fsx-ms If I manage to master high-end add-on planes, would I be able to fly them in real world?

[james_2k 36]

im not sure.. if you fly small cessnas you would have a much better ability to fly the aircraft manually, but with regards to the automatics? not so much, id put chances of survival with a (normal) ppl at the same or WORSE than someone who knows the systems of the 73 with someone talking to them.

[ErichB 3,638]

 

 

im not sure.. if you fly small cessnas you would have a much better ability to fly the aircraft manually, but with regards to the automatics? not so much, id put chances of survival with a (normal) ppl at the same or WORSE than someone who knows the systems of the 73 with someone talking to them.

 

I don't disagree with you James. That makes sense.   But my point being, there is something really uncomfortable about a bunch of desktop flightsimmers claiming without any shadow of doubt that they could master a large aircraft for real. There are few things about flightsimmers more cringeworthy.

[james_2k 36]

I also see your point Its just a bit of fun!

[ErichB 3,638]

 

 

Its just a bit of fun!

 

It's all very serious this business of flight simulation.  It's not a game James.  Get with the programme.

[james_2k 36]

Hehe, 

[MarkJHarris 128]

Now now. For a start I can name about 7 major flaws in the NGX compared to a real 737. I never said you could operate one but just be coached to do the basics. Actually with a servicable aircraft, one of the Cabin Crew would be my preference to a Flight Simmer, but there you go.

 

A 737/A320/75/6/7/87, etc, is far easier to land using the autoflght systems than a Cessna is to pole down to the field. trust me, I've done both in my time.

 

A large airliner requires experience to manage. That experience can be remote or fitted. (Experience is gained from many years of f*cking up and needing the speed brake and extra miles, by the way)...

 

Anyway. This thread has kind of developed way beyond the OP's initial questions. I'm leaving to get ready for Tomorrrow. (If you're on FR24 look for the LS207/8.) That'll be me. Bye.

[KenG 492]

And round and round we go.

 

If it was an automated surgery machine, and i played surgery simulator x and was competent with the controls. and the doc became incapacitated while operating, i'd press the 'stitch up patient' button, you betcha.

 

on another note, its amusing most of the guys saying that it could probably be done (under certain conditions) are the real life pilots..

 

I have the unique perspective of having trained pilots from all walks into the King Air. I have seen a half dozen 737 pilots, a few Airbus 31x/32x guys, a number of Global drivers, a gaggle of Gulfstream pilots, a dozen of DC-10s guys, a 15 year 747 Captain, and a baker's dozen of test pilots.  

 

The number one issue I see with these highly qualified Titans of the industry is either an over reliance on automation or with most of the Test Pilots and abject disdain of automation. I get to play the guy that either has to ween guys off automation or in the rare case get people to trust it a little. While I am a proponent of automation I cautiously state that the use has to be knowledgeable and crews cannot allow automation to become a crutch to poor piloting skills. It seems that FAA agrees with me in this case as over the last decade they have published a number of reports on the use of automation. 

 

 

 

The Flight Deck Automation Working Group concluded that modern flight path management systems create new challenges that can lead to errors. Those challenges include complexity in systems and in operations, concerns about degradation of pilot knowledge and skills, and integration and interdependence of the components of the aviation system.

 

I have seen automation fail for no good reason, been there done that. I have also seen ignorant button pushing lead to invalid information. I have seen automation lead to CFIT despite TAWS systems screaming for the crews to do something. Believe me if there is a way to screw up automation I have seen it, or if not I probably will. 

 

Thus I don't have the rose colored glasses that some of my contemporaries when it comes to this issue. I do not see where just owning a computer based simulation of something can 100% guarantee success with zero structured training. Sure some of you are of the type that you will read every word, seek out advice and watch everything to become as knowledgeable as possible. While others will simply continue to treat it as a game. Too many variables in just the population you are discussing to guarantee success, much less the reality of a dynamic environment.

