What's the appeal(s) of Flying Heavy Airliners?

[Anxu00 176]

2 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

GA can take more prep than Commercial when you factor in weather elevation and limited route options.  Fuel planning for GA is critical, bad winds and you can’t  make your destination and have to navigate to alternates.  Commercial that’s much less of an issue.

GA has less redundancy and real possibility of having to navigate old school.

Both provide a level of interaction that can be as complex or as simple as one wants to make it. 

Cheers, Rob

Interesting thoughts on GA.  You are right about making a flight as complex or as simple as one wants it.  The complex Airliner is an interesting proposition.  In a sense, it's actually can be setup quickly as the system is highly reliable.  Then at the same time, if one wants to be as real as possible, the throwing in PPFX, Fs3Crew, weather and 45 mins later, your will to fly simply sometime vanished, as it's like having a full time job.  Although, my friend who has a two RV (RV-7 and RV-10) also told me that GA is also a lot of work, so he can only fly in the week-end and it's usually a whole day affair.  Luckily for him, he lives in Texas with plenty of good VFR condition.  Flying for real is exhilarating with all the physical feedback and the full surround visual.  In a Sim, all you have is the visual feedback, so in a sense, the airliner is actually more real.  I am still very much conflict and ambivalent about an airliner.  However, if I don't make it as realistic as it can, may be I can find enough to enjoy without thinking about PPFX, FS3Crew.  Of course flying on non existing real world routes can be heresy to some, and indeed I find myself asking what's exactly is this flight that I am doing.  However, the fuel cost is nothing and I can always walk away from a crash.  Perhaps overtime I will find the sweet spot.

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

2 hours ago, Murmur said:

 

Well, actually if a simmer wants to keep things as close to real as possible, flying a GA becomes definitely more challenging than flying complex airliners. An airliner pilot receives a scheduled flight plan, flies above the weather for most of the trip, has a much more performing (and, in RL, reliable) aircraft, lands on ILS capable runways most of the time, and has a copilot.

On the other hand, a GA pilot has to create a flight plan on his own, is alone in the cockpit, flies in the weather almost all of the time, is more likely to crash if an engine fail, if he's taking off high or hot, or if he flies VFR into IMC. etc. etc.

Most of these aspects can be recreated in a flight sim as well. So the concept that simming in an airliner is more challenging that simming in a GA is a sort of skewed impression of us flight simmers. :-)

I'm pretty sure that an airliner pilot has a higher probability of having an accident when leisurely flying in a GA aircraft, than when flying in his heavy metal office.

 

Your last paragraph is terrible generalization.

I understand how you would think these things, but still....a terrible generalization.

I would argue thst they are safer than most leisure flying GA pilots. The experience they have managing the operation in the airliner day in and day out will manifest itself in the GA by making their decision making more conservative. They are used to thinking about how certain decision affect the operation as a whole. They also know how to think outside the immediate action of flying the airplane.

Long story short, they have a better idea of the big picture which I'm sure most leisure GA pilots don't have.

Same goes for the GA pilots who fly for a job....They are going to be safer than ones who don't.....mostly ;)

[Skywolf 992]

It is the cool factor period.  When I was kid, I was fascinated by all the buttons, screens and what not. And now in VR, I get that feeling like virtually I am inside the cockpit.  And too, flight sim creates the airplane fantasy for cheap and in an entertaining way. 

End of the day - it is fascination and curiosity on learning about these heavies virtually.

[Jim Young 2,356]

I think the fasination for flying the heavies vs GA is the fact most of us have flown on many of the heavies and few have flown on GA flights.  I know many like GA because that's what they have personally flown as a pilot or passenger and they would like to replicate the experiences and learn more.

[cryptomaniac 4]

Since moving to P3DV4, the only airliner I've bought is the NGX 737 (flown it alot). Been spending more time with the GA planes to get the feel back again of being in full control. I've compromised by almost exclusively flying the XP Lear 25 only using automation when at altitude for the cruise. Seems to make it more enjoyable for me.

[Murmur 3,941]

1 hour ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Your last paragraph is terrible generalization.

I understand how you would think these things, but still....a terrible generalization.

I would argue thst they are safer than most leisure flying GA pilots.

Of course it's a generalization. Statistics are a generalization by definition.

Maybe I did not explain myself properly, I never stated that an airliner pilot is less safe than a GA pilot, I just stated that an airliner pilot has (statistically) a bigger chance to be involved in an accident when he flies in a GA aircraft _compared_ to when he flies in his airliner, so statistically speaking I'd say GA ops are more challenging than airliner ops (in real life).

