pirate Posted January 1 Report Posted January 1 I checked them all out 3 years and went with the Gleim. Been very happy with the product and support.
toto Posted January 1 Report Posted January 1 38 minutes ago, pirate said: I checked them all out 3 years and went with the Gleim. Been very happy with the product and support. I’ve flown the Redbird quite a bit, but never the Gleim - is yours like this one, where the radios and instruments are all on a separate touchscreen monitor?
Trogdor Posted January 1 Report Posted January 1 Some advice from the peanut gallery: Both Gleim and Redbird systems are not that great, hardware wise. The 10k+ you are spending is mainly to pay the certification so you can have the ability to log approaches - which if you fly a lot is not that very useful. For a fraction of the cost, you can have a much higher fidelity system that truly mimics the same workflows you have in the cockpit - this is particularly true if you fly Garmin (GTN series). I also think as someone else mentioned, you are way better off with XP12 (I recommend the vFlyte Arrow III with two G5s, a GFC500, and TDS GTN support - disclaimer: VNAV doesn't work yet). I have used a multitude of simulators and none of them are really as good as my humble home setup. If you don't have a PC already or you aren't very technically inclined, I do see value in purposeful built home simulators. However, I think with all the resources online, it is not that hard to learn if you have the time and inclination to do so. 2
toto Posted January 1 Report Posted January 1 5 minutes ago, Trogdor said: Some advice from the peanut gallery What’s your recommendation for the best certified BATD? Seems Redbird and Gleim are on a very short list of $10k or under sims.
Max Clark Posted January 1 Author Report Posted January 1 There’s been a few comments about the Redbird not being an exact match to the G1000 This is true, there are some quirks if you get deep into operations. But loading flight plans, changing them, loading and activating approaches, changing NAV sources, using the CDI, etc are all close enough that it’s worth it. As an aside, *every* G1000 that I’ve flown has been different. C172, C182, SR20, S20T not to mention the different generations of Cirrus all are a little different. I found myself using the BATD as a reference point to compare back and forth between them to level my mental procedures. 2
Trogdor Posted January 1 Report Posted January 1 It's not just fidelity. It's the price you are paying: Is logging approaches really the goal here? If not, then I would claim there isn't a lot of ROI with a certified unit. Remember, they made choices on the sim's configuration that you probably would not have made given today's hardware market. As someone else mentioned too, Redbirds et al are really for flight schools that can absorb/tax deduct the cost. I'd also like to throw out that with your own system you aren't limited to a static configuration like a G1000 panel. You can mix and match as you see fit. 2
pirate Posted January 1 Report Posted January 1 3 hours ago, toto said: I’ve flown the Redbird quite a bit, but never the Gleim - is yours like this one, where the radios and instruments are all on a separate touchscreen monitor? Yes this is the one.
MikeOH Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 I looked into the Redbird and couldn't bring myself to pay $10K just to be able to log approaches on a far outdated hardware and what amounts to $100 software. I can pay for a lot of dual with a CFII for that kind of money; not to mention the very significant benefit of having feedback and training which is completely missing from using a BATD solo. 3
GeeBee Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 Equally so, you never know when you are "tricked" into visual acquisition with ground fog. I've been in situations where the reported RVR was 75 meters, yet I had the runway in sight from 5 miles out and all the way to main gear touch down, it did not become 75 meters until the nose gear touched down. I've seen a similar situation in the CA Central Valley with its famous "valley fog" which is really ground fog. One time at KSCK visibility RVR 2400. Executing a CAT I approach, I had the runway fully in sight, HIRL, ALS, even stars above me. At 100' I was in 1/2 mile fog. I still had the runway in sight but staying on the GP guided me to a smooth and stabilized touch down. Stay on the GP until it is no more. 1
Jackk Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 52 minutes ago, GeeBee said: Equally so, you never know when you are "tricked" into visual acquisition with ground fog. I've been in situations where the reported RVR was 75 meters, yet I had the runway in sight from 5 miles out and all the way to main gear touch down, it did not become 75 meters until the nose gear touched down. I've seen a similar situation in the CA Central Valley with its famous "valley fog" which is really ground fog. One time at KSCK visibility RVR 2400. Executing a CAT I approach, I had the runway fully in sight, HIRL, ALS, even stars above me. At 100' I was in 1/2 mile fog. I still had the runway in sight but staying on the GP guided me to a smooth and stabilized touch down. Stay on the GP until it is no more. They were reporting in meters in California, USA?
