COULD you land a passenger jet (if you ONLY hold a PPL)???

[Bearcat F8F]

Hi everyone,

I've been having a rather ridiculous argument with a friend (both of us hold a PPL) about whether or not I would manage to land a passenger jet (e.g. 737) if for example the plane got hijacked and we found ourselves in the cockpit (after the hijackers were overpowered by the passengers or something like that... doesn't matter really...)

I argue yes. I have been flying in MSFS since 2002 and I am pretty convinced that I would manage to make a visual approach and be able to control a real 737. My PPL knowledge along with flight sims experience would IMO provide all the necessary knowledge I require for basic control of a passenger jet. I am not saying it will be a pretty landing (nor will it involve any proper procedures) but I am saying I stand a good chance at making it happen.

Obviously I got laughed at...

So, any of you real world pilots have any opinions?

P.S. I landed a full motion SSJ-95 sim before (it was at an airshow where they let me fly it).

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I know airline Captain who had difficulty landing a FS 747 and I had great difficulty with an ATC simulator..... make of that what you will.

[Groundloop]

No chance to manually land it. Flight Sim gives no idea of what the real aircraft feels like.

However, a PPL may be able to set up an autoland if very carefully talked through the procedures in real-time.

[Sir Herbert Gussett]

I've heard these questions a few times from folk. I always suggest that, if the aircraft was equipped, the best thing possible would be for a Captain of that type (preferably TRE!) to go to the appropriate control centre and be given a headset to plug-in next to the controller. As the controller clears away other aircraft leaving just yourself and the TRE/Captain etc on the frequency the Captain would be able to explain which buttons to press for the autopilot, whilst the controllers find the closest airfield at which you'd be able to do an ILS autoland.

Manual flying? Forget it! Unless it was fly-by-wire you'd more than likely overcontrol and make a right good royal arse up of it. No matter the number of flight simulator hours you have, I doubt you'd be able to quickly adapt to the bizarre characteristics of whichever aircraft you find yourself having to manually fly!

[Exascot]

I took out half of Hounslow in the Concorde simulator landing at LHR. The late Capt Brian Trubshaw was my first officer. I still maintain that it was his fault :E

Anyway, the answer to your question is 'very unlikely'. An experienced airline pilot would stand a pretty good chance on most types. I wouldn't rate my chances on something like the A380 though.

[papa600]

I reckon most professional pilots would scoff at the idea (perhaps rightly so) .... but I'm actually in your camp!

The concept of automatic flight is brilliantly modelled in many MSFS add ons (not the default aircraft but there are many sophisticated add ons requiring full procedure / set up with FMC etc). In fact some claim to be used by airlines as a training resource (never sure if this is correct or not).

I would think someone with a PPL and some level of understanding of the aircraft type and the automatics at your disposal would stand a fighting chance of getting an autoland, more so if being talked through the procedure.

Hand flying - probably not.

[tom775257]

I would suggest a visual approach to landing would not go well. I am sure someone could set up for an ILS then autoland with no jet time though. The level D sims don't land like the real aircraft anyway, I can't land the sim well at all.

I also wouldn't underestimate the stress that you would feel under during a manual landing, the sheer speed approaching the runway combined with rate of descent would cause a PPL to overflare IMHO. You could however worst case just run the aircraft into the ground at around 500fpm as you approach touchdown and it would sit down, although not nice. The ground effect will take the edge off (seen in demo'd in an A320 when as a novice jet pilot trying to flare too much).

[Bearcat F8F]

Thanks for the input everyone. Much appreciate it!

Do full motion sims that they use for training in airlines represent things accurately in terms of hand flying? As I said before, I didn't really have any issues landing an SSJ manually (although I was not in control of the flaps, reverse, air brakes). In fact it all seemed very familiar after all the flying I have done in MSFS. And also, I didn't have a PPL back then.

So it's still a bit strange to hear that hand-flying you would stand no chance... i.e just because it goes against my experience. Unless of course full motion sims are not the same as real aircraft...

I do however understand anyone in a situation that was described by me above would be under enormous stress from the entire situation and that would amplify how difficult everything is.

But if for example all of you are right about hand flying not being a possibility, then I do think operating the autopilot with help from the ground should make things relatively straight forward until touchdown...

[Sir Herbert Gussett]

I doubt your SSJ-95 simulator was that accurately modelled. It was more than likely a basic full-motion sim used for procedure training or they wouldn't be carting it around the place to airshows for Joe Public to faff around in! Even the multi-million pound ones have their own noticeable limitations compared to the real aircraft. You would be unlikely to achieve much success in manually flying a 737.

[Bearcat F8F]

They don't cart it around airshows. The airshow where I flew on it was in Zhukovskiy in Moscow and it was there so the president could go and check it out the day before. It is permanently based there. And and I don't know the name for these sims, but it's one of those that you can train a pilot from scratch and the 1st flight on the real aircraft would be a commercial flight in the right seat.

Here's a video of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHhJrraSK1Q

It's in Russian but I'm sure you can see it's not a fake sim. And if you understood Russian, then it basically says what I just said above.

I am not going to say how accurately it is currently modeling the environment as it hasn't been certified yet. So in that respect you may very well be correct - it might not be as accurate as the real thing.

[Sir Herbert Gussett]

They don't cart it around airshows. The airshow where I flew on it was in Zhukovskiy in Moscow and it was there so the president could go and check it out the day before. It is permanently based there. And and I don't know the name for these sims, but it's one of those that you can train a pilot from scratch and the 1st flight on the real aircraft would be a commercial flight in the right seat.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: Surely even the Russians aren't doing this? Unless by "real aircraft" you mean something that isn't a Cessna or Cherokee!

Why are you so adamant that you'll be able to successfully hand-fly a jet to a landing in an emergency situation if your only hours are in a PA28? I wouldn't be that confident handflying a 747 or 777 under pressure to a landing with no prior flying experience on either type, and I've flown 757s and 767s! Yes I'd probably manage it but I've flown jets before .... you haven't so you more than likely wouldn't stand a chance! ;)

[pulse1]

I have no idea of the real statistics but I imagine that a normal two pilot professional crew would screw up the landing once in something like a 100,000 landings. A single pilot professional flying a normal airliner might screw up once in 50,000 landings.

A typical PPL flight simmer would screw up once in less than 10 landings. Would you want to take those odds?

I say that having achieved 7 out of 7 successful landings in a BA full motion 777 simulator myself, as a fairly experienced PPL and FS pilot. (with some help with flaps and using auto throttle).

The first thing you would want to do if put into that situation is to get help over the radio. Do you know which is the transmit button as opposed to the A/P switch? They are right next to each other on the yoke.

[Bearcat F8F]

Why are you so adamant that you'll be able to successfully hand-fly a jet to a landing in an emergency situation if your only hours are in a PA28?I'm not. I only mentioned that in the 1st post. I do maintain I have a fighting chance though. And I've mentioned above it might not be pretty. Basically what pulse1 said:

typical PPL flight simmer would screw up once in less than 10 landings.I interpret this - so at least 1 in every 10 times there is a possibility. And if I found myself under the conditions that I described in the 1st post, that is more than enough to try it as opposed to just running out of fuel and crashing.

However if I was indeed in that situation I'm sure the 1st thing I would do is get help from the ground and follow instructions of another pilot as opposed to flying it the way I want to!

[JEM60]

In 'Pilot' magazine about 4 years or so ago, this very situation was discussed by Editor Nick Bloom and retired BA Captain Bob Grimstead. Their telephone discussion led to an article by Bob Grimstead into the hows and whys of this very scenario, and led to the conclusion that the guy most likely to get anywhere near success was the guy who flew airliners on autopilot on MFS because the systems are pretty well in tune with the actual aircraft they purport to represent. As for the manual landing, his verdict was a most definite 'NO'.
Is there anyone out there who can post the article.? It made interesting [and sobering] reading.

[Bearcat F8F]

I would love to read that article!

[mcgoo]

They also did it on the Mythbusters series, both presenters were non pilots and crashed miserably on their first attempt but both made successful/survivable landings whilst being told what to do over the radio, however like Pulse1 says, a non pilot wouldn't have the know how to get the radio help in the first place.

MythBusters Episode 94: Air Plane Hour (http://mythbustersresults.com/episode94)

[MCDU2]

By the time that you realise that we are both dead or incapacitated up front it will already be to late. And on the slim chance that you realise in time then you might want to consider:-

- how will you get through the locked cockpit door in time to save the day?
- ever tried lifting a deadweight of 100kg or thereabouts out of a cockpit seat in a confined space without knocking any of the flight controls. Granted on an Airbus it is slightly easier with the sidestick off to the side but more than likely you will nudge something important
- autolands are a nice concept in theory but you still have to meet all of the arming conditions, have a serviceable aircraft, and ensure that the airport you are about to land on has an ILS and not just an NDB or visual approach. If its a circling only to one end then your definitely screwed.
- there is also the small matter of stopping the aircraft after you are back on terra firma and not overshooting the end of the runway and hitting something. Be a shame to do a nice autoland and then split the fuselage in half leading to a fireball as you go off the edge of the runway into a ravine.
- once stopped what happens next? do you let the punters blow the escape slides and dive into live running engines or will you run the appropriate checks to secure the aircraft before commanding the evacuation?

Finally there may well be a company pilot on board so you will be surplus to requirements in anycase.

[ZOOKER]

Several years ago,
1 PPL holder.
2 Valid TWR/APC ATCO.
3 Full motion flight simulator, (Midland B737).
4 Initial (instructor set-up), stabilized approach to our busiest duty runway.
5 Successful touchdown in the middle of Heald Green. :}

[Bearcat F8F]

Can I just make sure we are all clear here:

So IF a PPL holder can land a full motion sim (744 for example), he/she will NOT be able to perform the same in real life? And yet the whole idea behind those sims is to teach people how to fly that aircraft without flying it for real... that's the bit that I don't get.

I am not referring to my SSJ-100-95 sim experience here (as I have no way of telling how accuare the flight dynamics/ systems were on that sim). However I do have a friend who flew a full motion 747 and A320 sim in the US a few years back when he only held a PPL. He said he landed short on the 747 once (because of how high the cockpit is) but said he got it spot on the 2nd time. I know he is not a liar and do believe he pulled it off. I assume the aircraft was in a "stabilized approach" when he took control. So going by what has been said here today, if he was presented with a situation like that in real life, he would fail (i.e. manually landing the plane)?

[wiggy]

My PPL knowledge along with flight sims experience would IMO provide all the necessary knowledge I require for basic control of a passenger jet.

Little do you know...........

Once upon a time when I had several thousand military hours I well remember the very steep learning curve when I changed employers and started flying passenger jets. The idea that you'll just jump into a jet in the cruise and land it because you've got a PPL .... from me it's an almost certain thumbs down...

There are a heck of a lot of pitfalls........If you don't stuff up right from the start and lose control through misuse of the automatics, if it's a type you're familiar from your flight sim and is accurately modelled in your flight sim, if you manage to leave the automatics in, can set the FMC/navaids up for your desired runway, can manage the energy/speeds/flaps/config/automatics switching , you might, just might, manage an successful autoland (<10%chance IMHO) ....

You'd be better off if you can get advice from a type rated pilot over the radio ( but yes, watch out for the autopilot disconnect switch) but bear in mind you probably will not have the benefit of lots of fuel and therefore time to experiment, but I'd say 50% chance at best......

Manual flying/landing???? ..You said your mate managed it and I assume the aircraft was in a "stabilized approach" when he took control.

Bingo - there's one of your ( and many a trainee airline pilot's) biggest problems - getting from the cruise down to the stabilised approach...any idea of how you do it ( perhaps with limited fuel) ?

IMHO Zookers example is quite a good one - heading for Manchester (UK) and you'd probably end up hitting Heald Green 99% of the time........a survivable landing on the grass on the airfield is the best you could hope for if you're lucky, and I'd give you <1% chance of doing that unassisted..and that's giving you the benefit of good weather and daylight :E

[Bearcat F8F]

I don't want to pull any strings, and I greatly respect your opinion and can only hope that one day I too will have that kind of flying experience. However, very experienced pilots got it quite wrong before on these kind of matters.

