Discuss: The average Real Pilot does not have a 'more valid' opinion on flightmodels

[cichlidfan]

Expertise is a difficult thing to quantify.

 

True. Would you not agree that, under most circumstances, it takes a significant number of hours in an aircraft to develop a level of expertise.

[Pyroflash]

Does it not take rather few hours in an aircraft to become 'rated' in that type? I don't recall the numbers but I seem to remember that one could get rated in a specific type of aircraft in a matter of a few weeks if you flew frequently.

 

If that is the case then I think merely being 'rated' in a given type would not be enough experience to judge the accuracy of a sim's FM.

 

Correct, and more often than not it doesn't even take that long.

 

There are two types of "ratings" for fixed wing civil aircraft.

 

1. A type rating: Applies to large (usually above 12,500 lbs) and turbojet powered aircraft. Does not apply to many single and twin turboprops however.

 

A type rating takes a significant amount of time, requires a formal check, and is generally more or less a "checkride" for a specific model of aircraft.

 

2. Class rating: You have to have one of these in order to fly. You get this by being trained, and it shows up on your license. Class ratings refer to proficiency in a specific class of aircraft such as "airplane single-engine land", or "rotorcraft gyroplane". A class rating allows you to fly any aircraft within that class which does not require a type rating, or does not require any additional logbook endorsements for which you do not have (e.g. High Performance, and Complex).

 

Typically getting checked out in one of these aircraft takes around two to five hours depending on the complexity of the systems. Though it is important to note that getting checked out is NOT a requirement, although it is considered extremely foolish to forgo this step.

 

For example, one does not need a type rating to fly a P-51D (You still need to hold the class rating for ASL), but SHOULD probably spend a significant amount of time getting to know the aircraft with someone who is used to flying her. Because, lets face it, getting your PPL in a C-172 is probably not going to fully prepare you for flying a Mustang.

 

However you are right, the three hours I spent getting checked out in a Grumman does not qualify me in any way, shape, or form, as an expert on it.

 

Pyro, there's a difference between knowing principally how something works, and knowing the names of all the little gears and levers inside it. One of those things is useful to a professional pilot, one is not. I guarantee you all commercial pilots at least knew those things at one time (and in some cases, once a year,) but the test of their value is whether or not they remain common knowledge among professionals.

 

Sorry, I should have clarified. I wasn't suggesting that pilots should be able (or know how to) to rebuild their avionics, however I do consider it to be important knowledge to know how those avionics work internally to some extent. If only to better understand what they are showing you. Information is useless without the ability to correctly interpret it.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Pyroflash

[JimMack]

On the subject of getting back to flying basics. Look at the air accident reports of the Air France crash.

e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18720915

 

Caused by pitot tubes freezing. All the pilot had to do was neutralise controls (he kept on pulling back).

As I am sure you RL life pilots have been told in training - let the controls go, the a/c will fly S&L better than you can.

Flight sims (even those costing $Ms) are great for procedure training. Nothing can simulate the RL experience, even those with 3D motion platforms.

[Cedaway]

Can't say if the models are correct or not and I put my confidence on the calculations and simulation made by ED on their aircrafts.

Simply because the major differences between DCS Sim and R/L flights are:

1) You don't have the sensations (G's,...) behind your desktop. (For exemple: It's a lot easier to do a well coordinated turn in R/L than in the sim where you focus on the ball. In R/L, you just feel it)

2) Who the heck can validate such complicated Flight Models as the one of DCS A-10c or KA-50 BS or P-51d in appart for the test pilots who pushed it to the limits of the flight envelope? All the aspects are simmed (not extrapolated) so I'm confident in AFM.

(Can we create a new religion around AFM???;) )

[Pyroflash]

On the subject of getting back to flying basics. Look at the air accident reports of the Air France crash.

e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18720915

 

Caused by pitot tubes freezing. All the pilot had to do was neutralise controls (he kept on pulling back).

