I found this article ( see link below ) and wonder what flight simulator experts ( or real world pilots ) are thinking about it ? Especially the onesusing PMDG 747,MD-11 and soon B-737http://www.askthepilot.com/questions-and-answers/#cX-q21Curious to hear your opinions.Hubert Warner

I agree. The amount of people who come into see the flight deck saying how these planes 'can take off and land themselves...' hmm partly true, and when you correct them they somehow feel they're more qualified than you, when you're the one sat there being paid to fly the thing!! All it is is people who have NO idea about flying trying to stick their nose in and think they have a clue...I see it ALL the time., Grrrr I paid 60k to train and got a job, not you!! Sam.PS - In good weather at an airport with an ILS we'll usually fly managed down to DH where we'll take control, but we can have manual control whenever we see the runway, even if that's before DH..If that's expected we'll always set up for an automated, MANAGED approach, as we can always downgrade to CAT II or I.So yes most of our touchdowns are done fully manually. Other than in those conditions which permit such as LVPs and when we're keeping current for autolands, the only time we'll usually fly a full autoland into the rollout with the autopilot still engaged in good weather. Many a landing I have completed during stormy/windy conditions have brought many comments from clueless passengers, they don't seem to realise that the autoland is mainly used in still air conditions, in a severe x wind situation, it's in our hands!! (Yeah, that's right, OUR hands people)

He's definitely right about autolands and stuff - a "greaser" really nice landing is NEVER an autoland. You can tell immediately because autolands are actually designed to be very firm - they're most often used in bad weather and the designers want to make sure the tires get good firm contact with the runway - greasing it on is the last thing you want an autoland system trying to do.The article below that one about a simmer having a "zero percent chance" of landing a plane if the pilots became incapacitated though I disagree with him on. Maybe if he's talking about people whose "desktop sim time" is limited to MS default Cessnas or something, but if you're an expert with a sim like our NGX, I really do think you'd probably have a fighting chance of succeeding. The chance would also be improved if you had VATSIM experience and could follow normal ATC instructions, read charts etc. I think real pilots who haven't seen stuff like what we make underestimate how sophisticated MSFS has become...

The article below that one about a simmer having a "zero percent chance" of landing a plane if the pilots became incapacitated though I disagree with him on. Maybe if he's talking about people whose "desktop sim time" is limited to MS default Cessnas or something, but if you're an expert with a sim like our NGX, I really do think you'd probably have a fighting chance of succeeding. The chance would also be improved if you had VATSIM experience and could follow normal ATC instructions, read charts etc. I think real pilots who haven't seen stuff like what we make underestimate how sophisticated MSFS has become...

I agree with Ryan. I don't think it would be a pretty landing by any stretch of the imagination, but as long as the simmer could land in a way that people could walk away from the aircraft, it would be nothing short of remarkable. I had an opportunity to spend 4 hours in a Qantas B747-400 simulator at the Qantas Jet Base in Sydney, Australia with the Qantas chief instructor on the B747-400 a few years ago and while I managed to land the aircraft on the runway, it wasn't the smoothest landing but it didn't do any damage (so I am told). Pulling back all four throttle levers in unison to engage reverse thrust wasn't easy either - I found it hard to get engines 1 & 2 back at the same time as 3 & 4. Quite a bit of fun, but I'd be sh***ing myself if I had to do it for real and 400-odd people were depending upon my limited (I am a student pilot and can land a Cessna by myself) flying experience. It's definitely not as easy as it looks on those ITV DVD's, that's for sure!

Hello, from a simmer point of view, I can say there's really "a lot" of difference between FSX Default A/Cs and well made Payware A/Cs like, obviously, PMDGs.Default aircrafts are too "arcade", they are absolutely not real.This is why everyone can fly immediately a Default, while everyone needs to read manuals before flying, or even starting up, a PMDG 747-400 or MD-11 I'm not a pilot , but I can feel, see and hear the difference while flying my MD-11 on Ivao....

I my self have had about 50 hours pilot in command on a 747-400 sim. With my father being a captain for Air New Zealand and my self working for the company for some 20 years. I also have my PPL and I found landing this aircraft no problem apart from the bucket of sweat that came off my hands. Im no expert by all means but if a situation ever did occur I would be able to get the bird on the ground in one piece.