 

This has never happened in scheduled airline service and probably never will.  

[blackopscc1 14]

I've been following this thread with some interest now for awhile, and just had the opportunity last week to "test" this idea/concept in an actual B747 level D FFS. In fairness, I do work around the 747 for a living, and so am very familiar with the aircraft itself, not to mention having been "flying" Aerowinx's PS1 and PSX now for well over 10 years (PS1 I received in 1997 along with the original PMDG manual ).

 

Without going into an essay: was the simulator IP impressed that I could navigate my way around the cockpit, FMC, engine start up and avionics configuration like I did it for a living? Absolutely. That part, e.g. knowing the layout, switch and all panel flows, MCP set up, the FMC pages and programming, all the small bits, really impressed him.

 

But that was about the limit of how well the desktop simulator prepared me for the "Level D FFS". Flows, layout, using automatics etc. yes, PSX had me as prepared as any new pilot coming to training. The actual flying bit? Yea, nah. Close, but not safe at all. And I possess a CFII/MEI and well over 3800 hours of actual flying over 20 years mainly in high performance recips and some light jets (think Citation V).

 

Taxing: not a huge challenge except to remember to extend the nose well out past your comfort zone. Take off:  I got it off ground with only one tail strike from over rotation in 4 attempts. Once airborne, I flew the FD like a champ, managed the electronic kit, absolutely no worries. But.... when it came to hand flying? - well - that was not good, and I got well and truly behind the thing very quickly even with some help -  especially when I was not permitted to use the A/P and A/T and they threw in WX .....

 

Landing was something else all together. When using the automatics to manage everything to the point of arriving stabilized on a 5-7 mile final, I was able to get it to the runway; but out of 4 landings I had a chance to perform, only one was deemed safe and successful (despite it being the one with a strong gusty crosswind), 2 damaged the aircraft including a pod strike, and one would have gotten me and everyone else killed - the hand flown to the runway with no A/T or automatics to help.

 

The difference? CONTROL FORCES, POWER MANAGEMENT and visual reference/cues, especially with landing(s), the tendency of the 47 to land short if you are not mindful of the height (and some flare management as well) are not as easy to replicate in a 2D or even fancy FDS fixed base solution. I was told I'd have a better shot than a layman at getting the bird on the ground, if all of the automatics were working, I'd probably be "ok" - but with no automatics, it would be a true challenge and he doubted I'd be able to do much more than manage a crash landing.

 

JT

[Boeing or not going 578]

I don't disagree with you James. That makes sense.   But my point being, there is something really uncomfortable about a bunch of desktop flightsimmers claiming without any shadow of doubt that they could master a large aircraft for real. There are few things about flightsimmers more cringeworthy.

When did the discussion change to "master" the airplane? It is possible to learn the systems through a simulator, and that gives advantages towards knowing an airplane and understanding theories behind flying before you fly it. As others have said of course adrenaline and feeling the forces and being nervous is something you never get sitting at home! We all know that. But if you ask a CFI about training people that walk in with no knowledge and someone who has been flight simming for years it is like night and day. 

 

No one thinks they will be a master of an airplane though, you are arguing a point I do not see others have ever tried making. In the old days you had first officers that had no real time in a type before they were upgraded to the left seat. All they had was a few hundred hours in a small single engine prop and some time in a simulator.

 

Maybe you will get a kid coming up to the pilots after a flight trying to act like a know-it-all because they flight sim a lot, but they are just full of childish confidence. The discussion here was more about whether you can teach yourself the systems and theories behind flying and translate that into being prepared for the real world. Of course as I said just ask a CFI.

[blackopscc1 14]

I agree. I just posted above you, saying about the same. When I debriefed with the IP after the "flight", he quite quickly asked to see the "tool" I had used to prepare. I opened up my laptop, fired up PSX, and he was quite impressed.

