Flight Sims As Effective Pilot Learning Tools 41
Thanks to Wired News for their article discussing the increasing use of PC flight simulators in educating real-life pilots. It references Microsoft's newest Flight Simulator 2004, and mentions: "The Navy decided to see if using Flight Simulator would help... students. It found that trainees who used the program did better in their training, prompting the Navy to issue customized versions of Flight Simulator to all of its flight students." There are still issues with using retail PC products: "Flight Simulator's limited field of view from the cockpit, and the resulting focus on the instruments that it encourages, can cause problems that need to be corrected in flight training", but overall, Microsoft's product is described as "...a highly effective tool to help student pilots learn how to fly."
Very true... (Score:4, Interesting)
Linux Please? (Score:4, Interesting)
The only flight sim I know that is free (as in beer) and penguin compatible is something called "FlightGear". [sourceforge.net] It seems pretty cool, but I hear it's not quite up to X-Plane [x-plane.com] standards, which I believe to be neither free (as in beer) nor Linux friendly. I wonder what is available, besides FlightGear, for the open source crowd?
Flight sims (generic term) do help - sometimes. (Score:4, Interesting)
Otoh, the graphics aren't really detailed enough for pilotage (navigating by ground landmarks), "seat of the pants" maneuvering is impossible, and control feel is, of course, completely different.
(At the time, MS FS didn't offer a low-wing trainer (which makes more of a difference than you might think) so I didn't check it out. From what I've seen, though, the advantages / drawbacks would be pretty much the same with any sim out there.)
So a sim is, imho, a useful supplement to real-world training, but in no way is it a substitute. I strongly doubt that any amount of time on a PC sim would've enabled Osama's minions to manuever a 7x7 precisely enough to do what they did.
MSFS useful in very controlled circumstances (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm a private pilot who flies in the upper Midwest (read: oftentimes challenging instrument flying).
The problem with MSFS is that it doesn't really teach the judgment necessary to be a good pilot. Being a good pilot is more about judgment than about the actual 'flying' part: practically anyone can be taught be manipulate a plane; not everyone can learn the judgment necessary to do it safely.
MSFS is best left out of primary flight training, where the most important goal is teaching judgment and an outside-the-cockpit focus.
Once the student becomes more advanced and starts instrument training, however, MSFS can be invaluable. Much of instrument training is simply repetition: forcing yourself to adopt an appropriate instrument scan as habit and learning how to prioritize tasks. Neither of these critical abilities require that you actually be burning tons of money flying around the sky; thus, MSFS excels as a cost-effective way to learn them.
Of the 65 hours or so it will take for most people (that's the national average in the U.S., even though the requirements are much lower) to obtain a PP-ASEL rating, I suspect you can really only knock 3-4 off by intelligent use of MSFS. It's worth noting that 3-4 hours still makes it cost-effective.
On the other hand, I think you could cut your -IA (instrument) addition by 25 percent or more with an instructor who is confident and intelligent in his use of MSFS as a teaching tool.
Pooks
I learned to fly before I learned to drive (Score:1, Interesting)