Co-pilots May Sim instead of Fly to Train

Nomen Nescio writes:

Then you don't have a simulator.
MSFS is not a "simulator" as you define it.
I'm glad you finally got the point that it's a toy.

I understand why you are doing this, but you'll find that I have a lot
of patience.

"Just like the real thing" means within the context of the simulator's
objectives. Many simulators qualify when used as intended. The
various NASA simulators to which you've alluded each simulated some
aspect of flight in a way that was "just like the real thing";
however, they all failed to match real life in one or more other
respects (which they also have in common with all other simulators).

Only real life perfectly matches real life. But many aspects of real
life are not important for certain well-defined tasks. One can learn
to perform these tasks perfectly from a simulator if the simulator
perfectly simulates all the important aspects of the tasks.

One can learn to use a GNS530 GPS perfectly inside Microsoft Flight
Simulator, because simulations of the unit available for the simulator
precisely duplicate its real-life functionality. You can go directly
from the simulator to the real thing without missing a beat, and
perform the task of operating it perfectly with no previous experience
in using the real thing.

The simulation of the unit does not include the three dimensional
appearance of the unit or the texture of the control knobs and
buttons, but these are unimportant to the task of operating the unit,
and so the lack of simulation is irrelevant to the simulator's realism
in context.

And since your "flying experience" all comes from a toy
that does not " behaved just like the real thing", you don't have a clue
as to what "real" flying is like.

Following that line of reasoning, the astronauts had no clue how to
land on the moon, since they could only use simulator toys before
actually attempting it. Many of their simulators were far less
comprehensive than a typical PC simulator today.

And since you don't have a clue as to what "real" flying is like, you have less
of an understanding of flight that a 10 yo kid that got a Young eagles flight
because they have been in something that "behaved just like the real thing".

As you'll see from the above, I've invalidated this assertion.

Therefore, if you want to learn about real flying, STFU and listen to people
who have been in something that "behaved just like the real thing". Even if
it's that 10 yo kid.

I don't share your emotional investment in this debate, which allows
me to remain objective and clear-headed. The role of simulation in
all types of man-machine interfaces is vitally important today, and
its importance is increasing. I've no doubt that the time will come
when people will learn to fly at least commercial airliners without
ever actually touching the real thing prior to a summary checkride, or
even prior to actually carrying paying passengers. I don't see any
technical obstacle to this. The only obstacles are psychological and
emotional.

Indeed, even today, someone with 5000 hours of intensive simulation
experience covering a very wide array of in-flight possibilities would
probably be a better pilot than someone with 5000 hours of real-world
experience spent sitting idle in a cockpit watching the figures change
on the FMC and trying not to fall asleep.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Indeed, even today, someone with 5000 hours of intensive simulation
experience covering a very wide array of in-flight possibilities would
probably be a better pilot than someone with 5000 hours of real-world
experience spent sitting idle in a cockpit watching the figures change
on the FMC and trying not to fall asleep.

An unrealistic comparison, I think. An airline pilot with 5000hrs of
real-world experience has spent a significant number of hours getting
beat up annually in a simulator exposed to a wide array of emergencies,
simple and compound. Simulators are an excellent (and necessary) part
of pilot training, but there are situations that can never be
simulated, and it is their real-world experience that pilots call upon
to save their aircraft when the shiite hits the fan.

The best example I can think of is United #232 (Sioux City, 1989). I
doubt Al Haines was ever trained to control a DC-10 without hydraulic
power to the flight control surfaces. Yet he managed to steer the jet
with differential thrust to a (scary) landing without the loss of all
aboard. There will never be a replacement for experience IMO.

Kingfish writes:

An unrealistic comparison, I think. An airline pilot with 5000hrs of
real-world experience has spent a significant number of hours getting
beat up annually in a simulator exposed to a wide array of emergencies,
simple and compound.

That would count as simulator experience. I said 5000 hours of
real-world experience.

The average airliner pilot has spent vastly more time in a real
cockpit fighting off boredom than in a simulator coping with
emergencies.

Simulators are an excellent (and necessary) part
of pilot training, but there are situations that can never be
simulated ...

A lot more situations can be simulated than experienced in real life
(if one wishes to survive the experience), and it is thanks to
simulators that pilots are better prepared for emergencies today.
Many of the things they practice on simulators would never be safe to
attempt in real life, and others are so rare that they are never
likely to see them (but at least they'll be prepared if they do).

