The old thinking about " bicycle first , then automobile" has today no longer validity.

The old thinking about " bicycle first , then automobile" has today no longer validity.

 

It has, just might not be where you live.

 

Here at least for a very long time pilots begin first on small planes before rising to the larger jets. And I'm not talking next gen Airbus/Boeing here so the bigger jets are definitely not any easier and thus requiere a crew of 3.

 

As for western terms, I doubt anybody has ever came right off flight school and started flying a 747. Just extremely luck ones maybe, their system is different.

It has, just might not be where you live.

 

Here at least for a very long time pilots begin first on small planes before rising to the larger jets. And I'm not talking next gen Airbus/Boeing here so the bigger jets are definitely not any easier and thus requiere a crew of 3.

 

As for western terms, I doubt anybody has ever came right off flight school and started flying a 747. Just extremely luck ones maybe, their system is different.

Tushka;

 

I think your beliefs on where to start has validity... in the real world. In a flight sim, I have to disagree. In the US pilots have to garner 1000+ hours before being considered for jet aircraft (in most cases). However, in a sim there is no risk of crashing. There will be no deaths. There will be no cost except for the electricity to run the sim. There will be no loss of income. Why not start with something you WANT to fly as opposed to a self-imposed limit that has no coherent rationale other than, "that's how real world pilots get to the jets!"

 

If we follow that rationale, we'd have to expect everyone to fly a few hundred hours in a virtual 172, then a virtual twin, then a larger virtual twin, then apply to a VA... Hey is your virtual medical still good? Great, virtual interview, virtual flight test, virtual IOE, virtual seniority list... As a new member of the VA, I guess you'd also have to be on the virtual standby list... For all of the real world time you'd have to invest, I hope the virtual salary and benefits are very good! The previous was tongue in cheek, but the hours invested into this hobby is real time you cannot get back. Do something you LIKE and WANT to do. If you want to simulate the total airline pilot, then do so. If you always wanted to simulate flying "circle around a point" using a 747, over the Empire State Building, then do it. In the end, we're responsible for our own happiness. Therefore, do what makes you happy in the confines of our hobby.

 

I've done flight training in 152s and 172s. The solo cross country flights gave me an intense satisfaction and I'll remember them for as long as I can. Good... and bad... I remember I was in a 172 coming from TTN to MMU. I think I was descending out of 5500. I was in contact with NY ATC (i think I'd requested flight following). So I'm studying the charts, looking for landmarks, looking for emergency landing options outside and I get a call form ATC ... I can't remember the exact phrase but basically I was caught up in monitoring the other things that I had not noticed I had climbed instead of going lower. I thought I was a fairly good pilot and that call really bothered me. The point is: I'm not saying there is LESS to monitor in a glass cockpit, but it is laid out in a way that you can focus your scan to a few places and even have alternatives displayed in front of you. Furthermore, the 172s (and 152s) can be difficult to fly in less than stable air. For a new flyer, a 737 might be far easier to fly than a 172.

 

 

I think your beliefs on where to start has validity... in the real world. In a flight sim, I have to disagree.

 

Yeah, it would take a while to get into the right seat of the PMDG 777 if we were to act like FSX is the real world.

1500 hours of A2A C172 doing pattern work, emergencies, cross country navigation and instrument procedures. Then, we have to do a few houndred hours Part 135 in the Flight 1 King Air before we are lucky enough to get into the right seat of the NGX. A few thousand hours of that lands us in the left seat..... lol.

 

Point is: A VOR is a VOR, an ILS is an ILS, and a plane is a plane. It flies. Airspeeds and required runway length may vary, but the basics are still the same though.

 

There is absolutely no reason why you can't learn the basics in the 737NGX. You have youtube videos, manuals, PMDG tutorials etc etc etc to support your endeavor.   

 

 

As for western terms, I doubt anybody has ever came right off flight school and started flying a 747. Just extremely luck ones maybe, their system is different

 

Honestly, I think your line of thought is highly irrelevant to the OPs question. We're talking about desktop flight simulators here, not real-world flesh and blood. And by the way; young men and women are coming "right out of flight school" and are being put into the cockpit of F16s with only some 250 flying hours in their logbook. 

I'm still not getting the assertion that one should start out in GA first.

I'm not, either. When I first started flying in FS98, I jumped straight into the Boeing 737-400. Now granted that was at an age where I didn't really learn anything, but when I got FS2002, I jumped straight into the Boeing 747-400. Look where I am now.

Tushka;

 

I think your beliefs on where to start has validity... in the real world. In a flight sim, I have to disagree. In the US pilots have to garner 1000+ hours before being considered for jet aircraft (in most cases). However, in a sim there is no risk of crashing. There will be no deaths. There will be no cost except for the electricity to run the sim. There will be no loss of income. Why not start with something you WANT to fly as opposed to a self-imposed limit that has no coherent rationale other than, "that's how real world pilots get to the jets!"

