B737 Simulator compared with the real aircraft. Question
N4790P
It should be recognised that the only difference between a Level C and a Level D FFS is with Sound and Vibration (Motion buffet) data. The aero data standards they are built and certified to and the Visual system requirement should be the same.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: >FL300
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"In another life we trained on the real B737 because a suitable simulator was unavailable. Training was on a long runway and included simulated engine failure at V1 conducted by pulling back one throttle and continuing the take-off. The aircraft was easy to control with no undue yawing or rolling."
"In 2006 I had the CP pull an engine to idle on me at V1 during base training. Very easy to control for real (A320). "
"On a different plane years ago i flew the OPC in the real plane because there was no sim available in the world, V1 cut, SE approach and go-around lot easier than sim."
"I've had the pleasure of Sims in the 737 747 and 777 and then base training in the Aircraft where we did multiple circuits with failures. I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that in all cases the Aircraft was easier to fly"
Can it be that the real aircraft(s) was very light during base training? & 1 eng. pulled to idle, so still producing some thrust, not a real eng. fail. In the sim did you try reproduce the exact same conditions? surely it's easier in the sim with 1 eng. pulled to idle & light weight VS the "standard" V1 cut with the pax & fuel weight in normal day to day operation?
"In 2006 I had the CP pull an engine to idle on me at V1 during base training. Very easy to control for real (A320). "
"On a different plane years ago i flew the OPC in the real plane because there was no sim available in the world, V1 cut, SE approach and go-around lot easier than sim."
"I've had the pleasure of Sims in the 737 747 and 777 and then base training in the Aircraft where we did multiple circuits with failures. I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that in all cases the Aircraft was easier to fly"
Can it be that the real aircraft(s) was very light during base training? & 1 eng. pulled to idle, so still producing some thrust, not a real eng. fail. In the sim did you try reproduce the exact same conditions? surely it's easier in the sim with 1 eng. pulled to idle & light weight VS the "standard" V1 cut with the pax & fuel weight in normal day to day operation?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SIM v AIRCRAFT
In a nutshell, sims are mostly crap for reproducing handling qualities.
Great machine for practising for the awful day "it" happens, but apalling for giving you accurate "feel" for the plane.
Treat the sim like a gigantic expensive "Compass Test" for qualifying to fly the real aircraft and don't blame yourself for the not-so-accurate performance.
Interesting to note the varied causes for Airline total losses over the last half century, yet we're still obsessed with the "V1 cut" and other manoeuvres in the LPC/OPC menu rather than assessing some of the other HF decisions/actions losing lives and hulls.
I once asked why the roll control of a certain once popular aircraft could not be made more realistic and the answer was cost-the CAA would charge too much to test fly and approve the new more authentic feel, which could have been bolted/programmed in with minimal expense.
Perhaps we could ask WHO is actually test-flying and certifying these otherwise very faithful simulators, how much ACTUAL poling time do they have on type, their relationship to the manufacturers of both sim and aircraft and the commercial urgency to get the beast signed off and earning money?
Try allowing a low hours line-trained F/O to handle the real aircraft at 41,000 feet and observe the phugoids!
I dread being in the bog, trousers around my feet when the rookie has to control the trim runaway or A/P disconnect with NO experience of the "bungee" control effect at cruise altitude.
As I ricochet off the floor and the ceiling attempting to return to the flight deck I will curse those in the regulatory, supervisory and training empires who regard it as a MORTAL SIN to permit crews to hand-fly the aircraft to top of climb.
I would argue that pilots who have not REGULARLY hand flown the aircraft, at all corners of the normal operating spectrum, are not qualified so to do in the event of automatics failures. If to qualify I have to hand fly at flare height, then why not at cruise altitude?
Is there any connection here with contrbutory causes relating to AF447?
Great machine for practising for the awful day "it" happens, but apalling for giving you accurate "feel" for the plane.
Treat the sim like a gigantic expensive "Compass Test" for qualifying to fly the real aircraft and don't blame yourself for the not-so-accurate performance.
