Are home computer flight sims too real?

[JoshuaCT]

Dear Pilots,

I'm doing research for an upcoming Salon.com article about the increasing level of realism in popular home computer games such as Microsoft Flight Simulator, Fly!, and several third-party add-on modules for these titles that simulate commercial jet aircraft. (To see one of the latest examples, go here: http://www.precisionmanuals.com/PRODUCTS/airliners/737NG.htm.)

Given the events of September 11 and the ongoing terrorist obsession with using planes as weapons of destruction (as evidenced by the recent reports of a foiled hijacking plot in Saudi Arabia), are these games getting a little too accurate? I'm not suggesting for a moment that a person could learn to fly an airliner properly using their home computer. Yet could such detailed software be misappropriated by terrorists wishing to become familiar enough with the operations, procedures, V-speeds, and other characteristics of a particular model of aircraft to carry out their mission in the event of a successful hijacking?

The fair and balanced answer that I seek to this question requires input from airline pilots—hence the reason for this posting. If you have experience as a captain or first officer on Boeing or Airbus aircraft and are also acquainted with home computer flight simulators, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the subject. Please e-mail me at [email protected]. Thanks very much in advance for your input.

Sincerely,
Joshua Tompkins

[Neo]

In a word - No.

Thanks to the advance of PC graphics cards, the realism of the latest PC flight sims is getting better, but flying a PC sim is no substitute for the real thing.

Light aircraft flying is more relevant than PC sim flying, and Full Flight Simulators (if you can access one) are better still.

[Genghis the Engineer]

With 80 types in my logbook, at-least half of which were P1, I still can't land a PC based flight sim.

So, no I don't think that they are all that realistic.

As to operating speeds for any common type, any qualified pilot is quite capable of finding enough information out from publically available sources far more accessible than a PC based flight simulator to fly and navigate most airliners. Apart from which speeds and procedures are kept on the flight deck anyway - it wouldn't be safe to rely upon memorised procedures.

It would be impossible to worldwide restrict access to flying training or aircraft information - the PC flight sim is an irrelevance in that respect. The only way, in my opinion, to stop terrorists doing undesirable things with aeroplanes is to stop them getting near the flight deck, or to solve the problems that make them terrorists. Given that in the past we've had terrorists trying to destroy free speech, freedom of religion - or trying to create free speech and freedom of religion, the latter probably ain't going to work.

G

[Alberts Growbag]

In a word...yes!

One doesn't need to know how to fly an airliner to carry out the atrocities of 9/11. All that is required is an appreciation of flying at private level, an appreciation of airliner performance and speeds, and a detailed knowledge of how to program the flight management computer controlling the aircrafts path.

Once this is programmed it will deliver you anywhere, anytime and at any height. Today's flight simulators more than adequately provide such information for someone with the motivation to learn.

Sadly whilst they are provided primarily as games, they now provide realism in the portrayal of airborne software and hardware that makes them an easy means of education for those with evil intent. However, in the same way that banning gun ownership in the UK has seen gun crime increase iexorably ever since, do we ban flight sim's and rob many thousands of genuine, harmless enthusiasts of their much loved hobby. I think not.

Banning flight deck sims is another knee jerk reaction that would provide the yanks with some good sound bites but do nothing to increase flight safety. All you would do is drive the industry underground and make it twice as dangerous.

[Maximum]

Once this is programmed it will deliver you anywhere, anytime and at any height. Today's flight simulators more than adequately provide such information for someone with the motivation to learn.
What about map shift?

[JT8]

I did a project on the accuracy of a PC flight sim for a project at university. I'm not yet a commercial pilot (still in training) but have worked for a full flight simulator manufacturer as a software engineer.

I think the answer to your question is yes and no. In terms of flying the aircraft no pc flight sim can really help you very much. However what they can do is model operation of all the systems such as Autoflight, FMS, EICAS/ECAM etc. Whilst these used to be fairly crude the level of accuracy on some of the more recent 'add-ons' is extremely impressive.

[WHBM]

A few months ago I stepped straight out of a day in a PA-28 into a pilot's shop - and there was a full demonstrator PA-28 Flight Simulator setup all ready to go - yoke, pedal unit, hand throttle, the lot.

Just couldn't get to grips with it at all. The same as Genghis describes above. I think in particular the 2-D monitor display just doesn't give you the depth perception on flaring.

[Bucking Bronco]

If you bought "Colin McCrae Rally" for the Playstation and practiced really hard do you think that you could teach yourself how to become a rally driver?

For september the 11th the terrorists used proper flight training and proper sims - I for one doubt if they'd have managed to do what they did using a PC sim for practice.

[Burger Thing]

I believe it was no coincidence, that the bastards of 9-11 only hijacked Boeing 757/767 models. That time, there was on commericial add on for the Microsoft Flightsim available, which had a functioning layout (including FMS, Autopilot systems) of a Boeing 757/767. No other software at that time was so advanced than this particular program.

To do what the hijackers did, doesn't require a lot of flying skills. We are not talking about V1-Cuts, Decision making, Hydraulic failures, Landings... They only have to program the FMS and dial some switches on the Autopilot. With the 'training' on the 757/767 Software Add-on and a handheld GPS a piece of cake.

[Anti Skid On]

In my earlier days I used FS2000, with an add on called Squawkbox (see here. (http://www.avsim.com/mike/sb_pc/links.htm) It is a free download

This was basically an FMS that you could load a flight plan using waypoints and navaids (VOR's, NDB's, etc). There were a number of sites where you could 'plan a route. You could then go online and 'fly with others in controlled airspace - there was a controller add on called Procontroller (also free), which functioned like a radar, interpreting the whereabouts of the sim aircraft. In the later incarnations the 'ATC' was all done in voice using Roger Wilco. I have no evidence to suggest that any terrorists used this, but I do know that the guys who controlled various sectors used the lates SID and STARS and virtual pilots were expected to adhere to these (see here (http://www.vatsim.net/). The level of realism in that respect was amazing (even more so as they linked the weather on the flight sim to real time weather from airport ATIS servers).

However, I fully agree a PC sim is not like handling an aircraft in anyway, even with force feed controls. The difficulty lies in the limitations of a monitor[/URL]

[simfly]

I have bought some of the aircraft add-ons for Flight Sim (737-400/767PIC/A320), and must say, after being on many jumpseats of commercial aircraft and speaking to many pilots, I believe that anyone with a good knowledge of these packages, and some basic flying experience could get one of these aircraft off the ground. The packages simulate the systems onboard very accurately now, and, I'm not saying that someone could become a profficient pilot on one of these, but getting off the ground and being able to point the thing in a desired direction...:sad: ref bucking broncos comments, I agree that you couldn't teach yourself to drive a rally car (maybe on a sega rally arcade machine:ok: ) but you can't programme a rally car (maybe one day) to do it's job, a modern day jet, well, follow the proceedures on one of the prementioned packages, and some previous flying experience, and this could be much more possible. Without depth perception and all round view, I actually find it a lot harder to fly the flightsim helicopters than I do the real ones, as is also the case with the cessna's! If anyone out there can get me in a real sim and test my theory, I'd be more than happy to have a go;) (anyone from channel 4?????):cool:

[GrantT]

"To do what the hijackers did, doesn't require a lot of flying skills.

So your saying you would be able to fly a 767/757 precisely into the centre of building without having any previous flying experience with the type or with multi engined jet aircraft?

