Sorry Neal. Very "possible" doesn't quantify the chances of a succesful, ie "everyone lives" outcome. If the "talk downer" isn't present or she runs "out of time", she and the others perish.

Well yes, obviously "very possible" doesn't guarantee success. But surely it's better than having no one in the cockpit at all? It gives everyone a chance. Which is a lot better than the alternative.

Not so if you have several ATPs managing to tail strike at a major International airport resulting in the tragic outcome mentioned up thread.

I personally believe it would be possible for a seasoned NGX sim pilot to take the control of a 737 with two incapacitated pilots and successfully set up for a CATIII Autoland. However, it definitely would not be possible for any sim pilot to successfully hand fly and land an airliner. I don't think there is anything that would stop someone with the proper systems knowledge from setting up an aircraft to basically fly itself. 

 

There are several major airlines that fly all Cat III approaches using the HUD, no A/P.

 

blaustern

It is not rocket science. Having and idea of what the systems do and where they are will help. With the assistance of a traffic controller might not be a centerline smooth landing but you will survive.

 

 

With the assistance of a traffic controller might not be a centerline smooth landing but you will survive.

 

Most ATC folks are not pilots.  If they were qualified in a B737 they sure wouldn't be in ATC. :smile: 

 

blaustern

No need to introduce arguments about 'how complex a wing is to master' or 'how out of your depth you'll be in out of envelope' scenarios. We all understand that flying is complex and you need to be highly trained.

 

If that were truly the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

 

Fantasies do exist and everyones opinion as well.

 

I don't understand how anyone can post such a statement, "I think someone could do it" UNLESS they are type rated in something like a 737 etc (I take those statements to mean, "I could do it!"   ). Everyone has an opinion - and I know I will ruffle feathers here but... the only value I find in these posts? The ones where someone is speaking from actual experience (or it appears as such).

 

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.

 

This is the kind of thing I look for in a post. There is a sense of humility. There is a sense of experience. A sense of honest self-assessment. Traits of a "good pilot" imo. Some great posts by Mark and Ian as well. KenG... Ron...

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting you're all bad pilots or unable to learn, it's just that right now, you haven’t had enough relevant experience on type to pull off any kind of manual flying.

 

Thanks for taking the time to post your assessment.

 

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 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)...

 

I thought the same myself Mark... one of the cabin crew would be infinitely preferable over someone who says, "I fly FSX" (but wasn't going to post an opinion as what do I know about piloting a commercial aircraft). My reasoning was the cabin crew is intimately acquainted with procedures (as non-pilots) and company SOP. They know how to take instructions and give them. "Daily" they are in the air and understand the risks. There is a certain "familiarity" they will have with the aircraft. There is a demonstrated "professionalism" that they have to maintain as part of the crew. Essentially you are getting what I would call "a known quantity" with someone from the cabin crew. They are vetted. This coming from someone who has only eyeballed a flightdeck.

 

Wrt experience (to my limited understanding) things have changed quite a bit in the U.S. the last decade or so. When I got my Comm/Inst. the Regionals (not the major carriers mind you - the regionals) wanted 2500hrs TT with 1000hrs of that as Multi (don't remember the turbine exp. required). It may be terribly exciting for a noob to hit that 250hr mark with his/her Commercial/Instrument - then be seated in the right seat. But there is a lot to be said for the vetting process that takes place over the number of years it would take to build 2500 plus hours. But now we're back to needing more experience... anywhere from 1000 to 1500hrs.

 

---

I was actually "on edge" listening to

the Unintentional King Air pilot (AOPA Interview) even though I knew the outcome. Rarely do I sit thru a youtube for more than a couple minutes... but listening to the ATC communications and watching the radar track (both Center then Approach Control) had me absolutely captivated. This guy had guts -- and a head to get him thru a situation that could have easily killed himself and his family. Outstanding job too by the controllers. They were calm, clear, supportive, and gave the pilot everything he needed from their end to get that pilot back on the ground safely. Amazing job all around.

 

Is there an airline pilot that also flies on FSX/P3D that could give some expert feedback?

 

 

Is there an airline pilot that also flies on FSX/P3D that could give some expert feedback?

 

Several have.  Both outcomes have been supported.

Most ATC folks are not pilots.  If they were qualified in a B737 they sure wouldn't be in ATC. :smile:

 

blaustern

 

Not so fast...ATC may very well pay better than many airline pilot billets.

BTW LMFAO at cabin crew better than a sim aware pilot.  What would a steward know about the mechanics of navigation and flight?

 

 

 

Not so fast...ATC may very well pay better than many airline pilot billets.

BTW LMFAO at cabin crew better than a sim aware pilot.  What would a steward know about the mechanics of navigation and flight?

 

 

 

You'd be surprised what some of the senior cabin crew know!

 

The problem they would have is more fundemental. Just how good is the FSX pilot presenting himself to the Senior Cabin crew? How can he/she know that they'd do a better or even credible job and far more importantly in toaday's age, how would hte cabin crew know that the Sim pilot offering his services hadn't been the one who arranged for the incapacitation of the crew?

 

Pulling the thread drift right back into line-

 

The OP wanted to know if high end sim add-ons would make him a better prospect for real training later on. The answer to that simple question is yes- to an extent. I would stake my reputation on the more immersive the Sim the better the level of help. The OR or Hive enabled sim will provide considerable better visual and sensory immersion and interaction.

 

I refer you to my avatar to see what I do for the day job., That's a CFM56-7B behind me....

Assuming the FSX "pilot" is getting help from the ground and is in a radar-controlled area, surely systems knowledge wouldn't matter anyway? Isn't it more like that the guys on the ground will mostly just tell him which buttons to push on the autopilot and, with ATC doing the navigation and providing vectors, any interaction with the FMS would be kept to an absolute minimum? 

I am going to say something that may sound strange, but I think this may help put this in perspective.  I've been a military and commercial pilot for over 40 years.  In all those years I've either been flying Boeing or Douglas aircraft.  I have never been in the cockpit of an Airbus.

 

If I were a passenger on an Airbus and the pilot needed help I could probably help with the radios and the checklist if I could find them.  If I was to fly it without any help, I could probably figure it out after a while, but it most likely would be ugly.  At 8 miles a minute there is not a lot of time to figure stuff out.  As for the landing, I most likely would want to flare at about 50 feet, which most likely wouldn't workout so well. 

 

As for the B737-900, I've flown it in the sim.  I didn't have a lot of trouble other than wanting to flare at 50 feet, but remember the systems on Boeing and Douglas are similar. 

 

If I'm going to struggle, I don't see how someone who has never been in the cockpit can be successful. 

 

blaustern

If I'm going to struggle, I don't see how someone who has never been in the cockpit can be successful

 

And there you have it.

If I'm going to struggle, I don't see how someone who has never been in the cockpit can be successful.

Agreed 100%. If there is a successful outcome to the original scenario, it will be attributed to the grace of God rather than the simmers skill set. :wink:

.... and only today I've seen an advert for fspilotshop using a photo of a real A380 just before touchdown, with the question "Can you land this plane?" I smiled and thought of this thread  :smile: