I'm going for the fastest ever reply on Avsim as I just happened to be sat here when you posted!

 

PA-28 161 Warrior and Super Cub

 

I think everyone is on avsim 24/7 even in sleep.

 

what is the rotate speed on the PA ?

When both pilots have eaten the lasagna and the call goes out - my advice to avsimmers is mention your trivial amount of GA real world flight time first then tell them about your 800 hours of 737 PIC time whilst coughing during the word 'simulated'.

 

My advice would be stay in your seat..

...because planes do such a good job of flying themselves.

 

I've been asked nicely by the FA's to help out with stuff before during flights. In which case staying in your seat is kind of mean. But my main tip is get them to pause the inflight movie first - not fair if the pax get to keep watching and you miss the good bits.

I think everyone is on avsim 24/7 even in sleep.

 

what is the rotate speed on the PA ?

 

By PA I'm guessing you are referring to the PA-28 I would usually unstick it at 60 kts, or hold it on to 65 kts in a crosswind to get it off cleanly.

 

The PA-18 (Super Cub) gets off at about 55 mph - though one isn't usually looking, it's a different beast altogether and pretty much tells you when it is ready to fly B)

 

Your right, look at me still here, though I've actually been to bed and got up again at some point during the past 24 hours, I think.

 

...because planes do such a good job of flying themselves.

 

I've been asked nicely by the FA's to help out with stuff before. In which case staying in your seat is kind of mean. But my main tip is get them to pause the inflight movie first - not fair if the pax get to keep watching and you miss the good bits.

 

Well they must do a good job of flying themselves if you think you can land one after playing FSX...

 

Well they must do a good job of flying themselves if you think you can land one after playing FSX...

 

I would like to think that the (serious part) of the discussion we are having is somewhat more nuanced than that.

 

I'm actually seriously interested in this subject. The scenario itself is obviously theoretical - in the last hundred years exactly zero simmers have been called in to save the day, after all.

 

More interesting is the applicability of simulation-based training to real world aviation. More specifically, the question of: Has high-fidelity home-based simulation reached the point where it has potential use, particularly as a procedures trainer for commercial aviation? (I'm talking about the useful of the learning tool, not legal or EULA issues here).

 

I note you said 'FSX'. The verisimilitude of the default 737 is sufficiently poor that I can't see much usefulness of a 'default FSX-er' in the cockpit.

 

But this is the PMDG forum, so we're talking about the NGX. And preferably an NGX with hardware yoke/pedals/rudder, ATC programs, and plenty of realistic scenery and airport addons. With a pilot who has read plenty of the real boeing manuals that PMDG supplies, and is fully used to using the real-world approach plates. That's - or something like it - is how a lot of the more serious Avsimmers fly.

 

The question is where does the verisimilitude fall down? I don't think FSX is very useful for 'stick and rudder' flying - but it's not useless either.

 

But if I was trying to design a basic tool for learning how to use a NG's CDU/FMC system, for example - the NGX is pretty much what I'd be aiming for.

 

Now we all know the NGX is not 100% perfect. But you said in a previous post that based on your engineering knowledge the autoflight systems were completely different in reality. I'm not convinced, but I'm here to be educated!

 

Let's start by finding one part of the FMC, PFD, ND or MCP that is sufficiently different in a real life NG that it renders an avid NGX simmers knowledge useless.

we could go for ever going over the same points, but i willing to get another case of beer from the fridge

More interesting is the applicability of simulation-based training to real world aviation.

 

I think some of us are more worried about the applicability of video game based training to real world aviation.

 

Let's start by finding one part of the FMC, PFD, ND or MCP that is sufficiently different in a real life NG that it renders an avid NGX simmers knowledge useless.

 

A single software revision in the real FMC can put the simmer in a situation he can't figure out how to get out of. Just look at the number of questions on the forum about situations that are explained in the documentation that simmers can't figure out.

 

Hook

Pete, get your beer and hook, answer the darn question! Don't invent incompetent simmers or imaginary FMC revisions. Boeing has kept its FMC logic similar across multiple models and many years. You're saying that the NGX is different from reality based on some hypothetical FUTURE reality change where the CDU is so different that someone who understands it now can't use it?!!

 

All I keep hearing is 'it's not useful, and i would know because i'm an engineer/ppl/been on a plane/whatever.'

 

... and then the discussion goes back to the absurd 'so you think you're a pilot because you've played fsx - that's crazy talk.'

 

Read my post above carefully - with a beer in hand if necessary - and then tell me one thing wrong with what i'm saying.

 

Oh, and happy-almost-new-years eve all!

 

 

 

Sadly, child then followed up by mentioning that we'd recently been 'playing' flight simulator (and yes, it was NGX with FS2Crew). Stew rolls her eyes.

 

You should have also mentioned that you've been studying the QRH in preparation for the release of Emergency NGX!, and that not only could you land the plane safely, you could also handle an engine fire, hydraulic system B leak and an asymmetrical flap condition B)

 

I could just imagine the ensuing conversation in the galley...

 

"Rachel, keep a close eye on the guy back in 23 D... I think he's been drinking his own alcohol..."

