I'm an airline pilot and an instructor. If you spend thousands of hours in a flight simulator, you're probably the type of person who will try to absorb all the information you can about flying airplanes. This kind of person will probably do well when learning to fly the real thing. There will be a lot of bad habits to break, not the least of which is a fixation on the instruments.
I do not recommend somebody go and spend time on a simulator to do their VFR training, it's a waste of time. You will learn far faster in the real plane and your time not flying is better spent studying the books.
Just one (not so humble) pilot/instructor's opinion.
EDIT: for IFR flying, the simulator is very useful, but I would recommend using it under the guidance of an instrument instructor. It's easy to pick up bad habits otherwise.
What's IFR and VFR?
chrisandchris described it perfectly. I will just add some additional info. (Funnily enough my name is Krisz :) so you will have info from chrisandchris and Krisz ;))
VFR is the type of flying everyone starts at first with, and then later in your training you learn IFR.
There are generally 3 big “problems” a pilot has to solve. They have to keep the plane flying straight and level, they have to keep from hitting things (other airplanes, terrain, buildings, etc), and they have to get to where they want to go.
The two types of flying differs in how these 3 big goals are achieved.
With VFR you look out the window and see if the horizon is level, and that you are not sinking or ascending to keep level and straight flight. You sometimes crosscheck this with your instruments but the windscreen and your vestibular system is your primary instrument. You avoid flying into things by what is called “see-and-avoid”, which is exactly what you imagine. You see things and you avoid them. You use your radio to be aware of other airplanes around you, but your primary means of avoiding them is still the fact that you see them and steer away from them. And finally you get to where you want to be by looking out finding landmarks and flying to your destination based on that. For example you might spot a river, or a big road and follow it to your destination. This is what we call visual flight rules, or VFR for short.
This is all great and very intuitive. But the problem is that none of this works if you can’t see out of the airplane! And that happens more often than you would like. Fog and clouds and mist and darkness has caused many accidents before more advanced piloting techniques were developed.
So what do we do if we can’t see? We fly using the instruments in our cockpit, and this process is called instrument flying rules or IFR for short.
You keep the airplane straight and level by scanning the instruments and integrating what they say in your head and reacting accordingly. This is harder than it sounds. One tricky thing is that your inner ear in the absence of visual inputs lies to you! You might feel you are ascending when you are actually banking . The other tricky thing is that there is a certain amount of lag on the airplane’s reaction to your inputs and there are random noises like tiny gusts of wind, so if you yank the controls every time you see the instruments change immediately then you yourself might induce oscillations in the airplane. And then you react to those oscillations and if your reactions are in phase things might get worse and worse. So you have to learn to not do that, and also to trust the instruments more than your own internal sense of orientation. Which is very non intuitive and therefore hard.
Then you also have to avoid hitting things. The way you avoid hitting cranes, buildings and terrain is by flying above a certain minimum altitude. As you might guess this minimum is higher where the ground is higher and lower where it is lower. And then you also have to know about tall towers. There are maps which advertise how high you have fly to avoid hitting obstacles at any point. Avoiding other airplanes is harder, so you use the help of the air traffic control. They clear you to fly certain directions at certain elevations and they make sure every airplane they control stays far away from each other.
And of course both of these depend on you knowing where you are and where you are heading. Having a map of minimum safe altitudes is nice but if you don’t know where you are it is near useless. Having clearances is nice, but if you don’t know which way you are flying they won’t help you. So you use a compass, and radio navigational instruments to keep track of where you are.
This is a lot of hard work and you have to do all of the above and more simultaneously at the same time and without major errors. So if you are not good enough at each of them you might become what is known as “task-saturated”. Too many things to do and keep all in your head. Or if you are not processing all of this in your head fast enough your internal representation of what is going on with the airplane and around the airplane might lag behind reality. This is also known informally as “flying behind the airplane” which is for obvious reasons very dangerous. So IFR is much harder than VFR, but also because it is less about your internal feelings and your ability to look around it is also much easier to simulate in a simulator. This is the reason why it is generally recommended to start with VFR training in a real airplane, while in the later IFR training simulators can play a bigger role.
