Originally Posted by glendalegoon
I remember on a 737-300 sim, it was incorrectly set by the computer folk and it was like the engines were beyond the tips of the wings in terms of force and the rudder was not able to do the job. After the sim instructors couldn't control the plane the computer boys got to work and OOOPS.
They finally fixed it.
AS to the thumbs. When you lose an engine there is an almost imperceptible reaction by using ailerons to control the plane's initial yaw. Our instructors demonstrated that when you had both hands on the yoke, your thumbs pointed towards the side of the rudder pedal to be used. Give it a try.
V1 is called at V1 minus five at our airline. How about yours? Do your instructors turn down the engine sound (they can). With the engine sound up fully it can be your first indication something is wrong as the engines go out of sync.
SIMULATORS are just that, simulators. AT one time in our contract, a pilot could demand a check ride in the real plane and not a sim!
THE ENGINES WERE BEYOND THE TIPS OF THE WINGS: The situation you describe with your B737-700 simulator, if accurate, must have occurred “in-house” at some point AFTER the FAA had evaluated and qualified that particular simulator. And, in the off-chance that your simulator was/is located outside of the US, and was initially qualified by another national regulatory authority, I can confidently say that no regulatory authority in the world would allow such a configuration to go unchallenged and unchanged before completing the necessary qualification. That means that if this actually occurred, someone, probably within your company, who had access to that simulator, was “playing” with the programming and either set it up that way – or was unable to restore the original parameters. In addition, I simply cannot believe that any pilot, and certainly, any instructor, would not immediately stop whatever training or evaluation session was in progress, and point out the problem to competent technicians so as to make the necessary corrections. Such a situation would not be allowed to go beyond the initial recognition – and anyone who would, should have his/her pilot certificate examined for being counterfeit.
THUMBS: “When you lose an engine there is an almost imperceptible reaction by using ailerons to control the plane's initial yaw.” Of course this is true. The last time I checked ailerons controlled movement
around the longitudinal axis of the airplane. When on the ground there is likely not going to be much “roll” around that axis before something unwanted happens. Also, during the takeoff roll, the amount of air over the wings is not consistent (of course!) and only when sufficient lift is generated will an asymmetrical lift (due to aileron displacement) provide any rolling moment. So far, we’ve not even touched on the direction of the airplane. Of course, any extension of an aileron surface into the air moving over a wing will result in some yawing moment (but it is more than likely that moment would be difficult to discern through instrumentation … let alone the “finely tuned hands” of a line pilot), and there would likely be a larger moment due to the “drag” (aft movement) of the wing with the “up” aileron than due to the “down” aileron – HOWEVER – that moment alone would not be
TERRIBLY significant in any B737, and would be all but irrelevant when the airplane is still ON the ground during acceleration. During the initial portion of the takeoff, the rudder pedals (and NOT the rudder surface) has the “lion’s share” of control over the directionality of the airplane – and that through the nose wheel – controlled by nose wheel steering. As for the “thumb position” on the control yoke – once power is set, the non-flying pilot should be ensuring that no change in throttle position or power indication is allowed to occur so that the pilot flying will have both hands on the control wheel. The last time I checked, both hands have a thumb, and both thumbs would be on the inside of the control wheel – left and right – so it escapes me to understand how that might be an indication of what rudder pedal might be the appropriate one if a directional control problem were to occur. AND I know of NO competent instructor (perhaps it’s my definition of “competent” that is the issue?) who would even remotely consider using the position of one’s thumbs on the control wheel to be used as a “gouge” for whether the left or right rudder pedal was to be used to control a directional problem! I would whole-heartedly recommend that this idea be “round-filled” YESTERDAY!
V1 IS CALLED AT V1 MINUS FIVE AT OUR AIRLINE: I certainly cannot be the only person reading this statement and from that understands the level of dichotomy being presented. Again, if true, it is quite obvious that the person or persons who came up with this “not-so-splendid-adjustment” simply does not understand what V1 actually means and how it is derived. Making this kind of “adjustment,” particularly in such a broad and indiscriminate manner, may well have ramifications that are unknown until a catastrophe occurs … which, naturally, will be too late! I keep saying that we must stop trying to substitute a “cheat-sheet” method of operating an airplane. Airplanes were designed and from that a set of procedures were developed to allow the airplane to do what it was intended to do, and do it under the direct and continuing operational control of the pilot flying, and from that we developed procedures to teach others how to do what needs to be done to have the airplane do what it was designed to do. If we come along and attempt to substitute an alternative way – particularly if that “alternative” way has underpinnings of idiocy involved, we are moving farther and farther away from the “plumb-line” understanding (basic truth) of aviation. Just as JT opined earlier in this thread with respect to changing the way airplanes should be flown. He said … and he is absolutely correct:
Originally Posted by john_tullamarine
Fly it like the ops engineering folk planned it or, else, get them to change the plan to fit the way you want to fly it.
If we go around making changes to the way an airplane was designed to fly without heeding JT’s very accurate comment, we are asking the forces of doom to visit us on a regular basis.
SIMULATORS ARE JUST THAT, SIMULATORS: Given the understanding that older simulators are not as well designed or simulate the airplane as accurately as do the more modern simulators, which I certainly do, I also believe that it is pure folly to categorize ALL simulators into a grouping with an understanding that all simulators are just like those designed, developed, constructed, and used, 3 or 4 decades ago. However, IF (and that word is getting lost as to its understood definition in many cases) but IF competent and well-trained instructors are used, even in those older simulators, even then, an adequate learning of necessary knowledge, duties, responsibilities, and skills can be achieved. Of course I advocate using such competent and well-trained instructors in ANY and ALL simulators to ensure that some stray thought or some short-circuited system does not contravene the designed understanding and ultimate operation of the airplane being simulated. The basic premise of the use of a simulator, instead of returning 7 to 9 decades in history, is that we can fly the simulator as we would expect to fly the airplane. The point that must be remembered – and it can be as accurate as we want to make it depending on the competency and professionalism of the well-trained simulator instructors – is that we always simulate in an airplane but we never simulate in a simulator. For those who immediately want to scratch you head in wonder over that statement … in an airplane we never actually “fail” an engine – we simulate doing it … we never actually land the airplane with the landing gear retracted – we simulate doing it down to a “safe altitude” … we never take an airplane into an actual bucking, kicking, rolling aerodynamic stall – we simulate doing it down to the stick shaker or initial buffeting … we never take off an airplane in a crosswind that is in excess of the demonstrated values – we simulate it … and the list can (and DOES) go on and on. However, in a simulator we don’t simulate any of that … we actually do it. And, particularly in the newer simulation equipment, validated with the newer flight test data acquisition systems and the facilities of electric control loading and motion systems, the newer dynamically accurate and field of view comparable visual systems, etc., what we have is an exceptionally close
replication (trying to avoid the “S” word) of what would happen in an airplane. This is what simulation was intended to provide. However, and AGAIN, I point out the advantages of doing this in a simulator that has all of its limitations and characteristic competently known by the instructor using it. A simulator is precisely a simulator … and we all should be glad that they exist.