You should have also mentioned that you've been studying the QRH in preparation for the release of Emergency NGX!, and that not only could you land the plane safely, you could also handle an engine fire, hydraulic system B leak and an asymmetrical flap condition B)

 

I could just imagine the ensuing conversation in the galley...

 

"Rachel, keep a close eye on the guy back in 23 D... I think he's been drinking his own alcohol..."

 

lol

Don't invent incompetent simmers or imaginary FMC revisions. Boeing has kept its FMC logic similar across multiple models and many years. You're saying that the NGX is different from reality based on some hypothetical FUTURE reality change where the CDU is so different that someone who understands it now can't use it?!!

 

Aw, Rob, I'm not inventing incompetent simmers. They tend to be self documenting on the forums.

 

Software revisions are a fact of life. Menus and such are changed around and people used to the old systems have to learn the features the new ones. This is even if no new functions are added. Someone who has memorized the manual for the existing system word for word can still get stuck if he's without documentation on a revised system with new or different features, even with similar logic. Besides, it doesn't have to be a newer revision, it could be an older one as well and have the same effect. Can anyone state with absolute certainty that the aircraft the simmer finds himself in will be exactly the same as the one in FSX?

 

You should have also mentioned that you've been studying the QRH in preparation for the release of Emergency NGX!, and that not only could you land the plane safely, you could also handle an engine fire, hydraulic system B leak and an asymmetrical flap condition

 

That's pretty cool. Would the existing simmers know what to do in these cases?

 

Hook

 

Aw, Rob, I'm not inventing incompetent simmers. They tend to be self documenting on the forums.

 

Software revisions are a fact of life. Menus and such are changed around and people used to the old systems have to learn the features the new ones. This is even if no new functions are added. Someone who has memorized the manual for the existing system word for word can still get stuck if he's without documentation on a revised system with new or different features, even with similar logic. Besides, it doesn't have to be a newer revision, it could be an older one as well and have the same effect. Can anyone state with absolute certainty that the aircraft the simmer finds himself in will be exactly the same as the one in FSX?

 

 

 

That's pretty cool. Would the existing simmers know what to do in these cases?

 

Hook

 

Hook, i don't know if you know but Bryan - as soon as he stops wasting time on posting on avsim and gets back to work - is finishing off a module that should be brilliant for the system failure/QRH practice that you ask about.

 

Bryan, if the stew had responded to the flightsim comment with a 'Thank god you're here...both pilots are locked in the lav and we have a hydraulic B system failure' - my response would have been "well we're all going to die then...because whilst I was hoping to practice this exact checklist with the QRH...this guy didn't get the program finished before my christmas vacation."

 

 

Two serious points:

 

With respect to the speculated software changes - i'm not aware of any change to the programming of the basic CDU functions during the life of the NG that alters the basic usabilty. From a design point of view Boeing's FMC is very similar throughout the 737/747/757/767 and I think the 777 as well. Not everything is in exactly the same place, but if you know one well you can find your way around the others well enough .

 

Secondly - I wonder if some of the home-simulation-for-training skeptics are using the frame of reference of flightsim as it was 5 years ago or so. The PMDG 737 is a potential paradigm shift in terms of systems depth. Bryan's about to bring something really interesting onto the market that's never existed before and, based on his previous work, it's likely to be highly realistic.

 

The usefulness of teaching modalities can change with time and technological advances.

I have been surprised at what I have been reading here... Many are almost saying that PC flight sims are a waste of time and have no bearing on the real world and that they are inaccurate. Most simmers even with limited aircraft type knowledge could probably find a way of landing in an emergency. Most could easily contact ATC and follow simple vectors fly using basic auto pilot inputs initially before taking control at a point early enough to get a basic feel during an approach. Assuming the right airspeed, flap settings (stall speeds normally shown on airspeed strip on primary display), attitude and altitude most would also have the sense as to land or go around.

I think the biggest barrier to overcome for most is simply confidence. Most modern airliners have control surfaces that work irrespective of the FMC - all you need to understand is what is going on around you!

The recent advances in PC flight sim, especially those from PMDG, have put many simmers in a totally new level of understanding and competency!!!

pay for my cpl and i'd give it a go ha!

Not everything is in exactly the same place...

 

And that's exactly what I'm talking about.

 

...but if you know one well you can find your way around the others well enough .

 

In a calm situation where you aren't distracted by things like, "Holy ****, are we all gonna die!?" or "...What was that noise?" or even "Wow, my first time in an aircraft cockpit!" Don't underestimate the difficulty concentrating in a stressful situation.

 

Even if YOU could do it, could I? Could the OP? Could the average simmer? Even if you can stay "ahead of the plane" in the sim, could you do it in a real aircraft, when it's your first time ever in the cockpit?

 

Hook

 

pay for my cpl and i'd give it a go ha!

 

Yeah, same here!

 

But we're talking about people without a CPL, without even a PPL, without even an hour at the controls of a real aircraft of any sort, and obviously not type rated on a 737.

 

Does this change the equation?

 

Hook