The answer to this question is 'maybe'. It's not possible to categorically say either way.

 

The success of any competent sim pilot placed in this situation will be greatly influenced by the situation that they find themselves in. With a nice calm day, good visibility and fully functional aircraft, there is no reason why it wouldn't be possible. Take any of those away, or simply add a gust of wind during the flare and it might end badly. Good luck might well be the over riding factor.

You're welcome to continue to live in your ignorant bliss, but it's been done before:

 

He said "odds are" as in not common. Anything is possible, but is it likely for a non trained 737 pilot to fly the aircraft? No.

Finding the "odd" event where it did happen doesn't prove that anyone with NGX experience can just go up there and fly a real NG. It's wishful thinking for most.

He said "odds are" as in not common. Anything is possible, but is it likely for a non trained 737 pilot to fly the aircraft? No.

Finding the "odd" event where it did happen doesn't prove that anyone with NGX experience can just go up there and fly a real NG. It's wishful thinking for most.

 

Yup, and none of those "oddities" involved a heavy jet unless I missed one. Let him just keep day dreaming about it, nothing wrong with that.

A simple question to OP , what is happening on the HSI / Compass when taxing on the ground ?

A simple question to OP , what is happening on the HSI / Compass when taxing on the ground ?

 

Why would you need a HSI on groud? It's the same as with VOR's on ground, you can't use/rely on them because the signal might get distracted. Same applies to a regular magnetic compass I guess...

He said "odds are" as in not common. Anything is possible, but is it likely for a non trained 737 pilot to fly the aircraft? No.

 

Taking quotes out of context as usual, I see.

 

He actually said:

"So yes, in the unfortunate event of a pilot and co-pilot getting food poisoning on their fish dinner and passing out, unless there is another well trained pilot on board, the odds of that airplane making safely back on the ground is almost none."

 

...as in, the odds of that aircraft becoming a flaming hole in the ground is very high.

 

 

 

 

 

For all of you who are claiming it can't be done because it's this apparently vast chasm of certain death between the sim and real life, how many of you have actually flown a plane (I don't care which as long as it has fixed wings)?

 

Furthermore, go take a look at a type rating syllabus. For your convenience, one has been posted here:

• 40 Hours of Home Study
  
• 40 Hours of Ground Instruction
  
• 24 Hours of Full-Motion Simulator
  
• 4 Hours of Simulator Checkride
  
• Set of Training Manuals
  
• 12 Days
  

 

Note how many hours you get in the real plane.

(Hint: ZERO)

 

So, I ask you again...is landing a 737 in real life something that cannot be accomplished through sim knowledge alone?

 

 

 

 

Back in the day, when pilots were in huge demand, pilots were being hired at Commercial mins (250 hours). Up until that point, most of those pilots had most of their hours in single engine light props, with about 15 hours in a multi-engine prop. With certain airlines, they then got doused in a 737-100/200 type rating course, and off they went to go fly the thing. That first landing in the real thing, some of them had 0 turbine time, with 0 time in the 737, and they managed to put it on the ground having previously landed maybe a Piper Cub, or a 172, and a Seminole or similar.

 

So, if it was routinely done back when you didn't need thousands of hours simply to get hired, things like this happened all the time. Granted, not every pilot had this experience, but flying is flying. You make adjustments for the feel of the plane when you first start flying it, and it doesn't take a ton of time to adjust to that.

 

It's like driving your car for years, and then having to drive your buddy's truck. It feels different for 5-10 min, and then you've made the subconscious adjustments, and you're good. You're not perfect, but over time you'll get more surgical precision. You're not necessarily going to crash the thing simply because you've never driven a truck before, however.

Why would you need a HSI on groud? It's the same as with VOR's on ground, you can't use/rely on them because the signal might get distracted. Same applies to a regular magnetic compass I guess...

 

I would change my question to "What is happening on the Compass when taxing ? " I will use the compass in this instance.

Yup, and none of those "oddities" involved a heavy jet unless I missed one. Let him just keep day dreaming about it, nothing wrong with that.

 

...WHOA!!!

You just stumbled on something we've been struggling with for AGES!

 

...ah, no wait, that's one of the main reasons we've kept two crew members on the flight deck despite the advances in technology.

 

Large planes have two crew members, thus, it's not exactly statistically probable that you'll run across a situation that it would be necessary.

 

Small planes normally only have one pilot in them, and that was the truth in these cases. We have a term for that, it's called single point of failure. This is also one of the reasons you see more small plane crashes than larger plane crashes:

Multiple engines, multiple hyd systems, and so on.

Another example: In FSX you can fly perfectly staight with +/- 0 ft. on the VSI - in real life there is no such thing like level flight, you will find yourself trimming the aircraft and making small adjustments so you can hold the altitude with + or - 50 feet of space.

In FSX, you got your eyes all the time on the instruments and are basically flying IFR - in RL you have to look out, you have to use landmarks for visual refference if you want to do a good coordinated turn or a chandelle.

Actually height keeping with motion cues is much easier than without, in visual conditions at least. So the FSX flyer is at a disadvantage flying on a PC compared to the real thing.

