I'm sending this again Richard as you probably didn't get it the last 
time I know you have been having some trouble with your downloads.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
First Richard I am going to change the title of this discussion to 
Simulators versus Windmilling Starts.
RB>I went through Test Pilots Training so I could check 
RB>simulators against the known data that was obtained during 
RB>Certification Flights.
I never went through Test Pilots Training as you.  Did you go through 
Edwards or Patuxent or some other school? 
RB>The airplane was checked on many parameters but even so 
RB>there are many areas that the simulator will not duplicate 
RB>like the real aircraft in flight.
As a broad area of discussion your basic statement is correct however 
you are misleading those on this Echo attempting to say or imply that 
Simulators or no good.  Agreed they are not the aircraft but not as you 
say totally either.  BTW, which Airline did you fly Captain on the 747?
RB>This is where some Accident Investigators error.  You may have heard
RB>them say after an accident, "lets go to the simulator and see if we
RB>can duplicate what happened"?  It would suprise me if they could ever
RB>get an  answer from the simulator because there was just not enough 
RB>data programmed into it for all contingencies of flight.
I think it probably is one of the best places to start and attempt to 
get some indication at least from the simulator what might have happened 
and progress with it with other areas of accident investigation.  Also 
would you give me the last year that you were involved with Simulators 
say the 747?
RB>If the proper data has been programmed into the Simulator 
RB>for a particular realm of flight,  yes, on this particular 
RB>item it is reliable or very close.
That's true.
RB>On the flip side,  don't ask it to give you information on flight 
RB>characteristics that are not available in it's memory,  it 
RB>will duplicate something that was programmed for say a 
RB>different altitude and it will be false information for the 
RB>altitude you are flying at.
Don't you agree that the altitudes that information is programed for is 
generally where most of the Simulator work is done?
RB>An example of this is best 
RB>rate of climb airspeed.  This data is usually flown on the 
RB>airplane at an altitude of, say 9.0 or 10.0., but let us 
RB>now think about using it for a crossing altitude of 37.0 at 
RB>our max. wt..  We are only a few miles from the 
RB>intersection we are supposed to be at 37.0 so we go to the 
RB>BEST RATE OF CLIMB AIRSPEED.  Well we're in for a surprise, 
RB> we will probably not get the best rate of climb at the 
RB>altitude we are now at and even if we do get to 37.0 at 
RB>this airspeed we will probably never be able to accelerate 
RB>to get 84.0 cruise.
That's a good time to reaccess your habitable altitude charts.  It 
probably means you are too heavy at that altitude and it also means that 
you are somewhat behind the power curve so to speak.  OK, so you have 
made the crossing restriction, we on the line then ask for a block 
altitude to try to regain the speed in a slight decent and with 
clearance or just ask for a lower altitude and try to climb up later 
when the weight is down.
How many times in the Simulator have you done work at 370 and used BEST 
RATE OF CLIMB AIRSPEED as a regular part of the Simulator Syllabus?
RB>Now, I am using the 747 as a test bed for the above scenerio.  Other
RB>aircraft may be able to get away with it,  I doubt it though.
I have no idea about the 747 as I have no experience in it.  In other 
A/C go back to my statement just above.
RB>The memory of the Simulator depends entirely on the 
RB>Certification Document that was compiled during the 
RB>Certification Flights,  this is the data we tried to 
RB>duplicate, if data was not available,  then the simulator 
RB>does not have it.
Agreed.
___
 X CMPQwk 1.4 #1684 X "Fighter Pilots love to talk don't they"?
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------