Are home computer flight sims too real?

[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 .

Best regards,
Andrew M

[PPRuNe Pop]

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

[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 !

[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
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]

Simulators teach systems and procedures

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]

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:

/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 ) 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!!



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.