747-400 fixed base sim.

[Nolights-essential3]

Hi all

I’m fishing for expressions of interest from any of you requiring a 747-400 fixed-base Sim for Interview preparation, CRM, Procedural training, etc?

It’s a very nice machine so far, faithful in all respects to the Boeing flight deck, and should be finished soon.

It’s located in Auckland, and very near the Intl. Airport.

I'd really like your feedback so the program won’t lose momentum.

Thanks

[Woomera]

Constructive feedback maybe. But no advertising please.

Woomera

[HotDog]

In my experience with a fixed base 747 Classic simulator, it is not really a cost effective investment. Lacks reality and is treated as an orphan by the sim technicians that have their hands full looking after the the six axis real stuff.

[nomorecatering]

How similar is a fixed base sim compared to the full motion sim. Do they have the same cockpit, switches, FMS etc. is it exactly the same cockpit othere then for the lack of motion??

Just wondering what sort of cost it would be.

For that matter, what would an airline want for a surplus full motion sim??

[tinpis]

For that matter, what would an airline want for a surplus full motion sim??

Bugger all I'd imagine .

I think a new one is about $30 million(thats probably half price now)

PM me if yer see one cheap.

[Hugh Jarse]

The original author was writing about a -400 rather than a Classic.

When you write about a Fixed Base Sim, it could mean "Full motion with the motion switched off, ie fixed base". (as most line pilots use for practice without an instructor, unless they're approved with motion on).

If you're looking at Cathay, the Classic sim would be better, whereas if your aim is QF or its subsidiaries, the 763 would be more appropriate. For Dragonair, the French Chainsaw (A320).

All the aforementioned tests are conducted with motion on, therefore if you're going to pay for practice, you would be better off choosing the sim that closest resembles the test unit, ie motion on. If you can get the configurations, even better:8

[Nolights-essential3]

...well.... the thing is as realistic as the full motion sim, except for the motion.
It's purpose is for proceedure training mainly.
The thing is, all these types of large aircraft handle pretty much the same, so the greater need is to access the systems, and flight modes.
example, ...say...your Cathay interview... you're given profiles and you need to go over the mode selections and orientation stuff.
MCP, FCU & FMS need particular attention if you want to look really clean on the day.
A mate of mine bought 2 hours in a UK 747-400 ( full motion) prior to his Cathay interview....and yeah, it was about as expensive as you'd guess!!!
The sim here is just like the real -400, but is fixed ...all the bits and pieces are fully functional ....overhead panel, MCP, FCU, visuals, etc.
The guy who has it is wondering if anyone wants to use it.
It only needs a few more 'nice' bits....maybe a month if he's motivated.
I told him I thought it would be very attractive to all, for the above reasons, but thought maybe I could ask y'all your opinion.
Any other Questions?
...pleased to help....

[rescue 1]

It's not the old Air NZ sim is it?

[nomorecatering]

A question that has to be asked, are the parts and components of the cocpit in a sim, the same parts that are in the real aircraft. can you pull an FMC, mode control panel, CRT screens etc out of the sim and use them in the real aircraft, or are they sim only parts. Cause if they are, you dont want to break anything. prices for spares frm my days in QF purchasing.

FMC box, ie the CDU module = $500,000 USD

Mode control panel unit + $500,000 USD

CRT Screens = $45,000 USD I think.could be 25K USD. Cant realy remember from 5 years ago.

Even the little coverplate, that goes around the radio frequency selector box, had several holes for the knobs etc to go through and 2 little windows so you can read the frequency selected. Say 3 inches by 1 and a half inches. Its now over $1,000 USD.

[wishtobflying]

$1,000 for a plate with plastic windows in ... I'm in the wrong business then ... :ugh:

I build small helicopter and fixed wing cockpit simulators in my "spare" time, and as the original poster has said, there are a great many benefits from a realistic but non-motion sim.

There has been a study done where a full motion simulator session was started up and then the motion was reduced to zero soon after starting the session. The pilots said they didn't realise they had flown most of the session without motion. It's relatively easy to trick the brain, especially if ALL the visual cues are there, such as a fully realistic cockpit.

If this guy is able to offer sim time at a rate that makes it worth a trip to NZ for a week of training/practice, I'd think he'd be overrun with requests. It would help him if he could get some sort of CAA accreditation for logging hours, but this may take a significantly higher investment. Of course the resulting hike in hiring rate may make it not worth his effort.

What visuals system is he using?

[Nolights-essential3]

The sim taps into Microsoft flisim 2004 for its visuals.
It has a combination a MSFS2004 & Project Majenta Software.
There are various fixed based sims in the USA that are running this combo & have FAA approval for various training.

[DeltaT]

An ex Air NZ 747-200 sim is sitting at Motat unused, maybe you can get some parts from it?
As for a 747-400 fixed base, yes it will be of use to many once word gets around. However, it needs to be kept in primo condition to get the perceived value when pilots use it!
I have been in full motion ones with the motion off, and yes its just as realistic and everyone still leaned in a turn!
However I am not sure the visuals will make it as realistic if MS Flight Sim is running it. I have also been in a old DC10 (I think it was ?) sim with Flight Sim graphics and you really need to make sure all flight actions/controls are integrated correctly i.e no keyboard and mouse hidden under the dash for a few work arounds!!!!