A lot of the negativity towards sim being useful rw is based on the idea you're flying the default 737 with a keyboard whilst doing barrel roles - quite different from what we do here.

 

No... it's the lack of humility on display here from people with little to no experience in RW Aviation.

As one with little to no experience in RW aviation, I keep hoping for some input from a RW commercial airline pilot who could talk about the transition from simulator to RW in a 737 or similar aircraft.

hahah, I once asked myself if I could do that... well...

 

after months of Cold and Dark flights in the NGX,

me and my friends went to a static 737NG simulator

(ANAC certified!) here in Sao Paulo...

 

lighting up the bird is really like in the FSX version,

but hand flying it is not that easy, as we tought...

 

we all left the place a little "frustrated"!

 

here you can see me "landing" the bird at SBRJ,

struggling with the rudder pedals...

 

 

please don't forget that I am not a real life pilot,

nor a student, just a simmer like most of us,

and I had 8 more simmers with me in the cockpit...

 

honestly...

I think we couldn't take the real 737 off the ground properly,

but in an emergency (I know it is a daydream) we could handle it...

 

Talek... now the question is:

do you know where the fuel tank cap is located? haha

Hand flying a 737 is not hard. Flying in general is not hard. The tough part comes when conditions are bad or you get lost and disorientated.

 

Simmers learn bad flying habits on FSX and can end up over controlling when faced with the real thing or a full flight sim. I Apart from keeping straight on takeoff, I rarely touch the rudder in an,airliner sim unless there's an asymmetry or a crosswind to cope with.

Why hand flying the 737 ? just prepare the FMC and admire the sky there is nothing to do !!!

you only rotate the plane when taking off and brakes when landing.

Why hand flying the 737 ? just prepare the FMC and admire the sky there is nothing to do !!!

you only rotate the plane when taking off and brakes when landing.

If you were faced with an emergency it could quite possibly be necessary to hand fly the a/c. With both pilots incapacitated it would be necessary to immediately divert. It's unlikely that you coming in from the cabin would know exactly where the a/c would be and how the fmc had been programmed. Real pilot: ditch it get in touch with ATC, declare a Mayday, and with or without the AP's help get it down safely at the earliest opportunity. So no you don't only rotate and brake!!!

If you were faced with an emergency it could quite possibly be necessary to hand fly the a/c. With both pilots incapacitated it would be necessary to immediately divert. It's unlikely that you coming in from the cabin would know exactly where the a/c would be and how the fmc had been programmed. Real pilot: ditch it get in touch with ATC, declare a Mayday, and with or without the AP's help get it down safely at the earliest opportunity. So no you don't only rotate and brake!!!

 

I'd 'know exactly where the aircraft would be' - look at the ND and the legs or progress page of the FMC. I'm not aware of any sim limitation in this regard. Anyway, that's 'navigate', and it could wait.

 

I wouldn't immediately divert - I'd get the plane flying level, get the mcp set, check that we're clear of terrain.

 

Once I was 'aviating' I'd start 'communicating' - asking for as much help as I could get.

 

The 'only rotate and brake' comment is actually how I would approach things. Because I don't have any RW 737 stick time I think the safest approach is to use the MCP for anything I can.

 

My real interest here is what the limitations of the sim is. I don't like blanket statements like 'using flight sim teaches you bad habits'. I want to know what the potential 'bad habit' is - e.g. the way some flight simmers trim - so I can avoid it.

 

Question: why is overcorrecting a problem? Is this badly modelled on the NGX? Is this not something that could be ameliorated in the yoke sensitivity settings?

 

 

Were those accidents 'stupid'?

I wasn't implying that, but could imagine many people reading the reports and reacting in disgust at the "stupid" violations of seemingly basic aviation safety aspects (CRM, stall recovery, terrain avoidance, etc.) . I would prefer referring to the incidents more respectfully (e.g., "unfortunate instances of pilot error").

 

Question: why is overcorrecting a problem? Is this badly modelled on the NGX? Is this not something that could be ameliorated in the yoke sensitivity settings?

Over-correction can quickly lead to an unstable approach and potential crash / loss of control. I personally think that it is easier not to over-correct in flight simulator (at least with the PMDG B747). In the case of a manual approach with ILS guidance from 2500 ft in typical weather, I barely have to make large inputs, and almost never have to raise the spoilers. Perhaps flying a Boeing with a joystick can increase the tendency to make large corrections. Meanwhile, in real-world videos, it seems that pilots are always using the spoilers for roll control during approach. Perhaps this is an animation or weather issue. (My yoke sensitivity is set to one notch below the maximum, but my Saitek yoke is less sensitive on the right side.)

As a rw pilot with a few thousand hours in numerous aircraft, I can say with confidence the probability of a successful hand flown approach in a 737 is close to impossible and would likely end up in a lot of lives lost.

 

In an emergency situation where mechanical factors are present and you only had one opportunity to land, the chances are very slim.

 

If you were not in an emergency situation and took the aircraft at altitude on autopilot, and setup for an autoland, you would have much better chances.

