pilot the NGX 737 cold and dark to cold and dark perfectly ?

 

if no tell me why

 

 

Perfectly? I would have to say no way. Possible? maybe, it depends on how realistic you are when you are simming.

Remember, in real life, runways have slopes, different widths of runway, and it creates all sorts of illusions making landing harder.

Wind is another factor, winds are almost NEVER the same going down to land, wind always changes when descending.

VNAV is NOT perfect in the real aircraft. program the FMC with the wrong winds, or inaccurate wind charts and you could very easily end up high on approach, and the 737 is a very slippery aircraft, it is very hard to get down and slow down at the same time.

 

Just a small notice, if you rotate the aircraft in the perfect way, with flaps 1 you have a tail clearance to the ground of just 1 feet in the 800..... now if you don't do it correctly there is a very big chance of smashing your tail on the runway...

 

Now, for the landing. Without any experience in flying any type of real aircraft i think it would be almost impossible for you to land a 737 manually.

 

I've noticed two things that are quite different from the PMDG NGX and the real aircraft.

1. There is larger pitch vs thrust changes in the real aircraft. ie, when adding thrust the nose wants to go up, and it really wants to go up!!

2. When flaring in FSX the NGX doesn't mind if you close the thrust fast or to high, because it would just float over the runway for hundreds of meters. Do that in the real aircraft and it comes down very quickly, especially with flaps 40

 

 

 

Autoland? well yes then maybe

If you could handle a multi million dollar 737 simulater, you would probably have half a chance,with fsx not a chance, the rw pilots train for failures, more so than anything I have great respect for that

jeff

I've found that with software like ezdok or the opus camera system, the dynamic head movement they generate forces me to line up visually using the plane's flight motion and ground references rather then a point on the dash.

Interestingly, that is the reason I do not use dynamic head movement. It seems unnatural when my head is not actually moving—in a real aircraft, I could at least somewhat control the level of movement of my head based on impulse, and adjust it if necessary. Additionally, my FSX is plagued by the inertia bug, which involves the shifting and non-recentering of virtual cockpit cameras after single turns.

 

An old instructor told me during some my c172 training that in small planes like that you just put the centerline right between your knees.

In larger planes he said he would line up using whichever knee was closest to the throttles.

 

Isn't this logic conceptually the same as lining up a point on the glare shield with the runway, given that your head is in the same position?

 

I recall an episode from Mythbusters on Discovery Channel. They tested in a NASA simulator to see if they could land without having any previous experience, crash landed. Then tried with coaching over the radio, and were successful in landing.

But the Mythbusters were not active PMDG pilots. . . .

 

One thing no sim can recreate no matter how well its failures are modeled is the pit of your stomach seat of your pants feeling you get in the real thing. Be it a Piper Cub or a 747.

I can get pretty anxious when I imagine how I would end up in real life after one of my FSX flights. Just yesterday, I crashed the PMDG B747 for the first time in my cold-and-dark career (although the crash was most likely due to simulator error, not pilot error). I set the simulator to half-speed before the top of descent so I could eat dinner with my family. Upon returning, I found the aircraft climbing at 50 KT! I immediately disengaged autopilot, maximized throttle, and pushed the nose down to arrest the decay of speed. The aircraft then entered a steep dive through 12000 ft. Maximum pitch-up inputs were completely ineffective, and trim did not work either. At one point, I attempted flipping the aircraft in order to arrest the dive, to no avail. I was very unhappy with the flight because (1) it was my first indisputable cold-and-dark crash, (2) I wasted one hour of my time, and (3) everyone would have died had it occurred in real life.

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.

 

The only problem I had transitioning from a Cessna in FS2000 (yep that long ago) to flying the real life counterpart was getting it started Flying the real aircraft was so much easier than in the sim. Three lessons and I took off and landed as pilot in control. Just goes to show how different experiences one can have.

 

Flying a 737 is a vey different thing however, especially since systems are complex and things happen very fast.

My friend flies the 737-800, and he told me that after all the training in the simulator, nothing prepared him for the amount of feedback he got from the controls- I guess even a Level D simulator can't show you how it will feel until you've actually flow the real thing.

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.

I agree... i Think we could autoland it but as far as the 'Feel' right before you flare that might be difficult

My friend flies the 737-800, and he told me that after all the training in the simulator, nothing prepared him for the amount of feedback he got from the controls- I guess even a Level D simulator can't show you how it will feel until you've actually flow the real thing.

 

Exactly, that's why you do base training.

 

I do think one is capable of carrying out the appropriate flight deck checks and setting up the FMC etc. But hand flying with no experience, probably not. You'd probably find taxiing just as hard..

You'd probably find taxiing just as hard..