"your vestibular system is your primary instrument"
This was a big no-no during my training. You are very prone to spatial disorientation and vestibular system illusions like leans, somatogravic illusion, etc. I was always taught (in the books and during flights) to trust the aircraft instruments.
(I trained in the UK)
They're talking about flying VFR. You can't get the leans or somatogravic illusion flying in daytime VMC.
An attitude indicator is not required for VFR-only aircraft.
You are right, but I believe gkedzierski is right too. It is indeed common for trainers to start telling these things to student pilots early on during their training. I think the reasoning behind that is to instil the right instrument scan practices while people are fresh in the cockpit before they even consider IFR training.
You are 100% correct on that. Just to explain to others reading us: VMC means visual meteorogical conditions. Roughly and informally that is when you can see. While IMC would be instrument meteorological conditions, that is roughly and informally when you can't.
Just to illustrate how dangerous these "leans" can be there is this NTSB report about such a case: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...
People might also know this one as the tragic helicopter accident which killed Kobe Bryant.
The pilot had 8,577 hours of total flight time, and he was the chief pilot of the company. So you would count him as an experienced pilot. Yet as he flew into thick fog, according to the NTSB report, he got the "leans". That is he had the illusion that he was ascending while in reality his airplane was banked and turning. Sadly they flow into a hillside and all 9 people aboard died. A tragic case.
It is hard to know exactly when the pilot lost all visual cues but according to the report there was about a minute between the pilot reporting to ATC that they are climbing to get over the clouds and them impacting the terrain. Things unfortunately can go sideways very fast in IMC.
I'm just saying this for other readers, you probably know already, but the word "taught" is doing a lot of work here. Training for IFR requires many hours of being put into many situations designed to fool your vestibular system to get you to forcefully override it and just use the instruments. Many people crash because they ignore the instruments (due to task saturation) or in a panic, think they are faulty and trust their body. IMC is no joke.
Chrisanddhris and Kris. Is this some kind of Xmas riff? Reading this on 12/24.
It's a Chris mass
Bloody marvellous, and I know I should just upvote to express how bloody marvellous I think this is, and I’ve done that, and it didn’t feel like enough, so here I am. It’s Christmas, shoot me.
Simply put: VFR, Visual Flight Rules, you can see outside, you must stay outside clouds, it's your job to not hit other planes and the ground. You do this primarily by looking out the window.
IFR, Instrument Flight Rules, you are in the clouds and can't see outside, it's air traffic control's job to keep you away from other airplanes and the ground. You keep the plane under control by using your instruments only. Looking out the window yields no information. :-)
Is ATC really responsible for terrain separation? I was under the impression they can advise you when your altitude looks odd, but you are still responsible for avoiding terrain by following procedures and sticking to minimum altitudes, etc.
They will provide “clearances” which avoid terrain - if they ask you (for example) to fly direct to LAX, they need to ensure you are told an altitude to fly which keeps you at or above the minimum for whatever is between you and that waypoint.
As the pilot you are required to follow the instruction but ATC aren’t responsible for you not doing so.
There are situations where you may inadvertently lose communications, so ATC can’t tell you to climb for some future higher altitude requirement. In this case the pilot needs to climb and fly the minimum for the area they are in or airway they are following.
The pilot is in control. But ATC will provide an altitude they want you to maintain. When you are cleared to land, ATC isn’t doing anything to keep the plane from hitting a building on final approach.
Instrument and Visual Flight Rules; flight using basically only instruments, or relying on visual sight of things
I have flown gliders when I was younger and occasionally thought about PPL. And I have thought sims as well. Given the glider backcround, am I going to learn bad things on a sim?
I genuinely had no idea that a license wasn't required to fly a glider (or "ultralight" based on my reading). I'd imagine there is very high overlap anyway -- most glider pilots being pilots, etc.
