Can we pilot a real 737 if we can

[Humpty 751]

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)

 

 

 

 

Yep the PA-28, pretty close to a 152/172 i guess in rotation speed.

[Piggles 17]

Yep the PA-28, pretty close to a 152/172 i guess in rotation speed.

 

Yep not much in it, I think the PA-28 would fall somewhere between the 152 and 172, I think normal unstick (all things being equal) for the 172 is probably around 64 KIAS (not flown one for ages). 152 maybe a bit less say around 56 KIAS. So that puts the Warrior bang in the middle at 60.

[Kattz 132]

I have to make yet another flight from Detroit to Nagoya, Japan in a week... and back. To be honest, I wouldn't want to be the only person on the aircraft that actually knows what the MCP and CDU on the 747-400 I'll be on actually does and how to use it.

 

I'm humble enough to realize that if i was, through some horrible twist of fate, the person who got tasked to somehow be the person in the left seat, I'd give our chances less than 10%. And I've done my SEP ground school, some yoke time, and some stick time.

 

Over water, above the Arctic circle, having to get down in a hurry without a suitable alternate, that would just compound the issue. Add to that every alternate has less than a 7500 ft runway, bad vis conditions, and then in the midst of the panic going on in my head, where's the nearest divert that can support a Cat III autoland? Can I set this beast down without the survivors freezing to death afterwards? There's a lot more to this than how the sim stick feels; the Thrustmaster Cougar feels NOTHING like an F-16 in RL. I'd imaging my Saitek yoke feels even less like a 747-400.

 

I'd go with Piggles: Pitch, Aviate, Navigate, Investigate, Communicate, Secure. But if I only had 5 minutes to do it all and keep from becoming a smoking hole in the ground (or water), chances of success are less than nominal.

 

I still think the results are going to be bad, even though there is something to be said in that one of us would be far ahead of Joe Bag O' Donuts who has no idea where the radios even are.

 

Kev

[Ponk 51]

 

 

 

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!

 

I done that, went. To a flying school the first time I got a business trip to the USA, I had plenty time off. It was about 15 years ago, I had loads of sim experience at that time. The instructor asked me my experience, and since I wanted to do some flying rather than just sitting there I said I had a few hrs under my belt. So we started the walk around, I try to pretend I knew what we were doing but it was complete new to me! Started the engine, taxi, he said I had control and can do the radio to, ok, I took control but asked him to do the radio! Taxi was fun, easier than flightsim 98! Aircraft was easier to control. Turned toothed runway, full power and wow, pulling to the side, feed in rudder, too much, slight weaving down the runway, but at 65kts I eased the yolk back, in fs98 the aircraft would spring off the runway, but on this flight it just floated off, then it started bouncing around, like crazy, this is new! I concentrated on the instruments...too much, instructor told me to look outside more, got to cruise, a few commands from the instructor, steep turn, hold 2500ft, so I done it, coordinated, loosing and gaining no more than 20ft or so, instructor was well impressed! Landing was fun, spotted the runway from far out, a hazy day, approach a bit bumpy but no problems, stall warning and feel for touchdown, I had the toe breaks on at touchdown but no big deal. Instructor said I could solo very soon due to my experience, quite nice to hear after my 1st 20mins in a real aircraft!

 

I'm sure the 737 flight can be one....by some. My pilots in WWII were thrown into solo into spitfires after only basic training in a tiger moth.

 

I only took 4 driving lessons , my friend took 20. Everyone is different, I think it's a bit naive to assume it simply can't be done......

