Even in a glass cockpit environment everything has to be backed up using raw data by the pilot monitoring.  I doubt many in the simmer world actually bother to do that.   

Point of the threat is the real operation of the aircraft instead of using vor, hence as Mickel stated "as real as it gets". This sort of sentence is like saying retrofit to an old classic aircraft. If there is an emergency bad enough on a glass cockpit plane that shorts out your instruments you're dead ayway. No VOR that you can play with.

 

The modern jetliners are simply easier to fly in real life and this is what lessens pilot workload. It's good for reality but in the simulation it's not.

Even in a glass cockpit environment everything has to be backed up using raw data by the pilot monitoring.  I doubt many in the simmer world actually bother to do that.   

 

Never heard that one even existed. Reason I thought pilots do nothing is because of some negligence cases. One of them is a certain jetblue A320 that overshoot it's destination because pilots were on their laptops, Asiana 777 confused because of overreliance on automated systems etc etc. Actually very recently there has been  3 major 777 hull losses.

 

 

Never heard that one even existed. Reason I thought pilots do nothing is because of some negligence cases

 

Tushka,  I would definitely suggest that you read up on what is involved in operating and especially navigating a modern airliner.  It is not a case of engage A/P and sit back for the ride.  The departure & Approach is thoroughly briefed by the PF and tuned/backed up Raw data by the PM.  

 

During cruise you have more 'downtime'  but everything is still checked and crossed checked enroute. 

All modern flight crew must still demonstrate excellent proficiency in hand flying raw data in many different scenarios.

 

With the exception of the AF447 crew sadly!

And therein lies the modern problem of so much reliance on systems monitoring that the crew forget to utilise their flying skills because the automated systems keep them out of the loop.

Tushka,  I would definitely suggest that you read up on what is involved in operating and especially navigating a modern airliner.  It is not a case of engage A/P and sit back for the ride.  The departure & Approach is thoroughly briefed by the PF and tuned/backed up Raw data by the PM.  

 

During cruise you have more 'downtime'  but everything is still checked and crossed checked enroute. 

Go and do the Innsbruck rwy8 visual approach without the help of vnav and any other input from an FMC. It's actually easier to do it manually! In fact the only difficulties of that approach are the turns. The 180 turn has to be executed precisely and at the correct descent rate. The missed approach turn also has to be precise. And it is the missed approach procedure in fact that limits the a/c type that is permitted.

This is something I've often wondered about. Many simmers want to fly "As real as it gets" but what happens when the reality is that planes have become so automated that pilots essentially become passengers except in emergencys.

 

Will everyone default to "Historical" or "Golden age" flight simming?

A lot of simmers protest if failures are built into the model. But, that's the whole point of a flight simulator. To be able to practise in safety all the necessary cockpit procedures so that come that rare event you know what to do!

 

How do you react and get the a/c down safely if there's depressurisation? In which case did you check the chart to see the correct escape route? Will you make the pax choke on their vomit because you didn't initiate the crash dive correctly?

 

And, engine failures? just what do you do if two out of four fail? Engine limitations? Keeping the throttle at maximum won't do them any good. Ordinary non-pilot simmers can learn a lot from these problems that being a pilot is not just a case of sitting doing nothing and chatting up the stewardesses.

If on the other hand all you want to do is chuck an a/c around the sky them MS have designed a programme called "Flight" for that sole purpose.

Tushka,

 

Some points to consider here that might be helpful. I used to think quite the same about the work load and being boring, etc. Then when I finally got the chance to build a full scale Learjet 45 (one of the simplest default aircraft in FS) I learned quite a thing or two about the issue of boring vs. realism. In my years of desktop and full scale sim flying, I've come to the conclusion that unless you're flying a PMDG-like add-on, nothing on the desktop is going to feel very full and task-oriented. There is a big difference between managing things on a small 19 or 22 inch LED display on your desk (even with every single button and knob there in place) and actually sitting in a full cockpit with all the hardware there to interact with in its correct location, with all the actual check lists and procedures on hand. Case in point, the LJ45 from FSX is not all that hard to fly with practice on the deskop, but build a full scale sim and fly it correctly (procedural and with ATC) and you will find that the airplane really does need a copilot. Yes, it does. Get any more complicated than that (regional or larger airliner) and the need for a second pilot increases exponentially. I would encourage you to find out if there are any full scale sims near you within a few hours driving distance and then work up a chance to go spend some time in one. I think your thoughts on this will be a bit different afterward.