As I am sure you RL life pilots have been told in training - let the controls go, the a/c will fly S&L better than you can.

Flight sims (even those costing $Ms) are great for procedure training. Nothing can simulate the RL experience, even those with 3D motion platforms.

 

Very, very true. The problem with a LOT of commercial pilots, and airline pilots in particular, is that they are so used to flying within a specific envelope. However as soon as they encounter a regime of flight outside of their normal comfort zone, bad things start to happen. A lot of the time they are simple private mistakes that keep compounding until the aircraft crashes. I don't know how much attention people outside of the U.S. pay to the FAA's programs, but they and the NTSB have both been making a huge push towards getting airline pilots to attend upset training (how to recover from largely unnatural flight attitudes and configurations). The airlines too, are being pressured more and more here in the U.S. to mandate this training to their pilots.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Pyroflash

[chaos]

Very, very true. The problem with a LOT of commercial pilots, and airline pilots in particular, is that they are so used to flying within a specific envelope. However as soon as they encounter a regime of flight outside of their normal comfort zone, bad things start to happen.pilots.

 

Pyroflash,

Come on... now you're just being silly. Can you back that up? Give me examples, please.

 

If you're reffering to the AF crash you couldn't be further from the truth. Although it seems to be 'cut n dried' when you read the report superficially, once you delve a little deeper a different picture emerges. I can give you my take on the accident but it doesn't belong in this thread.

 

Don't make blanket statements like that... it makes you appear ignorant and I know, from you previous posts, that you're not.

[JaseGill]

Pyro,

Why do I get the idea you don't like commercial pilots much?

It seems you have, reading between the lines, some significant real life flying experience but don't rate commercial pilots? Is there a back story to this? No insult intended, just asking.

 

Here's my two pennyworth:

I'll precursor this with a caveat, I'm ex RAF Rotary wing Aircrew, but spent some considerable time at ETPS and have flown a few military types (Bulldog, Firefly, Harvard, Tucano, Hawk, Hunter, Tornado GR4, Harrier T10, Jaguar T2, Gazelle, Puma, Sea King and Lynx) though always accompanied by a type qualified pilot. I'm now a PPL and have time on Tiger Moth, C172 and some 3 axis Microlights (which I like the most - well except for the Moth maybe). My real job however is Air Traffic Control in the UK (so I have some respect for Commercial Pilots - not all of them mind there are as many numpty professional pilots as there are numpty builders, plumbers, drivers and even I can say ATC types).

 

So with all that in mind all I can say is that having had a "play" with the above and having some RL experience that yes that's helped me in Sims but only so far as knowing effect of controls and the usual rules of flight (push forward cows get bigger speed increases for no change in power setting, pull back cows get smaller speed decreases for no change in power setting, secondary effects of controls, etc etc) as is the case I suppose with most RL pilots who fly sims.

 

It also annoys me too that people often say something like "DCS is rubbish, the P51D doesn't fly as it should when the obviously have no RL P51D time. How do they know. Are the controls harmonised in their sim gear the same as a P51D controls are? Are they providing exactly the same inputs to the sim that the RL pilot has in all those You Tube videos they've probably been watching to come to this conclusion? No probably not.

 

I'll give a real life example. In the Operating Manual for a certain type I fly it says that if the aircraft is taken to the stall it will stall wings level and settle into a nose down attitude even if stalled in a turn (i.e. it will naturally, if you take your hands and feet off, roll wings level, nose down). pretty docile I'm sure all will agree and as a result its a great trainer. Now, that's based on a few criteria one being that rudder and control column are both returned to neutral at the point of departure. Now If I fly said aircraft and stall, but have rudder or stick input it will drop a wing in the direction of the rudder/stick input. Sensible don't you think?

Now, say that's the same if I set up said aircraft in a simulator and my rudder pedals have some (because of their design limitations, misuse, bad calibration, whatever reason) inability to settle at exactly central if you take your feet off them. There is an input being made that I have not demanded (rudder input) which the sim reads and see's as real rudder input thus dropping a wing in the stall as expected in RL.