[Piggles 17]

I done that, went. To a flying school the first time I got a business trip to the USA, I had plenty time off. It was about 15 years ago, I had loads of sim experience at that time. The instructor asked me my experience, and since I wanted to do some flying rather than just sitting there I said I had a few hrs under my belt. So we started the walk around, I try to pretend I knew what we were doing but it was complete new to me! Started the engine, taxi, he said I had control and can do the radio to, ok, I took control but asked him to do the radio! Taxi was fun, easier than flightsim 98! Aircraft was easier to control. Turned toothed runway, full power and wow, pulling to the side, feed in rudder, too much, slight weaving down the runway, but at 65kts I eased the yolk back, in fs98 the aircraft would spring off the runway, but on this flight it just floated off, then it started bouncing around, like crazy, this is new! I concentrated on the instruments...too much, instructor told me to look outside more, got to cruise, a few commands from the instructor, steep turn, hold 2500ft, so I done it, coordinated, loosing and gaining no more than 20ft or so, instructor was well impressed! Landing was fun, spotted the runway from far out, a hazy day, approach a bit bumpy but no problems, stall warning and feel for touchdown, I had the toe breaks on at touchdown but no big deal. Instructor said I could solo very soon due to my experience, quite nice to hear after my 1st 20mins in a real aircraft!

 

 

I'm sure the 737 flight can be one....by some. My pilots in WWII were thrown into solo into spitfires after only basic training in a tiger moth.

 

I only took 4 driving lessons , my friend took 20. Everyone is different, I think it's a bit naive to assume it simply can't be done......

 

Sure many pilots flew Spitfires with very little previous flight experience, it was a war. ATA pilots would fly multi-engine types with nothing more than take-off, cruise and landing speed noted down and the pilot notes. 173 of them died due to either bad weather or lack of experience on type. The BF109 killed more inexperienced pilots in take-off and landing accidents than were lost in combat...

 

I think you just nicely illustrated what is wrong here. Faking experience, pretending to have more knowledge than one has and thinking you are better than you are all end up in one place in flying eventually.

 

I guess your instructor picked up on it and was saying nothing, they tend to talk about it on the ground with colleagues rather than the person they just flew with. Most 17 year old who jump in a plane with no sim experience pick up flying very quickly.

 

I wonder how you would have felt without the instructor next to you, who frankly was probably doing most of the flying with his feet. What you had was a perfectly normal trial lesson experience, exactly the same as many members of the public who have no sim experience at all. They all go away thinking they can fly, it's called good business.

 

 

Of course it can be done.

 

People who have gone blind in the cockpit have been talked down.

 

It's done like this, you check altitude, heading and speed, you turn the transponder to 7700, you contact ATC with a Mayday call, the structure includes flight experience. ATC respond with a talk down procedure. Depending on experience they will seek out someone for a full talk down. With any luck, you might live to brag about it.

 

What you don't do is jump in the seat thinking you can fly a 737 from purely simulated experience. Or make any assumption that you actually know what to do, which is the tone I picked up from many posters in this thread and have responded to. Because frankly, you will die.

[nathan2k1 0]

At the point in which the chief cabin crew ask over the intercom "are there any pilots on board", at which point no-one raises a hand, that is the point in which I would personally think about raising my hand

and saying i've got such and such experience in a light aircraft, if it means the difference between my kids living and dying, if the chances of getting it down in one piece are higher your damn right i am going to take that risk. Apart from that scenario and there are no PPL's on board, my mouth would be staying shut. lol.

[Piggles 17]

I think the most interesting scenario would be, experienced simmer puts their hand up, and so does a PPL.

 

I wonder how it would go, would they grease the thing in or die arguing in the cockpit! But most importantly who would want to sit in the left seat?? :lol:

[nathan2k1 0]

hahahah, i say hahahah but if it really happened, i'd like huggies to invent a new size.

[Piggles 17]

hahahah, i say hahahah but if it really happened, i'd like huggies to invent a new size.

 

Likewise :wink2:

[dmwalker 613]

I wonder how it would go, would they grease the thing in or die arguing in the cockpit!

It reminds me of the Korean Air flight which crashed because the pilot and co-pilot were arguing during the landing. Luckily everyone survived.

 

hahahah, i say hahahah but if it really happened, i'd like huggies to invent a new size.