After 9/11, the following was said:

"To hit something with an airplane is easy only if you have been flying for 20 years."
- Boeing 767 pilot quoted in the Boston Globe

"The men flying the planes must have been "highly skilled pilots" and "extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators," who were "probably military trained,"
- some other experts

link: The 9/11 Hijackers: Amateur Aviators Who Became Super-Pilots on September 11 | 911Blogger.com (http://911blogger.com/news/2011-07-12/911-hijackers-amateur-aviators-who-became-super-pilots-september-11)

The reality is that these hijackers had only basic prop knowledge and were described by their instructors as having had only "average" or even "very poor" piloting skills.

So these guys, took control of an aircraft at cruise altitude (presumably), skillfully navigated to their targets and managed to hit them on their 1st attempt.

That for a start proves that you don't need to have any jet experience to fly a passenger jet manually and get it to where you want to go.

As for the landing, so we've also proved it's doable on a full motion sim when the aircraft is in "stabilized approach". So the only bit missing is the thing in between. The part of the flight that takes the jet from 35000ft to 2000ft and Vapp.

Ok you're right, I don't know what the correct procedures for doing this are. But I would imagine it involves slowing the jet down and descending... neither of which is rocket science I assume. Principle of flight for a 757 and a PA-28 are identical. The challenge as I understand would be in the correct interpretation of how to achieve a certain flight regime (and what inputs to give in order to achieve what you want). I understand that in this respect the difference between a Warrior and a 75 is enormous... e.g. the time it takes to spool up jet Vs prop or how the controls act... I understand that it's all very very very different (and maybe MSFS does teach you to expect something very different...). Anyway, it's a case of how quickly can someone with no experience adapt to a jet. Am I right? Or is there something that I am completely missing here?

I am assuming that the person in control would have a pretty good idea of what airspeeds the aircraft should operate at in certain configs. Could you also explain why it's so difficult to get the airplane into a stabilized approach? (In case you are thinking I am being sarcastic, I am genuinely not and only wish to learn). And please note I am not trying to prove what I said originally is correct. I'm just trying to gather data to understand fully why it is, or is not possible.

Thanks

[Sir Herbert Gussett]

Nope, principal of flight between a PA28 and 737 aren't the same. In your Cherokee you'd easily be able to bleed of speed by closing the throttle and letting the aircraft reasonably quickly reducing speed, maybe increasing pitch slightly. Not so much in the 737! Jet engines react very differently from 1 prop on the front of the plane. They are fairly slow as well and the plane can, at times, feel a lot more sluggish in comparison to your SEP.

Now, if you were to sit on that 737 Captain's seat and knock off all the automatics at 2000ft you'll spend the remaining 6 miles of flight disastrously overcorrecting. You won't be used to the sluggish response of the 737 and you'll add too much power, then take off too much, then pitch up and down excessively and roll around too much. You will be too used to the flight dynamics of the PA28 that you won't be able to get used to the new aircraft in less than 3 minutes with all that pressure on you.

And your mate who has had an experience flight in a 747 ... do you think the simulator he flew didn't have the flight characteristics changed for the beginner user, as opposed to the characteristics used for training airline pilots in it? :ok:

[grounded27]

Hey, long time msfs player, who knows how many thousand hours sitting behind the captain operating as a flight mech. I know autopilots and can work my way through an FMS. I had my first opportunity in a real simulator, motion off a few years back. The controlls in slow flight were heavier than I expected. My first attempt at landing manual ILS approach I had to do a go-around, the 2nd time I was sucessfull with a firm landing. Rudder pedals were the largest problem during rollout but I had little time to prepare. I am certain I could perform a CATIIIB autoland in clear weather if in the scenario described withought any help. But I have solid knowledge of autopilots and FMS as maintaining them is my job. It was funny though how even in a sim my heart was racing, may have been all to real given how many times I was an observer and experienced landings get real complicated due to W/S etc.

[Bearcat F8F]

Nope, principal of flight between a PA28 and 737 aren't the same. In your Cherokee you'd easily be able to bleed of speed by closing the throttle and letting the aircraft reasonably quickly reducing speed, maybe increasing pitch slightly. Not so much in the 737! Jet engines react very differently from 1 prop on the front of the plane. They are fairly slow as well and the plane can, at times, feel a lot more sluggish in comparison to your SEP.

Now, if you were to sit on that 737 Captain's seat and knock off all the automatics at 2000ft you'll spend the remaining 6 miles of flight disastrously overcorrecting. You won't be used to the sluggish response of the 737 and you'll add too much power, then take off too much, then pitch up and down excessively and roll around too much. You will be too used to the flight dynamics of the PA28 that you won't be able to get used to the new aircraft in less than 3 minutes with all that pressure on you.

And your mate who has had an experience flight in a 747 ... do you think the simulator he flew didn't have the flight characteristics changed for the beginner user, as opposed to the characteristics used for training airline pilots in it? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gifWhat you are referring to is the way the aircraft reacts to control inputs. And if you read my last post you will realize that I very clearly understand these enormous differences. I understand speeds are much higher, controls are sluggish, engines take a while to respond to a new power settings, ground effect and flare will be different etc... I understand that. What makes you think that my brain will assume the controls will be the same on a 737 as a PA-28 when I'm in it...?

You are also now making the simple assumption of a person with no jet hours being unable to adjust and adapt to the controls in time. And I think that's the bit which we are actually arguing about here. I am by no means saying anyone can do this but so far there has been no evidence to suggest that someone who learns quickly can't adapt in time. Case and point 9/11 hijackers. So going by what you said there is no way they could've so accurately navigated at low level to their targets and hit them with such precision...???

I am not trying to be boastful but I was doing aerobatics in a glider after having 30mins flying experience, and after having around 1 hour gliding experience, on my 1st ever powered aircraft flight (C150), I landed 3 times doing circuits having never been thought how to land properly - that was my 1st ever prop a/c flight. I don't think many can say they managed to land 3 times in their 1st 30 minutes of flying. At least I think that proves I can adapt quickly. And I am not for a second going to suggest landing a 737 is anywhere near as easy as a C150 and I don't think I could ever do it consistently without proper training but I am still struggling to see why it's such an impossibility. Seems like it just entirely depends on how quickly someone can adjust to the controls and if he/she understands what regimes the aircraft should be operating at during the stages of flight. So knowledge of the aircraft you are flying is essential... and that's where flightsims can help out. All IMO. Obviously we will likely never find out the answer to this rather interesting question.

Hey, long time msfs player, who knows how many thousand hours sitting behind the captain operating as a flight mech. I know autopilots and can work my way through an FMS. I had my first opportunity in a real simulator, motion off a few years back. The controlls in slow flight were heavier than I expected. My first attempt at landing manual ILS approach I had to do a go-around, the 2nd time I was sucessfull with a firm landing. Rudder pedals were the largest problem during rollout but I had little time to prepare. I am certain I could perform a CATIIIB autoland in clear weather if in the scenario described withought any help. But I have solid knowledge of autopilots and FMS as maintaining them is my job. It was funny though how even in a sim my heart was racing, may have been all to real given how many times I was an observer and experienced landings get real complicated due to W/S etc. Well done to you Sir. You prove a good point here.

[skwinty]

I think it would depend on the specific individual.

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/234781-lightning-engineer-flight.html#post2719405


http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=5iKFYaXDivs

[Groundloop]

Bearcat, there are enough people on here with vastly more experience than you telling you what would happen.

You seem to have a VERY high opinion of your own abilities. What you do seem to lack is humility! Such an attitude would NOT make a good airline pilot. Realise your own limitations.

Regarding people landing 747 full-flight sims - the instructor probably had "Crash - Inhibit" turned on - and wind set to zero!

Also you seem to have completely ignored the response to the problem of slowing a big jet down. A 737 has significantly less induced drag than a PA-28 - it does not have that big drag-inducing whirly thing on the front! Trying to descend from cruise AND slow down at the same time can be VERY difficult. Even Air Traffic Controllers don't seem to realise how hard it is when firing out combined "Descend... and reduce speed to..." clearances!

[Nicholas49]

Bearcat: I'm not sure why you are still arguing about this. As said above, a number of professional pilots with vastly more flying experience than you are telling you that you can't do it. Why don't you take their word for it? They know best!

Can you not understand that you need to be trained successfully to fly and land a Boeing/Airbus aircraft and that your PPL / Microsoft Flight Simulator knowledge - although interesting/fun/worthwhile in its own way - is of very limited use here because it is not the same thing.

I now understand why professional pilots get very nervous about / annoyed with PPL-holders who are chomping at the bit to 'have a go' and save the day in an emergency situation.

[Exascot]

He will not drop it will he :}

Thanks for pointing out the article on the Lightening 'test' flight Skwinty. Never seen that before - very interesting.

I had heard about it of course.

[wiggy]

The parallels with 9/11 hijackers are a red herring. They only needed to be aware of E of C, S&L 1 and 2 and Descending 1 of the PPL syllabus, and a few details about FMC and autopilot operation. What they did, sadly, was probably at least couple of orders of magnitude easier than getting themselves fully configured, on speed, on a 10 mile final to a runway of their choice. They had also done an enormous amount of homework on the specific aircraft type(s)they knew they were going to be flying. Not at all the same as your scenario where a Flt simmer with PPL time is asked to walk onto the flight deck of any airliner at a moments notice and pull off a survivable landing. :=

FWIW like I suspect like many here I've got just a bit of time on a couple of Boeing's types, I should certainly be able to land those types and hopefully could probably produce a survivable :sad: "on runway" landing in most of Boeing's other products if I unexpectedly ended up in the hot seat on a bad day. OTOH I've spent enough time jumpseating on Airbuses to know they are more than somewhat different to Boeings and I know I wouldn't find handling one of those easy. However if you still think computer Flight Sim time and a PPL would enable you to handle any airliner well enough to make it probable that you and the passengers would survive then I bow to your greater confidence and think we'll have to agree to disagree about the probable outcome....

End point from me: Training airline pilots is very expensive. If you could be released to the line with MSFS time and a PPL it would be happening. It isn't:confused:, there's a reason why the professionals spend expensive hours upon hours on type specific training in the classroom, and hours upon hours in the simulator of their type before being let loose on the real world.

I now understand why professional pilots get very nervous about / annoyed with PPL-holders who are chomping at the bit to 'have a go' and save the day in an emergency situation.:ok::ok:

[boguing]

A loooooong time ago (35 years) my Dad got me some time in an L1011 full motion sim at Redifon (at Gatwick I think). Armed with about 5 hours in gliders (with him or instructors, being taught, but never landed one). 2 or 3 hours in tugs.

First landing was heavy, but successful. No damage done.

So because I was seventeen and a bit pleased with myself they made the second approach more interesting (engine(s) failure. Reminded me that there were 300 hundred people behind me.

From memory, that one was about 20 feet too low. Fatal.

So, it's definitely possible, but 50/50 is not what you'd call good odds.

[wiggy]

boguing

First landing was heavy, but successful. No damage done
For the sake of this debate and out of interest at what point did you start handling the "aircraft" : ' cruise/descent/ on the glideslope fully configured??

[Avionker]

He will not drop it will he :}

He certainly doesn't appear to want to. I suspect his mate, with whom he is having an argument, may well be reading this thread. If so the OP is probably desperate for at least one professional to agree with him, that way he can attempt to claim a draw.

[boguing]

35 years on and I still get sweaty hands thinking about it!

My recollection is that I'd decided, before I got there, to do approaches and landings from far enough out for me to configure 'from scratch', so what would that be, 10,000agl? Must have been something of that order, because I only had two attempts, and it wasn't over in less than half an hour. The reason was exactly the same as this thread's subject - could I do it for real?

I was on the left with a Training Captain telling me where and when for flap, brake, gear, throttles etc. I think that we must assume that they didn't give me any wind or other weather effects.

[MIKECR]

I watch new FO's(including ex flying instructor types) struggle to land the aircraft, and theyve got a CPL/ATPL and a valid type rating! Staying mentally just one step ahead of the aeroplane is a big enough challenge for them!

[derekl29]

Before I had a PPL (but with many years MS Flight Sim experience) I`d have said I could do it.

Now I've got the PPL and I'd probably say with the benefit of some experience that I`ve got no chance of nailing a decent landing, the speeds involved and the workload would just be far too high alone, not to mention getting everything set up for the landing in the first place

[Lord Spandex Masher]

The question is could you do it.

Yes, you could. Anybody could do it.

Is it likely that you or they would do it?

No. But you could get lucky.

[Bearcat F8F]

End point from me: Training airline pilots is very expensive. If you could be released to the line with MSFS time and a PPL it would be happening. It isn'thttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif, there's a reason why the professionals spend expensive hours upon hours on type specific training in the classroom, and hours upon hours in the simulator of their type before being let loose on the real world.

