COULD you land a passenger jet (if you ONLY hold a PPL)???
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: earth
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: East sussex
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
"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
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: East sussex
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Daz
" Daz mate, it's a Mk1 Lotus.....!!"
Do you have the original oil drip tray that came with each new model
Daz
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Geneva
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: The 60's
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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?"
that made me chuckle..
that made me chuckle..
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Geneva
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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.
Ramasseur des pommes
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
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
Last edited by AppleMacster; 3rd Apr 2012 at 22:12.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite the same as a PPL flying a jet but interesting nonetheless.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hK8u0JI-CYjGe4b48FwP4Mxjo5LQ?docId=13a11751a8b744d5bfd5ba5f1059263c
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hK8u0JI-CYjGe4b48FwP4Mxjo5LQ?docId=13a11751a8b744d5bfd5ba5f1059263c
To summarise: talked through autoland, probably yes. Manual landing . . . maybe. If you'd read
your chances would be higher.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 57
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
>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!
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).
I know which I find easier! (I was referring to the action rather than the consequences).
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go-around/Weather/Variables
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Near sheep!
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Last edited by Wirbelsturm; 13th Jul 2012 at 22:51.