 

If we follow that rationale, we'd have to expect everyone to fly a few hundred hours in a virtual 172, then a virtual twin, then a larger virtual twin, then apply to a VA... Hey is your virtual medical still good? Great, virtual interview, virtual flight test, virtual IOE, virtual seniority list... As a new member of the VA, I guess you'd also have to be on the virtual standby list... For all of the real world time you'd have to invest, I hope the virtual salary and benefits are very good! The previous was tongue in cheek, but the hours invested into this hobby is real time you cannot get back. Do something you LIKE and WANT to do. If you want to simulate the total airline pilot, then do so. If you always wanted to simulate flying "circle around a point" using a 747, over the Empire State Building, then do it. In the end, we're responsible for our own happiness. Therefore, do what makes you happy in the confines of our hobby.

 

I've done flight training in 152s and 172s. The solo cross country flights gave me an intense satisfaction and I'll remember them for as long as I can. Good... and bad... I remember I was in a 172 coming from TTN to MMU. I think I was descending out of 5500. I was in contact with NY ATC (i think I'd requested flight following). So I'm studying the charts, looking for landmarks, looking for emergency landing options outside and I get a call form ATC ... I can't remember the exact phrase but basically I was caught up in monitoring the other things that I had not noticed I had climbed instead of going lower. I thought I was a fairly good pilot and that call really bothered me. The point is: I'm not saying there is LESS to monitor in a glass cockpit, but it is laid out in a way that you can focus your scan to a few places and even have alternatives displayed in front of you. Furthermore, the 172s (and 152s) can be difficult to fly in less than stable air. For a new flyer, a 737 might be far easier to fly than a 172.

 

Whilst what you might say is true this wasn't the point I made. The responce was about real world aviation and never really had something to do with flight simulator as one member said the old saying of working your way up no longer has any validity.

 

Not sure from where you got I would spend thousands of hours in cessnas  and king airs. Honestly I only did less than 50 hours in a cessna before moving on further and this was mainly because my aim was to fly on vatsim hence I wanted to learn about basic operations before moving up to the bigger jet which in my case is a Tu154, a whole different story than a fully automated 737NG.

 

Older generation jets do have instruments laid out in a similar way to distract you like a Cessna. Even during my flights with 767 with was a pioneer of glass cockpits I got some of such issues but all you really need is to focus and monitor everything very closely. However about the Cessna 172 being more unstable you're right, along with the fact the default 172 is has extremely sensitive controls. We might easily become distracted in planes while studying charts etc etc in a Cessna, but so you can on a 737 on simulator as in real world you have a first officer besides you.

I'm still not getting the assertion that one should start out in GA first.

As I've mentioned in other posts, the industry isn't aligned in a "start with the easy stuff and work your way to the tough stuff."

 

Agreed. It's not "start with the easy stuff", it's "start with the cheap stuff".

 

 

 

Not sure from where you got I would spend thousands of hours in cessnas  and king airs. Honestly I only did less than 50 hours in a cessna before moving on further and this was mainly because my aim was to fly on vatsim hence I wanted to learn about basic operations before moving up to the bigger jet which in my case is a Tu154, a whole different story than a fully automated 737NG.

 

I've started flying with default 737 and then quickly moved on to Flight1 ATR-72, the original PMDG NG and, yes, PT 154 and I am not any worse off for it.

By now you have much to cogitate and it's all good stuff.

There is a book out there from Wiley Publishing, FSX, Real World Training, which will take you through the Sport, Private, Instrument and Commercial ratings (US). Run through the 750 or so pages and download all the exercise stuff and by the end of it you'll be a pretty darned competent pilot!

I'm currently also starting to learn the 737 NGX... Some say it's easy to learn but that also depends on the level of realism you want to have in your sim... The systems might not be the most complex ones but still there is quite a lot behind many buttons of that aircraft and as a pilot you should be aware of whats going on behind the curtains. (And it also contributes massively to the immersion of flight simming)

 

I mean if you just follow the normal checklists all the time there's pretty much nothing that can go wrong. But what if you enable system failures and start to fly according to the performance charts: It gets much more tricky to handle. The same goes for the 777: Everything very automated that reduces workload for the pilot. But in unusual operations you should be aware of all the sophisticated technology...

 

In former times I also flew with complex aircraft just leaving 90% of all the buttons on "AUTO" all the time... Of course it works but what if a "low pressure" light goes off?? I would have been lost

 

So finally my suggestion is to start with the 737 NGX as ist a "basic" plane and there is a LOT of documentation and helpful videos/advice on the internet...probably as much as for no other plane. I also tried the videos from Angle Of Attack and they're very helpful! The for a next plane I'd go for the 777 or 747 by PMDG. The transition should not be too difficult as you stay within the Boeing cockpit philosophy....