At least in europe there is a separate licence for glider flight.
Same in the US. "Airplane single-engine land" and "glider" are two possible private pilot ratings (others include rotorcraft, balloon, multi-engine, seaplane, etc).
Same in US, they are separate.
Weirdly often not! They’re quite different recreational activities.
Flying powered is a “go to the airfield and takeoff” whereas gliding is more of an all-day team sport at most clubs as there’s a lot of ground handling required for towing, winches etc.
But a pilot's license is generally required to fly gliders.
Stuff like winch-launched paragliders excluded.
Yes, a private pilot's license (PPL glider) is required to fly gliders. OP probably meant that they were considering adding a rating for powered airplanes (PPL ASEL - airplane, single-engine, land).
Alternatively perhaps they mean that they took some lessons in a glider as a student pilot and considered going further and getting the license.
Glider is widely recommended as an entry to powered flight. You'll be better prepared and will have better stick and rudder skills than most student pilots.
it also wont be such a shock the first time you lose engine thrust.
What's your opinion on seats with haptic feedback and VR for flight simulators?
Airline training takes place in a multi-million dollar simulator, which is a 1:1 replica of the flight deck in a room on hydraulic struts. The struts provide feedback and the sensation of acceleration... to a certain extent. They are the state of the art for training, you can get your whole type rating for the airliner in a simulator without ever having touched the real jet.
Even in this case, I would say the simulator has specific strengths, and that is to teach instrument flying procedures. Landing the simulator is pretty different than landing the real thing, there is some negative transfer (the bad habits I was referring to).
Retail flight simulator flight models are just toys. They don't do a good job of simulating the behavior of the airplane close to the ground (e.g. during landing), nor are even the expensive ones necessarily accurate at the edge of the flight envelope (near/at stall).
I don't think haptic seat and VR change much, you are still better off getting into a real plane and just flying. You can probably do quite a bit of flying for the cost of all this gear.
Note that struts do not provide acceleration directly, but by rotating you in relation to the existing gravity. This means they can generally only simulate 1 g situations, unless I'm misinformed.
You’re not misinformed, but perhaps underinformed.
The hexapod both provides acceleration and rotates to use gravity to simulate continuous acceleration.
The brilliant part is that it trade between these two modes below human vestibular thresholds. So you can’t tell whether your sense of acceleration is coming from movement or orientation.
I took a flight physiology course with Larry Young who modeled the human vestibular system as a set of feedback loops with known gains. And an awesome graduate course entirely on flight simulation.
Exactly, for example accelerating down the runway on takeoff is simulated by tilting the whole room so you're actually reclining slightly.
How much flying are you going to get for the cost of a $300 Quest 2, a $200 chair, a $400 joystick, and $40 for Microsoft flight simulator? Throw in a gaming PC for $4,000 and round to $5,000. How many hours, and where, can I get flight time for that price, and will I have a PC to continue using after those hours are over?
You'll get about half way to a third of the way through a PPL, depending on the kind of plane you rent and where you live.
Indeed.
And unlike your haptic seat and VR, you can't hit pause on a real plane whilst you go have a shit, eat dinner or answer a phone call. :)
Haha, I was having some trouble getting my speed right - either just starting decent or on base - my instructor turned the brightness to zero on the Garmin and said to look out the darn window. Everything got smooth, I turned final and landed fine.
Flying is a visceral experience, not a video game. You become one with the airplane in the same way to do with a bike. Can't get that in a sim.
Back in signals and systems class we actually formalized the difference in controlability between continuous time with X ms delay vs discreet time at Y Hz. The specifics escape me, but the summary was obvious: always prefer continuous, minimize X.
Could you expand a little on this? It sounds interesting. Thanks!
You have inertial sensors in your inner ear. There is no fixing a signal that's not even there ;-)
Which is why Sublogic Flight Simulator on a 4.77MHz PC/XT was such a miserable experience prone to overcontrol. 3.5fps is not okay.
What about x = 1000 ms and y = 1000 hz?
