Using flight sim as an affordable means to learn to fly...

[wcszabo]

This should help further clarify how I am positioning the PC flight simulator versus a much more expensive desktop ATD or other traditional/static flight school flight simulator in this business idea. I don't intend for any virtual PC flight training to be a means to acquire hours towards a Sport Pilot certificate (the FAA won't allow that), but instead as a means to simply orient and provide basic flight knowledge as well as help enthusiasts discover their passion for flight through a much more affordable approach.

Think of this business idea as being a quasi-ground school and virtual flight training service with an optional add-on to actually learn to fly in the real environment as desired. It's understood as well that any time spent learning to fly in the PC flight sim environment would not at all meet any FAA requirements to earn a SP certificate. However, that said, depending upon the intentionality of each virtual student, anything learned through the Sporty's course and curriculum utilized would certainly help towards taking the SP written test (not unlike somebody doing home study through the Sporty's course). But in this case they would instead be learning in a group setting.

Again, the PC flight sim training is not intended to be a way to replace actual flight hours required to earn the SP certificate. However, I do strongly believe that a virtual student's experience should essentially reduce the student's overall initial time-to-train in the real environment since the PC flight sim experience in conjunction with Sporty's industry-proven ground school training system (i.e., Sporty's Learn to Fly course), as well as incorporating Sporty's Learn to Fly curriculum into the virtual training itself (certain limitations will obviously apply), should help accelerate initial real environment flight training when the student does finally make the decision to pursue the real deal.

Of course, it's again all entirely up to the student and their ability. In fact, he or she may elect not to move forward into the real world of flying, as the virtual world is satisfying enough. Bottom line is, yes, the virtual student would still need to go through the normal process of flight training through a club SP instructor (CFI or CFI-SP) and also plan for the 20 hours (or more) that it takes to earn a SP certificate if he or she did decides to move forward into the real deal. But my bet is - some hours would be shaved off on the overall time required to earn the certificate.

Anyway, all that to say, I believe a PC system like Saitek's ProFlight Simulator Cockpit would be quite adequate and less cost prohibitive for this business approach. And the lower acquisition and operating costs could easily be passed onto the virtual students via an affordable fee structure.

I hope this helps clarify some things without getting into too much detail...

[SportPilot]

.......

[dstclair]

I'd be interested in Paul's experience with the Redbird in his flight school. Paul?

[designrs]

I found a simulator to be very helpful, even thought I just flew a hobbyist uncertified sim at home.

It was especially helpful in the early stages of flight training for mental and task conditioning.
e.g. Fly 20 t/o and landings between real-world flights, run through checklists, make all of radio calls, and anticipate what needs to be done in the air, etc.

The sim was also REALLY helpful in cross-country preparation.
1) seeing how terrain unfolds at destination airports, and how they might effect approach, etc. (The whole "been there" familiarity.)
2) for dead-reckoning / pilotage, really useful to see how geographic elements line up when on course.

[wcszabo]

Thanks. Exactly the point! Finally someone understands the benefit in the PC desktop sim system I've been trying shed light on...versus having to use a more expensive system like an ATD or other typical flight school static system. Again, the Saitek ProFlight Simulator Cockpit for PC is a great configuration and system.

[SportPilot]

.......

[wcszabo]

Yes, you are correct. I did ask for feedback about the feasibility of the business pro or con. Here's something I just wrote on another forum:
-----
"Hi all, thanks again for the continued discussion and thoughts. To reiterate, the mission of the business is to help the broader market fulfill their dream of flying and make recreational light sport flying affordable, achievable, safe and fun for everyone. More aviators equals a win-win for the GA community and industry. I know you all get that...

Virtual flight training in and of itself is certainly not the end-all, as I've said earlier. And ideally it is better if simulator training is utilized in parallel with real flight training as a means to practice and bolster the overall training experience, as noted by many in the thread.

Again, keep in mind that the broader enthusiast market I am targeting will in most cases not be able to afford additional ratings past the Sport Pilot ticket. The goal is simply to provide them an affordable and achievable means to get involved with aviation and flying, and be able to provide the bridge to experience the same freedom and exhilaration that you and I have been blessed to experience.

