Ng Flight Simulator VERIFIED

Microsoft Flight Simulator has "flight lessons" with a virtual flight instructor, some of which teach concepts that are taught during actual flight training. These simulators are becoming very realistic, and I can see them being helpful as an introduction to a subject prior to running the Hobbs meter and paying for actual flight time. Will this experience help or hurt someone who decides to become a real pilot? Is it a tool which can help students/instructors in an actual training environment?

Especially when I was a student, I found this incredibly helpful for my long cross country flights. You can look at a map all you want, but its still not the same as sitting in the simulator, and looking around ("I see the mountain on my left.... and the lake below me. I can follow this valley all the way to the airport..." etc). And I've generally found the simulator, with good terrain and textures loaded, can be pretty close to reality.

Ng Flight Simulator

Download Zip 🔥 https://tinurll.com/2y7ZvF 🔥

The night before I did a student flight from KBFI to KVUO, I flew the entire thing in FSX. The next day, it really felt pretty much like making the same flight all over again. Based on the landmarks, timing, views, etc, I knew exactly where I was, and I was confident that everything was going right.

Because of these limitations, I would NOT use a flight simulator to try to learn takeoffs, landings, or certain maneuvers. (You can learn the "procedure" in a simulator... when to reduce power, when to add flaps. But the "feel" will be all wrong).

In a flight simulator, you can set up the computer to give you a random emergency at a random time. You might get the problem on short-final, or over a metro-downtown area. Something that you just can't do in reality.

I haven't had any real-life emergencies, so I don't know how accurate a flight simulator is. But I believe that some practice is better than no practice at all, and flight sim lets me fly into storms, icing, get lost in fog, fly approaches below minimums, have an engine seize up on me, etc, all without risking my butt or a $200,000 airframe.

Instrument interpretation

Scanning and cross-checking the 6-pack of instruments can be done in a simulator just fine, and a student can practice doing it for long periods of time for a fraction of the cost of flight time.

On the ground & Outside the plane

Anything on the ground, such as taxiing and parking, or anything outside the airplane, such as pre-flight inspection, or weather interpretation, just doesn't work in a sim.

Radios

I haven't seen any flight sims that really work for the practice of talking on or listening to the radios. (I haven't used VATSIM, which might help). I don't think there's any good substitute for actually flying in a real airspace while simultaneously engaging in real radio conversations.

Feel

Even the best full-motion sim isn't a substitute for the forces a student feels in a real airplane. This is especially true on ground-reference maneuvers, takeoffs, and landings, where I feel sims fall far short of reality. No one will ever get a "feel" for the plane from a simulator.

Another very useful simulator I've used is the Garmin G1000 PC trainer. The G1000 has so many features that trying to identify them all while sitting in an actual aircraft is difficult, even if you have the aircraft available and can pay for it. It also lets you practice various failure modes, which is often difficult to do in the real aircraft. Garmin provides simulators for their 'basic' aviation GPS units too, and they're great for the same reason: you can play around as much as you like. There's no doubt in my mind that they help very significantly.

I think that as glass cockpits become more and more common, simulation will become more and more important. They're great tools, but they also bring a lot of complexity and learning how to handle that complexity safely is a lot easier using a simulator. Of course you eventually need to go up, fly, and try out what you've learned for real, but it's no fun trying to flip through a G1000 user guide in flight.

A good pilot takes care of the machine and it's passengers. A good pilot can deal with the unexpected and make sound decisions to continue a flight or not or perhaps even to not commit aviation at all. A good pilot has situational awareness which tells them, via sixth sense, that the bizjet calling left base is a potential threat and is already looking by the time the tower calls.

Flight simulators on your computer doesn't offer the possibility to learn how to actually fly an airplane, they even teach you to act in a different way and in my eyes this might be even very dangerous especially if you only have a little flying experience yet.

But there are exceptions: I now don't like to talk about flying but operating an airplane. A flight simulator for sure offers a good possibility to train procedures. To learn instrument approaches you maybe better go into a FNPT but other procedures and flows like organising approaches, work on a proper timing and workflow, practice briefings and even get used to some instruments. Tracking VORs and NDBs outbound from different positions, deciding for the right holding entry and all this stuff.