Interesting to note the varied causes for Airline total losses over the last half century, yet we're still obsessed with the "V1 cut" and other manoeuvres in the LPC/OPC menu rather than assessing some of the other HF decisions/actions losing lives and hulls.
I once asked why the roll control of a certain once popular aircraft could not be made more realistic and the answer was cost-the CAA would charge too much to test fly and approve the new more authentic feel, which could have been bolted/programmed in with minimal expense.
Perhaps we could ask WHO is actually test-flying and certifying these otherwise very faithful simulators, how much ACTUAL poling time do they have on type, their relationship to the manufacturers of both sim and aircraft and the commercial urgency to get the beast signed off and earning money?
Try allowing a low hours line-trained F/O to handle the real aircraft at 41,000 feet and observe the phugoids!
I dread being in the bog, trousers around my feet when the rookie has to control the trim runaway or A/P disconnect with NO experience of the "bungee" control effect at cruise altitude.
As I ricochet off the floor and the ceiling attempting to return to the flight deck I will curse those in the regulatory, supervisory and training empires who regard it as a MORTAL SIN to permit crews to hand-fly the aircraft to top of climb.
I would argue that pilots who have not REGULARLY hand flown the aircraft, at all corners of the normal operating spectrum, are not qualified so to do in the event of automatics failures. If to qualify I have to hand fly at flare height, then why not at cruise altitude?
Is there any connection here with contrbutory causes relating to AF447?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a nutshell, sims are mostly crap for reproducing handling qualities.
With all the simulators I've ever used, it was immediately obvious from the word go that you were in a sim not in a real aircraft, purely from the handling and feel. That said, I don't think it matters as you're training technique and procedure, not finesse - in fact, it can be counter-productive to concentrate too much on minutiae that may be artefacts of the sim rather than characteristics of the real airframe.
I remember alternating between two supposedly identical (certified to same level) sims during a conversion course and one always gave you a perfect touchdown no matter what you did while the other felt like a crash every time. The instructors were aware of this so were just looking at technique and assured you that it would be OK in the real thing.
I remember alternating between two supposedly identical (certified to same level) sims during a conversion course and one always gave you a perfect touchdown no matter what you did while the other felt like a crash every time. The instructors were aware of this so were just looking at technique and assured you that it would be OK in the real thing.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Isle of Wight
Age: 54
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sim fidelity vs actual aircraft
For all type rated pilots who have physically FLOWN the aircraft, almost all KNOW that the simulator can NEVER replicate the precise handling characteristics of the actual aircraft.
However for some simulator instructors/checkers who have NEVER EVER flown the actual aircraft but get type rated only on the simulator ( like some Alteon geriatrics up in Korea ), the sim is 100% accurate! They make life very difficult for checkees with their anal retentive ways and intransigence.
However for some simulator instructors/checkers who have NEVER EVER flown the actual aircraft but get type rated only on the simulator ( like some Alteon geriatrics up in Korea ), the sim is 100% accurate! They make life very difficult for checkees with their anal retentive ways and intransigence.
Big fan engines rarely have an instant cessation of thrust with failure - more like a progressive rundown.
Many years of TRE work showed me that some simulators react badly to over-controlling. That was particularly evident where pilots were converting from aircraft that needed an agricultural amount of boot input with critical engine failure. Some pilots also rely on feel much more than pure instrument readings.
The best piece of advice I ever heard on the subject came from a much-respected trainer who said.
"Merely apply sufficient rudder to stop the scenery from rotating round the aircraft!"
It works for simulators (assuming they have visuals) just as well as the aircraft
Many years of TRE work showed me that some simulators react badly to over-controlling. That was particularly evident where pilots were converting from aircraft that needed an agricultural amount of boot input with critical engine failure. Some pilots also rely on feel much more than pure instrument readings.
The best piece of advice I ever heard on the subject came from a much-respected trainer who said.
"Merely apply sufficient rudder to stop the scenery from rotating round the aircraft!"
It works for simulators (assuming they have visuals) just as well as the aircraft
