The Beechcraft Model 17 “Staggerwing” cuts an unusually sleek profile through aviation history. Today in Microsoft Flight Simulator, I’ll be flying the Model 17, widely regarded as one of the world’s most enviable private airplanes. 

Walter Beech was born in 1891 in Pulaski, Tennessee, and flew in the U.S. Army during World War I. After the war, he joined Swallow Airplane Co. as a test pilot. In 1924, Beech joined fellow airplane designers Lloyd Stearman and Clyde Cessna—both of whom later gave their names to famous aircraft—to form the Travel Air Manufacturing Co. in Wichita, Kansas. The small company hired a 21-year-old office manager and bookkeeper named Olive Ann Mellor. She proved to have an extremely good head for business. Walter and Olive Ann began a low-key romance and were eventually married in 1930.

In 1929, Travel Air was acquired by Curtiss-Wright. Olive Ann urged Walter, frustrated with his new corporate job, to follow his dream and start his own airplane design company. She told him, “If you want something, you can do it.” They rented a factory from Beech’s friend and rival Cessna in Wichita. The first airplane they designed and produced, starting in 1933, was the Model 17 (because the last aircraft produced by Travel Air was Model 16).

I’m here at the Beech Factory Airport (KBEC) on the east side of Wichita, where modern-day Beechcraft are still produced, to check out that airplane, which was intended as a high-class, high-powered private option for wealthy business executives—the Gulfstream of its day.

The most obvious and eye-catching feature of the Model 17 is the fact that its upper wing is set back from its lower wing—the opposite of most biplane designs. This “negative stagger wing” gave rise to it popularly being dubbed the “Staggerwing,” a nickname Beech didn’t particularly like, preferring to call it the “Beechcraft.”

Some major advantages of the negative stagger wing were improved stalling characteristics and reduced interference drag between the two wings. But another was better forward visibility, which in conventional biplanes was often blocked by the top wing.

• READ MORE: Flying Back in Time on the First Civilian Passenger Airplane

Like many aircraft of its day, the Model 17 was constructed of fabric covering a steel tube frame. However, its skin was faired (smoothed to minimize drag) with wooden formers. The high-end manufacturing process was complex and time-consuming.

A variety of radial engines were used, ranging from 350 to 690 hp. This model, the D17S, features a 450-hp Pratt & Whitney Wasp Junior, the same used (in twin configuration) to power the Lockheed L-10 Electra and Grumman Goose.

To further minimize drag and increase speed, the landing gear is fully automated and retractable—something that was still an innovation for new all-metal airliners, much less a private airplane.

The Model 17 also featured flaps—another relatively new innovation at the time—on the lower wing for sufficient lift at slower landing speeds and nearly full-length ailerons on the top wing for effective control. The cabin was spacious with comfortable upholstery trimmed in leather and mohair, suitable for its high-end target market.

There is only one yoke, which can be switched between the left and right seats. The throttle, mixture, and variable pitch prop controls are all located in the center of the panel below the flaps switch. Note that the main instruments in front of the pilot are arrayed in a recognizably modern “six-pack” configuration before this became standard.

Time to rev up the engine and find out how this package handles in the air. Perhaps a little odd looking on the ground, the Staggerwing shows its true streamlined prowess once it takes off and raises its gear. 

The Staggerwing has a cruise speed of 202 mph (175 knots), not that far short of a fighter for its era. I got it up to its maximum speed of 212 mph on a flat straightaway.

The forward visibility is generally excellent, because of the negative stagger wing, but I did find the three structural braces and position of the overhead compass in the cockpit do make it a bit difficult to see the runway clearly on approach.

Nevertheless, I did end up safely on the ground and found it easier (at least in the sim) than many tailwheel aircraft to keep straight and avoid a ground loop on landing.

The first Beechcraft was one sleek machine. But at a price tag of between $14,000 and $17,000 (the equivalent of $320,000 to $390,000 today), aimed at a high-end customer, it was initially a tough sell when it came out at the depths of the Great Depression.

Only 18 were sold in its first year, 1933. But the Staggerwing caught the eye of professional air racers, one of whom won the Texaco Trophy Cup that year. I don’t know if it’s related, but Texaco soon purchased a small company-owned fleet of Beechcraft models for its executives to visit remote oil fields across Texas, like I’m doing here.

The main advantage of the Staggerwing was not only speed and comfort but the ability of its durable, widely spaced landing gear to take off and land at small, unimproved airstrips, as needed. Beechcraft advertisements highlighted its “rugged dependability” in out-of-the-way locations.

In 1936, Olive Ann had the idea to sponsor two women pilots, Louise Thaden and Blanche Noyes, to compete in the cross-country Bendix Trophy transcontinental race from New York to Los Angeles. Flying a light blue Staggerwing, they finished first—the first women to claim a race previously won by such flying legends as Jimmy Doolittle and Roscoe Turner. The next year, Jackie Cochran set a new women’s speed record (203.9 mph) and altitude record (over 30,000 feet) and finished third in the Bendix race —all in a Beechcraft Staggerwing.

The speed and dependability that appealed to racers and oil executives also caught the attention of governments as conflict loomed in the late 1930s. Spanish Republicans flew them as bombers in their civil war, and the Chinese used them as air ambulances when the Japanese invaded. Ethiopian emperor Haile Salassie owned his own personal Staggerwing, NC14405, flown by an African-American pilot from Mississippi, Colonel John Robinson. When Salassie’s country was invaded by Benito Mussolini and the Italian military, he used it to fly to and from the combat zone.

Finland bought two Staggerwings (BC-1 and BC-2) to serve as military transports. I’m flying one of them here over Helsinki. I’d be curious to know if Finnish leader General Carl Mannerheim ever used them during the 1939-1940 Winter War with the Soviet Union. (The swastika here, of course, is Finnish, not Nazi.) The only information I was able to find were a couple of photos of it.

In October 1941, Beechcraft shipped this special camouflaged Staggerwing to Prince Bernhard of Lippe, who was in exile in London after fleeing the German invasion of the Netherlands.

Born a German, Prince Bernhard was married to Queen Wilhelmina’s only child, Princess Juliana. Before the war, he was a member of the Nazi Party and the Reifer (Mounted) SS. His brother was a German army officer. But when the Germans invaded the Netherlands, he organized the palace guards to resist and fled with the royal family to England, where he spoke out against Adolf Hitler.

Prince Bernhard applied to serve in British intelligence, but he was distrusted, for obvious reasons. At King George VI’s personal recommendation, and after being screened by Ian Fleming (the creator of James Bond) for U.K. Prime Minister Winston Churchill, he was assigned to help on the Allied War Planning Councils. At his own initiative, he learned to fly a Spitfire and was given the honorary rank of Wing Commander in the Royal Air Force (RAF). He flew numerous missions as an observer, attacking V-1 launch pads in occupied Europe in a B-24 bomber, hunting submarines over the Atlantic in a B-25, and performing battlefield reconnaissance in a L-5 Grasshopper (a modified Piper Cub).

He used his personal Staggerwing to assist his work assisting refugees and organizing the Dutch underground resistance. I’m flying over Antwerp, Belgium, in the Prince’s Staggerwing, following its liberation in September 1944.

That winter, the Germans launched the Battle of the Bulge, a desperate counteroffensive in eastern Belgium. As a follow-up, in January, the Luftwaffe launched a massive last-ditch air campaign against neighboring Allied airfields. Unfortunately, Prince Bernhard’s Beechcraft was one of the airplanes destroyed on the ground during those raids, dubbed the Battle of Bodenplatte.

Prince Bernhard became Prince Consort of the Netherlands in 1948 when his wife became queen. He lived until 2004, helping to found the World Wildlife Fund and remaining an active pilot for the rest of his life.

By the time World War II broke out, Beechcraft had sold at least 424 Staggerwings. In 1942, the U.S. Army recognized the need for an executive-type courier airplane and placed an order, along with the Navy. The slightly modified military version of the Staggerwing became known as the Beech UC-43 Traveler. This one that I’m flying here out of an old RAF airfield in rural England belonged to the “Mighty Eighth” Air Force, assigned the task of bombing Germany into submission.

Over 400 Staggerwings were built for the military, and the government leased or acquired at least 100 more from private owners for wartime use. They played an essential if largely unsung role in coordinating the command of the largest air force ever assembled. If you doubt that, let me highlight the story of this one particular airplane, which I’m flying over London.

Tommy Hitchcock was the scion of a wealthy American family, a star polo player, and a friend of author F. Scott Fitzgerald. Some believe he was the model for Tom Buchanan in The Great Gatsby. During WWI, he had served as a dashing fighter pilot in the famous Lafayette Escadrille. Now, with the start of a new war, he was desperate to fly in combat again, but he was considered too old. The only position he was able to secure, through his extensive contacts, was that of assistant air attache at the U.S. embassy in London. Arriving in summer 1942, Lieutenant Colonel Hitchcock regularly flew the embassy’s Beechcraft Staggerwing to airfields across Britain, coordinating with the RAF.

Through 1943, the U.S. Eighth Air Force was just forming in Britain, and on its early raids its unescorted bombers were suffering horrific losses at the hands of the Luftwaffe. On his puddle-jumping visits across Britain, Hitchcock discovered the British had modified the mediocre-performing P-51 Mustang with a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, giving it speed and performance that outmatched the Germans’ Focke-Wulf 190 at any altitude—with a range long enough to escort bombers all the way to Berlin. There was stiff resistance in the U.S. Army Air Force to ordering any fighter modified with a British engine. But Hitchcock relentlessly lobbied his longtime friend, U.S. Army Air Corps Gen. Hap Arnold, to change his mind. Eventually, he succeeded, and the P-51 Mustang played a key role helping to turn the tide of the air war. The Beechcraft Staggerwing, in its unsung way, had made it possible.

This airplane, by the way, is still on display at the Yanks Air Museum in Chino, California.

Walter Beech fell ill in 1940, and Olive Ann ran the company through WWII and beyond, becoming one of the most powerful and influential leaders in aviation. But that’s a story for another time.

Only a handful of Staggerwings were produced after the war. The company soon shifted its focus to the all-metal monoplane V-tail Bonanza as its successor, at about a third of the price.

The Beechcraft Model 17 Staggerwing is still considered by many aficionados as one of the most beautiful and impressive airplanes of all time. About 150 are still registered, and an estimated 50 are actively flying. In 2003, Plane & Pilot magazine ranked it among its top 10 favorite airplanes of all time. A poll of 3,000 members of the Airplane Pilot and Owners Association (AOPA) named it the Most Beautiful Airplane. In 2012, Aviation History ranked it No. 6 in its top 12 list of the World’s Most Beautiful Airplanes.

If you’d like to see a version of this story with many more screenshots and historical images, you can check out my original post here. This story was told utilizing the Beechcraft Model 17 add-on to MSFS 2020 from Carenado, along with liveries produced by fellow users and shared on flghtsim.to for free.

The post The Rugged, Sleek Legacy of the Beechcraft ‘Staggerwing’ appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 (MSFS) offers an amazing representation of live weather. That was certainly the case the day I had a simulated flight out of the Mountain Air community (2NC0) in Burnsville, North Carolina, at over 4,000 feet. 

Winds were howling at full windsock speed out of the northwest, featuring great VFR but a scary wind shear potential and more. 

In MSFS, this highly detailed airport is filled with fun and challenge. Even the VFR sectional shown here has a preprinted warning of dangerous turbulence near Mount Mitchell to the east (the highest summit east of the Rocky Mountains). 

• READ MORE: Practicing the Impossible Turn

This airport is enhanced with a small purchase available online in the MSFS built-in store. It’s one of the few scenery areas I have purchased because it’s so darn good. (If you purchase this, don’t forget to get FSRealsitic for added head effects, sounds, and vibrations left out of default aircraft in MSFS.)

With winds howling at an estimated 30 gusting to 45 knots, I decided to test the newly enhanced winds and shear model brought into the simulator a few months ago. In addition, ridge lift, thermals, temperatures, and sky cover all come together to the delight of virtual glider pilots. But anything good for glider pilots is even better for us, as these features have been lacking in flight sims I have previously flown. 

