|
I should have asked why do you think the sim is harder than real life? |
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
(Post 10338106)
Obvious to anybody who does recurrents in the sim, and flies the aircraft...
The question is why the sim is harder for base training (see the Title thread) than real life. And yes, cyclics in the sim are not easy. |
A likely reason - The only people that would work for Cathay and Dragonair are either cadets, or the incredibly inexperienced. A Cat D simulator removes any requirement for Base training for suitably qualified pilots. Its an ‘across the board’ requirement, regardless of prior experience. I’m also told it’s an Airbus requirement on initial conversion to wide body with no prior narrow body jet time. QF did away with it on the 767 from around 2006 on - unsure what current requirement would be for FO upgrade onto the Boeing widebodies there. |
Originally Posted by Veruka Salt
(Post 10338231)
JP JP, Its an ‘across the board’ requirement, regardless of prior experience. I’m also told it’s an Airbus requirement on initial conversion to wide body with no prior narrow body jet time. QF did away with it on the 767 from around 2006 on - unsure what current requirement would be for FO upgrade onto the Boeing widebodies there. Understood. That’s what I meant by “qualified”. In order for a pilot to be eligible for a type rating completed solely in a Class D Simulator, they must have held a type rating in a jet before. Plus whatever nebulous flight time and lisencing requirements the regulator requires. True in FAA land and in EASA (I believe). Hence the British Airways cadets requiring an extended training footprint. |
No matter how good or otherwise the sim is, nothing other than real life experience can expose one to “Airbusisms” in a dynamic environment. And that applies to all backgrounds and levels of expertise. |
Originally Posted by Street garbage
(Post 10338215)
Obviously that's not the question.
The question is why the sim is harder for base training (see the Title thread) than real life. And yes, cyclics in the sim are not easy. I was making reference to the sim being more difficult in circling scenarios than in real life. Mostly due the extra cues in real life versus the ≈ 80 degree splay or field of vision in a sim. For circuits, I don't know, the Airbus practice of disappearing downwind in more an abbreviated ILS than a visual flying sequence is not very challenging ( nor efficient ) at all. With circling, in the olden days, the regulator required a 500 ft single engine night circle off a NPA with 25 kts X-W. 20s downwind, 30 degree bank, don't look at the sim visuals 'till within 20 degree of QDM due lag. It was a computer game. Real life circling was definitely easier thou. Today, even though the circling exercises easier in the sim ( no failures ), you only demonstrate it once every few years where I am. I find it "harder" than a circling approach into Korea at 4am or a widebody circling approach in Japan with the reduced circling area- due visual cues and sim lag. Miles, I think there would be less "Airbusisms" if the training started at raw data in the sim and built up through the systems of automation. It's an easy airplane to fly around the circuit. |
Snip Miles, I think there would be less "Airbusisms" if the training started at raw data in the sim and built up through the systems of automation. It's an easy airplane to fly around the circuit.[/QUOTE] Good point. In less than ideal conditions it’s still easy to get around the circuit until you’re on finals, Then it can be a handful, especially in heat, turbulence, crosswind and wind changes. “Aibusisms” I’m referring to can add to the challenge, including ( but not limited to)...lagging auto thrust, G/S mini, flight controls which seduce the uninitiated into overcontrolling, auto trim that stops late in the approach (ever run out of energy or elevator authority in the flare?), ground effect etc. The sim can come close to, but never really replicate the real world approach and landing of an A330. |
Originally Posted by Gnadenburg
(Post 10338997)
Miles, I think there would be less "Airbusisms" if the training started at raw data in the sim and built up through the systems of automation. It's an easy airplane to fly around the circuit.
|
Originally Posted by JPJP
(Post 10338810)
Understood. That’s what I meant by “qualified”. In order for a pilot to be eligible for a type rating completed solely in a Class D Simulator, they must have held a type rating in a jet before. Plus whatever nebulous flight time and lisencing requirements the regulator requires. True in FAA land and in EASA (I believe). Hence the British Airways cadets requiring an extended training footprint. Engine out is on the money - it's about trainer pilot utilisation, although like Keg says aircraft availability is now limiting. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:21. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.