737 NG simulator (full flightsim)

[deuzx]

Level-D simulators, are they like the real thing? We were in SAS Flight Academy, Oslo, Norway practicing little 737 when we were sponsed by SAS FA. (People without any pilot education or with less than CPL).

We are discussing about the realism in this simulator. Most of us landed it smoothly and I even landet it manually in a CAT IIIa approach (sight) 9NM out, unconfigured for landing! Pretty nice experience for a "silly" flightsimmer! :D We found that it was like the flightsimulator (when you have advanced addon programs connected though) but is it like the real world? If you land this sim, they ment you will be able to land it in real, but some says no!

Please, 737 Classic or NG pilots, can you answer this question with your opp.?

[flash8]

The Sim is harder than the real a/c.

[deuzx]

Cool! So we did a really good work, we can feel:)

[AirRabbit]

Actually, the folks who design, build, validate, and qualify aircraft flight simulators today go to very great lengths to make sure that both the performance and handling qualities of the simulator are very close to those of the aircraft being simulated. There are a series of over a hundred individual, and very objective tests that are run on the simulator comparing all the relevant resulting parameters to those generated by the aircraft during flight testing - flying exactly the same tests. Additionally, pilots qualified on the aircraft fly the simulator subjectively to be sure that there is an "acceptance" of the intangible aspects of flying the simulator as compared to the aircraft.
So the answer to your original question is -- simulators are, indeed, very close to the aircraft. However, before someone runs off with the wrong impression, operating the simulator can be made to be quite different than operating the aircraft in the "real world," and it can be done without monkeying around with any of the programming or testing parameters.
The "real world" very rarely has totally calm winds or totally precise temperature variations (or zero variation). When you couple these factors to freezing the simulator and configuring it for final approach (at the proper aircraft configuration, trim setting, power setting, attitude, altitude, airspeed, etc., aligned with both the vertical and horizontal guidance) and then releasing the simulator to "fly" ... what you get is not really what is representative of the "real world." In situations such as this, the very best thing to do to successfully "fly" the simulator to the runway and land -- is to do as little as possible -- essentially, don't touch anything! Listen to the instructor when he/she tells you to "flare" and retard the throttles - squeak, squeak and you're down.
In my aviation career I can count on one hand the number of times where Mother Nature cooperated to the extent that no matter what I tried to do to "screw up the landing," she wasn't about to let me do that. The approach and landing in each case was text book perfect, or darn near to it -- despite my attempts to make it otherwise! Note - while I'd love to take credit for each - the fact is I would be lying through my teeth to take credit for any one of those approaches and landings. The reason I can remember so easily, is that these were so different from my "normal" flailing around on final that they stand out in my memory. Generally, the winds and temperatures combine to make it necessary to make continuous pitch, bank, power, and trim changes throughout the approach. The larger the winds and temperature differences, particularly if there is a vertical component to the winds and changes in the wind direction and speed at differing altitudes, the larger these changes have to be and the more frequently they are required. Because allowable deviations are decreased the closer to the landing point you get, the flight path adjustments become more critical as you progress on the approach. One of the other factors that enter into the requirements for these changes, are the fact that when the pilot (me, in these cases) makes a change in pitch, bank, power, or trim -- the pilot (me) probably won't make the change just exactly as he/she should have. So, another change is made. And another one, and another, etc. Hopefully, the pilot "zeros in" on where he/she wants to be instead of "diverging" from that point - but that doesn't happen all the time either.
So, the bottom line is this. I am very glad you enjoyed your visit to a "real" simulator. Someone who has the knowledge you obviously have regarding airplanes and flight is likely to "fly" better than one who doesn't have a similar background or interest. I am glad you had the opportunity to fly the simulator and that it went well. I am sure that a good share of the result of your simulator session was entirely due to your ability. The only thing I would point out is that there is likely to be a lot more to flying an approach and landing than what you saw. I hope your interest was peaked; and I hope you continue with your interest in aviation.
Best regards.:ok:

[CAT3A]

well said ARabbit

[deuzx]

Thanks for very good comments and reflections, Arabbit! :)

[Irish Steve]

At the risk of getting a lot of incoming, I'm going to comment on some experiences from a few years ago.

We were working on a complex research project for a simulation system, and needed some more accurate handling information on the A320, so we booked a simulator session on a 320 in Europe. At the relevant time, we arrived at the sim, explained to the instructor what we were trying to achieve, which was VERY close to the edge of the envelope, and involved "flying" the sim with much of the automation disabled. He understood what we were trying to acheive, and over the next while, progressively disabled more and more of the aircraft systems while we then proceeded to "disturb" the aircraft and monitor it's responses.

Towards the end of the session, we reached a point where it was clear that the algorithms used to program the simulation were not able to handle what we were doing to the airframe, as it ended up departing from stable flight, and without intervention, would have become a smoking hole in the ground. We knew from previous research in other simulations, both of the 320 and other types that the response we'd had to that scenario was not accurate, so we put it down to (expensive) experience, and decided that we'd have to try somewhere else to get the information we needed.

We ended up taking a trip across the Atlantic to another (different manufacturer) 320 simulator, and repeating the exercise, with a little more confidence that it might work more accurately, as we knew that the airline we'd chosen trained their 320 crews to be capable of flying a full manual reversion approach and landing.

The test we did worked out much more acceptably, and produced results that were much more in line with the parameters we'd expected with the failures we'd set up, so much so that towards the end of the session, when we'd got the information we needed, we tried a full manual reversion approach and landing, and to the surprise of both ourselves and the instructor, we managed to execute a missed approach and go around to a subsequent successful landing in full manual reversion.

It wasn't easy, both of us were working very hard to keep the aircraft flying within the envelope, and it's not a procedure that's to be recommended, in that the margin between success and failure is very narrow, as the aircraft is operating in a severely degraded mode. What was "interesting" was that after we'd finished, the instructor commented that he was going to discuss the session with the rest of his team, as they'd been told that what we'd just done wasn't possible. I don't know what the outcome of that discussion was, as we had to return to Europe shortly after the session in the sim, but to say that it was thought provoking is putting it mildly. What made it so what that neither of us that were flying it are type rated on the aircraft.

To stick with the original theme, the reality is that in an ideal scenario, and with everything working as it should, ideal weather, etc. etc. to make it easier, it is possible with the right level of "coaching" for a complete novice with no previous experience prior to the session to land a 747-400 sim at the old Kai Tak. It wasn't a one off, I've seen the instructor concerned get a number of people from all backgrounds to being able to cope with the task after a very short period of time. OK, to make sure that there's no misunderstandings here, there was a lot the the "pilot flying" was not doing, and the conditions were about as perfect as they could be, but the bottom line was that all the people that took up the challenge managed to get the thing on the runway and if it had been for real, the aircraft would have been capable of departing later. Equally, in different circumstances, when we were again testing the very extremes, it took us several attempts to get the result we wanted, and in that case, the simulator was going nowhere, the result was effectively a large smoking hole in the ground, at which point, we reset it to the relevant start parameters, and tried something different until we worked out what would get out of the particular complex and challenging multiple failures that we were testing. It was VERY hard work, but immensely rewarding, in that the end result was that we were able to make the simulation we were producing into a more realistic simulation that was less likely to corrupt the research findings that would come out at the end of the project. I like to think we succeeded in that aim.