They said it couldn't be done

[WarpD 824]

5 hours ago, KenG said:

By the time someone earns their ATP they have over a thousand hours of actual airplane experience and generally have taken a few certificate flight examinations in a real airplane. Sure a 737 pilot gets typed in a simulator, but then spends some amount of time under a Check Captain in a real airplane before being allowed to fly the line. Most airlines will then require a new guy to sit in the right seat for many years under the tutelage of experienced Captains. 

 

Airline pilots can get typed having never stepped onboard a real one... try getting your PPL without flying a real aircraft.

The point is, don't discount actual simulator time and training... many real world pilots start exactly there and get a job flying real aircraft after having only flown them in a simulator.

[FDEdev 955]

16 minutes ago, WarpD said:

 

Airline pilots can get typed having never stepped onboard a real one...

That's only valid for very experienced high time ATPs!

Low time pilots who have 'only' time in GA twins, biz jets etc. have to fly a lot of traffic circuits in the real plane before they start flying under supervision with passengers.

High time ATPs sometimes get away with a type rating on a Level-D sim without doing practise circuits in the real one before flying under supervision. 

However that's only due to cost consideration and I can assure you that no pilot likes the sim-flying only way of getting a type rating. 

[Guevorkyan 69]

Correct, they do get typed in a sim. But that's the very final part of a training program for the given type, lot's of classroom hours before stepping in a Level-D sim (and a lot of hours there as well).

But, before getting to the classroom, they would have flown hundreds and thousands of real flying hours and would know the physics involved in the process. The desktop sim can perfectly aid in finding the switches and generally maintain a level flight. A more sofisticated sim can further add dimension of reality and awareness.

The same can be said of Formula 1 sims (real ones), sailing sims, trains, etc. 

A real pilot might be able to land it in one piece, automation will certainly help a lot if it is FBW. But also can add a lot of workload if you are not mentally ahead of the airplane. Being ahead of the airplane is a must, and that comes with experience in the type. Being behing the curve is something no pilot want to be in, very dangerous and adds an inmense amount of urgency to the situation. That is what is going to happen if you have not experienced a lot of real flying (and lately if I'm allowed to add - proficiency is as important as anything).

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

1 hour ago, WarpD said:

 

Airline pilots can get typed having never stepped onboard a real one... try getting your PPL without flying a real aircraft.

The point is, don't discount actual simulator time and training... many real world pilots start exactly there and get a job flying real aircraft after having only flown them in a simulator.

 

I'm typing this from my phone so please excuse my spelling errors due to dumb autocorrect.

I am very sprry to say this but you are sorely mistaken  if you think that it's this simple for someone to go straight from zero to hero only flying a level-d sum.

 

AS stated before, all ATPs have had countless hours of experience in a real airplane flying through real air.

They know the true relationship between pitch and power, they instinctively know what an airplane will do when it encounters a gust of wind and what to do to counteract said gust.

They have the ability to "feel" an airplane flying through the air.

Sim pilots don't and wouldn't have these abilities. If they have learned it from FS, it's very rudimentary and most liekyl will not transfer over to a real jet. They would in a Cessna or a piper but just barely.  They are used to flying the simulator. That's why it's so easy for low time.or zero time pilots to step into level-d Sims and show off.

II had 40 hrs all in Cessna 172s and jumped into a e145 sim and flew the heck out of it. The instructor was thoroughly amazed and impressed.

However, I could never do that in real life.

The level-d Sims are honestly a set it and forget it kind of thing. It's so scientific that if you know what power setting you need for a stabilized approach, you can literally set an N1 setting and watch it not lose or gain speed at all as long as you know what pitch attitude to fly at. The descent path won't change either.

This situation rarely if ever happens in real life. A power setting becomes a suggestion and it's up to the pilot to know how to change thrust and attitude to achieve a stabilized approach.

There is a reason why pilots go through initial operating experience on airplanes they just get typed in with a check airman. The airplanes themselves still differ from their sum counterparts. Sims nowadays, are much better at simulating flight but they aren't perfect.

When an ATP rated pilot steps into the sum, they are merely getting used to how the airplane flies. They aren't learning what 150 kias looks like on approach. They aren't learning how a jet flies. They know these things instinctively.

I'll go a step further, pilots who are learning their first jet, when they step into the sim, they already have an idea of what to expect, they may only need to get used to a faster approach and more power from the engines.

They most likely already have the ability to foresee things before they happen.

 

All this is coming from growing up on FS, getting in a sim at 40 hrs, then eventually getting a type rating in a jet at 1500 hrs and only having experience in light multi engine pistons.

TThings were even more different once getting into the real jet. The sum only really taught me how to have an idea of what should happens nd what things should look like. Things were definitely different once in the real airplane.

 

 

[HighBypass 2,339]

Ah, this old chestnut. :)

A colleague at work recently asked me the old "so if the pilots are incapacitated.... etc." question. To which I answered, if the aeroplane and autopilot are behaving themselves? Then yes, I said I could help..any of us simmers could help.. If systems start going wrong?... nope no chance. Could I land it? Yes... ONCE! LOL  nope. I said it would get very messy even given the knowledge of what should happen when landing an airliner.

We all have an idea, we have a clue about the numbers etc. but for real, under lots of stress...

Had to laugh though, he still said he'd feel safer with me in the same plane than his mates! 

Anyhow not going to happen seeing as the crew are locked in behind that bulletproof door these days..

[n4gix 4,947]

9 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

Anyhow not going to happen seeing as the crew are locked in behind that bulletproof door these days..

^^^^ This. Everything else is a moot point!

