-=> Quoting Dave Barron to Elvis Hargrove <=-
 DB> for his CPL. He finds that newbies who have familiarised themselves
 DB> with MS FS4 (in those days) were *far* quicker at coping with the real
 DB> thing.
        When the FAA examined the possibility of using low-end PC-Based
Flight Simulators Like Elite, FS4 (at that time), and FA:ATP, the only
complaint they had with FS4 and ATP was a minor Navaid precision problem
(OBI in FS4/ATP has 2 degree increments, FAA wanted 1 degree), and missing
navaids (FS4/ATP dropped most NDB's and most VORs to save space and kept
the ones critical for navigation and ILS approaches. FAA wanted ALL Navaids
represented).  However, the FAA did agree that even FS4 had enough accuracy
to be a decent procedural trainer.  Further comment by the FAA allowed that
software like FS4/ATP was suitable for giving students a general idea of
what to expect in the cockpit, and allow for basic IFR/VFR navigation 
training,
as well as developing the visual clues for non-precision approaches. (Even
MS had to admit that FS4 had problems with ILS inaccuracies. Notably 
entering
the needles usually wound you up 2-3 degrees off the extended centerline 
before
threshold crossing depending on how far east or west of Chicago you were.)
        I myself spend over 80% of my FS time IFR, (Especially FA:ATP, and
made a number of CAT III approaches with little difficulty, so I'm not
surprised to see my opinions borne out in a classroom enviroment.
        Christopher
... Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (S)lap nearest innocent bystander.
--- PCBoard/2 15.30
---------------