[simfly]

GrantT

They had previous flying experience, but basic, and from what I remember, had they not tried to get in simulators and asked to be tought how to basically keep the thing straight and level, and that they weren't bothered about taking off or landing, and no one questioned them!!! As someone mentioned before, strange how a very good 767 package was out at the time, coincidence? I started a subject about 2 years ago, before THE attrocious day, asking how real the 767 package was, and there was some very inteseting comments from pilots then, maybe worth looking at it.http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46710

[ramsrc]

As someone who has occasionally been known to "fly" aircraft in FS2002 but has never flown in the cockpit of a real aircraft I felt tempted to put "finger to keyboard".

The first Flight Simulator I ever played was on the ZX81 - at that time it seemed incredibly realistic, but looking back now it wasn't!

Now, 20 years on we have something that is much more realistic but only really from a visual/ procedural point of view. Yes FS2002 will teach you the basics of flying an aircraft, you can learn how to fly instrument approaches, fly VFR even have your "first and second officers" call realistic checklists on pretty much any kind of aircraft you want. It is also a much cheaper option for those of us that cannot afford to fly for real.

However even though it is realistic and for me provides hours of enjoyment, does anyone here really think that someone could fly a full sized airliner based on knowledge gained from just flying FS2002?

Sure, it may have contributed to the "training" of the September 11th terrorists, but then I expect they read books and training manuals too and as was proved shortly afterwards had actual flight training in real aircraft and probably full sized simulators.

Getting back to the original question - Are home computer flight sims too real? No they are not. If anything, they are not realistic enough. You cannot ban everything, just because of what somebody fanatical might do.

[Final 3 Greens]

Just a couple of points from a PPL with 20hrs in a full motion sim.

Learning procedural stuff on MS FS may work very well, but the reality for me was that a 'real' sim was rather more challenging than flying a light aeroplane.

This was because one had to learn the layout of a complex flight deck, even to use the basic functions.

In fact, I found the autopilot quite complex, because of the need to think through the parameters in use and in particular what was controlling what :*

The sim was not a B757/767 nor an Airbus, so the more modern FMCs may be easier to use (or nor as the case may be), but I came away after 20 hours feeling that the sim was a demanding environment, whereas I can take off and land Concorde on my mates MS FS setup, whereas I have it on pretty good authority that this would noit be the case in the Concorcde sim!

Thus, if the terrorists had my level of skill or less, I don't think that MS FS is going help them too greatly. I respect the views of the pros, but what seems 'easy' to them is not necessarily the same for those of us with less training and experience on type.

[GrantT]

Simfly-

"They had previous flying experience, but basic"

Exactly, that is why i said "without having any previous flying experience with the type or with multi engined jet aircraft."

[simfly]

Just to add.. The aircraft that come with the FS package are rubbish, the default concorde, 73/4/7 etc don't really resemble the real things at all, but the point I was trying to make was if you had one of the additional, more realistic packages and got to know your way around, say, a 767 cockpit and got familiar with the systems, and had some flying experience, THEN it might be easier for someone to do something bad.
GrantT, the hijackers only had to get to the area they were headed, could easily have been done by programing a close waypoint/navaid in the FMC, and then when visual, disconnect the autopilot and point towards the buildings. They didn't have to take off. I admit, it may take a bit of skill to keep the thing straight at high speed, but where does the multi engine rating or much type experience come in? I don't think these guys were to worried about handling engine failures or sitting a type rating exam.

[GrantT]

I'll just add a bit more to this thread seeing as though were going a bit off-topic now, i know i would end up turning this into a conspiracy thread. :p

Anyway, the main developer of 767 Pilot in Command is currently an American Airlines 757/767 pilot, the irony eh :rolleyes:

[Andrew M]

Well, a certain online ATC agency has over 50,000 registered members (pilots & controllers) - pprune only has over 10,000 more - we still are a significant number !

Of these - there are ATCO's and real life pilots - but I think they use it more for fun than anything else.

ATC is a different ball game - seriously - if the new controller program wasn't run on a PC and you brought in a real world controller - they could be mistaken for reality - seriously. Most pilots use voice, and when there are special events there can be as much traffic as real life.

This is very real, I am also a member of what is called a Virtual Airline. Our scedules at BAVirtual are the same as real life BA - mix in some real weather with real STARs/SIDs then you have in theory an accurate representation of real life - although that is all.

I don't take it too seriously - although I wouldn't trust myself in a real aircraft, I do have a small advantage over your ordinary Joe in the street !

Ask a regular passenger some basic questions, eg: What is a VOR ?, or What SID did we just take there ? and you will get some very puzzled faces. Although most simmers can tell you that - surely that must be a slight advantage ?

RE: Air Traffic Controllers (Virtual ones)

Everything is based on real life procedures - but I still wouldn't take over EGPF tower and trust myself. Same thing as above though - if I were to go to NATS college of ATC and do the course, then I would be starting with quite a good advantage there.

But no-one should take a gung-ho attitude to real life flying if they have no experience. I found myself when in a light a/c (trial lesson) that I was always using the instruments, and the effects of aircraft movement was quite a suprise. Also, the fact that you feel every gust is, erm, different !

I would say that as a training tool - no way. As a tool to show enthusiasm towards flying, maybe. As a tool for fun - yes !

best regards,
Andrew M

[PPRuNe Pop]

AndrewM

You might care to check your figures.

Well, a certain online ATC agency has over 50,000 registered members (pilots & controllers) - pprune only has over 10,000 more - we still are a significant number !

PPRuNe has rather more than your suggested 10,000 registered members. At least 4 times as many as that, perhaps 5 times, perhaps even.................................;)

I am sure you will understand the point.

[Andrew M]

PPRuNe Pop - You missunderstand.

pprune only has over 10,000 more - we still are a significant number !

10,000 more - which means the group has 10,000 less than PPRuNe...

My point is that although we are 10,000 members short of Proon, we are still a significant number.

I am sure you will understand the point :p .

Best regards,
Andrew M :D

[PPRuNe Pop]

I sit corrected. But glad to see that PPRuNe is still top! :p ;)

[Andrew M]

I sit corrected. But glad to see that PPRuNe is still top

And it always will be. Sims are good - but you cannot beat the real thing !

:D

[Kestrel_909]

Interesting topic to bring up, as on the sim forums we are discussing are they real enough and are they getting any realer?

Basic Flight Simulator package will teach you the basics of flight but nothing about electrics and engines etc.

However, such packages as PIC767 (which is excellent) DF743 PIC and PSSA320, if one learns these correctly they I think they would have a great deal of knowledge which could be put into practice in the real world.
Many of the serious simmers I know, have taught me the systems of the 767 almost inside out, but me being me still don't catch on to them. As ****** Thing said about a certain addon and if learnt correctly, it would be fairly easy for anyone of these guys to take over.

Flight Simulation sites are becoming more and more common. There is a wealth of knowledge online that can teach one with no knowledge to someone who could get their ATPL CPL etc easily.

As for the organisation with over 50k members that serves as virtual air traffic control and is great fun for the simmers. No where else can I be on London CW Centre climbing out towards Alicante with a few others while everything goes on around me
:ok: lol

I can vouche for most guys and say they are just people who are interested in aviation and have past their best before date for becoming a commerical pilot. But I do admit, anyone can get this knowledge and use it wrongly!!!

But I suppose it is one of those things we will have to live with like hankies and pens onboard aircraft. Anyone can write "bomb on board" and leave it in aisle to cause havock like the UA767 a couple of weeks ago.:(

[Andrew M]

and to add, Fly! has a nearly exact replica of a GPS system that is available on the market for real GA aircraft (name not mentioned due to copyright reasons) - and I tell you this sim was bought for £2.50

Even if a real GA private pilot used this program to find out how to program the real equivilent of the GPS - as both work the exact same way.

