Mi Vida Loca wrote:
> Greg, > What you and numerous others seem fixated on is electronic flight. Sorry, Dave, I don't agree. > My own > brother tells me the same thing. The problem is a simulator does nothing to > really sharpen your navigational skills. It depends on how you use it. Here's the approach I used after the lay-off: I would pick a destination (or better yet, have my wife tell me where to go) and do the full XC plan, including weight and balance. That even means filling out my favorite Jepp VFR plan form, and wearing my favorite knee-board. Then I'd fly the flight, in real time, watching the land-marks and allowing the work-load to build up. No cheating with autopilot. Because part of the job that I had to learn to do again was to keep the altitude and course where it belongs, while watching the land-marks, and so on. Actually, FS98 tends to 'wander' a big more than a real aircraft. So what I got back was the ability to keep that ever-shifting attention focus that real flying requires. Instead of practicing in the club 172 at $40.00/hour, I could do it for free in the evening, any time I wanted. And when I came back to X-C flight, I was more prepared. I also practiced things like 'lost' procedures, etc. > You are confusing chasing needles > and following a controllers directions with the ability to navigate. You > navigate with a sectional in you lap with one finger on it, the other hand > on the yoke and your eyes outside the cockpit looking at the sky for > changes in weather, looking for landmarks and enjoying the view. Yup. And that's the way you practice with a simulator. Otherwise, it'sjust playing with a computer game. By the way, that latter can be fun! > When I learned to fly my instructor was a rather wise old bird who very > thoughtfully inoped the nav radios on my first solo X-country. Yep, you can do that with FS98. You can even ask FS98 to randomlyinop things (including the engine) on you. > As a result of his method of teaching I was quite comfortable when after a 6 > year > layoff from flying I was able to get from Charlotte where I bought 41 > Charlie to Dallas with nothing more than the sectional, compass and my > watch. As a result of about 20 hours of flying FS98, when I got back in the realaircraft I had already remembered what I was supposed to be doing, and behaved more like a professional rather than having to have the CFI tell me what I was supposed to be doing at a given time. I could focus on the stuff that FS isn't much good for... ...the visual/motor skills of handling the aircraft. > It's surprising to me how many pilots I talk to think that was a > really big deal and wouldn't have done it themselves. Don't get me wrong, > for instrument work I think a good simulator is great, but if you are doing > it to keep current in something like a Coupe you are wasting your time. Granted, you won't be fully current, but if you operate with a plan for simulatoruse, just like they do at the big schools, you *will* recall and polish skills. > No simulator you can afford will help your skills flying VFR in something like > > a coupe. There is little or no real feel to the controls and there is no > third dimension, which is the element in VFR you really have as the > difference between driving a car and flying a plane. Well, I don't know. 172 controls feel about like a bad joystick (just one ofthe reasons I've gravitated towards the Cardinal of late). You can get a force-feedback joystick. I'm not sure what you mean about 'third dimension'. The FS98 airplanes go up and down, sometimes when you don't want them to. In fact, the trim isn't as effective as real aircraft, and there are some add-on hardware goodies that help this. If you invest in 3D AGP graphics on a fast machine, and get the settings right, there is a palpaple 3D 'feel' to things outside the window. I wish, though, that MS would make airports as hard to find in the hilly Eastern terrain as they are in real life. Those little green and red thresholds make it too easy. > To this day I rarely look at my airspeed on final, I > know how the plane should feel and what sounds I should hear. I can > routinely put it down within 20 feet of my desired touchdown spot. The > altimeter for most of my flying is just there for getting into the pattern > at the right altitude. Most of my non X-country flying is below 3,000 agl > so an altimeter is just not that big a deal. Some of us have to fly under Class B airspace, amongst rising terrain and obstacles. To us, the altimeter is a big deal, since it's telling the FAA at all times whether or not we get to keep our licenses. > If you can't afford 5-6 gallons of > fuel to sharpen your skills then you probably should limit yourself to > virtual flight. It's one thing when you have to rent a plane the costs are > a factor but not when you own something as cheap to operate as a coupe. Well, when we're having a bit of Eastern summer yuck, I can run the sim andget some practice. Using the enhanced NE US scenery, I can grab a 'look' at something before I go out to do it. I will continue to use FS98 as a supplement to actual flight, not because I can't afford to do the real one but because I have found it, and continue to find it, useful. Dave, if you don't find it useful, then either change the way you use the Sim, or don't use it. But please be more circumspect before you make pronouncements as to the objective validity of the simulation. Greg
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
