Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Flight Training Recommendation

I think the more technical the flying, the more valuable the sim is. I have
a fairly extensive background in terms of flying and simulator experience.
For something like trike flying or hang gliding, there are basically no
instruments required. It is totally a feel type of flying. Simulators are
of really limited value for flying like that. As we move up the scale to
flying an airliner, simulators have much more value especially as full
motion and awesome visual have been developed. I have type ratings in the
777 and 747 prior to ever flying the actual airplane. 100% of the training
was done in the sim and my first time on the controls of the actual plane I
was hauling actual passengers. No, I did not make a PA announcement to let
them know that the pilot flying was making his first landing in the airplane
today. haha. My point is, there is a graduated scale in between those two
extremes where simulators have value, and that value will continue to
increase as the simulator technology increases. In flying fighters, it is a
combination of hands on stick and rudder skills that is much more dynamic
than simply the stick and rudder skills of landing a 747 in a 50 knot
crosswind (I have done that in the sim, would hate to do it in real life).
Where a sim has real value in F-16 type of flying is learning systems,
practicing emergencies and procedures, learning to operate weapons systems,
and practicing instrument approaches. For actual air-air fighting using
guns, not so much value.

All that brings us to SP/PP training. Like I said above, it's a sliding
scale that goes from basically zero value in a hang glider to lots of value
in a modern 747 simulator. Picture what skills a SP needs and figure it out
for yourself where he fits on the scale. Do the same for a PP. A PP needs
some hood time and night time. Might a sim be useful for that? I would say
quite possibly. What does a SP need? Any instrument time? No. Night
time? No. Crosswind landing skills? Yes. The ability to land in a
pasture with an engine failure and judge and plan a glideslope to actually
hit it? Yes. Any complex systems to manage or emergency procedures to
manage? Not so much.

I'm having trouble picturing much value for a SP. It would be added
training, not replacing the airplane. I would have to actually see the sim
to be convinced, but I've flown some pretty expensive sims that cost almost
as much as an airplane. Their value was that they didn't burn fuel and you
could put them in a situation you wouldn't want to be in in real life.
(Engine fire, failure on liftoff in fog and mountains, low altitude
windshear, etc.)

I looked in my logbook and I completed my PP with 40.5 hours. No sim. I
don't see a student finishing in 45 hours as being anything extraordinary.
I think the reason most people take longer comes from 2 things. Time in
training (stretch it out between flights, progress is slower) and motivation
of the student. I took my training with a bunch of like minded future
military pilots. Motivation wasn't an issue. And sims would have added a
bit of value for doing instrument training. Much of that can be done while
droning along on a cross country anyway. That said, I do agree that sims
are coming along and will have more and more value especially as the
airplanes become more and more technical. I would be interested in seeing
their operation.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: L. Bruce Jones
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 7:21 AM
To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Flight Training Recommendation

Helen & Charles,

We'll have to agree to disagree. Both of you sound like you are advocating
an either or scenario, like there is a choice between learning to fly in a
sim or an aircraft. Clearly, I am advocating both for any kind of flying,
including Sport Pilot. To me it is very simple, if you take a willing victim
and train him to Sport Pilot standards in say, 30 hours, will he be a better
pilot if in that 30 hours is interspersed with 10 hours of additional sim
time. In my view the answer is, absolutely.

In a full motion sim if you want to fly seat of the pants - cover the
instruments. There will still be some benefit. And for emergency procedures,
spin training, radio familiarity, etc., etc., the sim is advantageous.

At Redbird yesterday a student completed his PP check-ride (they only use
outside examiners) with 45 hours of actual flight time. I don't know how
many sim hours he had, but without the sim experience it would have taken
him a lot more time. So, Helen, there is your answer - they are not using
deposits and refund refusals to fund other students.

I've been flying for over 40 years and in all that time this is by far the
most effective, professionally run and advanced flight school I've ever
encountered. And at less than half the cost of some LSAs a Redbird full
motion sim should be part of the arsenal at every flight school. It's the
way of the future...


L. Bruce Jones, CEO
U.S. Submarines, Inc. • Triton Submarines LLC
Poseidon Undersea Resorts (Fiji) LLC
U.S. Submarine Structures LLC
E-mail: bruce@ussubmarines.com
Tel: +1 208/687-9057



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links





------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
Sport_Aircraft-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Sport_Aircraft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/