Sleeping while flying

[lownslo 590]

I'm another who always flies real time.  Having said that, I don't see any problem with those who use other options... after all, it is a hobby and we should each enjoy it as we wish.

Greg

[skelsey 765]

3 hours ago, ClearedtoLand said:

However, the validity of your well reasoned position does not exclude the validity of someone else's position who doesn't follow procedures, and here I will admit that my position is very much influenced by the OP's phrase that "I for one have never ever been able to "rationalize" flight simulation of flying over the Atlantic or Pacific for hours upon hours of nothing but water at say 35,000'."

Oh quite. I should, really, have prefaced my post with a disclaimer that ultimately this is a question of different horses for different courses and the beauty of this hobby is that it can be, to borrow a phrase, as real as you want it to be: if you want to spend hours planning followed by a long-haul flight in real time adhering to all the real procedures, you can. Equally, if you just want to fire it up, set it going and hit the sack, you can do that too, and anything in between. Neither position is 'wrong'.

However, as you quote -- Bryan's original post asked the question about how to rationalise long-haul flight simulation, and that really was what I was trying to offer -- an explanation of why people are attracted to such operations, and, further, to point out that if one so desires a long-haul flight offers many challenges to meet if one goes beyond just waiting for the end of the magenta line.

As I say, that is not a suggestion that it is 'wrong' to so -- just an added dimension to the hobby which some may not have considered.

[spesimen 135]

8 hours ago, Captain Kevin said:

If you took off at maximum take-off weight and teleport yourself somewhere closer to the destination:

• How much fuel have you burned and how much should you have left.
• What waypoint would you be at along what airway.
• What altitude would you be at.

You really wouldn't know because there are many factors that come into play. Winds and weather, mostly. Then if you go to map mode and move the little airplane icon somewhere closer to your destination, how do you know exactly where you're supposed to be, and what happens to the rest of the flight plan.

i like to use the 'quantum leap' utility which basically lets one pick a specific waypoint (it reads the lat/long out of fsx data)

the rest of the numbers i already know from planning in pfpx. i just plan fuel normally, get to climb, maybe cruise for an hour or something, warp, reset my fuel to what it was supposed to be after the burn, maybe do a step climb depending how close of a point i decided to use, maybe there will be a bit of cruise left or starting the descent soon. pretty much depends how much time i have for simming that day.

it's a bit of a compromise, basically i'm accepting that the winds are only changing over a few hours instead of 12 hours so maybe in a full length version there would be more differential to account for... but even when i do long flights without time accel or warp, i find that with proper planning it's rare to be off by more than a few percent anyway. 

cheers,-andy crosby

 

 

 

[Chock 17,769]

Depends for me on what the flight length is and what aeroplane it is.

I did once connect online with a friend in FSX and we flew our two A2A B17Gs in formation all the way from the USA to England, via a stop off in Greenland, because we were both curious to know if we could fly the way most B17s actually flew during WW2 when on missions, i.e. manually keeping station for very long periods. e took turns at leading and it was fun and challenging to do that, even though it took a very long time since the Fortress can only do about 200 knots.

Normally for long simulated flights however, I'll fly trips of around 1,000 miles in airliners simulating freight flights, which takes about two and a half hours in something like a 737 or A320, from taxying out to taxying in, and I'm not inclined to accelerate time on those trips, although I might occasionally do so if real life intervenes.

As an interesting aside, I do know a pilot who once fell asleep at the controls of a single seat glider for about 25 minutes, fortunately, he had it well trimmed and it was a very sunny day with lots of thermals, so the aeroplane happily flew along on its own, not losing much height and it would have only been doing about 50-60 knots, so he didn't end up hundreds of miles away. Not that I'd recommend ever doing that, but in his case no real harm was done since as far as VFR is concerned, a glider has right of way over everything other than a balloon or an airship, and you don't come across those too often.

