Flight
simming during my initial training kept my head in the clouds, so to speak,
and allowed me to advance much quicker than I would have without plain ol'
FS 98.
|
Of course, you have to remember that this is only from a low-wing guy.
Us high-wingers are much more demanding :)
Tony
High Wing
[email]Indiacharlieecho (AT) hotmail (DOT) com[/email]
Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cecil Chapman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:57 am Post subject: Re: Dumb Question |
|
|
"C. Paul Williams, MD" <cpw (AT) traverse (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: | Does simulator software (e.g. X-Plane) offer any value in terms of
simulating pattern work and landings? Do the skills involved
translate to a real plane?
Thanks. CPW
|
As with all things.... just my personal opinion, so weigh it accordingly as
you would any other post on a newsgroup. <grin>
Instrument training - sim is invaluable. In fact, I would go so far as to
say that if a pilot is doing their instrument training and NOT making use of
some of the computer based aids & sims, that pilot is doing himself/herself
a great disservice.
I think the sims are useful in primary training. They are USELESS in
teaching landing skills/cues but sims are quite helpful in helping a novice
get acquainted with what all those instruments are about. I've heard the
criticism that having used a sim makes a new student pilot stare at the
'guages' a lot. I don't know if the sim is to blame. I think it is a
natural tendency for any 'brandy-new' student pilot to stare at the
instruments. Especially when being asked to fly straight-and-level with the
horizon. Well, if you're like I was, the first thing that you are going to
be asked to do, is to look out the windscreen to see what
'straight-and-level' looks like. The first thing that will come to your
mind is that the picture out your windscreen doesn't look at ALL, like what
you thought it should for straight-and-level. I remember in my early
primary training having to glance down at the attitude indicator/artificial
horizon and then look out the windscreen to try to 'cement' the image of
what the sight picture was. This is just one of many examples.
I also agree with Jim F. (I know it always pleases him if I agree with his
opinion,,,, low-winger that he is <grin>). The sims are great for
practicing procedures (like the different throttle settings throughout the
pattern, setting up for slow flight, etc.). Now it doesn't 'translate' well
on everything, but with certain aspects of flying, it serves most admirably.
As Jim also pointed out, you can 'practice-fly' your first solo x-country -
helps a little with the confidence (especially if it is a newer sim with
'approximately - realistic' scenery).
As always,,,,, just my two cents!
--
--
=-----
Good Flights!
Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL
Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com
"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -
"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cecil Chapman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:59 am Post subject: Re: Dumb Question |
|
|
Oops... also wanted to add - get a flight yoke (like the one by CH
Products). I've tried it with the rudder pedals too, but don't find them
useful in that if you want to practice a cross-controlled input like a
forward slip, the 'puter gets ALL confused - of course, then again, that
could just be my computer, is all.... :)
--
--
=-----
Good Flights!
Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL
Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com
"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -
"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
