How realistic is FSX ?

[Guest Aviator4life]

". . . would be no problem maintaining conrol of the aircraft while you secure the now unconcious person to their seatback with their shoulder harness so that you can fly without fighting the weight of their upper body on the control yoke, right?). :(

c-o-n-t-r-o-lI do know how to spell, fingers just don't move as fast as my thoughts these days. :(

[Guest SkullxBones]

There was an interesting article in a recent 'Flying' magazine regrading simulators. The editors opinion was the same as the many commercial pilots he talked with in that Level D simulators were much harder to fly than the real airliners. Mainly because of the lack of sensory input. The FAA considers Level D simulator time equal to the airplane in training and qualifications. You can get type rated for many aircraft with almost all simulator time. He said there might be some pilots that can fly a real plane but not a simulator, but not the other way around. In other words, if you can fly a level D simulator, you have enough knowledge to fly the real thing under the same conditions. Given the fact that some FS sim pilots have successfully flown level D simulators the first time they try, it says a lot for the realism of the high quality addons.

[gman! 1]

Well first of all, I agree pretty much with Geofa's post on page 1. Today flying an airliner is not literally "flying", it is handled by computers most of the time, and there are certain reasons for that. Some airlines believe the plane is best flown on autopilot because it reduces workload, allows the pilot to focus on the things like monitoring the engines on the EICAS, or checking the flight plan on the FMS or something like that. Some airlines also strongly believe in autopilot, because they believe the way it flies the plane saves it valuable dollars because of its efficiency and ability to do calculations very fast, for something like autothrottle. For example, an big airliner like a 747s CG, fuel load, weight, etc. will change very much over a flight, and the computer can calculate this faster than a human, no doubt about that, so they believe they can save lots of money if the computer configures the flight (exp. VNAV, A/T). I think for an airliner as big as something like an Embraer jet and bigger such as a 777, autopilot is essential, because sometimes in high workload situations it is needed, it also can improve safety in a situation where the crew is distracted. I also think that it would be great if pilots could disengage the autopilot and actually control the plane for periods of time on those long haul flights, to keep them busy and awake, I know that it may not feel entirely comfortable to passengers though if the pilot makes jerky movements. General Aviation planes, is something that I think needs more skill of actually flying, because they are more responsive, they change altitudes frequently (probably in VFR flight) and they need to monitor traffic constantly and need to be ready to react, because there is generally more traffic in the areas they fly in than a airliner.Regarding to your question about PMDG aircraft, or a sim pilot flying a plane in an emergency situation. I think most of the time it would end up well, depending on if you get someone that knows his facts well, reads the FAA Handbook to learn FARs, reads tutorials and manuals on airplanes, etc. If you get a sim pilot that doesn't even know what VFR or IFR is, or what VNAV, LNAV, FMC, VOR, etc., they situation will most likely not end well. I think most simmers on here that study planes, and not just fly the simulations (actually do their homework) can do a much better job than someone that just flies a PMDG or Level-D aircraft, without searching the internet, or doing their homework on the plane. One thing I would like to point out is every saying "well in an emergency, a simmer would probably be able to land if he knows how to set up the autoland". In most emergency situations, even something like an altimeter failure, the pilot DISENGAGES the autopilot, thus, an autoland would not be possible sometimes.I'll just make up a situation.If there was an MD-11 with an engine 2 fire and somehow the pilots passed out (too scared, shock? :(), which one do you think will do better? Someone who reads the manuals only or reads the manuals and flies the plane in simulator, OR someone that has a PMDG MD-11, but never even cared to lay one eye on the manual? Definitely the first sim pilot! He would know how to operate the Flight Management System and its Computers, and know where all the data for the plane is. He would be able to check the fuel load of the plane, the weight, the CG, flight plane, alternate airport, location in the world (IRS System, LAT & LONG), etc. He/she would be able to find how to setup an approach for an airport, set an alternate airfield, find the VREF speed, know how to operate throttle clamps, turn of FADEC, etc. They would need to know where the trim lever is, where the engine data is, how to read engine data, know how to activate the fire bottle, disengage autopilot and autothrottle, how to read the speedtape, set altimeter, find the current position on the map, follow the glidslope and localizer, etc. If they know basically that stuff, and other essential information like how to use a yoke (pretty easy), make SLOW AND STEADY movements, use the rudder, operate the throttles, toe brakes, autobrakes, etc. then they can probably at least get the airplane to the runway. Pilots that also have many hours on VATSIM and/or IVAO would be preferable, because they know how to communicate with ATC, how to say "Speedbird ****, has engine 2 fire, request emergency equipment on the runway", and how to tell the ATC that they need the runway clear if there is not time to go to another runway or airfield. You would not want a pilot that goes to "Pro" ATC sessions on gamespy (go see for yourselves, ATC on gamespy is HORRIBLE most of the time, because they do not even know that VFR basically get little assistance from ATC, or they need to seperate from other aircraft, clouds, etc by themselves. Most don't even know that you need to go 250 KT or less under 10,000 ft, and in normal flight operation, you need to stay 500 above the ground, building, person, boat, etc.). So basically I'm saying that a simulator pilot that does his homework will do a much better job in an emergency, than your average FS joe (I have nothing against people that just like to go out and enjoy the scenery in flight sim and do not care how lift works, or something like that.)BTW: ALL FLIGHT SIM PILOTS THAT FLY LEVELD AIRCRAFT & PMDG AIRCRAFT AND DO THEIR HOMEWORK. YOU WILL BUY A LAPTOP, INSTALL FSX AND YOUR AIRCRAFT ON IT. WHENEVER YOU GO ON A FLIGHT IN THE REAL WORLD YOU WILL BRING IT WITH YOU ON THE PLANE, GET THE FLIGHTPLAN FROM FLIGHTAWARE, BUILD THE FP ON SIMROUTES, AND FLY THE SAME EXACT FLIGHT ON THE SIM. WHEN AN EMERGENCY POPS UP (BTW: I AM JOKING) EVERYONE WILL LOOK AT YOU, AND THERE WILL BE NO QUESTIONING ABOUT YOUR SKILLS, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO GO STRAIGHT TO WORK :( :(Almost forgot. Read this:http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?t=2802