But once again, a PC flight simulator does not teach you flying the actual airplane and can even be a disadvantage for your initial flight training. If you get used to flying and handle your aircraft well, then it probably is a great way to learn more complex operations.

Another problem I've often observed is that people who 'trained' a lot on their computer become far too confident on what they are doing and very used to procedures which in the actual plane may not work. Always remember that you are a pilot who likes to learn and use the computer only as a helpful device to get a impression how things basically work. If then questions occur, ask your flight instructor.

I've been "playing with" MS Flight Simulator ever since the first version came out for the original Mac's nine-inch black-and-white monitor. (It only had the Cessna 172, a Learjet, and a Sopwith Camel.) Many years later, while working at Microsoft, I was practically the only person in the office (not USA) able to do the product press demo at the launch of MS Flight Sim 97 (edit: it was more likely FS2000, a major upgrade in 1999). The Cessna is still in there. After the press conference (at an airport!), people were invited to try it for real; we had hired a couple of flight instructors and their ... Cessna's!

I was lucky to get the final slot, and I swear that the only thing the flight instructor ever touched was the radio, and the prop angle at take-off! I had never touched a real airplane before (except as an airline passenger, duh) but with my MSFS practice -- even without yoke and pedals -- I just felt right at home and every detail of the 10-minute flight was just as I expected it to be. My own impression is that my flight and landing was considerably smoother than the other "student" that I flew with.

What I found with MS:FS is that it really helped me in terms of understanding things. For example, how control input = output, how VOR works, and good airmanship. This led me to be 8 lessons ahead of where I should be, when I was 8 lessons in. - What would happen is that I'd go up with my instructor, and the planned lesson would be completed [well] within a few minutes, so they started the next lesson in the air.. 8 times in a row. I give this credit to flight simulator.

In today's world of drones, and children growing up with tech, Lockheed figured out an ingenious plan to save the military tons of money and make a profit.By shifting training to a virtual environment including virtual reality software, flight simulators and even full on level D simulators the military will save money. Why spend \$14,000 per flight hour for a C-130 when you can simulate it. The full level D is \$800 per hour. And \$68,362 for a F-22... versus \$800.

So could I really fly those?? Cessna... yes...but something bigger?? Yes after a very basic briefing by an instructor( takeoff speeds, landing speeds etc...) I solo'd a C-130 on my first flight. Well the Level D one.... at least.

I spend a bit of time using a flight sim (Lockheed-Martin's Prepar3D). I have discussed this very question with CFI's and there is some disagreement. A flight sim cannot "teach you to fly." It can help you practice what you have learned in your flight lessons. there are some caveats: 1) you have to have rudder pedals and a stick or yoke. 2) More monitors is better. 3) Using photorealistic scenery will get you more familiar with area.

A home rig with the minimum "bells and whistles" can run up to $1,000 or more. That's about 5 hours of real world flight lessons plus ground school (If you shop around). You can learn A LOT in 5 hours of flight training.

I like it for a hobby and I like to plan flights, I don't expect to be a real pilot and I don't expect to jump into a plane and fly it I'm not that crazy, but I notice that began to know the instruments and what they are used for, I love FSX and I'm proud of being a FSX Pilot. I know one thing for sure is that I have great respect for the pilots who do fly real airplanes.

Another I like about FSX is that I can fly whatever aircraft I want to and don't have to pay or rent an airplane. I can't afford flight lessons so flying on the simulator is fun and can be very challenging especially when it comes to landing. For me I don't take it as a game but I take it as a learning tool, just in case I do decide to go to flight training, like I said earlier, I would not jump in a real airplane and try to fly it I would take flight lessons first, and hope that what I learn from the Flight Simulator would help me advance quicker.

I read at several places that chair flying at home is very beneficial during flight training. However it appears to be very boring. A better alternative is always a flight simulator. As everyone has mentioned, it is not a replacement to actual flying, but at least it makes you prepare for the steps to do in a certain situation. 006ab0faaa