I have no doubt about that and no question as to why they spend so much money on training purposes. My scenario is completely extreme. I have also mentioned that "I think I stand a chance at making it happen" which does not guarantee any good outcome but there's still a chance it could happen. The specific conditions that I have mentioned is that the person flying (me for example) would be familiar with the aircraft... airspeeds, configurations, being able to operate the FMC and autopilot to somewhat extent - that can be learned in MSFS and therefore providing enough basic knowledge of the aircraft to understand what and how the aircraft should be operated (in theory at least). Just reading back, I don't recall saying "any airliner". I meant at least one that you are familiar with. For example if someone put me inside an IL-96 or an A380, I would struggle as I know nothing about them... that's what I mean.

I am not going to argue any further. There's enough information here to suggest that it is possible to manually land a jet without having any previous jet hours. I don't think it can be done by anyone (and maybe I would fail miserably too) but apart from the issue of "how quickly can you adapt to flying a jet" (i.e getting it configured in time etc) there is nothing else to suggest it's impossible.

Also you seem to have completely ignored the response to the problem of slowing a big jet down. A 737 has significantly less induced drag than a PA-28 - it does not have that big drag-inducing whirly thing on the front! Trying to descend from cruise AND slow down at the same time can be VERY difficult. Even Air Traffic Controllers don't seem to realise how hard it is when firing out combined "Descend... and reduce speed to..." clearances!

I have not ignored it. I have asked what makes it so challenging and apart from what you just said, I didn't hear anyone else answer that question. Once again I am by no means wanting to hint at the idea that it's easy but it is difficult to understand why it's not doable.

----------------

There's has now been 3 people here who said they have landed full motion sims with no previous jet experience (2 manual and 1 on autoland), and that's excluding my friend who made a good landing on an A320 and landed a bit short on the 744. And boguing said he configured the aircraft from scratch. Even if it was a rough landing I think it kind of proves that it's at least plausible and will depend entirely on the knowledge of the individual and how quickly he/she can adapt to a jet.


He certainly doesn't appear to want to. I suspect his mate, with whom he is having an argument, may well be reading this thread. If so the OP is probably desperate for at least one professional to agree with him, that way he can attempt to claim a draw.

Very unlikely that he found it. But I might actually show it to him later. Even though I got slaughtered by most people here it makes for some interesting reading, and the few that said it's actually possible (or might be possible) got ignored by the looks of it.

You seem to have a VERY high opinion of your own abilities. What you do seem to lack is humility! Such an attitude would NOT make a good airline pilot. Realise your own limitations.

I am sorry if I appear big-headed. I don't doubt my abilities but I sure as heck don't treat flying like a game, and you are quite wrong in thinking I have no understanding my limitations. Maybe not completely, not yet, that is the ultimate goal of any pilot...

The scenario I provided along with every bit of sensible information to suggest the possibility of a successful outcome has either been entirely misinterpreted or ignored.

I COMPLETELY admit that I do NOT know everything there is to know. The descent profile like Groundloop pointed out... I'm sure I might not appreciate how difficult it is to achieve, along with other things I'm sure.

If any of you have access to a full motion sim that could be set up with a 737NG at 35,000ft, I would love to try it. That is really the only way to find out the answer to this rather stupid question.

One last point I would like to make: does anyone remember the Canadian 767 that became a glider? They made the same scenario for 10 crews on a flight sim and they all failed. My point is... not everyone is capable of that kind of flying regardless of experience. Was it luck? maybe so... so in my scenario even if the chances are 1 in 1000, it still means that maybe someone can pull it off.

I appreciate all your input and don't think I have ignored any of the comments from you guys that actually fly for a living. I respect them greatly and will try to learn what I can. Maybe one day I too will arrive at the conclusion that it would be an impossibility but so far there's enough evidence to support that it might just be possible... maybe unlikely, but realistically possible.

[Groundloop]

One last point I would like to make: does anyone remember the Canadian 767 that became a glider? They made the same scenario for 10 crews on a flight sim and they all failed. My point is... not everyone is capable of that kind of flying regardless of experience. Was it luck? maybe so

It was luck! It was extremely good luck that the Captain, Bob Pearson, happened to also be a very experienced glider pilot and that the acting First Officer, Maurice Quintal, had done his Air Force training out of Gimli and remembered that Gimli existed.

[Sir Herbert Gussett]

What you are referring to is the way the aircraft reacts to control inputs. And if you read my last post you will realize that I very clearly understand these enormous differences. I understand speeds are much higher, controls are sluggish, engines take a while to respond to a new power settings, ground effect and flare will be different etc... I understand that. What makes you think that my brain will assume the controls will be the same on a 737 as a PA-28 when I'm in it...?


Experience. Something you lack. :ok:

[Exascot]

Bearcat: I quote you I am not going to argue any further.

But you did :eek:

For goodness sake we are professionally airline pilots. Many of us have been kind enough to answer your questions and arguments in detail (I was not one of them).

Perhaps you should consider taking up knitting instead of using this forum to to pass your time. :mad:

Sorry guys but I have had enough of this armchair airline pilot.

Standby for the next sh1t he comes out with.

[Bearcat F8F]

It was luck! It was extremely good luck that the Captain, Bob Pearson, happened to also be a very experienced glider pilot and that the acting First Officer, Maurice Quintal, had done his Air Force training out of Gimli and remembered that Gimli existed.
Apart from navigating to Gimli, the actual landing is what I meant. So if it was luck I assume you mean it is unlikely to happen again (if they were given a chance to do it a 2nd time). Maybe you're right. Although maybe he was just better at managing energy than most other pilots (perhaps due to his gliding experience)...

The guy that landed the Air Transat A330-200 in 2001 also did a nice job (on the gliding and landing part). I can't find much info on if he also had any good gliding experience... all I could find was that he flew bush planes before.

Anyway my point is. I reckon most crews would fail in such a situation... but 1 in every x-many will make it. That's the only point I was trying to make there.

Experience. Something you lack. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

If I had it, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The entire point of the thread is to find out if an untrained pilot is capable of landing a jet.

-------

Actually it brings me onto something else... anyone here use PMDG's new 737NGX? I think they claim that it's 90-something % realistic. Ok so the ground effect and touch down in FSX (along with complicated weather conditions) are probably not very realistic, but the general flight model is "meant" to be pretty accurate... so am I right in saying that's kind of a lie since no one here seems to buy any of it?

And also... if someone says "well they would use it to train pilots then" - I would assume the reason they don't is due to the fact that the level of immersion compared to a full motion sim is rather crap. And it doesn't allow for crew interaction training etc...

but theoretically there is no reason why they can't model the flight dynamics correctly in cheap home simulators with the computer technology that's around us these days.

Please note I am just curious and am not trying to start a war about how accurate these things are as I completely accept that FSX will not be able to fully represent reality (and I can assume that from my experience on the 3 props that I have flown for real)... that having said, it's not far off (ground effect is a bit rubbish in FSX)!! Not sure how about the jets though...

[Bearcat F8F]

Standby for the next sh1t he comes out with.
I can't recall being so arrogant in any of my posts as to deserve that kind of reply. Thanks for letting me know how you feel though.
Good day to you Sir.

[Nicholas49]

Bearcat: reading your argument in post 37, you appear to have very warped logic.

If your original question was meant in good faith, I suspect you are now deliberately seeking to provoke (aka trolling). Let it go.

[Sir Herbert Gussett]

The computing power required to run a simulator is immense. The sheer number of mathematical calculations that have to be carried out whenever I move the yoke in the sim is incredible. This is a level of computing that your flight simulator on your desktop PC could not handle. Try going to a full motion sim and instead of flying it ask to see the computers that run the bugger!

So many variables are involved in flying through the air that you really do need that level of computing to simulate it fairly accurately - even the dynamics in the full motion sims used to train us aren't 100% bang on. I doubt your plane you mention is "90-something % realistic" since such a level of simulation would require more than one desktop PC.

[Bearcat F8F]

Fair enough. Can admin close this thread please?

Thanks

[Bearcat F8F]

The computing power required to run a simulator is immense. The sheer number of mathematical calculations that have to be carried out whenever I move the yoke in the sim is incredible. This is a level of computing that your flight simulator on your desktop PC could not handle. Try going to a full motion sim and instead of flying it ask to see the computers that run the bugger!

So many variables are involved in flying through the air that you really do need that level of computing to simulate it fairly accurately - even the dynamics in the full motion sims used to train us aren't 100% bang on. I doubt your plane you mention is "90-something % realistic" since such a level of simulation would require more than one desktop PC. Ok gocha, thanks. I quote what they say though:

"The PMDG 737NGX features an unprecedented level of systems fidelity. Developed over three years with technical input from Boeing and a team of real-life 737NG crew and maintenance advisors, we have painstakingly modeled nearly every system on the real aircraft in a fully dynamic and realistic manner."

PMDG Simulations (http://www.precisionmanuals.com/pages/product/ngx.html)

But if it does indeed require a lot of computing power to run something like that then maybe you're right :ok:

[Sir Herbert Gussett]

If that is the case I must take a copy next time I'm in the sims and tell them they are wasting their money with the number of computers they have!

[wiggy]

Bearcat

Before this thread closes a bit of advice.....in the unlikely event you find yourself in this hypothetical situation please, please, accept that you don't know what you don't know....

Golden rules:

Don't touch anything on the glareshield.
Don't touch the yoke or the side stick.
Don't touch the FMC/CDU or similar.


Find the press to transmit switch and shout "mayday" and unquestionly accept any advice that comes your way...and prey that you've got more than minimum fuel.

[Bearcat F8F]

Bearcat

Before this thread closes a bit of advice.....in the unlikely event you find yourself in this hypothetical situation please, please, accept that you don't know what you don't know....

Golden rules:

Don't touch anything on the glareshield.
Don't touch the yoke or the side stick.
Don't touch the FMC/CDU or similar.


Find the press to transmit switch and shout "mayday" and unquestionly accept any advice that comes your way...and prey that you've got more than minimum fuel. Yessir! I appreciate your advice. What I have learned from this thread at least is that autoland is a better option than hand flying (regardless of what I might think). And I doubt I would be stupid enough not to call for help from the ground!

Thanks again

[anthonyw]

I was once fortunate enough to spend 4 hours on an A330 sim based in Stockport. It was a company perk as my boss also had a passion for flight.(That’s why he picked the flightsim) great call !

It was certainly a challenge, we started each flight on the deck and flew dozens of circuits so we could experience the phases of flight, we were allowed to do everything with assistance of the pilot advising where various knobs and switches were. I cheated a little by having the auto throttle left on for approach but that was it. We did elect to have the flight director turned off in an attempt to make it more difficult. I was looking at the diamonds on the localizer and Glidescope while trying to keep my head outside the cockpit as much as I could on the short finals. To keep us on our toes the weather worsened and we thrown a few emergencies. This is where my total appreciation became clear for real world pilots in staying professional and keeping a cool head. Being unfamiliar with the cockpit layout was a pain so with the help from the jump seat as I went through the checklist on the MFD a little voice would shout from the jump seat “above your head to the left” and so on. At that point I was the non PF.

As to the question by the poster in my very very limited experience I would say yes it can be done. We didn’t fluff any landings, maybe that was sheer luck but there were many but I did feel comfortable and in control, firm landing yes, hot brakes on the first attempt yes (trying to hold the flair to long while eating up valuable tarmac but no landing short or overruns.

But reality is a different beast, when flying the Sim I lacked fear, if it went wrong it didn’t matter if we crashed and burned and for me that is the big question. The fear factor and panic that can ensue can be difference between a landing you walk away from and one you don’t.

My only experience was 20hrs on a PA38 Tomajoke, 15yrs flying models and a few sessions on MSFS.


Now if it were a Boeing :}

[gorter]

To go back a few steps as to why a PPL really couldn't do it manually.

1) The pitch power couple of jet engines is immense. Any change in power setting will be too large for a PPL to a)anticipate and b) compensate for, without adequate supervision. Even simple trimming took a long time to get vaguely decent at.

Hell the sim had be frozen an immense number of times (with subsequent repositioning, not possible in real a/c)for my first type rating to even vaguely hand fly it safely.