I agree with Ryan.To be honest, I believe my time in Flight Sim has only contributed to my time in the real world. My first approach in actual conditions (a snowy, low-cloud approach into Blacksburg, VA) went off without a hitch and I found myself at home in the situation. While I was very aware that I was near mountainous terrain, I was reassured and calmed by my practice in the sim, and the fact that I had an approach that had been designed to keep me safely above/away from them.Even when I started flying, my phraseology was good (thanks to an aviation class in high school), but my time on VATSIM, both as a pilot and controller has only served to improve upon that.To be quite honest, I feel as if there are certain aircraft in Flight Sim that are modeled well enough to argue that a simmer could have a fighting chance. If that simmer couples it with experience outside the sim, the chance is better (either flight or intensive study, with flight being more helpful, naturally). I will say, however, that in my experience, about 80-90% of the sim pilots I know wouldn't have a clue in the slightest. That 10% between 80-90% could probably get it on the ground, and the last 10% could trick the passengers into thinking nothing ever happened.To be completely honest, there's too much of an elitest ego in the pilot realm (where the "it could never happen" argument stems from). I'd argue that it's only made worse by certain factors I could put in another thread, but to put it simply, a good bunch of the arguments stem from the idea that hours are the gauntlet by which good and poor are decided. The thought that someone could land a very complex aircraft with experience in only a simulator scares some, because that means the kid is either a natural at something that potentially took them years, or the kid's just extremely lucky. I'm not saying there are many out there, but I'm betting there are.In the pilot realm, there's no real public forum in which to prove the point. It's not like sports, where you can take a prodigy, threw him on the rink and say "put up or shutup." If he does well, it'll silence the crowd. If not, criticize away.In our realm it's "well, I have [X] number of hours, and types on [such and such], and that makes me more qualified."Yes, while hours are very important, along with other qualifications/ratings/endorsements, it's not everything. I'll put it this way:I played baseball for 15 years and never amounted to anything. If years of experience was the end-all qualification, I'd be in the majors. Heck, there are some college walk-ons that are in the NFL, and most life-long youth leaguers are sitting in lounge chairs Sunday afternoon. The difference between me and the MLB/NFL/NHL was a lack of a drive, and partially a lack of natural skill depending on the sport. I'd argue similar is true in flying. There are some who are here, who went through the same motions the rest of us did and just got by, and there are some who got their licenses at the minimum hours required for each rating, who have less hours flown in general, and are still better pilots than those with more hours. Part of that distinction was that they had a drive to learn the extra stuff not on the test guide, or interview gauge, or on that DE's expected questions/maneuvers. The rest of it is natural ability. Some guys are better than me at drawing, at driving, or at coding things on computers and so on. I concede those points readily. Few seem to concede the point in the aviation realm, however.For the record, I'm not trying to put off that I'm better than everyone, or even anyone for that matter. I'm just saying people need to concede the fact that some are better, and people with less experience could actually comprise that group. On the other hand, those with less experience who think they are better should also be able to back their assertion with a test of skill in some way.Some of the other articles on the blog are entertaining as well.

Of course autopilots are very good BUT they, like a pc are very stupid in some respects. It will not actually FLY the plane but only reavy to inputted information... asked to something stupid they would.One the 'simmer landing' part I'd say a simmer would stand a better chance of landing an airliner than someone with no knowlrdge but with a few IFsIF they could get into the cockpitIF they could remove the pilots from their seats.IF they knew how to operate the radio.IF they could sort out the flight problems that would probably exist at the time.ONLY IF the above were done could thay be guided to an autoland... I don't believe ATC or anyone else would want them to actually land the plane manually.I've only been on one plane that FELT like an autoland anf that was Air Transat.... enough said I think LOL.A BN Islander doesn't count as they are nearly stopped before landing lol.John Ellison

So he puts down flight simmers, and also belittles Sullenberger. Flight simmers don't know how hard it is to fly a plane on regular procedures, but Sullenberger was just lucky because the Hudson was there?I dunno, sounds idiotic to me

I found this article ( see link below ) and wonder what flight simulator experts ( or real world pilots ) are thinking about it ? Especially the onesusing PMDG 747,MD-11 and soon B-737

Not sure what opinions do you have in mind?The guy is simply trying to dispel some "conventional wisdom" myths about aviation. That's always a good thing.By the way, many of those 'myths' are generated by folks whose only contact with aviation is through airlines, BIG aircraft and BIG airports. That would always be my mantra - if you want to learn more about aviation step outside Airbuses and Boeings.

Where I think a problem would likely occur for a simmer is if the person has never felt actual control forces and range of movement on the yoke in a transport category aircraft or has never felt the motion cues from actual flight. If a simmer who's never flown a real aircraft and dealt with those things suddenly had to hand fly a real 737 approach based only on their experience with a tiny Saitek joystick or something like that, I think the potential for disaster would be a lot higher than when dealing purely with autopilot based procedures. What I'd do in that situation I think is just try to get a feel for how the real yoke responds and how the forces feel during normal turns and whatnot before attempting the approach - I'd also have my thumb on that TOGA button the entire time and if I felt like even the slightest thing was going wrong, I'd press it and go around to try again as long as fuel would permit.