I used XPlane with purchased high quality maps for scouting the routes before my cross country flights during my PPL training and found it very useful.
The lack of the real feel of flying, and that the cockpit is not 100% usable (so you can't even follow your checklists completely) makes it, like you say, pretty unsuitable for anything else.
Slightly off topic, a sim i found a while back that went wild with usability, was called "Reentry". Its a very realistic spaceflight sim using real world launch vehicles, capsules, etc. Every gauge, button, and dial actually works, and "does" what it says. The game even includes checklist books in game.
It was very overwhelming for me, and ultimately didnt continue playing it, however, if youre the kind of person that likes super in depth flight simming, its worth checking out.
Looks like a good way to lose a weekend.
Just like the maps, you can purchase high quality planes where you can follow IRL checklists and procedures. You probably know this, but someone not into simming might not.
There could potentially be some application for VR. I know a lot of the VFR scan is checking visual landmarks relative to wingtips, etc. I wonder if a good stick and rudder setup with a VR headset and working out of an actual private pilot's manual might represent a more helpful experience.
That said, I don't even know if VR is supported by Ms flight simulator.
It's. And it's really fantastic.
My brother has gone ballistic on Microsoft Flight Simulator with VR over the past year, he does streams to YouTube:
https://youtube.com/@eggsdooley?si=35FIH-C5eNPuMITR
Agree on the absorbing info bit. I got MSFS when in between things during COVID and have flown exclusively in VR. It let me escape and go anywhere when I couldn't in real life. Then I found myself watching hours and hours of videos on IRL procedures, how to use avionics, etc. I picked up stick and rudder and can only describe it as a book that seduced me into wanting to fly IRL with how it broke down what was actually happening.
Did my first discovery flight on New Year's Eve a couple years ago out of KPAO in a beautiful little DA40 almost like the one in the sim (though it didn't have fadec). Experiencing landing at KHAF during a beautiful sunset was subliminal. And so. Eerily. Familiar. I also was able to easily locate my house and do a steep turn circling over my home so my family could spot me. Landmarks from the air were familiar already.
However I definitely succumbed to staring at my instruments despite knowing that would likely happen. I also wasn't prepared for the sheer amount of sensory overload from the physical sensations and what I'll call "better graphics" of real life (better fov, frame rate, resolution, color range, model quality). It literally almost had me dazed driving home afterwards.
Since then I've gone on a few more flights and have over 200h in the sim. It has helped me get comfortable-ish with comms through vatsim, and I nailed my first day of landings by the numbers according to Cloudahoy data and my CFI. I fully attribute that to the sim as I already had somewhere internalized pitching for speed, power for altitude, and had some semblance of a sight picture and knowledge of how to fly a pattern. Though I wasn't prepared for the stick force needed to push the plane down on downwind after the first notch of flaps.
It helped me prep for an amazing flight tour in Kauai as well where I grabbed the flight plan of the tour plane and realized I needed to sit right seat if I wanted any good photos. Got to cloud surf for the first time then and the sim has nothing on IRL clouds. Or rainbows for that matter.
All in all, I attribute my desire to learn about flying to the sim. It is accessible and more affordable than flying, despite my Virpil hardware. I don't know if I'll go for my PPL with a growing family. Maybe if MOSAIC gets finalized and I can get my SPL in a safer than LSA trainer like a DA40 I'll do that.
I am not an airline pilot or instructor, but I am an instrument rated private pilot and I agree especially about using a home simulator for IFR training. What my instructor suggested when I was getting my IR was learn first in a real plane, then use the sim at home to practice what I learned. That helped avoid learning bad habits since I learned the "real" way first. I'd definitely recommend that approach (no pun intended) to others doing IR training, as long as your instructor is also on board.
What are some bad habits you can pick up?
You mentioned some good and bad things acquired from flight sims. Overall would say you net negative or net positive?
Fwiw, I spent a good amount of time with the flight sim and pilot's edge for IRA and I think it saved me a ton of money. The flying was the easiest part