2) A jet aircraft is an extremely complex bit of kit. Even finding the PTT to yell out mayday would take a lot of head scratching, searching and time. Time you would not have if hand flying it. Many of the a/c i fly are of a different fit (different original customer) and every time i get in my seat i have to spend a little time reminding myself where everything is.

By the time a PPL had found the correct switch (hand flying remember) the a/c would either be in a full stall or in a pretty nasty overspeed and then the mayday would be the last thing ATC ever heard of the a/c

Then deal with all the other bits switches nobs and fiddly bits. You probably would find the right handles for gear and flap, but would you even vaguely be at the correct speed to operate them? I'll even give you +50% and -20% speed but the chances of severely damaging (so they become unusable) a service or stalling is immense.

The PPL pilot would become overloaded. I still become overloaded sometimes and that's why there are 2 pilots.

3) in my company we deal with pilot incapacitation every sim (alternating who is incapacitated). We're taught to yell out mayday and autoland at the nearest suitable airfield. If it's good enough for a commercial pilot....

4) To those who've done it in the sim, remember a significant portion of communication is non verbal. You have a serious advantage of having an instructor (or even just a suitably qualified line pilot) sat just behind you who can point at the appropriate handle, nob etc and who can quickly tell you to nudge on a bit more power etc.

Someone over the radio can't. they'd have to say something along the lines of 'right now press the third button from the right marked with APP. has a little light come on? have you got a G slash S in white in the second box from right just below the green V slash S. okay you now have the approach mode armed just follow the crosses. the sim instructor would say 'press that button' pointing at the APP button


QI (the TV programme with Stephen Fry) found some research from somewhere (not sure where) that found if the A/P was engaged you had a 1 in 10 chance of landing safely. without it you were stuffed.

That's why two pence worth why a PPL could not land a jet aircraft safely.


edited: poster above mentions a lot of the non verbal comms that a sim instructor can provide.

[boguing]

As one that managed it half the time, let's look a bit deeper.

The reason that I was in the sim was:-

1. My Dad was chief engineer on the RB211. (Initial partner, Lockheed).

2. Post 1971, his new job was Tech Dir at Instron, who supplied the hydraulics and computers to interface with the Redifon stuff for their sims at that time.

3. At that time he was a rather good glider pilot (Diamond C) and had flown lots of powered stuff too.

That tells you about the home I grew up in (or, more accurately) the flying fields that an adolescent was more-or-less bored to tears on.

Told in advance ot this opportunity, I must have come up with the incapacitated pilots and flight engineer scenario.

Even as a know it all teenager, I realised that if I were thrust into the cockpit at 500 feet, it would not end well. I must have worked out (as I would now) that if I had height, time, fuel, and somebody who knew better on the radio, I might, given time, get used to the column loads and sensitivity of the aircraft. Which might then have a chance of working towards a successful result.

Even then, I would have known that when the "are there any pilots onboard?" call went unanswered, I wouldn't just blunder in and start waggling stuff.

Without going through the whole possible, and pretty unlikely scene that I'd imagined, I knew enough not to touch anything if it was going downwards.

Could I have seen what the ap and altimeter were doing? Yes. Ah and wings level? Yes.

Bodies in seats, hadn't thought that through, but common sense says get help to shift carefully.

Work out how to use the radio? Yes. Ask for help, and have a look at the ap panel and look for height if it's reducing. Be prepared for throttles if that doesn't work.

So given all of that, it's what I asked for in the sim. A bit of time to get used to pitch/power responses. And, as someone mentioned, throttle pitch up. L1011 remember, not so bad.

I passed, first time. And failed second time.

Had been very very rich I would have asked for a learning curve. I might have raised the 50/50 to something more acceptable.

Why am I not a pilot? Dad. Mr aviation, post RR crash, thought that there would not be any money in it as a pilot. Woops.

Bloody good at racing sailing boats though.

[vctenderness]

As cabin crew I found this thread extremely interesting and educational thanks for starting it.

Now how about this. In the glory days of Flight Engineers on Classics, Tristars, DC10's etc. Would they have been able to fly and land it if the two drivers had been incapacitated?

They knew their way around the cockpit as well as the pilots and monitored approach and landing, I believe, even using the throttles.

I know when their role was withdrawn a number did retrain as pilots and some even reached dizzy heights of cabin crew!:ok:

[mickjoebill]

I reckon the strategy for PPLs would be to hit the runway wheels up at 200 knots, rather than try and "land"

[Check Mags On]

If you want to amuse yourself in a few years time. I suggest you save this thread. If the path you have chosen for your self is as an airline pilot.
Then when you can land a 737 for real autoland or manually. You will look back and see the naive 19 year old that you are coming across as.
Obviously there will be exceptionally gifted people who could pull off what you surmise in your original post. Odds are that your not.
Sorry if this comes across as condescending but you asked a question and some very experienced airline pilots answered you. Why ask a question if you don't hear the answer.

[WallyWumpus]

Here is my 2p worth as the hypothetical pilot who was just drawing his last breath on board and was selecting my "immediate effectively" replacement.......

I played a lot of FS as a young man, and I also flew a lot of PPL hours.

If my choice was between a 1000hr PPL pilot and a 1000hr flights sim enthusiast (of any age), I would would select the latter to do the job. In the scenario suggested by the original poster, what the aircraft and the pax need at that moment is a competent systems operator, not a stick-and-rudder jockey.

The big leap of faith is getting someone to work out how to use the radio, but assuming there is no systems failures and no fuel crisis, it would all be pretty straightforward thereafter. A trained monkey could do my job.

[Gentle Climb]

I have watched many PPL's try to 'land' the sims on open days at a well known training establishment. They are set up on automatics, established at 3000ft at 10d. Speed 180 flap 5. They all look really good, some remember to slow down and extend flaps, sometimes they do it in stages and even remember to put the gear down (a novelty for most ppl's) don't worry about bug speeds, forget qnh, setting the SB without deployment, and thats with Ap & AT engaged. Disconnect both and it falls apart rapidly. Most common error- high flap setting...speed bleeds wrong side of the drag curve, massive corrections...pitch power couple...nose up, nose down...and it's all over. Some go around...pitch too high...stall etc.
There are so many differences between the feel of a warrior and the feel of the jet. To overcome all of these and land successfully first time...it's a big ask, even being talked down by someone who knows how to do it. Cat 3c? At some point...you still have to take manual control. I can imagine the heavy foot that gets planted on the rudders with a cross wind.
You might do it, if you are in that situation you have to do something but frankly you are guessing. Professional pilots are trained to get it right every time. Amateurs might know what they are trying to do but the execution is unreliable. As a comparison, look at what happens when regular drivers get the chance to drive a formula one car...carnage ensues. They know what they are trying to do...they just don't have experience to do it first time.

[grounded27]

Been interesting reading. I think it is well understood by all that an uncoupled landing would probably be disastrous for anyone other than an experienced ATP with time on type or similar. What about the other scenario.. Autoland.

I am not a pilot but an experienced Tech with fight mech time and solid avionics knowledge, as stated above know by way around many Airbus, Boeing, MDC, Bombardier etc cockpits. I have a deep knowledge of how nav aids and navigation equipment, autopilots, aircraft systems etc.

I would not feel comfortable alone in the cockpit of any aircraft, I would feel much better with another tech or person with a PPL to assist with radios, flaps etc.

First off all flight crew are incapacitated, I would secure the aircraft in stable level flight.

Hopefully there are charts or an EFB up with comm frequencies but would not waste too much time selecting guard. I understand baro settings std above 18k and speed limit to 250 kts below 10k (terrain would come to mind) If up in coffin's corner I would take care to carefully descend to a more forgiving altitude . By now I should have vectors and altitude req from ATC.

Hopefully the landing approach speeds have been established for me, I could see myself stumbling a bit here if I did not have familar charts or a program to obtain them. The other option would be ATC contacting company for someone to coach me on this. Phew, unless the person assisting could do this for me, it would surely be allot of work. But hey hopefully he could be monitoring the aircraft understand FMA etc.

Largest problem I see here is a lack of continuity as there is no clear PM or PF, may be some argument over this issue.

Ok weather and speed in descent, 2 more issues. I could clearly manage both of these but does PM know what the hell he is doing?

The weather is clear there are no terrain issues , I would request a very long straight in vector at say 3,000 feet agl 30-40 miles out, to ensure the aircraft is configured for landing. Hopefully the extra fuel burn is not an issue!?! STAR for landing airport selected in the FMS, or vectors and manual tuning. Flaps set, speed set, speedbrake armed, autobrakes armed (hopefully there is a checklist handy) gear down. From here on out it should not be much more than possibly one more level change monitoring DME, selecting land (hopefully it is similar to an autopilot I know well), monitoring the FMA and ILS raw data to insure all phases of approach and land modes latch. Oh and do something most pilots forget to on a 3B approach (verify with the tower the runway is protected) for a nice smooth rollout.

This would scare the **** out of me under optimal circumstances but I too believe a PPL would be completely lost. I know of many avionics tech's that have performed flawless autolands in a SIM. We can not fix this stuff without having intimate knowledge of how it works. Hell I have seen many of you professional pilots who could not find the correct hole to plug your headset into transitioning from one aircraft to another, plenty of other blunders and "pilot error" discrepancies get passed through my hands quite often. Just about always attributed to unfamiliarity and our pilots get top notch training.

[ZOOKER]

Bearcat,
I have a first-aid sustificate and I have seen every episode of Holby City,- could I perform a successful appendicectomy?
No.
I can play 'Chopsticks' on the Hammond Organ and once saw Reginald Dixon, - could I substitute on keyboards in Emerson Lake And Palmer?
No.

[stalling attitude]

I've got several thousand jet hours but you should have seen my last effort at landing a light aircraft after several years away. Wasn't pretty. Regarding a ppl landing a jet I would say highly unlikely. Apart from the handling issues, with many flights going with plog fuel I think that by the time the ppl worked out where things were they would be out of fuel.

[Bearcat F8F]

If you want to amuse yourself in a few years time. I suggest you save this thread. If the path you have chosen for your self is as an airline pilot.
Then when you can land a 737 for real autoland or manually. You will look back and see the naive 19 year old that you are coming across as.
Obviously there will be exceptionally gifted people who could pull off what you surmise in your original post. Odds are that your not.
Sorry if this comes across as condescending but you asked a question and some very experienced airline pilots answered you. Why ask a question if you don't hear the answer.

That's a great idea! I'll check back in about 4 years time. Won't say any more till then. Thanks.


Been interesting reading. I think it is well understood by all that an uncoupled landing would probably be disastrous for anyone other than an experienced ATP with time on type or similar. What about the other scenario.. Autoland.

I am not a pilot but an experienced Tech with fight mech time and solid avionics knowledge, as stated above know by way around many Airbus, Boeing, MDC, Bombardier etc cockpits. I have a deep knowledge of how nav aids and navigation equipment, autopilots, aircraft systems etc.

I would not feel comfortable alone in the cockpit of any aircraft, I would feel much better with another tech or person with a PPL to assist with radios, flaps etc.

First off all flight crew are incapacitated, I would secure the aircraft in stable level flight.

Hopefully there are charts or an EFB up with comm frequencies but would not waste too much time selecting guard. I understand baro settings std above 18k and speed limit to 250 kts below 10k (terrain would come to mind) If up in coffin's corner I would take care to carefully descend to a more forgiving altitude . By now I should have vectors and altitude req from ATC.

Hopefully the landing approach speeds have been established for me, I could see myself stumbling a bit here if I did not have familar charts or a program to obtain them. The other option would be ATC contacting company for someone to coach me on this. Phew, unless the person assisting could do this for me, it would surely be allot of work. But hey hopefully he could be monitoring the aircraft understand FMA etc.

Largest problem I see here is a lack of continuity as there is no clear PM or PF, may be some argument over this issue.

Ok weather and speed in descent, 2 more issues. I could clearly manage both of these but does PM know what the hell he is doing?

The weather is clear there are no terrain issues , I would request a very long straight in vector at say 3,000 feet agl 30-40 miles out, to ensure the aircraft is configured for landing. Hopefully the extra fuel burn is not an issue!?! STAR for landing airport selected in the FMS, or vectors and manual tuning. Flaps set, speed set, speedbrake armed, autobrakes armed (hopefully there is a checklist handy) gear down. From here on out it should not be much more than possibly one more level change monitoring DME, selecting land (hopefully it is similar to an autopilot I know well), monitoring the FMA and ILS raw data to insure all phases of approach and land modes latch. Oh and do something most pilots forget to on a 3B approach (verify with the tower the runway is protected) for a nice smooth rollout.

