On 01/17/2009 05:47 PM, Curtis Olson wrote: > You are expecting a complete cockpit enclosure, instruments, radio hardware, > instructor station software, plush seat, and FAA certification for free? > The FAA doesn't certify a software application (well unless you are looking > at a PCATD and even there, it's not just the software they are looking at.) > For Level 3 FTD certification and above they certify a complete simulator > and at least half of their certification tests involve control loading in > some way or another. They go so far as to insist that if you move a > simulator to a new location, you must get it recertified.
I'm quite sure I wasn't expecting any of that. Are you assuming that an un-enclosed un-certified un-bolted-down un-expensive simulator has no value to pilots? Certainly if you wish to make a self-fulfilling prophecy, you can create a no-value simulator. But why would you want to? On previous occasions you supported the idea of using FlightGear for pilot training, endorsing it in the strongest categorical terms. Has something changed? If you're sure it can't be done, please explain. That would clear up lot of confusing things I've seen on this list over the last few years. In case there's anybody who doesn't already know, here are some of the things that look doable to me: 1) Instrument procedure familiarization. Suppose you (the pilot) are flying into an unfamiliar field for the first time. It is a big help to run through the instrument approach on the simulator. -- It helps you learn the names of the fixes, the frequencies and codes of the navaids, et cetera. -- It helps you discover little surprises such as stepdown fixes that require nasty steep descents. -- It gives you a chance to practice the missed approach. My dictum is, if you're not ready for the miss, you're not ready for the approach. For that matter, flying into JFK for the first time, you could get seriously lost on the taxiways. Real pilots are willing to practice taxiing. Gamers not so much. 2) Instrument emergency training. There are some things that instructors don't like to practice in the real aircraft, such as -- unusual attitudes in real IMC -- partial panel in real IMC -- approaches to _below_ published minimums in low IMC -- approaches with crosswinds, tailwinds, and/or turbulence -- approaches in low visibility. A hood is OK for simulating a ceiling, but what if there is no ceiling, just bad haze? -- et cetera. These things are much more safely done in the simulator. Also, a subtly failed instrument is incomparably more dangerous than one that is merely covered with a suction cup. There are lots of pilots out there who have never seen this, and have no idea how bad it is. 3) VFR emergency training. -- Practicing basic procedures -- Continuing the scenario all the way to an off-airport landing 4) Complex aircraft transition training. Gear handle, prop handle, cowl flaps, speed brakes, et cetera. I'd much rather have the low-time pilot abuse such things in the simulator than in the real airplane. 5) Systems failures. -- Gear that "should" be down but isn't -- Flaps that "should be down but aren't -- Noticing the oil pressure gauge before it's too late. -- Noticing the fuel gauge before it's too late. -- et cetera 6) Multi-engine transition training. 7) Multi-engine emergency training -- engine-out approaches -- engine-out go-arounds *) Et cetera. If you're sure that FlightGear cannot be of value in any of these ways, please explain. Of course we could construct an even longer list of things that _should not_ be done in the simulator ... but that's a topic for another day. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