 

All the best,

Tushka,

 

Some points to consider here that might be helpful. I used to think quite the same about the work load and being boring, etc. Then when I finally got the chance to build a full scale Learjet 45 (one of the simplest default aircraft in FS) I learned quite a thing or two about the issue of boring vs. realism. In my years of desktop and full scale sim flying, I've come to the conclusion that unless you're flying a PMDG-like add-on, nothing on the desktop is going to feel very full and task-oriented. There is a big difference between managing things on a small 19 or 22 inch LED display on your desk (even with every single button and knob there in place) and actually sitting in a full cockpit with all the hardware there to interact with in its correct location, with all the actual check lists and procedures on hand. Case in point, the LJ45 from FSX is not all that hard to fly with practice on the deskop, but build a full scale sim and fly it correctly (procedural and with ATC) and you will find that the airplane really does need a copilot. Yes, it does. Get any more complicated than that (regional or larger airliner) and the need for a second pilot increases exponentially. I would encourage you to find out if there are any full scale sims near you within a few hours driving distance and then work up a chance to go spend some time in one. I think your thoughts on this will be a bit different afterward.

 

All the best,

 

You're right, it will be a very different experience as you're actually sitting in the cockpit with the hardware with you hence you will care a lot more about the simulation than if it was just a simple laptop screen in front of you.

 

The feeling of a copilot is very missed in flight simulator despite FS2CREW is attempting to model him, however it's only available for selected planes and not really the same thing. I have managed to fly 3 crew aircraft in flight simulator and haven't needed a copilot despite the workload, simply because I can just click up 2D panels whenever I want to in the screen. This however you cannot do in a real cockpit so it makes sence to have a copilot and/or engineer there with you.

 

I want to build a home cockpit as well but my budget is not good enough for me to allow such an expense, however I do have access to a professional but very old fashioned full size (no video, projector or anything out the window) simulator of the Yakovlev Yak-40 where I occasionally do some training. You do need your crew with you as you can't reach out everywhere and your workload becomes higher with all the checks, briefings, and in the case of the Yak even navigation. Will check around if there are any modern Level D sims around to get a different insight on a modern jetliner.

Try hopping into an F-14, 15, 16, or 18. fly a Hi-lo-lo-Hi back to the ship and land...THERE is a challenge...pick up a checkpoint or input a new VOR without getting over 500' AGL!...escort commercial jobs...these are all challenging!

Learn to fly helo's! no matter ho moder the cockpit may get they are still like balancing a plate atop a broomhandle on top of a rubber ball! Again, MAJOR challenge, but a great feeling of accomplishment just to lift into a steady hover in an R-44...or HH-60! Big or small, modern or ancient, they are all a major challenge to fly!

For a fun combo of the two, try a Harrier or F-35...low level all the way into Cincinati (or St. Petersberg if you prefer!) and land atop a building's roof...remember, when Marines ask for close air support, we don't mean over 40,000' bomb drops...we want that Harrier to need the vegetation washed off the wings! Or the Huey's skids...

Military birds and helicopters are both greatly challenging from a pilot's perspective, both skill and knowledge...

At least that's the way i see them, and I love flying both

Pat☺

Try hopping into an F-14, 15, 16, or 18. fly a Hi-lo-lo-Hi back to the ship and land...THERE is a challenge...pick up a checkpoint or input a new VOR without getting over 500' AGL!...escort commercial jobs...these are all challenging!

Learn to fly helo's! no matter ho moder the cockpit may get they are still like balancing a plate atop a broomhandle on top of a rubber ball! Again, MAJOR challenge, but a great feeling of accomplishment just to lift into a steady hover in an R-44...or HH-60! Big or small, modern or ancient, they are all a major challenge to fly!

For a fun combo of the two, try a Harrier or F-35...low level all the way into Cincinati (or St. Petersberg if you prefer!) and land atop a building's roof...remember, when Marines ask for close air support, we don't mean over 40,000' bomb drops...we want that Harrier to need the vegetation washed off the wings! Or the Huey's skids...

Military birds and helicopters are both greatly challenging from a pilot's perspective, both skill and knowledge...

At least that's the way i see them, and I love flying both

Pat☺

DCS: World is very good for this job as you probably know... Flying the Sukhoi Su-25T in the Russian-Georgian war is very challenging and rewarding, teaches you tons of new stuff and significantly enhances your flying skills with civilian simulators. In fact, this is how I finally mastered simulator flying.

 

Also fun when you have something to do, whether it's escorting, shooting at Georgian airforce, destroy their equipment and military as well as drill and training operations, not to mention you could get shot down or attacked anytime is one of the better things you can do with your free time apart from real life activities. Once after a very hard mission my aircraft was severely damaged and I was only a few kilometres from a safe landing at the base... But some dickheads on the ground with an surface-to-air missile probably shot me down No carrier landings though, those are more for the WW2 combat flight sims.