The takeoff at over 4,000 feet msl was noticeably sluggish, but the powerful Beechcraft Bonanza did it well. With the 40-plus-knot headwinds, we were airborne immediately. The joy was short-lived, however, as the uphill runway, close terrain, houses, and trees started in with an immediate stall horn peeping, wind shear on the airspeed gauge, and control sloppiness. Usually takeoffs don’t require a battle or fight. I have found that’s always the case on landings but not on takeoffs. Here’s where the realism kicked in. It was a fight to several hundred feet off the departure end and as the terrain fell out from beneath you. I was all smiles as this was so much fun, but how would the landing be? Even on a calm day, this place looked challenging. 

• READ MORE: Simulated Flight in Real, Uninterrupted Time

A week later, I returned to the mountaintop to see what calm weather might have in store. I chose the default Mooney Ovation for the mission. The winds were northwest at 1 knot according to the in-flight map that displays the live conditions. I figured it would be perfect, but at a simulated time of day, I once again experienced a hellacious downdraft on the departure end of Runway 14—this time more than 2,000 fpm down.

• READ MORE: Safety, Originality on an Even Scale at Unique North Carolina Community

This photo shows the reality of the short final to Runway 14.  

This was certainly one of the most challenging airports I’ve ever seen in flight-sim life. I believe it is even more risky than Aspen, Colorado (KASE). I’d highly recommend it to you MSFSers—just have several aircraft lined up as you’re probably going to wreck quite a few on any given day. It’s a mental and physical workout as well. 

The Honeycomb flight controls offer precision and quality to get you through those crosswinds and wind shear days with ease.

The post A Virtual, Wind-Battled Landing on a Mountaintop Runway appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Are you a certificated pilot who used home flight simulation in your training? Our partners at Flight Simulation Association are conducting a study to quantify the impact of home flight simulation on pilot training. You can help by completing their quick survey here.

Are you using at-home flight simulation for flight training, proficiency, and currency? If not, you should be! At-home flight simulation—which can be as simple as a laptop and a joystick—is widely recognized as an inexpensive yet effective training supplement for student and rated pilots.

FlightSimExpo is North America’s enthusiast flight simulation conference and tradeshow. At the event, meet flight simulation experts, try a variety of hardware, software, and Mixed/Virtual Reality options, and find out more about online air traffic control communities like VATSIM and PilotEdge. The event takes place June 23-25, 2023 in Houston, and registration is open now at flightsimexpo.com.

Whether you are getting into an airplane for the first time, an aspiring hoping to work for the airlines, or a ‘weekend warrior’ pilot looking to stay current, at-home flight simulation can shorten your training time, improve proficiency, and save you money. 

70+ flight simulation and aviation companies are exhibiting at the show, including Gleim Aviation, Redbird Flight, RealSimGear, Aviation Training Foundation, FlightChops, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Civil Air Patrol, and more! You’ll also find the team from FLYING exhibiting at Booth H16. 

Alongside the hands-on exhibits, seminars given by pilots, flight instructors, and flight simulator experts are designed to help those new to the hobby find their wings. There’s even a free tour of the show floor available to all newcomers that will point out the best resources to help you get started. The full schedule is available at flightsimexpo.com/schedule.

Can’t make it to the event in-person this year? Full access to watch all live and recorded seminars is included in a Flight Simulation Association Captain subscription. 

To learn more about FlightSimExpo, visit flightsimexpo.com. The show is produced by Flight Simulation Association, a free-to-join association of flight simulator pilots and community developers. For more details on how at-home flight simulation enhances aviation training, visit flightsimassociation.com/start.

The post Home Flight Simulation for Training, Proficiency, and Currency appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Believe it or not, the inaugural flight of a bomber-turned-airliner first introduced the world to commercial aviation.

Today in Microsoft Flight Simulator, I’ll be flying the Farman F.60 Goliath, the world’s first civilian passenger airplane, on its historic route from Paris to London. And to tell this story, I’m using a mod that recreates the two airports, Le Bourget and Croydon, as they looked in the 1930s. 

Le Bourget was the airport in France where Charles Lindbergh landed in 1927, and it’s still a critical part of France’s aviation infrastructure today.

Henri Farman was born in 1874, the son of English parents living in Paris (his father was a reporter for a London newspaper). Originally he trained at the École des Beaux-Arts as a painter. He quickly became caught up (like the Wright Brothers and Glenn Curtiss) in the bicycling craze. Along with his younger brother, Maurice, he became a champion bike racer. The two brothers soon graduated to auto racing, winning several early cross-country races.

In 1907, Henri Farman purchased an early biplane from the pioneer aircraft designer Gabriel Voisin and flew it to set new records for height, distance, and endurance. The next year,  Farman made the first cross-country flight in Europe, a distance of 27 kilometers to Reims, France. 

He competed in early races and air shows, and opened a flying school at Châlons-sur-Marne. After a falling out with Voisin, Farman began designing his own airplanes. He and his two brothers, Maurice and Dick (who tended to the business side), founded their own aircraft company, Farman Aviation Works, near Versailles. His designs became known for popularizing the aileron (French for “little wing”) to induce roll, rather than the “wing warping” technique the Wright Brothers used. Farman produced several “pusher” airplanes (with the propeller behind) that proved popular in the early days of World War I. As the war progressed, however, they lost ground to other designs.

In 1918, Farman was busy developing a new two-engine heavy bomber that could carry 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds) of bombs out to a range of 1,500 kilometers (930 miles). When the war abruptly ended, however, the Farmans realized their monstrous new biplane—dubbed the “Goliath”—might find a new purpose transporting civilian passengers on new air routes. 

The Farmans formed their own airline, and on February 8, 1919—just a few months after the Armistice—flew 12 passengers from France to England and back the following day. Because non-military flying was not yet authorized, they were all ex-military pilots on orders.

By 1920, a new airline, the Compagnie des Grands Express Aériens (CGEA), acquired several Goliaths and began offering scheduled flights—for civilians now—from Le Bourget airfield outside of Paris to Croydon airfield near London. 

Here is one of their biplanes, nearby on the ramp at Le Bourget. Note the registration number, F-GEAD, because it will come up again later.

A competing airline, Compagnie des Messageries Aériennes (CMA), also flew the same London-to-Paris route using Goliaths, and more airlines quickly emerged flying to Brussels as well. In 1923, CGEA and CMA merged to form Air Union. It’s one of its Goliaths we’ll be boarding today, bound for Croydon.

The wingspan of the Goliath is almost 87 feet, compared to 93 feet for an original Boeing 737-100. The total area of both wings is 1,700 square feet, compared to 978 for the 737’s single wing. Its length, from nose to tail, was a modest 48 feet (versus 94 for the 737). 

Like most airplanes of its time, the Goliath was constructed of a wooden frame covered in fabric. As a result, despite its large size, the Goliath had an empty weight of just 6,393 pounds, one-tenth of a 737 (which weighs 62,000 pounds).

The Goliath was driven by two Salmson 9Z water-cooled nine-cylinder radial engines, producing 250 hp each. They only had a useful life of around 100 hours.

So where’s the cockpit? It’s actually on top of the fuselage, open and exposed to the elements. The pilot sat on a kind of elevator platform in the middle of the passenger cabin. Beside him, slightly lower and to their right, sat a flight engineer. Behind the pilot is a small propeller, which spins from the oncoming airflow and drives a generator for electrical power.

To the pilot’s left was the throttle and mixture control for each of the two engines. The main instrument panel features an altimeter (in meters) in the center. On either side are tachometers showing rpm for each engine, with their respective fuel gauges and gold magneto selectors below. The airspeed indicator shows km/hour and highlights the “danger zone” of flying any faster than 130 kph (70 knots). The lower needle indicates the aircraft’s pitch: “piquez” for nose down, “cabrez” for nose up.

It’s time for the passengers to board. The best views are in the forward cabin in front of the cockpit. There is a direct access door to the front, but it looks a bit precarious. Maybe it’s better to board everyone from the back.

Between the forward and rear portions of the cabin, the Goliath seats 12 to 14 passengers. There were daily scheduled flights—and they weren’t cheap. I haven’t been able to find a price for Paris to London, but a London-Paris-Marseille combined ticket in 1922 reportedly cost 17.17 pounds sterling. That was $76.75 at the time, equivalent to $1,356 today.

Our authentic route will take us north from Paris across Picardy to the narrowest crossing point of the English Channel, near Calais, then on to Croydon, just south of London. The flight will take about two and a half hours.

Le Bourget (LFPB) opened in 1919 and remained Paris’ only airport until Orly was built in 1932. It remained a commercial airport until 1980 and continues to serve business aviation today—though it looks a lot different. Rather than distinct runways, the grassy field (at this time) is demarcated with striped lines into four parallel and adjacent strips. I’ll be taking off on the one closest to the terminal.

The Goliath takes some time to get going, but with its huge wings it begins to lift off at just 75 kph (40 knots, or some 15 knots slower than the typical takeoff speed of a Cessna 172).

This morning is quite foggy, which could create challenges. The Goliath has no gyroscopic instruments and must rely on visual reference points. That means no flying at night or in heavy clouds. Conditions like these make it difficult to see the horizon clearly and remain straight and level. In theory, the Goliath sports a service ceiling of 18,000 feet and even took passengers up to 20,000 on some early demonstration flights. In practice, it usually flew close to the ground—at just 500 to 1,000 feet—in order to navigate.

A half hour later, as I continue north over Picardy, the visibility has improved quite a bit. That’s fortunate because on a foggy day on April 7, 1922, this route—this exact location, in fact—was the scene of the first midair collision in airline history. 

Remember the blue Goliath, F-GEAD, operated by Compagnie des Grands Express Aériens (CGEA) that I pointed out on the tarmac at Le Bourget? That day, it was flying three passengers to Croydon. Suddenly, out of the mist, appeared a De Havilland DH.18 carrying airmail in the opposite direction on the same route, at the same low altitude. Neither pilot had time to take any evasive action. They collided, and both airplanes went down. A total of seven (four crew plus three passengers) were killed. 

Following the accident, several airlines met at Croydon and agreed on three basic rules. First, all airplanes meeting head-on should give way to the right—a rule that’s still followed today. Second, all airliners should be equipped with a radio to communicate with each other. Third, all new airplanes, including Part 25 commercial transport category aircraft, should provide the pilot with a clear view forward—something neither airplane, with their cockpits perched above a bulky cabin, really had.

After reaching the mouth of the River Somme, I follow the French coastline north for almost an hour. Passing over Wissant, it’s time to turn northwest and cross the English Channel. From this angle, the Goliath looks like a great bird of prey ready to grab a fish with its talons.

Notice the gray smoke trailing behind me. In the Goliath, that’s a sign I’ve set the fuel mixture too rich. It won’t cause us any immediate problems, but it will waste fuel and gunk up the engine longer term.

So I’ve pulled back the mixture control a bit, and it seems to have solved the problem. With clear weather, the White Cliffs just west of Dover provide an easy aiming point, clearly visible for many miles out. It’s still a relief to make landfall near Folkestone. The Goliath is notoriously prone to breakdowns, and over the 33-kilometer (20-mile) channel crossing, there’s nowhere to land.

I’ve kept a close eye on my oil temperature and pressure the whole way. The gauges for both are located over the engines on either wing. Run these engines too hard for too long and they’ll give out.

It’s still almost another hour over the chalky English countryside, and the weather is starting to become cloudy again. I’m plugging along at about 110 kph (60 knots) to avoid overheating the engines. As I get closer to Croydon just after noon, the clouds start closing in. At least I’ve spotted the airfield, a large patch of green straight ahead. 

Croydon was opened in 1920 and served as London’s main airport until World War II, when it was converted into a Royal Air Force fighter base. After the war, it was surpassed by up-and-coming Heathrow Airport (EGGL). Croydon became the first airport in the world to introduce a control tower and air traffic control procedures in 1920. It was also the first to adopt “Mayday” as a recognized distress call, from the French “M’aidez,” meaning “Help me”.

Landing the Goliath is proving tricky. It needs to come in very slow. But even when I pull back the throttle to idle, it tends to gain a dangerous amount of speed in any descent. On my first try, I realized I was coming in way too fast and decided to go around and do another attempt. On the second try, I’m still faster than I should be but hoping I’ll have enough room to slow down and land on the flare. (Note that there is another device on the aircraft’s nose, actuated by the oncoming airflow, which also appears to measure airspeed).

I won’t claim it was the prettiest landing, but I’m just happy to be on the ground.

Welcome to London. Please proceed to passport control.