Someone with less understanding of their setup and its effect on the sim will say the sim is wrong, you stall and it drops a wing. That is where RL experience mostly in the regime of effect of control input (and also lets not forget an understanding of your own sim kit) comes into play. The aircraft shouldn't do it, but it does, is the sim wrong or the sim user? As has been eluded to here quite a lot its often the user and lack of knowledge of their kit limitations that is at fault here. What would I do? Well I'd add a dead-zone of course so that when my feet are off the pedals the input to the sim is a central neutral position. My first course of action (which is often the case it seems here) wouldn't be to say the FM is wrong and the sim therefore is wrong because it doesn't stall like my favourite little trainer does.

 

That said in the above example I've seen it said here more than one that rudder pedals aren't necessary in jets and one can fly without them. If that's the case why do they still exist in the RL aircraft I wonder? Its not there for steering on the ground only. Ever tried asymmetric landings in multi engine aircraft (jest included) and tried to not use the rudder I wonder? I very much doubt it. That is one comment you'd wouldn't ever hear from a RL pilot for sure, so maybe there is something in it after all...

 

I've been lucky enough to fly a few commercial simulators, Military and Civil, even they aren't 100% right. As someone said here a balanced 30 degree bank turn is much easier in real life due to "feel". You can feel the aircraft slip and slide around and subsequently use stick and rudder inputs to keep the ball centred by feel without even looking at it in most cases, in the sim you only have the ball as reference and are as such heads down much more than in RL. Try even a 6G pull in the sim and see how you physically react. Can you still maintain situational awareness, can you even stay conscious? Well of course you can the screen may go grey/black and you will recover in no time, in RL its not quite the same. In RL you may not wake at all and end up being the next subject for the AAIB.

 

That's the biggest difference between sim and RL, "feel", sensation, even sound in a lot of cases. You don't have to be a RL Pilot to know this, or have flown the RL Commercial/Military simulator for the type in mind but I think it helps.

[Pyroflash]

Pyro,

Why do I get the idea you don't like commercial pilots much?

It seems you have, reading between the lines, some significant real life flying experience but don't rate commercial pilots? Is there a back story to this? No insult intended, just asking.

 

That's the biggest difference between sim and RL, "feel", sensation, even sound in a lot of cases. You don't have to be a RL Pilot to know this, or have flown the RL Commercial/Military simulator for the type in mind but I think it helps.

 

No, I am fine with commercial pilots, there has been extensive research behind the multitude of airline crashes within the continental United States (and outside, especially in Canada.) that proved them to be preventable had the pilots developed good CRM and retained their private pilot skills. I will try and see if I can't dig some articles up for you later. There have, in some cases, been crashes where pilots with one broken instrument, have taken an aircraft from 30,000' to the ground in stall without ever recognizing what was going on. This is why the FAA and NTSB have been pressuring the airlines so hard with providing pilots with upset training.

 

Just to be clear though, many of my good friends are commercial pilots. Though most of them have extensive time in a Pitts, or an Extra 300.

 

 

In reference to the sims though, DCS is actually more accurate than most of the commercial $150/hr flight sims that I have flown over the years. F.e the Cirrus sim had terrible ground handling (Think FC2 on ice), and slow speed flight results in an absolute mess. Don't even get me started on the instrument panel. The secondary steam altimeter jumps in 300' increments and the static lag is FAR overdone in the sim. I haven't "flown" that particular one though for quite some time, but I remember it to be an interesting experience.. IMO, only really useful when it comes to learning procedures and systems management ala A-10C DTS, except bigger, and with an actual cockpit. I think the biggest thing that people discount is the effect of "flying with your butt". You learn really quickly flying aerobatic aircraft, that a lot of corrections are able to be made IRL because you can feel the onset of them some time before they actually occur. Without proprioceptive sensors, I would expect flying in a Mustang to be as challenging, if not more challenging to me IRL than in the sim. People without a lot of seat time in an aircraft with no gyros may not understand this readily, or it may seem absurd, but it makes a world of difference for people who spend a significant amount of time relying on them as their sole attitude and acceleration reference.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Pyroflash

[Yskonyn]

Very, very true. The problem with a LOT of commercial pilots, and airline pilots in particular, is that they are so used to flying within a specific envelope. However as soon as they encounter a regime of flight outside of their normal comfort zone, bad things start to happen.

