Slowing Down in Time

I recently wrote a Tip of the Week for Pilot Workshops called The Right Time to Slow Down. That tip describes a technique I that I teach to help pilots learn how long it takes their aircraft to decelerate from normal cruise to a good speed for initial approach when IFR or to enter the traffic pattern when VFR.

The basic idea is simple:

  • Set up your airplane at its normal cruise power and configuration.
  • If you have an autopilot, set it to hold altitude and heading (or to track to a fix directly ahead).
  • Start a timer.
  • Reduce power to your normal initial approach or pattern MP and RPM.
  • Note how long it takes for the airplane to stabilize at your target initial approach/pattern speed.

In an airplane like a Cessna 172, start the exercise at a typical cruise setting of 2300-2400 RPM. The airspeed should be 100-105 KIAS. Smoothly reduce power to 2000-2100, and in about 30 seconds, (as shown in the video below, captured in Microsoft Flight Simulator) the airplane will slow to about 90 KIAS, a good speed for initial approach or the traffic pattern. You’re stable, below the speed where you can extend the first 10 degrees of flaps and manage other tasks.

When I instruct in Beechcraft Bonanzas, I talk about the “happy place,” a stable configuration for initial approach and the VFR pattern. In a typical Bonanza, set the power at 17-18 in MP and 2300-2500 RPM, clean, for a speed of 125-130 KIAS. Slowing from normal cruise at about 23 in MP and 2300-2500 RPM to the “happy place” takes about 90 seconds, as you can see in the video below, also captured in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Practicing this drill is a great exercise in an aviation training device (ATD) and in your airplane. You can experiment with several variations of speed, power settings, and flap settings (see also another Tip of the Week: Learning the Numbers) to help you quickly and consistently set up your airplane for common situations, reducing your workload and giving you more time for important tasks such as looking out for traffic, completing flows and checklists, briefing approaches, and following instructions from ATC.

Flight Simulator 2020: First Impressions

I have just started flying the new Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020, and I want to offer my first impressions.

Background: I worked, in various capacities, on six versions of Microsoft Flight Simulator during my tenure at Microsoft. My projects included the last version of Flight Simulator for MS-DOS and all of the Windows versions up to planning for Flight Simulator X.

As readers of this blog also know, I’ve been a general aviation pilot since the mid-1970s, and I’m an active flight instructor and pilot. I’ve written two books (see my website for details, here and here) about using PC-based flight simulation as a complement to flight training. When I use a flight simulation, I want to be in the pilot’s seat.

The Flight Simulator development team is posting updates about its plans to fix bugs and add features at

Like everyone else gushing about the new Flight Simulator 2020, I’m impressed by the depictions of the scenery, weather, aircraft models, and cockpits. These visual features take the world of PC-based flight simulation to a new level, and I am already working on ways to use FS2020 to help customers at the flight school where I teach learn about visual arrival and departure routes from Boeing Field (KBFI).

Over Blake Island at the start of the Bootleg Arrival to KBFI
The C172 in a typical ILS configuration: Pitch slightly below the horizon, power at about 1900 RPM, flaps 10, 90 KIAS
On an ILS in the C172

I’m disappointed, however, by many other elements of FS2020.

Flight Simulator 2020 is movie sequel with spectacular special effects, but without the plot or characters that made its predecessors so engaging.

Here’s a quick summary of my impressions so far.

