Can we pilot a real 737 if we can

[pete_auau 1,168]

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!!!

 

Since ng are flown by 2 pilots and now you got to do both jobs , so which seat do you sit in the captains or the co pilots seat? And iam sure you will be able to understand all the warning lights that may appear accompanied by the klaxton bells going off in the back ground. You probably say this may never happen but since your flying you got to know what to do when it does and correct the problem before it gets out of hand. So its just not so easy to say yea i can land the ng just because of my fsx siimming experinece. Besides how long does the co pilot spend in the sim before his even allowed to sit in the co pliot seat and they make mistakes as well whch are picked up by the captain.

[byork 2,260]

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

 

At least where I'm from, you can get a CPL with just C150 time... you can even get an ATP with just C150 time and a little bit of multi time in a small twin.

 

It would help you a bit I suppose as you won't be totally shocked by the view outside the window.

 

My own personal opinion: If you could keep your nerve -the hard part- and if you knew the 737 NGX's autopilot well, I see no reason you couldn't land the plane if you relied on the automatics for 99 percent of it and got yourself onto an ILS.

 

I wouldn't want to be a pax on that plane, but there's a reasonable chance you could pull it off.

 

Myth Busters did an episode on this... and the guys could land when talked down, and they had no sim experience I don't think.

[nathan2k1 0]

I suppose even many real world pilots can easily become distracted by ensuring that the plane is properly flying it'self - making sure that all the systems are working, that the navigation is on time and correct and that all the vital systems are working properly. I say 'distracted' but what I really mean is simply following the various protocols, checklists and other procedures which they are supposed to follow. What I noticed from many of the old air accidents (i've probably watched all air crash investigations i could find lol) is in many cases it appears this distraction can sometimes distract from a pilot performing his or her main role, which is concentrating on hands on manual flying - even if it is a 737 and not a cessna 152. I suppose that is why real pilots go through vigerous emergency scenarios, but I can geuss that maybe, being only human, a surprise element can effect even the most pro real pilot to a limited extent. I am sure the auto systems are vital because you wouldn't want to be sat trimming the aircraft and making adjustments on a long stretch all the time on a very long flight.

 

Like many have said on here, i suppose it depends on the person. The basic principles of the systems on the aircraft must be similar otherwise, there wouldn't of been much point in pmdg having a

group of real world pilots helping to configure / develop the software and test the final product. I say similar because i've never been in a jet cockpit, well tell a lie, one that is working and operational anyway.

 

Also, I agree that if you can use the FMC properly, in date, out of date, with changes or without, these changes are only going to be based mostly on changes to routes, approaches, runways and so on and so forth (data) - if you can use the fmc properly then recognising these changes shouldn't be difficult at all as is mentioned, these fmc's have been about some time in my understanding, so the basic layout and principles i presume are based on the same concept. Almoust like Microsoft Windows has been throughought the last 19 years of me using the various operating systems since the age of 10.

 

I've had two lessons in a light aircraft, I suppose it counts towards total hours towards the PPL (it is in a logbook afterall), simply with more money and better weather, I'd have thought i'd already have many more

lessons by now. Throughought the last few years I've been using Fsx alot, using the C152 and any PA38's I could find. With a proper looking cockpit, I did find that the instrumentation in particular

was very similar to the instrumentation show in fsx. When in my lessons, I noted that I was more familiar with the instrumentation and this was helpful, however.... when your learning to fly for the first time

and it is VFR, looking at the instrumentation all the time is going to distract from what you are supposed to be doing - making sure the aircraft is level (using your hand and horrizon), checking your banking,

looking out for other traffic, staying at VFR below cloud and speaking to ATC. Flying a 737 is different I suppose, relying on instrumentation is probably more vital as the aircraft is more sensitive,

moving the aircrraft around is more time critical because it is traveling faster hence it can climb and decend much quicker and it is bigger and heavier - every move you make is I suppose a more important move - so it must be right or constructively corrected.

 

In an emergency situation, I wouldn't expect atc to start asking a non real pilot to start going through the FMC and entering a new route and approach. I'd expect (i'd assume) that as suggested

the systems on board would be manipulated (the MCP heading, altitude, vertical, speed) could all be done manually and the aircraft vectored safely to the nearest or most appropriate airport. Whether ATC

controllers have pilots on call whom they can call to sit next to the controller to assist with guiding the aircraft in, again I would presume that would help - the atc being an expert in control and the

pilot being an expert in the aircraft.

