Originally Posted by the_stranger
I had the exact same issue. Went from an embraer190 to a330 and during my simulator training, I couldn't land the damn thing even if my life would depend on it. Imagine the muscles in my behind being tense when I had to do my first real life landing.
But it was a very descent landing. Writing that off to beginners luck, I was amazed the second one was the same. And so for all the landings I made the last year. Every now and then you get the occasional slightly bad one, but overall they are textbook.
And then I returned to the sim... Horrible again...
There is something wrong or missing in the/that sim. Maybe the seat of the pants feeling, the visual, whatever, but training xwind on a/that sim would be a waste of time for me.
Because the simulator is a mechanical device, completely dependent on computer programming, and having all the parts and pieces operating as they were designed, it is certainly possible that something could be wrong or not maintained within the appropriate parameters. However, there is another potentially fallible entity that has to be considered … and that is the operator of the simulator … either the instructor or the person conducting the check. I don’t throw that out to be deliberately controversial or to indicate that instructors or check airmen are not “up to the task.” But, the fact remains, that instructors and check persons are humans just like the pilots – and in order for them to “do the right thing” they have to be trained on all the aspects of the operation of that very sophisticated tool called a flight simulator.
I don’t know who maintains or recurrently examines the equipment you use – but there should be some person or group who are professionally qualified to do just that – and do so on a regular basis. As you would easily understand, there are multitudes of issues that can go wrong or get “out of whack.” Interestingly, the parameters that were selected may not have been the correct ones … maybe continued use has worn parts or interfaces. But equally true is the human link in this process. Instructors (and check persons) have a wide latitude as to how they set up any given scenario and how they may adjust any aspect of that scenario as it unfolds. Most do a superb job of doing precisely this. Others may believe they are doing that superb job and, perhaps through no fault of their own, may have been trained on to how to do something that is either misunderstood, incompletely understood, or, in some remote cases, just plain wrong.
What I do know is that a properly designed, constructed, programmed, maintained, and used airplane flight simulator at Level C or Level D can, and do, offer the pilot the opportunity to be properly and completely trained on crosswind landings – up to, and exceeding, the maximum demonstrated crosswind limits of the airplane. That’s not just speculation – and that is not just my opinion. I have personally flown more airplane simulators than most of my colleagues – from the very basic visual simulators (in fact, long ago I flew non-visual and even non-motion simulators) all the way up to the most modern and most advanced Level D simulators. The older the simulator, the lower qualification level, usually presents more “challenges” in doing the most “at-the-edge” kinds of flight performance … but there isn’t (or their shouldn’t be…) any Level C or Level D simulator out there in which you wouldn’t be able to fly and land in the most demanding crosswind condition authorized for that airplane and it would be (should be…) as close to your expectations as you would like it to be. Even the oldest airplane flight simulator in existence in the US – a Level A simulator for the “Jetstar” airplane, can be used to instruct and practice crosswind landings. This is not just a hopeful circumstance that only some simulators happen to meet … I’ve always operated on the premise that if the simulator doesn’t do what it is supposed to do (and you have to understand that the lower the level of simulation … the lower the level of fidelity … and, potentially, accuracy – all of which has to be understood and taken into consideration by the organization and primarily and specifically, the instructor/check person using that specific device) then that simulator should be taken out of service (or at least restricted with regards to what it can be used for) while it is examined, repaired, reprogrammed, or whatever other detail has to be accomplished or re-accomplished, before it is returned to full service authorizations.
In case you were wondering - I am a HUGE advocate of properly constructed simulation to train and test pilots, and provide for each pilot, the confidence that they need to have to do the job we all expect them to do. We cannot accept lackluster simulation. We cannot accept improper or incomplete dependence on simulation to do the teaching. A simulator is a tool - a very special tool, no doubt, but a tool nonetheless. And it should be a tool that can be relied upon to do what we expect it to do - or we need to stop using it until it can be brought up to standards.