To be honest, there actually haven't been that many NG accidents, and of those that have occurred, pretty much none of them are of the nature where any mystery could either be resolved or any new information gained from trying to replicate the situation, or whereby there is enough fidelity in the host simulation to allow a realistic replication of all the parameters pertinent to the incidents. So frankly, there's little point in trying to do it.

 

Al

The majority of wind shear profiles we fly in the level-D simulators have been programmed using data from real-world events. Many of those events ended tragicly, such as the Delta L-1011 in DFW. Recreating such events provides valuable training to airline crews.

If one were to recreate say AF447 in essence all you would have to do is to disable the IAS and AP. Thereafter a simple matter of flying thrust / attitude until the IAS reactivates. So no accident will ever occur. The problem with recreating is the fact that the reasons for the accident are usually known and therefore can be recovered from. Often quite easily.

 

It's much better to have an a/c sim model that faithfully recreates single/double engine fires and/or emergency depressurisation with risk of hypoxia for example. You get to practise the real deal in terms of cockpit drills and having to fly the a/c within a very tight flight envelope perhaps even over mountainous terrain. Sorry I forgot to dump the fuel - splat. Did you check your escape routes or drift down procedures? Oops no! Sorry, -- splat!! The a/c went above Vne during the emergency dive. The wings came off - splat. This is what is done in real simmulators and is much better at training pilots to avoid risky situations.

vololiberista

Why, though? That's what I've always been curious about.

Distasteful, to me, would be doing it to put a plane down as part of a game. I fully understand how that could be an issue.

Recreating a disaster for the purpose of learning what happened, how it happened, or what broke down can be a valuable learning experience, however.

 

I strongly agree with this - nothing distasteful for me either!

 

You weren't here on 9/11...

You were the only one bringing up 9/11. The OP didn't mention that. Plenty of other incidents and accidents to learn from.

There is much to be learned from re-creating certain crash scenarios. For a start, you can analyze, from the pilot perspective, the chain of events that conspired to result in the crash. As with nearly all aircraft crashes - it only takes ONE link in the chain to be broken to prevent a disaster.

 

As for re-creating terrorist actions - yes, that is pointless.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

While I never recreated an actual air disaster I have recreated a bunch of general failures and sometimes complete system failures just to see what its like to fly with an abnormal sitrep.

Accident recreation has nothing to do with 9/11, it has everything to do with safety. It is used extensively in training for not only airlines, but corporate and general aviation as well. It is far better to learn from others mistakes or missfortune than to end up 'recreating' them in real life.

 

I type the above from a perspective others here might not have, for a few years I used FS9 / FSX to recreate aviation accidents for a company that provides recurrent and safety training to pilots. In fact if you check the AOPA website you will find FSX is used for their videos, it is a great tool for more than just punching holes in the virtual sky.

I honestly expected someone to bring up 9/11 on this post in what I would judge to be a non-constructive way. I was surprised though, to see who did it. Everyone of us, non-Americans included (such as myself), are very sensitive about that subject in particular. And I´m pretty sure no one would dare to think to recreate those events in the sim for learning purposes. What´s there to learn? Tom, I can´t begin to fathom in what ways that fateful day might´ve hurt you particularly and I am truly, truly sorry if it did. But I am pretty certain by his tone and mild manner that the OP did not think about it for one second. Therefore I believe your commentary was uncalled for. Furthermore, I believe one did not have to "be there" or to "be an American" to feel devastated by what happened. Being human would suffice.

 

I agree air disasters are a very unfortunate albeit important learning tool for the aviation community - if, that is, such horrendous events can be diminished to the point of being called 'learning tools'. But the fact of the matter is, those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

 

For private reasons I would not wish to recreate such events. I am not a professional pilot and I have naught to gain from such endeavours. But I certainly would feel safer and more confortable if I knew flight crews around the world had been through some tough situations where unfortunately others perished so they could glean the necessary knowledge to make my loved ones´ journeys somewhat safer.

 

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." - Douglas Adams

How would one recreate 9/11 in the sim as that was a hijacking event. Possibly the wife/girlfriend kicking you of your seat saying "Let me have a go!"

vololiberista

How would one recreate 9/11 in the sim as that was a hijacking event. Possibly the wife/girlfriend kicking you of your seat saying "Let me have a go!"

vololiberista

You mising the point here think the op was trying to see how you would go in recreating some of the air disasters that involve pilot error and mechanical failures to see if you could possibly change the situation that actually happened. Like one example how would you go with a spilt rudder fail that happened to a 747, seen this one of the air crash investigation that was shown here last week. Luckly it was a split system other wise the 747 wouldnt have made it back to the aiport.

I think it could be useful to recreate a failure, a situation that lead to a crash, but, then, you must react to the situation and try to save the plane, if you can.

But, most of the uncommon situation are over fsx limits, like for winds, stress effects, passenger/crew death and so on... So, it is hard to simulate them correctly.

On the NGx I think all failures you would simulate, in the worst case will result in a belly landing (with no hydraulics the ngx will not lower gears) or a controlled impact on ground.

It is useless to try a 9/11 crash as there is no technical issue here, or, only the overspeed, but, as previously mentioned, fsx is unreliable in this situation.

The ground fire of the center tank are also not simulated as manula gear extension and other little stuff. So, it is hard to fully recreate a situation.

Winds, wet/dry runways, visibility, stress damages simulation, also for them, fsx is very limited.

Yes, unfortunately rwy conditions are not properly simulated. If you are flying into an airport that currently has standing water or slush then your braking action is severely limited. Normally your destination rwy is ok but today because of adverse conditions it's marginal at best. Yes you can simulate making the right decision and going to an alternate. But you can't simulate making the wrong decision and sliding off the end of the rwy.

vololiberista

Runway conditions based on weather have been simulated for a while in a few high end payware fs9 & FSX addon's.

I'd actually like to create all these qantas mechanical errors I've been hearing about in the news, but I think the flight date is limited, and they all involved air bus planes.