This would scare the **** out of me under optimal circumstances but I too believe a PPL would be completely lost. I know of many avionics tech's that have performed flawless autolands in a SIM. We can not fix this stuff without having intimate knowledge of how it works. Hell I have seen many of you professional pilots who could not find the correct hole to plug your headset into transitioning from one aircraft to another, plenty of other blunders and "pilot error" discrepancies get passed through my hands quite often. Just about always attributed to unfamiliarity and our pilots get top notch training.

Very interesting post. Thanks for sharing. Wasn't there an instance of some WW2 fighter pilot who found himself in a similar position as to what we are all discussing here some time back? I think he managed to land with help from the ground. I am pretty sure I heard about this somewhere. Anyone know any details? This would certainly prove the "get help from ground/ autoland" theory!

[Teevee]

This is the daftest thread ever. As SLF and MSFS pilot I haven't got a clue whether it would be possible or not but as somebody with a modicum of intelligence, excellent listening skills and SOME common sense, plus knowing that someone also wins the lottery every week at odds of millions to one so it might be my (very) lucky day what's the alternative to the attempt?. Plus, let me put it this way ... there's nobody else to land the thing, I might as well give it a go and HOPE I wouldn't die - as opposed to thinking ... 'ah well, they all said it couldn't be done so I might as well just sit here and wait for this thing to hit the ground ... very, very hard ...:ugh:

[Armchairflyer]

Since "Snakes on a plane" it should be common knowledge that one doesn't even need a PPL to successfully land a 747 :8.

Seriously, being a PPL holder and MSFS aficionado as well (and having thought and read about this scenario, obviously), I'd say: "Autoland in the most favorable of circumstances with a bit of luck: maybe. Trying a manual landing in the most favorable of circumstances with a bit of luck: outcome probably similar to UA 232.

To quote a previous poster: instead of sitting there and waiting for this thing to hit the ground (anywhere) very, very hard, a PPL/MSFS person trying a manual landing might succeed at hitting the ground at an airport very, very hard, which at least has the advantage of emergency crews ready and waiting.

[grounded27]

Mythbusters, I have been on several landings (freighters) where the PF has banked to or near 45 deg to make a last minute "clear to land" landing.. In the dreaded MD-11... Stupid, but I am here to tell.

There is nothing like that view of the ground with that big L3 window of a Md-11. Shut up and tighten the harness is all I could do.

[Octane]

Once had a similar conversation with a friend who is a check and training captain on Dash-8's. He reckoned he would be able to talk me through it to get it down in one piece, even more so if there was a chase plane alongside. Dash-8 though, not a 737!

[ford cortina]

As a current 737 pilot, I have found this a interesting read.
If it is possible for a PPL holder to manually fly a Jet aircraft, why oh why do we use the autopilot and autothrottle most of the time, even on approach.

Amongst all of this there have been stories of pilots landing in extreme situations, but no mention of Helios Flight 522. Andreas Prodromou, the flight attendent who gained access to the flight deck, had a UK issued CPL, unfortunately it did not help at all.

Saying I can manually handle a 737 is all and good, but what happens on the glide when you get a bit high, do you take the power off, if so how much, then what will happen to your pitch. When do you drop the gear and set landing flaps, what will that do to your pitch and power settings.
If my flight suffered a Pilot Incapacitation, I would choose to use Autoland where ever possible. BA used to have that in their QRH, they may still do.
When you learn to fly a Boeing and I am sure most other jets, you are given a set of pitch and power settings, these are ballpark numbers intended to help you.

Bearcat, if you are so interested, I would book a hour in a 737 sim and during that time, ask to fly a profile or two unassisted. Lets see how you do then.

[JEM60]

With respect to Mr. Prodromou, I gather his time in the Captain's seat was extremely limited before it ran out of fuel? Perhaps with more time he may have been able to manage better, although, of course, there was no-one alive to assist him in any way on board the aircraft. I do, however, agree with your views.

[boguing]

A CPL rating wouldn't be that much help to him. He was the last sufferer of Hypoxia to get to the cockpit.

[boguing]

Ford Cortina.

Wrote you a long reply, but reconsidered.

Using auto lets you do everything else better. You only need to keep half an eye on it to make sure it's doing what it should.

At a tender age, I didn't actually know that (oddly - given the parentage) so went manual.

And I'll repeat what I said earlier. I landed a TriStar heavily, in vmc, with probably no wind at all, but successfully. Once.

The second time was not good. At all.

[Bearcat F8F]

Hey guys, I am not keen on restarting the arguing here, but for all of you airline pilots who are so keen on this being an impossibility for a PPL holder, here's some food for thought... I just found a vid of a PPL holder landing an EMB-190... it was combination of help from ground/ A/P and manual flying:

The Aviators Episode 05 FREEview - YouTube


I suppose that some of you now will say that either the sim was "dumbed down" or perhaps the PPL holder was a much more experienced pilot, or something or other... please restrain yourself from all this guesswork. Sure, this might be fake, but maybe it's not.

Also spoke to another friend who said he landed perfectly in a 747 full motion sim during his MCC training without having any previous jet experience... although he did have some experience on King Airs... not sure exactly how much that could've helped.

[Pali]

Let's be honest - which aviation enthusiast who flies on some sim haven't thought about taking over an airliner in case of an emergency? Remember Castle/Haley Flight into danger from 1958? That was a classic.

But anyone who would face such a fate would better dream of a survivable landing crash rather than anything else.

[oversteer]

Whenever this topic comes up I always think about my first goes flying, takeoff, landing, navigation, all under the watchful eye of an instructor, and how long before they took over your hashed first attempts to try a manoeuvre all by yourself ?

That feeling of relief as an experienced hand sorted out your mistake and let you try it again. The feeling of safety when you descend on final and something unexpected happens "I have control"

Yeah, now imagine doing all that by yourself. With something 5x faster and 50x heavier, and no going back. You have no chance. With automatics, help on the ground and properly tuned radios, possibly. Hand flying it for the first time? No chance.

[Crusher1]

A number of years back when it was located in my home patch I "landed" (or should that be crashed with style?) the BMI 737 simulator on the grass at Dublin. I can safely say that I'm either totally useless or it's pretty difficult - even with someone telling you what to do sitting by your side!

The same guy then took me on a trip to somewhere in Japan (I think) and proceeded to fly the thing through an open hanger door and out the other side which kind of put my efforts into context!

[Bearcat F8F]

Whenever this topic comes up I always think about my first goes flying, takeoff, landing, navigation, all under the watchful eye of an instructor, and how long before they took over your hashed first attempts to try a manoeuvre all by yourself ?

That feeling of relief as an experienced hand sorted out your mistake and let you try it again. The feeling of safety when you descend on final and something unexpected happens "I have control"

Yeah, now imagine doing all that by yourself. With something 5x faster and 50x heavier, and no going back. You have no chance. With automatics, help on the ground and properly tuned radios, possibly. Hand flying it for the first time? No chance.

Well strictly speaking that is by far not the case with everyone (at least with regards to SEP) going by my personal experience at least. There's natural pilots and guys that are more mechanical. Both types might make an equally good pilot at the end but how they reach that same level of control and ability can be quite different.

So in the case of the PPL landing an airliner we would have to have a candidate who is a rather quick learner and a natural.

If the guy in the vid that I posted is really just a SEP IR pilot then he did a rather good job at landing that 190!

[Groundloop]

I would not put too much faith in what they say in that programme. It was supposedly made by people who claim to know what they are talking about - but when they say two F-16s are being scrambled they show two F-18s!

How much else in the video is not accurate?

[Bearcat F8F]

Yeah it was a bit dumb with the whole fighter jet scrambling thing... it shouldn't be like that. Although if you watch the rest of their stuff they do know what they are talking about with regards to aviation. So yeah there's really no way of knowing if that was all 1 take or they did the shoot over some time...

[lamer]

A300 LPMA 05 - YouTube

No PPL.
Only "REAL" Aircraft ever flown were controlled from the ground using a set of thumbs. :-)

First time in A300 Cockpit
First time into LPMA
No briefing, no coaching.

Lots of noobs there that day.
Some could do it right away, some not even after multilple tries.

Any PPL holder that can not land one of these on a nice day without other distractions from a straight approach should look for another hobby.

Only talking about simulators of course.
I have no idea how a try in a real plane would end up.
Would go for it though ...

Regards

[Dan Winterland]

This topic reappears every few years, the outcome is always the same with som PPL guy confident in his ability to save 450 pax in a 744 and the airline pilots saying that it is more likely to end up in a fireball.

The longest of these discussin was about 8 years ago and I seem to remember the final conclusion was that if the PPL keeps the autopilot in and follows instructions very carefully, then there's a chance. The overconfident one may decided to try his luck and disconnect, find he can't do it, try to re-engage the automatics and then get it wrong having put themself in a worse position. As an experiment, from this discussion, I put my (then) 11 year old son in front of a PC sim we used to use for 744 training and talked him through an apporach and landing from the cruise. He could do it - but it was a PC sim without the distractions of being in real cockpit.

I have had experience of putting non airline pilots in a sim for them to have a go. My experience is that most, after a couple of attempts can land it (with the crash inhibit on!). This can be resolved on the first approach by leaving the autoland in. As most airliners defualt to autoland anyway, there should be no problem, but if there is, driving it in at 7-800' a minute won't do much damage as the airframes have been designed to cope with this. The problem these guys have is getting it into the situation where a reasonably stable approach can be made. They generally don't have the experience or skill to slow it down and get it into a position, being configured on finals to do the job.

As for the sims available for public use, there's two 737 sims near where I live and they are rum by PCs and don't have motion. I've used them on a few occasions - thye are impressive for what they are, but nothing more than a toy. They won't give handling feed back and not having flown the 737, I can't comment on their accuracy, but I suspect they are close, but as they aren't certified for pilot training, not close enough.

[911slf]

I got one hour in a 737 flight simulator for a birthday present. I think I landed OK, but don't really know how much input the guy in the right hand seat was giving (a lot, I suspect). I do recall that when asked to change course

to a specified bearing
while maintaining altitude
and not more than 25 degree bank

I could do any two of those things.:uhoh:

I did fly a hang glider for a few years without hurting anybody, but except for close attention to the vario and occasional glances at altimeter I did not use instruments at all. (It all goes ominously quiet when you are about to stall....)

[Sriajuda]

To put in 2 cents from a different direction: I am an avid sailor. I also have had a few hours at the controls of a glider and a single engine aircraft, and many hours at (home level) simulators. I have some kind of background in physics and aero/hydrodynamics.

Yes, I can land a small single engine aircraft. Maybe with a bit of coaching from the other seat. And I know, in principle, that a big aircraft is physically not fundamentally different.

However, I very much doubt I could do any good at the controls of such a big jet. And this view does *not* come from my experience with small planes, or the sims, but from sailing.

Entering a berth with a yacht (say 30 feet & above) is not that easy. I have had my own classic boat now for 12 years, and in unfavourable conditions, I'll still sport a 180 bpm pulse, and have botched a few approaches. Of course, this does not compare to landing - on the boat, the worst that can happen is the equivalent to a fender bender. Still.

Sitting in the harbour, one of the most entertaining things is the so called 'harbour cinema' - mainly charter or otherwise inexperienced sailors trying to get berthed, and observing their blunders and mishaps. (Don't worry, I'm one of the first to jump on the jetty and lend a hand!)

The lession this taught me is that unless one is profoundly familiar with a) the craft, b) the settings (harbour/airport), and the conditions (wind!!), the chances for mistakes are *huge*. How can I assume I could pilot a big jet safely to the ground when I don't even manage at all times with my very familiar sailboat? Or would I attempt to guide a supertanker through the panama locks just based on my small craft experience?

Definitely no.

Likewise, getting back to the OP's question - in that situation, would I attempt to put down the plane in one piece? Even without a PPL? Hell, yes. But I'm not delusive - I guess my chances would be very,very slim. But at least I'd go down fighting!

[grounded27]

Given my knowledge base. Aircraft/avionics tech of about 20 yrs exp, flight simmer, and 4 years of flight deck observer experience. I would be completely lost on a sailboat, especially anything of any significant size. I did have some childhood lessons in about a 12 footer. The terminology, the anticipation of actions needed for safe operation would probably be my largest fear/failure.

