A good friend of mine is a pilot for Ryanair and flies the 737ng, another flies the A320 for Easyjet. I spoke to the Ryanair pilot and he said the NGX is extremely close (so close that he used it whilst doing his training with Ryanair for flows). He also said flying a jetliner is extremely easy and anybody with the money to pour into the training can do it. Kinda debunked the image of the pilot as an exceptional human being for me!

 

You have to remember that this bird autolands itself, taking off is easy (I've only flown light aircraft mind you). In fact, the friend that flies for Easyjet reckons flying an A320 is easier than a Cessna in strong wind, and he misses the days of light aircraft.

 

In summary, in good conditions I have no doubt somebody could program the FMC to land. In bad weather under poor conditions? You'd probably crash as a result of nerves ...But the same applies to a light aircraft too.

Having the knowledge isn't the same as having the skill. A desktop PC might give you most of the knowledge you need; it will give you none of the skill. Combined with real world experience, where you learn the actual skills, the desktop PC can allow you to practice them.

 

Imagine what people outside the flight simulation community would say. "He thinks because he can do it in a video game he can do it in real life."

 

What happens when the real world autopilot doesn't do the same thing it does in FSX, and gets into a state you've never seen before? You can't pause Real Life and look it up in the manual. There's a very good reason why PMDG doesn't allow their aircraft to be used in Prepar3d.

 

I've got a LOT of hours flying GA planes in FSX. I've even got a few hours in real aircraft. That doesn't mean i think I could go down to the local airport and solo later today. Even with an autopilot.

 

Hook

 

Amen! +1

 

You know how much money the airliners would save if they just dumped all of their Level-D simulator training and simply hooked up a couple of FSX enabled PCs in their Pilot Lounges for flight training? I wonder why they haven't done so yet.

In what way was the handling and experience much more different ?

 

The moment I took off on my first takeoff the motions and sensations really shocked me and I hard a hard time dealing with the wind because the plane behaved differently than any Cessna in FS (default or payware), during the climbout I had such a hard time I told the instructor to takeover but after a few lessons I can now confidently takeoff and climb without major issues.

The moment I took off on my first takeoff the motions and sensations really shocked me and I hard a hard time dealing with the wind because the plane behaved differently than any Cessna in FS (default or payware)

Small aircraft are more responsive and sensitive to wind than large aircraft, which is especially obvious in the real world. The windy handling differences between small propeller aircraft in FSX and the real world can probably be attributed to FSX's imperfect wind modeling system as well.

I did it in Level D full motion too, without any problems.

Actually, i did a perfect flare too, and i received the best posible compliment from our instructor(RW Pilot on 737). He told me - "Oh, you've done it before for sure!"

I did it three times in a row, and every time was better and better. Becouse of that, i am pretty confident that we can do it

In what way was the handling and experience much more different ?

 

Woah, where to begin? If you've never been up in a Cessna 172, visit your local small airport and get an introductory flight or book a 1 hour lesson.

 

The first thing you'll notice is how small the aircraft is. Inside the cockpit, it's tiny. The smallest car you've ever been in will seem roomy by comparison.

 

Your view out the windows isn't what you're used to in the sim. Visibility is both limited and expanded in various ways. If you're used to using TrackIR, you're ahead of the game, as the real aircraft does not have a defined center view.

 

Move the controls around. They have a very different feel than anything you'll get in a desktop simulator, even with force feedback. Resistance when you don't expect it, and occasional sudden free travel that you don't expect either. On the ground you have to pull back on the yoke to lift the elevators to neutral, as their weight forces the yoke full forward. They're not heavy. But the rudder certainly feels that way.

 

Put on the headsets, start the engine and taxi. In the sim, taxiing is pretty much like being in a car. In the airplane, it's really obvious that the aircraft is out of its element on the ground. Add a little wind, some gusts, and it can be a pretty visceral experience. And that's before you even take off. Your view of the taxiway will be a lot more limited than what you're used to, like trying to drive in a car with the seat removed.

 

Get to the runup area, hold the brakes and do the mag and carb heat check. This is one area where the real aircraft is way easier than the simulated one. After that's done, you rotate the plane in a circle to look for other aircraft. The only place you have decent visibility is out the front, so this is necessary. There's no external view to fall back on for this.

 

Taxi out and line up with the runway. Go to full power. Add right rudder to counteract the torque, and try to balance any crosswind forces while you're at it. Pull the yoke back and you're airborne. Suddenly you no longer feel the ground, an amazing experience. Add correction for crosswind to stay on the track of the runway as you climb.

 

If there's any turbulence, get ready for a wild ride. Imagine taking a 4 wheeler across a bumpy field. You just don't get anything like that in a desktop simulator.

