teenage student pilot + 2 friends + twin + night + overcast...

[Deadstick]

And do you consider yourself as having "excellent competency and experience" in F-14 simulators?

Absolutely not. I was granted 20 minutes in the sim before the real pilots showed up for their sim time. I'm just suggesting that no matter how good you are in any sim, it isn't the same as having the stick and rudder in the real world.

[TeeVee]

ok, so not knowing anything about FS, i find it very difficult to believe that someone who is excellent at FS ( a game for christsakes) can fly and land a real plane and avoid crashing when something goes wrong. could they get lucky and fly and land? probably. but to say they would not have crashed under a particular set of circumstances???

[Gabriel]

ok, so not knowing anything about FS, i find it very difficult to believe that someone who is excellent at FS ( a game for christsakes) can fly and land a real plane and avoid crashing when something goes wrong. could they get lucky and fly and land? probably. but to say they would not have crashed under a particular set of circumstances???

That's not what I meant. I am under the (admittedly) unfounded assumption that reason why he crashed immediately after taking off, never achieving even 100ft, was because of not knowing the basics of how to fly a plane.

[snydersnapshots]

ok, so not knowing anything about FS, i find it very difficult to believe that someone who is excellent at FS ( a game for christsakes) can fly and land a real plane and avoid crashing when something goes wrong. could they get lucky and fly and land? probably. but to say they would not have crashed under a particular set of circumstances???

+1

I've got somewhere around 15,000 hours, most of it in the 737, 757, and 767, and I can't fly (more specifically, land) MSFS to save my butt. So I'm going to go out on a limb and agree with you that it works the other way too.

Seriously, MSFS is an excellent tool for learning the procedural aspects of instrument flight, but the lack of control feel and the inability to produce the physical effects of vertigo make it a poor substitute for the airplane. If he took off into a relatively low overcast and didn't have much instrument time, debilitating vertigo wouldn't surprise me at all. I remember one flight in the 737, taking off out of DEN into a low broken cloud layer at night, where I was absolutely SURE we were in about a 30 degree left bank. Three attitude indicators indicating wings-level and one first officer not hollering outvoted my vertigo riddled brain. The feeling lasted only a minute or so, but had I not been experienced, that would have been enough...

Another thing about the Twin Commanche: It had a reputation when it first came out as being a hand-ful for an inexperienced pilot...

[snydersnapshots]

I'm just suggesting that no matter how good you are in any sim, it isn't the same as having the stick and rudder in the real world.

I remember one old instructor who likened flying the simulator to a date with an inflatable girl. It might be cheaper and the mechanics might be the same, but it really doesn't compare with the real thing...

[Spectator]

And do you consider yourself as having "excellent competency and experience" in F-14 simulators?

Deadstick, what Gabriel is saying is that you managed to pull off a sim landing of an F-14 (in a proper sim I understand, not MSFS) but you did not consider yourself as having "excellent competency and experience". Yet you still pulled it off.

On the other hand, our young flying enthusiast claimed to have "excellent competency and experience", but couldn't make it to FL 01. Over-confidence is dangerous, whatever your level of experience.

[Deadstick]

Deadstick, what Gabriel is saying is that you managed to pull off a sim landing of an F-14 (in a proper sim I understand, not MSFS) but you did not consider yourself as having "excellent competency and experience". Yet you still pulled it off.

On the other hand, our young flying enthusiast claimed to have "excellent competency and experience", but couldn't make it to FL 01. Over-confidence is dangerous, whatever your level of experience.

Spectator,

It was a proper F-14 sim at what used to be NAS Miramar in San Diego, CA. I was at the time about a 200 hour pilot, 110 in gliders and 90 SEL. I also had the benefit of an instructor talking me through trim and auto throttle. Left on my own, I may not have gotten it on the runway.

[brianw999]

ok, so not knowing anything about FS, i find it very difficult to believe that someone who is excellent at FS ( a game for christsakes) can fly and land a real plane and avoid crashing when something goes wrong. could they get lucky and fly and land? probably. but to say they would not have crashed under a particular set of circumstances???

Many flying clubs use FSX to teach navigation. Turn all the realism up and the only thing you don't have is seat of the pants "feel"

..... Unless you have a force feedback seat that is. Then the only thing you don't get is G forces.

[Gabriel]

Many flying clubs use FSX to teach navigation. Turn all the realism up and the only thing you don't have is seat of the pants "feel"

..... Unless you have a force feedback seat that is. Then the only thing you don't get is G forces.

It's an oooooooooold discussion, and there never was an agreement.

MSFS is very good to learn navigation procedures. The only issue is that the VOR, and ADF needles are more stable than in the real plane (especially the ADF one). If you already know how to fly an airplane, you could go from IFR procedural training in the MSFS to IFR procedural flight IN VMC without any other training. (I'm talking from a practical, not from a legal point of view).

