Simulators for ab initio training

[xysn]

I noticed some flight schools now use simulators like the Redbird at Rockcliffe and Brampton.

Has anyone done their ab initio training on them? Is it really a good way to get more training per dollar?

[lownslow]

I haven't and wouldn't recommend doing ab initio training in any simulator I've operated. Granted, I've never even seen a Redbird in real life but I believe there are certain things missing in most sims. Generally speaking, they lack that fine feel of airplane controls in your hands, as well as some subtle noises and such but most of all I refuse to believe the view is anything like what you get (and require at this stage, IMO) in a real airplane. I would dare to say that there's a chance ab-initio sim training could cost you sinificantly more by the time you get your license.

If you want to save money, do your homework. Understand what each lesson is all about well before you climb into the airplane and be very familiar with your various checks and procedures. Read the FTGU, FTM, POH and maybe pick up one of Kirschner's books if you have some cash left over and remember you're not just reading to see the material, the end goal is to understand what you've read. This will save you precious time in the airplane, which then saves you precious dollars.

So long as you fit, also consider using a 152 instead of a 172 or a DA-20 instead of a DA-40. You'll definitely save a few bucks here, too.

LnS.

[Beefitarian]

No simulator is good for training at that level. You want to be in a real airplane feeling actual effects of going up a couple of thousand feet and landing with some light crosswinds. Simulators are for honing your instrument skills and practicing emergancys that can be made far more realistic without the risk of shutting down systems in an actual plane.

Flight training is no place to be cheap. When it comes to hours you'll get all your experience there. That's why hours are king on your resume. There's no short cut to experience, you have to well... experience it.

[xysn]

That pretty much lines up with my own experience ... the FTU curriculum called for exercises 1 - 18 in the sim before doing them in the plane (Except 13 / 14) so I did 9 hours or so in a simulator before getting into the plane, and I don't personally feel like those sim hours helped ... especially since the sim modeled a different aircraft type than real airplane I'd be training on, although maybe I progressed through those exercises in the real plane quicker than I otherwise would have?

Maybe if you began your training in the winter the simulator would help, but I started in May, so I do feel like I wasted a few good weekends of air time in the digital box.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I think the RedBird or equivalent has real potential for post PPL real world PDM. The visual system is very realistic and so I think there is real opportunity for safely exposing students to known pilot killers: for example

Night rating: scenarios involving black hole effects, and hoe easy it is to get into inadvertant IMC

Mountain rating: scenarios showing the dangers involving in climbing up the gradient (ie West bound departure out of YYF) or rising ground which forces a climb into cloud (ie the Western approach to the Hope slide in poor weather) and how quickly things can go for shit if you are down in the valley and heavy precip sudden reduces the vis.

Anybody: Some exposure to the challenges of .. running and how far do you want to go before you turn around.

Non of this counts towards the next rating, but it could save your life one day....

[moocow]

The biggest issue with any flight sim is the lack of actual motion and force feed back. If they are not using something like a Redbird FMX or MCX then it's no better than flying FSX at home. Just go buy the add-on for the plane they use for FSX and fire it up. Do it with your ground school kit and you get the general idea. However, still can't make up for the lack of motion...unless they use one of these:

http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-ceter ... s-2011126/

EDIT: Forgot the "not" in my sentence.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The biggest issue with any flight sim is the lack of actual motion and force feed back. If they are using something like a Redbird FMX or MCX then it's no better than flying FSX at home. Just go buy the add-on for the plane they use for FSX and fire it up. Do it with your ground school kit and you get the general idea. However, still can't make up for the lack of motion...unless they use one of these:

http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-ceter ... s-2011126/

You have obviously never used a Redbird if you consider it the same as MSFS on your home computer, there is no comparison.

[CJM]

Ive used the redbird and I didnt think it was peticularly special- its uses what looks like conventional computer monitors... I think simulators are good for procedural training... I think itll be used more in training as long as gas keeps getting more expensive

[nightbird]

There are tons of stuff that can be done in a simulator (a good full motion one) at ab initio level. For example show all the procedures of checklist use including the run up, a good advantage is if the sim cockpit is 100% equal to the training airplane, how diffenrent systems work, you can fail different things during the run up for example and let the student figure out what is wrong. Practice navigation (this one deppends on the quality of the terrain addon, some could get very real). When the student jumps in the real airplane he allready knows most of the stuff including the position of the switches and controls and how to use them so he only concentrates on getting the "feeling" for the airplane, you cant learn how to fly in a simulator but you can save a ton of money by practicing procedures on one, and I say it again a good full motion sim not a joystick on your laptop computer, that is good for IFR not for ab initio)

[SuperchargedRS]

After giving a good bit of training in the Redbird FMX (full motion), it's great for instrument (really great!), however the physics or something are not quite right for VFR takeoff and landings, slow flight and a few other performance maneuvers.

