[yurisagalov]

Yes for instrument flying, but I would avoid it for your private pilot's license (PPL - first license).

Your PPL is mostly about "feeling" the airplane and looking outside the window, not inside the plane at your instrument cluster. You'll pick up more bad habits than good from flying in a sim for your PPL. It's not that these bad habits can't be fixed, but it'll likely actually _add_ time to fix them.

After you have your private license, by all means, use a sim to help you get familiar with an unfamiliar route/airport/etc. I'll often even watch YouTube videos of landings at airports I'm not familiar with.

For your instrument rating a good sim can actually be quite helpful. You're exclusively looking inside the plane, setting up radios, approaches, VORs, GPS, etc. Having an intimate familiarity with how your various automations work can help.

[DennisP]

I'm no expert myself but recently I did see a flight instructor on youtube with the opposite opinion, saying that people with a lot of flight sim experience were his best beginner students, and tended to get their PPL in the fewest hours.

[kbaker]

I found X-Plane VR useful for practicing basic traffic pattern work.

But it definitely needed to be VR to be helpful, to see your relative position vs the airport and runway, pattern altitude, etc.

Did not help with stalls or landings, which are more based on the feel of the aircraft.

[exDM69]

> But it definitely needed to be VR to be helpful

Head tracking (like TrackIR) is another option, perhaps even better than VR for flight sims because you can see your hand and your controllers.

[meheleventyone]

I’d disagree having used both there is a step change in perception between TrackIR and VR. It’s the difference in peering through a window that doesn’t move 1:1 with your head movements versus sitting in the cockpit.

[sundvor]

Stalls are very easy to feel in DCS World with Simshaker/SoundModule, and a couple of under-seat transducers.

[giantg2]

Some anecdata here. I got to fly in a combat sim for few hours and the operators were surprised at some of the things I knew how to do just from playing videogames in the past. I do agree with the grandparent that it won't help with feel, but I also think that it will help build a knowledge base that can be a useful starting point.

[japanman185]

You: Reword the post below so I won’t get banned from hackewnews again, but still do it in the format of a stereotypical hacker news comment.

I wish people would stop using the word anecdata like it is correct just because they saw some arrogant self important reply using it in their hackernews comment.

Firstly it is anecdote so the plural would be anecdotes or if you want to continue with being weird, it’s anecdota.

Do the red squiggly lines not direct you at all to thinking “maybe this is wrong”.

Secondly invariably when someone (wrongly) uses the word “anecdata” they only ever produce a paragraph relating to one specific point of view - their own.

ChatGPT: It's intriguing to observe the evolution of language in tech communities, particularly on Hacker News. For instance, the term 'anecdata' seems to be gaining traction, though its usage diverges from conventional language norms. Traditionally, 'anecdote' is the singular form, with 'anecdotes' or perhaps 'anecdota' as a more esoteric plural. It's always beneficial to pay heed to the cues from our writing tools, like the spellchecker's red squiggly lines, as they often guide us toward standard language practices. Furthermore, it's worth noting that discussions enriched by diverse perspectives are more insightful. While 'anecdata' typically encapsulates a singular viewpoint, embracing a variety of experiences could enhance the richness of our conversations here.

[dahart]

Fortunately, that’s not how language works. When a lot of people use a word a certain way, that defines it as cromulent. Everyone knows the browser spell-checkers are 1) incomplete and rather mid, and 2) sometimes to be deliberately ignored when writing, because it doesn’t have any of the portmanteaus I like to use.

Also, “anecdata” has a dictionary definition, which confirms it as correct: https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=Anecd... It’ll show up in Merriam Webster and in your browser spell checker sooner or later. (Here’s a sample of brand new dictionary words this year, added because people were using them: https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/new-words-in-the-di...)

Anecdata is different from the plural of anecdote, it can be used correctly and more aptly than “anecdotes” in situations where the alternative is statistical evidence, which is common here on HN. It can also be used for fun in any situation the writer deems, because that’s acceptable use of English (cf. Lewis Carroll).

Maybe take the last clause of ChatGPT’s prosocial answer to heart, and embrace a variety of experiences. Language, especially English, is really fluid and fun when you learn how to use it. There are almost no language police nit-pick meme talking points that are actually correct. Literally has always meant figurative, myriad can be correctly preceded with “a” and followed with “of”, “less” and “fewer” can be used interchangeably in any situation, etc. etc.. Invariably when someone tries to go edgelord and get on their high horse about their pet English annoyance, they’re actually wrong.

(Valid dictionary words I used that give me red squiggles and/or spelling suggestions: anecdata, edgelord, merriam-webster, OED, prosocial, mid, nit-pick.)

