In conclusion, it's not true to say the FAA does not send a pilot to subjectively assess the device prior to qualifying it for use. The pilot may not be a "guru", but they certainly are supposed to be type rated and therefore familiar with how the real aircraft flies. The operator's pilot's statement you were describing is certainly not the only subjective assessment.

 

Again:

Not correct. You're welcome to go running through Part 60 (here's the short version, if you don't want to hit the books too hard) to try and prove me wrong, but the wording in no ways - ever - specifies that the pilot needs to be affiliated with any particular entity. There's a table that specifies desired qualities, but those are not regulatory in nature (the table doesn't even exist within the regs - they point to an external source and refer to it as preferred, which isn't exactly enforceable).

 

I'm not sure how your local FSDO would interpret that, however. I've never worked with the FAA/CAA entities of West Sussex, England, however...

 

...and not to bash my employer, but:

1 - if they had to certify every sim with their own pilot, nothing would ever get done; and

2 - even they misinterpret their own rules sometimes.

 

If you're really as connected to the process as you say you are, ask one of your connections about the requirement to carry a chart. I know I point that one out all the time, but it's something that just about everyone who is involved with aviation should be familiar with, yet everyone seems to think that they're required at all times.

Heck no!!!!!!!!!!!!! You're crazy if you think a third-rate computer game can teach you to fly an airplane with any semblance to reality. FSX has flaw after flaw in terms of aerodynamics modeling, and quite franky the PMDG NGX is over-hyped crap in this department as well; all this in spite of what the pretend pilots and Fan-boys claim here.

 

Haha. Wow. Compared to your real world...what, exactly? I suppose you have real world experience in the F/A-18 and F-15s you slammed, too.

Seems more like a personal issue of not being able to not criticize...you know...everything...instead of being able to rationally approach a simulation of the real thing.

 

In terms of properly modeling drag and ground effect, the NGX is a complete joke on landing approach and flare compared to the real aircraft. It's a crappy computer game made to entertain people what don't know any better or care.

 

Uh huh. Okay. Despite what the rated people on the Beta team found. That's also not mentioning that the team included a quirk of the aircraft related to ground effect on takeoff.

 

If you were to try to land a real 737 based solely on your experience with PMDG products, you would die.

 

Based on your super awesome real world judgetastic real world experience, I bet you would. The rest of us who can rationally accept life instead of bash everything could probably land it and not die. I'm not saying everyone in this forum would leave the plane usable, but your argument in hyperbole is just...sad...

 

 

I'm not sure if I just fed the troll, but whatever. I prefer to deal with trolls with sledgehammers instead of starving them to death...

I think even training on a FAA certified sim like XPX would be a lot different than the real thing , but I would leave the judgement to RL pilots.

Uh oh, you have a picture of you wearing headphones and a stupid-butt grin on your face. This means you know everything about flying! My bad. Please, please hop in a real 737 and try to fly it ok? Bring your headphones, they'll need something to identify your remains.

 

LOL

 

- Sent from my rooted, Verizon Samsung Galaxy Nexus LTE smartphone via Tapatalk because haters gonna hate.

 

 

Again:

Not correct. You're welcome to go running through Part 60 (here's the short version, if you don't want to hit the books too hard) to try and prove me wrong, but the wording in no ways - ever - specifies that the pilot needs to be affiliated with any particular entity. There's a table that specifies desired qualities, but those are not regulatory in nature (the table doesn't even exist within the regs - they point to an external source and refer to it as preferred, which isn't exactly enforceable).

 

I'm not sure how your local FSDO would interpret that, however. I've never worked with the FAA/CAA entities of West Sussex, England, however...

 

...and not to bash my employer, but:

1 - if they had to certify every sim with their own pilot, nothing would ever get done; and

2 - even they misinterpret their own rules sometimes.

 

If you're really as connected to the process as you say you are, ask one of your connections about the requirement to carry a chart. I know I point that one out all the time, but it's something that just about everyone who is involved with aviation should be familiar with, yet everyone seems to think that they're required at all times.

Kyle,

 

I have yet to be at an initial simulator evaluation in the USA where a type rated pilot didn't show up with the NSP (National Simulator Program) team. The UK CAA is less well blessed with pilots, but they also try and assign a type rated pilot to do the subjective test flying. Yes I really am professionally involved in this matter, and not just in West Sussex either. I don't doubt your stated experience, so I don't see why you should doubt mine. Maybe you should call the FAA NSP in Atlanta and ask them how they apply the rules laid down in Part 60. The local FSDO is of course also involved after the NSP team has granted qualification. Usually that's a rubber stamp exercise, but they can refuse to approve the FSTD for use even though the NSP qualifies it.

 

Of course it's a problem for the NSP to keep ahead of the game regarding the number of simulators on the register. But they do have to visit every one, every year. Obviously it's the initial evaluation which need most resources, the recurrents are one person for one day.