MSFS is nice to learn some basics of instrument flight in IMC (and I'm nat talking about navigation here, but the aviate part, that is basically keep blue above brown, the desired airspeed, vertical speed and turn rate). You can learn how the different instruments work, the instrument scan, the tactics (don't hunt for the needles, fly attitude), and even some basics of partial panel. So say that you know how to fly a plane in VMC and make an extensive instruments training in MSFS in simulated IMC. How fit are you to perform a real flight in real VMC? Zero. Forget it. Let's take it one step further. You make the instrument training in a real-zing, level D, heavy iron, full motion, full flight simulator like those that use the airline pilots. With no previous training in real-life IMC, can you go from that sim to real-life IMC? Again no. Forget it. The reason? Seats of the pants (or lack of).

You can have all the force feedback that you want. You can have all the 6 degrees of freedom full motion that you want. The full motion is BS. I want to see how the sim handles a sustained 2Gs turn. If it was full motion, it could do it just making the same motion that the plane does. Of course, that would be a plane, not a sim. Or I want to see how the sim spins 360º (changes heading) during such turn. The best that a full-motion sim can do is point the Gs vector in the desired direction (by tilting the rig) and simulate just the onset of the lineal accelerations (not the angular ones because it would be pointing the Gs vector in the wrong direction).

I would go one step further and say that even flying a real plane in simulated IMC under the hood is not enough to be ready to fly in real, solid IMC (and especially at night). Now, fly with the hood at night, and that might work.

The reason is that, short term, our main sense of equilibrium and angular motion and acceleration, and linear acceleration is given by our inner ear and other tactile cues (like if you are bearing more weight in one feet, if you feel heavy or light, etc.). The problem with this system is that it's good in the very short term (seconds), it's especially good to detect changes in the state and especially if those changes are fast. When the changes are slow or in fast changes after some seconds the "error" between the perceived state and the real one starts to drift, but it is continually "reset" or "zeroed" by our vision. When the vision is no longer there or receives confusing information, the equilibrium "system" cannot be trusted anymore. AT ALL. Things as simple as keeping the wings level in visual conditions become very difficult (if not trained) if the visual condition is tricky, for example the perceived horizon is tilted (because the terrain raises laterally or you are atop uneven clouds), because we will try to align the wings with the perceived horizon even without noticing that we are doing it.

The reason why eve the hood doesn't work (except at night) is because even with the hood you are receiving (without even noticing, but your brain does notices it) subtle but critical visual information from the external word in the form of peripherical vision (the hood never blocks 100% of the outside view) and the direction where the light comes from.

The absolute only way to be ready to this is exposure to the feeling, and that can be only done in a plane.

As an example, I have several hours under the hood and several hours of ground trainers, including 3 DOF trainers, and I even managed to manually land a real-thing 737 sim performing an ILS approach down to minimums.

But then, in one flight that we were practicing VOR procedures, I was all the time looking down on the instrument and didn't noticed that we were about to enter a cloud. The instructor advised me and told me "now keep you eyes on the artificial horizon and disregard any feeling". We were in the cloud less than a minute, but by when we left the cloud I had my had tilted with the ear against my shoulder to "match" the artificial horizon with my feeling, and my head had just run out of tilting range. A minute longer in the cloud and I think I would have not been able to maintain control.

There is a good level of agreement in those two extremes of what the MSFS is good for and what is NOT good for.

The problem comes to flying the plane itself.

I have taken people to fly with me, people who had zero experience even in an arcade ariplane game. And after some very simple instructions from my side, they were able to fly, turn, level off, climb and descend. Not very well. Speed control nd heading control were not very neat, but they managed to go where they wanted to go without getting steep banks and holding, on average, the desired altitude.

If you take MSFS simulator really seriously (which is NOT what most people does, but the argument here was someone with EXCELLENT COMPETENCE AND EXPERIENCE in MSFS), you can get a lot of it, and I mean a LOT.

The physics of flight are very VERY well simulated (if not stalled). The flight model itself is never very similar to that of the plane that it intends to simulate, but retains the general characteristics. While an aerobatic plane will do a 360 roll in a couple of seconds, a 747 wont. And after using different simulated planes like a small GA piston single, an aerobatic piston, a jet fighter, a King Air, a Learjet, a 737 and a 747, you get used to different "personalities" (technically, handling characteristics) and to adapt to them. That is, you will not say "oh, this Baron flies very similar to the MSFS one", but you will know how to do to transit from level flight to a climb at the same speed, and when yo try to do it you will "feel" the "transfer function" between your inputs and the plane reaction and adapt to it.