I wouldn't fancy experimenting in the real-life circuit with a new GPS system - need to concentrate on the flying !!! :)

[Stop Stop Stop]

As an airline pilot, I can honestly say that I don't believe that the terrorists needed any experience of FMS programming, complex flight director or autopilot control or any other complex, airliner related systems.

Almost certainly, the aircraft would have been on autopilot when the hijack took place. It does not require the brains of an archbishop to steer it with the heading bug and then just hit the autopilot disconnect switch at the appropriate moment and hand fly it to oblivion. All they would need to know is a bit of basic straight and level, power attitude trim sort of stuff. Airliners generally need lots of trim changes with power and speed but again, anyone who has flown a piper archer or similar will, I am sure, be familiar with an electric trim switch.

I cannot believe that the terrorists would have even bothered with the FMS...what use would it be to them? It was morning on a nice clear day...I bet New York and the WTC stood out pretty well. Steer towards them, disconnect the autopilot and the rest is history! They would also have done their homework and known where they needed to head...even roughly would be good enough.

So it is all very nice wondering if they got information from PC flight sims. I personally doubt they would have bothered...a bit of basic flying experience and a look at a photo of a Boeing cockpit would probably given them all they would need to know. After all, we all know their intention...they were hardly going to set it up for a CATIIIB autoland were they?

[Just More Crap]

Hello,
This is quite an interesting topic. I think it is quite easy to obtain a wealth on information on various aircraft, regarding performance data, V-Speeds, Checklists. There are many really good simulaiton products of various aircraft available, and there are many more in the pipe-line. The only real use I could see for PC-Based Flight Simulator, is systems-learning. Like others have point out, there is alot of information, and alot of excellent simulations of various cockpit in superb detail. You could "easily" teach-yourself the operation of the cockpit, not in ever aspect, but the useful bits.

On another note, PC-Based Simulators can't "simulate2 the true feeling of flying. I would think it would be very hard tocontrol a "real" heavy-jet after a few hours on a PC-Based Simulation. Even Full-motion, expensive simulators can't exactly replicate real flight.

So in conclusion, it's good for system-learning. bad for actual flight dynamics! Is it becoming too realistic? The question is, will it ever truely be realistic, the answer is no, so it can't be too realistic!

[Final 3 Greens]

Stop Stop Stop

You make an interesting point.

As a PPL with a few hundred hours (many on Archer), I was fortunate enough to be given 20 hrs instruction in a full motion sim by an IRE.

There were three aspects that are probably 2nd nature to you that I found challening about 'handling' the sim.

Firstly, learning to think ahead at 320kias was challenging - thus navigation was an issue for a while.

Secondly, the response rate of the sim was rather slower than a light aircraft, no instant response to aileron and this added to faster airspeed was tricky until I learned to think well ahead, combined with the trimming variation over the 'speed range' of the sim.

Thirdly, flying a 'profile' during the descent was alien to a non IMC qualified PPL. (Mind you, I suppose that they weren't too bothered about how neat the descent was anyway.)

Having said all of that, one does learn with practice (and good instruction), but I personally doubt that MS FS would help much and totally agree with your point in this respect.

[Stop Stop Stop]

An interesting reply final 3 greens. It is certainly interesting to see your take on the matter as a PPL with some experience of a heavy jet simulator.

Certainly, with experience, navigation at 320 kts or more becomes second nature. I will under normal conditions and ATC permission happily keep 310 kts at 2000 ft until the point of intersection on the ILS...it will take 6 miles to slow from 310 to 180 kts in still air for the Fokker 100. That is just experience on the type (I have 3000 jet hours and 1000 heavy turboprop hours). We can also fly visual approaches and often our circuits are no bigger than a light aircraft circuit at many busy GA fields.

You are quite right that to 'think ahead' is very important. Modern simulators are very accurate to the flight models of the real aircraft. As for your comment about roll response of the simulator that you flew, I can't comment since you don't mention what type it was. Certainly, for the Fokker 100, the roll rate would make your eyes water compared with an Archer as it is considerably faster, particularly at speed.

Going back to the terrorists' efforts on 9/11...it was clear that the aircraft impacted the WTC at speeds of about 450 kts...130kts or so beyond the barbers pole so they were clearly not bothered about profiles, speeds or any such like. I still maintain that a PPL could achieve what they did. After all, a long line up with the building, in a gentle descent would achieve what happened to the building.

Your points about alien profiles of an airliner to a PPL are very valid. After all, no-one would expect a 200 hour PPL to do a SID, airways flight, STAR and land would they? Remember how long a type rating course is! It takes at least 3 months to be let loose on an airliner, assuming you have a CPL in the first place.

[pulse1]

It was morning on a nice clear day...I bet New York and the WTC stood out pretty well.

This something that has always intrigued me as I have played around with Fs2002 and my couple of hundred hours PPL to work out how to hit a building with fast jet airliner (my head office :*). Seems easy enough to do it visually, as some have said, using the autopilot mostly (no need for the FMC).

The question I have always wondered about is the weather limits they required to do this. Presumably this took a lot of planning, even for all flights to happen together, and they must have been reasonably sure that the weather would be suitable. In that event, were they capable of finding a building and hitting it in poor visibility and with a fair amount of low cloud? (i.e UK weather)

Does this make the UK a bit safer, given the unpredictablity of the weather? Even on nice days there is usually a lot of low cloud - you tend to notice these things when you are a mere PPL.

If they could do it in poor weather, I would have thought that this would make the experience you can get on FS2002 much more significant. But trying to find a building at low level (below cloud) at airliner speeds would require a lot more than FS2002 could give you.

[Jump Complete]

Like other pilots here have commented, I find MS FS much harder to fly properely than a real aircraft. The lack of perihial vision and the tiny size of the instruments which are the only way to fly it.
I can't comment on the add-ons adding 'reaslism' with regard to B757/767 or Airbus FMS etc as I have only tried FS 95 (pretty basic) and I am not Type-rated on either type!
Howver, I would think that the comments about V-speeds etc are not really relavent to this. Why do did they need to know V2, etc? I would think however that to fly a B757 into a realitively narrow building at high speed would take a fair amount of skill or familiarity with the handling charateristics of the type. I'm not sure I could fly it that accuately (1100 hours TT, CPL/IR etc but all so far on smaller aircraft) without pratice on a proper sim. This must have been what they did.

[RatherBeFlying]

My first encounter with a simulator was during my Instrument Rating. After I got cocky with my sim approaches and holds, the airplane rapidly readjusted my attitude and it took considerable a/c time to learn how to do in the air what was a doodle in the sim.

Later I spent considerable time in a 2-axis Viscount sim that flew like a truck. Very handy for finding your way around a complex cockpit.

The 9/11 miscreants followed a logical path:[list=1]
Get a PPL
Get enough full-motion sim time to find your way around the cockpit[/list=1]There's a big difference between a monitor and an actual cockpit.

[ft]

:rolleyes:

Contrary to popular belief, they weren't sheep farmers straight in from Outer Nowheria. To be a true lunatic takes thorough miseducation. Anyone who survived high school will be able to point an aircraft at a building having been told that:

- The wheel thing makes the aircraft lean to the sides
- Pushing the wheel makes the cows go bigger
- The pedals are not for braking - leave them alone
- You push the aircraft forward with the levers in the middle

The advanced course will cover the ASI and how it is connected to the rate of change in the size of the cows in thorough detail for all of twenty minutes.

If you spend four hours teaching them how to use a handheld GPS and place it on a dash, they'll be able to find the bulding from quite some way away too.