The Farman Goliath enjoyed a surprisingly long life as an airliner, being retired only in 1931 with the coming of new all-metal airliners, such as the Junkers Ju 52 (visible behind it to the right). The Goliath evokes an era when flying felt daring because it was. It was an expensive and dangerous gamble on a brand-new technology for the select few. Despite this, new air routes sprang up across Europe, taking passengers from city to city with unprecedented speed and at least as much comfort as they could manage.

Cuba’s first airline, the Compañía Aérea Cubana (CAC) bought six Farman Goliaths, which were transported there by ship in 1920. It soon went out of business but remains heralded as the beginnings of aviation in that country. The F.60 Goliath was also adopted by several countries—including Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Italy, Japan, Peru, Poland, the Soviet Union, and Spain—in its original military role as a bomber. Approximately 60 Goliaths were built. No complete airframe exists today. Only the fuselage of the airplane we just flew, F-HMFU, survives on display at Le Bourget.

Air Union was eventually merged with four other French airlines in 1933 to form Air France. Farman Aviation Works was also nationalized in 1936 as part of Société Nationale de Constructions Aéronautiques du Centre (SNCAC). The three Farman brothers largely retired after their company was nationalized and continued living in France until their deaths in 1940 (Dick), 1958 (Henri), and 1964 (Maurice).

I hope you enjoyed this introduction to the Farman F.60 Goliath, the bomber-turned-airliner that first introduced the world to commercial aviation. If you’d like to see a version of this story with many more screenshots and historical images, you can check out my original post found here. This story was told utilizing the Farman F.60 Goliath, Le Bourget 1935, and Croydon 1935 add-ons to MSFS 2020 from Red Wing. 

The post Flying Back in Time on the First Civilian Passenger Airplane appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

As an experienced CFII (certified flight instructor instrument) in the early days of my career, and as a reader of FLYING, we all know about the “impossible turn” or turn back to the runway if your engine quits at exactly the wrong time. 

The safety altitude most instructors teach is to never turn around if less than 1,000 feet above the airport elevation. It is always better to land straight ahead, or at the most a few degrees either left or right to avoid the hardest objects in your path. 

If you’re an expert, or perhaps maybe more daring than you ought to be, perhaps, the absolute minimum a turn back could be accomplished is 700 feet agl. With no more risk other than your pride, we can try the 700-foot turn back at engine failure as much as you want in the new Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 (MSFS). 

• READ MORE: Simulated Flight in Real, Uninterrupted Time

Doing it in a sim has some incredible benefits to learn from. First, it’s an exercise in mental awareness and “big picture” thinking.

Before imitating these sim scenarios, I’d highly recommend getting FSRealistic add-on to enhance ground noises, cockpit vibrations, and effects, especially when landing off-road like we are about to do. It’s my favorite enhancement to date, for the MSFS series. 

One other important option is to disable any “realistic” crash modeling. The sim doesn’t portray impacts in the classic sense and the result is annoying—fade to black and a message that you have crashed, resetting you to the beginning. 

To have more realistic moments, and endure sink rates higher than just 700 fpm, setting the sim to “easy mode” gives you a more realistic impact. It is opposite of the way they intended. So for horsing around, off-road landings, emergency training, please disable “crashes” by going into the menus and do the following:

• Options/ Assistance options/ failure and damage, then disable both impact damage and aircraft stress damage.

Once these features are disabled, you don’t have to worry about landing in storms, bouncing, or overstressing your aircraft into a message or reset.

MSFS offers a great visual simulation with some pretty incredible flight models. I used an airplane I often flew in real life, a Piper Arrow III. The flight modeling is great in the Just Flight Piper Arrow III, easily available on the Microsoft Marketplace in sim. 

In this example, I used real weather in a random location in Nebraska, at an elevation of about 2,500 feet. The temperatures were ISA standard, about 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit) on the ground, so climb performance would not be in the “hot and high” category.  The only detriment was a slightly higher elevation, so you could account for some added difficulty. You can set the sim to give random fails, but in this example I cut the mixture at about 3,200 feet msl (700 agl). 

I immediately started a fairly steep turn, lowered the nose, holding airspeed at about 75 to 80 kts, aware that the bank angle would raise stall speeds. I kept the airplane “clean” with no flaps or gear until at least wings level, hopefully aiming at the runway or airport environment. 

Stall horn peeping, I whizzed it around and did line up on final. I actually lowered the nose, gained some more speed then “zoomed” a bit up to gain or at least stop further altitude loss. Once I knew the airport boundary would be made, I yanked in 1, and then a second notch of flaps.

The gear thumped down during the last 10 feet, and I could feel it.

Wing’s Length Away

Our second adventure is based on the old private pilot training exercise to always keep a landing site a wingspan’s distance away from you. 

The old adage is that anything that rests under your wingspan should be reachable if your engine quits and your gliding range is roughly that of your wingspan distance at your viewing angle. I am always scanning around for safe havens in both real and simulated life. Even in the business jet I fly professionally, I think of this all the time. We all know a particular US Air pilot that thought this way too. 

• READ MORE: Flying Through Snowy Southern California, Virtually

In this next scenario, we will call any highway or road a safe makeshift runway. In some cases, roads can exceed the straight-away lengths of most GA airports.

You can see the red master caution with a horn reminding me of the gear still up at below a pre-designed manifold pressure. The oil, vacuum, and alternator lights are on too.

Don’t get close to cars immediately ahead of you as panicked drivers will only do one thing, slamming on their brakes in a sudden panic, not knowing how to deal with an airplane approaching in the rearview mirror.

Coming to a nice stop was very satisfying. Unscathed! I wonder if the local sheriff will stop by to give me a citation?

Don’t Buy the Farm, Use It

In my third adventure of the day, I decided to try another favorite old instructor routine that I used to pull on students to surprise them. Having big wide open fields nearby is always comforting. Doing my sample flights here in MSFS, choosing Nebraska as the place to demonstrate was as easy as you could get. 

This time, however,  my turn back was too wide, and there’s no way I could have made the runway as seen in the left corner of this pic. Instead, I chose the least dangerous option, which is straight ahead in the nicely plowed fields. 

• READ MORE: Flight Simulator’s Cessna 310 Offers Up Realistic Weather Lesson

Choosing which one was the only quick decision to make. Here I am without an engine, with the three glowing annunciations showing. The engine is still windmilling. Gear and flaps are up but not for long. Remember your soft field landing technique and try to come in with as little sink rate as possible as the gear could dig in. Even landing gear up could be a better option. Here, I quickly lowered it since the ground looked groomed. I barely made it over the first row of trees, then plunked down, rolling and banging along.

I was happy with how realistic the landing on soft soil felt. Bouncing and banging along was great, and using the Honeycomb controls with Thrustmaster pedals and quality foot brakes made this off-roading adventure all the more believable.

This is one of the greatest examples of how a desktop sim can help you plan, and think about the unlikely events that could pop up in your flying career. Although not an exact science, it’s a precise tool for mental awareness, quick thinking and problem-solving. 

The post Practicing the Impossible Turn appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Recently I took a real-time trip in Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 (MSFS 2020) over multiple days, from the contiguous U.S. to far western Alaska—a place I would love to see in real life, and certainly a popular place for aviation in general. Although frequently associated with horrendous weather, Alaska is a place that’s probably not often seen except in the last few seconds at minimums and below, or on the TV show, “The Deadliest Catch.” 

My weather was live and real-time as usual, and I was greeted by ceiling and visibility unlimited (CAVU) the day I started this trip. Once there, I marveled at the incredible scenery and beauty of it all, with lots of snowy landscapes to view. It was early spring but winter in Alaska using the live weather features of MSFS, showed the heavy snows they have been having this year are still in place. 

But once flying a variety of heavy aircraft west along the Aleutian Islands, far western Alaska isn’t far from Russia. My curiosity got the best of me, so I continued the short two-hour trip westward to land in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky Airport (UHPP), a fairly remote outpost but real-world fuel stop for Asia-bound ferry flights. 

From UHPP, it was only another two hours or so to northern Japan, where the flowers were in full bloom and the weather warmer and more inviting. From there, I decided to explore North Korea, but my stay was brief. I entered illegally and had to get out fast, prohibited from taking any photos.

A day trip was reduced to 20 minutes at hypersonic speeds. After some great difficulty hand flying this beast, I was able to get it back into the normal atmosphere, approach the new Hong Kong International Airport (VHHH) with wide open runways, and land at some 200 kts. I was exhausted, but the real reason to come to the new Hong Kong airport is to see the old one, Kai Tak International Airport (VHHX), which operated until 1998. 

For any aviation fan, the destination rekindles some great memories of when airline pilots had to practice the famous “checkerboard” approach to Kai Tak’s Runway 13. It was perhaps the most famous airport in the world back then, and lives today in fame. 

We can explore what landing at Kai Tak was like via MSFS, which still has the airport open and fully operational. Here, I selected the Boeing 747-8i, an aircraft popular among passenger airlines until recently. 

This was one of those special flight sim moments where I remember this event as if it were real. To be able to experience a famous, challenging airport, one that thousands of aviators worldwide got to experience first hand, hand flying in their wide bodies and heavy jets of their time into this exciting airport. 

I had hoped in my lifetime that I would have been able to experience flying into Kai Tak International but sadly missed that opportunity. My feelings are similar to having never been able to fly or even be a passenger on the Concorde. Yet we have all of this in MSFS and other simulators as well, keeping this dream alive. 

The post Simulated Flight in Real, Uninterrupted Time appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

“Aviation in itself is not dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity, or neglect.” —Alfred Gilmer Lamplugh

While many pilots wouldn’t know who came up with Lamplugh’s famous quote, most pilots would agree with it. There is risk in just about every facet of life, but in aviation the inability to manage that risk—because of overconfidence, a lack of preparation, or rusty skills—can be deadly.

One way to mitigate these risks is to practice aviation procedures and run through potential flight scenarios in a controlled environment using a flight training device (FTD)—colloquially referred to as a simulator.

This Article First Appeared in FLYING Magazine

If you’re not already a subscriber, what are you waiting for? Subscribe today to get the issue as soon as it is released in either Print or Digital formats.

Subscribe Now

Featured

Unlike the aircraft, an FTD or its less complex sibling, the advanced aviation training device (AATD), can be paused mid-flight, allowing you to recognize a mistake or poor decision and take prompt and corrective action. This builds good habits that, hopefully, are carried into the aircraft.

Link Trainer, the First FTD

In 1929, Edwin Link of New York introduced the Link Trainer. From the outside, the Link Trainer’s short wings and tail looked like a carnival ride or a cartoon airplane brought to life. It was built with vacuum-tube technology, valves, bellows, belts, and pulleys, which was state-of-the-art technology at the time. The enclosed cockpit sat several feet off the floor. The instrument panel was outfitted with an RMI, VOR, radiocompass, and attitude indicator along with engine instruments. The Link could physically pitch, yaw, and roll. An instructor sat at a console outside the device where they could control the parameters of the flight.When activated, 

the device would start to rotate, disturbing the pilot’s vestibular sense, forcing the pilot to “get on the instruments” to keep the “aircraft” upright and on course as the instructor adjusted flight conditions from the outside.

Inside the box, the pilot sweated in more ways than one, since the device had very little ventilation.

Link’s first customer was the U.S. Army, which had been losing pilots to weather-related accidents at an alarming rate. Sales would increase dramatically during World War II, as Link Trainers were used to train some 500,000 U.S. pilots. Each unit cost approximately $3,500 in 1941. Today, that’s more than $70,500.

The company still continues to build training devices for the transportation industry, and today is known as the Link Simulation and Training division of L3 Harris Technologies.

Frasca: FTDs for GA

In 1958, former Navy flight instructor Rudy Frasca (now deceased) started his own company building flight training devices. The company, today known as Frasca International and owned by FlightSafety International, makes everything from FTDs representing light training aircraft, such as the Cessna 172, Diamond DA40, and Piper singles and twins, all the way up to jets and turboprops used by airlines and corporate flight departments—in order to train their flight crews. 

The Urbana, Illinois-based company is now led by president John Frasca, Rudy’s son. The younger Frasca joined the business in 1972, sweeping floors and working his way up with a front-row seat to the changes in simulation technology. 

“The first devices Dad built were based on mechanical linkages and levers and solenoids, then they evolved to analog electronics with resistors with soldering irons and transistors,” Frasca says. “Then it evolved into micro-process computers,” he says, noting that the evolutionary mission is still key at Frasca.

