Redbird G1000 flight Simulator

[iceman]

Our Wing, encouraged by Region, is looking to buy up to three of the Redbird TD2 G1000 tabletop flight simulators (the TD2 model simulates the C182).  The reasoning is apparently 1) pilot proficiency, 2) observer proficiency, and then initial training, CRM etc. all to increase safety and effectiveness.  Redbird sims are extremely popular; for example,  in my area there are five of the full motion FMX models that I know of. I've scoured the web looking at various forums and the comments from posters are either obviously from competitors or just plain moronic and not all that useful.  Anyone actually use the TD2 and have a comment on durability, manufacturer support, and how closely the knobs and switches simulate the aircraft G1000 controls?

[SarDragon]

We were discussing this very thing at our meeting last week, and the two folks who have used it had good things to say about it. They liked the 'real knobs' feature. We're looking at getting some time on one of the local units.

[sparks]

The TD2 is a nice unit but the $8000 base price would be a non-starter for us. That's just too expensive for the training value unless the squadron was very large and active. I suppose a fee per hour of use would be appropriate to recover the costs.

[Spaceman3750]

The TD2 is a nice unit but the $8000 base price would be a non-starter for us. That's just too expensive for the training value unless the squadron was very large and active. I suppose a fee per hour of use would be appropriate to recover the costs.

Wow. For $8,000 you may as well just go fly...

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Our Wings Redbird TD2 has just arrived in our area.  More info to follow soon.

[Flying Pig]

My unit looked at getting one, and to recoup costs, were going to make it avaible to non-CAP pilots who wanted to rent time in it.  Obviosuly not a way to recoup it quickly, but at least a way to generate funds from it.  But with the cost associated, we as a Sq actually had the money, but I didnt want to see hoards of people start using our stuff if we really werent going to make any $$ off of it.  So in other words....renting time in it wasnt a feasible way to recoup costs.  As the SqCC I decided against it, so did the rest of the finance committee. 

[Cliff_Chambliss]

We have been down this road (non-CAP) in 3 military and 1 civilian aero club over the years and in every case proved to be non-productive.  Maybe part was caused by the rules and regulatiions in place at the time (FAA) that were very specific in what could be recognized for training and currency for FAA Certificates/ratings.
Then there was the issue of instructors who would actually take the time and effort to become proficient in managing the sim flights.  Without an instructor at the console almost any off the shelf flight sim program is as useful. 
Most of these simulators carried rental charges of $25.00 - 45.00 per hour and few people were going to pay this if they could not record the time in their logbooks and have it count towards an FAA requirement.  Why should they when a pilot can team up with a buddy and go fly and one can practice simulated instrument and the safety pilot also log time as required crew member and depending on circumstances even PIC time for the same amount of money each.

AS a former chief instructor pilot/safety offier for an Air Force Aero Club (part 141 training program) I looked long and hard at getting an approved simulator to use in the part 141 program and possibly organizing under part 142 as well.   However as a real worl accountant I just could not make the numbers work considering the club had a desktop simulator that would rent for $10.00/hr that would go months without use.

Purchase the Sim:  can do.
Qualified instructor console operators:  ?
Rental space:  ?
Security:  ?
Rental Cost per hour:  ?  (Need to recoup purchase/lease cost, cost of the money to acquire, reserve for updates/repair/maintenance, etc)
Local Interest/Marketing: ? (ned to convince folks it's real and not a toy).
Training Plan to comply with FAA Part 61, 141, 142 to claim useful credit.

Lots to consider.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Our Wings Redbird TD2 has just arrived in our area.  More info to follow soon.

It's coming to our Group at the perfect time as we are getting a new G1000 and almost none of our pilots have G1000 experience.  We have a G1000 Ground School next weekend with 20 attendees.

We are working though some shipping related issues but it seems to work.  Prepare3d with knobs and buttons overlaid on the screen, and some nice controls.

[rframe]

Just FYI, if the Redbird is a bit out of price range.  FTS just received FAA approval as a BATD for their Cessna Touch Trainer.  This will also provide G1000 182 simulation at about $5,900.  They have had their Cirrus simulator approved for a while at $4,400 and have just expanded, now receiving approval for their Cessna model.



http://www.flythissim.com/touchtrainer_Cessna.aspx

[Eclipse]

Why not just burn that money actually flying a real airplane?

[rframe]

Why not just burn that money actually flying a real airplane?

Depends on the purpose really, without a plan to utilize them in initial and recurrency training programs I can see them being a waste of money, but in some situations a simulator is superior to the real airplane.