You can buy yours now and be ready. They are made for seniors with bladder problems and, since the underwear bomber, they have caused no end of embarrassment at airport scanners.

[OzWhitey 3,353]

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...

 

 

OK, an earlier poster mentioned a mythbuster's episode where the guys werew talked down by ATC. I went and had a look at the video and it is interesting. Basically what I see is that Jamie (if I've got the right guy - and I think from another episode these guys have some RW flying experience in GA) was absoulutely clueless in the cockpit of a level D sim. He was freaking out over things that would be absolute second nature to any competent NGX simmer - for example, he couldn't work out where to find the aircraft's speed. And he thought the 'Don't sink' command was 'Don't think!' - which was not overly helpful.

 

Basically, his response was what I would have predicted - complete information overload in an unfamiliar environment resulting in a big hole in the ground.

 

If you've ever put someone - even with basic FSX familiarity - in the cockpit of the NGX you'll likely have seen a similar reaction.

 

Earlier in this thread you can see the opposite - there's a video of an NGX simmer flying in a semi-competent manner in an Level D sim, with no real-world flight experience at all. He's flying the plane manually - which I wouldn't recommend in our theoretical scenario - with some violations of the sterile cockpit rules occuring as he attempts to land (with his 7 friends watching/advising!).

 

re: "What you don't do is jump in the seat thinking you can fly a 737 from purely simulated experience. Or make any assumption that you actually know what to do, which is the tone I picked up from many posters in this thread and have responded to. Because frankly, you will die..."

 

Let's be clear, the chance that anyone here is going to read this and go 'jump in a 737' is pretty slim - actually, it's 0%. So I think we can talk about the potential utility of home simulation in aviation training without fear that some kid will buy a 737 with mum's credit card and come to grief!

 

I believe that the NGX has raised the bar in home simulation verisimilitude to the point where the technology is (potentially) genuinely useful for real world training. There is only a handful of sim addons that I'd consider in this basket - the Leonardo Maddog is another (I've heard that at least one airline uses/used it for systems familiarisation). People who haven't looked deeply into the NGX don't realise just how far simulation has progressed - compared, say to the default 737 which would prepare you very poorly for a flight in a Level-D sim - or the real thing.

 

In this thread, I keep hearing 'it's nothing like reality/it's just a game/you're dangerous for even thinking this/just dare to say this to a CFI/show some humility/etc, etc'...

 

Well, the challenge I put out about 100 posts ago was for anyone to tell me ONE - just one - way in which the NGX's modelling of the FMC/CDU and MCP - the systems one could use for autoflight - were different from the real NG, in a way that would make NGX experience irrelevant.

 

What I've got so far from 'Team Skeptic' is:

1. The FMC might have received an imaginary software update, making it work completely differently (um...no, aviation design doesn't work like that as has been pointed out by others)

2. The pilot might have had an epileptic fit, pushed the wrong buttons on the CDU and now it's scrambled. (um...OK...maybe if it was typewriter that would happen...a CDU/FMC...not so much...)

3. Lots of information about nappies/diapers.

 

So there you go. I'm throwing out the challenge again to those who say a fully experienced NGX simmer would have no skills to offer (in our hypothetical situation - relax everyone, they're no going to give you the keys to a 737 any time soon!).

 

Just to start, give me ONE way in which PMDG has either been unable to model the autoflight systems or got it wrong with the NGX (no seizures or nappies this time!)

 

Oh, and happy 2013 to all - I hope the new year brings you much sim and aviation goodness!

[Piggles 17]

OK, an earlier poster mentioned a mythbuster's episode where the guys werew talked down by ATC. I went and had a look at the video and it is interesting. Basically what I see is that Jamie (if I've got the right guy - and I think from another episode these guys have some RW flying experience in GA) was absoulutely clueless in the cockpit of a level D sim. He was freaking out over things that would be absolute second nature to any competent NGX simmer - for example, he couldn't work out where to find the aircraft's speed. And he thought the 'Don't sink' command was 'Don't think!' - which was not overly helpful.