The logical conclusion is to outlaw high schools. Homeland Security, hrumph, hrumph, big X's bulldozed into the floor in the school lobbies, hrumph hrump, Homeland Security, hrumph...

The next one is what we really need to worry about. It will not be a hijacked aircraft. We are at risk of repeating one of the most common mistakes made by generals in all times here - preparing for the last war while going to the next one.

And I still wonder what the Norwegians did.

I repeat: :rolleyes:

/Fred

[Fodgett]

The Americans obsession with terrorism is unbelievable. You can't blame it all on one thing.
There are many other ways than FS that can teach terrorists to operate a large jet. For example videos and books that can be purchased in almost every pilot shop and some book stores and video stores.

In my opinion I think one could learn a lot more by watching videos of the crew flying from A to B and explaining the basic instruments and what has to be done to fly the plane, than flying Flight Sim on the PC.

[JoshuaCT]

Thanks very much to everyone for these enlightened responses to my inquiry. I look forward to more posts.

If you are an airline pilot, do please say so in your post so I and other readers can separate the professionals from the flight sim enthusiasts.

This board seems to be dominated by pilots from the UK. Where do U.S. pilots hang out?

[Andrew M]

Simmer only here - with one hour experience in a light a/c.
(Although would like to change this in the future.....)

Personally there is no chance that 9/11 was aided by computer flight simulations.

Not in terms of navigation - which was visual anyway - or in control.

I really think that we are being hysterical - if there is another terrorist attack - it will be carried out in another way. Who even says it has to be aviation related ?

[Gerund]

Computer flight sims are definately more difficult than flying the real thing!!

How many of you have been asked to show your licence for scrutinisation on offer of a flying position?? I haven't been asked to show it ONCE! I have a forged one which is useful for photocopies to stick in the training file; bit of typex for the the renewal at the CAA and no-one is any the wiser.

I did a PPL and then decided that the whole ATP thing for another 150 hours odd seemed like too much hard work.

I searched the internet, and then made telephone back up enquiries, to find an operator who had gone out of business, operated the right plane, and where the chief pilot was no longer contactable. I doubt any contact was attempted anyway, from what I have found out subsequently.

I decided what I wanted to fly was a Dash 8; if I knew what I knew now I would have chosen a 737, but there you go.

I obtained an operating manual on the Dash 8 and studied my but off over 3 weeks. I also got a Dash 8 download and flew this for about 20 hours.

The next bit was the interviews, not much sweat since I only had 1,250 hours on the Dash 8 as co-pilot!!! HO, ho. They weren't expecting too much and I was up to speed on on the relevant ICAO annexes on take-off gradients, single engine ops etc.

Got the job and here came the check ride. Not such a sweat as I hadn't flown for seven months (that is when the company went down). Hell, the cockpit was very different from my PA28 and MS2000!! I sweated a bit but was amazed that the training captain was so helpful that I needn't have worried!! Anything I hesitated over, I was told what to do.

After the first abominable landings it all came together. Hell, it isn't that hard.

Pushing two years on and I have 2,900 hours odd (well, minus the phony bit), and am up for command.

Yip, I have the ATP (wonderful what computers can do, and beats sitting the exams) and I'll bet $1000 against 10c that nobody ever asks to look at it.

Yes, flight sims are great but are very much harder than flying the real thing - take it from me. For terrorists I reckon they are a dead loss, but for getting a job on the fly....just great!!

[Boy_From_Brazil]

Gerund

I suspect (and hope) your post is a wind-up. You must have been reading the script of a recent Spielburg film.........

[Gerund]

Boy_From_Brazil

Why on earth should it be? Come on, let's face it, 2,000 hours odd in the right hand seat is worth more than 200 hours at Jerez or wherever, and a bit of study on the aircraft you're flying (plus the Trevor Thoms :rolleyes: ) is all you need.

Ok, it's illegal, but hey, remember the surgeon in England about fifteen years back who never went to medical school.....and his colleagues appeared for the defense as they reckoned he was brilliant!

Flying a plane is not difficult. If they want to make sure everyone up there has the JAR, then they ought to start making licence inspections mandatory.

By the way, honestly, when was yours last looked at by anyone except by you? Unless you were showing it off to your girlfriend, I would wager it was the guy who issued it!!

:D

Flying, with the co-pilot bit to ease you into it, has to be the easiest way into something with no qualifications - just keep it on Pprune otherwise everyone will want a go!!

[Maximum]

Airline pilot, check and training Captain.

This thread is I'm afraid becoming increasingly irritating. Gerund, I don't know from under what stone you've crawled, but I suggest you crawl back under it. You say, with regard to the professional licence: By the way, honestly, when was yours last looked at by anyone except by you? Unless you were showing it off to your girlfriend, I would wager it was the guy who issued it!! well, actually, at every line and simulator check - but you knew that already didn't you?

Jump complete, you say:I find MS FS much harder to fly properely than a real aircraft.A number of others have inferred this. Well guys, you may find this to be the case, but it doesn't mean it's a universal truth! Go back to your computer and try harder!! Overall it's a lot easier at your desk, take it from me.

Coming back to the original topic, it speaks for itself that nobody picked up my question on map shift.

[Andrew M]

Gerund

Are you seriously trying to tell us that you have commited a VERY, VERY serious crime ?

Do you know that if you got caught, then the information posted here could be given in evidence ?

And do you know that the PPRuNe owners can help the police check your I.P address, work through your ISP and track where you live ?

Please remember this is a forum for wannabes, aviators, and aviation enthusiasts. What you are saying is potentially damaging to the security and reputation to the airline market - please bear in mind that apart from the over 62,000 members, there are many more people who like to read these forums only.

What you are saying is quite well publicised - this is not some daft little website you know - but the world's leader for aviation news online.

[Gerund]

Andrew M, tut, tut, I have a firewall, don't you?

Maximum, I have NEVER been asked to show my licence! Well, that is not quite true; fair cop. I have pulled it out and waved it around, and I suppose the important pages have been glanced at ONCE, but, as I said a computer and decent printer is a wonderful thing.

You reckon at every line and simulator check? Dream on! I suppose it depends on the company!! Let me know yours and I won't apply for training captain!!

[Maximum]

I totally agree Andrew M.

If Gerund now comes back to us and says he was only joking, may I make a pre-emptive strike and state that I have had total sense of humour failure on this one.

If he is joking, then he shows a total lack of respect for his professsion, his colleagues and himself. And a total lack of awareness of how we are misrepresented on many occcasions by the media, and how postings like his serve only to denigrate our profession even further. Shame on him.

well, we appear to be moving way off topic thanks to friend Gerund.

Gerund, it would seem you're admitting to being a liar and a cheat..............that really puts you up there with the best of them.

[Gerund]

Maximum, what can I say. Profession? It's just a bloody job for heavens sake!

Laugh once in a while! I do, every time I press print on my computer at every renewal!!;)

[ft]

"Coming back to the original topic, it speaks for itself that nobody picked up my question on map shift."

Perhaps due to assuming that they would not depend on the onboard avionics for navigation? Accurate navigation is in the hands of everyone today...

/Fred

[Maximum]

ft

go back to the start and read the posts. My question about map shift was in reply to the idea that the FMS could be used solely as the means to guide the aircraft to the target.

The devil is in the detail.

[NinjaBill]

Although it is against my better judgement to respond to such an obvious troll, I can say, as someone who works in the field of IT security :( that a firewall will not hide the destination ip address of the device, only prevent others from connecting to that device when they know the address.

In the uk, isps keep logs of when people logged on, what ip address they were giving, and the phone number they called from.

