And we complain because a flight model isn't perfect

I agree with their assessment on that. A few years ago I had flown the real 727 simulator when it was on the DFW property and I can tell ya it had plenty of flaws programmed in. Two pilots and myself argued with the controller about the mistakes the simulator assumes, especially in weather. A pilot needs to become proficient in real air training to include rough weather. Air is a funny thing in a terrible sort of way. That goes for Vortexs too!
Ted
 
txnetcop said:
I agree with their assessment on that. A few years ago I had flown the real 727 simulator when it was on the DFW property and I can tell ya it had plenty of flaws programmed in. Two pilots and myself argued with the controller about the mistakes the simulator assumes, especially in weather. A pilot needs to become proficient in real air training to include rough weather. Air is a funny thing in a terrible sort of way. That goes for Vortexs too!
Ted
Click to expand...

In my day we only used them for EP training and IFR stuff.
 
You know that, I know that, and many others know that. But, the ones who demand perfection for their hard earned 29 dollars will never get it.
 
Nothing takes the place of real world/real time training in a real aircraft.

As long as it's "simulated" it'll never be real.
 
The trick is figuring out what the simulator is good at teaching, and more importantly, what it's not good at teaching. I think the navy has this down pretty good. There are simulators inside giant domes, and simulators that have flat screens in front of them, and other simulators with no visuals at all, used to train on things that don't require visuals, like cockpit familiarization. Then there are computer based training lessons, for teaching systems and such, and then there ate classroom instruction. And finally, there are real flights. The quest to keep teaching “stuff” in the “correct” medium is an on-going one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top