 

Basically, his response was what I would have predicted - complete information overload in an unfamiliar environment resulting in a big hole in the ground.

 

If you've ever put someone - even with basic FSX familiarity - in the cockpit of the NGX you'll likely have seen a similar reaction.

 

Earlier in this thread you can see the opposite - there's a video of an NGX simmer flying in a semi-competent manner in an Level D sim, with no real-world flight experience at all. He's flying the plane manually - which I wouldn't recommend in our theoretical scenario - with some violations of the sterile cockpit rules occuring as he attempts to land (with his 7 friends watching/advising!).

 

re: "What you don't do is jump in the seat thinking you can fly a 737 from purely simulated experience. Or make any assumption that you actually know what to do, which is the tone I picked up from many posters in this thread and have responded to. Because frankly, you will die..."

 

Let's be clear, the chance that anyone here is going to read this and go 'jump in a 737' is pretty slim - actually, it's 0%. So I think we can talk about the potential utility of home simulation in aviation training without fear that some kid will buy a 737 with mum's credit card and come to grief!

 

I believe that the NGX has raised the bar in home simulation verisimilitude to the point where the technology is (potentially) genuinely useful for real world training. There is only a handful of sim addons that I'd consider in this basket - the Leonardo Maddog is another (I've heard that at least one airline uses/used it for systems familiarisation). People who haven't looked deeply into the NGX don't realise just how far simulation has progressed - compared, say to the default 737 which would prepare you very poorly for a flight in a Level-D sim - or the real thing.

 

In this thread, I keep hearing 'it's nothing like reality/it's just a game/you're dangerous for even thinking this/just dare to say this to a CFI/show some humility/etc, etc'...

 

Well, the challenge I put out about 100 posts ago was for anyone to tell me ONE - just one - way in which the NGX's modelling of the FMC/CDU and MCP - the systems one could use for autoflight - were different from the real NG, in a way that would make NGX experience irrelevant.

 

What I've got so far from 'Team Skeptic' is:

1. The FMC might have received an imaginary software update, making it work completely differently (um...no, aviation design doesn't work like that as has been pointed out by others)

2. The pilot might have had an epileptic fit, pushed the wrong buttons on the CDU and now it's scrambled. (um...OK...maybe if it was typewriter that would happen...a CDU/FMC...not so much...)

3. Lots of information about nappies/diapers.

 

So there you go. I'm throwing out the challenge again to those who say a fully experienced NGX simmer would have no skills to offer (in our hypothetical situation - relax everyone, they're no going to give you the keys to a 737 any time soon!).

 

Just to start, give me ONE way in which PMDG has either been unable to model the autoflight systems or got it wrong with the NGX (no seizures or nappies this time!)

 

Oh, and happy 2013 to all - I hope the new year brings you much sim and aviation goodness!

 

Happy New Year!

 

I do understand where you are coming from. Remember I do advocate simulation. I also agree that a PPL would find difficulty finding their way around a 737 cockpit, unless for some reason they had studied it, used software such as NGX, or had time in a CAT D sim.

 

Personally there would me nothing there that I would not 'get' - in fact where I would be totally out of depth would be in real world airline procedures.

 

But it is all irrelevant, because in the 'situation' I would be instructed - and lets face it every time I've got in an aircraft more complex or significantly different to the last I flew, the same thing happened. Someone with far more experience than myself guided me to fly the plane, until I learnt to do it myself. I think if you search Youtube for PPLs landing airliners with talk downs, you will see they not only coped very easily, in many cases they completed a hand landing at the end with no drama at all, remaining totally relaxed and focused throughout. It is only a sim pilot who thinks they had to know already somehow how to do it all. The rest of us mortals rely on highly experienced sky god instructors to teach us. But of course the acid test is put the two subject in the AIR then see what happens. It reverses, now the PPL is in the familiar environment - the simmer though?