 

Kind of you to give me a link to Part 60, but I already had a copy. You clearly love "hitting the books hard", but you don't seem to have hit Part 60 hard enough. I can but refer you to § 60.15, paragraph o, which describes the FFS testing:

The NSPM administers the objective and subjective tests, which includes an examination of functions. The tests include

a qualitative assessment of the FFS by an NSP pilot. The NSP evaluation team leader may assign other qualified personnel to assist in accomplishing the functions examination and/or the objective and subjective tests performed during an evaluation when required.

Obviously the law does not specify in detail the exact composition of the NSP inspection team, just as it doesn't precisely define the qualifications necessary for the sponsor's pilot. Such detail may change and is for the FAA to determine. However it clearly refers to the qualitative assessment by an NSP pilot. Something you categorically denied (twice).

 

The same applies to FTDs. Note Part 60 has separate sections for FFSs and FTDs. They are treated differently.

Uh oh, you have a picture of you wearing headphones and a stupid-butt grin on your face. This means you know everything about flying! My bad. Please, please hop in a real 737 and try to fly it ok? Bring your headphones, they'll need something to identify your remains.

 

Okay. Let's do this. I'll meet you at MITRE in McLean, VA at any time you'd like for time in their simulators. I'll arrange it through my contacts there at the meeting I have at 1 at the Command Center. If were possible for me to go up to IAD and commandeer one of UAL's 73s without getting the book thrown at me, I would.

 

Now, how about you go do something productive instead of trashing everything with your entire existence.

 

...man, I thought I was Mr. Negative Nancy around here. At least my arguments generally have a point, and are based on some semblance of reality.

Kind of you to give me a link to Part 60, but I already had a copy. You clearly love "hitting the books hard", but you don't seem to have hit Part 60 hard enough. I can but refer you to § 60.15, paragraph o, which describes the FFS testing:

The NSPM administers the objective and subjective tests, which includes an examination of functions. The tests include

a qualitative assessment of the FFS by an NSP pilot. The NSP evaluation team leader may assign other qualified personnel to assist in accomplishing the functions examination and/or the objective and subjective tests performed during an evaluation when required.

 

Kevin,

 

Thanks for the quote, the associated education, and the persistence to beat things into my stubborn head.

It appears you're right that I hadn't hit the books hard enough, though this point will not be conceded until 22.December.12 in the interest of humanity.

 

Random extra document link.

Backpedaling and continued disagreement based on this point:

The NSP evaluation team leader may assign other qualified personnel to assist in accomplishing the functions examination and/or the objective and subjective tests performed during an evaluation when required.

[Pending retraction/concession, 22.Dec]

There was an interesting news story a while ago about something similar. Basically they put a load of private pilot license holders (or commercial pilots on small aircraft) into an airliner simulator and asked them to land. Pretty much everyone crashed within a minute (usually by switching off the AP by accident). So, actually, I would prefer someone who had experience with the ngx over your average private pilot. At least we all know which buttons NOT to press. Personally, I think I could at least get to an airport if the pilots passed out (and opened the door first ). Landing, well, it wouldn't be brilliant I expect, but the crash would at least be on the runway!

This sounds legit.

ask one of your connections about the requirement to carry a chart... yet everyone seems to think that they're required at all times

 

Hmmm... not everyone. But... and it is a big "but"...

 

Kyle... you really need to be more careful posting such blanket statements as this. See FAR 91.503

 

However, you seem to be referring to a Part 91 operation not involving Large aircraft etc... It would be good for you to review this: What is the FAA policy for carrying current charts?. Pay particular attention to ¶ #5 and the last sentence from that question.

 

So... "for all intents and purposes" they are... and no student of mine ever flew w/o one or knowing the importance of having "said" current chart(s).

 

Meet me at Landmark Aviation out at KIAD at 3:00pm and tell Erin at the front desk who you are.

 

Ok am enroute... btw I am the real Kyle...

Well, my dream of being the lone simmer stepping forward to save the day has gone out the window. The reality, on any given flight, will be half a dozen simmers all wedged in the cockpit doorway and arguing about who is the best suited for the task.

 

Sigh.

Dugald,

 

+1 !!!!

 

Goran

There was an experiment carried out by channel 4 (or5) or whatever in the UK ,where a long time FS simmer ,but with no real world flying skills was allowed to pilot a Cessna (with an experienced co-pilot obviously) and from what I remember he made a jolly good fist of it , and I seem to remember he made a perfectly acceptable approach .He was not allowed to handle the final touchdown (probably insurance /legal/ health and safety reasons ) but whatever ,not bad for someone whose only previous flight experience was gained on a 'Third rate flight simulator' as some poster described FS.

 

PS I know we are talking 737 ,but I was pretty impressed with this TV experiment.

 

PPS

This thread as usual (given time )

has descended into testosterone fueled abuse.

So that's me done with on this

Happy flights.

:Cuppa:

Well, my dream of being the lone simmer stepping forward to save the day has gone out the window. The reality, on any given flight, will be half a dozen simmers all wedged in the cockpit doorway and arguing about who is the best suited for the task.

 

 

:lol: