Interesting thread!
As a driver of both Mr Boeings products and Monsieur Airbus's products I would have to say that you would need to be pretty clued up for either of them.
What many people have failed to understand is that MSFS models aircraft based upon a defined software 'model' for how they fly, X-Plane fares a little better as it uses full mathematical modelling to give a 'realistic' feel. Full motion simulators, up until the introduction of the new generation simulators, used the actual electronic boxes from the aircraft to give correct systems feedback. CAE have only just acknowledged that computing power has got to the point where it is fast enough and accurate enough to correctly simulate a flight environment to the levels required for commercial certification. This is in a multi million pound simulator!
MSFS is a nice toy, but just a toy!
Then we look at the 'little things' in the cockpit. The Airbus is a Fly By Wire side stick aircraft giving roll rate demand with the side stick. What does that mean? Well it means that professional pilots struggle, initially, with over controlling during the landing phase! You cannot hold into wind aileron in an Airbus! You will barrel roll it ( if the computers would actually let you!) :-)
The 'approach' phase MUST be activated in the Airbus, something not required in a Boeing. If not, when the nice man on the radio tells you to select 'managed speed' to give you auto throttle approach speed, the mean aircraft will put 250 knots in the window and fly up!
The Airbus, by nature of it's FBW systems will lock pitch at about 50-100 ft and then start to introduce a nose down trim to give the experienced pilot something to flare against. If you don't know this is coming then you are looking at a a fairly catastrophic nose wheel landing!
The Airbus also carries a 'ground speed mini' addition to the approach speed which can cause confusion to the uninitiated. If the winds aloft are very strong but the inputted FMS wind is low then the aircraft adds a 'safety' buffer for turbulence that will be bled off down to the touch down. Quite un-nerving for the uninitiated!!!
The Boeing 777 is a bit more simple from a pilots perspective. The biggest thing with the 777 is that you will be landing around the 180 tonne mark with minimum fuel and a decent payload, this has an awful lot of energy! You MUST, MUST, MUST make corrections early and gentle, nudge and guide the aircraft onto the centreline and ensure that you maintain the G/S, the 777 (pilot) has a tendancy to drift high on the slope, nail 700 fpm in the final stages and you'll be in the ball park!
The 'trimmer' on the yolk isn't a trimmer! First 'gotcha', it's a speed selector to select the 'speed' that the aircraft will auto trim around. Select the correct airspeed +/- a couple of knots and the aircraft will auto trim. If you are out though it will fly out of trim!
You can hold into wind Aileron in the 777! However, drift on touch down is very, very nasty on the long bogeys under the wing! Make sure you've kicked that drift off!
The 777 will NOT SLOW DOWN! It's a very efficient wing and a slippery body. Energy management is a critical issue in the 777 and something that catches alot of experienced pilots out alot of the time (myself included :-( ).
These are just a few of the 'little things' that commercial PC flight sim programmes don't cover. There are many, many more!
The key factors for any aircraft for a successful landing are ensuring a stable approach, concise energy management and familiarity of aircraft performance close to the ground.
If in the OP's scenario then take the autoland!
Could a PPL with a bit of MSFS experience land a big jet? I don't really know but I would rather they had a go then accept the subsequent crash!
Last edited by Wirbelsturm; 13th Jul 2012 at 22:51.