Co-pilots May Sim instead of Fly to Train

I'm not really sure where the contradictions are in this story, other
than the writer forgot (or doesn't know) that no one, NO ONE goes
from flying spam cans to a major carrier without

1) substantial flying multi-engine/multi-jet time
2) substantion full-motion simulator time

Living in Colorado I've been to the United training facility many
times (and flown the 737 sim), and know instructors there. The pilots
are required to spend a fair amount of time every year in the sims.

I don't understand what would be different with this "new approach"
to pilot training. I don't know any military that sends new pilots
out without substantial hands-on, in-the-air training.

Blanche writes:

I don't understand what would be different with this "new approach"
to pilot training.

It is psychologically distasteful to old-school pilots, who prefer to
believe that something magic occurs in a real aircraft that cannot be
duplicated in a simulator, and that this magic must be experienced in
order to learn to fly.

I don't know any military that sends new pilots
out without substantial hands-on, in-the-air training.

Some parts of the military use Microsoft Flight Simulator as part of
their training.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

It is psychologically distasteful to old-school pilots, who prefer to
believe that something magic occurs in a real aircraft that cannot be
duplicated in a simulator, and that this magic must be experienced in
order to learn to fly.

It also happens to be true.

I'm not sure where you get this stuff from but to me it's like being told -
no, more like lectured on what food tastes like by someone who has never had
a sense of taste, but has read all about it.

You will never have any credibility on the subject until you can speak from
a background of experience in both areas.

BDS

BDS writes:

It also happens to be true.

There's no such thing as magic.

I'm not sure where you get this stuff from but to me it's like being told -
no, more like lectured on what food tastes like by someone who has never had
a sense of taste, but has read all about it.

Taste is different from eating.

You will never have any credibility on the subject until you can speak from
a background of experience in both areas.

You speak only for yourself, of course.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

There's no such thing as magic.

No, but until humans can function completely separate from emotion and
stress, and the psychological impact they have on performance, experience in
a simulator will never be equal to the real thing. Confidence in one's
ability to perform a task comes from prior experience under similar
conditions - the conditions in a sim are nothing like real life.

You will never have any credibility on the subject until you can speak
from
a background of experience in both areas.

You speak only for yourself, of course.

No, I believe I speak for quite a few people here. But, even if that
weren't true, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that someone
who is talking from a background of zero experience doesn't have much
credibility in the subject matter.

BDS

I tried an experiment at work today along the lines of this discussion. We
used our ASA sim configured with a Baron as the aircraft. This sim is
approved by the FAA for flight and proficiency training - we're not talking
MSFS here, this sim is meant for IFR proficiency training.

I had two employees with zero flying experience (neither sim nor actual)
attempt the ILS-6 at KBDL with the weather at minimums (200 and 1/2). Both
of them were successful on their very first attempt when using the flight
director for guidance and although there were some huge excursions along the
way, both got the aircraft to the runway threshold - both failed very early
in the approach when they attempted to do it without the help of the flight
director.

Do I think either of them could do it for real just because they did it in
the office on the sim - nope, not a chance. What does this tell me? - just
because you can do it in the sim doesn't mean you can do it when it counts.

The sim has its place for sure, but it will never replace actual experience.

I did my first skydive quite awhile ago before tandems were popular. I
remember we went over everything on the ground at the airplane before going
up. The jump master explained everything and we went through it
step-by-step; now the door opens, now you shift yourself partially out the
door, now you hang from the strut, etc. We did that several times so
everyone felt comfortable. We all knew we were ready - it seemed pretty
simple really. Then we took off and climbed to altitude. Let me tell you,
when that door flies open and the wind is rushing by and you have to shift
yourself out the door with your foot being blown back and the ground down
there 3500 feet below, it was all quite a shock and a rush compared to that
"simulation" we did on the ground.

BDS

BDS wrote:
Do I think either of them could do it for real just because they did it in
the office on the sim - nope, not a chance. What does this tell me? - just
because you can do it in the sim doesn't mean you can do it when it counts.