“We are absolutely an engineering company,” Frasca explains. “Engineers evolve the technology to stay on the cutting edge, but we have to be careful to keep designs reliable and effective and economical. It would be possible to make a Level D full-flight sim for the Cessna 172, but it would be so expensive it is unlikely that anyone could afford it.”

The FAA approves flight training devices as either basic aviation training devices or AATDs. Many schools opt for the AATD as they offer learners the opportunity to gain more hours of loggable experience.

Frasca AATDs at most flight schools range from a semi-enclosed cockpit, where the pilot looks at an instrument panel, to a design expanded to include computer screens to give the pilot a more immersive experience.

“They started as instrument procedure trainers, then schools came to us and asked for devices that had control loading, like their Cessna 172 and Piper Archer, then they asked for special avionics, like [the Garmin] G1000,” Frasca says.

Realizing that flight schools often have more than one model in their hangar, Frasca developed the Reconfigurable Training Device AATD that allows the unit to be quickly configured to represent multiple aircraft, such as the Cessna 172, and Piper Seminole and Archer.

What’s the most important thing to remember when using a training device, according to Frasca?

“Treat it like an airplane,” he says, noting that they can build a device that looks, behaves, and—for the most part—handles like the airplane it represents.

“These FTDs have FAA approval and we use them to teach air work, emergency procedures and in some cases, takeoffs and landings.

“With a good instructor and a strong curriculum, they can learn good habits,” he says. As technology continues to evolve, there are improvements in fidelity that could potentially see the use of artificial intelligence to provide instruction, he adds.

“We’re looking at tools to make the instructor’s job easier, such as the use of CloudAhoy,” Frasca says.

The CloudAhoy app records the metrics of the flight and allows a playback later for an in depth debriefing, working in concert with the Frasca devices.

NASA Experiment, Simulation Required

In the 1990s, NASA sought to revitalize the dwindling aviation industry, and made simulation technology part of the process when it created the Advanced General Aviation Training Experience (AGATE) program. The concept shared by government, industry, and academia was to enhance training for pilots and improve aviation technology, which had largely remained untouched for several decades.

California-based Precision Flight Controls was founded in response to the AGATE program, and was one of the first companies to produce desktop and full size training devices for airplane pilot proficiency. It was also one of the first companies to gain FAA approval for them.

The simulators run the gamut from single-engine trainers, such as Cessna, Piper, Diamond, and Mooney designs, to multiengine aircraft, helicopters, turbo-props, and jets.

According to Precision Flight Controls CEO Mike Altman, the company’s mission lies in the creation of cost-effective training devices that are “performance accurate.” That takes robust computers with backups upon backups.

“We run on six image generators. If you load up a PC, it gets more pixelated and operates slower,” he says. “We want at least 60 frames of horsepower, fast video cards with backup drivers, and solid-state drivers.”

When a computer powering the simulation slows down, according to Altman, it ruins the efficacy of the experience for the user. That’s why it’s important that the simulator performs as close as possible to the actual aircraft. The customers are encouraged to test-fly the devices to check for performance and feel for accuracy.

“We want to make sure the customers are happy with it and they get pretty close on feeling and fine-tuning of the motions and control locations compared to the performance of the model,” he says. “The last thing you want is negative transfer between sim and airplane.”

The software makes it possible for the flight instructor to change the parameters of the flight with a single keystroke. That means weather or the performance of the aircraft is just one touch away from becoming challenging.

Scenario-Based Training

Used by the military and at the airline level for decades, scenario-based training (SBT) gained a foothold in the GA world in the 2000s. One of the first simulation companies to embrace SBT was Texas-based Redbird Flight Simulations, founded in 2006. The company makes several devices ranging from desktop models to the FMX, a full-motion device.

Redbird was one of the first simulation companies to embrace preloaded scenarios on its devices, according to Todd Willinger, one of the company’s founders and its CEO.

“The devices came with a dozen preset scenarios that were applicable to the private pilot or the instrument pilot,” Willinger says. “They often had the pilot flying out of Austin or San Marcos [Texas] with various weather conditions. We had one with the pilot flying out of Aspen, Colorado (field elevation 8,440 feet), on a hot day.”

This scenario-based training was quickly embraced by the Society of Aviation and Flight Educators, and later, the National Association of Flight Instructors, which developed the Pilot Proficiency Center (PPC) at Wittman Field (OSH), in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. During EAA AirVenture each summer, the PPC uses volunteer CFIs in Redbird FTDs and a crosswind trainer to put pilots through their paces. Last spring, the PPC was given a permanent home at Wittman Field in a newly constructed facility attached to the EAA Museum.

The scenarios for the PPC are created by Billy Winburn, president of Community Aviation and Mindstar Aviation, a company that specializes in flight simulation software. According to Winburn, the most challenging part of scenario creation is the fine-tuning of the scenarios.

“Many of the simulation missions are highly customized with high-resolution scenery and script commands that drive special effects for weather, aircraft handling, traffic, etc.,” Winburn says. “These enhancements are typically way outside of normal flight simulation software capabilities. Some of this is done internally but a lot of the add-ons are generated from third-party contractors, like Mindstar Aviation, who specializes in flight simulation software. To get the weather effects just right, you often have to interpolate the flight sim settings for the exact locations and behavior of clouds, visibility levels, winds aloft, etc. We also use special control scripts that can manipulate the flight files and drive weather directly.”

Each mission scenario comes with a lesson plan to be utilized by the pilot or the CFI.

“The scenarios [for] PPC use Redbird AATDs exclusively,” Winburn says. “These sims use an instructor station called Navigator that allow the flight, weather, and control script files we generate to work with any aircraft type that Redbird supports.”

New missions are added each year, and others are tweaked and retired, depending on feedback from the participants. This past year, the PPC had 10 missions that were developed in concert with the educators leading various clinic knowledge sessions, such as the Recreational Aviation Foundation for BackcountryAwareness scenarios.

According to Willinger, “flying” a scenario not only provides the pilot with a chance to gain proficiency, it can also help them build confidence as they have rehearsed the flight in the sim before attempting it in the real world.

Necessity Breeds Invention, Opportunity

One of the common complaints about the use of simulation technology is that often the hours spent in the device do not “count” toward the time required for a certificate or rating.

This attitude is in error, suggests Xylon Saltzman, founder and CEO of One-G simulations based in Seattle, Washington. In 2010, Saltzman was flying corporate charters in a Cessna 340 and had to travel to Scottsdale, Arizona, for recurrent training in the only FAA model-specific sim in the country.

“The trip was truly painful and it became obvious that there needed to be better access to equipment,” he says.

Saltzman, who has an engineering background, started building a simulator in his garage with the idea that the device could “provide beneficial instruction for all levels of pilots, starting from those with no experience.”

By 2011, the company—known as One-G—had its first design and first letter of authorization from the FAA. “We formed the company around that,” Saltzman says.

The training model was developed by a sister company, Modern Pilot, which also serves as a beta test facility for One-G designs. Learners have the option off lying the Foundation sim, which is a Cessna 172 with either G1000 or round dial, a Beechcraft Bonanza, or a Pilatus PC-12.

“Time in the AATD gives the learner familiarity with the cockpit but removes the fear and anxiety that often comes with flight training,” Saltzman says. “There is a direct correlation between what they see in the AATD and the flight deck of the airplane.”

AATDs are also much less expensive to purchase and operate than airplanes, Saltzman notes, adding that simulation experience—when properly applied—can expedite a private pilot’s learning process because the simulator can be paused, creating a better teaching environment. Also, as technology improves, so does the fidelity of the devices, allowing the learner to get more out of the experience, he says.

“Good habits can be learned there,” he says. “It doesn’t have to be FAA-approved time in order for it to be useful, but we’ve seen the FAA change its view on how valuable simulation instruction is—because in 2016, the FAA updated the FARs to state that 20 of the 40 hours required for the instrument certification could be acquired in an AATD.”

In fact, those hours can hold value regardless of whether they’re logged as flight time, given the effectiveness of training in the sim world and how it translates into pilot performance.

This article was originally published in the December 2022/January 2023 Issue 933 of FLYING.

The post Simulation Technology, Not Just for Airlines appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Earlier this month, record snowfalls and cold hit Southern California. I grew up in the Los Angeles valley and have always loved flying in the area on any flight sim. One of my favorite places to visit is Big Bear City Airport (L35), perched at over 6,000 feet msl on top of a ridge near lakes and ski resorts. I decided I’d put real weather to the test to see how good it is, compared to the most recent actual METAR. 

Conditions were lousy—a snowy scene with snow squalls or flurries about. The radar on ForeFlight showed the snow showers in spots west and southwest of the field. Since live weather runs constantly, I wanted to take a look.

• READ MORE: Flight Sims, Real World Flying Interact Beautifully

The sim models ridge lift almost perfectly, and thermals work based on sun angle, strength, and time of year.

• READ MORE: Flight Simulator’s Cessna 310 Offers Up Realistic Weather Lesson

We’re clearly doing a bit of scud running in the valley, which you don’t want to do in real life in a non-icing aircraft with mountains involved. But if you’ve ever wanted to be a bit foolhardy, this is the place to play.

In order to blow the realism factor way up, I recently got a Honeycomb throttle system, yoke, and pedals. To be hands-on, pulling, and pushing, using real scaled controls has the immersion factor much higher than ever before. 

The realism and ability to handle each airplane with higher fidelity really adds to the theory that flight sims and real life can go hand in hand with proficiency.

Some pretty intense sudden wind shear close in over terrain, and trees and buildings are now simulated. I continue to add power. The shaking, bouncing airspeed and changing throttle are lots of fun. Snow squalls and clouds are to the west and southwest, just as seen on the radar. Wow. Real weather does work.

The “CaptainSim” 767-300 is a light, simplistic systems-wise, version of the iconic airliner. While it is simplistic, it looks fabulous, and I would recommend it for getting from one place to another, but not in a “study level” or nuts and bolts type of detailed simulation. It is similar to default airliners in quality. 

In this photo you can see the live snow cover modeling leaving the Los Angeles area, up over the San Gabriel mountains, climbing up to FL320. The snow has reached the valley floors, as many towns at 1,000 feet or so got accumulation. The snow-cover model is updated when satellite imagery is also downloaded, or will modify if you manually modify the weather pages and deactivate live weather.

You can customize the throttle quadrant for single-engine land, single-engine complex, multiengine land, turbojets, and airliners all right out of the box. It’s one massive step toward realism and proficiency for a reasonable investment price. Thirty years ago, I would have never dreamt of such an amazing amount of realism and fun to be had at our hobby, which is now a serious tool for professional aviators anywhere. 

The post Flying Through Snowy Southern California, Virtually appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

“Been there, done that.” It’s an old adage that seems every pilot says at some time in their career, to the younger newbie just starting out. I used to hate that expression. Now, I use it much to my chagrin. 

In my early 20s, I started my first real flying jobs, first as a CFII, then a fledgling “corporate pilot” flying an advanced T-Tail Piper Arrow. To me, with its big tail, the Arrow was an airliner. It looked like a McDonnell Douglas MD-80 or Boeing 727, I thought. Some 30 years later, I’ve now gone full circle having flown almost 11,000 hours with some 7,000 of those hours in business jets. 

Recently I got checked out in a club’s Piper Archer II. It’s just like the one in Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020, also known as FS2020. Or, I should say, FS2020 is a lot like the real aircraft. 

The fidelity of sims allows me to compare sim vs. real life, and the gap of realism is closer than ever, with some of the photos I see on the internet fooling me into thinking they’re real. I wanted to share my personal sim vs. reality pics with you. But let’s take a look at the first part of this “Been There, Done That” series together.

• READ MORE: Flight Sims, Real World Flying Interact Beautifully

The Carenado sim add-on Archer II with a classic panel offers the same pilot’s-eye perspective at proper viewing height. This is extremely important in any flight sim, as you must position the seat at the exact correct angle and height to get the best visual sense to make proper takeoffs and landings. This is just like real life, where you must do the same, but for some reason, most “default” viewpoints in the flight sims I have seen have this far too low, as if being seen from the eyes of a toddler in the seat.

I have learned how to use the real-life Garmin GPS panel based on what I see in the sim here. When flying the real plane for the first time, I felt right at home learning on the go. A real “been there, done that” feeling.