Jackk Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 (edited) 1 hour ago, MikeOH said: I looked into the Redbird and couldn't bring myself to pay $10K just to be able to log approaches on a far outdated hardware and what amounts to $100 software. I can pay for a lot of dual with a CFII for that kind of money; not to mention the very significant benefit of having feedback and training which is completely missing from using a BATD solo. ^ this x100 Having a set of eyes watching and possibly getting you back to standard is better and cheaper then messing around on what amounts to a desktop sim by yourself. Many flight schools have these sims too, I’d have to use them a TON to get near 10k They have a the certified Gleim BATD for $35hr. You’d have to fly like 285hrs on your own computer to even break even! Edited January 2 by Jackk
GeeBee Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 35 minutes ago, Jackk said: They were reporting in meters in California, USA? Two different places. 75 meters was at AMS. Both have ground fog as a common occurrence.
Trogdor Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 17 hours ago, toto said: I’ve flown the Redbird quite a bit, but never the Gleim - is yours like this one, where the radios and instruments are all on a separate touchscreen monitor? Hands down my favorite part of this video is the admission of basically how bad using knobs are with Air Manager on a touchscreen is and you quote "need to practice to build proficiency" - good stuff. Is there anyone here that would give me a "touch-screen knob" sign-off? Again, I would really think twice about laying down lots of AMUs for a system like this. You want great knobs, here you go: Home | Octavi The FAA is just so woefully behind regarding sims.
midlifeflyer Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 50 minutes ago, Trogdor said: The FAA is just so woefully behind regarding sims. I’m curious what you mean. You are pointing to this extremely basic system with Air Manager knobs (I’m familiar with Air Manager) that arguably barely simulates a working panel except on a very limited basis, and yet the FAA approves it as a BATD. That strikes me as the opposite - so strong a recognition by the FAA of the value of simulation for training, self-training, and basic currency that even something as limited as this can be approved. What would bring the FAA up to date?
GeeBee Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 The FAA is not behind on sims. What is behind is us. The reason why you pay 10K for a Redbird is not because you are overpaying for a PC simulator. It is a PC with software that cannot be tampered or altered and certified so by the FAA. We are asking the FAA to buy in to using the equipment in lieu of flying the airplane. The FAA wants to be able to count on exactly what is your simulation. There is nothing preventing anyone from building any simulator using for instance MS Flight Simulator. What the FAA wants is for you to present that simulator fully locked down in terms of software and hardware performance so that when you present time and experience in that simulator, the FAA knows exactly what you used and how you used it. MS Flight Simulator, and many others are not a "locked down" software and the variety of 3 party apps that can be integrated into them proves the point. Further there is no "lockdown" on the hardware used. Controls, processor, graphics what did you use and how was it all integrated. 2
Trogdor Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 4 hours ago, GeeBee said: The FAA is not behind on sims. What is behind is us. The reason why you pay 10K for a Redbird is not because you are overpaying for a PC simulator. It is a PC with software that cannot be tampered or altered and certified so by the FAA. We are asking the FAA to buy in to using the equipment in lieu of flying the airplane. The FAA wants to be able to count on exactly what is your simulation. There is nothing preventing anyone from building any simulator using for instance MS Flight Simulator. What the FAA wants is for you to present that simulator fully locked down in terms of software and hardware performance so that when you present time and experience in that simulator, the FAA knows exactly what you used and how you used it. MS Flight Simulator, and many others are not a "locked down" software and the variety of 3 party apps that can be integrated into them proves the point. Further there is no "lockdown" on the hardware used. Controls, processor, graphics what did you use and how was it all integrated. I'm