How realistic is FSX ?

[Chock 17,769]

Of course there's one other problem with the scenario, the cockpit door lock (courtesy of the many knee-jerk reactions to 9/11). Not all airlines use the cockpit door lock of course, and theoretically the cabin crew do have an override code for it, although since they could be forced to reveal it by a hijacker, it's not always the case that they are in posession of that code.We saw an example of that problem manifest itself just a couple of weeks ago, with the crash landing of the Turkish B737 at Schiphol; it took the emergency services three hours to get into the cockpit, by which time of course, the crew were all beyond help.One example I know of where a semi-qualified pilot could not successfully fly an airliner, after the crew became incapacitated, was flight attendant Andreas Prodromou on board Helios Air Flight 522, which crashed in 2005. I think I'm right in saying he was in the process of pilot training at the time of the accident, but his inability to do anything about the situation is somewhat understandable given the horrific circumstances he found himself in and the stress he must have been under, with F-16s in formation alongside frantically signalling him, and all the people on board around him incapacitated. He clearly - and bravely - did the best he could, and it's known that he tried to transmit several Mayday calls, but it is possible - even likely - that by the time he made it to the cockpit it may have been too late anyway with regard to fuel on board. Read about that here if you are unfamiliar with the story, a very sad tale and one which led to a change in the climb checklist for the B737:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522As you can see, it's one of the things which an FS simmer (and even a real-world pilot who works on an airliner) might not be at all familiar with which led to that disaster, and just the flick of a tiny switch on the right hand side of the overhead could have sorted it all out. Like many air accidents, it's often something almost mockingly simple which is the cause.Incidentally, I noticed someone wrote that 'you need to go less than 250 knots below 10,000 feet' in an earlier post. This is not correct and is a common misconception, just to clarify, the rule in most countries is: you need to go no faster than 250 knots or Vref plus 100 knots, whichever is the greater of the two, and if directed by ATC that there is no speed restriction, you can exceed that. In practice it usually equates to less than 250 knots, but not if you are in something like an SR-71 or Concorde LOL. It's a misconception perpetuated by the somewhat simplified ATC in FS and does in fact highlight something of the problems we are talking about here in terms of the differences in a sim pilot's knowledge and real-world experience.Al

[gman! 1]

Of course there's one other problem with the scenario, the cockpit door lock (courtesy of the many knee-jerk reactions to 9/11). Not all airlines use the cockpit door lock of course, and theoretically the cabin crew do have an override code for it, although since they could be forced to reveal it by a hijacker, it's not always the case that they are in posession of that code.We saw an example of that problem manifest itself just a couple of weeks ago, with the crash landing of the Turkish B737 at Schiphol; it took the emergency services three hours to get into the cockpit, by which time of course, the crew were all beyond help.One example I know of where a semi-qualified pilot could not successfully fly an airliner, after the crew became incapacitated, was flight attendant Andreas Prodromou on board Helios Air Flight 522, which crashed in 2005. I think I'm right in saying he was in the process of pilot training at the time of the accident, but his inability to do anything about the situation is somewhat understandable given the horrific circumstances he found himself in and the stress he must have been under, with F-16s in formation alongside frantically signalling him, and all the people on board around him incapacitated. He clearly - and bravely - did the best he could, and it's known that he tried to transmit several Mayday calls, but it is possible - even likely - that by the time he made it to the cockpit it may have been too late anyway with regard to fuel on board. Read about that here if you are unfamiliar with the story, a very sad tale and one which led to a change in the climb checklist for the B737:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522As you can see, it's one of the things which an FS simmer (and even a real-world pilot who works on an airliner) might not be at all familiar with which led to that disaster, and just the flick of a tiny switch on the right hand side of the overhead could have sorted it all out. Like many air accidents, it's often something almost mockingly simple which is the cause.Incidentally, I noticed someone wrote that 'you need to go less than 250 knots below 10,000 feet' in an earlier post. This is not correct and is a common misconception, just to clarify, the rule in most countries is: you need to go no faster than 250 knots or Vref plus 100 knots, whichever is the greater of the two, and if directed by ATC that there is no speed restriction, you can exceed that. In practice it usually equates to less than 250 knots, but not if you are in something like an SR-71 or Concorde LOL. It's a misconception perpetuated by the somewhat simplified ATC in FS and does in fact highlight something of the problems we are talking about here in terms of the differences in a sim pilot's knowledge and real-world experience.Al

Yup. That was me that made the 250 knots statement. I said that "Most don't even know that you need to go 250 KT or less under 10,000 ft". Hope my tone sounds alright, but I already knew that if its OK with the ATC you may go above 250 Kts, and this rule does not always apply for all countries. One example of a plane being cleared to go faster than 250 KTs is on the ITVV Virgin Airways 747 flight in which the flight was cleared to go faster than 250KTs under 10,000 by ATC. :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522As you can see, it's one of the things which an FS simmer (and even a real-world pilot who works on an airliner) might not be at all familiar with which led to that disaster, and just the flick of a tiny switch on the right hand side of the overhead could have sorted it all out. Like many air accidents, it's often something almost mockingly simple which is the cause.Al

Well here is a simmer taking a crack at it, before reading any info on the flight :(. I am guessing maybe the fuel pump switch? (maybe wrong because last time I checked it was on the left side of the overhead). Read the article and I was wrong, when you said something about fuel I thought it was a fuel related problem :rolleyes:lol. We'll anyway, after reading one sentence of the page saying cabin pressurization, I knew the situation wouldn't end very well, depending on the crew. Although I don't want to be disrespectful I think the pilots could have easily prevented this, because the pilots should know and remember cabin pressurization procedures like the back of their hand, because it is vital and is not an "extra" or optional. They also should know that if there is a horn sounding in the cabin, it is not something that you should ignore, they should have checked what the problem was, instead of just ignoring. I mean the sounds and lights are there to warn you of an emergency or wrong configuration, so the crew must check and see what the can do to extinguish the light and sound to tell them the problem is gone.

[Chock 17,769]

Does seem hard to believe that the crew could make such a mistake doesn't it? But it probably won't be the last time a crew does something of that nature.It was right after that accident that a specific check on the cabin pressurisation was added to the Boeing checklist, and also about the same time that the co-pilot started to be referred to as the 'pilot monitoring' instead of the 'pilot not flying', to better reflect what he should be doing.Al

[Guest Rhinosaur]

I may be wrong about this, but I think that many airlines train their pilots in full motion simulators which pretty much prepares them to fly the real thing soon there after.Mike

Correct. My father was a Cpt on the B747-400. He did all his training in the stimulator and never actually set foot in the cockpit until his first real world flight which was a scheduled trans-pacific!

[AngelT 0]

For FSX to be realistic try FSpassengersX...

[Gottedammerung 0]

Haven't had time to read all the other posts, so forgive me if I'm covering old ground.Personally, I've found it's a mixed bag. I've found that RW aircraft are surprisingly difficult to throw around. I suppose it's a bit like driving without power assist when you're used to it. So that's the first thing. Then there's the sense of movement, obviously. I suppose you'd say FS aircraft are much easier, but I'll tell you one thing I was surprised by - how much easier in real life landing is. I suspect it's becasue your field of view is so much better, and your spacial awareness so much keener. I find FS quite a very poor substitute in that respect. But I do think flying FS made flying for real much easier. You just know what to do instinctively, and in that respect, I think they are similar.

[BlakeWilliams 6]

I am currently slated to attend ATP flight school next year and went down for some test flights. Both instructors were really impressed at my flying knowledge and skills without ever really flying a plane before. I attribute this completely to flight simulator - for which I've been involved with for 10 years. Now, I know I'm talking about a piper to a 47 - but there is something there to think about.As for the heavy metal - I'm confident I could get the bird on the ground or properly configured at the approach gate. However, I think when I finally do get to fly these larger aircraft, it will have been after many many many hours of training and simulation :)Blake

[Guest 413X3]

A simulator is used by real pilots to know second nature every checklist and system, and practice emergencies and any situation they want.

[FalconAF 213]