Early on in my career as a new jet pilot, first type rating class for a Beechjet 400A, I was faced with the flight management system (FMS). The instructors at CAE were amazed at my ability to program and execute anything on the “box,” as normally, new jet pilots must take an extra five-day course on this machine. They couldn’t believe someone who had never flown jets could use the FMS so quickly, and when they asked me where I learned all this, they were stunned. They couldn’t believe any Microsoft Flight Simulator “game” could produce this much accuracy. I proved them wrong. 

The finest Collins FMS representation for 20 years or more has been on the PMDG 737 series, often known as the finest jetliner add-on ever produced year after year for the MS series. It is identical to most business jet FMS units in service today and was most beneficial in my first type rating Class. A. 

I recently visited my sister in Arizona and we took a trip to Sedona. The spectacular scenery was showcased all around us. Equally impressive is the scenery in the new MSFS. While not totally photorealistic, it sure beats any FAA level D that I have used. So I decided to find our exact Sedona hotel view, and replicate it in the flight sim. This is my balcony view in MSFS which took quite a while to find by Bell 407. 

Years ago I took a trip to Europe in one of the Challenger 300s I flew, where I got to go to the most beautiful place I have ever been on earth—Zermatt, Switzerland, home of the Matterhorn. This is me standing on a glorious May afternoon at about the 11,000-foot level. 

In the sim, I risked it all to land a Bell 407 in the exact general area in MSFS, using the same time of day, date, etc. I had to manually play with the snow depth adjustments to better tweak the visuals to match the photos. 

The real Gornergrat Observatory is perched high on a mountain at 10,200 feet, complete with a train line. It is a hotspot for skiers year-round, and is a luxury hotel as well. 

Two years ago, I was in command of my first-ever Pacific Ocean crossing to Lihue, Hawaii (PHIL). The 5.5-hour flight was non-stop from Oakland International Airport (KOAK) to PHIL, arriving on a glorious July afternoon. 

The MSFS2020 view is at the same place and about the same distance, at the time of day, reflecting the same weather. The only corporate jet by default that we can use in MSFS is the Citation Longitude, it’s quite similar to the Falcon 2000s and Challenger 300s that I have flown in its performance and range. 

• READ MORE: Flight Simulator’s Cessna 310 Offers Up Realistic Weather Lesson

Here is the same location in the sim. Not quite as photorealistic as some areas, but the terrain and placement of the lakes are perfect. Flying this close to those sawtoothed peaks ought to be rough, but surprisingly in all my years operating in and out of this place, I have yet to experience any shear, turbulence, or mountain rotor activity. The reason for this is when operating in the Rockies, we tend to only go in or out during good weather. I have not been there when it’s too windy. Perhaps a good thing to try in the sim for a future piece. 

I love simulating the ultimate private airliners, especially the Boeing Business Jet (BBJ) series. Nobody has produced a better BBJ than PMDG Simulations. PMDG has made the 737 series for more than 20 years and is heralded as the finest replication of a 737NG on the computer platform with much attention and approvals from Boeing. I was shocked when I saw the real BBJ2 (737-800 series) in the exact livery of the one on the sim I love in Van Nuys Airport (KVNY). 

Up until now, all my sim flying has been done primarily while traveling, in a hotel using a great portable joystick, and throttle quadrant. But in a moment of “hold the press” excitement, I just got my first ever professional grade yoke, throttle quadrant, and rudder pedals. I am blown away by the quality and workmanship of these units. I have never felt such realism and precision until now. 

I would highly recommend getting this pack as I did from the great Sporty’s Pilot Shop for about $600, which by itself is an amazing deal on the three components of any home cockpit. Once you make this investment, for the cost of about three flying lessons, you’ll get years of realism and fun out of them. The build quality is the best I’ve come across without cannibalizing a real aircraft. 

The post Been There, Done That appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

I recently set out on a small adventure using a “payware” Cessna 310 available from within the Microsoft Flight Simulator (MSFS) main menu. This is one of the more premium add-ons you can buy and is absolutely worth every penny of its $40 price tag. 

The Cessna 310 is one of the newfangled “living, breathing” aircraft that MSFS has released in recent years. It is an aircraft you must fly, maintain, and treat well, as if it were your own. That means oil changes, inspections, and wear and tear that result depending on how you manage the airplane. You’ll even have to clean the airplane over time. Passenger comfort changes depending on how you fly or the level at which you keep the cabin temperature.

• READ MORE: Flight Sims, Real World Flying Interact Beautifully

The Cessna 310 demonstrates how inflight icing affects the flying ability and aerodynamics of an aircraft under variable conditions. I knew this would become an exciting flight, but I wasn’t quite expecting what happened next, and as in the last article, I put my pilot’s thinking cap to the test with an added surprise and lesson to be learned that I wasn’t prepared for.

As we all know from our basic private pilot training, taking off with any frost, ice, or contaminants will disrupt the airflow over the flying surfaces, creating a potentially deadly result. Weight, stall speeds, aerodynamic flutter, and controllability would all be affected and so far, the sim has proven it’s all modeled quite well. So naturally, the threat of this realistic danger did not deter me. As I lined up and added equal power to the left and right engines via my add-on throttle control quadrant, the noises and power came to life. Acceleration was slower than normal and rotation and climb seemed kinda strange. Yet, we are out west with airport elevations of more than 4,000 feet msl, so that is to be expected, even in winter. This is true, and could be “gotcha number one” at play: Something seems so normal that you can easily convince yourself that it is normal. 

Feeling heavy, screaming in because it feels fast, I can sense the ground speed, but my indicated airspeed keeps dropping. I’ve got to trust the instruments, right? Gotcha number four.

By the time I shut down and went to find some virtual coffee, my four gotchas were based on something I hadn’t really planned on. In fact, I hadn’t thought of this in real life for many years since basic IFR training, and that is an iced-over pitot-static system. 

This sim has it simulated, and clearly I was a victim. My airspeed was increasing as I was climbing, and decreasing as I was descending—acting like an altimeter itself. 

Gotcha one was I falsely believed high altitude explained the engine’s sluggishness. I was so consumed with a perceived aerodynamic issue I hadn’t thought of the fact that maybe, I wasn’t that heavy or perilously close to a stall on final, but rather indicated airspeed was erroneously low, making me think I was.

Gotcha two was a blocked pitot-static system resulting in climbing airspeed as we gained altitude, and decreasing airspeed as we descended was gotcha three, all masking a normal profile. Adding full power was accelerating me, but I didn’t know it. My faster-than-normal ground speed was a probable result of the ice-laden wings. Without a blocked static system, my indicated airspeed would have been much higher, somewhat closer to my ground speed, yet it had not occurred to me.

Gotcha four was trusting the instruments. You’re certainly supposed to, unless you can determine which ones are not reliable. In this case, you can’t trust certain ones affected by icing. What an incredible learning lesson and one that once again was unexpected as I set out to demonstrate aerodynamic icing and came back with a new appreciation of this simulator’s features and a good lesson I’ve not had in 20-plus years of professional flying. 

The post Flight Simulator’s Cessna 310 Offers Up Realistic Weather Lesson appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Just in time for the holidays, Microsoft has released the 40th anniversary edition of its famed Flight Simulator flight sim program. 

For many aviation enthusiasts, the new edition is not just another update of the company’s long-standing simulation program, but instead a celebration of virtual aviation’s past, present, and future. 

The Microsoft Flight Simulator software program was first launched in 1977 when Bruce Artwick, a software engineer who founded Sublogic, created and developed the first iteration of the program. Two years later, the company released Flight Simulator for the Apple II. In 1982, Microsoft purchased licensing rights to that original software and officially launched the first iteration of Microsoft Flight Simulator 1.0 that same year.

Since that time, Microsoft has released updated versions of the program periodically. In 2012, the company decided to shelve product development after it faced intense criticism from users after launching Microsoft Flight, designed to replace the original simulator series. Microsoft’s franchise remained grounded until the company partnered with Asobo, a French video game developer known for video game versions of Pixar movies. That collaboration led to the release of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020.

The long break between versions allowed the team to take advantage of substantial advancements in gaming technology. The result is flight simulation software that rivals (and even surpasses) scenery used in full-motion commercial flight simulators.

Marking 40 Years of Development

This latest release of Flight Simulator is chock full of features that appease new flight simmers—what those aficionados call themselves—and those loyal to the program since its beginnings. Every update comes with new virtual aircraft models to fly, but this time around, they’ve gone old school.

Seven historical aircraft are featured: the 1903 Wright Flyer, a 1915 Curtiss JN-4 Jenny, the 1927 Ryan NYP Spirit of St. Louis, a 1935 Douglas DC-3, a 1937 Grumman G-21 Goose, a 1947 de Havilland DHC-2 Beaver, and the famous 1947 Hughes H-4 Hercules Spruce Goose. Some of these (like the Jenny and Spirit of St. Louis) were featured in the 2004 release, while others are making their flight simulator debut with this latest version. 

Aside from the new aircraft, Microsoft’s scenery brought an entirely new dimension to flight simming, including simulating the topography of the entire Earth using data from Bing Maps. Microsoft Azure’s artificial intelligence (AI) generates three-dimensional representations of Earth’s features, using cloud computing to render and enhance visuals. Combining these visual tools sets this software far ahead of its previous iterations.

Sharpening Virtual Flying Skills

When Microsoft and Asobo released the 2020 version of Flight Simulator, it provided some much-needed engagement for real-world pilots grounded at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. The software’s advanced scenery and aerodynamic modeling allowed many frustrated aviators to practice their flying skills. Whether or not the flight time is loggable is another discussion. Either way, they could practice pilotage, instrument scanning, and radio navigation.

While flight simulators are not helpful for ground operations, like parking or taxiing an airplane, some flight training academies encourage pilots to improve their skills through home-based flight simulators. An example is a Melbourne, Australia-based flight school that has developed online training modules and recommends supplemental practice via Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020.

While there is no way to replace real turbulence and its bumps, skips, and jolts—and landing in a tabletop simulator does not provide the same depth perception as real-world pattern work—there are benefits to using the program. Occasional sim time engages neurons that fire after practicing checklists, following a road via VFR [visual flight rules] navigation, or maybe shooting an instrument approach or two.  

Flight simmers can enjoy flying various aircraft, from jets to Jennys and sport aircraft to the Spruce Goose, they enjoy the immersive experience of flying virtual skies to destinations they may only dream of. 

The post Fly a DC-3, or ‘Spruce Goose’ in the New Microsoft Flight Simulator appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

When it comes to teaching science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) at the high school level, one of the most expedient ways to do this is through aviation—that’s the message from the AOPA Foundation High School Aviation STEM symposium.

The event, held in Memphis, Tennessee, on the weekend of November 12, brought together more than 400 educators and industry leaders to share information and discuss ways to apply STEM concepts using Redbird Flight simulation technology.

During the event, Redbird announced the creation of 25 new flight simulator lessons designed to supplement the 10th- and 11th-grade course material that is part of the AOPA High School Aviation STEM Curriculum. For several years, Redbird and AOPA have been working together to create what is essentially a multiyear ground school for high school students.

How It Works

Each flight simulator lesson includes a lesson plan and extension options designed to support the learning objectives of AOPA’s high school curriculum, which is currently in use at some 300 schools in the United States. This hands-on approach in the Redbird simulators can enhance the learning process.

“The lessons integrate seamlessly with AOPA’s curriculum, helping students connect classroom theory to the practical application of professional flight skills and aeronautical decision-making,” Redbird said. “For example, the simulator lesson titled ‘It’s Electrifying,’ which corresponds to the electrical systems lesson in unit eight of AOPA’s 10th-grade curriculum, enables students to explore how toggling various cockpit switches influences the operation of the electrical system of an aircraft. The tactile approach to learning helps students better understand that manipulating electrical switches does not impact engine operation.”

Redbird’s simulator supplement is a free digital offering for high schools that use AOPA’s curriculum. 

Simulation education is Redbird’s specialty. The Texas-based Redbird Flight was established in 2006 with the mission of making aviation training more accessible through modern technology. Redbird simulation devices range from desktop models (the Redbird TD-2) to enclosed-cab, full-motion Advanced Aviation Training Devices (Redbird FMX) and the Redbird Xwind crosswind trainer.

Redbird training devices and content packages are used in flight schools, colleges, universities, K-12 schools, and by individual pilots worldwide.

Many Careers Represented

The symposium was not just about recruiting future pilots, noted AOPA, adding that STEM-related careers include drone operators, aerospace engineers, scientists, technologists, and technicians. During the symposium, educators are encouraged to network and explore new ideas to take back to their classrooms to enhance the educational process.

