First of all I ahve to appologize to all who had to endure the crap Toronto FIR on that certain network. I disconnected from it when Center ATC decides to reduce my speed and spin me on the decent profile. All my numbers were fine and I was making great time for WASIE @10000... What ever!!!! Toronto will never be the way it was, regardless of there feable attempts. Ok enuf of that!!!___________________If you flew at M0.84 like many of you did, you are disqualified. Your PIC would have burnt up.Here are my results Departure time EGLL: 13:22Z Arival CYYZ: 2100 TTL: 7:38 min M0.80Fuel used 32.2 Tonnes http://www.charityflight.com/dep.jpghttp://www.charityflight.com/arr.jpg

Bill,Anyone with a BAW callsign that was getting large tailwinds and flying their 767 like a 747 at M0.84 is automatically disqualified. :lol.You could well be the winner for flying at Mach 0.80 all the way.If I hadn't had numerous PC problems I reckon at M0.82 on Nat C I would have taken about 7 hours to reach Toronto.In the end I flew CYHZ to CYYZ for the heck of it.

I understand that Dean flew M0.80 the whole route as well, but I flew TRAC B, he did not and the wind god's were with me, not him LOL

Cost Index of 9999 gave me a cruise of .84... that aint cheating dudeNevertheless,after my plane bouncing violently on 27Left in EGLL as I was lining up and I lost my Nose Gear as a result-I ended up not recording my time(too peeved off :-mad)Still the approach was alright, in particular-my landing which was a greaser on the numbers ;)RegardsJohnhttp://www.bavirtual.co.uk 650Hours ;)P 2.53 GHZ512 RAMWINXPGFORCE 4 128MB Ti4600http://vatsim.pilotmedia.fi/statusindicato...;indicator=AP1" alt="My Current VATSIM Status">

Yep, M0.8 and Trak G which was a bad decision as canuks 303 and 856 kept reminding me. Bastads :-lol A steady flight really until toronto approach when he said he couldn't see me on the scope. After reconnecting he'd forgotten I'd requested the visual 15L, started vectoring me for 6L then forgot to give me a base turn and intercept loc. Probably added another 5 mins to give me a snail like 8hrs 24mins.

"Cost Index of 9999 gave me a cruise of .84... that aint cheating dude"If you can point us to a real life operator that uses a CI of 9999 for transatlantic flights I'll eat my mouse mat ;-)

Here here!!!! 767's don't cruise at Mach .84 unless someone's house is on fire....bloody cheating arses ;-) Shame...shame...

Easy guys...whats with these negativity? If I recall the Idea of the race was to have fun and enjoy the flying...I did the race too I had good fun....even though my time sucked...and whats with the BAW pilots bashing...come on guys. we're all part of one big happily family...thanksPROUD BAW PILOT

UMMM... Arent ye guys forgetting something? The whole Idea was to get there as fast as possible. You're preaching reality to me-When have you EVER seen any Real World pilots in real planes directly Race each other in similar cirumstances?RegardsJohnhttp://www.bavirtual.co.uk 650Hours ;)P 2.53 GHZ512 RAMWINXPGFORCE 4 128MB Ti4600http://vatsim.pilotmedia.fi/statusindicato...tor=OD1&a=a.jpg

The idea was to race within the boundaries of a "simulation"...of real world operations and weather, not a "game" of who puts the pedal down more. 767's don't fly at Mach .84 in standard operation to my knowledge.Next time I will fly at Mach .86 'cus the idea is to get there as fast as possible and the Vne for the 767 is Mach .86 so why not, eh?...............Perhaps next time, there should be a defined restriction of Mach .82 (as in real world) to avoid this kind of issue coming up again...then it becomes a race against winds and route/wind distance...and maybe a curve for fuel burn added in to complicate things...make it a race of effeciency -and- time.The BAW bashing was in jest, no offence intended.Rob.

