Has anyone undergone the PAPI sim at City University London? Is it a factual representation of the PAPI we all use in our flying?
My personal opinion from experience is that it is absolutely nothing like it whatsoever.
They claim it to be representative of a PAPI at 4 NM but rest assured, it is more representative of a PAPI at >10 NM, powered by 2 x AAA batteries on an aerodrome with no other lighting whatsoever, located on a desert island in the middle of a very dark ocean.
If it had been meant to test the ability of a pilot to land an aircraft in total 'black hole' effect, I would give it a big tick but anyone landing an aircraft using ONLY a dimly lit PAPI with absolutely no other cues would be taking a big chance. If the power has failed all other lighting would you really trust the PAPI is operating properly? If the airport authority can't afford any other lighting, would you trust they've calibrated and tested properly the PAPI lighting?
When landing at night, you use runway lighting perspective as well as PAPI, cross checking distance against altitude or height AGL on the approach profile Remember, it is called a PRECISION APPROACH Path Indicator - Precision Approach = ILS or MLS so, for the approach you must have calibrated and operational airborne equipment. The PAPI is an additional aid to the ILS/MLS equipment plus Approach Procedure and NOT a be all and end all, as has been suggested by one well known aviation authority.
The last time I dropped a GP on vectors to an ILS, I requested a LOC/DME Non Precision Approach and was immediately asked by ATC if I wanted distance calls, which I accepted and they provided every 1-2 NM. They didn't ask me or suggest to me that I should use the PAPI - oh yes, I couldn't, I was in IMC. How is a PAPI supposed to be of any use, even on CAT I let alone II or III.
Pardon my cynicism but if you ask me, the PAPI test, in fact the whole CVD/CAD study, was designed to facilitate the desired end result. The study was not allowed to fail; there was too much money put into it.