X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:47:18 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.224] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.7) with ESMTP id 3114286 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:18:16 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.233.184.224; envelope-from=mehapgood@gmail.com Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id c55so20506wra.11 for ; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:17:39 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=cc:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type:x-mailer:subject :mime-version:date:references:sender; b=ZHM/kXZd0p4Bl1DLmmn3/Cwt7NB9ihTjnAHUgG5EphmXK+PbxE+AWCG6cmmLhyRSmw 21puhU2olQ6r3CJO/JDB/+mp26MqEUSUcMT40xp2Uu8RMsEJmTMHywPmp11W53tWcgH+ z+BZmqWhhJ1X2ikgoeoh2pxS8wvfCitB0xphs= Received: by 10.90.113.17 with SMTP id l17mr13386685agc.20.1220545058510; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:17:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from ?192.168.0.120? ( [216.237.93.97]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 39sm9601604hse.2.2008.09.04.09.17.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:17:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Cc: Lancair List X-Original-Message-Id: <471272A2-1CCA-4364-8327-9D69C66708B3@alumni.duke.edu> From: Matt Hapgood X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-3--427806297 X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (5C1) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Simulators, Training and "Slow flight" Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 5C1) X-Original-Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:17:24 -0600 References: X-Original-Sender: Matt Hapgood --Apple-Mail-3--427806297 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You can also log those same instrument procedures with a $2000 PC training device. My point is that it won't help with aircraft specific systems and emergency procedures training. Matt Hapgood Sent from my iPhone - please excuse typos, poor formatting and brevity! On Sep 4, 2008, at 9:33 AM, "Ted Noel" wrote: > Matt, > > I understand no type certificate from the Motus, but unless I was > misled, I can log instrument time in it toward all training and > currency requirements. > > Ted > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Matt Hapgood > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 11:05 PM > Subject: [LML] Re: Simulators, Training and "Slow flight" > > Not to get too technical, but that Motus equipment is not, in FAA > dfinition, a simulator. It is a Flight Training Device, not a > simulator. And there is a monumental difference between the two. > Simulators are extremely accurate reproductions of the cockpit and > flight modelling. Flight Training Devices are very different and > serve a very different purpose, and the vast, vast majority make no > effort to accurately model flight dynamics, and are therefore not > credited by the FAA for performing aircraft specific training. They > are focused on training approaches and other generic training. Not > aircraft specific procedures or systems training. > > Matt Hapgood > FlyRight Inc > 704-720-9623 > > Sent from my iPhone - please excuse typos, poor formatting and > brevity! > > On Aug 29, 2008, at 5:15 PM, "Ted Noel" wrote: > >> >> MS Flight Sim and X-Plane, while fun and educational, are not up >> to the challenge of providing the kind of fidelity needed for type >> familiarity, let alone upset recovery training. >> >> >> That's curious. The designers of X-Plane are quite proud of their >> flight dynamics, and my local FBO uses X-Plane to drive an FAA- >> certified Motus motion sim. >> >> >> >> That being said, if a group was serious about creating a high- >> fidelity simulator, I would be please to contribute to the effort >> with the development of a high fidelity aerodynamic model. The >> variations between our individual aircraft remain a challenge, but >> from mostly from a systems level. The aero models could be readily >> adapted model the range of variations between our aircraft. >> >> Tom Low >> >> >> I think all of us would be grateful for your help. Perhaps we could >> pass the hat to reimburse for the time and effort. If others are >> willing, I'll put some $$ in. >> >> >> Ted Noel >> >> N540TF >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.10/1638 - Release Date: >> 8/27/2008 7:06 PM > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1650 - Release Date: > 9/3/2008 4:13 PM --Apple-Mail-3--427806297 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
You can also log those same instrument procedures with a $2000 PC training device. 

My point is that it won't help with aircraft specific systems and emergency procedures training. 

Matt Hapgood

Sent from my iPhone - please excuse typos, poor formatting and brevity!

On Sep 4, 2008, at 9:33 AM, "Ted Noel" <tednoel@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

Matt,
 
I understand no type certificate from the Motus, but unless I was misled, I can log instrument time in it toward all training and currency requirements.
 
Ted
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 11:05 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: Simulators, Training and "Slow flight"

Not to get too technical, but that Motus equipment is not, in FAA dfinition, a simulator. It is a Flight Training Device, not a simulator. And there is a monumental difference between the two. Simulators are extremely accurate reproductions of the cockpit and flight modelling. Flight Training Devices are very different and serve a very different purpose, and the vast, vast majority make no effort to accurately model flight dynamics, and are therefore not credited by the FAA for performing aircraft specific training. They are focused on training approaches and other generic training. Not aircraft specific procedures or systems training.  

Matt Hapgood
FlyRight Inc
704-720-9623

Sent from my iPhone - please excuse typos, poor formatting and brevity!

On Aug 29, 2008, at 5:15 PM, "Ted Noel" <tednoel@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

 
 MS Flight Sim and X-Plane, while fun and educational, are not up to the challenge of providing the kind of fidelity needed for type familiarity, let alone upset recovery training. 
 
 
That's curious. The designers of X-Plane are quite proud of their flight dynamics, and my local FBO uses X-Plane to drive an FAA-certified Motus motion sim.
 
 
 
That being said, if a group was serious about creating a high-fidelity simulator, I would be please to contribute to the effort with the development of a high fidelity aerodynamic model.   The variations between our individual aircraft remain a challenge, but from mostly from a systems level.  The aero models could be readily adapted model the range of variations between our aircraft.  

Tom Low

I think all of us would be grateful for your help. Perhaps we could pass the hat to reimburse for the time and effort. If others are willing, I'll put some $$ in.

Ted Noel

N540TF

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.10/1638 - Release Date: 8/27/2008 7:06 PM


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1650 - Release Date: 9/3/2008 4:13 PM
--Apple-Mail-3--427806297--