[overspeed3 410]

As the saying goes, If Man was meant to fly, God would have given him wings.   Instead, he gave us all a flight simulator...

Back in the old days of FS98, et al, I used to spend the long hours over the world's oceans in absolute real time.  Nowadays, I don't have the time, nor the inclination to spend my retirement hours sitting in a simulated cockpit.  Though I never snooze-away a long trip, I do use compressed time.  But for some reason in FSX, I get really bad porpoising in anything over 4x speed (except in PMDG models). 

So for those out there with the time and the inclination: Hey, make it as real as it gets...  

[tjstreak 53]

14 hours ago, ClearedtoLand said:

You already recognise that it is simulation, and so, not real. Since it is not real it does not have to follow the rules of reality, however you define reality and however you formulate rules, bearing in mind that your views on reality and rules are not universal.

In reality, we are not flying an aircraft; we are playing with electricity.  The "reality" exists entirely in our head.  To an outside observer, we are just sitting in front of a computer screen, doing a lot of nothing.  Our perception of reality is very different from the actual reality.   It really is a Zen experience, isn't it?

[dal330200 216]

I work as a writer and there are times that I'll pick a long-haul flight and get my articles done.  It's more enjoyable to fly than to listen to music.  I did try a SFO-VHHH flight, round-trip, once in January.  Slept like a baby, woke up a few hours before arrival, waited 2 hours for the return leg, slept again and woke up ready to land in SFO.  Talk about mind-blowing.  On one hand, it was nice to wake up to engines and wind.  On the other hand, it took a day to recover and I felt kind of ridiculous afterward.  Of course, it was cheaper and more enjoyable than flying the trip in the real-world, which I do a couple of times a year. 

To each his own:-)

John

[bjratchf 80]

After flying long haul in real life (and I will be returning to that shortly), yes there is a lot of stuff to do- most of it prior to the ETOPS boundary. But spread over 8 hours, the workload is really not that high- and it is again, simply "monitoring" an aircraft as the DTW (distance to waypoint) ticks down so you can make another fuel hack, plot position. With CPDLC you don't even have to endure the HF radio anymore, our position info is sent automatically every 7 minutes (our ADS contract). I would definitely not blame anyone that uses 16x or reposition- in our training sims that can do anything, we'd never simulate a long-haul! Now, group events like cross the pond are quite a bit more fun- you actually have human interaction for the 7 hour flight! 

And the guys sitting up all night to do a simulated cross the pond- are you then taking a 3 hour nap and waking to feel "jet lagged," grabbing a beer and a schnitzel and then trying to go to bed to wake at 1am east coast time, in order to fly back? Jet lag is a big part of the "experience." And the rest breaks people are taking- are they restricted to 2-3 hours? Remember, you must split the rest breaks equally amongst the crew. A quick eastbound NYC-Europe might leave only 2 hours max in the rest seat. 

Just some food for thought! As most have mentioned, it is a sim... and a hobby. Simulate the operation however you like it!

[Orlaam 306]

[pilottj 198]

It's all relative isn't it?  Some people think putzing around in a J-3 Cub is boring.  Some think staring at a magenta line at FL300 is boring.  You do what you like.  I like putzing around in a J-3 sometimes, and I also like doing overnight long hauls like the OP suggest...and I do sleep while it goes.  Real long haul flying involves relief crews, and I consider the Autopilot to be my relief crew.  It works great, I get to do the fun stuff...planning, departure, climb....then go to sleep during the boring part...cruise, wake up for approach, land...etc.  The reason I do it this way is I like to fly real time and real weather.  So I when I read the TAF for the destination airport, I can expect the reported forecast winds/weather at the arrival time. 

Currently I am enjoying two other Simulators that also involve long distance travel...both take different approaches to it.  SailAway Simulator, is blue water ocean sailing...real distance, real time, real weather.  It took me a week and a half to do the Bering sea challenge.  I obviously didn't have my computer on for a week.  SAS allows you to plot the course, set the autopilot, then log out, while the boat will continue on course.  SAS sends you email alerts when the boat reaches waypoints, change in winds, runs aground...etc.  Thats one approach.

