Silvaire wrote:
I can apparently land a Caravelle, or at least a resuscitated Caravelle simulator.
I’m willing to bet that “where is switch X and what do I press for Y” was a bigger challenge that the actual hand flying?
And actually a lot of G1000 rental planes have been flown, on local/VFR profiles, with an Ipad because the renters could not work it out either
If that is the case then difference training is massively deficient. How can anyone allow a renter to fly a plane without knowing the systems is beyond me. It also is not up to examination standards. Nobody would pass a check ride in sich a plane without knowing the systems properly.
I can apparently land a Caravelle, or at least a resuscitated Caravelle simulator
If you happen to be talking about the Munich one which sadly has gone now, it was probably the very best Caravelle Sim which ever existed. And that includes any full flight sim there ever was for the se210.
I tried about 7-8 different pro full motion sims. My conclusion from that experience was that any of those was indeed easier to fly compared to a typical G.A. plane, at least in a IFR environment for somebody with some experience. Why? The level of quality instrumentation and automation far outshines what most of G.A. pilots will ever lay hand on, and despite the array of buttons that at first look a bit complicated the basic handling is indeed easy.
In particular found the A320 very very easy to fly. Compared with my TB21, the large jets had some significant advantages. To name a few. Very good quality instrumentation by G.A. standards, you can tell just by touching the stuff that failures are far between. The quality is simply in another world. And pretty much all this nice equipment is redundant. Many small G.A. planes have regular instrument failure because quality is poor by comparison and it lives the life in a constantly shaking environment. Also important is a very good autopilot and auto throttle system. Stabile platform with high wing loading, slow changes in roll, pitch, envelope protected which in most cases does away with loss of controls issues in IMC we have too much of in small planes. Very good flight radar for weather avoidance. Very good performance including climb. Pressurized not to fiddle with supplement oxygen going high. Pro equipment to handling real icIng conditions… Mordern jet engines are also super simple to handle compared with turbo pistons during flight. Set them to the power you want that’s it. No shock cooling, overheating or anything like that. A little delayed reaction is the biggest thing getting used to but no big deal…. the list of things that are better is just very long. The procedures and checklists are more complicated obviously and do require more training but in the end there to ensure safety.
To me it’s not surprising the airlines have a achieved such great safety record. Combine that great hardware with a second pilot to help share the workload and teach the less experienced, strict regulation, a pro dispatch team, high level of currency (repeating the same thing day in and out) and your well set. I also did the 14 ATPL exams before getting my IR and I think that extra theory over PPL, while interesting, does little. There are some relevant pieces in there but really much is just nice to know not needed. Real pilot experience and the equipment being much greater factors.
@Mooney_Driver, yes the Caravelle simulator you mention belongs to a friend. We occasionally hand carry parts to him that he orders on US EBay. He’s working on a different one now.
THY wrote:
I tried about 7-8 different pro full motion sims. My conclusion from that experience was that any of those was indeed easier to fly compared to a typical G.A. plane, at least in a IFR environment for somebody with some experience
I also found all GA flight simulators (including redbird) I’ve flown so far easier to fly compared to a typical real GA plane. Not sure if it’s the mental state of being safe, the lack of micro-motion or what else …
Mooney_Driver wrote:
If that is the case then difference training is massively deficient. How can anyone allow a renter to fly a plane without knowing the systems is beyond me. It also is not up to examination standards. Nobody would pass a check ride in sich a plane without knowing the systems properly.
While in principle I agree, the reality seems to be quite different. And since I made my own panel upgrade I know why: Although I would rate myself as “tech savvy” it took me about 20 hrs. of flying to start to feel comfortable with my G500TXI – and at least 5 hrs. for any major software upgrade on the TXI or GTNs.
As a renter I would be totally overwhelmed – and a few hrs. difference training can only start the learning journey.
Silvaire wrote:
We occasionally hand carry parts to him that he orders on US EBay. He’s working on a different one now.
Tell Nils best regards if you see him. His Caravelle Sim was the very best sim I have ever seen in terms of a PC based system and by far the best Caravelle Sim ever. I’ve seen both the Air Inter one and the one in Toulouse at my time, they were not anywhere as good. IMHO it is a crying shame that he stopped to use it but I hope it can be reactivated one day. If I had the money, I would have bought it when it was put up for sale. Well, maybe once the Mooney is gone one day… but I doubt it will make enough so I can afford that sim…
Nils and his family have moved to Sweden for at least the summer and we won’t be in Europe, so we won’t see him.. We do have some stuff stored and ready for the next opportunity, and are very happy to help where we can.
I found the Caravelle simulator truck-like to ‘fly’ but Nils and his father say that’s representative of the real thing. Otherwise not hard to approach and land. It was a lot of fun, and amusing to onlookers that I was sweating while sitting still 
and so on…
