On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 7:54 PM, John Denker <j...@av8n.com> wrote: > 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.
I agree with Curt's excellent comments in this thread. > Are you assuming that an un-enclosed un-certified un-bolted-down > un-expensive simulator has no value to pilots? By default, yes. The pilots on the list that use FlightGear for recurrent training are very careful to only apply it for specific purposes - and to back those activities up with a real aircraft. > 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? Nope. Curt was responding to what you said in the other message, which is not the same as what you wrote in this message. > 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. Procedural trainers are useful and the FAA has a minimum specification (PCATD) which determines how much fidelity is needed to ensure a net positive training value for the student. FlightGear does not currently meet that standard. > 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 Our instrument simulations are not accurate enough. > -- approaches to _below_ published minimums in low IMC Our navaid simulations are not good enough. > -- approaches with crosswinds, tailwinds, and/or turbulence I haven't looked recently, but at last count other pilots commented that our near-ground winds model is not usable for training. > -- approaches in low visibility. A hood is OK for simulating > a ceiling, but what if there is no ceiling, just bad haze? I haven't checked recently, but last time I tried looking at our airport lighting in haze ... the intensities were wrong. > -- et cetera. > > These things are much more safely done in the simulator. Agreed; I used an FTD for this and learned a lot. > 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. Hah. Always carry suction cups. > 3) VFR emergency training. > -- Practicing basic procedures > -- Continuing the scenario all the way to an off-airport landing I don't think our off airport near ground scenery is useful for visual training. > 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. FAA believes the skills only transfer with a realistic throttle quadrant. > 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. If the net training value (aka transfer of correct skills) is negative, the use of FlightGear is inappropriate for that procedure. This has to be evaluated on a per-procedure and a per-simulator basis. > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