I am also having fun with American Truck Simulator which takes a different approach.  It scales time and distance so, while you get the illusion of travelling long distances, the time you are actually at the wheel is reasonable.  IE driving from SF to LA is about 8hrs in real life.  In ATS, the same trip is about 30 mins, however fuel consumption and sim time are calibrated such that you need to plan accordingly.

Between FS, SAS and ATS, each have their own approach to long distance travel.  I think each one does the best for the particular form of travel.  The great thing to is all those sims are perfectly suited for short trips too.  SAS is perfectly fine for an hour long race or something, while ATS has plenty short hauling to do.  Pick what you like.  

Cheers

TJ

[Captain Kevin 586]

27 minutes ago, pilottj said:

I am also having fun with American Truck Simulator which takes a different approach.  It scales time and distance so, while you get the illusion of travelling long distances, the time you are actually at the wheel is reasonable.  IE driving from SF to LA is about 8hrs in real life.  In ATS, the same trip is about 30 mins, however fuel consumption and sim time are calibrated such that you need to plan accordingly.

I got bored one time whilst my truck was in the shop up at our terminal, so I was sitting in the lounge running....American Truck Simulator, of all things. Needless to say, other drivers could not figure out why I was STILL driving a truck when I wasn't in my truck. Without delay, I told them the safety department can't get me for speeding.

[HighBypass 2,339]

The other option - another way of skinning the cat is to save the flight... I do this quite a lot on my long haul flights, because I like real time flying. However, this is just my opinion... For example, I use real METAR injection courtesy of FSOpen Clouds). Now had I been planning the flights properly I would have had a forecast for my destination's weather, but saving the flight and then loading it back up on my PC a day or so later, not only might the weather be totally different at the destination, it may have changed out of all recognition close to the current position of the plane. Mind you to stock FSX:SE weather engine only throws CB up to about 36000/37000 feet - never going to be an issue if one is at 38000.

On the flip side, one doesn't have to calculate how much fuel to remove after teleporting close to TOD.  Another advantage is that the VAS is reset.

I'm fortunate that the freeware big iron I currently fly doesn't care too much about the cabin pressurisation state, but if I save the flight for Manuel Noriega's Piaggio Avanti the cabin pressurisation state doesn't save and it's as if a hole has been blown in the side of the plane! I cannot get the system to repressurise and the oxygen is running out. It's nicely modelled in that if the oxygen does run out, you can no longer control the plane! Unfortunately this still happens even after descending below 10000 feet...

[Holdit 551]

On 2017-6-17 at 1:37 AM, skelsey said:

From my perspective:

If your involvement ends at top of climb and doesn't start again until top of descent then I can see how long haul might not appeal. However, I would suggest that one is missing out on a tremendous proportion of the flying experience.

Flying long haul - properly - is about much more than just sticking the autopilot in and waiting for the T/D marker to appear. There are many things that need to be taken in to consideration throughout the flight, options considered and decisions made.

On a typical flight from Europe to the Far East, for example, one might need to consider high terrain along the route. What impact might an engine failure have? What about a decompression over an area where the MSA is in excess of 15,000 ft all around?

Then there is weather - again, on a long-haul flight there is always the chance of coming across inclement weather enroute and potentially having to make decisions about deviating around it.

Then there is contingency planning. Where could you go if you had an emergency on board right now? Where is the nearest airfield with a runway both long enough and strong enough to take your aircraft? What about facilities? Are you overweight? Is the weather there conducive to making an approach? What type of approaches are available?