  • Like every version of Microsoft Flight Simulator, FS2020 requires a state-of-the-art computer to run satisfactorily. I am running the simulation on a system with a 2TB SSD drive, lots of RAM, and a late-model graphics card with plenty of dedicated memory. FS2020 runs well, although even my 6-month old computer doesn’t default to the highest level of detail. And I haven’t experimented with features such as live traffic and ATC that typically bog down systems. In this respect, FS2020 is no different from every other release.
  • The developers and Microsoft (so far) have provided no documentation–not even a summary of basic keyboard and joystick controls–to help even experienced FS pilots manage key controls, views, and other details. This oversight is inexplicable and maddening.
  • Navigation within the simulation is clearly optimized for Xbox game controllers, not simulation enthusiasts who want to set up a flight quickly by choosing an aircraft, location, weather, and other initial conditions. Instead, you must navigate full-screen “menus,” and, so far at least, I can find no way to change just one or two initial conditions. Selecting a new airport, aircraft, or environment requires returning to the main screen, and restarting involves waiting through a long reloading sequence.
  • The cockpits, while stunning and realistic in appearance, provide only basic control of radios and navigation systems. For example, the GNS 530 or G1000 in some panels is really just an electronic depiction of a primary flight display and/or a moving map. You can’t build a flight plan, load instrument procedures, or otherwise use it like its real-world counterpart, even for basic navigation functions. You can, however, tune ground-based navaids (VORs and localizers) and fly “green needle” approaches.
  • FS2020 is a big step backward as a training aid for real-world pilots. And I suspect the limitations of the current avionics will also disappoint the virtual pilots around the world who have long enjoyed the challenge of navigating, flying instrument approaches and like. The beautiful scenery and modeling will engage “simmers” only so long before they return to FSX or X-Plane and the many add-ons that make those simulations much more realistic and complete experiences of “flying.”
  • Many virtual pilots obsess about “flight dynamics,” how realistically the simulated aircraft “fly.” I’ve written extensively about this topic (see, for example, Simulations, Flight Simulators, FTDs, and ATDs). I don’t yet have much experience testing the behavior of aircraft in FS2020 with which I’m familiar. And in any event, much discussion of the handling of aircraft is confused by limitations of the joysticks, yokes, rudder pedals, and other devices that virtual pilots use to fly their sims. So far, however, the aircraft I have flown in FS2020 seem to behave predictably, and the pitch+power+configuration setups that I employ in their real counterparts seem to hold up reasonably well in the simulation.

In sum, FS2020 strikes me as an update that focuses on visual wow factors that attract enthusiasts of console games and some veteran “simmers.” But it’s an incomplete flight simulation. In fact, in many respects, it’s a step backward for virtual aviators and real-world pilots who want to experience aviation when they can’t take to the skies in a real aircraft. I hope that Microsoft and the developer who created this new simulation will work closely with the add-on developers who can fill in gaps and make FS2020 more than just spectacular way to see the world from above.

Here’s another take on FS2020 from Pilot Workshops. (I am a contributor to some Pilot Workshops programs and publications.)

New Microsoft Flight Simulator due August 18

Microsoft will release the new version of Microsoft Flight Simulator on August 18, 2020.

Video preview here.

The simulation will be available in three versions:

  • Standard ($59.99)
  • Deluxe ($89.99)
  • Premium ($119.99)

More details are at the Microsoft website, here.

ForeFlight Plugin for FSX, Prepar3D

Flight1 Aviation Technologies, a major add-on developer for the Microsoft Flight Simulator series, is offering a free plugin for FSX and Prepar3D. Details and download information here.

Our ForeFlight Plug-in sends GPS, AHRS, and Traffic data from Lockheed Martin® Prepar3D™ or Microsoft® Flight Simulator X to ForeFlight on your iPad or iPhone.

ForeFlight uses that data just as it would use data coming from a real GPS or ADS-B device. You can use ForeFlight with the simulator just like you would in an airplane, including the GPS, ADS-B Traffic, and Attitude Indicator features.

According to Flight1:

Once the connection is made, you’ll be able to:

  • Practice using ForeFlight while you’re aviating, navigating, and communicating within the simulated world.
  • Master using ForeFlight during VFR and IFR flights between any airports anywhere in the world, in any season, in any weather conditions, at any time of day or night.
  • Learn to use ForeFlight features you might never have the opportunity to explore during a real flight in a real airplane.
  • Build proficiency flying unfamiliar routes and procedures by “pre-flying” them using the flight simulation and ForeFlight.
  • Practice using ForeFlight to perform route modifications and other potentially distracting tasks.
  • Train using scenarios you could otherwise only complete in a real airplane (or via “chair flying” using your imagination).

Microsoft Flight Simulator X: Steam Edition

Microsoft shut down development of the long-running Flight Simulator franchise in 2009 (details here). But the simulation lives on through an agreement with Dovetail Games that allows that company to release FSX on its online Steam platform (see this item from July 2014).

Dovetail released the Steam edition this month, and the company has opened a discussion board to answer questions about the product. That online forum is the best source for details about this release of FSX and the company’s plans for future development.