[WarpD 824]

I just read the posts in this thread, and noticed there were effectively two 'types' of response: 1. You should be able to fly the aircraft ok as long as nothing goes wrong. 2. You could fly it, but not very well and if something went wrong you'd be dead.Just thought I would point out that professional pilots use simulators to learn how to handle all the 'something went wrong' scenarios. At no time are real aircraft loaded with real people utilized for training/testing purposes.However, the biggest issue you'd have in the real world is ATC. It can increase the pilot's workload, easily.

[ryanbatc 12,803]

I just read the posts in this thread, and noticed there were effectively two 'types' of response: 1. You should be able to fly the aircraft ok as long as nothing goes wrong. 2. You could fly it, but not very well and if something went wrong you'd be dead.Just thought I would point out that professional pilots use simulators to learn how to handle all the 'something went wrong' scenarios. At no time are real aircraft loaded with real people utilized for training/testing purposes.However, the biggest issue you'd have in the real world is ATC. It can increase the pilot's workload, easily.

Sure we can do that but in this case we'd make it as easy as possible. If an unfamiliar pilot got in a bind we'd essentially treat them as an emergency aircraft - or at the very least provide priority handling.

[Guest Aviator4life]

. . . However, the biggest issue you'd have in the real world is ATC. It can increase the pilot's workload, easily.

Again, no disrespect intended.Thanks for making me smile yet again, today.The statement above is completely absurd and shows exactly how far a flight-sim only "pilot" can get from reality. "The biggest issue . . ." Really?Just think, we are only discussing this scenario, no flight-simmer in this thread as of yet has even come close to being in the cockpit, of a large commercial aircraft , with the entire flight crew incapacitated.Reality? Give me a break. But I do suppose it does make for an entertaining and amusing conversation. No, I am not being condescending, the preceding statement is a statement of fact in my book.But that's just my .02, worth the same two cents as anyone elses, so don't take offense or read any "intent" that I haven't explicitly communicated. As for now, I have had enough of this thread and grown tired of it. For me, it's become like a joke that one has heard too many times. Best regards all. :(

[gman! 1]