With FSX's poor ground friction simulation, wouldn't it be easier to taxi in real life, because it would be harder for the aircraft to drift/slip and one wouldn't have to worry about the aircraft stopping without a good amount of throttle? (This probably applies mostly to large aircraft.)

 

I do agree that it would be difficult adapting to the perspective one has from the cockpit of a real aircraft without nose cameras on the first try coming from FSX, especially during turns.

Rob took care of most of what I would've said, but I wanted to comment on some of the other comments being made.

 

Some people find flying very natural. As such, they'd pick up on it very quickly and could probably pull it off, though the passengers might not be so comfortable while they feel it out.

 

Using the metaphor from earlier, when I went to get my motorcycle license I had never ridden a motorcycle in my entire life (not as a passenger, or as the driver of any sort of motorized bike at all). I'd say that I picked it up rather naturally from all of my "simulated time" on a pedal bike over the years. As I'm sure some will likely point out that FSX lacks tactile feedback, and is entirely different from this scenario, I'll say the sim is a great proxy, provided you take the salt with it.

 

Example: I got my PPL at just over the FAA mins (40 hours). The anecdotal average is about 60-70 hours. I'd argue that a lot of my familiarity and overall comfort in controlling the aircraft, along with the navigational concepts (when it came to IR training), came from the sim. The sim did me a lot of good and I honestly believe that given the right person with enough of a drive to learn from the NGX, the plane could probably be brought down in one piece. At the same time, however, I believe that those people are very few and far between.

 

It is, however, a very highly variable issue. Controlling on VATSIM, I've seen quite a lot of sim pilots fail miserably, and those weren't even real life, stressed situations.

 

TL;DR:

Yes and no - depends on the person.

Real world professional pilots are trained to consistently land their plane, under varying circumstances, with a VERY VERY HIGH probability of a successful landing.

 

Without the correct training, the probability of a landing, without loss of life, is greatly reduced. At best, the plane would probably suffer some damage.

 

So, you may "luck out", you most likely will not --- some prior Sim experience will certainly improve your changes of survival, but probably a lot less than you would hope.

 

A major factor would be your ability not to panic, and to correctly follow instructions over the radio.

 

It might be every flight simmer's DREAM to get to be the hero, but the reality is, it would be a frightening NIGHTMARE !

It might be every flight simmer's DREAM to get to be the hero, but the reality is, it would be a frightening NIGHTMARE !

Exactly how I feel! Sadly, it is usually only wishful thinking.

Yes and no.

 

I used to work at ERAU at Prescott AZ with an A320 Sim. Tourists would visit the sim and try it out; We'd get parents of students just starting flight training who were interested in what their children would be doing, and we got local elementary school students ERAU was trying to get interested in aviation.

 

I sat and watched a group of 10-12 year old kids land the A320 sim at Pheonix Sky Harbor with no help other than me or my co-workers on the throttles.

 

Considering most of you know more about the 737NG than what is needed to safely operate it, I'm leaning torwards yes. While it's true flying in real life is vastly different from the sim, that effect does wear off and you "get used to it." - Ever flown a plane you're legally allowed to fly, but it's different from all the others you've flown? The first 10-20 minutes are pretty interesting, but by the time you're getting your clearance the effect has worn off and you're good to go.

 

I vote plausible.

I can't speak for the 737 BUT as far as the PMDG MD-11 goes, you'd be surprised. I've been lucky enough to have 3 hours in a full motion MD-11 training simulator at a major airline and it handled VERY similar to the PMDG MD-11. Out of the group I was in with, (all RW pilots of various aircraft) I was the only one that was able to land it each time without blowing a tire or doing some other kind of damage. Sure was a satisfying feeling! :smile:

Yeah, this comes up a few times. Testament to the software I suppose, that it makes people feel this way.

 

I actually fly 737's (800's I'm flying now are ZS-ZWA, ZWB, ZWC, ZWP, ZWS, ZWQ, ZWR) Been simming all my life. Depending on the person (ie hand/eye co-ordination, ability to adapt to the new reality and apply the experience they'd gained in FSX because the reality vs the monitor would be quite an overwhelming experience) I'd say it's entirely possible, especially if you decide to go for the autoland option. I'm talking 'they're all dead, help us!' vs 'Routine flying with a safe outcome 99.9999999 times out of 100' type scenarios of course. Flaring for landing would be...interesting....but I reckon you'd survive it. That gear is quite strong really! Reality is a little easier in some small ways actually (better control feel, better ergonomics with switches, better ability to see without restrictions of monitor etc)

 

Now MY question is whether A2A's Mustang gets me back down safely in a real one, given that I'm already a pilot with 1000's of hours in light aircraft (airliners aren't much help there!)