 

I do not know where you got this widom from, but I disagree and I find it rather insulting to the many proficient pilots out there and feel I have to point something out before returning back on topic;

Of course there are pilots out there who lack proper skills. Just like the are bad apples in every other profession. But what is a LOT? And where do you get this impression from?

Granted, I have no idea how airline companies (are required to) train ther crews in the US, but here in (Western) Europe unusual attitude and upset training is a very big issue and commonly trained.

Also in the whole discussion I feel the focus is being put on the amount of hours needed to get type-rated and gauge this as some sort of quality measure.

 

if you want to put it that strongly, then yes, getting type-rated is like getting your driver's license after a lesson or 20 (20 hours!) and you are legally allowed to take a car and drive amongst others on the open roads. You are a low-timer, haven't seen many abnormal situations yet in your 20 hours of experience, but yet you can do whatever you want on the road. Purely based on 'stick time'.

 

A type-rating consists of a week or two of ground school, getting through the flight manuals and company manuals, close with an exam and then get in the sim. Do 10 sessions of 4 hours, close with an exam and finally jump in the aircraft to finish off the type-rating with hands-on circuit training.

You are now type-rated for the aircraft, but the training still continues for about a month where you start line-training; flying pax (or cargo) as an F/O with a specially trained line-training captain.

 

I agree this is a fairly short course (approx. 3 months), but we seem to easily step over the fact that before you can even think about getting type-rated you first need to get your commercial license.

The theory this entails alone is massive! An overkill almost where aerodynamics, navigation, instrumentation (with technical bits and parts included) and all other aspects are being taught.

15 subjects which need to be finished in a mere 8 months and you have to score at least 70% on each test to pass.

 

High pressure, with a LOT of things to get in your mind in a small amount of time.

This is usually a part where those who cannot cope will exit first, because it takes determination, insight and discipline to get through this phase at all.

 

Does the aspiring-airline pilot know everything after this? Not not at all and many subjects will start to float into the back reaches of his mind rather quickly.

BUT the 'blue-prints' have been stored; he has been introduced to most subjects in such a sufficient manner that he understands the subject eventhough he might not readily be able to make a presentation of it in front of a group of people if asked.

Yet, he does have enough knowledge to know where to look and find if he needs to get into the details again. This should not be underestimated.

 

Also, the point Chaos made is very valid.

Boeing writes their documentation on a need-to-know basis. The maintenance manuals are where all the nuts and bolt of the aircraft are explained, not the flight manual.

 

While there are indeed situations where you could benefit from knowing the intricate details about a system when you are trying to troubleshoot, these are usually the situations where you have a non-normal for which no clear checklist exists.

A thing that is getting more and more uncommon with strides made in procedures upgrades and technology advances.

 

On the other side, knowing too much might also hamper your decision making in that you start to over evaluate the situation.

(Picture a situation where you are in rough weather, in busy airspace with a given non-normal situation and perhaps low on fuel. You are not on the ground able to think about it with a cup of coffee in a nice chair next to your parked aircraft. There is no flight-freeze button.)

 

There is no clear-cut answer.

 

Back to gauging a flight model in a sim; The fact that real pilots are proficient in pitch/power principles, flying airspeeds in relation to weight, etc. Makes them having an easier time gauging whether a flight model is realistic or not.