Again, no disrespect intended.Thanks for making me smile yet again, today.The statement above is completely absurd and shows exactly how far a flight-sim only "pilot" can get from reality. "The biggest issue . . ." Really?Just think, we are only discussing this scenario, no flight-simmer in this thread as of yet has even come close to being in the cockpit, of a large commercial aircraft , with the entire flight crew incapacitated.Reality? Give me a break. But I do suppose it does make for an entertaining and amusing conversation. No, I am not being condescending, the preceding statement is a statement of fact in my book.But that's just my .02, worth the same two cents as anyone elses, so don't take offense or read any "intent" that I haven't explicitly communicated. As for now, I have had enough of this thread and grown tired of it. For me, it's become like a joke that one has heard too many times. Best regards all. :(

Well, his statement is true on a normal day at any major airport such as Heathrow, Los Angles, JFK, San Fransico, Dulles, Miami, etc, but I do disagree that if there was an emergency, ATC would increase pilot workload, in fact, having ATC in an emergency would be a big relief for the crew, because they can tell them the situation, and tell the ATC to get emergency equipment on the ground, and ATC know in an emergency, they have to let the crew concentrate. Anyway, on an airliner you can have your copilot transmit to ATC, depending on how dangerous the emergency is. I also want to remind people, Captain Sully landed the plane while talking to ATC. All he needed to say is "Unable" to get the message to the ATC. :(

[Guest Mower]

The 744 and MD11 are so bloody automated that if you understand how to use those automation tools, you CAN land those jets without the need to actually FLY them. Not that you'd want to ideally but if the emergency arose, I'd step up.

[oldbear 33]

No, I am not being condescending

Oh, but I think you are.. Your contempt for those who have wanted to seriously discuss this subject, even from a standpoint of complete inexperience, is pretty obvious.Sorry you've had to put up with it all........

[FLEX1978 373]

Just wanted to add my bit.. A little background, I'm 30yrs old real world I only fly the cessna 152 at biggin hill 5-10 hours a month. I've flown full size Level-D 747-400, 747-200, A340 and Tristar simulators over the years, been flying the PMDG 747 since nearly day 1 and my father is currently type rated on the 747-400F as a training captain. As much as I love this hobby I firmly believe FS9/FSX cannot teach you how to fly a plane, I use it as a great systems simulator which PMDG/LVLD and few other's model perfectly, adding things that most simmers wouldn't notice until digging deep into real world FCOM's. Sure when your starting your PPL it can give you an advantage, but so does spending a good few months studying books before your first lesson (which a surprising amount of people don't do) If anything I think FS can teach potential real world pilots bad habbits that need to be unlearned. Going back to the pilot incapacitated scenario, I'm sure most of the long term PMDG/LVLD guys could set the aircraft up for a CATIII Autoland from CRZ without any issues and probably even refer to the QRH without freaking out if some systems went offline but Physically handling these jets and the inertia involved just cant be replicated even on the high end hardware.Rob

[Guest Aviator4life]

Oh, but I think you are.. Your contempt for those who have wanted to seriously discuss this subject, even from a standpoint of complete inexperience, is pretty obvious.Sorry you've had to put up with it all........

That's right "oldbear", you THINK you understand my intent, but I assure you that exactly as I stated this is not the case at all. As a matter of fact you have done exactly what I requested you don't do, make a mistaken interpretation of my replies based on what you think instead of what I have explicitly stated.But that's ok, no big deal in the grand scheme of things. All I can do is assure you that you are completely mistaken. I simply have very definite ideas about the hypothetical scenario proposed by the OP and have tried to make my point. .Have a good day anyway and all my best! :( NO SARCASM INTENDEDThat's as far off topic as I am willing to go with you, if you'd like to continue this conversation we should do so via PM out of respect for those who wish to stay on topic and out of respect for the OP as well.

[WarpD 824]

Again, no disrespect intended.Thanks for making me smile yet again, today.The statement above is completely absurd and shows exactly how far a flight-sim only "pilot" can get from reality. "The biggest issue . . ." Really?

Actually, your tone and wording and intent are indeed intentionally disrespectful.The 'statement above' is input from a real world pilot after a discussion with me of this thread's topic.You assume there's no experience or authority behind the statement with the sole intent of totally discrediting the person.All commercial aircraft pilots learn to fly their aircraft with simulators. No exceptions. There aren't training 747's sitting around and being used for training flights. There aren't training C750's sitting around waiting for the next student to take it up for the first time. Unlike GA aircraft, the cost is too high and the risk too great to use real aircraft for the training.There is absolutely no simulator I know of that can provide an accurate 'feel' of flight, for any aircraft. Yet commercial pilots become certified to fly based on those simulators.I stand by the statement that interacting with ATC can quickly become the largest 'workload' for someone who isn't a trained pilot. Teminology, speach patterns and speed of things happening with ATC is usually the #1 overwhelming issue for a new pilot no matter how they're trained. Someone who isn't trained can get overwhelmed instantly.