This requires not just flying a lot in the flight sim. It requires theoretical study of aerodynamics and mechanics of flight, a training plan, instruction, and flying the MSFS with a "real life" mentality (that means, for example, that you start the engine following the real procedure, not with CTRL+E)

Doing all this, I am sure (but have no way to prove it) that you will be able to take a real light twin and fly through FL 001 and beyond IN SEVERE DAYLIGHT VMC. I don't think that you'll be an excellent real-life pilot, but maybe you'll manage to scrape a wingtip and bend the landing gear when touching down hard next to the runway at the intended destination (assuming that you know how to get there).

[3WE]

Many flying clubs use FSX to teach navigation. Turn all the realism up and the only thing you don't have is seat of the pants "feel"

..... Unless you have a force feedback seat that is. Then the only thing you don't get is G forces.

I will try to respond to Gabriel's post later- tried twice to reply BEFIORE HIM- but the post keeps crashing...


However, G forces are not the only thing you don't get.

You don't get any simulation of injury, death or repair bills. (I alluded to this earlier.)

And while this sounds like a really cute joke- it's also a huge aspect that affects the utility of MSFS.

I'm not saying that you can't adapt for it, but there's a real issue with it.

[3WE]

Gabriel stold a lot of my thunder- but didn't hit my exact point with MSFS.

I tend to belive that if someone genuinely tried (and did their homework) they could very likely fly an airliner (in a visual, mechanical manner). I'm not saying they would be a good pilot- I am saying that they could do a lot of flying.

I accuse (for the sake of discussion) Snyder and Deadstick for being overly dismissive..."Someone could NEVER land an airliner with MSFS experience"

As Gabriel said- you can fly a lot of different 'airplanes' with vastly different control inputs/responses (where the aircraft, instruments and navigation does basically what it's supposed to. (The different control inputs are what's critical).

So if you get good at tracking the ILS or a VASI in many different 'planes' with many different control inputs- why couldn't you do it with a Boeing 7X7 or an Airbus 3X0?

Then you get at the middle marker, you slow your descent to 200 fpm (again, if you can do it in a virtual 172, virtual lear, virtual 737 and virtual 747, maybe you can do that in a real airliner).

You continue down and smash the ground in a nasty but perfect landing (Perfect = you walk away and no repairs are needed).

By the way- I'm suggesting this be done on a 10,000 ft runway and not an aircraft carrier nor Chicago Midway (for the real airplane- not that you can't also acheive ballpark numbers in MSFS that align with reality for Midway).

And Gabriel also mentioned that even the fancy, 'full motion' simulators have to fake it on some of the very accelerations that cause vertigo.
I've never experience REAL vertigo- my experience was just what Gabriel described a few seconds on a sunny day with a hood- the moving shadows help you feel comfortable....it was not black on top of black outside....oh crap, I'm steepening instead of shallowing my bank...ok, fixed have a nice day.

Now- are there people with the mental discipline to overcome their feelings of vertigo and trust the instruments??? Well, isn't that what EVERY instrument pilot has to do...While I think a lot of people might freak, I'm thinking there's a segment of the population who would expect vertigo and ignore their feelings...

Anyway- I don't want to belabor spatial disorientation...I am interested in discussion if someone who really "learned his basic airmanship rules" and "genuinely practiced airmanship" with MFSF could very likely save the day if the fish were carrying a debilitating stomach bug (and they ate steak).

[Deadstick]

As for steering an airborne aircraft, one proficient in MSFS could probably do OK, but trying to actually fly an approach with turbulence, real motion and obstacles below, and things happening much faster than in your man cave I think the likelihood of success is very very slim.

Not sure how this applies other than even a great, full motion simulator still isn't the real deal, my brother just did his annual session of Conquest 1 full motion simulator check. He got done and had half an hour left to screw around, so he tried a barrel roll. It didn't crash the airplane but it did crash the computer. Then he found if he just rolled inverted, held it there for a few seconds, then continued on around the computer could handle it. So when he was inverted in the sim did he have the sensation of hanging from his seat belt? Of course not, and that's maybe an exaggerated example of why a totally flight inexperienced person couldn't actually fly just because he's highly proficient at MSFS.

[3WE]

...trying to actually fly an approach with turbulence, real motion and obstacles below, and things happening much faster than in your man cave I think the likelihood of success is very very slim...

I still do not agree- and hope you are willing to continue the debate for fun.
The needed skill that you are really citing here is an excellent, critical instrument scan.

If we're halfway between the marker and the runway in hard IMC and my fake airliner or your real one gets a nose-down bump from turbulence and starts descending at 2000 fpm and neither of us pick up on it- we're both very likely to have a beer break in the man cave in about 30 sec. Of course, your beer will be delivered by harp-playing angels and your man cave will be very cool.