In modern commercial air travel, which is very safe, there are many
emergencies that no pilot has ever experienced in real life; this
being so, it is impossible for a pilot to depend on any real-world
experience when dealing with such emergencies, since it is
overwhelmingly probable that he is seeing such an emergency for the
first time. Simulation greatly improves survival rates for such
emergencies by giving pilots experience with them in the safe but
realistic environment of a simulator. Without that simulation
experience, quite a few of them would be killed when the real thing
comes along. The real world doesn't train you for potentially deadly
emergencies.

... and it is their real-world experience that pilots call upon
to save their aircraft when the shiite hits the fan.

They don't _have_ any relevant real-world experience. That's why they
try simulation.

The best example I can think of is United #232 (Sioux City, 1989). I
doubt Al Haines was ever trained to control a DC-10 without hydraulic
power to the flight control surfaces. Yet he managed to steer the jet
with differential thrust to a (scary) landing without the loss of all
aboard.

Actually, there were four people controlling the plane, and it was
being steered by a DC-10 flight instructor who had been deadheading on
the flight.

None of them had any previous experience with anything like this at
all, so both real-world and simulator experience were irrelevant
(although I seem to recall that the instructor had pondered similar
scenarios in the past, but had not tried them).

The crew succeeded in part because of proper CRM, not because of
technical skills with something this foreign. They can (and do) learn
CRM in simulators, rather than in real life where it can be dangerous.

Luck also played a substantial role in this crash. The combined 103
hours of experience of the flight deck crew was definitely a factor,
but it was experience that could have been acquired in either real
life or a simulator. It was important in keeping them calm and
cooperative and organized; flying the plane was only a small part of
it.

See

http://www.airdisaster.com/eyewitness/ua232.shtml

to learn the details, including the correct spelling of the captain's
name.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
The average airliner pilot has spent vastly more time in a real
cockpit fighting off boredom than in a simulator coping with
emergencies.

No surprise here, it's a part of the job. What great insight did you
pull this from?

Simulators are an excellent (and necessary) part
of pilot training, but there are situations that can never be
simulated ...

A lot more situations can be simulated than experienced in real life
(if one wishes to survive the experience), and it is thanks to
simulators that pilots are better prepared for emergencies today.
Many of the things they practice on simulators would never be safe to
attempt in real life, and others are so rare that they are never
likely to see them (but at least they'll be prepared if they do).

No argument here, this is the simulator's purpose. Reread my statement
"Simulators are an excellent (and necessary) part of pilot training" My
point was (and still is) there are situations that can't be duplicated
in a sim due to its limitations. When these rare situations occur it's
up to the crew's experience & piloting skills (CRM too) to save their
own butts

Without that simulation experience, quite a few of them would be killed when the real thing
comes along. The real world doesn't train you for potentially deadly emergencies.

Again, no argument. You're just being repetitive here.


The best example I can think of is United #232 (Sioux City, 1989). I
doubt Al Haynes was ever trained to control a DC-10 without hydraulic
power to the flight control surfaces. Yet he managed to steer the jet
with differential thrust to a (scary) landing without the loss of all
aboard.

Actually, there were four people controlling the plane, and it was
being steered by a DC-10 flight instructor who had been deadheading on
the flight.

You're nitpicking here, Haynes was PIC and coordinated control of a
crippled aircraft. As nobody had ever dealt with this severe of an
emergency before they were using their experience & CRM and "thinking
outside the box" to save the plane. You are wrong when you say
real-world experience was irrelevant as it saved most of the people on
that plane. Steering a jet with thrust control only was probably never
taught - it was the airmanship of Capt Haynes & crew that kept all from
being lost.


The crew succeeded in part because of proper CRM, not because of technical skills with something this foreign.

Okay, you have just showed your total ignorance on this subject.
Without technical skills, CRM alone wouldn't have kept the plane from
becoming a lawn dart.


Luck also played a substantial role in this crash. The combined 103 hours of experience of the flight deck crew was definitely a factor, but it was experience that could have been acquired in either real life or a simulator.

Luck was absolutely a factor, even if you can't quantify it. The bigger
factor IMHO was the "103 hours of experience" (not sure where you got
that metric from) of the flight crew. That experience could not have
been gained in a sim because nobody (then) ever thought it possible
that all three hydraulic systems could be lost on a DC-10 so I suspect
it was never part of the sim profile. Aircraft designs have been
updated since that accident. Nowadays, having learned from UAL232 I'm
guessing there are a few more emergencies that are handled in sim
training. Included are probably double flameouts, probably fallout from
the Pinnacle CRJ crash two years ago.


