Hand flying a 737 flight simulator

[BARKINGMAD]

Re feeling like the real aircraft, simulators are #*$tĄ&$ !!!

Just climb in, wobble the control thingy in the direction and at the rate which puts the needles/digits where the test requires.

Perform the correct procedures, carry out Q R H items religiously, demo good CRM, don't argue with the demigod assigned to assess you, then leave with your licence signed and get back on the line.

Next flight rejoice in the handling qualities of your real plane, and spend the next 6 months practising for the next sim session.

Isn't that the way to do it..........?

[piratepete]

TAIL WAGGING THE DOG

Sadly you are 100% correct.

[Mimpe]

I suspect most people would agree the real thing is a bit easier!

[Jwscud]

There was an excellent thread recently on simulator fidelity where a lot of these issues were discussed in depth. I recommend a read:

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/54098...sswind+landing

[AirRabbit]

Originally Posted by Jwscud

There was an excellent thread recently on simulator fidelity where a lot of these issues were discussed in depth. I recommend a read:

Simulator Training for strong crosswind landings

“JW,” my friend, you are 100% correct … and that you took the time to remind those here of that, speaks volumes about your professionalism as well as your commitment to facts and honesty.

[BARKINGMAD]

So why is it, despite the 9625s, FSTDs and part 60s etc bandied around over the years, that after 26 years of full-motion ZFT all singing and dancing simulators, I failed to find a single one which accurately reproduced the handling qualities of the REAL thing???

Maybe I've got totally insensitive muscular feedback and vision perception, though I managed to con Class 1 medicals up to 64.5 years old, but I still maintain they are a good procedures and emergencies practising tools.

Please trainers, management and company test pilots, don't delude yourselves, and by implication others, that the average airline sim is a faithful representation of a line aircraft, 'cos it ain't!!!

[captjns]

After 38 years on the Boeing, I've come to the conclusion that the simulator is more realistic than the actual airplane

[latetonite]

It sure is!

[AirRabbit]

Originally Posted by BARKINGMAD

So why is it, despite the 9625s, FSTDs and part 60s etc bandied around over the years, that after 26 years of full-motion ZFT all singing and dancing simulators, I failed to find a single one which accurately reproduced the handling qualities of the REAL thing???

Maybe I've got totally insensitive muscular feedback and vision perception, though I managed to con Class 1 medicals up to 64.5 years old, but I still maintain they are a good procedures and emergencies practising tools.

Please trainers, management and company test pilots, don't delude yourselves, and by implication others, that the average airline sim is a faithful representation of a line aircraft, 'cos it ain't!!!

I suspect that the answer to your question – why is it that, with the years of experience you’ve achieved, you’ve never found a single simulator that accurately reproduces the handling qualities of the “real” thing?” – probably has a LOT to do with how you define “accurate.” If “accuracy” to you means that you cannot tell the difference between the simulator and the airplane it represents, then you are certainly correct – simulators don’t have that degree of “accuracy.” But then, as I suspect you are already aware, there are some airplanes, on any given ramp, that would provide you a similar degree of difference between any one, specific airplane, and any other airplane you might want to designate … and even widening that consideration, as I’m sure someone who has your level of experience can certainly attest, rarely will one find 2 airplanes that “feel” exactly alike. Also, I think almost anyone with the level of experience you have will certainly agree that both the overall quality of simulation, and the quality of any specific characteristic of any airplane simulator has considerably improved over the past 3 or 4 decades – in both 1) the measureable categories (any measureable category you may specify) and 2) the finely tuned “feel” of very highly experienced flight test pilots.

There is a major piece of the premise for the allowed use of simulation for training and testing of pilots, that makes up a significant portion of the basic tenent for the dependable use of simulation, which is not, in any way, limited to the “accuracy” of the simulation (again, determined by both specific measurements and by personal opinion of those pilots with the most current and broadly based experience on the subject airplane) but is significantly based on the ability and dedication of the instructor/evaluator personnel assigned to provide such services. In fact, the specific reason that relatively old simulators (maintained against their original qualification standards) can, and regularly do, produce highly competent and very proficient pilots, is due to the fact that these instructor/evaluator personnel use simulation as a tool to train and test pilot applicants – the more modern and, therefore, the more accurate, is that simulation, the better the quality of the student in a shorter time, and often requiring less specific, repetitive involvement of the instructor/evaluator. Unfortunately, this fact has often been the substance of the unfortunately increasing problems seen in the quality of some recently trained pilots. The bottom line HAS to be that, regardless of how good – or not so good – the simulation is or is not ... simulation, in and of iteself, cannot be the SOLE participant in the training and/or testing of airplane pilots.

As I’ve said here, certainly airplane simulators have become vastly more accurate (regardless of how you define that term) with respect to the airplane being represented, but it has been, it is, and it will always be … simply a tool used by those who teach and test pilots. When a tool is used incorrectly or incompletely, one simply cannot, and MUST not, blindly presume that the desired result has been achieved. One cannot throw a tool box load of wrenches, pliers, hammers, and timing lights under the hood of an automobile, and then drive that automobile around the block a few times, and conclude that because all the correct “tools” were available and “used,” that the automobile has been “tuned up” and is “ready to go!” The same with pilots and the simulation they use. Without the proper knowledge and experience of the persons charged with the responsibility of designing, refining, examining, and conducting the training in which simulation is to be used, the simulator will not provide any higher degree of success than those hastily thrown-in “wrenches, pliers, hammers, and timing lights.” No one … student or instructor … experienced line pilot or novice … can either accept or reject a specific airplane flight simulator without including in that acceptance or rejection the efforts of all involved … from the simulation designers, the engineers, the data collectors, the software engineers (who turn squiggles and numbers into believable control column forces, sounds, and surprisingly realistic visual scenes in front of your eyes), the regulators, the instructors, and the evaluators … all of whom must combine their talents and training to be able use a very special and very sophisticated training tool … where the emphasis MUST be on the last word in that description – “TOOL” - the flight simulator.

Therefore, Mr. BARKINGMAD, as long as airplane flight simulators are (as you said) “…good procedures and emergencies (sic) practising tools…” and if it is true that what is learned, practiced, and ultimately performed when operating the “real” airplane is proper and correct … I’d submit that the “tool users” and the “tool” itself have both performed the jobs they each were intended to do. Sure, we can have the "does it handle and perform JUST LIKE the airplane" conversation to satisfy whomever is interested. But I think our time would be better spent looking at the result of the use of simulation and the amount of explanation, the kinds of explanation, and the accuracy of any such explanation, that is required to produce a competent, safe, and knowledgeable pilot. I'm of the opinion that the quality of the pilots today - after using modern simulation - built and evaluated in accordance with "the 9625s, FSTDs and part 60s etc." that you referenced, are better prepared and more knowledgeable than ever before. My concern is the coming degradation in the experience levels of new airline pilot applicants - and what kind of training will be required to provide the same knowledge and understanding - and where/how that knowledge and understanding is going to be achieved ... and I am certain that simulation - of some kind or level - will most certainly be involved.