 

Once airborne, the plane is easier to fly than anything you've experienced in a flight sim. The controls feel natural, and the plane reacts in natural ways. The strange forces on the controls that you felt on the ground are gone.

 

Climbing requires right rudder, descending requires left rudder. Some sim aircraft get this right, most feel unnatural one way or another. Coordinated turns are easier than you'd expect.

 

Landing, the runway is a lot bigger than what you see in the sim. Judging height off the ground is a lot easier in real life. You will definitely feel the wheels touch down, and it's nothing like the simulator. A gust of wind at the wrong time will drop you like a brick onto the runway; imagine what it would feel like to fall 3 feet in a child's wagon.

 

Taxi to parking, shut down. For an interesting experience, take off your headset while the engine is still running, especially in flight. It's louder than you will ever imagine.

 

This gives a part of the experience. You'll find out a lot more if you try that introductory ride or lesson.

 

Hook

Contrary to popular belief, these aren't flown by FAA gurus who sit down and nitpick every flight dynamic issue. Basically, the company selects a pilot who "is qualified in" the real aircraft being simulated (note, "is qualified in" is in quotes, meaning I pulled that directly from the CFR/FARs - it does not specify what "is qualified in" means - did that pilot get checked out in the plane yesterday, or do that have 1000 hours - isn't specified*). That pilot then subjectively says "yes or no." The FAA will then validate this though the objective method of comparing the data spit out by the sim versus official sources such as the real world aircraft flight manual.

I think it should be pointed out this only applies to fairly low level trainers. Higher level trainers and full flight simulators are thoroughly checked out objectively against flight test data and subjectively by an FAA pilot rated on type.

I strongly disagree.

 

First off, FS9/FSX, NGX et. al.. is NOT an $80 simulation. That's the retail price point. It's actually a multi-million dollar simulation that's priced to sell many units at $80 each, thereby making up investment in sales quantity, not price.

 

Secondly, it would be better to break the question down a bit further.

 

Maybe a better set of questions would be:

 

a) If I know how to operate the PMDG 737 properly, could I operate a real 737NG properly? The answer is an astounding YES! I know, because I've done it. I can tell you the name of the aircraft and where it was- The US Navy P8 named City of Orange Park, based at NAS JAX in Jacksonville, Florida (where I worked as contractor one time). I can tell you that the technician was blown away by the fact that I knew where every single item in the cockpit related to pre-start and start of the APU and all the electrical systems were and the flows to get them up and running.

 

b) If I can "fly" the 737 in FSX, then can I fly it in the real world? Maybe, maybe not. I would say that I definitely can both fly and operate real-world aircraft better than the average person with no sim experience because I've done it time and time again. Do I have bad habits? Yes (not looking outside enough when clearly flying VFR in the real world). Do you feel all the same sensations? Clearly the answer is no. But, flying an ILS is not much different in a real C172 and a 737 outside of speed and power management along with all the safety flows required to operate procedurally correct. Always remember- very few planes are intentionally designed to fly poorly.

 

PS- I guess I should throw in that I fly my full scale LJ45 sim weekly and that probably would help quite a bit as far as having more of a feel to all the hardware in place vs. mouse/keyboard. But the experience I shared regarding being able to operate the aircraft after spending considerable time with the PMDG 737NG (original version for FS9) on desktop and then getting a session in the real aircraft- that was before I had my full size sim and naturally, the LJ45 and 737 are not comparable in any way other than both being faster than a C172 :-)

 

 

 

+++1

 

The original question was if you could successfully fly a real 737 from blocks to blocks based on FSX/NGX knowledge.

You think the answer is yes?

 

Operating is knowing more then where all the buttons are and what they do.

It's not more then 80$ for the NGX...that's what we pay as simmers. How does the cost of developing factor into what we bought it for and the level of training it gives us?

 

NGX + FSX does not = professional commercial pilot training. Sorry, it just doesn't.

I think it should be pointed out this only applies to fairly low level trainers. Higher level trainers and full flight simulators are thoroughly checked out objectively against flight test data and subjectively by an FAA pilot rated on type.

 

Regarding the idea that "low level trainers" and "higher level simulators" are handled by different processes, that's not true (see below the quote)

Regarding the process I mentioned earlier, that's exactly what I wrote...

 

Basically, the company selects a pilot who "is qualified in" the real aircraft being simulated (note, "is qualified in" is in quotes, meaning I pulled that directly from the CFR/FARs - it does not specify what "is qualified in" means - did that pilot get checked out in the plane yesterday, or do that have 1000 hours - isn't specified*). That pilot then subjectively says "yes or no." The FAA will then validate this though the objective method of comparing the data spit out by the sim versus official sources such as the real world aircraft flight manual.