A large jet aircraft has all the same systems, flight control's etc. They react differently to an extent but automation levels the playing Field. Understanding the theory of how the cockpit is set up by the MFGR of the aircraft you are flying helps (show me the button to push to achieve the result I want). There are several cockpits I could make my way around blindfolded. My company just about expects it of us during annual recurrent testing. My answer is no, the average flight simmer would not have much of a chance, at all.

[Dave Gittins]

About 5 years ago I had an hour in the 737 sim up in Yorkshire and as far as I recall managed reasonably OK. I certainly landed it on the runway (no doubt in zero wind conditions) without breaking anything although maintaining the correct speed and glide slope (albeit with a constant commentary as to what I should be doing, had me in a serious sweat.

The one thing that struck me was that it was fairly sluggish in roll but very sensitive in pitch, which prompted me to ask of the guy operating it if that was characteristic of the real 737. He told me he had only ever been a 125 pilot and so had no idea.

I don't know whether the thing had been made easier to handle to please the punters and give us a warm feeling (breathing on finger nails and rubbing them on lapels).

I guess I still don't know if I could land the real thing and assume I just flew a big benign version of MSFS (something I haven't touched in donkeys years).

I know that despite 40 years of various flying machines and 10 years as a PPL I'd find it pretty darned difficult to find the right height to flare a 747 or 380 and be anywhere near the right point on the runway.

Is there another accessible airliner simulator out there that somebody will let me play with for a fee ?

[Dan Winterland]

Sriajuda, being a professional jet pilot and an amateur sailor, I would much rather land in a 30 knot crosswind than try and berth my yacht in a 10 knot crosswind! Yachts are far harder!

[dingle dongle]

In the sixties I too dreamed of what I'd do when the pilot's died at the controls.
I could see myself flying a Viscount or DC-6 in. I'd been in the jump seat plenty of times, but didn't have a clue of what was going on.
Remember how YOU felt when you went into the great big 172 or Warrior from the 152 or Tomahawk? Big?... a bit scary?
I got a go in a Friendship when I had 100 hours. The pilot was a mate of my father and the old man was the boss.
I was very wary of how big that F27 was and how I'd have to be gentle on the controlls with ALL those passengers down the back. I tried leveling out from the climb and got 400 feet high before I had her trimmed and oozing back down to cruise level. (For the those who get appalled at the captain allowing such a large discrepancy ... we were out in the middle of Australia well above ten thousand feet where only a rare airliner flew. and we were the only ones out there at that time.)
Five years later with 900 hours on the DC-3, I sat in the jump seat of a 727 and was totally lost as they landed. I said WOW! as we slowed down and the pilots said, "What?"
"So fast and so high when we touched down."
"Hell we were thinking it was so SLOW!"
Years later the change from DC-9 to 737 ... another somewhat initially tense time converting from a very similar performer to another.
Guys you have NO idea. It is VERY different when you are all by yourself and it's real... no reset button... ya die if you bugger it up.
It's a bit like making a speech. Smooth in front of the mirror, but blathering and stumbling when you are out there in front of a crowd.

[PLovett]

Just to add to the debate I once had a job in a B737 sim introducing non-flyers to the joys of flying. Now the sim was not certified but the software controlling it was intended for instruction and, most importantly, it replicated the inertia of the real aircraft, something which MSFS and others of similar ilk do not do. It was used by several B737 endorsed pilots who commented on how close the simulator replicated the actual aircraft.

As a commercial pilot (not having flown anything larger than a C402) it took me a few hours in the sim to become used to the inertia, especially in turns and levelling off at a specified altitude. What was fascinating was how the clients coped. It was immediately apparent that those who fared worse were PPL holders. They could not get used to inertia (the weight was set around 62 tonnes) and over controlled setting up some great Dutch Rolls and this was despite a briefing where it was explained what would happen. I found the best were women with absolutely no flying experience, they not only listened but didn't have any attitude about the process. Those who had previous MSFS experience understood the FMS and how to interpret the panel immediately but again would struggle once the autopilot was off.

The owners of the business were kind enough to let me have a key to the business and I could use the sim on my own. As the thing was hooked into the internet we were able to load it with real-time weather and access the appropriate instrument charts for just about anywhere in the world on sidescreens that acted as an EFB. It was enormous fun. Now I just wish someone would let me fly the real thing.

[S.Bartfast]

Complete novice here but I for one have found this discussion useful.
As much as people wish to call this discussion a waste of time it is something that I (and I'm sure many others) have pondered, and even guiltily fantasised about while watching "Air-crash Investigation". Before reading this, having got my gliding wings, I would have fancied my chances but after reading I am now convinced otherwise.
So thank you.

But out of curiosity, what should a PPL/MSFS pilot do should they find themselves in such a situation? Take the 1:10000 chance of sticking a landing, or what, take her out to sea and berry her into the ocean somewhere out of harms way?

And I mean that as a genuine question.
Would hightailing it be the utilitarian thing to do?

[PLovett]

Slarty, if you know how to operate a radio which you should do with a PPL, then get on the radio and call for help. Most transport cat. aircraft can do an autoland and it doesn't have to be at an airport certified for such.

To my understanding 2 such approaches were conducted in Australia long before there was any airport certified for them. There is now, Melbourne, with another 2 to follow, Perth and Sydney.

The biggest problem for a PPL holder is getting the beast set up for a landing which really means starting from the cruise altitude. The FMS will tell you when it is time to start down but if you don't set the Mode Control Panel to a lower altitude then the aircraft will cruise on happily until it runs out of fuel (think Helios). Then the STAR and runway needs to be programmed into the FMS (and the inevitable discontinuity removed from the LEGS page) then it needs to be slowed up and flaps and gear extended. Then you need to know how to set the autopilot for autoland.

None of it is difficult when you know how and it is possible to talk someone through the steps and what they have to do once the beastie is on the ground. However, throw in weather problems (say a crosswind and/or miserable vision etc) and it just keeps getting more difficult.

At the end of the day though, any pilot in such a situation should be prepared to give it a go rather than face the inevitable crash by not doing anything.

[Basil]

Dave Gittins,
it was fairly sluggish in roll but very sensitive in pitch
Flew a B737 sim at Dublin as the skills test part of an interview. I was current B757/767 and was being assessed by an agent for a B757 appointment in Switzerland. I found it very sensitive all round cf the B757.
In a later appointment, flying the B747, some of our new guys remarked on its inertia (They WERE ex Harrier :))

I don't know if it's been said before but it would be interesting to carry out a research project to see what the results would be of throwing a range of people into a sim and advising them from outside by 'radio'. One problem would be that, if the sim motion is on, you can damage the sim but, if it is not on, that detracts from the realism.

[ford cortina]

It is quite simple really, the only chance you have is with the autopilot and autothrottle engaged, listen to what your told and hope for goodness sake you don't press the wrong switch.
I fly a 737 classic, it has 500 switches in there, any takers!

If I were a passenger on a flight faced with this situation, I would hope that someone on the ground would be able to help me tune the nav boxes, set the aircraft up etc for a autos land. The simple thought of manual flying is not open to question, you would be too overloaded to deal with everything.

[SEP Flyer]

A couple of years ago I went to the Virtual Aviation sim at Gatwick with the local flying club. All of us were PPL, I fly mainly Cessna 152 and the odd PA28, about 100 hours in total. I don't 'fly' any type of pc computer game sims, so this was my first experience in a full size, full motion sim. We flew the Airbus 320, and I was able to take off from Gatwick, fly a circuit and land (it was bumpy and the passengers would have expected a refund, but we would have walked off!!). The instructor flew the first circuit and we watched, and when it was my turn (I was last so was able to watch the other 3 have their go), he was simply giving instructions, so I was hands on - I could not have done it without the verbal instructions, but if it happened for real, and I had radio contact with someone giving instructions, then I would like to think there was something of a fighting chance! And in daylight, clear sky conditions! If I had no flying experience, then I think it would definitely end in tears...:{

[dazdaz1]

I've got free time and some ££ If someone could point me in the right direction (sim) I'd give it a go, i.e. radio instruction or the like, on my own in the cockpit.

I sincerely will give it a try, preferably in the London/S.East area, and all are welcome (if possible) to attend. I have no knowledge of flying, only knowing, thrust gives lift.

I await feedback. I'll really have a go at this. As OP question.

Daz

[P6 Driver]

I reckon I couldn't crack a landing in an airliner, but I'd hope the crash was within a respectable distance of the chosen airport!

[ford cortina]

A simulator is a nice safe world, where you can stop at any time....
In the real world, you would be worried, scared close to panic and more importantly very very stressed.
As I said I would go for the automatics, why do PPL and ms sim pilots think they know better than ATPL crew?

The senario would be something like this, Both pilots are incapacitated, if your lucky you will be in the climb, not the cruise. So you get one of them out of the flight deck, sit down, do you know how to set the seat set up?
So you strap in and in and look at the instruments, are you climbing, are you straight and level what's your speed? flaps, are they up, is the gear down...

Okay deep breath, time to talk to someone, where's the ptt switch? Press the wrong one you end up with a siren, how do you engage the autopilot, if your holding the yoke why won't it engage?

Assuming you make it this far, remember you are on your own at this moment...
You get hold of ATC, which country are you in, do they understand what you are gabbing on about?

Lets say you decide to return to your departure airfield, how do you turn around. what switches do you press and when? what if you get it wrong.....

Lets take it you can get the height and speed off, even to the point of Flaps and Gear Down, 1500 feet agl with a autopilot engaged. Is this the point you disconnect?

A 737 feels a hell of a lot different than a 172, its controls are heaver for a start.
You see your high on the glide, you push the nose down, now your 1 dot low speed too much, do you take power off? if so how much, 2 or 3%, which gauge to look at? now your speed is low, how do you get it back.

If you don't disconnect,engage the 2nd autopilot as long as the raidos are tuned and you have pressed the VOR/LOC and APP (737 Classic) you have a chance.

Anything else is Russian Roulette, you are not only risking your life, but potentially the lives of hundreds of others as well. Nothing kills faster than cockiness.

[dingle dongle]

And whatFord Cortina says guys, is it in a nut shell.
So you'vedone oodles of approaches in flt sim, but you clicked images with a mouse.
Thelevers have different throws and feel, does the auto pilot have CWS and autoposition? How fast and far do you move the thrust levers for power change youwant, remembering the eight seconds lag to go from idle to max power?... mate,that has been the longest eight seconds in a number of pilot’s lives… onedegree of nose up or down can produce more rate of climb or descent than you'veexperienced yet, unless really throwing your aeroplane around. One degree istiny… concentrate on another pilot’s pitch changing in a lightie some time andsee just how much the nose travels and normally you don’t even notice it. Evenbetter, sit down the back seat of a long aeroplane that you can see out of thewindscreen and watch the ground dance around. People feel sick sometimes doingthat.
Jets aresluggish sometimes, slippery as hell most of the time and complicated, with somany switches and instruments looking the same.

No onehas mentioned pressurisation... a minor thing, but you'd probably get sued byall the punters down the back who fell out of the wreck with bleeding ears. Intoday's climate you'd find some lawyer who'd jump at the chance.
I wonderhow many little mistakes people do in these sims, are immediately corrected bythe operator to save the punter’s feelings and make him want to come back..

My matesand, too dreamed and we were looking at saving a DC3, 4 or 6, but then I slowlyclimbed the ladder for many years, one step at a time to fly 737s. We’re notjust saying “We’re good and you’re not one of us.”
I reckonwith time to get a captain from a terminal to ATC, time for him to slowly get youselecting all the right frequencies on the right radios, knowing how to operateall the systems like flaps and gear, auto pilot and the right aerodrome withthe ILS you need, (back as slow as you can go, is still four miles a minute) youwould pull it off, but as someone else said when it stops, then what? Will themob down the back stay strapped in their seats or will some hero lead thelemmings and bugger up all your good work?

In anauto land, you have TWO experienced pilots knowing exactly what each does, and WHEN(no locating or fumbling) and it happens quickly and constantly all the waydown.
I had ago at an auto land in an empty, basic 737 (not equipped for auto land) to seehow far it would get, for the benefit of my and the captain I was training’sknowledge … just in case. She went OK tothree hundred feet, then wanted to do her own thing and suddenly got heavyhanded. We would have ploughed in if I didn’t kill the auto pilot and landmanually. I was flying four to six legs a day at the time, so I was comfortablein the cockpit.