[KenG 492]

16 hours ago, ahsmatt7 said:

I am very sprry to say this but you are sorely mistaken  if you think that it's this simple for someone to go straight from zero to hero only flying a level-d sum.

2

I don't think that is what Ed was saying at all. More of adding to the conversation based on his experience working with a hardware producer for BATD and AATDs. 

I spend my life in the back end of Level D FFS as a professional instructor (Level C and D FFS are the only devices certified to accomplish all tasks according to the ATP PTS.) I am also a trained UPRT instructor fully compliant with ICAO doc 10011, which means I have both on aircraft and simulator training and fully understand the differences and limitations of simulator training. This is an important distinction as many instructors are ignorant to the limitations of FFS and even teach and perform maneuvers that are part of the training syllabi but are not properly modeled. This, of course, leads to negative training in which a pilot under instruction comes away with an inappropriate understanding of how an airplane will react under certain aerodynamic situations.  

 If this is happening in the high-end simulation business what real chance do you think a self-study person has who's only experience is a hobby level desktop simulation? This is the nuance of simulated flight that amateurs just do not get. How many times have I had the discussion with a hobby level guy on stalls. Neither FSX or P3D properly simulate accelerated stalls and thus the concept of g loading the airplane which increases stall speed is completely lost on them. You take your PMDG 737 expert and put him into a perfect scenario, CAVOK and calm winds and he lands a 737 FFS. The crowd who wants to believe that FSX/P3D is truly a high-end training device point to this as a success. Yes, he was successful under a very controlled environment. But, the bottom line is he does not have the training or experience. In reality, he may still be lucky or if he gets a little slow and a wing drops or the rate of descent increases he may inappropriately apply incorrect control movement that exasperates the situation. Never in his desktop simulation life has the airplane acted like it will act in the real world and he has a boat load of negative training to reinforce his control inputs.

 I know many desktop simulation guys who are really great people and good guys (and gals) who really want to make their experience as real as possible given the limitations of the software. However, there is a reason that the FAA still requires actual aircraft experience for all levels of certification. The engineers who design these simulation devices are fully aware of the limitations inherent with simulated flight and the many aerodynamic factors that are not modeled. Pushing pixels is just that pushing pixels, sure we can log FTD time, but it is not flight time.

[HighTowers 1,434]

Think we are all missing the point. Sure, nothing at all can beat experience and knowing the external forces out there in an uncontrolled environment over many many years no matter your knowledge of the systems and where everything is in the cockpit. However we are talking about a once in  a multi million possibility that if the crew was incapacitated for whatever bizarre reason, and there was absolutely no one else on the plane as a pilot but you alone have some knowledge, its still the best chance for everyone to live. Perhaps not a very good one, but its better than nothing at all.  Would we be able to handle the anxiety, emotions, and the surprises? Who knows. That more of an individual thing based on someones character.  But dont forget, theres also adrenaline and the will to live to bring that aircraft down somehow someway with the experience we have in a simulator. No one can truly say what would really happen because I dont think its actually happened IRL nor is it likely to happen. But fear or fight is what will determine the will to survive. 

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

4 hours ago, HighTowers said:

Think we are all missing the point. Sure, nothing at all can beat experience and knowing the external forces out there in an uncontrolled environment over many many years no matter your knowledge of the systems and where everything is in the cockpit. However we are talking about a once in  a multi million possibility that if the crew was incapacitated for whatever bizarre reason, and there was absolutely no one else on the plane as a pilot but you alone have some knowledge, its still the best chance for everyone to live. Perhaps not a very good one, but its better than nothing at all.  Would we be able to handle the anxiety, emotions, and the surprises? Who knows. That more of an individual thing based on someones character.  But dont forget, theres also adrenaline and the will to live to bring that aircraft down somehow someway with the experience we have in a simulator. No one can truly say what would really happen because I dont think its actually happened IRL nor is it likely to happen. But fear or fight is what will determine the will to survive. 

I disagree with you. No matter how determined a person is on landing an airplane and saving the day, if they don't have the skill set to do it, they probably won't get it done.

[nealmac 260]

1 hour ago, ahsmatt7 said:

I disagree with you. No matter how determined a person is on landing an airplane and saving the day, if they don't have the skill set to do it, they probably won't get it done.

Maybe your right. But surely an armchair pilot stands a slightly better chance than someone who knows absolutely nothing?

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

20 minutes ago, nealmac said:

Maybe your right. But surely an armchair pilot stands a slightly better chance than someone who knows absolutely nothing?

I would say its statistically negligible.

[n4gix 4,947]

It's still a moot point. It simply cannot occur on modern aircraft due to that locked door...

[FDEdev 955]

There seems to be a slight misunderstanding how the locked doors are working in such a case.

IF both pilots would be unconcious etc. the flight attendants can of course open the cockpit door by just entering an emergency code.

Since nobody in the cockpit can operate the deny switch the door will open.

 

BTW, concerning the probabilty of hand flying an airliner, no way to land it. Autoland should work if you can establish any kind of communication.

[KenG 492]

11 hours ago, HighTowers said:

Think we are all missing the point. 

 

I have searched as many accident/incidents databases looking for a modern (past 20 to 30 years) of a scheduled airliner in which both crewmembers became incapacitated and the passengers and cabin crew remained alert and able to render assistance. I am batting zero. I think you have a better chance of winning the super mega millions jackpot, buying your own 737 and trying to fly it. 

Much more likely if this were to happen it would be in one of the many business aircraft certified for single pilot operation. 

[KevinAu 441]

The closest would be the Helios 737 that crashed a few years ago saw the two pilots incapacitated due to a pressurisation failure while a flight attendant that managed to remain conscious did enter the cockpit. He was unable to save the aircraft.