I've read all these posts, and am amazed that none of the real-world pilots have brought up a very critical point in this discussion yet. As a real-world pilot with over 30 years flying experience, I'll bring it up.Pilot PhysiologyThese discussions always break down into two categories concerning whether an FS-only "pilot" could land a real world airplane. The categories invariably are "small GA aircraft" vs "large commercial aircraft".The MAIN thing a non-real world pilot flying only FS is lacking is the understanding and EXPERIENCE of what flying an aircraft can do to your "brain functions" regarding "sensory perception". While this may not be as critical a factor in VFR flight, it is a common KILLER of new(er) and less experienced (low time) real-world pilots who encounter IFR conditions, or even Marginal VFR conditions. It is one thing to be sitting at your computer flying in IFR, or even marginal VFR, and quite another to be doing it in the real world. Until you experience vertigo (which a good Flight Instructor will do for you during your Private Pilot training, by putting you "under a hood" and making you look down away from the instrument panel, then rocking the plane all over with cross-control inputs), a "sim only" pilot can NEVER relate to how screwed up your brain can get in thinking what the aircraft attitude is vs the REAL attitude of the aircraft. It is quite easy for a flight instructor to make you think and FEEL the aircraft is in a left descending dive, when in actuality it is in a right climbing turn. Throw in a little turbulence, and your "struggle" to do what is "right" in controlling the aircraft, EVEN WHEN LOOKING AT THE INSTRUMENTS, can be a daunting task.An FS-only "pilot" in this case is a bad bet on surviving the situation, regardless of whether they are in a Boeing 747 OR a Cessna 150.The other issue (related to the above), is it seems that many people here make the arguement that, "Yeah, but if a pilot can learn to fly a 767 using "only" a LevelD 767 simulator, then I could do the same thing for a Cessna 172". What this arguement is lacking is the understanding that an already CERTIFIED professional real-world pilot will have over a couple THOUSAND hours of REAL-WORLD flying experience, long before he\she sets foot in that LevelD sim to get CERTIFIED to fly the 767. They will have had thousands of hours of real-world flight experience, which DOES translate to the transition of the more complex aircraft when using a simulator to "learn" it. And that experience is absolutely necessary to make it all work. It is utterly unfeasable to think that you could take a person with no previous real-world flight experience, train them in a LevelD simulator, then turn them loose in the real world to safely fly that aircraft...even under the BEST of circumstances. If it was that easy, a person could start flying 747's for United after only 100 hours of flight training, with no previous real-world flying experience. Ain't gonna happen.Flying Flight Simulator is relatively "easy" compared to real-world flying. Get in a real aircraft with no previous real-world piloting experience, and regardless of how much "FSX only" time you have flying FSX, almost all people would begin getting overwhelmed at the "outside factors" you DON'T experience in Flight Simulator. Encounter even MILD turbulence that you can FEEL in the real aircraft (and NOT feel in FS), and your pucker factor will go up exponentially. Even the slightest crosswind gust during your flair to landing, and the assiciated PHYSIOLOGICAL sensation it would cause to your body, would result in many "sim only" pilots breaking something on the aircraft during a normal VFR landing. Your brain just wouldn't be prepared to interpret it correctly and make you do the right physical inputs to the controls to correct the aircraft in a timely manner prior to touchdown. You might walk away from the wreck, but it certainly wouldn't be "heroic". Many a Flight Instructor has had to take over the controls from a student pilot at the last second before touchdown to prevent the landing gear from being torn off because the aircraft was travelling sideways across the runway instead of tracking down the runway correctly.Complex simulators like a LevelD real-world sim work because the pilot already HAS thousands of hours of real-world experience. With that previous experience, they CAN learn things using the simulator that they can utilize in flying the real-world aircraft. But just putting a "sim only" pilot in one will NOT make them capable of flying the aircraft under normal conditions, let alone an emergency situation. It's the hundreds or thousands of previous real-world hours the pilot has that allows them to relate to all the things that are happening. I will concede that it may be "possible" that a "sim only" pilot MIGHT get lucky if they were "talked through" a "hands off" landing using only the autopilot systems on the aircraft, they MIGHT land the aircraft safely. But I sure as hell wouldn't want to bet my life on it. An FSX-only "pilot", who had 50 hours real-world flight experience, would have a MUCH better chance, simply because of the limited real-world experience they had acquired during that short 50 hours flight time. And then only if they were in VFR conditions. Hand fly it in? Unlikely. Hand fly it in, in IFR? Not a prayer.Rick

[Guest 413X3]

Who really thinks you can hop in and fly an airplane perfectly? But having the skills to know the systems and procedures puts you far ahead of the game when you get into the seat in reality

[Guest Nick_N]

ROFL@RickHey my friend.. here is how I would measure success in such circumstancesFirst, If the pilot is carried out or walk away.. or can the pilot be found at allIt is possible for a FSpilot to walk away from a RW 747 landing with weather? YES! Just like its possible to pull a royal flushWhat I would do Rick is measure success by the amount of brown left behind.. If it never left the pilots exterior coverings, then kudos ... most I would say would leave behind a very large brown spot, possibly a big as the seat itself simply because none of them have experience with the physics involved and although the brain may know what to do, it doesn

[Brett_Henderson 5]