Also most of the time we ran the FMX we turned the motion off.

[SuperchargedRS]

Also the Redbird products ARE based off and use microsoft flight sim.

[moocow]

@BPF: Yeah I never used one but I also made an error in my post. Corrected to reflect my original thought.

[padre12]

Don't of course, forget CAR 421.26(4)(b)(i): 5 hrs Instrument time required for a PPL of which only 3hrs can be used (to count) in a SIM.

Having said that, I believe the SIMs are an excellent tool for learning all kinds of parts of the license and procedures and can significantly reduce the total number of hours you might need in an airplane to meet the licensing standards. I've used ALSIM's, Frascas, and several other manufacturers for these sorts of "other" purpose and ended up saving my students money because they were better prepared for when the weather finally cleared enough for us to fly. If your school has a good enough visual data base, you can even do things like radio procedures and reporting points for familiarity.

Have a great Christmas!
Padre12

[ScudRunner]

Mountain rating: scenarios showing the dangers involving in climbing up the gradient (ie West bound departure out of YYF) or rising ground which forces a climb into cloud (ie the Western approach to the Hope slide in poor weather) and how quickly things can go for shit if you are down in the valley and heavy precip sudden reduces the vis.

.

WTF is a "Mountain Rating"?

[Beefitarian]

Something you need for most places to let you rent their planes to fly in areas with mountains. I can take a picture of it if you like. There's a stamp in my log book, "safe for mountains" and a instructor's signature.

[ScudRunner]

sure and send me the CARs reference while your at it, maybe I was just exempt from this rating because I got my licence in BC. Snap away I would like to know more about this rating!

[Big Pistons Forever]

..

You are right. Where I wrote "Mountain rating" I should have wrote "Mounting training". Happy now ?

[ScudRunner]

Yes, its one of my pet peeves, the "Mountain Rating / Endorsement" I wonder if Quantas requires one to buy a type rating.

[Beefitarian]

Mountain rental permission stamp and signature?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Yes, its one of my pet peeves, the "Mountain Rating / Endorsement" I wonder if Quantas requires one to buy a type rating.

Yah it is not like your low hour new pilot needs any trianing to fly into the mountains

And for something completely different you could always try posting a constructive comment.........

[ScudRunner]

Actually this was constructive, I think we have highlighted the differences between a Rating eg.Night, IFR , Instructor v. Endorsement eg. Float, Multi-Engine.

Remember kids its important when talking out your ass to use the correct terminology.

Oh and for those playing along at home Quantas is another one of my pet peeves it's QANTAS (Queensland And Northern Territory Aerial Services)

Yah it is not like your low hour new pilot needs any trianing to fly into the mountains

didn't say that at all and you spelled training wrong.

[Hhef]

Don't get me wrong, simulation has its place but...

Having taught with a company who has opted to use this method, I do not find it to be beneficial overall. I do agree that once the student steps into the airplane they have an easier (read faster) time getting through the basic exercises, however the benefits do not seem to outweigh the costs. Costs in the this case meaning $$ spent on time that cannot be logged. Also seeing that any simulator capable of properly simulating anything close to reality costs very close to the same as renting an actual aircraft. In the future perhaps this will be effective and/or beneficial method but I don't see it being this way at this point.

Food for thought. Some think that certain companies use simulation as a means to develop a 'reputation'. Ie more time spent in the simulator creates a few less hours of aircraft time, which at the end of the day means producing pilots with less hours towards a license. All this to say the company can claim they are "more efficient" or "better" than the next guy. This is of course all a ruse since students pay out of pocket for time they cannot log, and since any Cpl student needs minimum 200hrs they end up spending more money in the long run with little benefit.

My 2 cents, for what its worth. Comments?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Remember kids its important when talking out your ass to use the correct terminology.

Remember kids you too can be a jerk on an Internet forum..... or not, it is your choice.