Can Anyone Land a 747?
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: XJT CA
Posts: 528
So much for no spoilers. Spoilers follow!!!
a: It was really awkward. The flight deck was of a 757/767, but the aircraft they showed was an A321 from FSX -- the device they were using (I could regocnize it by the graphics).
b: The first time they did it without help, it was hilarious. One guy hit the ground going 300 kts without the gear or flaps down -- because nobody was there to help him -- and the other pulled up to around 90 degrees nose up when he heard the "pull up" warning, stalled, and hit the ground. When they had help, the guy in the control center had all the pilot's instruments so he could micromanage and tell him to correct whatever, and it was also much easier to give commands -- a facility a pilot in a control tower trying to direct down a commercial flight wouldn't really have. Either way, they started with the autopilot in the flights where the tower helped them, and on the first one, I'm pretty sure they set up an autoland. The second one flared above the runway for a few thousand feet and touched down on the very left side, but still landed. Oh, and if you were wondering, the winds were calm and the skies were clear.
a: It was really awkward. The flight deck was of a 757/767, but the aircraft they showed was an A321 from FSX -- the device they were using (I could regocnize it by the graphics).
b: The first time they did it without help, it was hilarious. One guy hit the ground going 300 kts without the gear or flaps down -- because nobody was there to help him -- and the other pulled up to around 90 degrees nose up when he heard the "pull up" warning, stalled, and hit the ground. When they had help, the guy in the control center had all the pilot's instruments so he could micromanage and tell him to correct whatever, and it was also much easier to give commands -- a facility a pilot in a control tower trying to direct down a commercial flight wouldn't really have. Either way, they started with the autopilot in the flights where the tower helped them, and on the first one, I'm pretty sure they set up an autoland. The second one flared above the runway for a few thousand feet and touched down on the very left side, but still landed. Oh, and if you were wondering, the winds were calm and the skies were clear.
The first attempts had calm winds but it was stated that the assisted attempts had a headwind (I know, big deal) and a little turbulance.
#42
#43
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: XJT CA
Posts: 528
OK, so I'm bored and skimmed through the epsisode again, thanks to TiVo, and skimmed through airliners.net. I found that it was a NASA variant of something. The sim was at NASA Ames Research facility, not FSX, so I'm guessing that it was a sim of one of their aircraft. 1st, I don't know all of NASA's a/c but I thought they used Boeing's like most gov't entities, not Airbus. It had a side-stick that was slightly different from the A320/18/19/21 pics I saw. The throttle quadrant looked similar to the Boeings but none even came close to identical. On the show I never saw the long-throw gear handle that Boeing uses. The cockpit in the sim wasn't Boeing brown but the PFD and MFD looked more like Boeing, not like ABI. There were other similarities that resembled Boeing but none of the mcould confirm anything.
So my unofficial conclusion is that the sim is that of some NASA variant but I was unable to determine the aircraft. The narrator said it was modeled after a "generic airliner." So, being that it's at a research facility, could it be for research only and the side-stick is for the military pilots being researched? Or just a training platform?
So my unofficial conclusion is that the sim is that of some NASA variant but I was unable to determine the aircraft. The narrator said it was modeled after a "generic airliner." So, being that it's at a research facility, could it be for research only and the side-stick is for the military pilots being researched? Or just a training platform?
#45
That makes sence siince the show is filmed in the San Francisco Bay area. The NASA facility is located at Moffett field about half way between SFO and SJC. They have all kinds of interesting sims down there. One of them is capable of generating minus G's for brief moments. The cab is mounted on a elevator like mechanism so it can move up and down very rapidly. It is also the home of, one of, if not THE world's largest wind tunnel.
#46
Wow, you guys must not have been paying attention.
They clearly say in the show that the sim cockpit is just a generic airliner cockpit.
The computer graphics on screen have nothing to do with what the cockpit is or isnt supposed to be modeled after. Its just 0's and 1's. You can make the computer model look like Snoopy's dog house if you really wanted to.
That cockpit is obviously not at all a 100% Boeing or Airbus product. Just a mish mash of parts stuck together in a motion sim cab. Nothing more.
Anyways...I found the show only so-so.
They clearly say in the show that the sim cockpit is just a generic airliner cockpit.
The computer graphics on screen have nothing to do with what the cockpit is or isnt supposed to be modeled after. Its just 0's and 1's. You can make the computer model look like Snoopy's dog house if you really wanted to.
That cockpit is obviously not at all a 100% Boeing or Airbus product. Just a mish mash of parts stuck together in a motion sim cab. Nothing more.
Anyways...I found the show only so-so.
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: XJT CA
Posts: 528
Well, it's not that outlandish to assume that the simulator was that of a real aircraft. After all, sims of that size and complexity are built and designed to simulate the flight characteristics of real aircraft. In fact, their characteristics and nuances, and everything related to flight, are continuously updated from data collected on the actual flying aircraft. So the longer the sim is in use, the more accurate it is. So if it is a generic sim, what exactly does it simulate? You can't simulate something that doesn't exist. If it weren't NASA, it wouldn't be that crazy to assume it was an actual aircraft. But because it is NASA, I'm assuming it's a research platform.
#48
Haven't we seen then the conveyor belt riddle argued ad-nauseum?
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/showthread.php?t=1762
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/showthread.php?t=1762
We went through this about a year or so ago....
Enough already
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post