In fact I would go as far as to say that someone with purely sim experience is only marginally better off than someone with no experience of flying at all

Do you think that the person who has to do the talk down would only marginally prefer to be dealing with someone with sim experience who, at least knows where the important controls and switches are and what they do, rather than with someone with no experience who could easily misunderstand which control or switch the talk down person is referring to? That doesn't sound right, even accepting the probability that the simmer would fail anyway.

 

For a Boeing 737, which was in the original premise, would you say that someone with experience in a single engine Cessna would be marginally better off or much better off than someone with only sim experience, assuming he or she is being talked down?

on the rights to social interaction with friends and others, and freedom of movement

 

This is quite the attitude problem in the U.S. People here think they have a right to drive a motor vehicle. And here certainly no right to, as you phrased it, "social interaction".

 

And I do believe immaturity and inexperience are a dangerous combination that lead to automobile accidents. The CDC (centers for disease control & prevention) have stats to back that up. This (attitude) can be attributed to aircraft accidents as well. You might want to have a look at the section "Five traits were discovered in pilots prone to having accidents" in the FAA Risk Management Handbook

 

There was quite the debate about guns in this country and the risk in owning vs. society's expectation of safety... again... I cannot possibly understand how having friends in a car (social interaction) and the possible distractions they can create... that the "need" to have (them) can possible trump public safety. Then again... I cannot for the life of me understand why so many people think it is "ok" to consume alcohol and/or drugs then operate a motor vehicle. A year or two w/o passengers seems reasonable... tho I never put that restriction on my kids... they were "asked" to keep phones unused and mouth zipped shut to the extent reasonably possible for just that reason... reduce distractions. I have known some parents to make that limitation.

 

For a Boeing 737, which was in the original premise, would you say that someone with experience in a single engine Cessna would be marginally better off or much better off than someone with only sim experience, assuming he or she is being talked down?

 

I can speak to the "reverse" of this situation.

 

One interesting check-out I did... I had a guy who flew corporate (jets) - but had not been in a Warrior for about 10 years. It took around an hour... and he was a bit shaky for the first 10 - 15 minutes... but by the end of our time one could see he had complete confidence in what he was doing.

 

Smart guy... he knew his limitations and opted to get an hour of dual rather than go off on his own and tempt fate. An attitude of humility, caution and respect.

dang... double post.

Do you think that the person who has to do the talk down would only marginally prefer to be dealing with someone with sim experience who, at least knows where the important controls and switches are and what they do, rather than with someone with no experience who could easily misunderstand which control or switch the talk down person is referring to? That doesn't sound right, even accepting the probability that the simmer would fail anyway.

 

For a Boeing 737, which was in the original premise, would you say that someone with experience in a single engine Cessna would be marginally better off or much better off than someone with only sim experience, assuming he or she is being talked down?

 

 

Do they really know where the controls and switches are? Do they know how they feel when you operate them? To be honest I think they would prefer someone who was listening to every word they said, rather than someone who assumed they already knew what they were doing, which is what comes across from some posters here.

 

Just go to any flying school and say 'oh I have tons of sim experience' and see how the instructors react, most likely 'oh, ok, well we'll soon sort that out' - that is because they know a sim pilot will happily take off in VFR when it is entirely their responsibility to keep a look out for traffic and fly the plane by reference to the horizon, staring at the instruments, totally transfixed with them, without looking out at all - in the majority of cases.

 

My money would be on the SEP PPL to be honest IN A REAL plane in a talk down environment, simply because they know the environment. They will be entirely comfortable with the RT, won't think twice to confirm instructions or double check they understood correctly. They already passed the stage of staring down an approach looking at a runway in the real world in a gusting crosswind and thinking, 'OK I could seriously die doing this', but that never stopped them flying, they already have a capacity to remain ahead of an aircraft in flight and keep their nerve whilst carrying out complex tasks and learning new ones. Most of all they know how to judge their capacity and when they are becoming overloaded, whatever the plane or elements decide to throw at them. they are at the end of the day - pilots.

 

I think on the other hand if you put a simmer in a CAT D sim, they would do very well. I think the PPL might even lag behind a little if left to their own devices.

 

But in the Talk Down, the PPL will outperform the simmer with no flight experience in every aspect, but of course that is just opinion. At least they would not be surprised the yoke has at least 3 times the degree of movement than the one they have bolted to the desk at home!

So my Logitech attack 3 isn't accurate, darn it, I want my money back lol

So my Logitech attack 3 isn't accurate, darn it, I want my money back lol

Maybe not realistic for Airbus aircraft, but certainly quite accurate. I find that my Logitech joystick is much more precise than my Saitek yoke. For such a (comparatively) cheap price, it seems to be a good deal.

Maybe not realistic for Airbus aircraft, but certainly quite accurate. I find that my Logitech joystick is much more precise than my Saitek yoke. For such a (comparatively) cheap price, it seems to be a good deal.

 

+1 I've tried loads of joysticks with sims and still mostly use a Logitech Attack 3.

An attitude of humility, caution and respect.

He sounds just like me.

 

Piggles,

 

Not trying to change any minds but I would think that a simmer's familiarity with the instrumentation would be quite an advantage because the talk down person would need frequent instrument readouts to know that such things as altitude, speed and direction are what they need to be.

Not bad for the price, can't grumble I suppose then. Tried the saitek last year, it wouldn't aline properly so took it back to pc (I haven't got a clue about pcs I just work here) world. Besides that, no spare room for all that simulator kit. Make do I must lol

 

Can the pretty young lady land the beasty....

 

Can the pretty young lady land the beasty....

Well, that's not really good evidence, as she is someone with no PMDG-complexity experience.

He sounds just like me.

 

Piggles,

 

Not trying to change any minds but I would think that a simmer's familiarity with the instrumentation would be quite an advantage because the talk down person would need frequent instrument readouts to know that such things as altitude, speed and direction are what they need to be.

 

Not if they have them identified on radar, it would be the other way round, the talk down person would be advising altitude, speed and heading, which they are reading off the radar screen. One would assume for this thread ATC arranged a 737 training captain for the talk down, so he would be advising which knobs to turn to which settings and where exactly to find them.

 

As per video posted whilst I was replying..

You're suggesting we won't understand the 'Klaxton bells' going off. Have you actually done much flying in the NGX, tried simulating some of the failures and read the actual Boeing manuals such as the QRH?

 

Yea i undertand on how to read the qrf and that but in due all respect its a sim and if you make a mistake well just reload the sim again and try it again.Try doing that at fl320 by yourself with no co pilot helping you to read the qrf and doing the check list to correct the problem, in the mean time your spiralling out of control towards the ground trying to read the qrf and also at the same time flying the plane how would you go?

The same way the guy flying the Navajo solo reads the map in IMC... with the AP on. I think some of the anti- crowd are getting a bit carried away with putting obstacles up without the need for them. There are enough in normal operation without needing to add hand flying in unusual ops to the equation.

A joe public wouldn't be concerned with any manuals as per piggies post, it would be the 737 captain doing the guiding down and mcp changes requests. As per radar comment as well, if squawk is in and set or even if not (do they call that primary radar) I presume atc would pick the flying monster up and be able to still detect heading speed etc and vector them in from thy ground. It is evidence of some form of joe public being guided in without any checklists etc.