Can we pilot a real 737 if we can

[scandinavian13 5,192]

I really don't see what the big fuss is all about. Again, if flying were so incredibly different, aircraft to aircraft, type ratings couldn't be achieved in about two weeks. Further, those type ratings would be accompanied by something other than sim and classroom time for experience. The only difference is that sim has been certified by an authority, along with the training program.

 

Since the first aircraft I flew was a 172, my initial comparisons are based on that, but flying is flying.

When I got in a 152, it was a small, underpowered, slow 172.

When I got in a 182, it was a slightly larger, higher powered, faster 172.

When I got in a 207, it was a large, overpowered (STC'd engine), heavy-on-the-controls 172.

When I got in a Malibu, it was a larger, fast, heavy-on-the-controls, retractable gear 172.

 

Of course, as I flew each aircraft more, I started compartmentalizing each one of them as its own unique bird. To say I couldn't read up on a Pilatus and go take that out without creating a burning hole in the ground is a little bit of a stretch. Sorry, I know that's no 737, but I'm trying to go a little less theoretical here and go with something I'd actually have access to.

 

 

 

The reason we have type ratings is to create a paper trail and have a more reasonable assurance that someone went through the training. When I was a computer instructor, I went out and taught myself Microsoft Access by myself with books only, and no classroom training. I went and aced the Access MOS test with a 960 out of 1000. It's possible to self-teach, but you're not going to get away with that when it comes to people's lives in your hands. People want to see that you've been forced to sit through a class, and some official training first.

 

"But wait! Passing a test is one thing, but what about practicality?"

After taking said test, I was teaching Microsoft Access from level one (DB basics), through level three (security and efficiency) and VBA (writing customized macros/modules for better DB automation). So yes, I tested well, but I had to back that up with good classes in a practical sense, and was requested by clients because of my class history.

 

Similarly, when I worked the overnight at a flight school, I'd go mess around in the CRJ sim (FAA FTDL6) when things all died down for the night. Using our approved (at the time) type rating course's rubric, I would've gotten a rating. Of course, at that point, I'd still have to get IOE somehow (if we were being official about it), but I satisfied all of what was required. I just didn't pay for it, or sit through an official course.

 

Call me pompous if you'd like. It's already my reputation around here, unless I'm mistaken, so I'll take it.

[Airbus Commander 563]

I am surprised that you said "could (I) land a 737NG in the real world if push came to shove, then without a doubt my answer would be no." The answer for you, as an experienced commercial pilot would surely be 'probably yes, but with an unacceptable chance of failure, so I would not like to try in the real world.' We have seen in this thread video of a simmer with no RW experience landing a level-D sim whilst hand flying. So the chance of success for any pilot is clearly well above the zero percent you suggest.

 

I remember being part of a study done, must be 5-6 years ago at this stage, where a number of pilots from different backgrounds were taken, from GA microlights, to fighter jet pilots to recent ATPLs to 60 year old skygods, and we were put in a 747 sim, and our landing attempts observed. Everyone bar none flared too early, landed long, and ended up in the ditch. At that time I was an A320 Captain and must have had about 14k hours under my belt, and still screwed it up. I know some may say "Well you can do a type rating in 28 working days, landing can't be that bad" - all I'll say is that its the part that requires the most skill. As part of your TR you'll observe the other pilot do 2-3 landings, demonstrating to you how to do it, then you'll do some with second by second feedback and instruction from an experienced pilot. Then you'll do a couple on your own, and they'll be alright, but it won't be till after 30-40 landings that you've got it down to anything resembling standard. I spent 4 years on the classics, but that was 19 years ago, I mean, I spent 5 years in school and then a further 4 at university learning differential and integral calculus, but I couldn't differenciate anything more than x² at this stage. Just because I knew how to do it back then and had gotten pretty damn good at it, doesn't make me able to do it now. I mean, I could work the radios pretty good, I'd be able to check the tech log, I'd know the location of the switches, I might have a vague notion of the correct speeds to fly, but that's approaching my limit.

 

 

I would hypothesise that RW 737CL experience plus full NGX mastery would be a powerful combination.