But that's a more 'hands-on' skill than it is a scientific one and it only applies in a general sense (it being realistic or arcade). Being able to say anything about the flight model in question is only valid with actual time in the real aircraft. No other knowledge will do. You do not learn to fly out of a sheet of paper with data, you do it hands-on.

 

Tactile input has been brought up, but that's something that can only be felt in the real aircraft. Even Level-D full flight sims are not 100% accurate regarding this (though they do get close enough).

I, myself, even found I find sims harder to fly because I am so used to relying on those tactile inputs from the aircraft.

In the sim you need to rely on visual cues for everything. A thing that becomes more and more unnatural as your real life flying experience builds.

I'd even argue that this might even throw real pilots a bit off, while gauging a desktop sim's flight model.

It feels a little 'dry' to line up the numbers at times. It remains a computer program, so if the numbers align it will stay there and do what it's programmed to do.

A trick you can use in any simulator (even Level-D's) to fly a super steady ILS approach if you know your pitch and power settings. :D

 

 

Furthermore, I believe many pilots will quickly digress once the discussion starts about intricate aerodynamics and physics calculations.

But this is more the world of aircraft builders than pilots anyway. ;)

 

So my point is, they are not all-knowing by any stretch. They do however have better 'qualificatons' to make educated guesses, so to speak. But this only applies in the general sense as I pointed out above (gauging whether a flight model is arcade-ish or more realistic).

 

For specic situations (like a given airframe flight model or intricacies and differences between flightmodel A and B of the same aircraft) experience (on the actual platform) is the big factor.

And then; an ab-initio pilot is less knowledgeable than Sully Sullenberger. :D

Experience enforces your gut feeling, eventhough you might not be able to fully reason the cause and effects yet.

 

Considering 'flight model feel' and seeing what it does from a pilot's perspective (pitch, power, speeds, etc) I think a pilot has better credentials than a simmer alone. But talking about the why's and the how's of the same flight model and threading into the world of calculations and number crunching (and the limits of computer hardware), then being a pilot alone does not neccessarily give you better credentials.

Still, for a specific flight model the only proper qualification is actual real life stick-time.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Yskonyn

[Yskonyn]

I now realise I commented on the comparison between pilots and simmers, cause I felt this was the comparison being made further into the thread.

But the OP didn't really specificy.

 

Pilots have a more valid opinion of validity of flight model A vs B in relation to whom? The devs? Other simmers? Aircraft Builders?

 

As for the devs:

I assume the software engineers are propely versed in mathematics, physics and aerodynamic concepts. They are often aided by professionals (for example pilots who actually flew the simulated platform).

Being a pilot alone (without experience on the platform in question) does not give you any better credentials to question the FM as programmed by the devs, granted the flight model has been developed as a high fidelity model (like we have in DCS A-10C / KA-50) with the maximum effort to produce it as realistically as possible with the given hardware and software limitations.

 

I think no one as better papers than the dev team themselves, to be honest, in this case. :)

Edited September 25, 2012 by Yskonyn

[GGTharos]

^^^^

 

Right, it's a layered thing. There's the physics (here you need the formulae, the charts, etc) which the devs will typically be best at. But that gets you only to a certain point - ie. reproducing performance in the charts.

 

A pilot (hopefuly a test pilot for the given aircraft) can definitely help fill in the gaps in regimes not represented by the charts. A pilot with some scientific affinity for flying is probably most helpful.

 

Then you have 'feeling' (Within the context of a sim, not things that we know can't be put in-game, like feeling of acceleration etc), which can actually be a lot of little stuff that doesn't necessarily affect the performance of flight model - things like a shaking view, the impression of 'head movement' with turns, bending wings, vapour trails, sounds.

[Pyroflash]

Here, I found this article which describes roughly what I was trying to get at, hopefully this quells some of the qualms people have been having.