I had the opportunity to work in an A320 Family Full Flight Sim, and to give tours of said facility to prospective students and their families of ERAU. We relinquished the controls of the A320 to 6th graders with no experience in flying. They proved they were fully capable of slamming a pre-aligned airliner onto a 10,000 foot runway with survivable trajectories. On the same token, the author in the link above was suggesting that they would have no way to do the same thing the way a trained captain would, and he's not far from the truth.I like to think I have a ton of knowledge on aviation, but I'm not careless enough to believe that I could ever push a First Officer aside and fly from point a to point b the way he can. I think my major point, and the authors, is that no matter how capable you may be, you can't do a job unless you're trained to do it. (Though it would be sooo fun to try! :( )Edit: I didn't mean to sound that elitist. What I meant to convey was that I'm fully confident a PMDG pilot could land a 737 at KPHX - but could he step onto the jetway from the terminal with an FO uniform and fly the entire leg with the same safety standards and time constraints as a real FO? He could - but only with the knowledge that comes from going through training.

Edited December 6, 201015 yr by WestAir

He's definitely right about autolands and stuff - a "greaser" really nice landing is NEVER an autoland. You can tell immediately because autolands are actually designed to be very firm - they're most often used in bad weather and the designers want to make sure the tires get good firm contact with the runway - greasing it on is the last thing you want an autoland system trying to do.The article below that one about a simmer having a "zero percent chance" of landing a plane if the pilots became incapacitated though I disagree with him on. Maybe if he's talking about people whose "desktop sim time" is limited to MS default Cessnas or something, but if you're an expert with a sim like our NGX, I really do think you'd probably have a fighting chance of succeeding. The chance would also be improved if you had VATSIM experience and could follow normal ATC instructions, read charts etc. I think real pilots who haven't seen stuff like what we make underestimate how sophisticated MSFS has become...

I'd agree to an extent, riiiiiiiiiight up to the point of coming over the threshold. I've taken people (FS-ers) on sim rides at Cranebank, and they all do great up to that point, where their lack of jet handling lets them down. BIG time. Not mad many who could keep it stable or land with a sensible rate of descent - basically not many who'd survive! As the ground rushes up, their usually unstable approach panics them and most over correct.

He's definitely right about autolands and stuff - a "greaser" really nice landing is NEVER an autoland. You can tell immediately because autolands are actually designed to be very firm - they're most often used in bad weather and the designers want to make sure the tires get good firm contact with the runway - greasing it on is the last thing you want an autoland system trying to do.The article below that one about a simmer having a "zero percent chance" of landing a plane if the pilots became incapacitated though I disagree with him on. Maybe if he's talking about people whose "desktop sim time" is limited to MS default Cessnas or something, but if you're an expert with a sim like our NGX, I really do think you'd probably have a fighting chance of succeeding. The chance would also be improved if you had VATSIM experience and could follow normal ATC instructions, read charts etc. I think real pilots who haven't seen stuff like what we make underestimate how sophisticated MSFS has become...

I'd agree to an extent, riiiiiiiiiight up to the point of coming over the threshold. I've taken people (FS-ers) on sim rides at Cranebank, and they all do great up to that point, where their lack of jet handling lets them down. BIG time. Not mad many who could keep it stable or land with a sensible rate of descent - basically not many who'd survive! As the ground rushes up, their usually unstable approach panics them and most over correct.

Ryan,not to take anything away from you or PMDG......but....... I can't speak for the other 737s but the -700 (which I currently fly for a major European low-cost carrier), speaking of those same control forces, soon as you hit TOGA, if you're not ready for it the aircraft will happily end up pointing +20 degrees of pitch and increasing. A point actually which was made in a recent sim check. For the stall recovery it was noted that even seasoned/experieced 700 pilots were struggling to prevent a second (self-induced) stall during the recovery because of the size of the pitch-thrust couple and the amount of nose-up trim in place (think we were told to stop trimming at about 8 units).I find flight sim has never acurately modelled ambient conditions. ie. Thermals coming off the concrete/tarmarc on a displaced threshold. Varying wind caused by trees near the airport, this time of year, freezing fog, contaminated runways, snow, etc. etc. In other words the variableness (if that's a word) that, at least in Europe, everyday flying is. Spotting and preventing these factiors developing into trends developing into an unstable approach is hammered into us during base training, line training and experience flying the line.Tie that into your point of control forces...........let's say I remain skeptical about a simmer's ability to land one of these for real.Not a dig at you guys, just a point of discussion.Alex.

Well, I'm gonna try exactly this in a real level D NG sim soon, I'll post what happens haha.