"Thrust produces lift???" Dazdaz1 ... well sort of. What you have said is maybe more for helicopters not aeroplanes... still, you probably would be a good candidate because you wouldn't have any pre-conceived ideas about your flying ability and would do as you were instructed without any questioning.

[S.Bartfast]

Interesting,

How would you guys rate a MSFS jockey's (with 0 real world hours) chances if they were to find them selves in the same situation in the front seat of a glider? Personally I'd rate there chances pretty good but would be interested to hear what the experts think.

[grounded27]

How would you guys rate a MSFS jockey's (with 0 real world hours) chances if they were to find them selves in the same situation in the front seat of a glider? Personally I'd rate there chances pretty good but would be interested to hear what the experts think.

I would rate them best in the hands of a single engine high wing acft like a c172. Not an expert but in all logic, in fair weather the ability to control.. A glider needs far more experience.

[wiggy]

I had radio contact with someone giving instructions, then I would like to think there was something of a fighting chance!

Well it wouldn't hurt, but there's still going to be a world of difference between being coached/prompted by someone sat next to you (as in the sim) and who could see directly what you were seeing in the way of airspeed, altitude, etc, vs. the real world where you're probably going to have to tell your "helper" all the numbers via radio.... That would up your workload phenomenally and increase the level of difficulty by an order of magnitude. Having Mode S (which very basically allows ATC to "see" some things in the flight deck) may help on that front but not everywhere/every aircraft has got it and your "instructor" may not have time to get to a suitably equipped console before your fuel runs out.......

I've only seen the aforementioned Mythbusters episode once but, and I may be wrong, I got the impression the instructor, sat outside the sim, had a full set of the Flight Deck displays available to him and was using these to help out Adam/Jamie on their second, "assisted" run. Anybody with access to the episode know if that was indeed the case?

[Van G]

Tell you what, if you ever need open heart surgery give me a shout
because I've watched E.R, played operation and put on
numerous bandages.

That's a no from me.

[Gentle Climb]

I think that the situation would overload the majority of PPL's. I remember going from Warrior to Seneca and even with the benefit of prior knowledge and an instructor, I was all over the place initially.
I suspect that the scenario most likely to succeed would be for the PPL to use the radio, (they would probably be able to do that) and to be given and aircraft to follow who is instructing them and telling them what to do. Using the auto pilot in anything other than straight and level will overload. Set the power and follow the aircraft ahead who call the flaps etc. I still think that the chances of success are mimimal. There are just so many traps that a PPL can jump in to. If the power curve doesn't get you...flaring at your 'normal' 10 feet probably will.

[dazdaz1]

Another thought... Do you think the people in control (CAA) /emergency services/airline company/insurers of this scenario would allow an attempted landing at a major or regional airport in the UK due to the possibility of crashing on built up areas of population?

I still await advice on where I may conduct sim landing, using a professional simulator as used by airline companies. I anticipate paying a good fee for the attempt, although this might well be offset by a television production company who have expressed interest.

Daz

[ford cortina]

Dazed as there are lots of places around the UK where you can hire a Level D Simulator, just google it.
As for a TV company, I cannot see why there would be any real interest in this, after all it does not prove anything.
Good luck

[dazdaz1]

Ford Cortina, presume 1600GT

"As for a TV company, I cannot see why there would be any real interest in this" neither did I!! But things seem to be moving along in this sphere. Although if interest dropped out from the production company, I will continue with this scenario.

I have previously done a Google as to flight sim and have also had a reply from a major UK airline who seem favourable and intrigued as to this concept.

Updates to follow.

Daz

[ford cortina]

Daz mate, it's a Mk1 Lotus.....!!

Will be interesting to see what happens

[pax britanica]

Do not know what the fuss is about-I had a go on a 320 sim at LGW and landed it pretty well first time. Easy if you have some MSFS knowledge and know what the main controls and instruments are about.

Of course it was set up as a fully configured and stabilised approach 4 miles out no wind and daylight flaps selected and gear down.

oh I did have a real 320 captain sitting in the right seat coaching me a bit

and its an Airbus so auto trim and auto speed control means theres not much to do on the approach .

And you dont have to judge the flare because it tells you when to do that and take the power off-at least i think thats what the voice shouting retard retard at me meant.

Oh and I ran off the runway a bit about 300m from touchdown but that doesnt really matter does it.

Prety easy really.

Try it again, same scenario but add a bit of cross wind and at night and no help from the right seat either and , well lets just say its very different and very difficult .


Throw in heavy rain and light windshear and its pretty clear why people need hours and hours of training and practice and why it is a job that not everyone can do however hard they try.

A great experience and if you have the cash to have a go highly recomended and extremely interesting.

I tried a 737 NG sim a few months later (1960s Ford Cortina compared to 2012 Honda in flight deck layout and comfort) similar results on landiing except 737 was harder. Very interesting and impressive the performance was after an engine out on climb out -a real confidence booster for anyone a bit anxious about flying although again I suspect a bit different when it happens for real in a heavy aircraft.
Pb

[dazdaz1]

Ford Cortina.... Slight thread drift, sorry but I couldn't resist.

" Daz mate, it's a Mk1 Lotus.....!!"

Do you have the original oil drip tray that came with each new model:E

Daz:ooh:

[Gibon2]

If it's me in the hot seat, you're all doomed for sure, as I have neither a PPL nor any experience with or interest in playing with flightsims.

But, based entirely on what I have picked up reading PPRuNE, if it was an Airbus A320 or similar, and if I was able to find the thrust levers and put them at idle, and if I then just held the sidestick full back, would the plane not descend relatively gently at just above stall speed? And if it happened to come down at that rate on a flat, open field or on a calm lake or similar, would the impact be certainly fatal? Just wondering...

[Cliff Richard]

"find the thrust levers and put them at idle, and if I then just held the sidestick full back, would the plane not descend relatively gently at just above stall speed?"

:D:D that made me chuckle..

[KBPsen]

If you did that, Gibon2, the aircraft would maintain a constant angle of attack which most likely will result in a phugoid where the aircraft will pitch up and down as the speed increases and decreases. As the stabilizer will likely have trimmed to maximum nose-up you will probably experience a divergent phugiod where the amplitude of the oscillation will be increasing. What your rate of descent will be when you hit the ground will be out of your control and depend entirely on where in the phugoid you are. The lower the rate of descent the higher you forward speed will be and vice versa.

But, before all that is happening you would have been climbing merrily away as the auto-thrust would have gone into alpha-floor mode causing the engines to produce go-around thrust. It is not enough to put the throttles to idle to prevent this from happening, you will have to disconnect the auto-thrust.

Good luck.

[Gibon2]

But, before all that is happening you would have been climbing merrily away as the auto-thrust would have gone into alpha-floor mode causing the engines to produce go-around thrust. It is not enough to put the throttles to idle to prevent this from happening, you will have to disconnect the auto-thrust.


Ha ha ha - well, I told you you were doomed! A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, indeed.

the aircraft would maintain a constant angle of attack which most likely will result in a phugoid where the aircraft will pitch up and down as the speed increases and decreases

So the alpha-protection doesn't inhibit phugoid? If I did manage to disconnect the autothrust and idle the engines, the alpha-protection would still work through the flight control surfaces, right? What I'm aiming for is a kind of stall-protected glider (as in the Hudson ditching). Sorry for the dumb questions: obviously I have no idea what I'm talking about, but still curious. Thanks.

[Dan Winterland]

The A320 in the Hudson ditching with both engines failed and with no generators will have been in direct law. In the emergncy elcetrical configuration, it would have been like just like any non fbw aircraft - i.e. no stall protection.

[AppleMacster]

Dan W,

That's not correct in this instance. The RAT wasn't deployed as, initially, they still had electrical power. One of Sully's masterstrokes was to start the APU almost immediately after the bird strike, so they never lost electrical power. They remained in Normal Law and had High AoA protection. It's one of the things which saved them.

NTSB Report of Hudson Ditching US Airways 1549 (http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/AAR1003.pdf)

[KBPsen]

Gibon2,

The high angle of attack protection mode does incorporate phugoid dampening. How effective it is at various altitudes and over the longer term is an open question.

Should you manage to disconnect the autothrust, idle the engines and then pull the stick fully back you will first be climbing as you trade your airspeed for altitude. As the speed decreases the α increases until it reaches α-prot at which point the angle of attack protection mode is activated. The flight control system is now locked in this mode and will maintain α-prot even if you release the stick, should you keep the stick fully back α will increase to α-max. It is worth noting that increasing α also increases drag which again will increase rate of descent. Do you know how to get out of the high angle of attack protection mode?

The only energy you- or rather the aircraft as you now have limited control of pitch- have available at this point to counter the drag is potential energy. The only way to use this energy is to lower the nose. The more drag the lower the nose has to be.

Just before you hit the ground you will also notice that you are unable to arrest the rate of descent as the stick is already pulled as far back as it will go.

[Sam_90]

Not quite the same as a PPL flying a jet but interesting nonetheless.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hK8u0JI-CYjGe4b48FwP4Mxjo5LQ?docId=13a11751a8b744d5bfd5ba5f1059263c

[Discorde]

To summarise: talked through autoland, probably yes. Manual landing . . . maybe. If you'd read 'How Airliners Fly' your chances would be higher.

[Sriajuda]

Dan,

>Sriajuda, being a professional jet pilot and an amateur sailor, I would much rather land in a 30 knot crosswind than try and berth my yacht in a 10 knot crosswind! Yachts are far harder!<

you got to be kidding, right?

I mean, maybe it actually is harder, but the consequences of failing are staggeringly different!

[Dan Winterland]

No, not kidding. Of course I'm talking from a perspective of lots of flying experince and considerably less sailing experience, but a 30 knot crosswind landing is not much of a challenge. The certification and training involved assumes it is well within the capablity of the aeroplane and pilot. But berting a yacht into a tight slot in a crosswind is a nightmare if you don't have some people on the dock who know what they're doing ready to catch the warps.

I know which I find easier! (I was referring to the action rather than the consequences).

[Alex757]

I'm sure I could on a 757, willing to try on a Level D simulator to prove it :D

[RoyHudd]

Think any rookie could go around in a low-weight jet assuming the approach was unstable? Think the same could then clean-up, limit speed, fly a tightish circuit with ATC help and then approach and land, this time on low fuel?
Think this could work in your average Greek/Turkish/Egyptian/Tunisian/Canaries field, let alone Skiathos, Funchal, Innsbuck, or the like? Or POP in a wide-body? Or anywhere in tough weather after 9 hours airborne? Or use reversers on landing and slow the beast down in a straight line?...With a sizeable crosswind?

The whole issue is nonsense.

[WindSheer]

Maybe it would help this thread if someone defined 'airmanship', is it possible to build some of this through desktop flying alone? My answer is......and this will dissapoint the cynics.......yes, albeit a tiny portion.

My first lesson in a warrior earned me the comment from my instructor "are you sur you havent flown before", because my years in the armchair had given me a second nature reaction to the instruments and carrying out scans etc.

I could land an airbus...although it would be extremely messy. Handling a 757 would be a different ball game due to the rawness of the beast!
P.s. my study in all things aviation I believe is what would really help me get a machine down, oh and I have done some 200 hours in the jumpseats of a320/1's and 757's!

:ok:

[Wirbelsturm]

Interesting thread!

As a driver of both Mr Boeings products and Monsieur Airbus's products I would have to say that you would need to be pretty clued up for either of them.

What many people have failed to understand is that MSFS models aircraft based upon a defined software 'model' for how they fly, X-Plane fares a little better as it uses full mathematical modelling to give a 'realistic' feel. Full motion simulators, up until the introduction of the new generation simulators, used the actual electronic boxes from the aircraft to give correct systems feedback. CAE have only just acknowledged that computing power has got to the point where it is fast enough and accurate enough to correctly simulate a flight environment to the levels required for commercial certification. This is in a multi million pound simulator!

MSFS is a nice toy, but just a toy!

Then we look at the 'little things' in the cockpit. The Airbus is a Fly By Wire side stick aircraft giving roll rate demand with the side stick. What does that mean? Well it means that professional pilots struggle, initially, with over controlling during the landing phase! You cannot hold into wind aileron in an Airbus! You will barrel roll it ( if the computers would actually let you!) :-)

The 'approach' phase MUST be activated in the Airbus, something not required in a Boeing. If not, when the nice man on the radio tells you to select 'managed speed' to give you auto throttle approach speed, the mean aircraft will put 250 knots in the window and fly up!