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/faa-pilot-performance-questioned-in-upset-recovery-training-334257/

 

Also, there is a lot of effort that goes into trying to balance out all of those "sensory" related effects. Too much head bobbing (while entirely realistic) also falls into the pitfall where a human's senses can adapt to and deal with a lot of the shaking and moving that comes with flying an airplane. I'm sure we all know how frustrated and angry we get though when everything is bouncing around in game and you can't see to click on anything :D

 

Which brings me to another point that has been made before. The game may have to be changed from real life in a way that makes it feel more realistic, but this in fact makes it more unrealistic. How's that for a paradox?

[Yskonyn]

Pyroflash, thanks for the linked article, its interesting and I do agree with it. It's much more nuanced, though than your (with bolded text to amplify what ticked me off):

 

Very, very true. The problem with a LOT of commercial pilots, and airline pilots in particular, is that they are so used to flying within a specific envelope. However as soon as they encounter a regime of flight outside of their normal comfort zone, bad things start to happen.

 

There is no mention of 'bad things' in the article as facts. Only that aerobatically trained pilots performed the recovery procedure with far less altitude loss.

That this might cause bad things for those not versed in aerobatics is true, but its not given at all. Only implication is made, while you presented it as fact.

The upsets are linked to loss-of-control situations. Those in turn accounted for 25% of all crashes.

There is a nuance here. They are not saying lack of knowledge of upset recovery caused 25% of all crashes. There are also other reasons for loss-of-control situations not directly related to upsets. This is beyond the scope of the document however and not further explained.

 

Interesting discussion came out of it anyway. Thanks for that, no less. ;)

Edited September 25, 2012 by Yskonyn

[aaron886]

There is a nuance here. They are not saying lack of knowledge of upset recovery caused 25% of all crashes. There are also other reasons for loss-of-control situations not directly related to upsets.

 

That's the catch. Every accident is sired by an error-chain that is rarely clearly defined. In the case of the AF crash, for example, there were many factors at play. If you think the pilots couldn't have recited for you the process of recovery from a wide variety of unusual attitudes, you're crazy. Knowing is one thing, assimilating a lot of conflicting information in a high-stress environment with poor crew coordination is another. Just something to consider.

 

Also, take FAA inquiries with a grain of salt. The FAA has to enact some kind of response to every accident. I'm not saying there isn't a problem with fundamental aircraft control out there, I'm just saying in defense of the industry, it's probably a lot less common than you might be assuming.

 

 

Without proprioceptive sensors, I would expect flying in a Mustang to be as challenging, if not more challenging to me IRL than in the sim.

Most pilots will tell you the opposite... it's easier in real life with all of that kinesthetic feedback. If you don't understand or know how that is interpreted, though, then I imagine it would be more difficult with the sensory assault that is flying an aircraft for someone who is not a pilot. I may have misinterpreted your statement there though, or perhaps it was worded backwards.

[Pyroflash]

Most pilots will tell you the opposite... it's easier in real life with all of that kinesthetic feedback. If you don't understand or know how that is interpreted, though, then I imagine it would be more difficult with the sensory assault that is flying an aircraft for someone who is not a pilot. I may have misinterpreted your statement there though, or perhaps it was worded backwards.

 

Yeah, I agree. I was getting at the idea that without those senses that people take more or less for granted, I don't think getting a handle on the Mustang IRL would be a lot easier than it is in DCS right now. The human body is amazing at adapting to changing conditions, so you have to be really really careful about what your mind is filtering out, but your body is still responding to.

 

Maybe it was worded backwards, I don't know, I haven't exactly had a lot of sleep lately, and the sleep I do get is well, pretty poor.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Pyroflash

[aaron886]

I haven't exactly had a lot of sleep lately, and the sleep I do get is well, pretty poor.

 

I feel ya there.

[Yskonyn]

Me too!

With constant early (read: get out of bed in the middle of the night) shifts and a wife who is pregnant and has trouble getting sleep herself due to the bump at the front we are having a hard time getting some decent sleep in too. :D

Ah well, the joys of life. ;)