Back to the original question: How realistic is FSX ?This reveals relativity. If we could take FSX in a time-machine back to say.. 1975.. and sit someone down with a good yoke-n-pedals.. I'd dare say the shock alone would rival the shock that a sim-pilot of today would experience, their first stab at real flying. THAT aside.. Boeing would be demanding that all of their new pilots spent 50 hours in FSX. We're spoiled and forget just how realistically the lift/drag/thrust/gravity stuff are mated to the pitch/roll/yaw stuff .. It really is pretty darn good. Throw in VERY realistically responding instrumentation, and realize that we're talking about a desktop simulator on one 2D dispaly.. and my vote goes for VERY realistic..I've had a PPL for 29 years.. and have been simming since it was stick scenery on a TRS80. One thing that has changed quite a bit, is that the old-school instructors have come around to see that MSFS is a tremendous training aid. More important than that though, is what FSX can be to an already licensed pilot. It can most definately keep your piloting frame of mind sharp between real flights.. most definately help the real pilot struggling with navigation.. and MOST definately help both the experienced and learning pilot with instrument flight... VOR/NDB navigation, instrument approaches, compass turns, holds, missed approaches, reading and following approach-plates. It's also great for flight-planning. Set up a scenario (i.e. you and 2 buddies in a C172.. 100lbs of bags.. flying 600nm).. check weather/winds-aloft.. figure your useable fuel, duration, stops and alternates.. have plates ready if the weather is marginal... etc etc..It's great for checklist drills, emergency drills, what-ifs, and even practicing flights you'll be taking for real (FS9 practice took al LOT of the stress away for my first ever flight into Oshkosh.. I flew that bizarre arrival a dozen or more time in FS9.. all the contingencies and landmarks were second-nature.So again.. all things considered.. I'd say it's realistic

[Guest Nick_N]

I do very much agree with Brett.. all kidding aside when it comes to FSX it really is a great way to learn with the right A/C installed which is correctly designed (as well as it can be) to its RW counterpartBut if there is any question as to if someone can take that and step on a real AC no matter how good they are in MSFS on that same AC, FSX will not provide the aspect of physics which is a critical part of flight that will lead to many well trained and tested classroom 'theory' pilots bombing out of trainingthere is a physical aspect to flying which requires experience and adjustment in a learning curve. Rare, natural pilots can feel their way through a flight and unpredictable situations. Sometimes that comes easy to a person but usually it requires a lot of flight hours to learn. Then there are different levels of ability within that curve.

[CFIJose 5,485]

How real is fsx?If you add multiple monitors with yoke, pedals, controls, etc. IT'S TOO DAMN REAL!

[FalconAF 213]

Nick: As always, your introspect is right on. You just took the "physiology" aspect of my post to a more" vivid" mind picture. If I can quit laughing so hard so the tears clear my eyes, I'll be able to finish typing the rest of this post.Brett: Totally agree with your points also. Even FSX can be used, and is recognized as, a valid training tool for flight instruction by certified flight instructors. My point though was this...it's a valid tool for only certain aspects of an overall pilot's capabilities. Any activity that requires BOTH Knowlwdge and Practical skills of the student requires both Knowledge and Practical training application. Flight Simulator can be very good at teaching the Knowledge portions...things like learning navigation, flight planning, etc. But the actual "hands on" of flying the aircraft also require the PHYSICAL training of the pilot. Barring a full-motion simulator that could actually induce vertigo on a pilot, there is no way the pilot can be "taught" what vertigo is, what it feels like, the need to "ignore" it and trust the instruments without fail, etc. FSX can never teach that. Even the best NASA simulators for space flight can't do that. That's why NASA uses the "Vomit Comet" aircraft to simulate small periods of weightlessness. Over enough sessions in the Vomit Comet, a prospective astronaut can get accustomed to the effects of weightlessness, and not puke all over the cockpit anymore. The "experience" to do this takes time and actual "hands on" training.I have 35 years real-world piloting experience. But it's all in Single Engine Land aircraft. If you placed me in a LevelD 767 simulator, no doubt you could "teach" me the systems of it, and I could relate to how those systems have a cause and effect to how I operate them (the MCP, Autopilot, throttles, speed brakes, etc). But regardless of how much time I have in that LevelD sim, it would be insane for me to think I could go from it to a real 767 cockpit and "fly" the aircraft. I just don't have the experience in multi-engine aircraft, let alone turbine powered aircraft, let alone so many other "experience" items that exist in the range between Cessna 172's and a 767. And that's with over 35 years real-world flying. The airline Captain that has been flying 727's, 737's, etc for the past 10 years CAN make the transition to something like a 767 by simulation-only training. But not a Cessna 172 pilot. And certainly not a non-pilot who has never flown a real-world aircraft...regardless of how much time they get flying FSX OR a LevelD simulator. That's all I'm trying to say here. We need to separate "fact" from "fantasy". The real answer to whether an FSX-only "pilot" could land a 747 or 757 or 767 has absolutely NO bearing on how much FSX time they have in the aircraft. FSX isn't even close to doing what a full-fledged LevelD simulator can do as far as preparing a pilot to fly something like a 767 when it comes to teaching the "practical" aspects of a person actually having to "fly" the aircraft. If the person could get the aircraft's COMPUTER systems to land the aircraft for them, then yes, there is a possibility they could pull off a "safe" landing. But if they "manually" had to do it themselves, it just isn't going to happen. Unless, as NickN said, it was the luckiest day of their lives, and they just happened to draw that Royal Flush. I don't like those odds, though.Still, this thread is a great discussion, with many interesting points of view.Rick