I'm sure it's very strong, but whether it's strong enough I'd have doubts. Heck it's been 19 years since I've used a yoke...

 

 

Pilot out of seat - yes, I think we could do that but not relevant to simulation training or the scenario

It's rather difficult, trust me, it's part of our training, and that's without a yoke in the middle, of the floor, it could only be more difficult in a 737.

 

 

Most serious simmers are highly familiar with normal and probably non-normal checklists. The practical aspects of sitting on a flight deck for the first time would be of some concern when finding things not used in the virtual cockpit. Do you hide the QRH that well, though? Aircraft would have met MEL to flying so this is a secondary consideration I feel in the circumstances.

The MEL would be critical in terms of landing, the plane could have been dispatched with inoperative anti-skid, can simmers brake manually without anti-skid? A reverse thrust bucket could be inoperative, the simmer lands fast, thinks he'll make up for it by using max reverse, max reverse comes on on one engine and next thing you know the plane's off the runway and hurtling towards the fuel farm at 150mph. If a radio altimeter was broken that'd rule out an auto-land, and infact could cause an accident similar to the Turkish airlines one at Schipol if the simmer wasn't paying attention. Looking up the tech log before landing a plane would be critical to the success of the mission.

 

Other things could arise too, what happened if there was no ILS at the destination or only CAT 1, how would the simmer deal with that, being forced to land the aircraft manually.

 

 

 

As I said earlier though, I think that simmers would offer a better chance at landing an aircraft than most others, particularly if they're the full on simmer type. However I'd still not like to see the day with a simmer at the controls of a living, dynamic jetliner.

 

Regards,

Ró.

[TurboTomato 90]

I really don't see what the big fuss is all about. Again, if flying were so incredibly different, aircraft to aircraft, type ratings couldn't be achieved in about two weeks. Further, those type ratings would be accompanied by something other than sim and classroom time for experience. The only difference is that sim has been certified by an authority, along with the training program.

 

Since the first aircraft I flew was a 172, my initial comparisons are based on that, but flying is flying.

When I got in a 152, it was a small, underpowered, slow 172.

When I got in a 182, it was a slightly larger, higher powered, faster 172.

When I got in a 207, it was a large, overpowered (STC'd engine), heavy-on-the-controls 172.

When I got in a Malibu, it was a larger, fast, heavy-on-the-controls, retractable gear 172.

 

Of course, as I flew each aircraft more, I started compartmentalizing each one of them as its own unique bird. To say I couldn't read up on a Pilatus and go take that out without creating a burning hole in the ground is a little bit of a stretch. Sorry, I know that's no 737, but I'm trying to go a little less theoretical here and go with something I'd actually have access to.

 

Which is all well and good but proves nothing when it comes to the question of taking this hypothetical NGX simmer with no flying experience and getting him/her to go from cold/dark to cold/dark in a real NGX (which is the original question in discussion).

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Which is all well and good but proves nothing when it comes to the question of taking this hypothetical NGX simmer with no flying experience and getting him/her to go from cold/dark to cold/dark in a real NGX.

 

Are you kidding me? How does it not? The whole premise of that statement is that flying is flying, and while there are subtle nuances, it doesn't actually take hours and hours for you to get it right enough to live. Sure, it takes a long time to get it to the point of being surgical with the aircraft, but not to get out alive.

 

You're not going to get an answer to the question of the NGX versus NG argument. Attempting to do it is enough to get yourself thrown in jail, as you'd need to be a simmer only, with no experience to satisfy this scenario. That means you don't work for the airline, and in the act of stealing a jet, you're going to get legally hammered. Beyond that, even if you bought one outright, you couldn't legally operate it without any training in a real situation. Other than that, we're going to sit here and wait for the 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that a situation would ever present itself where both pilots became incapacitated and there was no deadhead pilot on board. As that's not likely to happen, you have to approximate using known, or more likely, situations.