 

I spoke to my dads friend the other night, i believe he is now a 737 captain or first officer, he said to me "you are never going to get real weather in the sim", meaning the actual weather of course and

the effect of all of these different forces on the aircraft. I'd have to agree. But the basic principles are still the same. The aircraft is designed when being semi auto piloted to make it's own

adjustments to the aircraft to ensure that it stays within it's safe limits. If it falls out of these limits, the auto pilot disconnects, would a non pilot know what to do to recorrect the problem

and re-engage the autopilot- depends again on the person.

 

Difficult question to answer, but i'd leave it to a 737 pilot training officer to comment lol.

 

I am jelous byork lol

[OzWhitey 3,353]

Pete,

 

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?

 

You sound like you think we're all learning by flying the Sopwith from FS2 or something!

 

@nathan, would agree with pretty much everything there.

 

Two comments:

 

Weather -mainly wind - is not simulated so well in FSX. But it won't be a factor if we're autolanding this puppy in any sort of realistic scenario.

 

Human performance factors often come up in these threads - 'you couldn't do this in real life because of the stess' (mentioned a few times in earlier posts). That's a gross oversimplification, of course. Individual humans react to stress in different ways - some will crumble under pressure, others will rise to the occasion. We talk about a 'stress-response curve', where you want enough aftenaline to be hyperalert but not so much that you are in a state of panic. Overall, simulation-based training increases the odds that a given individual presented with a scenario they've trained for will end up at the right place on that curve.

[nathan2k1 0]

Definitely rob, I would have to agree, I mean I am not sure how much simulator time pilots do actually do, but I know there is a space for it in the pilots log book for the sims that are certified by the relevant authorities so they must be part and parcel of training to some degree. I found flying around at 2000 foot in bit of plastic and metal to be relaxing and fun, whereas some others would be terrified. I suppose it is each to their own.

[nawarren 83]

Hi All,

 

I have worked on the 777 / 747 and 767. Having played with the FMC's on all these A/C and having never worked on the 737. It was very easy to operate the 737 CDU. There is much similarity between types and all operate following similar logical steps. Any software upgrades to FMC software would not change the operation for the user. So if the s/w rev number was a different version it would not make much difference.

 

If we are talking about taking over from an incapacitated crew say in the cruise, then most FMC data would already be in the CDU, route, weights etc. All you would need to enter would be vref speed. Or If you wanted to change the route to divert to a different airport.

 

I did get to spend some time on a 737 flightdeck the other day. It felt very familiar from PMDG. A real credit to the work they have done. One thing that will surprise most simmers who have never seen the real deal is the size of the PFD/ND screens. Much much bigger in real life, these would be far easier to follow than in the sim, due to the size limitations of the computer screen.

 

For what its worth, I would back myself to get it on the grnd in one (or two) pieces. Providing I had the following: good weather, plenty of fuel, a familiar airport with functioning ILS, and a serviceable airplane.

 

Cheers

 

Neil

[nathan2k1 0]

Hi neil, welcome and good comments.

 

 

Nathan.

[Sam 68]

No... we would be to busy worrying about CTD or OOM problems

[dmwalker 613]

Difficult question to answer, but i'd leave it to a 737 pilot training officer to comment lol.

I had said earlier that I hoped that a RW airline pilot would comment because I know there have been Airbus and Boeing pilots who have contributed to this forum and use PMDG products so they must take them seriously. I seem to remember one saying that he uses his to review some procedures.

[henri5 16]

OK, how about this? I am quoting from memory, so excuse any errors. Perhaps someone has more exact facts.

 

A few years ago, a Canadian pilot called Piche safely glided a 747 onto an abandoned runway in Manitoba when the aircraft ran out of gas at high altitude due to a mistake in vonversion of liters to gallons. I have read that a very high percentage (95%) of real 747 pilots who were put into this situation in simulators failed to land without crashing. But one of those whodid succeed was a thirteen-year old kid who had previously flown only computer flight sims. Assuming that this is true, it proves two things:

1) the probability of landing an airliner that has run out of gas by an amateur with only PC simulator experience is not zero;

2) The probabiity of a much easier safe landing of an airliner by an amateur is certainly much higher, and is certainly not equal to zero as some claim here. There are plenty of videos on the web showing this in "real" simulators.

 

Now some will reply that flying a simulator is different than flying a real airplane, to which I reply "sez who?". My understanding is that simulators are so realistic that they are used to simulate accidents in order to determine possible scenarios to explain the crash (such as the case where a simulator was used to prove that it was the Captain who purposely put the plane into a dive to kill himself in Indonesia). Stating that the stress in a real situation will reduce performance and prevent the amateur from flying correctly is begging the question - there are plenty of examples of people whose performance increases when put under stress.

