Trogdor Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 5 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said: 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. I never said that. I said the certification standards should be updated and modernized to allow for home desktop usage (and it shouldn’t cost you 20k to certify XP12). i think our disagreement is what a BATD should be (or could be).
toto Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 3 hours ago, GeeBee said: 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. Some of this is also just supply and demand. There’s nothing about a certified BATD that couldn’t be made and sold profitably at $2k if you had a market for it. But with a tiny market, there’s no incentive to go into that business if you can’t make serious per-unit profit. Same thing with engines - the market is so tiny that the incentive to innovate isn’t there. We wouldn’t be stressed about 100LL if a new UL engine was $10k, and manufacturers would be lining up to sell them at $10k if they could move 10,000 units a year. We’re a niche market, with niche economics. 1
GeeBee Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 1 hour ago, Trogdor said: I never said that. I said the certification standards should be updated and modernized to allow for home desktop usage (and it shouldn’t cost you 20k to certify XP12). i think our disagreement is what a BATD should be (or could be). The devil is in the details. Your idea of a suitable home desktop and the FAA's might be two different things. What is the minimum processed? What is the minimum graphics? What type of controls should be in place and what are their minimum specifications? If you do meet those specifications how will that be verified?
Trogdor Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 7 hours ago, GeeBee said: The devil is in the details. Your idea of a suitable home desktop and the FAA's might be two different things. What is the minimum processed? What is the minimum graphics? What type of controls should be in place and what are their minimum specifications? If you do meet those specifications how will that be verified? Through in sim software. And that’s my point: If the goal is fidelity, then measure the fidelity within the sim itself (imagine you press a button to enable some plugin that checks that the minimum viable hardware is attached and the current sim settings are suitable (think weather and frame rate), fly, and when done, generate a verified report for your logs, vis-a-vis “certified”). If the goal is to maintain a crappy hardware cottage industry, then have a long BATD standard and expensive certification process to prevent (cost prohibitive really) pilots from using their own stuff. If the goal is to encourage certificates pilots to sim more, then enable them to do so with the guard rails needed to make the experience “loggable” through software. Just step back: Does anyone here think the systems mentioned in this thread are even remotely more realistic than what you can assemble yourself for a fraction of the cost? Heck, is there anything even custom in the systems you mentioned or are they all just using off-the-shelf components? Does anyone here think the integration of said components warrants their price tag? We are living in a golden era of home desktop sim. And no, I don’t think you have to treat it like a FlightSafety course in a Level-D (or something equally as expensive) to do a few approaches in a single-engine piston to have something that counts for your 6HITS. Btw, by enabling pilots to sim at home, it also enables remote instruction too which I think is another untapped market (FlightSimCoach is one example, Pilot Workshops IFR Accelerated course is another).
Hank Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 The problem with "approved" simulators (from my perspective) is the the Feds will approve a certain software package, running on a certain CPU with certain memory, video cards, etc., and certain auxiliary controls (yoke, rudder, etc.). But then in a few months, that CPU is out of production, the video card has been improved, and I can no longer buy the "approved" components to build my own because newer, better versions are on the market. The approval process lasts longer than the average production span of the electronics, and the approved stuff is no longer available . . . . The Feds want to approve a particular build, with a particular software version. They cannot and will not approve a set of performance specifications that can be met using whatever pieces and parts you want to use. Look at how we are limited in parts for our planes--right down to the particular screws we can use in non-critical things! Thus our old tractor engines. Thus an approved simulator from a decade back, running on very outdated software and a CPU that hasn't been available since Redbird bought a bunch during certification. You are welcome to.build your own, to their.bkueprint if you can get it, but good luck finding a functional Pentium II processor!! 1
GeeBee Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 Hmm, no. Redbirds are upgradeable. Very easily I might add. 1
Hank Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 3 hours ago, GeeBee said: Hmm, no. Redbirds are upgradeable. Very easily I might add. As long as you buy one of theirs. But we can't build our own, because there are no performance specs, only Redbird's proprietary build schematics.
GeeBee Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 5 minutes ago, Hank said: As long as you buy one of theirs. But we can't build our own, because there are no performance specs, only Redbird's proprietary build schematics. Just like you can upgrade a Mooney Eagle to a Screaming Eagle. You can't build your own Mooney either. That is why you pay the bucks.
Hank Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 Just now, GeeBee said: That is why you pay the bucks. Enough bucks are involved for few to pay them . . . . A similar home setup can be built for 10% of the Redbird price. Not so building your own Mooney.
GeeBee Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 2 minutes ago, Hank said: Enough bucks are involved for few to pay them . . . . A similar home setup can be built for 10% of the Redbird price. Not so building your own Mooney. Look, we're at a point where you have to decide, do I want to be in the homebuilt community or the certified community. It holds for everything in aviation. You build your own airplane you can't go roaring off cross country immediately and you can't fly IFR in controlled airspace for a long time and not without the FAA's blessing. Simulators have similar restrictions. If you want to roll your own you can. That comes with limitations. Want those limitations removed? Ask the FAA to remove them. It costs nothing, just paperwork, time and inspections just like a homebuilt airplane. Or, you can buy a turn key package. Your choice.
Max Clark Posted January 3 Author Report Posted January 3 This thread has gone off the rails in an amazing way. I’m basically reading two sides of this: 1. Playing a video game, or 2. Legally logging time and approaches Scheduling time with a CFI who knows Mooney is complicated. That’s my ideal option but doesn’t always work out. I was training in a FMX reasonably close to me. Tragically the owner died suddenly and his wife closed/sold everything. So now my option is driving 1+ hours each way plus paying the sim and cfi cost. Not ideal. For me it seems buying the RedBird TD2 is the best option.
Andy95W Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 It sounds like all you really need is a safety pilot to legally log approaches, and a decent non-certified home simulator to keep your skills fresh. 1
midlifeflyer Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 38 minutes ago, Andy95W said: It sounds like all you really need is a safety pilot to legally log approaches, and a decent non-certified home simulator to keep your skills fresh. An ideal option if you can make it work. I did this for most of a decade with a friend. Fly after work, log a few maneuvers, return, and have dinner and a beer. Not on a schedule, but often enough to be comfortable current. We had an advantage. I was working on my CFII, so we didn’t need to land to switch off. But if that was an issue, we probably would have flown somewhere for dinner and skipped the beer. 1
Recommended Posts