Things happen at pretty much the same speed in MSFS as the real world. Rate times time = distance makes for a fairly good computer model.

I could even argue that you have it easier because you have a finely honed seat-of-the-pants intertial navigation system...Wow, I feel us sinking- let me give the yoke a gentle tug and simultaneously scan the instruments. On MSFS, I have to wait for the sink to appear on the VSI or the ILS needles- soemtimes small attitude changes can be imperceptible on the AI/HSI- while you develop significant sink rates.

...and how about the often-made statement that an airliner is somewhat more stable on an ILS due to its weight and speed compared to a lighter plane?

Again, the skill I cite is dealing with airplanes with widely different responses and input requirements- and the ability to scan instruments, and supply reasonable inputs to keep things going the right way.

Worse yet- let me tell you how MSFS makes me understand your comment. One of my first experiences with "hey, lets go shoot an ILS in a virtual airliners" was this: I had a brief attention lapse...gray flashed to landscape and a second later we hit- just as I was trying to pull up. Ever since then I have a new appreciation for CFIT to crashes. Maybe not those cases where folks were wrecklessly ignoring minimums, but cases like the US 737 (that Hillary Clinton rode the day before) that botched an ADF approach...slight attention lapses with things unfolding very fast!

I want to restate that MSFS-alone, would in no way make you a good pilot. We all agree on that. I am saying that with genuine study, you could develop some mechanical and instrument scan skills that could get ou down an ILS (or VASI) and maybe arrest your descent and land on a big runway as long as the weather and situation was reasonable.

You are saying, "Nah, I seriously doubt it". I'm saying, "I'm thiking you probably could", and I don't think "the speed at which things unfold" is different. (By the way- I'm pretty sure that Dummy Pilot agrees with you.)

Thanks.

[Deadstick]

I want to restate that MSFS-alone, would in no way make you a good pilot. We all agree on that. I am saying that with genuine study, you could develop some mechanical and instrument scan skills that could get ou down an ILS (or VASI) and maybe arrest your descent and land on a big runway as long as the weather and situation was reasonable.

You are saying, "Nah, I seriously doubt it". I'm saying, "I'm thiking you probably could", and I don't think "the speed at which things unfold" is different. (By the way- I'm pretty sure that Dummy Pilot agrees with you.)

Thanks.

But if we're talking about a true non-pilot who's only flight experience is MSFS, you're ignoring the pucker factor. Sure, you can set up MSFS to give you all kinds of problems, but the guy in the back seat that had the steak trying to get a big airplane on the ground is going to be totally freaked. I have close to a thousand total VFR hours and I'd be scared shirtless. Now we can look at some pretty miraculous exceptions like the very elderly woman who got a 414 on the ground with an engine out after her husband had died in flight, or the fellow (who was at the time a low time single engine pilot) that made a picture perfect landing of a King Air after his charter pilot died in flight, but we're also talking about a couple of people that had some actual experience and skills. There is no pucker factor with MSFS. None. Get in a real world situation and face the prospect of the grim reaper paying a call and everything changes. I'm not an instrument rated pilot as you know, but I've done enough MSFS instrument flying that if I got caught in IMC I'd have a chance, maybe. A first timer? Uh uh. See JFK Jr., who had quite a bit of experience but couldn't handle a fairly simple problem and screwed the pooch.

[Gabriel]

FWIW:

With a PPL rating, few hours under the hood and in ground training devices as background, I was able to land a full flight / full-motion / level-D 737 simulator in an ILS approach at night with 200ft ceiling, significant crosswinds and a bit of turbulence.

Do I think that I would be able to do it in a real airliner? Honestly not. Because I am not trained to overcome spacial disorientation, and from previous experience I had to use all my will to ignore my "bio-inertial system" for a just 1-minute flight in real IMC.

So why I could do it in a state-of-the art pro sim? Simply put, the best full-motion "real thing" sim can't produce the motions that are the source of vertigo. Just to name one thing, it doesn't tilt when the plane banks, because if it did you'd feel a lateral force that doesn't exist in a coordinated turn. The price is that the angular motion and acceleration is not there, and that's a major source of vertigo (for example, the plane banks while you divert your attention away of the AI, but banks slowly and below the sensitivity threshold of your inner ear, you then look back to the AI, see the bank, and correct to wings level with a normal bank rate. Now your brain will be convinced that you are banked to the other side, because your brain only felt the second roll (back to level) but thinks that it started from wings level, and lacks the visual cues to zero itself (unless it is trained to do so with the only visual cue of the AI). This is a typical way how a spiral dive can start.

Do I think that I could land a real 737 with some crosswind and turbulence, in good VMC? I feel pretty confident that I'd be able to do it.

As a side note, in the 737 sim I also survived an engine fire during rotation, a windshear during approach, and a TCAS RA.