Although I cannot comment on what the rules are in different countries, it is posible to find out which isp an ip address origionates from by looking at iana.org

NB

[Andrew M]

I kinda think that this thread is dying out now.

We have came to a conclusion that no, flight sims cannot be blamed for terrorist attacks, and they cannot be used to learn how to fly a real plane.

Map shifting wouldn't be effective in my opinion, as determined terrorists would get the info from somewhere

Profession? It's just a bloody job for heavens sake

Yeah right :rolleyes: , like anybody becomes a commerical pilot just because there was nothing else to do. In fact, most pilots don't view it as just a job - if that were the case I think most people would be doing a job anywhere else that was easier to get into.

Maximum, I have NEVER been asked to show my licence! Well, that is not quite true; fair cop. I have pulled it out and waved it around, and I suppose the important pages have been glanced at ONCE, but, as I said a computer and decent printer is a wonderful thing.

I think the only ATPL you have is the one you get after passing the exam on Microsoft Flight Sim 2002 Professional. Even still, I doubt you could even pass that exam.... :)

I really do hope for your own sake you are bullsh1t*ing us.

Has anybody seen the new simulator on sale in Transair ? It's £3,995.00 and comes with rudder pedals and yoke integrated into a small cockpit mock-up with switches. (Pg 54). It's advertised as being an "IFR training and proficiency package". Wonder if it has loading on the controls, like in a real aircraft ???

[Maximum]

just to clarify, "map shift" refers to a situation where, for a number of possible reasons, the IRS/FMS system has not updated the aircrafts position properly, therefore the aircraft position displayed on the nav display is incorrect. However, it looks correct.

An aircraft programmed with a lat and long to hit a building experiencing a small map shift ( a common occurence) would in fact miss the building. So simply using the FMS and autopilot is not reliable enough.

The fact no-one picked this up kind of demonstrates the difference between the PC simmers knowledge of aircraft systems and the real world.

I say this not to put anyone down but simply to confirm that a knowledge of the aeroplane gained through a PC sim, no matter how seemingly detailed, will be lacking in numerous ways that the PC simmer will not even be aware of.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing......................(mostly to the potential terrorist in the above example.)

[Andrew M]

Maximum - to whom were you referring to ?

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

Also, as I said:

We have came to a conclusion that no, flight sims cannot be blamed for terrorist attacks, and they cannot be used to learn how to fly a real plane.

However, we have established that the terrorists could use visual navigation to strike again.

In addition, when I say ...

Map shifting wouldn't be effective in my opinion, as determined terrorists ....

I mean that terrorists could use visual navigation, as mentioned by several other members. Also, they could get the real figures from somewhere - rendering the map shifting in sims useless.

We have already agreed that sims are useless anyway.

[Maximum]

Andrew M, I wasn't refering to you, but to a post made way back on page 1 of the thread.

However, now I am. You have demonstrated my point exactly. You say:Also, they could get the real figures from somewhere - rendering the map shifting in sims useless. You obviously don't know what a "map shift" is. Please go back and read my previous post.

QED.

By the way, I agree with you re PC sims and need for visual flight to target.

[stable approach]

I think we are unduly concerned here, as the sim programmers have already addressed this issue. My PSS 777 has an inbuilt, anti hijacking device that causes it to strike the earth ( or sea ) some 1-2 miles short of the runway while doing a coupled ILS approach.
Maximum, I haven't seen map shift for some time now, since switching to GPS / IRS combinations.

[Aussierotor]

My son, 150 hours cessna 172,plus forever playing on the computer had the chance to try out the real simulators.
Completed 7 takeoffs ,circuits and landings without a problem ,and did one in a 747-200 in heavey rain(800 metres vis) using IRS without a hassel.
So answer is Yes.

They are making it harder to get into the cockpit these days,and if someone does ,then the passengers are stuffed whether they can hit a target or not anyway.

The 7 circiuts etc were in a Dash 8------not the cessna lol

[Ignition Override]

SimFly: an FBI agent was interviewed by a major US network regarding events which contributed to the terrible day. A flight instructor told her about a foreign flight student who was only interested in cruise flight. The instructor knew that this was very strange and called the FBI agent.

When she notified superiors at the FBI, they apparently had no interest in further investigation. The flight instructor seemed to feel terrible about the lost opportunity to prevent a catastrophe.

From what I recall, that flight student was on one of the planes on 9/11.:ugh:

1) Enter radial/*** or &# into the direct box. 2) Execute. 3) Push ^#@~. 4) Verify modes on ADI/HSI.

[simfly]

regarding map shift, think you'll find that the 767 PIC package simulates the IRS navigation system very well, and if I leave it on manual mode for too long, I get the message on the FMC "check position" and the IRS eventually goes into another mode (ATT?)

[PCav8or]

Seems like most of the posts here have been based on MSFS. Check http://aerowinx.de/html/simulator.html
The user base of this software ranges from NASA research centres, airlines to universities (http://aerowinx.de/html/ps1pro.html). It might not teach one to fly the real thing, but it sure gives one heck of a lot of information.
Comments?

[FINNISHED]

GERUND...

I agree 100 percent with you post! I too have been flying on this continent for the last 12 years on several different aircraft types. The annual renewals do come "a bit" too often every now and again. There have been a couple years when I have just carried on flying with the old license as leaving the bush to do a renewal is just not an option. And I also strongly feel that a DCA inspector flying in controlled airspace has no clue as to how the aircraft really have to be flown in the bush anyway. GPS approaches into too short, too rough, hairy runways, spiral approaches at VNE till short finals etc...which are all part of the stay alive senario in the bush dont get practised in the annual renewal anyway. I would rather do what I need to keep the plane flying and "safe". As for the medicals, I dont remember when I last did one. The way I see it is, if I feel fine I am sure I dont need to have a doctor (R500 later) to tell me what I already know!?!

[Maximum]

AussieRotor. Did your son by any chance have an instructor or pilot rated on type with him?

[Andrew M]

You obviously don't know what a "map shift" is. Please go back and read my previous post.

Yeah - what I meant to say was couldn't terrorists find out the discrepancy between the figures in the sim and real life - and then work from that ?

Also displaying my ignorance again ;) - but couldn't the potential terrorist use real world flight planning software to get the real lat/long co-ordinates for the target ?

[Aussierotor]

MAXIMUM.

Only person with him was another apprentice AME.
Said the only difficulty he had was flying it level,but no probs with the rest.
Been in the 747-300 since then.

[Robertajc]

Don't forget the distracting effects of real flying; when I did my ppl I chucked up for the first 10 hrs (no stomach; what a wuss!) and you don't get that with flight sim software!! ******s-up the concentration, it does!

[Maximum]

Andrew M.

Thanks for your reply. Map Shift will occur in an aircraft using IRS's (laser gyros basically) to compute its position along with updating for the FMS/FMC from VOR/DME. Its effects will be random and unpredictable. A terrorist simply using a lat/long to guide the aircraft to the target through the autopilot may come unstuck if mapshift occurs, as the aircraft will navigate itself to a point near, but not actually at the target. A trained professional jet pilot knows how to deal with this. I was simply making the point that most PC flight sims will not give the user an appreciation of this point. This is only one of many potential traps that the PC pilot will be unaware of. Therefore I'm in agreement with you that PC flight sims do not present a huge security threat.

AussieRotor.