The Airbus, by nature of it's FBW systems will lock pitch at about 50-100 ft and then start to introduce a nose down trim to give the experienced pilot something to flare against. If you don't know this is coming then you are looking at a a fairly catastrophic nose wheel landing!

The Airbus also carries a 'ground speed mini' addition to the approach speed which can cause confusion to the uninitiated. If the winds aloft are very strong but the inputted FMS wind is low then the aircraft adds a 'safety' buffer for turbulence that will be bled off down to the touch down. Quite un-nerving for the uninitiated!!!

The Boeing 777 is a bit more simple from a pilots perspective. The biggest thing with the 777 is that you will be landing around the 180 tonne mark with minimum fuel and a decent payload, this has an awful lot of energy! You MUST, MUST, MUST make corrections early and gentle, nudge and guide the aircraft onto the centreline and ensure that you maintain the G/S, the 777 (pilot) has a tendancy to drift high on the slope, nail 700 fpm in the final stages and you'll be in the ball park!

The 'trimmer' on the yolk isn't a trimmer! First 'gotcha', it's a speed selector to select the 'speed' that the aircraft will auto trim around. Select the correct airspeed +/- a couple of knots and the aircraft will auto trim. If you are out though it will fly out of trim!

You can hold into wind Aileron in the 777! However, drift on touch down is very, very nasty on the long bogeys under the wing! Make sure you've kicked that drift off!

The 777 will NOT SLOW DOWN! It's a very efficient wing and a slippery body. Energy management is a critical issue in the 777 and something that catches alot of experienced pilots out alot of the time (myself included :-( ).

These are just a few of the 'little things' that commercial PC flight sim programmes don't cover. There are many, many more!

The key factors for any aircraft for a successful landing are ensuring a stable approach, concise energy management and familiarity of aircraft performance close to the ground.

If in the OP's scenario then take the autoland!

Could a PPL with a bit of MSFS experience land a big jet? I don't really know but I would rather they had a go then accept the subsequent crash!

[wiggy]

Thanks W.

As a long term Boeing user /current 777 driver, but a frequent pax on Monsieur Airbus's shorthaul product that was interesting stuff - I must admit having now read your differences course I think in the event that I'm commuting home and we get the "can anyone fly an aeroplane" PA I think I'll hide in the loo:eek:

[Wirbelsturm]

Wiggy, you'd be fine, trust me! :}:E

[Dan Winterland]

''That's not correct in this instance. The RAT wasn't deployed as, initially, they still had electrical power. One of Sully's masterstrokes was to start the APU almost immediately after the bird strike, so they never lost electrical power. They remained in Normal Law and had High AoA protection. It's one of the things which saved them.''

I just read the report. It appears the high pressure section on at least one of the engines was still running fast enough for the IDG to produce enough power to keep the electrical system in a normal configuration. If both engines had completely failed, there wouldn't have been enough time to start the APU to prevent the RAT deploying. It takes about 40 seconds for the APU to be available after initiating a start, the RAT would have deployed immediately on loss of both AC busses.

Interestingly, all three hyd systems were available until touchdown.

[Dan Winterland]

Wiggy - the Airbus electrickery is there to make it fly like a conventional aircraft, which it does. Most pilots get the hang of the sidestick thingy in a minute or two. The pitchdown in landing law makes the pilot flare convetionally - most don't even realise it's happening. It's easy.

If you don't correct, it lands like an F4!

[Wirbelsturm]

If you don't correct, it lands like an F4!

Having been fortunate to have a play in an F4 I can categorically say that a few of my 'Bus landings were indeed similar! Unfortunately :E

[qf747400]

I have been watching this discussion with some interest. I am a boring lawyer by profession but with an abiding admiration for all pilots.

Thanks to a very comfortable income I have been able to spend many hours in both full motion commercial simulators (Qantas and Malaysia) and fixed (737-800 and 777). Additionally I have some hours in a Cessna 172 although no plans to get a PPL.

I spent many, many hours on MSFS using PMDG 747-400 before I first went for simulator sessions with Qantas. A lot of manuals were also read.

For those who doubt the following there are videos to confirm a lot of this...

so with no real world experience (and yes I know it's a simulator) I have undertaken full flights from pre-flight, to programming the fmc, take off, climb , descent, and landing in manual and fully auto mode.

I have had engine failures on take off, multiple TCAS avoidance procedures, terrain avoidance procedures (even in a simulator applying full power to avoid imminent controlled flight into terrain can be interesting), and stall recovery techniques.

No-one was injured in the process and there was no loss of aircraft (albeit occasionally some puckering of the buttocks!).

So my thoughts on the original question posed:

1. Given the stress involved no non-commercial pilot would manage it flying manually

2. Anyone holding a PPL with no prior involvement of simulated heavies would stuggle even in full auto mode given a lack of familiarity of the aircraft systems

3. Yes it is technically possible for a non-pilot to land a heavy using all of the automated help available but frankly in the real world I really wonder!!! Hope I never have to find out!

Thanks lot all of the ral pilots out there.

[nimsu1987]

I know this is an old thread and apologies if it's not appropriate after this time, please feel free to delete.

No offence OP but I just find your gung ho attitude a little disturbing. I'm sure in real life you are an excellent pilot, but misguided opinions of one's own abilities can be deadly.

I also just want to point out that as a PPL holder myself, I in no way think I could land a jet, and many of us do not think as such.

One other point. You mention 'proof' that it can be done by using level-d sims as examples. This is certainly not proof, which as a pilot, I would have thought you would have realised.

Sorry if I have misjudged your attitude OP, obviously I understand you're trying to get your point across, but it just seems a little arrogant and misguided. Stay safe.

[Heathrow Harry]

agreed- but if it comes down to having a PPL have a go and no one flying it then I vote for the PPL

There is always a chance he/she would manage it without killing everyone

[CPT733]

Awsome Thread and have always wondered the same

Im currently a CPL student in syd

one question i didnt come across or it may have skipped my eye here..

Simulators like the link i posted below, Can they be adjusted say to flying difficulty type etc? :confused:

Flight Experience - Flight Simulators - Take the ride of your life on our Flight Simulators (http://www.flightexperience.com.au/darling-harbour)

Cause i have flown in that simulator and its quiet different to the single engine sim at school and landing that 737 was a piece of piss which didnt make sence as to how landing an airliner could be so easy....

Ive been on FS since i was 15 and have decent knowledge in flying single eng but still didnt justify how i could adapt to it i had always thought there must be a beginners or easy fly setting...

( BTW I WAS DOING CROSSWIND LANDINGS AT KAI-TEK AND WELLINGTON IN THE 737 SIM)

[darkroomsource]

A PPL with MSFS experience, maybe not, but two mythbusters with absolutely no experience did it when they had help on the radio...
Myth: Person With No Flying Experience Can Land : Discovery Channel (http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/db/human-body/alone-remote-wilderness-go-mad.html)

They each tried twice, on the first try they had no outside help and each of them crashed the simulator. On the second try, with someone talking them through the process over the radio they each were able to land the plane safely, and they were manually flying the plane.

two for two, no help, crash
two for two, with help, land safely

does this prove anyone can do it? no, does it prove it can be done? I think yes.

[Lookleft]

It would also depend on the weather. Simulators are hopeless at simulating all those micro climate effects on an aircraft in hot or windy conditions.

[bolkow]

Was there not an incidetn some years back I believe in China where a flight sim enthusiast entered a 747 cockpit in flight took the plane and executed a barrel roll just to prove to himself that he could do it?
From what I recall he executed that manouver successfully however foolish and risky itmay have been?
In the last ananysis I have no idea of its possible or not but its certainly an interestign subject

[reverserunlocked]

I'm sure someone with a little flying experience could at least bring the thing down to a survivable crash landing, which I accept is somewhat different from being able to nail a greaser in the TDZ, taxi in, start up the APU whilst remembering to kill the taxi light before turning into the gate to perfectly line up with AGNIS.

Modern aircraft are pretty resilient structures these days. All walked from the BA 777 at LHR and most survived the TK 737 crash at AMS. If you can find a suitably large piece of ground and come down at flattish angle at a reasonable speed then your chances of walking away (or at worse hobble) are good.

[wiggy]

They each tried twice, on the first try they had no outside help and each of them crashed the simulator. On the second try, with someone talking them through the process over the radio they each were able to land the plane safely, and they were manually flying the plane.

The problem with the Mythbusters scenario is that from some of the footage it appeared to me that the expert help was sat at the external sim console, in which case he could see the same flight instruments (and possibly the also visual CGI picture) as Jamie and Adam. That would make his job of coaching them significantly easier than if he was having to extract possibly fast changing vital information from them, such as airspeed, altitude and attitude, verbally via the R/T.

Bolkow

Was there not an incidetn some years back I believe in China where a flight sim enthusiast entered a 747 cockpit in flight took the plane and executed a barrel roll just to prove to himself that he could do it?

Nope, really not heard of that one :* - there was a notorious incident involving a China Airlines 747 ending up an interesting attitude and subsequently attaining an interesting airspeed , but that was achieved by a qualified crew :sad: - there's also the incident involving a passenger gaining access to the flight deck of a 747 over Africa a few years back and "wrestling" with the crew for control of the aircraft....maybe you're confusing/combining the two incidents?

[sixtiesrelic]

Reverserunlocked, a week or two ago, in Australia, I saw a program on Foxtel in which a 727 was crash landed in the desert over in Mexico by remote control after the pilot bailed out at about two thousand feet.
The remote control was done in a chase plane close to.
They landed a little bit short of a graded strip at just TWO THOUSAND feet a minute ROD. Take your eye away for a second and you can get that.
the 72 is a pretty beefy aeroplane and it landed up in a nasty mess, so I have to disagree with your opinion that modern aircraft are pretty resiliant. I reckon eggs are more resiliant.

[JEM60]

Surely hitting the ground with an ROD of 2,000' per min. is a very high rate of descent for any type of aircraft to survive relatively intact!

[sixtiesrelic]

I agree it is a high rate of descent and in the hands of an inexperieced person or even being a bit rough while playing in the simulator during a bit of free flight, it happens in a wink and the change in body angle is very small.

[wiggy]

To be fair reverserunlocked didn't claim that after the survivable crash landing the aircraft would be flyable again!

FWIW numbers from the AAIB report on the BA777 accident at LHR:

The aircraft’s initial impact was at a descent rate of about 1,400 fpm
and a peak normal load of about 2.9g. As we know they ended up sans gear and there were a handful of injuries caused by debris entering the fuselage.

FWIW I'm still of the opinion that a "coached" via radio autoland is by far the simmers/PPLrs best chance of producing something survivable at the first attempt on a real machine , IMHO probably the only option that might give you odds of surviving of above 50%. If they are not coached, and/or the automatics are disengaged the odds of producing anything survivable would plummet (poor choice of words:confused:)

[EEngr]

FWIW I'm still of the opinion that a "coached" via radio autoland is by far the simmers/PPLrs best chance of producing something survivable at the first attempt on a real machine,
To continue along this line, given sufficient fuel and some clear air space, I'd try some dry runs at maintaining descent rates and getting the feel of the controls with the coach over the radio before actually attempting the real landing. Its probably safer to practice following a 'glide path' from 5000 down to 4000 feet a few times.

[DIBO]

This thread is about whether a qualified PPL is able to 'land' a large acft. We have all seen the different TV series where an untrained person gives it a try in a simulator, sometimes more of less successful.
But it has also been done, in a planned organised fashion, on a real airliner, a B738 being landed by a total non-aviation person. He did however receive a 'crash'-course (so to speak) in about 4 weeks: starting with PPL-theory course, then in an SR20 up to his first solo, followed by several sim-trainings and finally the touch-and-goes in a 738, being talked through by the training capt. sitting next to him. The first attempt was saved by the TOGA button, the second attempt and ‘successful’ contact with mother earth you can watch in:
TomTesterom (http://www.een.be/programmas/tomtesterom/vliegen-met-een-boeing) (in Dutch)
- start of the clip: you see the TV person wearing the 3 bars and briefing the cc for his first ever B738 flight
- 01:07 the actual first ‘landing’ (it was actually a touch and go)
- 01:46 his first solo take-off few weeks before …
- 02:45 ... followed by his first solo landing

Difficult to judge whether the acquired skill from his ‘crash’ course equal or supersede the required skills to land a B738, compared to the skill of a seasoned PPL with GA-only experience….

And ... it caused quite a stirr upto the parliament