you're talking nonsense, only the guys who flew the real deal can answer it, i luckily had some experience with that, acutally flew a cessna, been in a 737/757/a320/embraer cockpit, if you're well know the system, flying the plane very good, have a real as it gets setup, with a good yoke/pedals it is very close, it was very easy for me to fly a cessna, really close to what i am use to. also when i have been in the cockpit, the pilots told me to explain them the system as i know, they were in shock, i knew everything every little part of the phrases/systems. sure the first landing won't be a good one, but it's not very hard to land a plane with perfect conditions, or autoland.

if you guys say that we can easily land a cessna, so i can land a 737 even in full visual approach.

 

because (in my FS) i always land a 737 easier than a Cessna (in visual approach), i don't know why, i find that bigger planes are easier to land, the speed stays stable, winds don't effect to much .. etc ..

I can also land a 747 on an aircraft carrier in FSX...

 

- Sent from my rooted, Verizon Samsung Galaxy Nexus LTE smartphone via Tapatalk because haters gonna hate.

 

 

LOL I am just loving this argument , but it may never be proven if one can land a 737 in RL after using it extensively in a sim.

Flying is not difficult.

 

There are videos on youtube with first time fliers landing Cessna's or, in some videos, airliners in Full-Flight Sims. There are stories on aviation forums with first timers or simmers landing their uncle or aunts plane, and news articles scattering the web each year of passengers who land a plane when the pilot becomes incapacitated. [Last year we had a Pilatus pilot die, and an untrained friend landed the plane.]

 

Personally, I've seen children under 15 land Cessna 172's in the real world, and A320's in a FFS Simulator.

 

To say that it's impossible is to completely and utterly ignore the tools that are available to you in the form of google. It happens because it's possible.

I just hope to hell, that im not a passenger on any off the flights :lol:

jeff

Heck no!!!!!!!!!!!!! You're crazy if you think a third-rate computer game can teach you to fly an airplane with any semblance to reality. FSX has flaw after flaw in terms of aerodynamics modeling, and quite franky the PMDG NGX is over-hyped crap in this department as well; all this in spite of what the pretend pilots and Fan-boys claim here.

 

In terms of properly modeling drag and ground effect, the NGX is a complete joke on landing approach and flare compared to the real aircraft. It's a crappy computer game made to entertain people what don't know any better or care.

 

If you were to try to land a real 737 based solely on your experience with PMDG products, you would die.

While there is some dispute over whether the PMDG B737 can prepare one for a real emergency, you strongly disagree with the vast majority (of what is a generally considered a very experienced and knowledgeable community) that the PMDG B737 is one of the most complex and realistic desktop flight simulator aircraft ever produced, so you need to either (1) provide some reasons of greater specificity as to why the PMDG B737 is so terrible or (2) provide some valid credentials if you want to be taken respectfully and seriously.

It's not so much about getting it all started up from "cold and dark", because in real life, that doesn't mean anything. It's more about doing your flows the right way, in the right scenario, and following your company's SOP. I kind doubt anyone on this forum will be able to, unless they have 737 experience IRL. How many of you guys shut off your A system hydralics before tow-bar is connected?

 

A system hyrdalics pressurise the nose gear stearing, so therefore, pushing and turning an aircraft with it's nosegear steering pressurized will cause a great amount of injury and damage.

It's more about doing your flows the right way, in the right scenario, and following your company's SOP. I kind doubt anyone on this forum will be able to, unless they have 737 experience IRL. How many of you guys shut off your A system hydralics before tow-bar is connected?

Performing cold-and-dark procedures relates directly to performing flows and procedures correctly. I believe most people who read the real Boeing manuals (FCOM, FCTM) would develop good senses as to how cockpit duties should be performed—it will never be seriously incorrect to follow exactly what Boeing recommends, and each airline's SOP probably only differs slightly from what the aircraft manufacturer recommends. Therefore, if one is able to follow the recommendations and techniques suggested by the manufacturer's generic manual, he or she can probably follow airline-specific procedures as well.

 

For most of us, the tow bar item is irrelevant, as we do not have realistic access to ground vehicles in the simulator. Most dedicated, hard-core enthusiasts will probably follow specific procedures if they can be executed realistically in the simulator.

 

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.

 

 

Ohh!! So you did a pre-flight checklist. I think the question is if we can pilot the airplane. Not just start it. Lol.