If you own the disc-based version of FSX and have questions about the new online product, you should start at this page. Here’s Dovetails’s answer to the most common question about what’s new about this version:

We have made some functional changes to FSX in the development of FSX: Steam Edition, but in terms of content nothing new has been added at this time…

This is a re-release of FSX Gold Edition so you should not expect dramatic differences. However, we have updated it to include all standard Steam functionality, we’ve removed CD checking and combined the components of Gold Edition into a single installation. The major change we’ve made is in replacing the now-defunct GameSpy multiplayer systems with Steam features, enabling multiplayer to work seamlessly once again. Our aim in this first instance has been to ensure that the software will run for as many people as possible rather than radically improving or updating it.

You can find a log of significant changes that Dovetail made to the FSX code here.

The company’s discussion board is also the best source for information about add-ons, hardware compatibility, and related questions.

Microsoft Flight Simulator: Revived?

Microsoft and Dovetail Games have struck a deal that will bring Microsoft Flight Simulator X (released in 2006) to the Steam online gaming platform in 2015. The sketchy details are outlined in a July 9 press release, which you can read here. Excerpt:

The award-winning creators of the best-selling Train Simulator franchise have today announced a global licensing deal with Microsoft, granting them the rights to develop and publish all-new flight products based on Microsoft’s genre-defining flight technology. The company is currently investigating new concepts in this area and is expecting to bring a release to market in 2015.

In addition to this licensing agreement, Dovetail Games is pleased to announce that it has also acquired the rights to distribute the multi-award winning Microsoft Flight Simulator X: Gold Edition via Valve’s popular digital retail channel, Steam, entitled Microsoft Flight Simulator X: Steam Edition.

Gamespot published a report on the deal, here. Excerpt:

Unfortunately, it doesn’t sound as if the Steam Edition of Flight Simulator X will feature any improvements. Dovetail told GameSpot, "We have the license to re-release FSX on Steam and this does not extend to making product improvements. However, we will include all possible bug fixes we can. One area that will require some work is the use that FSX made use of GameSpy for multiplayer features. As you may know, GameSpy is no longer available and so we are looking for alternate ways of providing this functionality including using features in Steam."

Additionally, Dovetail says the new game it’s working on won’t actually be called Microsoft Flight Simulator; it will simply be using Microsoft’s technology. As of yet, there is no title for the new game coming next year.

Simulations, Flight Simulators, FTDs, and ATDs

Pilots and flight instructors often debate the value of using flight simulation to complement flight training. We casually use the phrase flight simulator when referring to non-flying gizmos that re-create, at varying levels of fidelity, the experience of being in an airplane cockpit. Simulator is a handy shortcut, but can lead to confusion about how such devices can be used during training and to maintain currency. Equally important, misunderstanding the differences among simulations, flight simulators, flight training devices (FTD) and aviation training devices (ATD) often means these tools aren’t used most appropriately or effectively.

On June 27, 2018, FAA published several important changes to 14 CFR Part 61 that expand the use of ATD, FTD, and FFS to maintain IFR currency. You can read about those changes at BruceAir here.

See also the latest version of  AC 61-136B, FAA Approval of Aviation Training Devices and Their Use for Training and Experience. More information here: New AC for ATDs.

The following discussion is based on Chapter 3, “Using PC-Based Simulations Effectively” in my last book, Scenario-Based Training with X-Plane and Microsoft Flight Simulator: Using PC-Based Flight Simulations based on FAA and Industry Training Standards (ISBN: 978-1-1181-0502-3).

For additional information about how the FAA classifies flight simulators and flight training devices, see the November/December 2017 issue of FAA Safety Briefing. That entire edition is devoted to flight simulation.

Simulators, FTDs, and Simulations

Technological leaps have blurred the lines that just a few years ago distinguished the capabilities of full-motion simulators from the features of the home cockpits that hobbyists set up in their basements and garages. Recent changes to the definitions of and the regulations governing the use of FAA-approved simulators have added to the aviation community’s confusion about these tools.

Key Categories

The FAA recognizes four general categories of flight simulation systems:

  • Full Flight Simulator (FFS)
  • Flight Training Device (FTD)
  • Advanced Aviation Training Device (AATD)
  • Basic Aviation Training Device (BATD)

The first two categories are described in 14 CFR 60: Flight Simulation Training Device Initial and Continuing Qualification and Use. ATDs are discussed in AC 61-136.

Each category of simulator and training device includes levels that describe the increasing sophistication, capability, and fidelity of the systems.