The post Redbird Creates High School Flight Simulator STEM Lessons appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

I have logged in excess of 3,000 hours in a Redbird FMX Advanced Aviation Training Device. These are the devices that are mounted on cradles that provide the unit with pitch, yaw, and roll. One of the biggest surprises for the trainees who have been “flying” using the Microsoft Flight Simulator program and then try to fly the FMX is how quickly their instrument scan and aircraft control goes askance when the dimension of movement is added to the equation.

I was thinking about this yesterday when I climbed into a Link Trainer at the Museum of Flight Restoration Center at Snohomish County Airport/Paine Field (KPAE). For the unfamiliar, the Link Trainer was designed in the 1920s by Edwin Link of Binghamton, New York. During World War II, Link trainers were used extensively to train pilots to fly by instruments.

You’ve probably seen one of these in a museum or in historic newsreel footage that shows a cartoon-like aircraft (reminiscent of a carnival ride) spinning on the floor of a hangar while serious-looking air cadets try to learn the ins and outs of IFR flying. The devices are about the size of a small car, and are mounted on a mechanical cradle. Cables run from the sim cab to a desk where an instructor has a console to put the pilot through his (or her) paces. It is very, very rare to find one that still functions, as most are relegated to static display at aviation museums.

My flight in the MOF’s Link Trainer was the maiden voyage after years of restoration.

First Impressions

I am one of those pilots that learns well in a simulation environment. The names Precor, Frasca, OneG, AST300, Redbird, and the TouchTrainer FM-210 appear in my logbooks in both the “Instruction Received” and “Instruction Given” columns.

My tour guide for the day was Austin Ballard, who is in charge of the MOF Restoration Center. He was quick to note the Link C-3 restoration was a multi-year, multi-person job. I would be remiss if I did not recognize volunteers Joe Polocz, Don Milsted, Charlie Price, Ed Essex, and Bobby Takatsuka for their fine efforts during my Link training session. But would this ancient machine, designed in the time of Lindbergh with vacuum tubes, pulleys and bellows, and cables still work?

We would find out.

Ballard cautioned me that one needs to be agile—and careful while climbing inside the Link Trainer. The cockpit is about 2 feet above the floor. There are steep steps, and you have to grab the side of the cockpit and sort of swing yourself inside. One must take care that the door doesn’t smash their fingers. One must slide the overhead canopy all the way forward in order to have room to maneuver. There is not a lot of room and the seat is not forgiving—it feels a bit like sitting in a wooden pew at church.

The Link is powered by electricity, which actuates mechanical motors, which actuate bellows, and there are pulleys and belts to give you the sensation of pitch, yaw, and roll. The instructor’s station is located off to the side on a desk. The Link does not roll inverted, so you do not need a seatbelt.

At the Controls

The start switch was flipped. There was a whirring noise and after confirming that the Link was not in the locked position (check the lever in the cockpit), it began to drift slowly in a circle.

The machine operates with vacuum tubes, and those require time to warm up. While that was happening, I acquainted myself with the instrument panel. I have some time in 1940s-era machines so I was familiar with most of the round dials I was looking at.

The attitude indicator, black and white with the stylized airplane over the horizontal line, looks downright primitive if you have been raised on the AIs with blue on top, brown on the bottom and the horizontal lines for 5 degrees, 10 degrees, and so forth. The vertical lines for 10 degrees, 20 degrees, and 30 degrees were on the ancient instrument. I recalled the training acquired from my mentor, Dean Boyd, who said climbs were done by pitching the aircraft above the horizon line gauging it by wing widths while simultaneously keeping the ball in the center and watching airspeed and heading.

The slip-skid indicator was familiar, although the ones in the aircraft I trained in had sort of an upside-down doghouse shape on top that, when the needle was placed there, indicated a standard-rate turn.

The airspeed indicator to the left of the compass was familiar as were the altimeter and vertical speed indicator.

The yoke of the Link is the steering wheel type, reminiscent of those on the 1930s to 1940s twins I have flown. The rudder pedals are around the size of an iPad. Anytime I see large rudder pedals paired with a large yoke, I think about over-controlling—big rudder and wheel often means an airplane takes two hands and is trim dependent. I quickly located the aircraft trim actuators, which are knobs on the left side of the cockpit. That’s also where I found the throttle, propeller, and mixture levers.

• READ MORE: Want to Save on Training? Make Better Use of Flight Simulation

The flaps and landing gear levers are located behind the pilot on the left. I thought that was a weird place for them, and wondered if it led to any negative transference in the real aircraft.

Scan Challenges

I tell my learners to think of the instruments on the panel like a box of kittens—you can’t fixate on one, because the rest will get out and there will be drama. This is where the pilot develops their scan—it’s a lot easier to scan when the instruments are closer together in neat rows with the attitude indicator, arguably the most important instrument flying, front and center in the pilot’s field of view. That is not the case in the Link Trainer.

The attitude indicator is in the top right—to the left is the magnetic compass, and underneath it, the slip-skid indicator, with the altimeter to the left. I figured my scan was going to be sort of rhombus shaped.

Once I was settled into the machine, the door was closed and the overhead hatch slid back, putting me into darkness with the exception of a few panel lights and slivers of light coming from right where the instructor’s access portal is located.

Ballard explained that instructors could open the access portal to view the trainee. There are also toggle switches next to the port access on the outside of the Link which the CFI can use to fail instruments.

Mechanical Difficulties

On the subject of failure, on this day, we experienced one of the mechanical variety. As the Link Trainer became operational, it rolled to the right. It was an uncommanded roll, surprising both Ballard and myself.

“Yoke left!” he called from outside the Link.

I grabbed the yoke and put it all the way left—and nothing happened. I added left rudder. Nothing happened. After a few moments of exterior inspection, Ballard determined that the leather belt that actuated the yaw of the Link Trainer had failed.

“Where do you get replacement parts?” I asked, knowing that this device was at least 75 years old.

“You make them,” he laughed.

Apparently, my training in the Link will need to be continued another day. 

The post The Link Trainer: An Uncommanded Roll Gets Our Author’s Attention appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

In a Cessna Mustang jet, the approach into East Hampton, New York (KHTO), is an RNAV (GPS) affair. LPV guidance is provided to the Garmin G1000 primary flight display (PFD). It’s daytime, and the PFD lighting is almost garish in its vibrancy. Blues and greens of various shades represent the sky, the ground and the sea on the screens in front of both pilots. This is what synthetic vision is all about. It is a good thing too. The fog bank over Long Island is making this interesting. The airport is advertising minimums—just.

At 1,000 feet, we are fully configured and on speed. The PFD shows us heading right for the runway, with a small tailwind component. At 300 feet, we’re at minimums. I see the runway through the murk. As I flare, I feel the airplane float. We are a foot or two above the runway, but it feels like the airplane is accelerating.

Well past the runway aiming point and aware of the comparatively short runway, I call for a go-around. I push the go-around button, advance the throttles, raise the flaps to take off, call out “positive rate,” flick the gear handle up and sequence the FMS climb to 2,000 feet, and head for the hold at MATHW.

“OK, not too bad,” our instructor says. “I gave you a 20-knot tailwind at the decision altitude, but you were looking outside and didn’t catch it. Let’s try that again.”

So it goes in the Mustang simulator at FlightSafety International in Wichita, Kansas. The experience is in a level-D full-motion simulator: Advanced software, high-speed computer processing and high-resolution glass visuals make the feeling so real, you are surprised when the instructor stops the sim, removing you from the immersed realism of the virtual world to start her critique in real time.

Replicating reality is a thing at FlightSafety International. A big thing. The VITAL 1150 visual system projects ultra-high 4K resolution graphics onto an integrated CrewView wrap around glass display. The field of view in these CrewView simulators extend up to 300-by-60 degrees with a single collimator, which is the largest in the industry providing an immersed landscape of reality. A high frame rate of 120 Hz provides crisp, realistic imagery.

The visuals include comprehensive airport lighting systems and dynamic and enhanced shadowing for detailed topography. Dawn, dusk and five levels of precipitation are simulated. Not that I ever want to need it, but the system can generate realistic views of overwater flying. There are settings for 13 sea states, two swell states, and ocean wave and spray effects. When you think about the basic trainer developed by Edwin Link in 1929, you get a sense as to how far simulation has come.

When it comes to rare but dangerous real-world situations, innovative methods and immersive technology are the best tools for teaching pilots upset prevention and recovery training (UPRT). In the simulator, the consequence of trying to climb over weather at high altitude without careful management of airspeed can be safely, and memorably, demonstrated. Loss of control in-flight (LOC-I) is frequently cited as a major cause of aircraft accidents. This makes upset prevention a critical part of operating a modern jet. Just imagine trying to safely demonstrate situations that can result in loss of control in a real jet—it would be disastrous.

Speaking of in-airplane training, the reality replication of FlightSafety simulator programs has some obvious advantages. I know this from personal experience. As an ATP with five type ratings, one of which was obtained in an actual jet, I can attest to the superiority of simulator training. When being trained in a live, honest-to-goodness jet, small nuances are easily missed in the heat of instruction. Even big lessons can get lost in the fog of repeated approaches with no time to reflect because you have to maintain control of the airplane throughout the session. It is very difficult to process a comment about max engine performance while you’re trying to wrestle a one-engine-inoperative airplane on a single-engine go-around.

Not only that, but some in-airplane maneuvers are cause for anxiety. Yes, the instructor just pulled one engine to idle at V1. As you overcorrect the rudder input, you think, Did he really just do that? In the blur of flight, lessons flash by unprocessed. In the simulator, “freeze mode” allows one to see exactly what the abnormal situation is and how it affects the conduct of flight. Furthermore, simulator-data collection has multiple positive contributions to safety. It is a way to identify aviationwide issues and emphasize those issues in recurrent training.

FlightSafety works with corporate flight departments to develop training initiatives for their crews. Companies that collect flight operational quality assurance (FOQA) data can share these findings on a de-identified anonymous basis. This allows training to be tailored to that specific flight department’s needs. If your home base is an uncontrolled field in mountainous terrain, the number of unstable nighttime approaches flown by your team will be of obvious and immediate concern.

FlightSafety has started to use aggregated FOQA data to identify areas of focus called “spotlights.” Spotlights are incorporated into the training curricula and don’t add additional training time to the sessions, be they initial or recurrent. This benefits the entire fleet.

Let’s face it: Replicating reality starts in ground school. To prepare for emergency and (the euphemistically labeled) “abnormal” situations, pilots need to understand aircraft systems, avionics, flying characteristics in various flight regimes, and emergency procedures before hopping in the sim. FlightSafety’s desktop simulators, graphical flight-deck sims, and avionics procedure trainers get them ready.

In FlightSafety’s MATRIX integrated training system, the same logic and software found in the level-D simulator is accessible in a desktop training format. Virtual preflight walkarounds are becoming available for some initial training courses. Pilots can walk around the airplane, open panels, and check system operations in a virtual 3D simulator. (These 3D simulators are also starting to play a big role in maintenance training programs at FlightSafety International.)

None of the whiz-bang simulator graphics or 3D virtual walkarounds would be of much use without first-rate, knowledgeable, experienced and approachable instructors. Sitting behind the pilots, the instructor controls an FS1000 simulator station with intuitive interface, scalable graphics and large displays with touchscreen controls. The instructor can gin up adverse weather, systems failure or airspeed conditions. The “pause” capability of these simulators is one of the most useful features in all of training. The instructor can then reset the condition, position and configuration of the aircraft, and you can “fly” the airplane again, based on the feedback you just received. In the in-airplane training situation, there is an opportunity to discuss these conditions only once you have landed and are in a debriefing room.

FlightSafety has worked closely with airplane and avionics manufacturers for decades. Courses and curricula are designed with their input. Actually, FlightSafety simulators are often used by OEMs to flight-test crews or develop flight-test procedures. It is not uncommon for FlightSafety’s training materials to be developed ahead of OEM aircraft material on a new program. This allows both the FSI and the OEM to benefit from thorough testing. A pilot’s operating handbook may be written from FlightSafety training materials.