going to respond to Mark using your quote: Logging in general is a trust-based system. Period. There is nothing stopping anyone from fraudulently claiming hours, approaches, signoffs, you name it, and pilots have. Mark is the expert here, but I am going to wager a guess there is no dedicated team at your local FSDO that is looking for fraudulent hours in logbooks. Action is only taken when fraud is discovered in some kind of broader context, vis-a-vis, an accident, a check ride, et al. But now all of a sudden, sims are different, right? FAA is just so worried that all of these pilots are going to fake logging approaches on their sims! Heavens to Betsy! Say it ain't so! What's really going on IMO is the sim certification process is a business. And you can't erode that business which includes flights schools, hardware partners, instruction courses, etc. Not to mention the incidental losses from more people simming at home than going to the airport. To directly address the FAA is behind sims comment, here you go: There is NOTHING stopping the FAA from writing a piece of software (or hiring a vendor to do so) to record and log sims on your desktop. It could even audit your hardware to ensure you have a bare minimum setup. It could even monitor frame rate and a bunch of other telemetry to ensure a minimum acceptable fidelity. Basically, it could "certify" your experience as you fly it. Heck, could even grade you now (by grade, I mean generate a report). For Part 91 operators at least, there should be an inexpensive process that allows certificated pilots the ability to log approaches using their own home system (which 99% of the time is far better than the Redbird at the local FSDO and offers higher fidelity to the types of operations they fly). Until the FAA really addresses this, I am on the side that they are there to support the business of certification, not to get pilots to sim more (which btw, I think if you lowered the barrier to logging approaches at home, you would produce SAFER instrument pilots). 1
midlifeflyer Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 9 minutes ago, Trogdor said: But now all of a sudden, sims are different, right? FAA is just so worried that all of these pilots are going to fake logging approaches on their sims! Heavens to Betsy! Say it ain't so! I can falsify my logbook with an approved ATD just as easily as with an airplane, perhaps easier, so I guess I still don’t understand.
Trogdor Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 26 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said: I can falsify my logbook with an approved ATD just as easily as with an airplane, perhaps easier, so I guess I still don’t understand. That's what I believe I just said above. And that is my point: The certification process is mainly for hardware vendors not pilots. It has nothing to do with "cheating"(since as you pointed out cheaters are gonna, well, cheat) but trying to ensure some minimum level of fidelity that can only be provided by specialized hardware vendors when all of this got started. Today's home sim market is vastly different than when those certification rules were written. By today's standards, I think even you will admit that the home desktop market offers a vast array of quality hardware options that are far superior than your local Redbird. Yet, even if I spend thousands on my own setup to ensure a higher quality experience, I have no way to recoup that investment back with the FAA. However, if I spend thousands with Redbird on some crappy system, I suddenly am "certified" to log approaches. That is simply unacceptable in my (log)book. Bottom line: Part 91 operators should have a way to create a home, cost-effective desktop sim experience that is fairly low friction to log approaches. This would encourage pilots to sim and even better, make them better instrument pilots in the process.
toto Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 Out of curiosity, has anyone been through the LOA application process for a BATD? I have no idea whether this is insanely complicated and painful, or relatively straightforward.
Trogdor Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 30 minutes ago, toto said: Out of curiosity, has anyone been through the LOA application process for a BATD? I have no idea whether this is insanely complicated and painful, or relatively straightforward. Google around. It really is insanity (link is to a thread in /flying on Reddit). As many have stated, cheaper to get your private than certify a home sim. Again, got to protect those vendors.