 

Henri

[Swofford 155]

Was a 767. The Glimli Glider.

[Piggles 17]

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.

 

I think the problem here is you have made too many assumptions regarding what I actually said. Where did I say the autoflight systems were completely different in reality? What I said is using them is not an easy option, as it is in a sim. Most simmers land using ILS because in sims it is easier than hand flying. Flying a real ILS approach just isn't the same experience though, purely for one reason, it is REAL not SIMULATED. It is harder than a hand flown approach in reality.

 

Sims compliment real world training for sure. They are far from useless, or pointless.

 

They do not go far to prepare one for the real world environment of flying though. 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, but then again there have been cases of people with zero flight experience being successfully talked down, so nothing is impossible. (The skill though belonged entirely to those that did the talk down work)

 

What I'm actually getting from this thread is that some of the posters would actually be their own worse enemy, assuming ones ability/knowledge/experience is greater than it is in reality, never really mixed well with flying ever...

[nathan2k1 0]

I'd have to agree with the tone of your comments piggles, I am sure nothing could replace the real environment and everything which goes along with it.

 

I remember choosing my driving instructor back in the day, going over in my head which instructor I would be best suited to learning how to drive. Some took me around restrictive industrial estates, barely

if at all driving and mostly reading out of a theory book. In the end I decided on an instructor that knew what I wanted out of the learning and got straight into the action, that was basically, mostly practical driving - leaving most of the theory for self learning. When I heard about new proposals or suggestions made the other way about changing the licencing requirment for new drivers to not carry any passengers for the first two years of driving - it did bring along a giggle. My point was that you can't get experience of listening to people in the back of the car, different scenery and environmental noises etc (i.e. passengers in the car) without getting experience driving with passengers in the car - thus this leaves the idea a little redundant to me - introducing passengers to car with a driver that has never experienced passengers in a full two years could potentially be worse. Anway, back on point...

 

I am sure driving is not the same, but my point is very similar. You can only get better at something and gain experience by doing the real thing - so whilst sims (or some of them) and aircraft on them (or some of them) can compliment real training - they cannot be a replacement for the true thing - undoubtfully.

 

I think the only thing to be got out of the sim is familiarity with the cockput and interpreting the instruments to a degree. Which, I presume when real training is done in the sim, perhaps the screen is cleared

and the only thing visible is the instruments to fly the plane.

[Great Ozzie 101]

When I heard about new proposals or suggestions made the other way about changing the licencing requirment for new drivers to not carry any passengers for the first two years of driving - it did bring along a giggle.

 

This goes to Piggles' point about hubris.

 

No, you can't get experience with passengers not in the car if they aren't there obviously. What you should realize is you don't need the added distractions when you have very little actual driving experience. There is plenty on your plate for the moment. And two years of driving experience is hardly squat.

 

I thought I was a pretty good driver having been taught in a very good program... then add to that the Marine Corps giving me a secondary "specialty" of Heavy Vehicle Operator w/ an Explosives add-on. Then after 15 some years driving experience I was taught certain driving skills by our Sheriff's Department. Then I learned even more working as an Accident Investigator... all the stupid stuff people do and how it could have been avoided. And I will by no means now claim to be some expert despite the number of years driving and training programs received.

 

At any rate... for the life of me... I cannot figure out how having two years experience, then adding another distraction would go to making someone a "worse" driver. Of course, the benefit I have (hindsight) of training my kids to drive and number of folks to fly GA airplanes may give me what may be a false or errant perspective.

[nathan2k1 0]

Good points Rob - personally though i think it would be a waste of time - obviously we are moving off topic here but, i've not seen the statistics here in the uk on young drivers and accidents, some young

people are more mature than others, whether immaturity leads to accidents (concentrating on talking to your friends or other distractions) are a real cause of motor accidents here - at least enough to

bring in such a provision; I do not know.

 

On the other hand, one could claim that it would be a disproportionate infringment overstepping the mark so to speak; on the rights to social interaction with friends and others, and freedom of movement. Taking that into account from a legal point of view, would be a difficult balancing excersise. But again im off topic.

 

I know i've been driving since the age of 17, with currently 12 years 'experience', my actual ability to drive and experience doesn't feel as if it has made much difference to me personally in any way, although I am

continuely shocked at some others absolute disregard for other road users or damn right dangerous driving.

 

 

Nathan.