In relation to your son, Said the only difficulty he had was flying it level, but no probs with the rest.
I'm sorry, but this just makes me chuckle. As a jet instructor of more years experience than I care to remember, your post just doesn't present the truth of what I have seen and experienced throughout my career. Mind you, I have had lots of people telling me the same kind of stuff that you have, who then get in the sim and make complete fools of themselves. Interesting your son can take off and land, following an ILS approach, but has difficulty flying straight and level. It just doesn't add up. And, you say, he wasn't with an instructor - so he just knew the take-off speeds, flap retraction profile, power settings, attitudes for various phases of flight, flap extension speeds, approach profile and attitudes, gear limiting speeds and flare and landing technique intuitively did he? Oh no - let me guess - he read about it or a friend who flies the aircraft told him before he went in. And that's on three aircraft types. I'm sorry, no offence, but this doesn't correlate to what I see from professional pilots converting in the sim. Usually the "no problem" type of comment you make comes from a great lack of awareness of the kind of standards actually required.

[Pauly Walnuts]

I have MS Flightsimulator 2002. It can teach you some of the basics of operating an airplane, but it will not fully mimmick a real plane.

I think it is a lot harder to fly the sim than the airplane. I crash my Falcon 50 simulator pretty much every time I fly it. I have yet to crash the real thing.(Knock on wood).

I doubt a desktop sim could teach you to crash a 757 into a building at 450 Knots.

[Maximum]

Guys, I think those of us who are professional jet pilots should be careful about saying the PC sim is harder to fly than the real thing. This gives the impression that a snotty nosed kid well versed in FS2002 could jump in our airplanes and off he goes. We know this is not the case.

It's the flight modelling characteristics of the PC sim that might make it appear difficult to fly - ie, it doesn't respond to our inputs in the way the real aircraft we are used to flying responds. This doesn't mean it's difficult to fly. It just means the PC sim has huge limitations. Please don't confuse the two.

Spend the same amount of time flying the PC sim as you do on your real airplane, and you'll be well ahead of the untrained amateur.

And I hope we all realise this doesn't even start to touch on the ideas of "operating" an aircraft and "commanding" an aircraft crew.

[batty]

When I did my initial flying training I used FS200 to great effect to help me with my scan and to help with learning to do holds and other basic intrument procedures.

FS isn't perfect by any means and neither are any of the add on packages, however they are much better than just looking at dry text and theory on a page. They give you a good impression of how the systems work in conjuction with each otherand give you good familarity with the cockpit.

We are not looking at if a flight simmer could go out jump in a B737 and go and fly the line. We are looking at if they would assist someone with basic flying skills ie a PPL to direct the aircraft in a straight line until they got to the visual segment of a terrorist attack. VOR navigation isnt brain surgery, and a long visual line up to a building could be easily practiced in FS. These guys dont need to get the aircraft into the air or get it down in one piece in bad weather, just fly in a straight line using an auto pilot and disconnect or use the heading bug in the final stages. FS can easily teach you these skills.

Who am I ? FS fan before I learnt to fly for real, and currently an B737 line pilot in the UK with ATPL.
(Still have fun with FS from time to time)

[Aussierotor]

MAXIMUM.

I dont tell porkies.Maybe has the ability,maybe it might have been the many hours spent on p/c simulators,plus the times flying to get his PPL----------god only knows.Ive spent hours on the pc and im totally useless and always will be as ive never learnt to fly a plane.
"had trouble keeping it level"-----maybe he should have used auto pilot.On approach didnt have probs,and never had probs keeping level on pc ,so theres one thing that he finds harder.

Actually i want him to get a flight examiner to check him out for curiosity ,but this is hard fdor 2 reasons-------they have gone home by then ,plus i dont think hes meant to be in them in the first place.

[BA777]

Hello.

I have just turned 14, and I have been using FS2002 seriously since October 2002. I have around 750 hours in my logbook, with 380 of those being with BA Virtual.

So, the original question: Is FS too real?

Firstly, I'm guessing you havent seen the previews of the new version, of which I am a beta tester for. The whole FS world has changed so dramatically over the last two years, it's unbelievable.

When i flew to AMS last July on KLMuk, I visited the Captain before the flight. I asked him if he had flown anything else comercially, he said he'd flown the 734. Click. The Dreamfleet 737 is a package with crew calls, FA Calls, a damm realistic panel and sounds, with an equally good visual model.

When i asked the Captain if he had heard of Dreamfleet, he said he had. He said that it was basically spot on compared to the real thing. Just goes to show exactly how far it has come.

One other factor could be 3rd party sceneries. As you FS flyers will know, the default MS sceneries that come with the game are basic to say the least. The add-on sceneries for Heathrow, Los Angeles, Frankfurt etc that are a mixture of pay and freeware add to the realism.

Personally, I find it very easy to land a 767 in FS. Simply set the ILS up, leave it in until 1000ft, take everything out, switch to the Captains perspective landing view, and then keep her at a good angle, retard the throttles and then raise the nose one or two degrees and bang - welcome to Heathrow.

I have been talking to a Britannia 757/767 pilot recently, I told him about all the various things we have available to us. Like the monthly AIRAC cycle updates, Flight planning website which calculates fuel, time, maps etc.

VATSIM (The online ATC thing) adds to the realism again. For example, you can EGLL_V_TWR, Heathrow voice tower, even the instructions they give are based on the real world. Same with all the SID and STAR procedures in the FMC with PSS addons & 767PIC etc.

Say ATC said : Speedbird 999, be level 7000ft, 5nm before Biggin." All a PIC pilot would have to do is to make an arc on the display by going to the FIX page of the FMC, putting the FIX in, then the '/5' for the arc distance, then adjust the FMC to automatically calculate the descent, or use the VS - simple.

I wish there was a TV programme too, it'd be awesome to see the comparison between the two.

Henry

[Andrew M]

BA777

I too, am a young flight simmer who really wants to get somewhere into real aviation. I have made an attempt at this, and hopefully this year after getting a job I plan to start a real PPL.

I do appreciate what you say, but the way you described ...


Say ATC said : Speedbird 999, be level 7000ft, 5nm before Biggin." All a PIC pilot would have to do is to make an arc on the display by going to the FIX page of the FMC, putting the FIX in, then the '/5' for the arc distance, then adjust the FMC to automatically calculate the descent, or use the VS - simple.

... is idealistic to be honest. I, do not think I could manage on a real sim, let alone a real aircraft ! I think that the sheer size of the flightdeck would be quite intimidating. Remember even if you use a 21" monitor (biggest CRT or LCD in my knowledge, before you get to projectors) then the actual spread of the instruments for the scan is still much larger. Also, the throttles, speedbrakes and flap levers too.

Yes, flight sims are getting better. But unless you use a full motion flight sim ( that is $10 million as compared to say $100) then sims are not entirely useless, as you do get ahead of the average man. However, I would never question the knowledge of a real ATCO or pilot.

We can get a small head start using sims, that is about all. It is good to show determination and interest though, and keeps the interest alive. Hope you manage to get some real hours under your belt; you will love it. :)

I wish there was a TV programme too, it'd be awesome to see the comparison between the two.

If you have Sky Digital satellite, or cable you may receive Discovery Wings - great channel, and some shows are reasonable too. Flightdeck was a good series - but getting a little dated now, as is the rest of the programming.

As you are interested in ATC, look for a great programe called Air Traffic Control - Too complex for humans ? (simple, and obvious title eh ? :D ) and that was a good programme.

Best regards,

PS: Harder to fly the real thing ?

Well, real flying and sim flying is two different things. Learning one is bad for the other in my own opinion. Sim flying is ok yes, but if you go real flying then do not take what you learn sim flying and apply it to real life flying - and vice versa. I think that demonstrates the usefulness of a off-the-shelve product.

