Letting Otto do the job because you have sim experience is one thing, actually hand flying is quite another. Do NOT confuse the one with the other... :Shame On You:

Agreed. But I do wonder how many simmers would opt for hand flying a 737 in this scenario. I won't. I also think that whoever is given the responsibility of talking the poor person down would state at the outset that the autopilot remains engaged all the way to the point where the aircraft has come to a complete stop at the end of the runway.

This is unnecessarily splitting hairs, but I don' think people will be arguing about who is going to fly.  The more likely scenario is that whomever feels that they could help in the absence of any trained person, will more than likely step forward.  Generally, people will feel comfortable with any confident person taking the lead in that situation - because that's exactly what they'll be looking for.

 

I don't think it is unnecessarily splitting hairs.

 

So far, a majority have argued that no matter how many hours one has on a PMDG plane, a simmer could not safely get the aircraft on the ground.

 

It follows from that, that sim flying, even PMDG aircraft, does not provide one with adequate skills to manage a survivable landing. I'll emphasise an autoland here, as any other option than that has been thoroughly dismantled.

 

If that is the case, then what advantage does a proficient PMDG simmer have over a complete novice? If the PMDG person cannot manage to produce a better outcome than a complete novice, and the majority view seems to point in that direction, both will crash, then what reason is there to pick the PMDG simmer over the complete novice? None, it would seem, which leads to an interesting conclusion, namely that if the decision about who to choose were down to me, and I chose the novice on the basis that a crash is inevitable either way, they won't fault my reasoning. This is the reason that I disagreed with the unnecessarily splitting hairs assessment. How many of us would really choose the novice on the basis that the outcome they will manage, a crash, is at least the same as the outcome the PMDG simmer will manage, also a crash?

 

As a side note, though one which adds an interesting perspective to your response. Confidence, generally, is a poor indicator of success, and may even reduce the chances of a favourable outcome, however limited. So, you may be right that people would choose a confident person to take the lead, but they would be better off putting their fate in the hands of a cautious individual. However, since we are speculating on how people will react in such a scenario, I doubt many will stop to bring this up, so I agree with the sentiment.

Lee Kang Kuk  was trained and certified, and partially due to his mishandling of the automation crashed a 777 on a beautiful VFR day in San Francisco. 

 

​If this guy can fail to fly one of the most sophisticated airliners in the world with academics, Full Flight Simulation training (an order of 100s to 1000s of times higher fidelity then FSX/P3D) and a number of IOE flights I have a hard time with this attitude that someone with zero formal instruction and access to a video game with entertainment level simulation of an aircraft can land a 777 (or a 737 for that matter) anytime anywhere. This is simply ignorance from people who don't know what they don't know. As a real pilot and professional flight instructor I have the humility and experience to realize the guys up front are still our best chance of success and despite my many thousand of hours of real flight and decades of experience I would never want to fathom a case in which I may be asked to fly something I am unqualified to operate. 

 

Yes you may be successful, or you may become a smoking hole, every situation is going to different. 

 

BTW: Air Traffic Control are generally not certified in modern airliners and will have a hard time with talking your through sophisticated avionics. In most cases they will give your a radar box while they try to find an expert.

There is of course 1 way the theory can be (slightly) tested. Rent time with BA or other airline sim @ £500/hr and report back here We will need GoPro evidence of your landing.

 

Won't be a true test of the theory by any means as they certainly won't allow you to damage their sim- but at least it will put some minds at rest

This is simply ignorance from people who don't know what they don't know. As a real pilot and professional flight instructor I have the humility and experience to realize the guys up front are still our best chance of success and despite my many thousand of hours of real flight and decades of experience I would never want to fathom a case in which I may be asked to fly something I am unqualified to operate.

We are all ignorant of more things than we are not ignorant of, being critical of people for being ignorant of something is hardly reasonable. After all, being curious about something you don't know anything of and asking a question about it is a necessary first step for learning.

 

The OP's question has been answered comprehensively, his ignorance alleviated, so to speak, by asking this question. Is that not a preferred outcome to his remaining ignorant?

 

My take on this is from a slightly different perspective as my interest is not in whether the person would land safely.

BTW: Air Traffic Control are generally not certified in modern airliners and will have a hard time with talking your through sophisticated avionics. In most cases they will give your a radar box while they try to find an expert.

 

That's what I was alluding to when I said people on the ground. My apologies with not clarifying my post. I would indeed hope that ATC would find a qualified pilot/instructor rated for the aircraft type to do the talking down.

I wonder if in such a scenario how much of the systems would be used anyway. If the scenario is that ATC is in touch with the ersatz pilot, and has set up comms with an expert on the type, then how much needs to be set up anyway? ATC can provide vectors, and presumably the ILS could set up without too much FMC involvement (i.e. frequency and course) ACT could provide vectors for everything else, which can be followed using the autopilot.

 

I'd agree to some degree with the person who said that a knowledge of how to fly might actually be more valuable than detailed systems knowledge, especially if there is going to be any hand flying involved. That 777 crash has already been mentioned. I'm thinking also of Air France 447.

Lee Kang Kuk was trained and certified, and partially due to his mishandling of the automation crashed a 777 on a beautiful VFR day in San Francisco.

Precisely. Much presumption in this thread. Assuming a favorable outcome is a far cry from actually performing as in the RW.

Precisely. Much presumption in this thread. Assuming a favorable outcome is a far cry from actually performing as in the RW.

So which camp do you belong to, the choose the PMDG guy camp, or the choose the novice camp?

I'm not in a camp. This has been idle speculatation since the OP.
I've only interjected a few thoughts based on real world traing and an understanding of what constitutes a "flight envelope".
Even a student on his first solo cross country or an lowly ASEL holder understands from experience what that really means. :wink:

 

 

So which camp do you belong to, the choose the PMDG guy camp, or the choose the novice camp?

 

There is more to flying an airplane than pushing buttons. 

 

It doesn't matter if you pick the PMDG person, the novice or both, they have No Chance.

 

blaustern

I'm not in a camp. This has been idle speculatation since the OP.

I've only interjected a few thoughts based on real world traing and an understanding of what constitutes a "flight envelope".

Even a student on his first solo cross country or an lowly ASEL holder understands from experience what that really means. :wink:

Yes, this I know from experience, it has also been covered in great detail by others on here, and is an answer to a question I didn't ask. Thank you, all the same.

There is more to flying an airplane than pushing buttons. 

 

It doesn't matter if you pick the ..., the novice ..., they have No Chance.

 

blaustern

Thank you, Wilhelm, this, albeit edited version, is what I am interested in. The conviction that no amount of hours spent in a PMDG simulator is enough to persuade one, even in the face of death, to pick the simmer over a complete novice.

There is more to flying an airplane than pushing buttons. 

 

It doesn't matter if you pick the PMDG person, the novice or both, they have No Chance.

 

blaustern

 

Rubbish. In the scenario that is being talked about, with the autopilot in, it literally is pressing buttons. of course you have the stress. but if you are being talked down on the radio, then its going to be much easier to explain modes, headings, altitudes, pressure settings etc to a guy who knows what they mean rather than a random dude.

IMHO RW pilots are of course going to tell you that we cant autoland a real 777 becuase we have learned inside and out the PMDG one...any other way and much of their training was for naught.

Thats also rubbish, pressing buttons is only a quarter of the job the training is all needed to fly, until they start accepting home sim experience for licencing, then it will all still be worth it.

 

there is a lot of elitisim in this thread though.