Again, the means is simple: 1) optimize the use of a high-end PC desktop system such as Saitek's ProFlight Simulator Cockpit for PC that will immerse these folks in the virtual world of flying and foster their passion, and then 2) provide the bridge to become full-fledged Sport Pilots who plan to enjoy recreational light sport flying via a Club setting.

The virtual flight training component will be bolstered by utilizing Sporty's Learn to Fly ground school course plus Sporty's Sport Pilot Flight Training curriculum (similar to Gleim's simulator syllabus). If some choose not to pursue their passion any further than the virtual world, then so be it. At least they will have been given enough exposure and training to make a reasonable decision. In fact, they make even decide to continue using our simulators or invest in their own home system and simply enjoy the virtual realm. For those who embrace the virtual training and want to go to the next level, then the real world is available as an option.

Btw, whatever perceived bad habits that may or may not transpire from virtual training, I believe an instructor will certainly be able to correct either way. But I would still bet the majority who follow the virtual to real path will have enough of the fundamentals down and "know how" needed to help reduce the time-to-train upon transitioning to real instruction with a Club CFI.

Please keep in mind that this business model is not as complicated as some seem to perceive; and please realize that the virtual training program is not structured to incorporate real training in parallel or help someone achieve a more advanced rating. The program is pretty simple.

Obviously, there are many flight schools out there utilizing static flight simulators in parallel with real world training. But this virtual program will not have that luxury. However, once a virtual student opts to become a real student via training within the Club setting, then certainly they can continue to utilize the simulators we have for further practice and to bolster their real world experiences.

The Saitek ProFlight Simulator Cockpit for PC configuration is truly a high-end PC system (something you probably wouldn't see in most home environments - especially in a gamers home setting) that also provides hands-on experience with instrumentation, throttle and fuel mixture, flaps, radio, etc...offering a very realistic experience. Check out - http://www.saitek.com/uk/prod/cpfull.html. Some of the functionality is beyond the scope of the Sport Pilot. But nevertheless, this is a very adequate system running approximately between $5,500 to $7,500 depending upon if you need to add a computer system, sound system and monitor(s); and I believe still much more affordable than most ATDs or other flight school static simulators.

All that to say, I know some of you don't believe that this business idea or model will attract enough customers. Perhaps that's the case. Nevertheless, I do truly appreciate your feedback pro or con, and will continue to delve into the feasibility of it."
-----
I do appreciate everyone's input to date on this forum, positive or negative. My additional comments/rebuttals are simply to make sure all understand the structure of the business idea (so we're talking apples to apples here), as it is not as complicated as some may perceive it to be. The key gotchas seem to be: 1) will prospective customers (aka target audience) see the value in virtual flight training; 2) is the PC desktop simulator robust enough to optimize the virtual learning experience as a stepping stone to real training; and 3) can the virtual training help reduce the time-to-train once real Sport Pilot training is begun.

It seems many in this forum aren't convinced. And that's fine...and the reason for me taking time to post my original request. Again, thanks to all for the feedback!

[SportPilot]

.......

[designrs]

I think the sim needs to be done in conjunction with real-world flight training, unless the person just wants to be a sim flier only. At least if they spent some time in a real plane they can have some sense about what's missing in the simulation experience.

Agree training should come from a CFI as not to build bad habits.

[drseti]

I'd be interested in Paul's experience with the Redbird in his flight school. Paul?

First off, note that the Redbird Jay is not an FAA approved training device. That means, the hours are not logable. So, its use in my flight school has nothing whatever to do with building hours, and everything to do with reinforcing and maintaining skills.

My flight school's scheduling and curriculum are more rigorous than most. One signs up for a particular timeslot for an entire academic quarter. This locks you in to two three-hour instructional blocks per week, rain or shine. Simulator time might (or might not) be part of a scheduled lesson. The typical lesson is broken down to about an hour of individualized ground instruction (one-on-one tutorial), about 1.3 Hobbs of flight time, and maybe 45 minutes of post-flight debrief. If the weather is decent, we will try to get that flight in. If it's marginal, we may not actually fly, but will still meet. What would normally be flight time might be extra ground instruction if needed, or supervised simulator time (which, though dual instruction, is only logable as ground instruction). In that sim lesson, we will follow a flight scenario which parallels what the flight lesson would have been. The result is that the next time we go up, you'll have been introduced to the maneuver or procedure we're studying, so the actual flight hours required will probably be reduced.

