AirRabbit,
Thank you for your detailed reply, I also, am a devotee of simulators and find them fascinating machines. I also fully agree with your comments on 'onset' cues and the need to fly the simulator as one would the real aircraft. I note with interest your statements about the 737 simulators that have improved data that replicates the aircraft's behaviour post stall.
ZFT,
Thank you for your reply too. You are lucky to have a company pilot with the knowledge to extend the scope of your simulator's data into the post stall regime. I also take your point about the airframe manufacturers' not providing the additional data.
But this leads to three questions which I would like to put to both of you:-
1. I wonder whether instructors throughout the airline community are taught enough about the limitations of simulators. Are there still people out there who train inappropriately in areas beyond the flight envelope that has been programmed into their particular simulator?
2. Is the industry doing enough to address the above issue?
3. Do we really need to spend the additional money to acquire test data in these extreme areas? Or would it be better to concentrate on teaching a greater understanding of the aerodynamic and control principles instead?
I know this discussion is deviating from the original one on cross-wind training. Nevertheless, it has relevance in this area too, since flight data in ground effect is a very complicated area. Perhaps this may be one of the reasons why contributors to this thread have experienced a lack or realism during cross-wind landing training.