 

Throw in rerouting by ATC, a little weather, and a late descend release requiring you to get down in a hurry, your chances go back to pretty slim.

 

Both Flying and AOPA Pilot Magazines have done articles on this using active GA pilots with varying degrees of experience, putting them in a level D simulator. Even a highly proficient pilot of a twin turbine didn’t succeed on his first two tries.

There are so many more elements to landing a 737 than even the highest time PMDG 737NG driver could ever know. And the last place to you want those surprises is on final.

Question: why is overcorrecting a problem?

 

As Owen mentioned, it can result in an unstable approach, among other things.

 

Here's an example of my buddy flying (I'm sitting in the right seat as his safety pilot because he's under the hood):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5Egkabd8dOs#t=220s

 

You can see in the time lapse very clearly that he's over-correcting, pushing himself off course, over-correcting in a different direction, and then getting off course in another way. Simmers have a nasty habit of being short-sighted and over-reliant on the gauges. Since my friend doesn't have a lot of time under the hood, he falls victim to a lot of the same issues simmers fall into when stuck on gauges and stress.

This is an extreme example of what might happen if overcorrection occurs (observe the wind sock):

 

I started a thread about overcorrection awhile ago. Taking the weather conditions into account, would you guys say that this A320 approach (please start at 8:45) shows overcorrection? What about this

?

Bear in mind that control inputs do need to be quite positive on final because the airspeed is lower, so the control surfaces become less effective. What might look like 'over correction' in a video that doesn't take in the whole view could be an illustration of that. It takes a bit of getting used to. You don't get that feeling at cruise speeds. Unlike a student pilot, a first time NGX 'trained' 737 lander doesn't get the chance to spend time with a dirty airframe at the stall end of the envelope at a nice safe height with someone else ready to shove the nose forward and stomp on the rudder if they foul it up.

 

It's possibly less so for FBW, dunno. Moot point in this case.

 

I suspect 'pilot error' is still an over-used reason for incidents as they're the easiest targets. Root cause analysis often stops at the easiest, most pallettabe, not necessarily right answer...

 

Back on topic, I'm still with 'no'. But if needs must, in the words of Yoda 'there is no try'.

Ok, i've watched the vids.

 

What I take from this is that a non-pilot (Mr Borgetti) can perform a (slightly messy) landing on a Level D sim that everyone walks away from. Whilst I think he needs to work on his 'sterile cockpit' technique, I actually think that's the best evidence yet that a simmer could actually pull this off. Remember, he's hand flying this, which in my Plan A is not part of the equation.

 

We also heard above that GA pilots in a level D sim failed. What that would seem to suggest is that NGX training is more useful than GA training for landing a real 737. This makes sense. Piloting a cessna dosn't teach you how to use an mcp or the cdu - and with these two sorted, your stick and rudder skills aren't all that important.

 

Someone with lots of flight time (sorry, forgetting the names of who posted what) posted above that landing a real 737 was completely different. Be specific - start with one difference that training in the NGX in no way prepares you for. I'm figuring the procedures to set up an autoland are spot on, as we can fly this plane from the Boeing manuals.

 

And finally, the issue of overcorrection. To clarify, I was asking why it was a problem that simmers developed. From Scandinavian's comments it seems this is a problem he sees in people who are relying on instruments too much. As simmers may look at their instruments too much, this leads to bad habits. That seems pretty simple to me - when using your sim, use it like you do your real plane - look outside. Surround monitors would seem to make this less of a limitation (and also help with the other common complaint that fsx doesn't give you good spatial awareness).

 

For me, the important thing is to know the actual limitations of the simulation - which helps prevent you from learning bad habits. People say "flight simmers do x wrong". I suggest that is not a problem of the simulator - it's a problem with how the user is using the simulator.

 

Meanwhile, in real-world videos, it seems that pilots are always using the spoilers for roll control during approach. Perhaps this is an animation or weather issue.

 

More than likely, you're seeing the flight control system using the spoiler deflection as a "spoileron". This is common in most modern large aircraft and military jets.

Bear in mind that control inputs do need to be quite positive on final because the airspeed is lower, so the control surfaces become less effective.

At least with the Level-D B767 and PMDG B747, I find flying at lower speeds (e.g., approach speed) to be more comfortable—while I understand your logic, it seems to me that there is a smaller chance of the aircraft reacting abruptly or uncontrollably to your inputs at lower speeds.

 

 

I suspect 'pilot error' is still an over-used reason for incidents as they're the easiest targets.

There are certain incidents where the conclusion by the investigation was debatable or questionable, but for the incidents described here, it is quite clear that they involved significant pilot error. While we shouldn't place absolute trust on machines (i.e., "they never make mistakes"), we shouldn't be too humanistic while analyzing aviation incidents either—it's a different form of bias.

 

More than likely, you're seeing the flight control system using the spoiler deflection as a "spoileron". This is common in most modern large aircraft and military jets.

I did not mean extending the speed brakes using the lever; rather, I meant rolling the yoke to a degree where the ailerons can not satisfy the roll demand and the spoilers must be used in conjunction. Regardless, such use of spoilers suggests a rather large or sudden input.