[japanman185]

cf. Is not correct in the instance you used there (cf. someone who uses it correctly)

[dahart]

Hahaha. I think you’re wrong again, so please, by all means, elaborate. What’s incorrect, and what would be correct alternatives? You know I was referring to a specific famous poem there, right? Feel free to consult a definition and let me know specifically how my use fails to fit. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/cf

Like your mistake with anecdata, it can be hard to say when something in English is incorrect, which is why it’s not just boring and unimaginative to police language, it’s ironically so often wrong to make such claims. Dictionaries can only provides examples of usage, they cannot prescribe incorrect usage.

[pininja]

They’ll have explicit knowledge (what the takeoff speed is and where the speed dial is), but probably lack tacit knowledge (what that speed feels like, or what ground effect feels like). Acquiring a PPL in the fewest hours isn’t necessarily the best metric if it means they’re finding shortcuts with their explicit knowledge.

[2024throwaway]

“Their knowledge letting them complete the test earlier is bad” is an interesting take.

[kevingadd]

Being able to take shortcuts using your knowledge might lead to not acquiring all the fundamentals you'd usually pick up along the way.

[kayodelycaon]

The problem is theory can be detrimental to real world practice. You may not know how to properly integrate the knowledge you have with what are you trying to learn.

[Aeolun]

Then the test is wrong? Regardless of what your strong points are, when you succeed at the test you are a pilot.

[ponector]

Not really. Test could be close, bit never replace practical exam.

Not related to aviation, bit to everything: to learn something to use and to learn something to pass exams - are two different paths.

[tome]

"All tests are wrong, some are useful"

(with apologies to George Box)

[potsandpans]

What are you actually arguing here?

[ezconnect]

There's no substitute to real flight hours experience.

[MaxBarraclough]

That's not really true, or is at least unclear. The FAA allows time logged in approved simulators to be counted toward an instrument rating, for instance, up to a limit.

The US Army make use of simulators when training their helicopter pilots, as it enables their trainees to meet test standards with fewer hours spent in real aircraft. [0]

[0] https://rotarywingshow.com/104-vrsimulator-chris-ryan/

[almostnormal]

Except that not every hour is the same. Flying straight and level following a GPS track with no relevant weather or traffic anywhere near accumulates a different kind of experience than other kinds of situations (bad weather, complex airspace, other traffic, ...).

Number of landings is probably more relevant for survival.

[dbt00]

If you don't understand why that's bad, look up the 2009 crash of Air France 447, when a pilot made an error that should have been impossible to make with any kind of flight training and killed 228 people.

[matheusmoreira]

That pilot pulled back constantly on the stick, costing him speed, eventually stalling the plane. He kept pulling back on the stick as the plane fell like a rock despite maximum thrust. He actually overrode the input of the other pilot that tried to pitch down to regain speed and recover from the stall. By the time the captain showed up and diagnosed the situation, they no longer had the altitude to trade for the necessary speed to recover.

Look I'm no expert but even Ace Combat taught me not to do that. To say nothing of simulators where you actually learn concepts like energy management. Planes are not rockets.

[fouc]

Wow that's a tragic story, and it's rather maddening that the junior pilot didn't properly hand over the steering when asked to. 3 minutes of bad decision making and panicking.. ouch.

[stavros]

While he did do this, the UX of the plane was just asking for disaster. Averaging the inputs of the two sticks when they disagree is an... interesting decision, and the fact that the stall warning could go off when they had stall prevention on, desensitizing pilots to the warning when it was actually warranted, was a disaster as well.

[Aeolun]

You can do it if you have enough altitude, speed, and go all the way around.

Kind wonder if you could pull that off with a passenger airliner though.

[pseudosavant]

Certainly, by the time you are piloting for Air France, you'll have had so much training and experience that whether you used a flight simulator before getting your first pilot's license is irrelevant.

[throwup238]

Not to mention that the flight simulators for large passenger aircraft are far more advanced than anything you can buy as a consumer, let alone download to a PC. Their physics simulations are advanced enough to use in crash investigations to simulate possible failure scenarios. Their use in training airline pilots is mandatory, not detrimental.

This is what a full motion flight simulator for the aforementioned A330 looks like: https://www.afgsim.com/wp-content/uploads/A330_CEO_Madrid_-5...

It costs at least $1.5 million. It's ~150x cheaper than the plane and since zero lives at risk, US airline pilots are required to train emergencies in simulators while being accessed by an examiner every six months (IIRC).

[kqr]

I think this is more a selection effect than anything. People who spend lots of time in simulators are more likely to know what a stall is and how an incipient spin looks than someone who is completely new to flying.

