Click Here to Return to

Based on my experience it seems that most pilots I have met suffer from the lack of training that could have been given them if the majority of their instrument learning was done in a simulator/training device. (e.g. a frasca)

I believe it is commonly agreed that the plane cockpit is a horrible learning environment. Training in a plane also does not allow preparing for or experiencing a lot of important procedures, failures, etc. I think sim training is a bit less expensive as well.

So, why does it appear that the majority of GA instrument pilots don't get trained with simulators?

Do CFIIs prefer not to use them? If so, is it because sims are not good? Or they are not trained in their use?

Other reasons?

How much time did the instrument rated pilots here spend in a sim and a plane during training?

(By sim - I mean an FAA approved device that can be counted towards training)

Speaking as someone who is just starting his IFR training, I think it has to do with the cost and availability of FTDs. I am doing my training with a private instructor, and although the school she works out of does have a crappy (but certified) FTD, they want to charge $90/hour for it. I own my own plane, and my total operating costs for that are well below $90/hour, so the choice is a no-brainer.

Someone who has to rent planes may be better served by that, no doubt, so my situation is unique. But we do scenario planning, and I spend a lot of time in my (non-certified) X-Plane sim at home, so even though I can't log the time it's still very helpful. In our last session, I wanted to do a DME arc approach to a local airport, which I had practiced in X-Plane. She refreshed me on the basics, but I was able to establish the inbound radial, turn at the DME distance, turn 10 twist 10, etc., and follow the approach all the way in. There's no doubt the time with X-Plane prepped me for that.

Hey guys ... I addressed this in the most recent podcast ... 'tfp mail call'

jason

_________________
"To Live is To Fly" - Townes VanZandt
www.thefinerpoints.net
jason@thefinerpoints.net

Finished listening to this podcast. I agree that simulators seem to be down played, but I think it doesn't need to be just used with the instructor alone. The instructor, and in my case my instructor allowed me unlimited access to the schools simulator, but I also had MS simulator. This is an invaluable tool during and after IFR training, I think.

The reason is if your instructor incorporates the home flight sim as part of a "homework" assignment to the student. This is the same controlled environment for learning we see every day when going to grade school. My instructor gave me specific tasks to do such as practice a specific holding pattern, and as an instructor she knew when I didn't do my homework, when we were flying. Again, this is a controlled instructional environment if done properly.

After the IFR rating, I still use the simulator to "brush" up on techniques and see if new ones will work. I use the simulator to "practice" an approach I may be doing for a new airport, just to get the feel of the procedures down and see if I'm missing a detail. I'd rather do the mistakes on the ground then in the air especially for instrument flying. Again being a low time pilot that doesn't fly professionally this is an important aspect to keep safer then the FAA minimums.

I lean HEAVILY on a sim for my intrument people, both the newbs giving it a first try at the instrument and the veterans looking for an IPC. They both complain heavily at first...the newbies saying "This thing doesn't fly like an airplane!" (to which it shouldn't. That's not it's purpose. It's purpose is to teach you to scan) and the veterans saying "It would have worked if we were up in the plane!" (to which I smile on the inside knowing that the end result would have been exactly the same or worse).

After a half hour or so of figuring out how to get it trimmed and waking up their sleepy scan, they start to really appreciate what it can do, especially the "OK, let's pause it for a second and have a look at your ground track" capability, and towards the end of a 2 hour block, they're saying "Hey, let's do another sim next time before we go up..."

It's my opinion that a simulator without an experienced CFII is like a gun without bullets. Nearly useless. Anyone can set up a basic flight sim to put themselves 20 miles from an airport, intercept the localizer and fly it down to minimums. That's cake. Unfortunately, that's not instrument flying.

A sim NEEDS a capable CFII in order to be effective. The CFII needs to be able to play the part of ATC perfectly. They can't stumble for words, issuing clearances, giving headings and altitudes, traffic calls, "say intentions", etc. The bread and butter of being a good instrument pilot is knowing that the "right now" is already gone, and what's important is what's going to happen or where you're gonna be in the next few minutes. Here are some examples of what a CFII can do that you can't do in a sim alone and really learn anything from it:

1. Vector you to within 2 or 3 miles of a Final Approach Fix on an ILS but keep you 2000 feet above the FAF altitude. Now what?