True, it doesn't mean you can't either, or that some sim time wouldn't
have helped.

Think of all the non-pilots who manage to get a plane down (with some
external guidance) when the pilot is incapacitated in-flight. My wife
refuses to learn to take flying lessons, but she's comfortable doing
emergency scenarios on the sim, and it makes me feel better knowing
that she has even "just" sim practice.

For that matter, who needs sims? I remember my first flight. The CFI
let me take off and fly. He landed the first time, then I took off
again and landed (without help) the second time. Much of that was dumb
luck (and zero winds ;-) but it happens all over the country every day.

The sim has its place for sure, but it will never replace actual experience.

I "gut feel' the same way, but I'm guessing that future sims will do so
a lot... partly because actual experience doesn't let you play out a
lot of dangerous scenarios. For example, I was surprised several
years back when I tried an engine-out in clouds in MSFS just for fun.
Guess what happened as I glided down? The AI slowly spun down and
tipped over, because of no engine vacuum! Holy moly, eye opener.
This is not something that happens in real-life practice sessions
because we don't actually shut down the engine.

Regards, Kev

BDS writes:

Do I think either of them could do it for real just because they did it in
the office on the sim - nope, not a chance. What does this tell me? - just
because you can do it in the sim doesn't mean you can do it when it counts.

No, it just tells you that you don't believe they could do it for
real. Without actually trying it, you'll never know.

There's a good chance that they could do it for real, depending on
their personalities.

The sim has its place for sure, but it will never replace actual experience.

Saying that over and over doesn't make it true.

I did my first skydive quite awhile ago before tandems were popular. I
remember we went over everything on the ground at the airplane before going
up. The jump master explained everything and we went through it
step-by-step; now the door opens, now you shift yourself partially out the
door, now you hang from the strut, etc. We did that several times so
everyone felt comfortable. We all knew we were ready - it seemed pretty
simple really. Then we took off and climbed to altitude. Let me tell you,
when that door flies open and the wind is rushing by and you have to shift
yourself out the door with your foot being blown back and the ground down
there 3500 feet below, it was all quite a shock and a rush compared to that
"simulation" we did on the ground.

That was you. But not everyone is like you.

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

Simulators are used for everything, from designing bridges, to
skyscrapers, integrated circuits, airplanes and spacecrafts. Simulators
are even used for making other simulators. I doubt there is anything
done in this world today without first doing a computer simulation. In
aviation, FAA has its own definition of what a simulator is, but that
does not make every other PC based simulator just a game. We have a
ancient piece of crap at a local FBO in which you can legally log
simulator time. If it weren't for that fact, no one would pay a dime to
sit in it. But people pay $25/hr for the priviledge of using it.





BDS wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

There's no such thing as magic.

No, but until humans can function completely separate from emotion and
stress, and the psychological impact they have on performance, experience in
a simulator will never be equal to the real thing. Confidence in one's
ability to perform a task comes from prior experience under similar
conditions - the conditions in a sim are nothing like real life.

You will never have any credibility on the subject until you can speak
from
a background of experience in both areas.

You speak only for yourself, of course.

No, I believe I speak for quite a few people here. But, even if that
weren't true, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that someone
who is talking from a background of zero experience doesn't have much
credibility in the subject matter.

BDS

BDS writes:

No, but until humans can function completely separate from emotion and
stress, and the psychological impact they have on performance, experience in
a simulator will never be equal to the real thing.

That's why it's called a simulator.

However, a simulator doesn't have to provide identical experience in
order to accomplish its purpose (which, in this case, might be to
train airline pilots).

Confidence in one's
ability to perform a task comes from prior experience under similar
conditions - the conditions in a sim are nothing like real life.

They can be made as close to real life as required. Try it.

But, even if that
weren't true, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that someone
who is talking from a background of zero experience doesn't have much
credibility in the subject matter.

Anyone who depends on credibility is already making a serious mistake.

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