On 01/17/2009 10:11 PM, Alex Perry wrote: > 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.
Agreed. But is it required to stay that way? > Our instrument simulations are not accurate enough. Agreed. But are they required to stay that way? > Our navaid simulations are not good enough. Agreed. But are they required to stay that way? > I haven't looked recently, but at last count other pilots commented > that our near-ground winds model is not usable for training. It's already good enough to illustrate the effect of crosswinds and/or tailwinds during an instrument approach > I haven't checked recently, but last time I tried looking at our > airport lighting in haze ... the intensities were wrong. Agreed. But are they required to stay that way? > I don't think our off airport near ground scenery is useful for visual > training. The off-airport landings aren't particularly more unrealistic than the on-airport landings. >> 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. You can buy a good-enough USB throttle quadrant for the price of about 20 minutes flight time in the real airplane. And around here the certified sims aren't a whole lot cheaper. After you have the throttle quadrant, you will discover that the FG engine model does not respond correctly to throttle, prop, or mixture controls. My question is, is it required to stay that way? > 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. Have you evaluated it? Are you sure that FlightGear is worse than nothing in all categories, and must always be so? Are you sure that the only choice is an enclosed, certified, bolted-down, expensive simulator or nothing at all? Is the value so strongly negative that real pilots should be totally forbidden to touch FG? I remain quite aware that simulators can be abused. But so can any tool, including hammers and even pencils. ===================== I am reminded of the words of Harry Emerson Fosdick: "Person saying it cannot be done is liable to be interrupted by person doing it." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