 

You really shouldn't be trimming trying to maintain altitude. Minor altitude variations don't affect trim. In the 737 you'd be in autopilot and altitude and trim would be taken care of.

 

No one said anything about flying a 737 with finesse, so using external references isn't that important. As you say, many NGX pilots are flying on instruments by default, which would be an advantage in the real thing.

 

And once again, NO, you can't fly, land or pilot a real Boeing 737 just because you're so good with the NGX at home at your PC...

If this was the case then airlines would spare a lot of money and let their pilots do their type rating in FSX LOL...

 

The NGX is theory, excelent theory - one could even say "visualized theory". But it takes a loooooooot³ more to pilot a real aircraft, which was allready mentioned above...

A number of people have said this but even if someone could fly the real thing in ideal conditions with just NGX experience does not mean it could replace proper training for flying in all conditions. Flying in ideal conditions is easy. Pilots like to create a mystique that it is hard.

 

==========================

 

As for whether practice in cold and dark starts would help, I don't think it's at all relevant. It proves nothing about someone's ability to fly.

[...]someone's ability to fly.

 

Exactly! And this is what matters and the point where "normal" people would fail.

Another example: In FSX you can fly perfectly staight with +/- 0 ft. on the VSI - in real life there is no such thing like level flight, you will find yourself trimming the aircraft and making small adjustments so you can hold the altitude with + or - 50 feet of space.

In FSX, you got your eyes all the time on the instruments and are basically flying IFR - in RL you have to look out, you have to use landmarks for visual refference if you want to do a good coordinated turn or a chandelle.

Height is actually much easier if you have motion cues. The FSX pilot is at a distinct disadvantage. Also why would you be trimming while trying to maintain height?

 

I'm not sure visual flying has much to do with this debate.

 

...WHOA!!!

You just stumbled on something we've been struggling with for AGES!

 

...ah, no wait, that's one of the main reasons we've kept two crew members on the flight deck despite the advances in technology.

 

Large planes have two crew members, thus, it's not exactly statistically probable that you'll run across a situation that it would be necessary.

 

Small planes normally only have one pilot in them, and that was the truth in these cases. We have a term for that, it's called single point of failure. This is also one of the reasons you see more small plane crashes than larger plane crashes:

Multiple engines, multiple hyd systems, and so on.

 

Yeah - single pilot IFR can be downright overwhelming at times for the typical spam can driver... The work load can be immense at times... I would think having an extra set of qualified hands would make it so much easier - even if flying a more complex aircraft...

 

Regards,

Scott

Height is actually much easier if you have motion cues. The FSX pilot is at a distinct disadvantage. Also why would you be trimming while trying to maintain height?

 

I'm not sure visual flying has much to do with this debate.

 

Stick and rudder my friend. :wink:

I am not particulary refering to trim and all that stuff but to the fact that you have to stay calm and figure out where you are and what you need to do to survive, you'll be having a hard time sitting ALONE in a 737 cockpit in an emergency figuring all that out. A modern airliner is meant to be flown by a crew of two pilots.

It is not impossible though, it's difficult...

 

Imagine me waking you up at 3AM in the morning and throwing you in a Level-D 737 sim and telling you that you are somewhere near innsbruck and that you have to do the famous circling approach or you'll die!

Being a pilot requires skill, knowledge, the RIGHT CHARACTER, and most important EXPERIENCE (flying hours)!

Yeah - single pilot IFR can be downright overwhelming at times for the typical spam can driver... The work load can be immense at times... I would think having an extra set of qualified hands would make it so much easier - even if flying a more complex aircraft...

 

Isn't it? To be honest, a lot of the time I'll toss my iPad/Chart/IAPs back to a passenger and have them pull up a chart for me if my workload is particularly high. Nobody said CRM was only about certificated pilots...

 

I'd argue that one of my buddies flying a King Air single pilot for the USAF routinely has a harder time - workload wise - than you would in most cases, single pilot in a 737.

Stick and rudder my friend. :wink:

I am not particulary refering to trim and all that stuff but to the fact that you have to stay calm and figure out where you are and what you need to do to survive, you'll be having a hard time sitting ALONE in a 737 cockpit in an emergency figuring all that out. A modern airliner is meant to be flown by a crew of two pilots.

It is not impossible though, it's difficult...

Almost all my flights in full flight sims have been single handed, even in three crew cockpits though that can be a real challenge. And not a checklist in sight either. So I'm used to it. However I've learned most when I've been flying with a rated pilot. So easy to teach yourself bad habits in a simulator.

 

Imagine me waking you up at 3AM in the morning and throwing you in a Level-D 737 sim and telling you that you are somewhere near innsbruck and that you have to do the famous circling approach or you'll die!

Being a pilot requires skill, knowledge, the RIGHT CHARACTER, and most important EXPERIENCE (flying hours)!

Yeah, but once again I think the thread is about doing this in ideal conditions. Taking over at 3am heading for Innsbruck isn't exactly ideal. Clearly only an experienced and fully trained pilot can do such a thing. But on a clear day with no terrain and a long runway? I think it's a possibility.