B737 Simulator compared with the real aircraft. Question

[Tee Emm]

In another life we trained on the real B737 because a suitable simulator was unavailable. Training was on a long runway and included simulated engine failure at V1 conducted by pulling back one throttle and continuing the take-off. The aircraft was easy to control with no undue yawing or rolling.

In contrast, in the several B737 simulators I have "flown", all the simulators seem significantly more tricky when conducting an engine failure after V1 in that the aircraft rolls and yaws more rapidly that one would expect after having done the same exercise on a real aircraft.

There is anecdotal evidence and also from personal observation, that many students undergoing a type rating or recurrent training on a 737 simulator,often experience significant difficulty in handling the engine failure at the moment of cut and initial climb out.

If a flight director is used this often seems to exacerbate the problem for students because they chase the FD needles instead of looking "behind" the FD needles. Next second they are all over the sky with loss of directional control. In any case pilots should not have to look "behind" the FD needles to fly an accurate profile during engine failure climb. It means the FD needles are too distracting and it may be easier to switch off the FD and use basic instrument scan instead of close concentration on a single instrument.

Is the problem that FD needles are too sensitive in pitch and roll in today's simulators? Pilots used to flying a V-Bar presentation seem have less general difficulties in handling directional control on climb than those using the two needle presentation. .

While simulators are subject to scheduled fidelity checks where one pilot must be current on type, it is almost certain the pilot conducting the fidelity check would have never experienced a real engine failure immediately after V1 in a B737 variant. After all, not all approved fidelity check airman are qualified test pilots who may have ben involved in actual testing of this sequence in the real thing. That being so, I wonder how many simulators can be relied upon to demonstrate true fidelity on engine failure immediately after V1 when the check airman has never done one in measured conditions in the real thing? The simulator could go for years being unlike the real thing at engine failure at V1 simply because the so called expert check airman responsible for simulator fidelity checks has never known the difference between the actual aircraft characteristics and the simulator characteristics.

Students have been scrubbed for failing to perform up to expectations while undergoing training on engine failures in a simulator immediately after V1. After all a simulator is nothing more than a sophisticated computer albeit remarkably close to the real thing within certain tolerances. Does this all boil down to simulator handling skills rather than aircraft handling skills? With constant practice on the same simulator you get to know its characteristics. Students may not get that opportunity however. Some pick up the knack easily while others not so easily.
Your comments would be appreciated. Have you ever experienced the problems discussed above? Apart from the usual canned advice of keep stesdy rudder pressure applied and avoid excessive ailerons, how many of you have had trouble with following the FD needles as yaw and roll occurs at instant of engine failure. Is the blind use of the FD the best way to keep it straight? How do you teach some to "look behind" the FD needles when the FD needles hide the view of the "little aeroplane" ?