 

One of the carrier's captains happened by the coffee room where we were sitting together, and instantly knew the program, and joined in the discussion. No doubt, from a mastery or better stated solid understanding of the systems and how they come together to manage the jet, he said he felt I could be trained to fly the 747 in half the time they spend to train other pilots. The "hard part" PSX did for me - systems, and understanding how it all comes together. But even with my 3000+ hours of flying, a good bit of it in high performance / high altitude jets (always SIC though) it was still a handful to actually fly the bird (but a lot of fun).

[KenG 492]

I think this would be a great PhD thesis for someone in aviation education. How does unstructured pre-exposure to desktop flight simulation affect total time to train a pilot in an advanced aircraft. Compare that to structured exposure and no exposure and see which group has a mean average reduction in training time for a type rating check. 

[Holdit 551]

The actual flying bit? Yea, nah. Close, but not safe at all. And I possess a CFII/MEI and well over 3800 hours of actual flying over 20 years mainly in high performance recips and some light jets (think Citation V).

 

 

That's very interesting. What I also found interesting was a thread some months ago started by a newcomer to FSX who was looking for advice about what to do next. Most responders seemed to be saying "...buy the PMDG NGX and start learning the systems." I was amazed. There was very little along the lines of suggesting that he actually  learn to...you know..fly? Now, everyone owns his own sim and is free to use it any way they feel like and in that sense there is no wrong approach to simming...but if someone was heading for a real cockpit in an emergency-stricken aircraft, declaring that he knew the PMDG NGX inside-out, I'd be more likely to think "Translation: he knows his way around the buttons and screens, but does he know anything about flying?" or as another profession might put it "...very pretty, but can they fight?"  :wink: 

 

 

 

The number one issue I see with these highly qualified Titans of the industry is either an over reliance on automation

 

 

Doubtless most people have seen this already but it's probably worth posting again:

 

[KenG 492]

For posting a video of Chief Pilot Warren Van Der Burgh you get my vote for reputation point. Hopefully the moderators will allow it to stay.

 

Next to Chuck Yeager, Bob Hoover, and Jimmy Doolittle, Van Der Burgh is up there on my list of aviation greats.

[Boeing or not going 578]

I very much dislike the "children of the magenta line" complaints. They come from older guys that just hate younger generations. And worst of all, they are blamed for EVERYTHING. Listen to pilots complain about "the magenta line children" even in crashes where very experienced pilots with tens of thousands of hours in total time were at fault. It is a different world today, sure, and there is more of a reliance on learning how systems operate that are programmed like computers than hand flying and raw calculations, using your INS or VOR to VOR and steam gauges.

 

For example take AF447. If the pilots were more familiar with the systems and understanding, they would have seen that they were getting incorrect speed readouts, rather than think "oh it must be some weird computers going strange"

[Holdit 551]

I very much dislike the "children of the magenta line" complaints. They come from older guys that just hate younger generations. 

 

Wow, 10/10 for sweeping assumption.

 

What that video makes clear in fact is that it's not a generational thing at all, but an approach to training. Did you even watch it? Listen to what he says:

 

"I am sorry for making you like this..."

"Look what this pilot that I trained did..."

"Don't be defensive...this is how we made you..."

 

Hi message is simple. This is how we approached training. We were wrong. This is what we need to change.

 

I can see nothing there that's objectionable on any level and certainly nothing that amounts to, or even comes close to some form of "generation hatred".

For example take AF447. If the pilots were more familiar with the systems and understanding, they would have seen that they were getting incorrect speed readouts, rather than think "oh it must be some weird computers going strange"

 

If the AF447 pilot in the right seat had conducted stall recovery as it's taught in even a Cessna 172, he wouldn't have killed everyone on the aircraft. There's no great systems knowledge required for that.

 

Maybe it's true to say that a better knowledge of the Airbus's different laws and when and why it applies them might have helped them understand why the systems were acting strangely, but that doesn't alter the fact that the aircraft could have been saved by an application of basic stick-and-rudder knowledge.