Full Flight Simulators

The term Full Flight Simulator (FFS) replaces airplane simulator, previously defined in AC 120-45A. According to the current FAA regulations, an FFS is a

…replica of a specific type, make, model, or series aircraft. It includes the equipment and computer programs necessary to represent aircraft operations in ground and flight conditions, a visual system providing an out-of-the-flight deck view, a system that provides cues at least equivalent to those of a three-degree-of-freedom motion system, and has the full range of capabilities of the systems installed in the device….(14 CFR 60, Appendix F)

The core of that definition remains “replica of a specific type, make, model, or series aircraft.” In other words, a flight simulator duplicates the performance and flying characteristics of a particular airplane, and it must re-create an airplane’s cockpit with great fidelity, including exact reproductions of the real aircraft’s physical controls, instrumentation, and switches. It must reproduce the aircraft’s flight characteristics with high fidelity. The photo below shows a typical modern full flight simulator made by CAE.


Flight Training Devices (FTDs)

The same regulations update the definition of a Flight Training Device (FTD) to:

…a replica of aircraft instruments, equipment, panels, and controls in an open flight deck area or an enclosed aircraft flight deck replica. It includes the equipment and computer programs necessary to represent aircraft (or set of aircraft) operations in ground and flight conditions having the full range of capabilities of the systems installed in the device…for a specific FTD qualification level. (14 CFR 60, Appendix F)

That description drops the requirement that an FTD must mimic a specific make or model of an aircraft. The degree to which a particular FTD must emulate an aircraft’s controls, instruments, and switches depends on the device’s certification level, but in general, an FTD doesn’t have to duplicate every switch. The photo below shows an FTD manufactured by Precision Flight Controls.

105023 f0302

For example, a Level 4 FTD, the least sophisticated type:

…may have an open airplane-specific flight deck area, or an enclosed airplane-specific flight deck and at least one operating system. Air/ground logic is required (no aerodynamic programming required). All displays may be flat/LCD panel representations or actual representations of displays in the aircraft. All controls, switches, and knobs may be touch sensitive activation (not capable of manual manipulation of the flight controls) or may physically replicate the aircraft in control operation. (14 CFR 60, Appendix F)

Level 5 and 6 FTDs must replicate the cockpits and flight characteristics of aircraft with increasing precision.

Basic and Advanced Aviation Training Devices

In 1997, the FAA published AC 61-126, Qualification and Approval of Personal Computer-Based Aviation Training Devices, which, as the title implies, discussed the use of PC-based simulations. PCATDs, as the devices were known, included software like Microsoft Flight Simulator, hardware (usually one or more consoles that incorporated a flight yoke and other controls and switches), and a display (typically an off-the-shelf computer monitor). Because the technology was new, the FAA restricted the use of PCATDs to a few basic tasks required during primary and instrument flight training.

Technological advances and the aviation community’s experience with PCATDs led the FAA to update the definition and expand the use of PC-based simulations. AC 61-136 – FAA Approval of Aviation Training Devices and Their Use for Training and Experience, first issued in 2008, retired the PCATD category and described the PC-based training devices that the FAA now approves for use in aviation training.

The core requirements for BATDs and AATDs are more general than those specified for flight simulators and FTDs. For example, according to AC 61-136B, a BATD “Provides a training platform for at least the procedural aspects of flight relating to an integrated ground and flight instrument training curriculum.”

The photo below shows a typical ATD made by Precision Flight Controls.

105023 f0303

The more sophisticated AATD “Provides a training platform for both procedural and operational performance tasks related to ground and flight training towards private pilot, commercial pilot, and airline transport pilot certificates, a flight instructor certificate, and instrument rating.”

The hardware specifications for BATDs and ATTDs are similar. For example, a BATD “must provide certain physical controls and may provide some virtual controls,” described as follows:

(1) Physical flight and aircraft system controls should be recognizable as to their function and how they are to be manipulated solely from their appearance. Physical flight and aircraft system controls eliminate the use of interfaces such as a keyboard, mouse, or gaming joystick to control the represented aircraft model in simulated flight.

(2) For the purposes of this AC, virtual control is any input device to control aspects of the simulation (such as setting aircraft configuration, location, and weather) and to program, pause, or freeze the device. Virtual controls should be primarily for the instructor’s use…

(4) The physical arrangement, appearance, and operation of controls, instruments, and switches…should model at least one aircraft in the family of aircraft represented as closely as practicable. Manufacturers are expected to use their best efforts to recreate the appearance, arrangement, operation, and function of realistically placed physical switches and other required controls representative of a generic aircraft instrument panel. (FAA Advisory Circular AC 61-136)

The Deeper Distinction

It’s as easy to distinguish superficially between an FFS and a BATD as it is to see the differences between a single-engine trainer and an airliner. But there’s more than technology behind the differences between types of simulation devices. They’re intended for fundamentally different uses.