 

In order to at least approximate a more realistic scenario, I took my experience using situations in which I didn't need any training or type ratings to jump from aircraft to aircraft. Additionally, you don't need to look far in the GA community, because there are several situations in which a non-pilot passenger (likely not even flight sim) landed things as complex as King Airs with zero flight time. It's more likely there because pilots are only required to meet Class 3 medical requirements, and often, there's only one pilot.

 

Just because you don't like my point because it conflicts with your ideas, and others' assertions doesn't mean it proves nothing. Statements in black and white like that don't really contribute well to any discussion like this. If you'd like to argue why my points prove nothing, I'm all ears. Until then, however, a statement of simply 'irrelevant' - having no supporting evidence - is not useful to the otherwise educated discussion going on here.

[TurboTomato 90]

Put it this way - should I listen to you (you can fill in the blanks here for your flying experience), or Ró, someone with 2 current TRs and a (presumably) lapsed TR on the 737CL?

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Put it this way - should I listen to you (you can fill in the blanks here for your flying experience), or Ró, someone with 2 current TRs and a (presumably) lapsed TR on the 737CL?

 

Fair question.

 

Remember, though, that as someone who has all that experience, there's a certain amount of pride that would be lost if someone without said experience pulled it off, so there's a disincentive to agree with that idea.

 

I don't mean that as a slight to Ró at all. It takes a lot to be in the position he's in, and in the battle between less experience and more, I'd normally defer to more experience. He wrote a very cogent post about the reasons why he thought it wouldn't work out for the best, and I respect his reasoning.

 

From a more psych perspective, however:

I played baseball from when I was 5 through 16. Over those years, I played in some very skilled leagues. To me, baseball was easy. I hit well naturally, and I was fast enough to cover all of the ground in center field, and to steal bases like nobody's business. If asked if anyone could play baseball, I'd say yes.

 

On the flip side, as a goalie in hockey for about the same amount of time (and the reason I stopped playing baseball), I was asked to play forward for a few seasons. The physical side was there, but the mental side wasn't. As a goalie, the mental side is defensive, not offensive, obviously. If asked if anyone could play forward in hockey, I'd say no. It took a lot of effort on my part to overcome my mental shortcoming in offensive strategy.

 

Bringing metaphor back to reality: if you ask someone who had to work hard to get where they are, they're likely to tell you that it requires hard work and special skills. Saying otherwise would cheapen their efforts. If you ask someone who didn't have to work as hard, they're likely to tell you that anyone could do it. That can be because of mental challenges, physical challenges, monetary challenges, or any others.

 

Just ask a Riddle grad who had to pay for school on their own, versus a Riddle grad who went on scholarship, or had it paid for by other means.

 

Again, I'm not passing judgment on Ró at all. His opinion is one that I value highly. I'm just making an argument that even expert opinions are can be biased. I see where he's coming from, but I don't necessarily agree.

[mikea76 184]

Alright, so I was asked by a member to give a few comments on this thread, so here goes. (Also bear in mind I haven't trolled through the whole 18 pages)

 

These threads pop up all the time and by this stage I'm starting to realise that I may just need to create a standard, one thing fits all answer that I can just copy and paste on here every 3-4 months.

 

So, my perspective on whether I think I could land a 737NG in the real world if push came to shove, then without a doubt my answer would be no. Now, also keep in mind that I actually fly for a living, that I've flown the 737CL for over 4 years (albeit 19 years ago at this stage) and have in excess of 3,000 hours at pointy end of one, and more if you count the time on the ground, time spent in the sim and time spent working on them as an engineer. Keep that in mind, when you think you're capable of landing one, when you haven't even got a single hour under your belt.

 

The fact is, I wouldn't be comfortable landing any aircraft other than my own, (well perhaps a A340/A380 if needs be), without the accompaniment of a training Captain keeping an eye over me. So if that's the case for a pilot with 24 years sat at the front end of aircraft, then I don't know how the opinions of people who've only flown it in the sim can differ. There's a heck of a lot more to flying an aircraft than sitting there pushing buttons, a monkey could do that, it's a whole different ball game to actually fly the thing.

 

Now, with that being said, I'd rather have a simmer at the front than your average passenger, yee know where the auto-pilot is and have a rough grasp on how it works. I wouldn't give yee a snowballs chance in hell at hand flying the thing, but setting up for an auto-land should be within the reach of a decent chunk of yee.