 

[Paraffin 2,197]

2 hours ago, Jim Young said:

I think the fasination for flying the heavies vs GA is the fact most of us have flown on many of the heavies and few have flown on GA flights.  I know many like GA because that's what they have personally flown as a pilot or passenger and they would like to replicate the experiences and learn more.

I'm sure that's a factor. It is for me, anyway.

I don't have a pilot's license, but I'm retired from a career as an editorial/advertising photographer that involved occasional aerial work -- everything from flying over South American jungles in light overhead GA planes with the door off, to shooting boat ads in South Florida from Jet Rangers with the door off. I had to learn enough about flying to understand what the various platforms could do, what to ask for, and what to avoid asking for. You learn to work closely with the pilot.

It's the most fun I've ever had with my clothes on, although there is always some stress in "getting the shot" when the client is footing the bill.

At my age I'll never do that again, or at least never get paid to do it again. But it's probably why I have a strong preference in flight sims for overhead wing bush planes, and helicopters. I can have fun flying and explore parts of the world I was never able to visit in person, from lower altitudes that I remember vividly from real life. And with a new challenge of flying in heavy weather, because you don't do aerial work unless the weather is perfect. Now I go looking for the heavy stuff to fly in.

[skelsey 765]

As I've probably said in the past, there it is very individual and it depends upon what gives you the most enjoyment.

If "flying" to you means 'poling' an aircraft around, then GA flying will probably give you more pleasure. It is a very different discipline to operating a modern airliner, which to me is much more of a thinking game: much less about heaving controls around and much more about planning, anticipation and strategy (although there are undoubtedly situations where manual handling dexterity is also essential!). The automatics are there to give you the space and capacity to think and to manage the flight; in the cruise there's potentially a lot to think about. Weather avoidance, fuel management, monitoring the progress of the flight, descent planning, systems management, contingency planning -- I was speaking to a long-haul pilot a while back who said that the most challenging aspect of the job is having the discipline to be constantly planning for the worst and to know what options might be available in the event of a catastrophic (or even a less catastrophic) failure at any given point in the flight, whilst knowing in the back of one's mind that in all likelihood all that thought and effort will never be put in to practice.

I tend to stick to one aircraft type at a time and learn it inside out, both in terms of systems and flying characteristics. Being able to put the aeroplane in exactly the place one wants it, to be able to consistently fly a CDA where the thrust levers are closed at FL350 and only come back up again at 1000R on the approach, to be constantly ahead of the aeroplane and what's happening next in a dynamic situation, perhaps with online ATC in a busy environment and a complex airfield, is not necessarily a manual handling challenge but it is a mental challenge, often equally as exhausting and no two situations are ever quite the same! The most satisfying flights I've done -- and the ones where the cruise has flashed by in a moment -- have been the ones where I've been really 'on top' of everything -- I've planned adequately and made good decisions at the pre-flight stage, during the flight I've always been ahead of the aircraft and been able to anticipate what's coming next and adapt the plan as necessary, and I've flown as accurately as I possibly could. I can whip up a plan, jump in and fly but I'm never quite that satisfied when I'm 'winging it'.

A long haul flight is like a strategy game: decisions you take early on, even in the pre-flight stage, can have a massive knock-on effect later in the flight. How much fuel do you load, bearing in mind you could be MTOW or indeed MLW restricted, and to arrive at your destination with an extra 20 minutes' worth of fuel might require you to load three times that initially as you will burn two thirds of it enroute just to lug the extra fuel halfway around the world. The forecast for your destination might be clear in the planning stage, but forecasts can change significantly over the course of 12 hours -- how confident are you in the met man's abilities and what will you do if halfway there you get a weather report and suddenly the visibility at your destination has dropped to 200 metres? Likewise with upper wind forecasts and enroute weather.

Having said all that, I run our training at BAV. The initial course is a VFR basic flying course in essentially the default C172; almost without exception the first thing all my trainees say after their first lesson is "I never realised there was so much more to this"! When you operate the aircraft according to the POH and best practice, throw in staying outside controlled airspace, navigating with map, compass and stopwatch, dodging clouds, scanning for traffic, dealing with ATC, keeping an eye out for a suitable field in case the engine stops, doing your enroute FREDA checks, applying proper circuit joining procedures, updating a navlog all whilst hand-flying the aeroplane the workload can be surprisingly high even at 90 KIAS!