Simply put, an FFS is a substitute for a specific aircraft, and in many circumstances, pilots using an FFS can receive all the training required to operate the simulated airplane and earn a type rating for that aircraft without ever leaving the ground. In fact, airline pilots who have completed training for a new type in an FFS, and who may never have been in the cockpit of the real aircraft that the simulator emulates, often make their first flights in that airplane in regular revenue service with passengers on board.

To achieve the level of fidelity necessary to meet that goal, the specifications for an FFS are extensive, detailed, and stringent. As noted earlier, they require that a simulator duplicate a specific cockpit. The FFS must also have a wide-view, high-resolution display; “flying” characteristics that closely mimic those of the real airplane throughout its normal flight envelope; a sophisticated sound system; and motion that accurately re-creates the feel of flying.

Level 4, 5, and 6, FTDs are by definition less comprehensive representations of specific aircraft or broad types of airplanes, and as such, the requirements they must meet are less stringent. They also can’t be used to complete all of the training pilots must receive. To earn type ratings or similar approvals to act as the pilot in command of an aircraft simulated by an FTD, pilots eventually must fly the real airplane—or train in an appropriate FFS.

A BATD or AATD, however, is not intended to be a replacement for a specific aircraft, or even a series of related aircraft—it’s not a simulator. In fact, as their full names imply, BATDs and AATDs are not even flight training devices.

Instead, BATDs and AATDs are Aviation Training Devices (ATDs) intended to complement aircraft—and ground-school classrooms—throughout a training program. The FAA explains the distinction this way:

Instructors have typically taught flight task procedural skills almost exclusively during in-flight training and aeronautical knowledge during ground training. However, based on the available data, the FAA has determined that instructors can successfully teach procedural understanding of certain flight tasks during ground and flight training using [BATDs and AATDs]….(FAA Advisory Circular AC 61-136)

In other words, ATD aren’t intended—primarily at least—to help pilots develop and hone stick-and-rudder skills. They’re essentially procedural and part-task trainers to help pilots understand and apply important concepts and to practice and master general procedures that apply to a variety of aircraft.


Finally a simulation, flight or otherwise, is just a representation—these days typically a virtual representation—of something. That something can be a physical object or a process.

The key to using PC-based simulations effectively, then, is understanding that like BATDs and AATDs, they are tools to help pilots grasp general principals and practice basic procedures through hands-on experience.

Where X-Plane and Microsoft Flight Simulator Fit In

You may have noticed the discussion of BATD and AATD hasn’t mentioned X-Plane or FSX. The reason is straightforward—neither product by itself meets the FAA standards for a “training device,” which by definition must include software and hardware, such as flight controls and cockpit switches.

Physical flight and aircraft system controls [of an ATD] should be recognizable as to their function and how they are to be manipulated solely from their appearance. Physical flight and aircraft system controls eliminate the use of interfaces such as a keyboard, mouse, or gaming joystick to control the represented aircraft model in simulated flight. (FAA Advisory Circular AC 61-136)

The only significant physical difference between X-Plane or FSX configured as described in Chapter 1, “What You Need to Use this Book,” and a BATD is the use of a “gaming” joystick for primary flight control and a mouse to operate the virtual switches and other controls depicted on the cockpit display. The FAA requirements for a BATD restrict the use of a mouse and keyboard as follows:

Except for setup and/or fault mode entry, neither the keyboard nor the mouse may be used to set or position any feature of the BATD in the represented aircraft for the maneuvers or flight training to be accomplished…The pilot must operate the additional equipment needed in order to accomplish a training procedure…in the same manner in which it would be operated in the represented aircraft. For example, [by using] landing gear, wing flaps, cowl flaps, carburetor heat control, and mixture, propeller, and throttle controls. (FAA Advisory Circular AC 61-136)

The latest flight yokes, throttle quadrants, and other accessories developed for hobbyists, however, meet the FAA requirement that they be “recognizable as to their function and how they are to be manipulated solely from their appearance.”  Many BATDs use such off-the-shelf cockpit controls.