 

How many of yee know where the PTT button is? Could yee actually get an incapacitated pilot out of the seat? Could you get into the flight deck even? What if the aircraft is now out of radio range, what channel do you tune? Can you work the WX radar? Do you even know where the checklist and QRH is stored on a flight deck? What if something is on the MEL, can you review the tech log?

 

Then it comes to the fact that flying in real life is a totally different experience to flying in FS. There are bumps, bangs, shaking, the controls feel nothing like your Saitek yoke or Logitek side-stick.

 

I think it's a very cocky attitude to take that you could fly a airplane like this with no training, when even pilots who've been doing this for years wouldn't do it lightly.

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

100 percent agreed.. plus there is fear that factors in too.. Look at the skywest pilot a few years back that lost his mind killed his GF then tried to steal a crj-200.. He did not even make it to the runway and he was a crj pilot ...

 

Fear is a powerful thing. Even with autoland I would be terrified.

 

 

I used to think that if ONE pilot on a NG was incapacitated I could perform the PNF duties for the actual trained type rated pilot in the other seat but now that I think of it I doubt it.. In fact I would probably get in his way more than help.

[Doug Moldenhauer 3]

Only if you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express the night before. Really???

[Great Ozzie 101]

The whole premise of that statement is that flying is flying,

 

This very statement shows how little you actually know about RW flying. It is arrogant... and it is a type of attitude that leads to accidents.

 

It amazes me when someone the likes of Ró explains how "fraught with peril" this idea is... and some just cannot accept it. It is the difference between real world experience and low time / no time "pilots".

 

I think it's a very cocky attitude to take that you could fly a airplane like this with no training, when even pilots who've been doing this for years wouldn't do it lightly.

 

Absolutely... "unmitigated gall"...

 

I see here how "knowledge puffs up"... but guaranteed the world is there to cut you back down to size. The hope is... when you have learned a harsh lesson, you will still be around to pass on that lesson to others.

 

Bravado can well be tolerated here on these forums... but not in the captain's seat.

 

- R.

[TurboTomato 90]

Fair question.

 

Remember, though, that as someone who has all that experience, there's a certain amount of pride that would be lost if someone without said experience pulled it off, so there's a disincentive to agree with that idea.

 

I don't mean that as a slight to Ró at all. It takes a lot to be in the position he's in, and in the battle between less experience and more, I'd normally defer to more experience. He wrote a very cogent post about the reasons why he thought it wouldn't work out for the best, and I respect his reasoning.

 

From a more psych perspective, however:

I played baseball from when I was 5 through 16. Over those years, I played in some very skilled leagues. To me, baseball was easy. I hit well naturally, and I was fast enough to cover all of the ground in center field, and to steal bases like nobody's business. If asked if anyone could play baseball, I'd say yes.

 

On the flip side, as a goalie in hockey for about the same amount of time (and the reason I stopped playing baseball), I was asked to play forward for a few seasons. The physical side was there, but the mental side wasn't. As a goalie, the mental side is defensive, not offensive, obviously. If asked if anyone could play forward in hockey, I'd say no. It took a lot of effort on my part to overcome my mental shortcoming in offensive strategy.

 

Bringing metaphor back to reality: if you ask someone who had to work hard to get where they are, they're likely to tell you that it requires hard work and special skills. Saying otherwise would cheapen their efforts. If you ask someone who didn't have to work as hard, they're likely to tell you that anyone could do it. That can be because of mental challenges, physical challenges, monetary challenges, or any others.

 

Just ask a Riddle grad who had to pay for school on their own, versus a Riddle grad who went on scholarship, or had it paid for by other means.

 

Again, I'm not passing judgment on Ró at all. His opinion is one that I value highly. I'm just making an argument that even expert opinions are can be biased. I see where he's coming from, but I don't necessarily agree.

 

That is true but then having that view could invalidate the opinion of the only person who could categorically answer this - our mythical real-world NGX type rated pilot with experience of the PMDG product. I can only go on the opinions of people such as Ró and other real commercial pilots from here and other aviation forums when the inevitable topic is discussed - which is almost without exception 'no'.