FS9 and FSX are both fantastic for carrier ops, with RCBO-2.0 (in FS9 any way, I don't have FSX...) by Rob Barendregt makes it a real joy to trap and cat off the boat...

As to DCS...Unless it's TOTALLY free, including add-ons, I can't get it. I'm retired/disabled and on a VERY fixed and limited income, you know how that goes

 

Pat☺

FS9 and FSX are both fantastic for carrier ops, with RCBO-2.0 (in FS9 any way, I don't have FSX...) by Rob Barendregt makes it a real joy to trap and cat off the boat...

As to DCS...Unless it's TOTALLY free, including add-ons, I can't get it. I'm retired/disabled and on a VERY fixed and limited income, you know how that goes

 

Pat☺

DCS: World is free. It's the full version with all functionality and comes with two airplanes, Sukhoi Su-25T and a P-51D Mustang... You can get it here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/world/dcs_world/

One of them is a certain jetblue A320 that overshoot it's destination because pilots were on their laptops

That was actually Northwest, not JetBlue.

Hello all!

 

 

I decided to check a few videos on the operation of 777s, 787s, A330s and it all looked so simple. Just push a few buttons, lift off, autopilot, do nothing except checks and then land (once again on autopilot) and checklists are so stripped they only have a few items.

 

It seems that the main basis, press a few buttons, program, follow the magenta line and go. Is this what kids of the magenta line is?

 

I've flown 767s before in my FS9 days and it was simple, easy but also complex. However not as automated as the 777 which get's things boring.

 

After having flown Tu134s, Tu-154s, An24s and 707s I can't but think operating these automated jets is extremely boring and way too easy as you basically have nothing to do. I do want to start long haul flights but there is no Soviet airliner apart from the Il-62 that's capable to do it so maybe it's just me who thinks these plastic tubeliners aren't for real pilots? After all here we have a (real life) saying that Airbus pilots aren't men compared to the Ilyushin one!

 

I don't expect everyone to agree with me, just wanted to see if there's some insight to it.

I'm with you planes with steam gauges and jet engines that pour black smoke are real planes! I fly the 777 and do enjoy it but mainly because I can take off hand fly to cruise put it on autopilot and when I wake up its time to descend. I will never understand those simmers who turn the autopilot on at 200 feet and just sit there and watch a 12 hour flight then turn the autopilot off at 200 feet. How is that fun? Flying the plane is the fun part no way am I gonna let the autopilot have all the fun lol. By the way I love Russian planes they are so well built, I'm a real world pilot and fly my fathers Yak-52 a lot and there isn't a maneuver in the book that the Yak isn't strong enough to do. (+7,-5)G's.

I'm with you planes with steam gauges and jet engines that pour black smoke are real planes! I fly the 777 and do enjoy it but mainly because I can take off hand fly to cruise put it on autopilot and when I wake up its time to descend. I will never understand those simmers who turn the autopilot on at 200 feet and just sit there and watch a 12 hour flight then turn the autopilot off at 200 feet. How is that fun? Flying the plane is the fun part no way am I gonna let the autopilot have all the fun lol. By the way I love Russian planes they are so well built, I'm a real world pilot and fly my fathers Yak-52 a lot and there isn't a maneuver in the book that the Yak isn't strong enough to do. (+7,-5)G's.

That is why I used to fly the 767 as well on my long hauls as I could sleep trough the night and then wake up 1 or 2 hours before descent which is a very rewarding experience. I really miss those days on FS9 but unfortunately now on FSX there is no good 767 since Level D is outdated and Captain Sim would probably bug out during my sleep and then fall off the sky, not to mention it doesn't have fs2crew as I would consider buying that.  Those are for 10+ hour flights.

 

When I fly shorter than that I always fly something extremely complex like the Project Tupolev Tu-154 where you always have something to do, navigation, checking up on systems, other checks, making sure you stay on course, even updating your position... All of it very interesting as you do the job of a crew of 3-4 people. And as for the real world version if you got a complete engine failure, I would very much prefer to be on the rugged Tu-154 than the plastic dreamliner to actually have a change of survival : )

 

I'm surprised you have a Yak-52 as not many foreigners outside of the CIS use them not to mention owning them, but that plane sure is a beauty and as long as you mantain it properly (which fortunately for Soviet planes is very cheap and easy) it will always be strong as aircrafts were built to last. If the maintenance is excellent you could still push it to the limits but even the strongest of the strongest aircraft will last many more decades if not put into too extreme conditions.

You might be surprised just how many Yak-52s have found their way around the world.

The most complex simulated a/c I have come  across is the
Coolsky Dc9. Every circuit breaker works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yWkKvBFkzE