The elite flight simulator, as seen in Transair at £4000 may be of limited use though.....

[corsair]

I think Maximum has basically hit the nail on the head here. Everyone should re-read his posts. Flying the real thing IS more difficult than the the any PC based sim.

I too have fallen into that trap. I do actually have difficulty landing PC aircraft, largely due, I think, to the relative lack of visual cues which we use for the real thing and to some extent the lack of feel in the controls compared to a real aircraft. That is common with many real pilots attempting to land PC sims.

But apart from that, flying a PC no matter how accurately the it replicates anything is quite simply easy. The real skills involved in flying PC sims is in mastering it's add on complexities which simulate that of full size aircraft but don't replicate them.

There is almost no comparsion to real world operations. Maximum's scepticism about Aussierotor's son apparent lack of difficulty except straight and level highlights.

Quote "so he just knew the take-off speeds, flap retraction profile, power settings, attitudes for various phases of flight, flap extension speeds, approach profile and attitudes, gear limiting speeds and flare and landing technique intuitively did he? Oh no - let me guess - he read about it or a friend who flies the aircraft told him before he went in. And that's on three aircraft types. I'm sorry, no offence, but this doesn't correlate to what I see from professional pilots converting in the sim. .Usually the "no problem" type of comment you make comes from a great lack of awareness of the kind of standards actually required."

Sorry Aussierotor I'm not picking on you, but that's the truth of it.
The last sentence being the crux of it. Ask any pilot who moved from even a turboprop onto line training on jets and they'll tell you it's hard and many a pilot has fallen at this hurdle. These being experienced pilots too.

Many airline pilots trying out a PC sim, will sit down at at tiny monitor with a bitty plastic control yoke, have a go at flying the virtual aeroplane, make a shambles of it and declare: 'Gaaah it's harder than the real thing.' Forgetting that it took many hours to perfect their skills in the real thing. Sims are the same as anything, you have to spend time learning the tricks of the trade before you become any good.

PC based flight sims can help. I wish they were around when I started flying but they are certainly no substitute for real world flying and can be misleading to the uninitiated.


As for terrorists, the basics of flying is they needed. Any PPL could do what they did.

I think Maximum has basically hit the nail on the head here. Everyone should re-read his posts. Flying the real thing IS more difficult than the the any PC based sim.

I too have fallen into that trap. I do actually have difficulty landing PC aircraft, largely due, I think, to the relative lack of visual cues which we use for the real thing and to some extent the lack of feel in the controls compared to a real aircraft. That is common with many real pilots attempting to land PC sims.

But apart from that, flying a PC no matter how accurately the it replicates anything is quite simply easy. The real skills involved in flying PC sims is in mastering it's add on comple

[whauet]

I'm going to stick my head in the proverbial 'lion's mouth' here and ask this question...

How many people take PC Flight Simulators too seriously? :rolleyes:

I'm not out to belittle the knowledge that some of us have, but just because I have a DC-7C manual on my mantle, it doesn't mean I can fly it...

Yes, in my younger days I wanted to pursue a career as pilot but life took me in a different direction. I did put quite a few hours towards a PPL and did have several, fortunate, opportunities to spend time in a full motion simulator for a major US airline (back in the days when airports were friendly and welcoming)... But I would never presume, that given a disasterous situation, I could just run up to the cockpit and suddenly become Karen Black.

I have FS2002 installed on my computer at home, but no matter how 'complex' the software may be, it's still a game. (I cannot help but recall a recent 'Simpsons' episode where Homer tried to pack the car with garage sale purchases because he was good at 'Tetris').

I can sit at my desk and 'fly' a 12-hour flight, but no matter how accurate a PC setup is, I think it's safe to say that it's trivial in comparison to someone who is able to control hundreds of tons of aluminum, fuel and flesh through the air, and where there is no option of a pop-up window to ask if you want to 'try again' should something go wrong.

Before fingers start flying across keyboards, I will agree that the basics of certain skills can be learned through this method, but only to be refined in a more controlled and realistic environment.

I can't help but wonder if this type of discussion took place when 'Flying the Big Jets' was first published?

William

[Aussierotor]

CORSAIR,

I wasnt talking about getting into the cockpit of a real 747.
I totally agree that sims havent the real feel .
However most sims do come with instructions ,landing speeds settings etc ,and over many years playing you soon learn to get things right.
Plus the younger generation are brought up on computers ,games ,sims etc.Ask a 10 year old to find or sort out a problem on a puter to find out.
Im only good on rally or F1 sims but that took ages.Son could beat me in 30 minutes before he had his licence.
Getting back to the story ,i was stating what happened.
Im only assuming airline simulators are as close to the Real thing as possible.
PPL ,years on a pc simulator plus his love affair with aviation(maybe he has read speeds etc) would have helped.
Im not saying if a check flight guy was there he would have said "great job ,heres a payrise or you can keep your job" and the NO PROBLEMS comment was on a successful flight etc.,although not 100% perfect ,but didnt come to grief.
Sure ,the pressures off because if you come a gutser you can open the door and walk away-----definately not like the real thing.

Suppose age has got nothing to do with it but hes 23 ,not 10.

Whatever ,he managed it and so be it .When the opportunity arises he is going for the 767 so will keep you posted.

And yes ,i know to be a pilot you need lots of EXPERIENCE in the real world

[Andrew M]

How many people take PC Flight Simulators too seriously?

Well, I'm a member of British Airways Virtual, a controller with VATSIM, also an online pilot with VATSIM, own three flight sims (X-Plane, Fly!, MSFS2002) but the only thing I take seriously in a sim is enjoyment! :)

I have flew flight sims for the last 1 year, got connected to VATSIM immedately after getting my own internet connection installed (yep, age 16 and paying a phone bill :D ) and I would say that I have learned a little knowledge - not enough to take up a real position in Tower or in an aircraft - but the enjoyment from flying the sims has increased.

Although indeed, there are real pilots and ATCO's who are members of the ATC group (one of the two groups that exist) and yet I do not think they take it seriously either.

You cannot say why do you do the real flight during the day, then having some quite fun on a Sunday you take the virtual flight - is it not boring doing the same thing twice ? Well, no ! Of course, taking the real flight and the virtual flight is two different things.

Same for ATCO's. "Why do you want to control virtually when you have did it for real during the day ?" - An answer could be, again, "For fun".

[Dick Fisher]

I saw WHBM's comments regarding the lack of depth perception on a flight sim setup.

Whether it's good bad or indifferent, I suspect that the 9/11 hijackers were not that concerned about "flaring" of the aircraft.

[BritFAACFII]

Hi JoshuaCT,

Having followed this thread I'm prompted to say that my personal perception of the terrorist threat around commercial airliners is that such aircraft are at greater risk of being brought down by shoulder-launched SAM than being hi-jacked and used as on 9/11 - at least in nations where commercial airport security is good.

The US Department of Homeland Security is reported to have been tasked with preparing a plan detailing whether and how missile countermeasures and protection systems can be developed for fitment to airliners and warnings on sites including DUATS now emphasize GA aircraft over airliners. As the DUATS warning states: "Terrorists who are no longer able to hijack commercial airliners because of increased security at commercial airports may turn to GA airports and aircraft to conduct operations." I hope anti-GA people note the word 'may', incidentally.

Perhaps a more valid question is whether PC-based simulation software could help a terrorist gain knowledge needed to acquire and use a light GA aircraft for malicious purposes rather than whether such software could contribute to terrorist use of a hi-jacked commercial airliner.

