Could the PMDG add ons be good enough for FAA certification?

[damocles 1]

Concerning PMDG, they have a reputation based on realism and the fact that their products fly like the real bird. Could be useful for keeping procedures (flows and checklists) fresh while at home between annual (or is it six months?) training.

 

Now, with training recognition by the FAA or other authority, I would seriously hope not. FSX is a video game (I think I just signed my death warrant). All (or most) controllers cannot produce the feel of the aircraft flight controls. And there are things that may be in the real aircraft that may not be in FSX aircraft.

 

+1

 

FSX IS a flawed peice of software and should have no direct relationship with real world training...OK, you know where the buttons are and are familiar with the FMC.....that's as far as it goes.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

In the end, though, very few simmers understand the concept that flight sims are very seldom used to show you how it'll feel exactly.

 

-When you first start training, it's used to show you how to maneuver on instruments and rely on them if you get into a sticky (cloudy) situation.

-When you're in your instrument training, part of the reason is to get simulated conditions without the cost of renting a plane, but also to teach you to develop a scan and rely on the instruments

-Later on, sims are used primarily in a cost-cutting measure, again in the role of familiarization, not so much feel or dynamic

 

 

 

So, can we toss out this notion that the validity of a sim is in its ability to properly replicate the exact dynamics of an aircraft? It's not. Some are made and certified that way. As an example, a Boeing 777 Level-D sim for initial/recurrent training would need that aspect of at least representative dynamics, whereas a FRASCA would not. By and large, simulators are not simulating a particular dynamic. Rather, they're simulating the generics: pull back, trees get smaller; push forward, trees get bigger; VORs work like this, NDBs like this, and here's the generics on working with your instruments.

[damocles 1]

One would hope a pilot would have grasped the basics of flight by instruments [real world] before even considering going any where near an airliner for training.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Sure, but at that level, they're developing familiarity and muscle memory, and preparedness for the real thing, without burning through a whole bunch of fuel with no passengers. More of it is still the concept of procedures and familiarity than how the plane feels, exactly.

[damocles 1]

True...but! FSX has nothing to do with that - It can't simulate weather or Physics, what you see is an illusion.

 

No doubt about using a real training simulator - of course, that is an essential part of training.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

True...but! FSX has nothing to do with that - It can't simulate weather or Physics, what you see is an illusion.

 

No doubt about using a real training simulator - of course, that is an essential part of training.

 

That's my point: "real" training simulators aren't so different. They're not what you think, and your posts are either clearly ignoring my earlier posts, or you have no grasp of what flight simulators really are.

 

They don't simulate weather or physics very well either...

[NM5K 1]

I was always under the impression that the FAA was not ultra critical about the flight models.

Only to the point to where the sims were capable of the training exercises they were to be used

for. But I do suspect they are getting better and better just due to the advancing state of the art..

 

And I think that the "feel" of a sim, particularly one at home on a PC, the hardware and

sensitivity and null settings are just as important as anything.

One can have a perfectly good flight model, but if the controls are way too sensitive, it's

never going to feel right.

Myself, I haven't noticed any glaring faults with the flight model of the 737NGX, so if a

real pilot were to fly it, and think that right off the bat it doesn't feel right, I'd be wondering

if the hardware and settings couldn't have a lot to do with that, before I placed all the blame

on the flight model of the plane.

 

With most versions of MSFS, I've almost always felt the default sensitivity settings were too

high for many sticks/yokes. I usually run mine quite a bit lower than middle, and usually

have a bit of a null yone to reduce twitchiness..

And in the past, I often had to adjust the air files to reduce sensitivity.. Usually elevator

if anything.. It was the elevator sensitivity that was usually my main gripe on many older

planes.

Anyway, just changing things like that can have a huge difference on how it will feel.

Too high a sensitivity makes it feel twitchy and even the smallest movement effects the

plane quite a bit.. If you watch a real pilot flying a 737, their yokes are often moving for/aft,

or side to side with fairly good amounts of movement.. But you don't see the airplane

twitching along with the yoke movement.. It's kind of damped out, so to speak..

So with a puter airplane, I prefer the sensitivity down fairly low, and a bit of a null zone..

It makes it feel a bit stiffer, and not so twitchy.. You can make yoke movements almost

as large, per scale, as they are, and the plane is not responding like an f-16 so to speak..

Same deal with X plane vs FSX.. I've always been of the opinion that the type of flight model

doesn't matter much.. It still will need to be tweaked to fly right..

But if someone thought that X plane felt better than FSX, or visa versa, it could be

the control sensitivities as much as the flight model.. Maybe X plane has usually a bit

lower elevator sensitivity as a default for instance.. That could make it feel better to me

right off the bat, if the FSX plane felt too elevator happy to me.. And wouldn't have anything

to do with the flight model itself.

To me, the flight model is largely making it fly by the numbers as close as possible,

per the various thrust levels, inputs, etc.. Once you have that right, it should feel about

right if the controls are adjusted properly.

[Boeing or not going 578]

+1

 

FSX IS a flawed peice of software and should have no direct relationship with real world training...OK, you know where the buttons are and are familiar with the FMC.....that's as far as it goes.

 

Real world training is all about learning procedures, where all the switches are and what they do, and operating the FMC. That's 99% of training and for that FSX with a PMDG airplane works very well. The rest is just practicing your stick and rudder skills which of course cannot be practiced in anything but a full motion simulator.