Recently out of recurrent training myself, I was flying my CJ1 from Santa Fe, New Mexico (KSAF), to Pittsburgh (KAGC) with three pax and lots of luggage. After heading east on the TAFOY2 departure, a curtain of dark clouds threatened our path. I could see on Nexrad, on the onboard radar and out the window that a turn to our destination would be possible if we were cleared to a higher altitude. I watched as our angle of attack gradually increased. With the autopilot in flight level change mode, I carefully monitored our airspeed. Unusually high temperatures resulted in a slow climb. All the while, the lessons of high-altitude stalls were in my mind. When we leveled out at FL390, a brisk tailwind soon freshened our route. The pax were oblivious. Thanks to recurrent training, they sat back there reading newspapers and a novel.

The post Replicating Reality appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The master caution light started throbbing its insistent message—something was wrong with the airplane. Our pilot looked up at the annunciator panel and saw a yellow light: “Door Seal.” Did our pilot get excited, become distracted or, worse yet, panic? No. She reached down for the “Emergency/Abnormal Procedures” checklist. Calmly turning to the back cover, which pictured all the possible annunciator messages, she matched the offending light to Page Z3 of the checklist. “Better a flashing yellow caution light than a red master warning light,” she mused.

With a knowing sigh, but not much more than that, she read the following: “‘Door Seal’ indicates cabin primary-seal pressure is too low to maintain door-seal integrity. Secondary seal should maintain pressurization.” Thus reassured—and reminded of a similar scenario she experienced in the jet’s simulator just two months ago—our pilot complied with the initial instructions to descend to 31,000 feet, don her oxygen mask, and activate the passenger-advisory switch.

The airplane, which was close to its destination, descended to a safe altitude and landed minutes later.

The calm attitude and demeanor exhibited by the pilot wasn’t intuitive. A sudden warning light blinking in a jet at 41,000 feet (about 8 miles high) is not a naturally calming event. Years of training and recurrent training had produced a careful, steady pilot—one not rattled by much. She was prepared.

Being prepared is the cornerstone of training philosophy at FlightSafety International. Since Brad Thress was named President and CEO in February 2020, FSI has embarked on changes that reflect a transition from training according to regulatory standards to training for competent preparedness. Even the logo at the venerable company is transitioning from the blocky font to a sleeker look. The letters appear to lean forward, as if inviting you to come along and get prepared for your next flight. “When the marketing folks came to me and recommend these changes, I hesitated because our brand has been so iconic for 70 years” Thress says. “But then I realized we do want to signal change and make new and younger pilots feel welcomed to our training.”

Being prepared is not really a new concept. In 1907, Robert Baden-Powell, an English soldier, coined the Boy Scouts’ motto: “Be Prepared.” When asked, “Be prepared for what?” Baden Powell replied, “Well, for any old thing.” In surgical operating rooms, nurses are taught to prepare for emergencies, though they might never see one. Why won’t they ever see one? Because if you prepare for an emergency, it won’t feel like one when it happens.

Jack Tessmann has been director of training at FlightSafety’s Cessna Learning Center since 2007, yet he has still managed to accumulate 7,850 hours in the air. This real-world experience is evident in the structure of FSI training. Ground school features colorful examples of the integration of systems training with real-life scenarios. “Matrix” classrooms have three screens that the instructor references, one displaying the visual cockpit indication of a malfunction. A second screen shows a specific system schematic so the trainee can understand exactly what has happened and how the airplane is designed to deal with the problem. The third screen allows a detailed view of the panel, with the ability for the instructor to zoom in to certain regions of the cockpit.

Speaking of preparedness, simulation training in high-fidelity simulators provides experiences that could never be safely reproduced in an actual airplane. Though in-airplane training programs are available from some outfits, they all suffer from the inability to really simulate dangerous conditions. “In the simulator, we can set it up for the pilot to experience a catastrophic engine failure that results in a fire just after takeoff in blowing snow,” Tessmann says. “If you are training in an aircraft, there is a point at which you have to say, ‘That’s enough.’” Other examples include engine-start malfunctions. You don’t want to actually experience a “hot start” in your own airplane if you are responsible for the maintenance bills.

The other advantage of simulator training compared with in-aircraft training is the “freeze mode.” An instructor can stop any maneuver and point out mistakes. Then the pilot can be reset to fly the maneuver or approach again. In an actual airplane—burning actual fuel and experiencing actual noisy flight conditions—nuances fly by with such speed that no one could process and absorb the information.

I’ve had personal experience in the process of getting five jet type ratings. All were in the simulator except one. That one in-airplane type rating was a disaster. After calculating the cost of fuel, instructor time, and wear and tear on brakes, tires and engines, I concluded that the simulator training was much more efficient and safer.

It isn’t just the actual moving simulator that gives fidelity to the training experience at FSI. Often, graphical flight-deck simulators are used to orient pilots to location of switches and controls. In the past, rudimentary devices, called cockpit trainers, were used for this purpose. Not much more than a picture of a cockpit, they are nothing compared with the GFS. When a switch is moved by touch on an interactive screen representation of the cockpit in the GFS, you can see the effect of moving that switch. It is almost like being in the actual Level D simulator.

Perhaps the most rewarding event during initial or recurrent flight training is the “debrief.” After a simulator session, pilot and instructor convene in a small room to provide a quiet and confidential space to review what the pilot did well and what could use improvement. It is here that the lessons sink in. Free from the distraction of the simulator, points can be repeated until the pilot gains clarity.

FlightSafety is known for its instructors. The qualification process for them is extensive and highly structured. It is likely that a training center has been training on a specific aircraft model since its certification. So, in many cases, the instructor has the same tenure as that certification. These folks know that airplane—and in that knowledge, they enhance your own preparation.

Tessmann says that large flight departments tend to commit more resources to safety. They tailor their training to ensure all their pilots are trained the same way to the same standards, making a safer flight deck. Callouts and checklist responses are customized. Other flight departments opt not to do this, completing the minimum regulatory requirements and sometimes using less-frequent training sessions. In these situations, “there’s a sense that one needs to just check the boxes in order to comply with regulations,” Tessmann says. “But when operators need it the most—in real situations and real challenges—it’s expert-taught, expansive training that will actually prepare them.”

When asked about owner-operators and single-pilot jets, Tessmann points out that these individuals didn’t get where they are without being motivated to high achievement. Curricula are tailored to the pilot and airplane. What are common flights anticipated by the pilot? What weather and airport challenges will they encounter? These factors are customized to achieve maximum preparation.

Our pilot in the door-seal example reported the abnormality to maintenance and just learned that a sensor switch had become cold-soaked at altitude. It will be replaced tomorrow. Meanwhile, her sense of accomplishment has added to her appreciation for her job and the company for which she works. She’s well-trained, yes, but more important, she’s prepared. As FlightSafety’s vice president for safety and regulatory compliance, D. Richard Meikle, likes to say, “Proficient is capable; prepared is unshakable.”

The post Be Prepared, Not Just Proficient appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Epic Flight Academy has trained thousands of pilots who have gone on to careers at more than 300 airlines worldwide, according to the company. And they pride themselves on being able to move students from around the world through a training course in the most efficient way. So it makes sense that Epic would look for ways to further increase efficiency while retaining a solid training experience for new professional pilot candidates.

To this end, Epic has worked with Frasca International to create a new full-motion flight training device, replicating the Cessna 172, that it can incorporate into its training programs. The project utilized Frasca’s Motion-Cueing System originally designed for higher-level flight training devices and full flight simulators to add to the realism driven as well by the high-fidelity graphics. “Epic is the first flight school in the world to have a Cessna 172 FTD with this high level of motion system,” said John Frasca, president of Frasca International.

Epic’s students will log from 30 to 40 hours in the device during the academy’s private pilot course, with the motion base granting the ability to perform maneuvers, including stalls, steep turns, and landings. The syllabus requires the students to perfect maneuvers procedures in the sim before trying them out in the airplane. Epic has been using the device since November 2020, for an average of 250 hours monthly—with 30 private pilot students using the device as an integrated part of their initial course.

To Epic CEO Danny Perna, the curriculum is very different from what he experienced as a budding pilot. “We can now provide more training time for students at a third of the hourly cost,” said Perna. “When I learned to fly, I had a basic six pack, and I was the only person in the pattern for my solo. Today these students have to learn more equipment and technology than was in the first space shuttle. The simulator is a game changer for us with its ability to so closely replicate the flight characteristic of an airplane.” Frasca plans to place more of the motion-based devices in training organizations across the US. Epic and Frasca have also teamed up to pursue recognition of training time in the sim towards the hours required for the commercial pilot certificate.

The post Epic Flight Academy Adds Frasca Motion Sim, Reduces Training Time appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Cockpits make terrible classrooms. They are expensive, loud, quick to produce sensory overload, and there is always the potential for the “classroom” to collide with something else—such as another “classroom.” If you are looking for a less expensive, more productive path to learning to fly, consider utilizing an aviation training device, commonly referred to as a simulator.

I am a 5,500-plus-hour master CFI in Seattle and have been teaching in ATDs since 2005. Correctly utilized, an ATD can accelerate the acquisition of many skills, from procedures to decision-making.

Save Money, Improve Your Skills

Simulation devices at the flight school level run the gamut from desktop models that have rudder pedals, a yoke and a computer screen where the windscreen would be to the more expensive, FAA-approved ATDs that create immersion by using wraparound screens and cockpits that mimic popular training aircraft.

Some ATDs even have motion, allowing the learner to experience crosswinds and turbulence in a safer, less stressful environment than the aircraft. The operational costs of ATDs are usually significantly less than the aircraft; therefore, the ATD costs less to rent for a lesson, and most important, there is often a greater educational return for you as a result.

The FAA allows some time accrued in ATDs to be applied toward the experience requirements for certificates and ratings, and in addition, many pilots find the lessons learned in an ATD save their lives when applied in the real world.

Most Part 141 schools have ATDs as part of their curriculum. “They are excellent procedures trainers,” says Matt Opsahl, assistant chief flight instructor, flight operations at the University of North Dakota. “Aviation training devices are used in every course. Our private pilots start out in them learning the procedures, learning the hand motions, the muscle memory for setting up the cockpit, learning to use the GPS—and the G1000 is much less expensive [to learn] in an ATD than it is in an airplane with the prop turning.”

“For best results, make the training session as close [as possible] to what would happen in the airplane,” says Josh Harnagel, vice president of marketing for Redbird Flight Simulations. Redbird, founded in 2006, has units ranging from desktop styles to enclosed-cockpit, full-motion ATDs. “Make it as realistic as possible—that includes using the checklist and seat belts if they are installed,” he says.

According to Randy Gawenda, business-development manager from Frasca International Inc., the quality of the sim session is largely dependent on the communication skills of the instructor. “You can say the same thing the same way to 99 learners, but [if] on the 100th learner you say it four times and the learner is still not getting it, it tells you that you are not communicating on the right level,” Gawenda says. “The instructor has to refine their level of communication and hit pause—because the learner is not hearing what you are trying to say.”

The best part of the sim is that it can be paused midflight to allow the learner to catch up—most every instructor wishes they could do that in an actual aircraft. The sim can also be easily repositioned for repetition, so you can gain practice without spending the time you would in the airplane.

Plus, there are some procedures that are more effectively learned in an ATD. One example is the loss of engine power. In the aircraft, the instructor simulates loss of engine power by pulling the throttle back to idle—you know what has happened by the position of the throttle. In the ATD, loss of engine power is done with a keystroke. It’s quite the eye-opener for the learner when they realize loss of engine power can happen regardless of throttle position.

“In the airplane, the instructor can only simulate emergencies like loss of engine power. In the simulator, the instructor can give you a real emergency,” Gawenda says.

Application is key. Many 141 schools use ATDs for 20 hours of the instrument rating to teach approaches and holding procedures. For the VFR pilot, learning cross-country skills such as groundspeed checks and dead reckoning in the sim can reduce much of the stress of the first cross-country flight in the actual aircraft.

Read More: Learn to Fly

Decisions, Decisions

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University has been using cockpit-simulation technology for decades. The devices range from static cockpit mock-ups of training aircraft all the way up to a Frasca used to train pilots to fly a regional jet.

“ATDs are an excellent tool for teaching decision-making,” says professor Parker Northrup, chairman of the flight department at ERAU’s Prescott, Arizona, campus—provided the instructor communicates the objective of the lesson to the learner and correctly configures the ATD.

“Using an ATD gives the instructors the ability to precisely shape the learning objective and set up an environment and ‘switchology’ to meet the learner’s needs,” Northrup says, adding that scenarios drawn from an accident report published by the National Transportation Safety Board are particularly effective if your instructor creates a string of events allowing you to go through the same steps as the accident pilot—but with a better outcome.