My suspicion and hope is that even if simulation software could help terrorists, its contribution would be minor and that, in any event, GA aircraft are probably considered too small by terrorists to have real shock value.

I'm sure that any terrorist focused on evil would be willing to use any and all sources and methods available and be backed by considerable funds allowing the purhcase of far more than PC-based software to support objectives -- assuming that those objectives even involved aircraft instead of, for example, a 'dirty' radiological bomb using stolen cesium or cobalt that would cause long-term contamination in a city and perhaps even force abandonment of the area hit.

[Mark139]

I'm very interested in sims from tech point of view. I'm a software engineer by day and like to mess about with flight sims for fun. One of the things I'm doing at the moment is writing my own auto pilot - there's no way I'd be allowed to that in the real thing :) It was a great moment when the plane climbed and maintained the set altitude for the first time.

And interesting thing you can do to improve the depth of perception problem is to make the main screen apear to be focused at infinity. You can do this with a simple (and cheap) Fresnel lens (A4 page magnifier). Once you get the distances right the effect is very interesting especially if you run the control panel on another monitor.

How does flying a real Airbus feel with it's side stick and no force feedback?

Cheers

[Maximum]

Corsair. I'm glad someone understands the point I'm making. As you correctly state, even some experienced pilots coming off turboprops can find the conversion to jet aircraft difficult, while others find it a relatively staightforward process (for a professional pilot). But I've yet to see anyone in the sim finding it easy on their first attempt in the jet. (And I say again these are pro pilots.) Then when it comes to line training, the learning process starts again, as you know. And I can assure everyone that when you're in the real aircraft line training a new guy, you've really got to watch in those first couple of days. There are just so many potential traps.

Yes, I think PC flightsims are very advanced these days. I enjoy using them myself. Yes, they can be useful to practice procedural instrument flying. Yes, they could be useful to a limited extent in rehearsing a route. Yes, they are fun. Are they like the real thing? No. That's why the airlines have to spend tens of millions on their flightsims! I think Andrew M gets it right - they are two different things.

Let me use another analogy - I'm pretty dam hot round Monaco in my Playstation. How would this transfer to the real world? Well, I'd know the track. But as for anything else, the real-life physics would obviously blow my mind and I'd be useless compared to the actual flesh and blood F1 driver. Also, when you look at the in-car footage of the real thing - it looks slow!! Which it patently isn't.

Let me restate - I've trained and checked a lot of professional pilots in the sim and aircraft. I've flown PC based flightsims. There is little comparison between the PC and the real thing. The physical sensation of all that metal, the physical dimensions of the instrument layout, the cockpit layout itself, the control forces (or even lack of in the airbus causes its own problems) wind and weather and your life being on the line if you screw up, does make a huge difference. (And I'm only talking about raw flying here, not actually being totally on top of the whole operation.)

[batty]

Mark 139
Im a Boeing man so cant comment directly on the Airbus and the 'Force Feedback' but I assume its very similar to the forces felt on the Boeings.
You do not feed the actual control throught he control column as these would be huge and there would be no pilots able to fly the aircraft. The force we feel is artifical through a system called Q Feel which provides a force to the control column proportional to the dynamic pressure experienced by the aircraft.

[Aussierotor]

MAXIMUM

Im not trying to a smart alick ,or a bullsh-t artist.Im just stating fact.
Whether my sons a freak or what i dont know ,but as i mentioned before he has done it ,first on a dash 8 then 737-200 ,now a 737-300.
And this is in the flight sim section of an aussie airline(real hard to work out).
So between the 3 with many take offs ,circuits and landings with out a crash or any major real concern.So whats the story,do the sims have easy modes or what.
And to make matters more of a joke,most times he was flying without a co-pilot,doing the lot himself.
So im stuffed if i know.
Thats why i want a check pilot to check him out.
.
Sims arent the real Mcoy ,but i reckon he has done a damn fine job.
So im really asking ,if he can manage this,how would he have gone if he had continued being a pilot instead of jumping ship to become a AME and later LAME.
Im lost as well ,cause its not toys hes playing with,yet seems to be a natural.
So god only knows,but im stating the true facts

But this is only a sim flying around an airport---no mechanical faults to worry about ,weather conditions and the many more things required in the real world.

[Maximum]

Aussierotor.I make my comments in good faith and fully respect what you are saying. All I can say is well done to him. Obviously it's impossible to go beyond that without knowing how accurate the flying was. But the best of luck to him - he should try and fly with an instructor on the sim just to satisfy his own curiosity about his performance. Good luck to him.

[Aussierotor]

Thanks MAXIMUN,
Hopefully that will happen one day.He goes in after midnight if ones free and the right guy is on.Maybe one night he may jag someone there who will check him out,or maybe the hirachy may find out and put a stop to it------time will tell.
Not that it will lead to anything ,but he enjoys himself.Be just good to find out from a professional what he thinks

Cheers

[ft]

FWIW, I had a go at a few FFS's before I had more than minutes of time in actual aircraft. I did have quite a bit of theoretical background at the time but nothing type specific. The hardest part? Getting dumped in the left seat in the middle of a flight and figuring out what :mad: switch to use to get the avionics into the right mode to help me find my way back to the airport. Nobody who'd planned it would have to worry about that, they'd have other means of navigation.

Circuits of the airport, approaches, landings. Bits of fooling around. Would I have passed a check ride? No, most certainly not. ATC would be screaming themselves blue as I walloved back and forth through their airspace, the pax would have been lining up eager to return their previously eaten inflight meals and the first landing could very well have necessitated a structural inspection. Did I keep it under control? Yes. Wake turbulence, tire blowout on touchdown, various nastiness like that. Did I get the aircraft to about where I wanted it to be? Yes. Irrecoverable engine failure (735) as I applied power to go around after coming in VERY high and hot (nobody was calling out airspeeds and so on) was where I lost it - didn't catch that I was an engine short before the bank was beyond what I could control.

As for finding ones way around ground structures... flying under bridges (and no, not the Golden Gate but something much smaller) in a 738 shouldn't be easier - and at the time I did not find that hard to pull off.

We're not talking precision flying or getting it all right thousands of times day in and day out, year after year. We're talking about getting the plane to where you can see a big friggin city and flying it towards a given fixed point. Even if they'd decided to use the built-in navigation capabilities and even if those would have map shifted themselves ten nm away, it would have sufficed.

Further investigation in and outside the line of duty has made it all too apparent that I am not in posession of supernatural flying ability by birth. :rolleyes:

Cheers,
Fred

[Slim20]

Surely someone should be investigating the terrible scam the JAA are running, forcing professional pilots to undergo these punishing flying training courses and long apprenticeships to gain a seat in a 737.

The whole process could be made much cheaper for everyone by sitting us all in "virtual airlines" for a year or so with our MSFS 2002 (plus "ultra realistic" add-ons, of course) followed by a couple of hours in an FFS to get the feel of the "controls" and the locations of the "buttons", and Voila! the airline pilot of the future emerges, ready to nestle their spotty behinds on the mock sheepskin luxury seat of a bona fide £20m, 60-tonne machine with 150-odd men women and children on board....?

Maybe someone would like to develop a mod for MSFS called "Real Pilot". It involves getting up at 4 am each morning, then sitting on a hard chair in front of a blue/white screen, wearing headphones, which play white noise at a dB level just enough to be uncomfortable, while, simultaneously, heavily accented foreigners gabble gibberish at you for about four hours. You get 5-10 mins to have a tea break and then do it again a couple more times. Finally a large bully comes in at the end of the day to shout at you for using up too much fuel. etc etc etc

Thank **** for pc simulators...!

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

Anybody can crash a plane.