I have to say that if I properly plan a VFR cross-country flight it takes me just as long - if not longer - than the planning and preparation for an airliner flight by the time I've researched the destination, got my chart, protractor and whizz wheel out, checked the weather, calculated the drift, ETE and fuel requirements for each leg and all the rest of it. The reward, of course, is arriving to see one's destination appear just off the nose after an hour and a half having calculated everything by hand!

As I say, it's a very individual thing - for me personally, regardless of the aircraft type to me flying -- simulated or real -- is as much, if not more, a mental exercise than a physical one. Anybody with a bit of practice can fling an aeroplane around the sky: to be a pilot, however, is a state of mind.

[winged532 7]

In discussing my flight simming with a friend who is a real 777 pilot, I was surprised when he asked me if I trim the aircraft during flight.  I said I only trim for takeoff, and the aircraft auto pilot does all the trimming for me.  He then said that in his real cockpit, he hand flies the aircraft all the way up to Top of Climb, manually using power and trim, and only then does he connect the auto pilot.  He does the exact opposite upon reaching Top of Descent, including hand flying the approach.  I asked him why he does this.  He said his route is Los Angeles to Sydney Australia,  and because it is so long, he maxes out his allowable flying hours with only two round trips  per month.  How many of us simmers hand fly our departures and arrivals without use of the autopilot?  Doing that would make flying the tubes much more like a GA aircraft in immersion and satisfaction.

[Patco Lch 1,465]

3 hours ago, Murmur said:

Of course it's a generalization. Statistics are a generalization by definition.

Maybe I did not explain myself properly, I never stated that an airliner pilot is less safe than a GA pilot, I just stated that an airliner pilot has (statistically) a bigger chance to be involved in an accident when he flies in a GA aircraft _compared_ to when he flies in his airliner, so statistically speaking I'd say GA ops are more challenging than airliner ops (in real life).

 

You know, I have seen several accident reports of high time airline pilots Lossing their lives in GA accidents sometimes even making rookie mistakes. I don't know if over confidence gets them or forgetting the limitations of the equipment. Perhaps just the law of averages.

 

[Anxu00 176]

1 hour ago, skelsey said:

I tend to stick to one aircraft type at a time and learn it inside out, both in terms of systems and flying characteristics.

This is true.  Perhaps go deep is why airliner or complex GA gives you the satisfaction of the flight.

[edetroit 933]

4 hours ago, winged532 said:

In discussing my flight simming with a friend who is a real 777 pilot, I was surprised when he asked me if I trim the aircraft during flight.  I said I only trim for takeoff, and the aircraft auto pilot does all the trimming for me.  He then said that in his real cockpit, he hand flies the aircraft all the way up to Top of Climb, manually using power and trim, and only then does he connect the auto pilot.  He does the exact opposite upon reaching Top of Descent, including hand flying the approach.  I asked him why he does this.  He said his route is Los Angeles to Sydney Australia,  and because it is so long, he maxes out his allowable flying hours with only two round trips  per month.  How many of us simmers hand fly our departures and arrivals without use of the autopilot?  Doing that would make flying the tubes much more like a GA aircraft in immersion and satisfaction.

Probably because real aircraft are easier to fly than sim aircraft. 

I have flown the British Aiways Level D 777 sim at Heathrow. It was easy to hand fly.

I have flown GA in real life also again easier than the sim.

I love the heavies because I am in awe of them, though in sim I like old school.... 747 classics, Dc-8s, Tu-154 etc etc.

I said the Level D 777 sim was easy...but the size of the real aircraft would turn my legs to jelly. 

Edit* "easier" is probably the wrong word. "handle better" may be closer to the mark.

To answer the OP question is, the challenge.

There is a reason why one learns to fly GA first. 

[Guest]

I kinda wish I moved my life in this direction ... 

I believe Steveo is a "Corporate" pilot for a living.  Based in FL if I'm not mistaken.

[out 769]

3 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

I believe Steveo is a "Corporate" pilot for a living.  Based in FL if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, you're right. I watch his YT vlogs on a regular basis.
It is very enjoyable yet romantic plus you can learn a loooot about aviation.

Now I wish someone would release a top quality Socata TBM for P3Dv4.

[edetroit 933]

4 minutes ago, Rafal said:

 

Now I wish someone would release a top quality Socata TBM for P3Dv4.

I hope your wish comes true Rafal..... mine didn't.