Flight Dynamics

No issue generates more heated debated among users of PC-based simulations—including pilots and flight instructors—than the perceived realism of the “flight” characteristics (also known as the “flight models,” or, more formally, the “flight dynamics”) of different simulations.

Because BATDs and AATDs are aviation training devices, not flight simulators, the FAA lays out only general standards for the flight models that drive them. Note that throughout the following descriptions, there is no requirement that a flight model replicate the characteristics of a specific airplane:

(1) Flight dynamics of the ATD should be comparable to the way the represented training aircraft performs and handles. However, there is no requirement for an ATD to have control loading to exactly replicate any particular aircraft…

(2) Aircraft performance parameters (such as maximum speed, cruise speed, stall speed, maximum climb rate, hovering/sideward/forward/rearward flight) should be comparable to the aircraft or family of aircraft being represented.

(3) Aircraft vertical lift component must change as a function of bank, comparable to the way the aircraft or family of aircraft being represented performs and handles.

(4) Changes in flap setting, slat setting, gear position, collective control or cyclic control must be accompanied by changes in flight dynamics, comparable to the way the aircraft or family of aircraft represented performs and handles.

(5) The presence and intensity of wind and turbulence must be reflected in the handling and performance qualities of the simulated aircraft and should be comparable to the way the aircraft or family of aircraft represented performs and handles. (FAA Advisory Circular AC 61-136, Appendix 2)

Put in more familiar terms, the virtual airplane inside an ATD must bank left when you move the yoke to the left. The nose must pitch up when you pull back on the flight controls. Changing power should make the aircraft speed up or slow down (or affect its rate of climb or descent). The rates at which the airplane rolls, pitches, and yaws should be “comparable” to the way a given airplane or family of similar aircraft responds to a pilot’s actions.

For the purposes of this book, then, there’s no meaningful distinction between the “blade element theory” at the core of X-Plane and the classic “6-degree-of-freedom” model employed in FSX. (If you’re interested in the technical details of each approach, see the links to more information at this book’s website.) Both simulations, in fact, exceed the general requirements for the flight model at the heart of an ATD. The choice of which PC-based simulation to use depends largely on personal perception of how the virtual aircraft respond and on other considerations, as described in Chapter 5, “Choosing a PC-Based Simulation: X-Plane or FSX?”

Additional Information

Endorsement from Rod Machado

Rod Machado writes a monthly column for AOPA Pilot magazine. The May 2014 edition, which discusses using simulation to reduce training costs, includes this comment about my book (thanks, Rod):

Your first purchase should be a book that will give you the intimate details of simulator operations. Without a doubt, one of the best on the market is Bruce Williams’s Scenario-Based Training with X-Plane and Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Interview about PC-Based Simulation

The friendly folks at the Hangar 49 podcast (produced in the Pacific Northwest) have posted their latest installment (mp3), which includes an interview with me about using PC-based flight simulations to complement flight training.

This is one of several interviews and webinars that I’ve done recently on this topic. You can watch the webinar, hosted by EAA, here. Another interview is available as a podcast at PilotSafetyRadio.

For more information about my two books about PC-based flight simulation, visit my website.

Microsoft Ends Work on Microsoft Flight

Microsoft has stopped all work on Microsoft Flight, the successor to Microsoft Flight Simulator. No official announcement at the product’s website yet, but various sources, including Kotaku, have posted a statement from the company:

Microsoft Studios is always evaluating its portfolio of products to determine what is best for gamers, families and the company, and this decision was the result of the natural ebb and flow of our portfolio management. Many factors were considered in the difficult decision to stop development on “Microsoft Flight” and “Project Columbia,” but we feel it will help us better align with our long-term goals and development plans. For “Microsoft Flight,” we will continue to support the community that has embraced the title and the game will still be available to download for free at

Apparently, most of the team that was working on Microsoft Flight has been laid off, so it’s not clear if Microsoft has any plans for its line of flight (and flight simulation) products. For now, the core of Microsoft Flight Simulator X lives on in Prepar3D, developed by Lockheed-Martin.

Update July 28, 2012:
Microsoft has posted the following statement on the Microsoft Flight website:

We know there are a number of questions out there in the community about the discontinuation of development for Microsoft Flight. We wanted to make to be sure to clarify a few things. While we will not be continuing active development, we are committed to keeping Flight available for our community to enjoy. All the content you have paid for is still valid, and the content that is available for sale will continue to be available on If any further information becomes available for us to share, we will do so.