2. Drop the visibility to less than the prescribed mins so that when you reach DA, you see nothing. Now what?

3. You decide to go missed. You start the climbout and ATC says "Say intentions." Now what?

4. You tell ATC you want to hold at a particular VOR. As you start to tune in the frequency of the VOR, ATC (your CFII) says "XXX VOR is out of service. I can give you the hold at the NDB though..." Now what?

5. In the hold, you tune in the ATIS for a nearby airport and you decide you're going there as a diversion. You call ATC and tell them you want the ILS because the ceiling is already way below the minimums for the non-precision approach, and they come back with "ILS XX glideslope out of service". Now what?

6. ATC calls you back and tells you that the visibility is improving at your original destination airport and they can give you the ILS again if you want it. You say "Yes!", but as you turn to the initial vector ATC issues, you realize it's a coastal airport and the wind is coming in off the water, and the sun is going down. The temperature is dropping and that fog is going to get thicker before it lifts. Just as you finish this thought ATC calls back and says "N12345, tower says the RVR just went below minimums again. I can hold you at the marker if you want..." and you agree. He says "Roger...N12345, you're cleared to the ABCDE intersection via radar vectors. Turn right heading 220, climb and maintain three thousand, expect the ILS 24. Advise when you have information Kilo"

7. It takes 2 or 3 passes of the ATIS before you've got everything you need, and now you dig up the approach plate to check the minimums and brief the approach, but...

Congratulations, you're right back at number 1 again! Now what?

My point in all of this is that for a sim to be effective, you need an instructor who can throw real-world curveballs at you. Imagine if you went to school as a kid and there was no teacher. You showed up, walked into class and saw a message written on the board that read "No teacher. Choose what you want to learn and teach yourself". How far would you get?

It's the responsibility of your instructor to expose you to borderline chaos.
That's what instrument flying is all about. One thousand decision per minute x however many minutes you're flying = real world IFR.

If you're going to choose to sit at home by yourself and try to learn IFR using a computer based flight sim, make sure you're squawking 7600 in your transponder, because that's the level of realism your "ATC" will have for you. There's a reason why you can't log "solo" sim time.

Oh, and I utilize an Elite PI-135 PCATD.

_________________
Inst: "So how far out so we make our initial call-up?"
Student: "10 miles"
Inst: "OK, let's make that call"
Student: "Airport Traffic, Cessna 172, 3 miles east..."

Tim,

Sim time doesn't mean diddly to a CFII's logbook, and since a large portion of CFIIs are just building time to get to their next flying job, why bother? It's better for their logbook when they can get you up in an airplane and have you fumble through it and they get to log it.

The other side of it is they might not be comfortable acting as ATC considering a large portion of those same CFIIs don't have much more time in a plane than you do.

There's a cornucopia of reasons, but the CFII has to believe in the power of a sim in order for it to be an effective training tool.

_________________
Inst: "So how far out so we make our initial call-up?"
Student: "10 miles"
Inst: "OK, let's make that call"
Student: "Airport Traffic, Cessna 172, 3 miles east..."

There a lot to support the use of flight simulation devices. Many articles have been published on the value in using flight simulators in instrument training programs. In 1997 the FAA really took a leap of faith when they first approved PCATDs for ten hours of logged credit for the initial instrument rating when used in the presence of a CFII. The CFII is supposed to assure that guidance is provided and can witness the time for logbook entry.
This does not mean that good value is not realized when virtually "flying" a fight simulator solo. In fact, most CFIIs will encourage solo practice between dual sessions to brush up on what has been done in both the aircraft and on the simulator.
I was glad to listen in on Jason's Podcast that did a great job in not only supporting both the dual and solo use of flight simulators, but the way that they can be used effectively. I was one of the first adopters in doing ten day IFR ratings using PCATD sims. You might find some valuable tips in how they can be implemented into a flight training program by reading the ASA book; "Teaching Confidence in the Clouds".

_________________
Tom Gilmore MCFI