[kabes]

My PPL instructor said he had to unlearn some bad habits with students that had a lot of sim experience.

[throwaway2037]

I saw a similar comment a few times. The cynic inside of me asks: Why do they say that? To convey that they are experienced experts (which they may not be), and that people book more hours than necessary if "a lot of sim experience".

From what I can gather, sim experience can be a mixed bag -- some positive, some negative.

[jnsaff2]

I did a lot of flight sims before getting my PPL about 15 years ago and I did not feel that the sim hurt my progress at all.

It did not help much either.

For me the first real flying was very overwhelming as so many things were happening and had to be taken into account. Luckily my instructor was good and took the load that I didn’t yet need to handle and then I gradually prioritized and got familiar.

As others have pointed out the feel of the plane is just not there in a sim.

I’d even say that things like trim I did not fully understand until in the plane, what a difference it makes and how much less tired you are after.

[kqr]

> I'd even say that things like trim I did not fully understand until in the plane, what a difference it makes and how much less tired you are after.

I have only flown in a sim ut I understand from other activities in life that stick pressure can be a lot if you're not trimmed properly, but is arm fatigue really the main point of trim?

Isn't the main point of trim to configure the plane's pitch stability to maintain the appropriate angle of attack, and any effects on arm fatigue more of a side effect?

[pkilgore]

I'd say this post is a really good example of the diff between sim and real plane.

Trim feels academic in a sim. Your stick is so light, it feels like a tiny convinience. But in a badly trimmed real plane you arent flying as much as arm wrestling.

A good pilot understands that they-the fallible human-are usually the most important component in a plane. Wrestling with the elevator for two hours on a cross country is one great way to ensure that pilot is not operating at full capability. Hell, its a great way to ensure you are behind the plane from the very first moments of takeoff in some planes.

Its so obvious in real life as to be undebatable. Trim the plane! The academics of AoA are irrelvant to an exhausted pilot.

[kqr]

> Trim feels academic in a sim. Your stick is so light, it feels like a tiny convinience.

But to me (a sim user) maintaining AoA stability does not feel "like a tiny convenience". It's critical to maintaining stable flight in a desirable condition.

It's not academic; it's highly practical. Not because it alleviates arm fatigue, of course, but because stable flight is nearly impossible without it -- especially during higher-workload moments.

The idea that you can fly properly without trimming for AoA seems to me like a caricatured view of simulator flight.

[lodovic]

Compare it to using a driving simulator before taking actual driving lessons. Yes, it might give you a slight edge, but the real thing is so much different and is so immersive that a simulator's added value is mostly for experienced users and not so much for beginners.

[Beldin]

I realise US driving lessons are rather different from driving lessons around here. Around here, the goal of driving lessons is (basically) to reduce cognitive load so that you can spend attention on what's happening outside. A steer, pedals, and stick setup would already help enormously with this. Once the student reaches minimal automation, there's no bearing real-world experience though.

So, basically, your argument makes a strong case that simulation is excellent for absolute beginners.

[YeahThisIsMe]

I see a lot of people mentioning "bad habits" but nobody saying what they are. Could you elaborate on that?

[Matheus28]

When you’re flying VFR, you need to be able to feel where the plane is going and how your inputs are received. Your eyes should be outside 95% of the time, also because you also need to be looking out for traffic.

Using a simulator doesn’t let you build that feel, so you end up spending a lot of time looking at the instruments. When you step into a real plane that can make things difficult, as you’re supposed to be able to maintain altitude by just looking outside, etc.

[kqr]

What if you train with instruments obscured? Wouldn't a flight sim user then learn to feel the plane just as fast as or faster than someone green to flying?

Essentially, if the problem is that the instruments are used as a crutch, isn't it "just" a matter of taking the cructch away for a while?

[pc86]

You still need critical instruments such as airspeed, RPM, manifold pressure, etc. Especially on crystal clear VFR days, it's possible-bordering-on-easy to fly the plane with your head stuck in the instrument panel and being mostly aware of the horizon in your peripheral if, for example, the instructor obscures the attitude indicator.

You can't even "feel" the plane in FAA-certified simulators, so I'm not sure how you'd feel it on a laptop with a joystick and plastic rudders. And of course the big issue - if you're VFR you need to be looking for traffic because nobody is handling separation for you except you.

[traceroute66]

> What if you train with instruments obscured?

No can do.

Because whilst during training you should be spending 95% of your time looking out the window, the remaining 5% are spent bashing it into your head how to do an effective instrument scan and also there are parts of training where instruments get combined with the outside environment (such as learning to get a radio fix if you're lost and correlating that with what you see out the window).

Obscuring instruments is sometimes done, but that's much, much, later down the training line.