A few examples:

In teaching some fundamentals of instrument flight, it's much easier to explain the basic concepts and basic attitude instrument flying in the simulator where you and the student can just focus on the concepts without the other burdens of scanning for other traffic, navigating, communicating, etc.  Then those concepts are easy to apply in actual flight with that solid basis established.

In teaching new avionics, like the G1000 or GPS navigation in general, there's a whole lot of heads down in the cockpit button pushing, learning "buttonology" and how to customize displays... this entire process is again separate from the primary responsibilities to fly the airplane and look for other traffic.  Once the systems are learned its again much easier to apply the knowledge in actual flight.

In proficiency training and practice, much emphasis is given to emergency procedures.  Often a simulator can offer more realistic simulation of "bad scenarios" that are simply not safe or even possible to practice in actual flight... things like icing, mutliple systems failures, etc.

I could see them being used as a nice accessory in some aerospace education programs with cadets.

Finally, one last good use of simulators is that certified simulators like these BATD's give the ability of instrument rated pilots to maintain proficiency around the year.  In many areas, flying in the clouds in the winter is not practical as the aircraft are not capable of dealing with the prevalent icing conditions.  This could mean it's hard to maintain legal currency, let alone actual proficiency in instrument flight.


In reality, $6,000 isn't worth much flight time.  Even with the "cheap" CAP rates of maybe $110/hour for a C182.  That's only about 55 hours of flying.... divided out by the number of pilots in a squadron, that's not much flying.

[NIN]

Yah, too bad the Redbird G1000 sim really doesn't have Garmin switchology so you have positive skill transfer.

Might be better than nothing, but I wonder if spending 2 hrs in the cockpit hooked up to a GPU would be more positive.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Yah, too bad the Redbird G1000 sim really doesn't have Garmin switchology so you have positive skill transfer.

Might be better than nothing, but I wonder if spending 2 hrs in the cockpit hooked up to a GPU would be more positive.

Huh? It does have faux Garmin knobs and buttons.

[rframe]

Oh, the FTS touch sim can also be configured with an analog "steam gauge" panel... so it's useful for the non-G1000 pilots as well.

[NIN]

Yah, too bad the Redbird G1000 sim really doesn't have Garmin switchology so you have positive skill transfer.

Might be better than nothing, but I wonder if spending 2 hrs in the cockpit hooked up to a GPU would be more positive.

Huh? It does have faux Garmin knobs and buttons.

http://deadredbird.wordpress.com/  Look at the the photos and compare to a *real* G1000

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Yah, too bad the Redbird G1000 sim really doesn't have Garmin switchology so you have positive skill transfer.

Might be better than nothing, but I wonder if spending 2 hrs in the cockpit hooked up to a GPU would be more positive.

Huh? It does have faux Garmin knobs and buttons.

http://deadredbird.wordpress.com/  Look at the the photos and compare to a *real* G1000

That's why I said "Faux".

[a2capt]

Some years back when I was working at a surplus computer/electronics place and had access to copious amounts of ELO touchscreen hardware, I had wanted to make a G1000 setup on the cheap by using the Cessna/Garmin package with an overlay so that at least there was some realistic feel to it, by touching that area of the glass instead of moving a mouse around it would be a little more like the cockpit. Together with an ancient Control Vision Simhawk 2000 desktop unit, and some USB instruments, it worked quite well.  Adding the CAP Search and Rescue expansion pack made it good for table top mission practice by giving something more to do than just twiddle and bide time.

Having that setup with an intercom was pretty useful for procedure flow, even if the scanners were looking at the floor, we could stick maps on the floor, and have them identify stuff.

That blog post kvetching about this thing though, sure does make it look pretty cheesy. Which explains why it felt genuinely cheesy when I tried one out at a recent wing conference. Some of that stuff looks about as dodgy as I would have done a one off hack for proof of concept.

I have an inoperable AST SimHawk unit in the house here, and an ongoing project to interface X-Plane with the hardware. Since the avionics "stack" and most of the round dial gauges from the PIC side are missing, I'm considering replacing those sections of the panel with X-plane driven screens, X-Plane means one CPU per monitor, and for the FMS it's a pricey proposition. Now, if this thing were at the unit HQ I could probably justify asking for a donation, but with the thing in my house, even though I'll be using it for CAP mission simulation, I can't really justify begging for freebees

It's setup with an instructor station at the back, and I've set the thing up differently so I can use a movie screen in front of it instead of a bunch of monitors in your face.  Easier to get into, etc. The room can get pretty dark to where the ambient light from the projector is enough for daylight, in day simulation, or night when it's "dark".