[gman! 1]

Actually, your tone and wording and intent are indeed intentionally disrespectful.The 'statement above' is input from a real world pilot after a discussion with me of this thread's topic.You assume there's no experience or authority behind the statement with the sole intent of totally discrediting the person.All commercial aircraft pilots learn to fly their aircraft with simulators. No exceptions. There aren't training 747's sitting around and being used for training flights. There aren't training C750's sitting around waiting for the next student to take it up for the first time. Unlike GA aircraft, the cost is too high and the risk too great to use real aircraft for the training.There is absolutely no simulator I know of that can provide an accurate 'feel' of flight, for any aircraft. Yet commercial pilots become certified to fly based on those simulators.I stand by the statement that interacting with ATC can quickly become the largest 'workload' for someone who isn't a trained pilot. Teminology, speach patterns and speed of things happening with ATC is usually the #1 overwhelming issue for a new pilot no matter how they're trained. Someone who isn't trained can get overwhelmed instantly.

I have to agree with WarpD. Your tone in the post was not very nice and good, and this wasn't a tone that people use in arguments to state the facts so others can get it, it was like cheeky. Anyway, just would like to say, if the flight simulator pilot does his homework, has been in a car, has good hand and eye coordination, and knows how the flight controls move (yoke, rudder, throttle, etc.) he has a pretty good chance of getting the plane down safely, and if they know how to setup auotland on a specific aircraft, thats even better! It is not impossible to get it on the ground if you at least know what your doing, I mean the motions on FSX are pretty much close to real life with the right aircraft, and when you fly it within the envelope of the plane.WarpD, I strongly agree with your statement about ATC, but for someone that goes on VATSIM or IVAO, or something similar, I think they would be less nervous and more confident, because a majority of FS pilots are still too nervous or not confident enough to even go on VATSIM (and I do not have any disrespect against them), which is very welcoming and will guide you through the many documents on how to make your flying experience, fun, real, and unstressful. If someone is confident enough to join a virtual network and communicate with the ATC I think they will do just fine, but if someone is not confident enough to join VATSIM or IVAO then they might be very very nervous, and they may be less skilled in other aspects of flying. I also found that the ATC on there are more realistic, but more relaxed than the ATC on gamespy that will transmit messages in a bad tone most of the time, don't even know what Class C airspace is, and they make bad judgments, and if you disobey a bad judgment, prepare for your ears to ring! (Most of the ATC on gamespy do this, not saying all of them do though.)

[Guest Aviator4life]

If you insist on misinterpreting the intention behind my statements so be it. What you choose to do is obviously beyond my control.No offense taken here.Best regards. :(

[tf51d 284]

I think the closest case of this happening was the Air Canada flight where the First Officer, became mentally incapacitated, and a Flight attendant had to help land the plane in Shannon Ireland, she though had a commercial and multi engine rating though. In the extremely unlikely case of both flight crew members being incapacitated I think the most likely scenario, would be some kind of oxygen problem in the cockpit rendering both crew members unconscious or worse. With nothing else wrong with the aircraft, and the oxygen problem mitigated and no other pilot on board but a simmer with Complex system (via PMDG, LDS or similar aircraft models) experience, is asked to take over, most likely the aircraft would already be on autopilot with LNAV set to follow it's planned flightplan already programmed in the FMC. Once ATC is notified of the emergency and who is at the controls, the normal ATC jargon goes out the window and they guide you to program an approach with most likely a star approach, and follow with an autoland. ATC would clear traffic around you so you shouldn't have to deal with that issue yourself. The hardest part would be frequency changes, to make sure you don't lose contact with them, but you'd have about 200 other people or a flight attendant to choose from to help you with the radios. Of course the odds of success drastically worsens if conditions like weather or other malfunction of the aircraft deteriorate. It must be noted though, the odds of any of this happening is in the high millions or even a billion to one chance. You'd have a better chance winning the lottery, but if it did happen, I think that would be the most likely scenario.