The most common complaint from learners in ATDs is that there is no kinesthetic sense in the device. They cannot feel the ATD like they feel the airplane; it just doesn’t give the same kind of feedback. This makes the ATD a little more difficult to fly, and if the pilot has bad habits—such as poor airspeed control—they will be magnified.

There is also a tendency for instructors to pile on the emergencies, says Xylon Saltzman, a CFI and founder and CEO of One-G Simulation.

“Because the ATD is a safe environment for practicing potentially dangerous scenarios that you cannot control in an aircraft—such as a cargo shift, fuel imbalance or density altitude—you can overload the learner by giving them too many system failures or too many emergencies in one session,” Saltzman says. “Obviously, it is highly unlikely that you would have an electrical failure, pitot-static failure and engine fire on one flight, so don’t do it in the sim. Limit the emergencies to about 20 percent of the time.”

As your skills grow and change, so does the application of the ATD, says Kenneth Byrnes, Ph.D., flight chairman and assistant dean from ERAU’s Daytona Beach, Florida, campus. “We have sims with 220-degree visuals surrounding the cockpit, so you are immersed in the environment. Lots of initial learning for the private and [instrument] candidates happens in the sims. When the learners get to the commercial level, we focus on decision-making.”

“If the learner makes a mistake, let them try to fix it before you hit the pause button,” Opsahl says. “We don’t want to take the stress out of the situation, but we can remove the risk. If they make a mistake, we want them to recover from that mistake.”

You’ll need to treat the time spent in the ATD just as you would time in the aircraft. This means insisting on a preflight briefing to identify the objectives of the mission, identify the risks and potential challenges, then fly the mission. The post-flight debrief should include a critique of your performance as a learner as well as how the lesson can and will be applied for overall training.

“Some instructors will use the ATD to reduce the cost of getting a student over a hump on selected maneuvers…or if weather or aircraft availability preclude flying,” says Bob Hepp, a Gold Seal CFI at Aviation Adventures in Manassas, Virginia. “We do the first half of instrument training in it. For commercial, we use it for low-cost time building. We also use it for instructor interviews and annual instructor standardization.”

The Instructor’s Attitude Is Key

“We all know when an instructor doesn’t want to be in the sim and only wants to build hours,” Gawenda says. “This goes for the corporate/business/commercial training centers too, not just general aviation. I’ve had so many clients say, ‘Well, I went to “XX” last year, and the instructor was terrible, so I am not ever going back there again,’ even though the equipment is top-notch and it’s a professional training business. A bad instructor can destroy a sim session regardless of how well-planned and structured it is just by nonverbally communicating the lack of interest. It would be nice if we could figure out some way to incentivize great teaching, not just building hours.”

“It comes down to the flight school management styles and how they want their instructors to use the sim,” Harnagel says. “It might be [that] the learner cannot do a stage check until they have done X number of hours in the sim first. [It’s] also useful when a learner is having difficulty with a particular maneuver; the learner can do a sim session with a check [pilot] who can use the pause button of the sim…and deconstruct the learner’s poor habits and rebuild them with good ones.”

Six Tips for Best Practices in Leveraging Simulation Technology

1. Before your first flight, use the ATD for a “lap in the pattern.” This gives you an idea of what you will see in the aircraft during the flight, thus reducing the chance you’ll be overwhelmed. Learners who try the virtual flight first get more out of their first real flight.

2. As a flight school, have the instructors go through an ATD checkout just as they do an aircraft checkout. Make sure the instructors understand where and how the ATD can be applied in the syllabus.

3. For instructors: Create scenarios that can be applied to lessons in the syllabus with multiple outcomes. For example, put the learner on a cross-country flight with deteriorating weather. If the learner choses to divert, allow the learner to land in VFR conditions. If the learner continues, increase the difficulty of the flight by introducing a systems challenge or failure.

4. Recognize the limitations of the ATD. Though it doesn’t provide the same sensations as the aircraft during stalls and landings, the ATD can be used to teach procedures, such as power settings to be used in the pattern and setting up for maneuvers.

5. If the sim has the option for movement, conduct part of the training with movement activated and part with movement deactivated. The addition and/or lack of movement provides a new learning experience.

6. Make sure the time spent in the ATD goes into your logbook, noting the type of ATD, place (name of flight school or business), type of session (IFR or VFR) and length of the session.

This story appeared in the 2021 Learn to Fly Special Issue of Flying Magazine

The post Learning to Fly with a Flight Simulator appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

When Kirby and Teresa Ortega retired from Textron Aviation—after a combined 66 years with the company and its predecessor, the Cessna Aircraft Company—they knew that they were far from through with general aviation and flight training. The pilots wanted to develop their own path in teaching folks to fly based on those decades of experience, and their dream came to fruition when the couple launched Ortega Aviation Services, in Wichita, Kansas, in Fall 2019.

OAS began with a series of ground school courses aimed at moving would-be pilots successfully through their FAA knowledge exams in November 2019. Since then, the company has grown incrementally, with instrument ground school, flight instructor training, and pilot consulting services with a deep bench of experienced instructors. On May 24, OAS announced the installation of a new Frasca Reconfigurable Training Device at its facility to support those expanding training operations.

The Frasca RTD is new to the region—and it fits a niche that applies Frasca’s quality to an affordable advanced aviation training device (AATD). The RTD at OAS can emulate a Garmin G1000 NXi-equipped Cessna 172S, or one with analog gauges. The G1000 NXi configuration allows for training on RNAV approaches to LPV minimums, and VNAV, with an integrated GFC 700 autopilot. The RTD uses actual Garmin G1000 NXi software for enhanced realism in the training environment. Up to 20 hours in the RTD can be applied to an instrument rating (under Part 61), with up to 2.5 hours applied toward a private pilot certificate, and 90 percent of an instrument proficiency check.

The Ortegas plan to use the RTD for “immersive” instrument courses, stretching 10 days in length, with up to 18 hours in the AATD. “The Frasca device was a $90,000 investment and is the only superior AATD in the Wichita area,” said Kirby Ortega, chief pilot and co-owner of OAS. “We recognized the need and are excited to offer this option to our clients…with our classroom presentations, G1000 trainers, G1000-equiped Skyhawks and now the AATD, we are now positioned as national experts when it comes to G1000 training.”

The post OAS Debuts New Frasca Sim, Training Capabilities appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

It wasn’t very often during four years of aviation training at Purdue University that my eagerness to attend class was less than enthusiastic. But it waned on the bad-weather days when the substitute for flying an airplane was the 1950s or ’60s Frasca simulator. After an airline career of referring to a sophisticated, multimillion-dollar Level D, six-axis simulator as “the box,” it’s now sobering to realize that I trained in a version from which the slang namesake originated. No argument that the clunky, coffinlike machine was aptly christened.

When my friend Wayne Harrison, a freshly ordained CFI and CFI-I, mentioned a desire to visit a company that has engineered an innovative professional simulator for around $100,000, I expressed interest. My experience with computer-based general aviation simulators extends only to Redbird Flight Simulations’ products and the varied degrees of sophistication available in the cottage industry of the hobbyist’s fake-airplane world. The visit would be to the “left coast” of Florida, giving Wayne an excuse to operate IFR with his prize possession, a Mooney Ovation.

Our arrival to Signature Aviation at Tampa International (KTPA) from Flagler Executive (KFIN) was without a bump in the road, literally and figuratively. Wayne had never landed at the airport, but I had experienced it on numerous occasions from a slightly higher and faster vantage point, notwithstanding parking on the other side of the field with a jet bridge included.

We took an Uber ride to the west side of the airport, where we were greeted by a wave of young enthusiasm in the form of the two founding partners, Ken McElheran and Greg Sanderson. Their casual demeanor did not hide their clear understanding of how to manage their product. Ken has a computer-science-engineering background and a penchant for creatively solving problems. Greg had caught the aviation bug as a toddler, having never got over the excitement of watching fighter jets land at his neighborhood Air Force base. He achieved the rank of staff sergeant, becoming a C-5A flight engineer and aircraft mechanic stationed in Dover, Delaware.

Jetline Systems was created about 15 years ago, developing and engineering entertainment products for fake-airplane aficionados. Its total employee count is seven, inclusive of Ken and Greg. A United Airlines pilot and founder of a California aviation school contributes part time as a consultant to design in specific airplane realism.

Training products currently in production include a VF G1000 Garmin simulator. Jetline Systems engineers the instrument-panel housing and integrates the software to interact via real tactile buttons. Universities are the target market; it retails for around $5,500.

Another product, the Solo Airliner, is a sophisticated desktop simulator—instrument-panel-only device (no visual screens)—that offers generic selections for single-engine, multiengine, turboprop and turbojet (B-737) operations. The Solo is designed for STEM-type learning, with the basic unit starting at about $4,500.

Read More from Les Abend: Jumpseat

Partnering with an aviation-simulator company based in Barcelona, Spain, Jetline Systems has become the exclusive distributor of Virtual Fly North America. The first in its product line is an FAA-approved advanced aviation-training device called the Solo Pro. It can be ordered with a Garmin instrument panel or analog steam gauges. The AATD certification was secured in a record six months, in part because the simulator was assembled and presented in a hotel room near FAA HQ in Washington, DC.

The simulator does not have motion, but after about 15 minutes of immersion you’d think otherwise. The three crisp 32-inch monitors provide a realistic visual environment. The $35,000 price tag prohibits all but the most serious hobby enthusiasts. It’s really designed to be used as a tool in a professional training environment. The Solo Pro’s control feel isn’t at Level D standards, but Wayne felt as though his inputs triggered more responsive feedback than in a Redbird simulator.

The crown jewel of Virtual Fly’s simulators is the OnTop Duo, also designed as a professional AATD. It includes motion and five high-definition screens that provide a real-life visual experience. As a matter of fact, the exterior environment is superior to the cartoonish visuals experienced during my 34 years of recurrent training sessions. I successfully flew the OnTop Duo configured as a Diamond DA42 Twin Star with limited embarrassment. Once again, it’s no Level D, but this retired airline pilot was impressed. My only complaint was the illusion of a slight crab angle with the runway; apparently, the focal point is at the center monitor screen, so each pilot seat’s visual focus is offset to a small degree. Your brain eventually adjusts, but mine took more time.

The base price for the OnTop Duo is about $75,000. Add the motion with the heavy-duty electric motors, a wedge enclosure, an instructor’s station, shipping and set up, and the simulator ranges somewhere between $90,000 and $100,000. Currently, the software platform is engineered by Lockheed, but Microsoft 2020 will be installed in the new models. Did I mention that Jetline Systems offers unlimited free support?

I was truly amazed at how far simulator technology had progressed for the price, considering that the Level D Boeing 777 simulator I was humbled by costs close to $20 million. Though Redbird has to be given credit for being the first, it has to be paying attention. As for Frasca, it was also an industry innovator and is still developing a sophisticated, quality product today. Nevertheless, I hope that my father’s simulator has been parked for good.

This story appeared in the September 2020 issue of Flying Magazine

The post Not Your Father’s Simulator appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Having a high-fidelity home simulation theater just ratcheted up in importance over the last six months for a lot of pilots. When the real thing is difficult—or nigh-on impossible—practicing maneuvers and instrument procedures from the comfort of your now-very-familiar home office takes on a shine—and may even be considered a necessity for pilots to stay sane.

Though the highly anticipated release of Microsoft’s latest edition of Flight Simulator has been in the works since long before the coronavirus hit US shores, the timing feels impeccable. Flight Simulator 2020 goes out with a launch in all 50 states in the US, beginning at 04:00 Zulu (that’s 12 am EDT) on August 18. Following that release, purchasers in other countries around the world can start downloading the program at staggered times.

Based on reports from the alpha and beta testers who have been working the program over the last few months, the realism of the new program puts the entire world into sharp focus for aviators and enthusiasts. For those pilots at work equipping their home sim setups, Microsoft has partnered with Thrustmaster to give away the flight control manufacturer’s new TCA Sidestick Airbus Edition joystick. Follow them both on Twitter and retweet the promotion to enter.

Sporty’s Pilot Shop is also celebrating the release of MSFS 2020 with a series of tools designed to help pilots get the most out of the new software—and put together a computer optimized for home simulation—including pro tips from their sim guru Chris McGonegle. Sporty’s will also feature a demo on Instagram Live on August 18 at 2 pm EDT.

The post A Flight Sim For 2020 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.