 

I don't think really you can just change the content of the thread. OP asked could they fly an airliner based on their sim experience. Since then that is what most people have responded to/discussed.

 

Is ngx a useful training tool? Probably, ask someone who flies a 737 if they find it so. You will find them on PPruNe. See if you can find one that got a job based on their ngx experience. But I never argued it wasn't a useful tool. Perhaps it is to real pilots.

 

I could list many tools I have found useful, Just Flights Warrior is very similar to one of the aircraft I fly regularly. It can be flown on the numbers, lands about the same, has approximately the same instrument fit and makes my life as a private pilot much easier. Similarly Photoscenery has helped me in the past with real world navigation and visual circuit familiarization. Simulating night flights helped me to get the night qualification, particularly getting in the habit of switching to instruments as ground reference is lost soon after take-off. It's all useful - but here is the big BUT - mostly I find it useful in conjunction with real world training. To learn a new procedure on the sim first then in the air, would waste a lot of my time, I probably would have unlearn a lot of it and then re-learn it properly. This is counterproductive, also there is a nasty habit humans have of falling back on what they learnt initially in a stressful situation or emergency situation... ...of course if I had an instructor teach me on the sim, it might help - but how many people flying ngx are being guided by a 737 training captain in their sim sessions?

 

Is it of any use to someone in terms of would they be ahead of the game as a pilot by using it with no real world experience - nope. Most airlines don't even rate CAT D experience as anything useful. In fact if you have a lot of sim time logged they probably will wonder what on earth is wrong with you to have needed so much time in training....

 

I guess though why should I worry, I'm now flying an F6 Lightning in FSX, clearly as an overweight aging Muppet I could easily have flown one. Taken the same G as a fighter pilot and also easily have operated a fast jet interceptor... have to go now, something is flashing on the AWP, I'll just need to pause it and make a cup of coffee and browse through the FRCs to see what I need to do next...

[vololiberista 205]

I think the most interesting scenario would be, experienced simmer puts their hand up, and so does a PPL.

 

I wonder how it would go, would they grease the thing in or die arguing in the cockpit! But most importantly who would want to sit in the left seat?? :lol:

 

If the PPL had instruments ratings as well then there's no question he/she is in control. He/she at least will be familiar with the feel of the a/c and would anticipate what the a/c would do follwing control inputs. The simmer is just reacting to numbers on the screen and probably won't be thinking ahead 10nm in front of the a/c. Nor would the simmer be constantly think the "what if?" The real PPL would also know instinctively when to take full control if need be and more importantly "be able to!"

[bpcw001 22]

At the point in which the chief cabin crew ask over the intercom "are there any pilots on board", at which point no-one raises a hand, that is the point in which I would personally think about raising my hand

and saying i've got such and such experience in a light aircraft, if it means the difference between my kids living and dying, if the chances of getting it down in one piece are higher your damn right i am going to take that risk. Apart from that scenario and there are no PPL's on board, my mouth would be staying shut. lol.

 

I'd strongly suggest you raise your hand even if there are PPLs aboard.

The average PPL person has no clue about the 737NG's systems, and applying Cessna/Piper-style flying/landing techniques might do more harm than good.

Just a thought.

[vololiberista 205]

I'd strongly suggest you raise your hand even if there are PPLs aboard.

The average PPL person has no clue about the 737NG's systems, and applying Cessna/Piper-style flying/landing techniques might do more harm than good.

Just a thought.

A good ppl might not know what buttons to press. But he/she would be able to "fly" the aeroplane. If a simmer made a mistake it's unlikely that they would know how to recover (having never practised recoveries in order to obtain their licence). A good ppl would quickly familiarise themselves with the cockpit layout, know how to get in touch with ATC (know what to say/how to follow their instructions etc) and would likely fly everything on AP. Failing that would be able to hand fly if necessary.

Someone who just sims(for however long each day) being interrupted by the cat, the wife, the telephone, pausing to go for p, is just not in the same league as a practiced ppl.