toto Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 5 minutes ago, Trogdor said: Google around. It really is insanity (link is to a thread in /flying on Reddit). As many have stated, cheaper to get your private than certify a sim. Again, got to protect those vendors. I was really just curious whether any MSers have personal experience with this. I’m often surprised at the breadth of experience on this board. 1
GeeBee Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 1 hour ago, Trogdor said: I'm going to respond to Mark using your quote: Logging in general is a trust-based system. Period. There is nothing stopping anyone from fraudulently claiming hours, approaches, signoffs, you name it, and pilots have. Mark is the expert here, but I am going to wager a guess there is no dedicated team at your local FSDO that is looking for fraudulent hours in logbooks. Action is only taken when fraud is discovered in some kind of broader context, vis-a-vis, an accident, a check ride, et al. But now all of a sudden, sims are different, right? FAA is just so worried that all of these pilots are going to fake logging approaches on their sims! Heavens to Betsy! Say it ain't so! What's really going on IMO is the sim certification process is a business. And you can't erode that business which includes flights schools, hardware partners, instruction courses, etc. Not to mention the incidental losses from more people simming at home than going to the airport. To directly address the FAA is behind sims comment, here you go: There is NOTHING stopping the FAA from writing a piece of software (or hiring a vendor to do so) to record and log sims on your desktop. It could even audit your hardware to ensure you have a bare minimum setup. It could even monitor frame rate and a bunch of other telemetry to ensure a minimum acceptable fidelity. Basically, it could "certify" your experience as you fly it. Heck, could even grade you now (by grade, I mean generate a report). For Part 91 operators at least, there should be an inexpensive process that allows certificated pilots the ability to log approaches using their own home system (which 99% of the time is far better than the Redbird at the local FSDO and offers higher fidelity to the types of operations they fly). Until the FAA really addresses this, I am on the side that they are there to support the business of certification, not to get pilots to sim more (which btw, I think if you lowered the barrier to logging approaches at home, you would produce SAFER instrument pilots). I don't make the rules. I just follow them. The FAA is not worried about "faking logging approaches". The FAA is worried does the device you are using replicate the skills necessary to maintain proficiency. They do that like everything other piece of hardware be it an airframe, engine, propeller or appliance: certification. You are correct it is a business. So are engines, propellers and airframes. In the same vein, the FAA does not engineer engines and airframes or propellers and they are not going to write software. Equally you create a can. of worms when you say, "For Part 91 operators" because then are you going to say "my home sim instrument proficiency only counts when I fly Part 91? This is why proficiency is addressed within Part 61.
Trogdor Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 8 minutes ago, GeeBee said: I don't make the rules. I just follow them. The FAA is not worried about "faking logging approaches". The FAA is worried does the device you are using replicate the skills necessary to maintain proficiency. They do that like everything other piece of hardware be it an airframe, engine, propeller or appliance: certification. You are correct it is a business. So are engines, propellers and airframes. In the same vein, the FAA does not engineer engines and airframes or propellers and they are not going to write software. Equally you create a can. of worms when you say, "For Part 91 operators" because then are you going to say "my home sim instrument proficiency only counts when I fly Part 91? This is why proficiency is addressed within Part 61. I’m simply stating that Part 135 and Part 141 operators already send their pilots to Level D type simulations that far surpass anything I could come up with at home. See the new Vision sim Cirrus offers its pilots for insurance requirements. But to replicate fidelity in a 172, you don’t need much these days. Btw, the FAA doesn’t write software directly, but they spend millions (actually now billions) on hiring people who do. My suggestion is one of many avenues to get to a thriving desktop sim market the FAA acknowledges exists and is useful for proficiency. Again, it is obscene I have to spend 10k to “log” approaches. 1
GeeBee Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 It is obscene to spend 75K for a 4 cylinder engine with 1930's tech, but here we are for all the same reasons. Certification. 1
midlifeflyer Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 5 hours ago, Trogdor said: Google around. It really is insanity (link is to a thread in /flying on Reddit). As many have stated, cheaper to get your private than certify a home sim. Again, got to protect those vendors. So, it’s about doing what you want with no certification requirement whatsoever. OK. I understand now, even if I don’t agree that it’s a sign of being backwards.
Recommended Posts