It (CRM) was important in keeping them calm and cooperative and organized; flying the plane was only a small part of it.

That's what being a professional pilot is about - keeping your cool
when things aren't going exactly by the book. If you think "flying the
plane was only a small part of it" you just haven't learned a thing
from participating in this forum...

I didn't notice if you mentioned this to our Albatross (my eyes tend to
glaze over even when his crap is just being quoted...) but AFAIK, to this
date, no one has been able to bring the Al Haynes scenario to as successful
a conclusion as Capt Al did...

In A Simulator...!

Go figure.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

Kingfish writes:

You're nitpicking here, Haynes was PIC and coordinated control of a
crippled aircraft. As nobody had ever dealt with this severe of an
emergency before they were using their experience & CRM and "thinking
outside the box" to save the plane. You are wrong when you say
real-world experience was irrelevant as it saved most of the people on
that plane. Steering a jet with thrust control only was probably never
taught - it was the airmanship of Capt Haynes & crew that kept all from
being lost.

Nobody had ever done what that crew did in terms of flying. None of
their real-world experience helped. The cooperation and
professionalism of the crew had nothing to do with flying.

Okay, you have just showed your total ignorance on this subject.
Without technical skills, CRM alone wouldn't have kept the plane from
becoming a lawn dart.

The technical skills required were not especially great.

Luck was absolutely a factor, even if you can't quantify it. The bigger
factor IMHO was the "103 hours of experience" (not sure where you got
that metric from) of the flight crew. That experience could not have
been gained in a sim because nobody (then) ever thought it possible
that all three hydraulic systems could be lost on a DC-10 so I suspect
it was never part of the sim profile.

It was never part of real life, either. Nobody had any experience
with it, period.

That's what being a professional pilot is about - keeping your cool
when things aren't going exactly by the book.

That has nothing to do with flying. A great many professionals in
other domains are exactly the same way. The situation would be the
same during brain or heart surgery, with no airplane in sight.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Nobody had ever done what that crew did in terms of flying. None of
their real-world experience helped. The cooperation and
professionalism of the crew had nothing to do with flying.


You've contradicted your earlier position with this statement. Without
crew cooperation (how many did it take to control the crippled acft?)
all would have been lost.


Okay, you have just showed your total ignorance on this subject.
Without technical skills, CRM alone wouldn't have kept the plane from
becoming a lawn dart.

The technical skills required were not especially great.


Remind me again, how someone with no flight time would have *any*
insight into this?


That's what being a professional pilot is about - keeping your
cool
when things aren't going exactly by the book.

That has nothing to do with flying. A great many professionals in
other domains are exactly the same way. The situation would be the
same during brain or heart surgery, with no airplane in sight.

Yes it has everything to do with flying - WTF was the subject of this
thread? This forum?
It seems to me your reality disconnect makes it impossible for you to
follow a rational discussion (which leads to argument) When you
contradict yourself, and make broad statement without the life
experience to back it up, what little credibility you have goes down
the sh!tter.

Other than that I enjoy reading your posts : )

This is an interesting point, but I think incorrect. There was a very
interesting book about the DC-10 that came out a number of years ago. The
Sioux City incident was not the first one where control was lost, albeit for
different reasons. The locking mechanism on the cargo door of the DC-10 was
electromechanical, not hydraulic like on others. An electric motor was used
to pull toggles over center to lock the cargo door to the fuselage frame and
floor. That meant that when the locking mechanism jammed (and the locking
lever was capable of being jammed when forced to close), the fuselage
underwent an explosive decompression when the locking toggles failed,
rather than having the hydraulic mechanism gradually "overpowered" by
pressure differential. The control cables for the empennage were routed on
the underside of the floor, and when the fuselage underwent explosive
decompression, the floor buckled and the cables jammed. I think the first
incident happened over Windsor, Ontario. There was another in Ermenonville,
France. After that the DC-10 pilots actually practiced, in the sim of
course, flying the airplane by using differential thrust.

So, I agree with the premise, but I think the detail is wrong. I recognize
that in Sioux City the reason for the failure and the extent of control loss
was different. Captain Haines is one of my heroes.

The best example I can think of is United #232 (Sioux City, 1989). I
doubt Al Haines was ever trained to control a DC-10 without hydraulic
power to the flight control surfaces. Yet he managed to steer the jet
with differential thrust to a (scary) landing without the loss of all
aboard. There will never be a replacement for experience IMO.