And what if the wx is really terrible? You're still coming to class! We may be in the storm cellar as the tornado passes overhead, but we're still studying!

The above strategy works best if the flight simulator in question duplicates the actual aircraft in which you're training. The software part is easy -- I have, for example, an aftermarket Evektor SportStar module for the Redbird. Hardware is another matter, because the stick and rudder forces are unlikely to duplicate the actual aircraft. (In fact, the Redbird has a built-in yoke, that unfortunately feels nothing at all like the airplane's stick.) So, procedures training in a sim is no substitute for flight time in the actual plane.

Another consideration is having training modules loaded up into the sim that duplicate any flight lesson that might get weathered out. I chose the Jay because it is scenario-based. You can download (and modify) specific lessons, or write your own from scratch (given a bit of programming know-how). The Lockheed-Martin Prepar3d operating system is much more adaptable to this than are the software packages typically included in home simulators (e.g., X-plane and FSX). So continuity of training can be maintained.

Between flight lessons, my students have free access to the simulator to review. If they need some hand-holding, they can pay an instructor's fee and do dual simulator sessions to supplement their flight training. Still logable only as ground instruction. But saves one the Hobbs cost.

For those who want to try self-directed simulator training, at the very least get a formal curriculum and follow it. Jeff VanWest's book (found on the Simulator page linked from my main web page) includes lessons for everything from Sport Pilot through ATP, with downloadable scenarios, one tied to each lesson, that can be flown on FSX or Prepar3d. A well-motiated student willing to commit to a regular schedule and follow these lessons in the proper sequence can gain something -- though my students seem to prefer dual in a real airplane! In fact, though free simulator time is available to them, very few of them actually take advantage of it. Maybe that's because I load them up with homework (reading assignments, worksheets, and PowerPoint lessons) between scheduled lessons -- just as any good professor will...

[HAPPYDAN]

"Hi all, thanks again for the continued discussion and thoughts. To reiterate, the mission of the business is to help the broader market fulfill their dream of flying and make recreational light sport flying affordable, achievable, safe and fun for everyone. More aviators equals a win-win for the GA community and industry. I know you all get that..."

As a low-time student Sport Pilot, I commend you for what you are attempting to do. The American public's interest in recreational aviation has been declining steadily over the years, while in China, Japan, and Europe it has been growing. Myself (and others) saw the Recreational and later the Sport Pilot (airplane) Certificates as an effort by the FAA to revitalize general aviation. In my observation, those efforts have not succeeded. Why not? Again, my observation: cost, complexity, and commitment (the 3 C's?). IMO, your ideas appear to address all three, if only to dangle the bait and possibly set the hook. Locally, our Museum of Flight offers introductory casual sim training to school groups, and Safety In Motion (KPLU) occasionally offers sim Carrier landing experience to young Navy Pilot wannabees. Are they developing bad habits? Probably. Will it matter? I don't think so. Young minds are very resilient and will quickly adapt to the new environment of actual flight. The 3 C's will still be still present, but now are (hopefully) tempered by motivation. It is amazing what one can accomplish if properly motivated.
Good luck and keep us posted.

[drseti]

I would think a more appropriate title for this thread might be:
Using flight sim as an affordable means to get hooked on flying...

[wcszabo]

You have put the marketing spin on it. Thanks.

- Get hooked of flying. Start fostering your passion for flight. Start fulfilling your dream of flying.

- Learn the basics in the virtual world. Train and develop in the real world.

- Enjoy the freedom and exhilaration of flight you have long desired.

There you have it. And I'm not being facetious here. May seem like pie-in-the-sky kind of stuff, but we need to have solutions out there to get more people fulfilling their dream of flying...to knowing there is an affordable way to do it despite the naysayers! And to embrace doing it on a recreational sport level. This idea is simply one way to perhaps solve it!

Thanks for re-framing it

[wcszabo]

Also, thanks Paul and Dan for your thoughtful comments here...appreciate your time and response!

[SportPilot]

.......