 

...unless you're implying that the pilot is specifically from the FAA, which isn't true.

 

There are two different definitions in the certification section of the FARs (Part 60):

Full Flight Simulators (FFS) and Flight Training Devices (FTD).

 

In the section describing the qualification requirements, it refers instead to FSTD, which is defined as either an FFS or FTD. My quote above is specifically from this section (60.15), using this term, which means the same process is used for both the simple and more complex products.

 

So, no, it doesn't need to be an FAA pilot. If you really want to nitpick, you'll note the closest it gets to specifics is a reference to a table of preferred qualifications for the pilot doing the test. Nothing further.

The real value of proper flight instruction comes not from being taught the correct way to do something (you can read that in the manual) but from having your mistakes pointed out; mistakes that may not be obvious in a sim or even a problem for 99% of real flights.

 

I might be able to land a 737, but then I might think that because no one had told me otherwise.

As long as your knees don't get weak and you can stop your hands from shaking from the thought of putting a real 737 nose first into the ground and you can remember your flows and procedures it's possible.

I can or i can not

 

Try to make this simple proc. in real life with real emergency .......... I bin thrue this serval Times on a fullmotion Simulator with a real Pilot as coach , i can tell you i messedup badly the first and 2 time with the correct procedures and Landings and i think all others serius emergency's are beyond our skills . I think i am not abel to manage the 737 on a real emergency . Maybe i can make a proper cold&dark startup under supervision Taxing and the Tower chating and evt. Takeoff and leveloff but Landing mmmm no

i think so with no autolanding.

 

A RL pilot told me the most difficult is the landing.

A RL pilot told me the most difficult is the landing.

It's also the best part when you get used to it! Making a controlled crash into the ground the first few times is definitely going to be frightening and intense.

Regarding the idea that "low level trainers" and "higher level simulators" are handled by different processes, that's not true (see below the quote)

Regarding the process I mentioned earlier, that's exactly what I wrote...

 

 

 

...unless you're implying that the pilot is specifically from the FAA, which isn't true.

 

There are two different definitions in the certification section of the FARs (Part 60):

Full Flight Simulators (FFS) and Flight Training Devices (FTD).

 

In the section describing the qualification requirements, it refers instead to FSTD, which is defined as either an FFS or FTD. My quote above is specifically from this section (60.15), using this term, which means the same process is used for both the simple and more complex products.

 

So, no, it doesn't need to be an FAA pilot. If you really want to nitpick, you'll note the closest it gets to specifics is a reference to a table of preferred qualifications for the pilot doing the test. Nothing further.

You started your original point by saying that the FAA don't send a guru to nitpick dynamic points. Then you said on the contrary a pilot qualified in the aircraft makes a statement saying the device conforms to the standard. You then went on to mention the objective tests the FAA will study. The main point you were trying to make was that the FAA don't come and subjectively assess the device themselves. This is true for the lowest level devices, such as PC-ATDs which are qualified as products and don't need additional qualification for operators to use, though the operator's local FAA rep may possibly have to formally approve the device. FTDs and FFSs do require site evaluation. I'm well aware the term FSTD covers both FFS and FTD clases of device, because they are both now covered by the same legal regulation (both in the USA and the EU). However the qualification requirements and procedures differ in detail depending on the level of device.

 

I assumed the device you illustrated in your post was probably a PC-ATD (a PC based training device lower than an FTD), hence my comment about low level devices and high level devices. It's possible it is an FTD, but even so it would be a Level 4 or 5, a type the FAA don't always have to visit to qualify. Lower level FTDs aren't intended to be used for handling training so their dynamic qualities only have to be representative of a type or a generic class of aeroplane. There may not even be any data to assess them against.

 

As well as reviewing the objective test results, the FAA will visit the operator's site and evaluate the device (and also the operator's quality assurance processes). This usually involves a team of three, including an engineer, an instructor/pilot and a type rated pilot. For an initial evaluation they will be on site for between one and three days, depending on the level of device. Note, the objective tests will have been previously submitted for comment and review, but a subset of tests will still be re-run and assessed during the evaluation. Recurrent evaluations take less than a day and typically only one FAA representative attends, who will flyout the device and review the operators recurrent objective test results.

 

In conclusion, it's not true to say the FAA does not send a pilot to subjectively assess the device prior to qualifying it for use. The pilot may not be a "guru", but they certainly are supposed to be type rated and therefore familiar with how the real aircraft flies. The operator's pilot's statement you were describing is certainly not the only subjective assessment.

 

I've been directly involved in many FAA and CAA simulator qualifications, so I do know what I'm talking about here.