Then there is monitoring the progress of the flight - recording times and fuel on the plog, cross-checking the FMC and ensuring that you will still have the required reserves on arrival. On the subject of fuel - preflight that is quite a decision to make, given that you won't actually be arriving at your destination until perhaps 12 hours later and the forecast may have been produced some hours before you even started the planning process. Add to that the fact that on a long-haul flight you may well be up against weight limits one way or another, and the fact that you burn fuel just to carry extra fuel - on the 747 you will burn about 4% of the extra fuel per hour. In other words, if you want to arrive in Singapore with an extra 2000kg (just under 15 mins) after a 12hr flight from London, you will actually need to load an extra 2960kg before departure - you'll burn 960kg of fuel just to carry that 2000kg to Singapore. An extra three tonnes on your takeoff weight on top of the planned trip fuel and payload may not go well... in which case you may have to make a decision about whether you want the extra fuel or to throw off some bags/pax/cargo. And, of course, all the decisions you make enroute will have an impact on whether you arrive with more or less fuel than planned.

On a transatlantic you may be plotting your position on a plotting chart. Through Africa, in areas where ATC is sketchy, you may be making broadcasts in accordance with the IATA In-flight Broadcast Procedure.

For me, a long haul flight is like a giant strategy game - there is always something to be thinking about, planning or tracking, and decisions made at one stage in the flight can have a massive knock-on effect further down the line. The variety of situations likely to be encountered on a particular flight are also generally more varied and dynamic than is typically the case on a short-haul flight.

So - you won't catch me setting the sim up and going to bed - I'm too busy! But I would argue there is a lot more to long haul than just sticking the A/P in and watching the world roll by.

I've often wondered about this issue just like the OP, and long-haul isn't my thing at all. A long flight for me is anything over 45 minutes , but the above is an informative and thought-provoking answer. Thank you.

[Guest]

Interesting topic. I myself have two things that creates some sort of realism for me: I never leave the VC while flying and I like to experience a flight from start to finish. If I don't do this, things don't feel as real as I want them too and it feels like I cheated or wasted my time. I simply don't like to do it diferently.

Because I also don't like to sit behind my PC for hours and hours I never do long haul flights. Starting a flight and then go shopping with the wife or do chores around the house after which I return for the landing sounds ridiculous to me and a waste of energy (and hence money). But to each their own!

Obviously there is a limit to what is realistic and I do a lot of things that aren't realistic at all but well, that's very personal. If I stay in the VC and do a flight from A to Z, I have reached my realism goals. I know simmers who do long haul flights and sit behind the PC for hours to make things realistic but who switch to an external view during cruise... I find that ridiculous. Other don't. It is a great thing that we can use our sim the way we want to.

[pilottj 198]

I think that's kind of the catch of Long Haul flying, there is no way to make it 100% realistic, so you'll have to choose which way are going to sacrifice the realism, and if you really want to narrow it down, the most 'realistic' plane in FS are those that can *legally* and reasonably flown by a single pilot.  Take that with a grain of salt tho, because even a full bells n whistles Accusim GA plane that is realistically flown by a single pilot, there is no way to be 100% realistic..  For as real as A2A can make it, there are still things that are simply beyond the limits of a simulation that you must turn a blind eye to for the sake of your 'realism' quest.

If the plane requires a first officer, then you are already pushing the realism factor, so at that point, how you choose to make it work for you is up to you.  It is unrealistic for the pilot to be on duty for an entire long haul flight without a flight crew, just as it is to leave the AP flying the plane while you go to sleep or do errands...pick your poison.  

As real as it gets is more like "As real as average PC simming technology will allow for....the rest you have to fill in with your imagination."  Don't worry, there is nothing wrong with a little fantasy in flight sim.  Ultimately flight sim, sailing sim, truck sim, farm sim, weed whacker sim, bachelor party sim, whatever sim....its all fantasy in the end.  Apart from a few mega rich individuals, having a hangar full of muti million dollar aircraft would be fantasy for for 95% of the worlds population anyway :)  It's your fantasy, make what you want of it.

 

Cheers

TJ