 

Performing cold-and-dark procedures relates directly to performing flows and procedures correctly. I believe most people who read the real Boeing manuals (FCOM, FCTM) would get a good idea as to how cockpit duties should be performed—it will never be seriously incorrect to follow exactly what Boeing recommends, and each airline's SOP probably only differs slightly from what the aircraft manufacturer recommends. The reason why many of us can not follow company SOPs is that we do not have access to them, and there is no need when you are not flying continuously for a single airline.

 

For most of us, the tow bar item is irrelevant, as we do not have realistic access to ground vehicles in the simulator.

 

Yes, but each company varies slightly. And actually... I've heard of crew members being discharged because they didn't do what their company wanted them to. Boeing might recommend using both ignitors on the engine, but Alaska Airlines on the other hand, prefers that you only use one of the ignitors, alternating every start. Why? Because it preserves the ignitors on each engine. I have access.. And there is kind of a need, unless you feel like going unemployed. I doubt anyone will want to hire a person who deviated from their company's SOP in the past, that spells "untrustworthy" in many shapes and forms.

 

Okay. but just saying, if you were to try, have fun sitting on the ramp filling out paperwork.

Ohh!! So you did a pre-flight checklist. I think the question is if we can pilot the airplane. Not just start it. Lol.

I'm not sure if you're being serious, but the preflight checklists and preflight procedures are different, with the latter including the former. Performing preflight procedures correctly (i.e., setting up the aircraft correctly) is just as important as flying it correctly, especially since a good amount of programming required for automated flight is performed before takeoff. You don't like to use the autopilot, but all B737 pilots use the autopilot more than they fly manually. In any case, a properly set up autoland will be more reliable than a flight simulator enthusiast's first attempt at landing during an emergency involving the real aircraft.

Alright Kyle, this is costing me my Christmas bonus this year, but I've just chartered a 737-800 out of Dulles (company name withheld). The pilots have both agreed to let you fly it by yourself, albeit grudgingly and only after I bribed them with VIP passes at the Hooter's in Alexandria. This is your chance to put up or shut up as the saying goes.

 

Sadly, the first point at which your story fell apart is when you said "Hooters of Alexandria." There isn't one.

If you're curious as to why I'd know such seedy information, I have a sister who works weekends for one in the area.

 

Meet me at Landmark Aviation out at KIAD at 3:00pm and tell Erin at the front desk who you are. This should also give you plenty of time to finish your meeting at MITRE. That is, unless your SCARED and don't show up.

 

The meeting was at the Command Center, at 1...which, if you know anything about the FAA, a meeting lasting only an hour (leaving 45 min to get back up to IAD from Warrenton) is quite laughable...

 

My mention of MITRE is that they have sims there. It would've saved you all that bonus money. Pity...think of all the sim time that could've been had!

 

...and by the way...when I dropped by the airport on the way home, the only planes of note at Landmark were a C-17 and a Do-jet. My buddy who works the ramp there saw no 738 since he got there at 1400.

 

...and thanks! That stop allowed me to catch up with him since he just got his PPL recently, and the stop at the airport counted as "official airport business" so I got to ride on the inner portion of the Dulles Access/Toll Road on the way home. Saved me $0.75!

 

#winning!

 

Kyle... you really need to be more careful posting such blanket statements as this. See FAR 91.503

 

However, you seem to be referring to a Part 91 operation not involving Large aircraft etc... It would be good for you to review this: What is the FAA policy for carrying current charts?. Pay particular attention to ¶ #5 and the last sentence from that question.

 

Rob,

 

I honestly believe that it is better for people to know the difference between what is required and what it smart. I believe it is better for someone to know that it is smart to carry a chart, not because the FAA requires you to, but because it could help you. You'll note that I didn't actually make a blanket statement. I never said they were never required. In fact, I never even said anything in the negative. I simply said "everyone seems to think that they're required at all times." Most people do, in fact. And you're right. They are required in certain situations, which is why I didn't follow those points up with anything further. It's for the same reason that I didn't simply state "everyone seems to think that they're required." Rather, I added that "at all times" for a specific purpose.

 

Nothing blanket about that.

 

So... "for all intents and purposes" they are... and no student of mine ever flew w/o one or knowing the importance of having "said" current chart(s).

 

I don't agree with that statement, at all. I understand precisely why you're saying it, and that you're correct in your assertion that common sense would mean that you would, but they simply aren't required at all times. I'm not trying to argue that you wouldn't be held accountable if you were in an accident and a map could have helped you (as in the example in the link - that I also often use when describing this situation). I'm arguing that the regs don't require it. That's it.

