4 ms·

The simulators themselves are generally quite thorough, wherever feasible they run the same software as the plane on simulated instrument input (which can also

The simulators themselves are generally quite thorough, wherever feasible they run the same software as the plane on simulated instrument input (which can also be broken for simulation purposes). Newer planes are more and more often fly-by-wire with shakers and motors to provide the "feel" of the controls. This only makes the simulators more realistic. Note that the engineer wasn't jumping to the conclusion that there was a simulator bug, and trusted that the simulation represented the real handling (as was borne out in reality). Here is a 747 simulator on eBay to give you an idea of what's in the box: https://www.ebay.com/i/293183009463 https://www.ebay.com/i/293183009463

jessaustin 7y ago
In theory simulators are very accurate. In reality they might be. I'd expect the simulator for an existing airframe with decades of service (like your 747-400) to be more accurate than that for a new airframe. The primary purpose of simulators is training, not testing. While both the airframe and its simulator are under development, substantial inaccuracies wouldn't surprise me. TFA quotes this dude's attorney thus: "The simulator was not reading right and had to be fixed to fly like the real plane." Is that true? Is that ass-covering? How are we going to find out from this dude's testimony? Other evidence must be examined. TFA says this pilot had a hard time with the simulator. We also know that these planes crash very often. We can't just put those two propositions together to prove that the simulator predicted these planes would often crash in this particular way.