 

If you want analogies it's like expecting me with my karting experience (look, it must be true because of my avatar! ) to jump into an F1 car (albeit already started for me) and produce competitive times, let alone not crash it.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Also, remember that Fred Smith was essentially told that his idea was laughable by all of those who were knowledgeable, experienced and respected individuals at the time.

 

World's largest air cargo company.

 

This very statement shows how little you actually know about RW flying. It is arrogant... and it is a type of attitude that leads to accidents.

 

Really?

I'm still here, am I not? Testament A that I'm actually a safer pilot than some.

If you spent any time around me and my methodical approach to flying, you'd then see Testaments B, C, D, E and so on.

 

Just because it was tough for you, or you have so many hours, does not mean that I am comparatively less safe. If anything, my realization that I have less experience drives me to be more safe both because I'm aware that I don't have the battle-hardened experience, and in order to prove people like you wrong.

 

It is the difference between real world experience and low time / no time "pilots".

 

It's really not. If that were true, how is it that people can pass checkrides at the bare minimum hours, while others take upwards of 100+ hours to even get a PPL? Some people can naturally pick up concepts, and others can't.

 

Don't take this to mean that I would simply accept higher risk because of that idea, however.

 

If you want analogies it's like expecting me with my karting experience (look, it must be true because of my avatar! ) to jump into an F1 car (albeit already started for me) and produce competitive times, let alone not crash it.

 

No. It's not. Nobody ever claimed that the person had to be competitive with someone who flies them regularly. The bar is simply set at "could it be done?" Which, in your analogy would mean "could you drive it without killing yourself?"

[TurboTomato 90]

No, the original question was cold/dark to cold/dark which is massively more than "just flying without killing yourself".

[dmwalker 613]

Again, I'm not passing judgment on Ró at all. His opinion is one that I value highly. I'm just making an argument that even expert opinions are can be biased.

If you are saying, or even just Implying, that his opinion is biased, then you are passing judgment, aren't you?

[Great Ozzie 101]

Really?

I'm still here, am I not? Testament A that I'm actually a safer pilot than some.

 

Codswallop.

 

An accident can happen at any time. Means absolutely nothing you have a few hours and somehow that insulates you.

 

I've seen a number of people do some incredibly stupid things and survive. They continue that path and an accident is "waiting in the wings".

 

If that were true, how is it that people can pass checkrides at the bare minimum hours, while others take upwards of 100+ hours to even get a PPL? Some people can naturally pick up concepts, and others can't.

 

Completely irrelevant to what I am talking about. That person who has the 100+ hour to PPL (for whatever reason) may be quite the safe pilot... / the proper attitudes toward flying

 

Number of hours to solo or PPL or whatever means absolutely squat in terms of safely and I would even extend that to ability. "sometimes the last to blossom is most beautiful of all"

[scandinavian13 5,192]

If you are saying, or even just Implying, that his opinion is biased, then you are passing judgment, aren't you?

 

Come on now. Are we really going to get into a nitpicking battle in the middle of the larger issue?

 

Based on your assertion, the definition of judgment you're applying is my "forming of an opinion, estimate, notion, or conclusion, as from circumstances presented to the mind." As such, I would be guilty of judgment in the idea that I passed opinion as fact. In other words, my opinion that his answer is biased was passed as fact is judgment.

 

However, it's a psychologically proven concept that all messages are coded to the speaker's bias, whether large or small. If you doubt it, have a look at cognitive psychology. If you're not in for a lot of study, perhaps the barriers to effective human communication. Additionally, all accepted and modern models of communication include the sender's own preconceptions and belief system as influences in communication.

 

So no. I wasn't passing judgment. The message I had attempted to convey was that I respect his opinion and do not judge him for responding in the way he did. However, it is a psychologically proven concept that his response is partially related to the way in which he perceives the world, which is bias.

 

I am not free from bias, either. As I mentioned in an earlier post, my own life experiences biased my answers in the baseball/hockey metaphors.