 

You, yourself, as the pilot in command, being responsible for all aspects of the operation of that aircraft should require it of yourself.

 

My father always taught me his own definition of "dead right."

When I got my motorcycle license, he reminded me of the things he taught me when I was younger. Even if you have the right of way, always check. As a pedestrian, you might have a walk signal and the car may have a red light. If he hits you, he's 100% at fault, but you'll also likely be 100% dead. Same goes with riding a motorcycle. You may have right of way, but in the competition between bike and car - car normally wins. And in the following headliner fight between you and the road, the road almost always wins.

 

You could be operating 100% legally, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't take your own precautions.

 

My only reasons for pointing out that charts are not required in all situations isn't to say you shouldn't use them. It's to foster your own sense of safety for your own reasons. When people take the initiative on their own, they are likely to carry that initiative further than they would if it were shoved down your throat.

 

Just as a little bit of proof here. Here's a picture of the contents of my pilot bag that I used when reviewing the bag I bought for my blog, and the designer's own website. You'll note the sectional is still in there (and a TAC, usually, but I had given it to a pilot who just moved to the area), despite the iPad rendering it useless in most normal situations:

It's not so much about getting it all started up from "cold and dark", because in real life, that doesn't mean anything. It's more about doing your flows the right way, in the right scenario, and following your company's SOP. I kind doubt anyone on this forum will be able to, unless they have 737 experience IRL. How many of you guys shut off your A system hydralics before tow-bar is connected?

 

A system hyrdalics pressurise the nose gear stearing, so therefore, pushing and turning an aircraft with it's nosegear steering pressurized will cause a great amount of injury and damage.

 

Umm... Really? This is why the torque links are disconnected when pushing or towing an aircraft, so that something expensive doesn't bend, sys A running or not. Sorry, that might have come across too harshly, not meant, but that is procedure in many cases.

 

Kev

Heck no!!!!!!!!!!!!! You're crazy if you think a third-rate computer game can teach you to fly an airplane with any semblance to reality. FSX has flaw after flaw in terms of aerodynamics modeling, and quite franky the PMDG NGX is over-hyped crap in this department as well; all this in spite of what the pretend pilots and Fan-boys claim here.

 

In terms of properly modeling drag and ground effect, the NGX is a complete joke on landing approach and flare compared to the real aircraft. It's a crappy computer game made to entertain people what don't know any better or care.

 

If you were to try to land a real 737 based solely on your experience with PMDG products, you would die.

 

Wow... Wow. Who the... What the..??? First, I can actually afford to take Kyle someplace nicer than the alleged VIP at Hooters. Second, I know firsthand what it's like to act like a ###### on a forum and be seen as one... And having been truly outdone by your post, my hat is off to you. I feel like others will see my rants in a much kinder light, having read this... post. I'm speechless. Having experienced +9 G's in fixed wing aircraft, having performed a double aileron roll in a Piper Tomahawk, having been fired upon by hostiles while changing an engine on a C-141B in a foreign nation, having experienced so many other things, I just feel like I'm so diminished by your presence.

 

All said from the much-experienced crap-flying fanboi pretend pilot who might not be a real pilot (thanks to the said aileron roll stunt). Hater.

 

BTW, I had to add that PMDG's team is probably smarter than you.

Doubtful, I flew the DA-20 and C172 in the sim and once I started to train on the real planes the handling and experience is much different than in the sim. Sure we may know how to manipulate the systems but that's the only thing the NGX can help with.

Exactly, probably the most insightful post of them all. You will never be able to test the theory on a real 737 but you can certainly test it on a Diamond, a Cirrus, a Cessna, etc. Get very proficient in one in FSX (preferably pick something advanced like a Cirrus) and then head to your nearest club/airport and try to handle a real one, we will see how far you go. No doubt you will do much, much better than someone who never piloted before but I bet you won't be able to make your first unassisted landing without your instructor grabbing controls at some point. The reason for that is that in real life your sense are bombarded by so much extra data/emotions, so many fears which simulator environment (even level D) can never replicate.

 

I like to compare the problem to a tightrope walking. There is a good chance you can do it in a very controlled environment - say in your room or in your backyard provided the rope is a couple feet off the ground, but you will (most likely) fail when you attempt to do it on a rope stretched between two skyscrapers.