My hovercraft is full of eels.DS CVA3339 / UKD149http://vatsim.pilotmedia.fi/statusindicato...tor=OD1&a=a.jpg

"The idea was to race within the boundaries of a 'simulation'..."I never breached these boundries did I? I was well within my speed constraints at FL410,which was reached using a step Climb taking Weather into Consideration("real world operations and weather").Did I refer to this race as a game? Where are you getting "not a 'game' of who puts the pedal down more".. from?"767's don't fly at Mach .84 in standard operation to my knowledge."This wasnt a standard operation Rob-this was a Race ;)And Cruising at Mach .85 or .86 would breach these coundires as the Maximum CI which can be used is 9999 which results in a .84 cruise.Perhaps you're Right Rob,more detail should be set in stone next time(Absolutely no offence or critiscm meant to the organsiser who did an excellent Job ;) ).I hope you understand where my defensive stance and tone is coming from. The even was decribed as a race-I have provided details above proving that I didnt cheat-I didnt even note the times !P.S Dont worry about us BAV folk-we do have a sense of Hunour! }(RegardsJohnhttp://www.bavirtual.co.uk 650Hours ;)P 2.53 GHZ512 RAMWINXPGFORCE 4 128MB Ti4600http://vatsim.pilotmedia.fi/statusindicato...tor=OD1&a=a.jpg

"I never breached these boundries did I? I was well within my speed constraints at FL410"FL410 is an EASTBOUND flight level outside of RVSM over North America...that was the first "breach" which I heard CYUL_CTR correcting several BAW pilots on. Also, if you got up to FL410 over the pond, I would be interested to know your ZFW and gross weight over the pond...did you exceed your MAX ALT number?"And Cruising at Mach .85 or .86 would breach these coundires as the Maximum CI which can be used is 9999 which results in a .84 cruise."You don't need to use a Cost Index figure of 9999 to alter your cruise Mach speed...simply enter a new speed in the FMC VNAV CRZ page and it will overide the Cost Index calculated Mach speed. Mach .84 would be a highly unusal cruise speed for a 767...possibly equally as 'unusual' as using Mach 86. "Did I refer to this race as a game? Where are you getting "not a 'game' of who puts the pedal down more".. from?"- Flying a 767 over the pond at Mach 84 is a "game" IMHO...anyone flying at that speed was certainly not "simulating" any real world operations, hence it became a "game"...but as you say it was a race, not real world ...for BAW pilots. I beleive the intent was to simulate real world operations in a 'race' accross the pond (the real skill being wind/weather/Route planning/forecasting)...not to fly the plane at unrealisitc cruise speeds, hence my comment about flying at Mach .86 next time (Vne).Anyhow...my results are posted and my operation of the aircraft was within the boundaries that exist in the real world operations. The intention of my post was to highlight that the cruise speed used by certain pilots was outside of the realms of reality and would reduce the validity of their results. No one is getting paid and the winner gets nothing but a kick in the arse anyhow so I am not worries about my result being less than yours.Happy landings.Rob.

I used the PONSKEY PONDEROSA flight model, but the weightys were not correct at FL310 so I descended to FL001. The weightys were still not 245. I have my Yaw DAMPER on, and my invisble click spot is engaged. Still no weightys. I am wandering because I read someware that the weighty's should be PONSKEY 111. Is that a PONDEROSA?DS CVA3339 / UKD149http://vatsim.pilotmedia.fi/statusindicato...tor=OD1&a=a.jpg

CYUL Center never Corrected any Pilots, he informed us we we approached the boundry of RVSM so we could re-adjust our Flight Level.ZFW was 245 as standard and to be honest,I didnt record the Numbers you'd like to see-So sorry I can't comment on that."You don't need to use a Cost Index figure of 9999 to alter your cruise Mach speed"-Thanks Rob,I'm well aware of that. I meant that mach .84 is the highest cruise level which the FMC will compute from the CI-I think you know what I mean."Flying a 767 over the pond at Mach 84 is a 'game' IMHO"-Rob,thats fine-you are entitled to your opinion. Next time how about you state that its your opinion. You didnt,and thats my problem because it implies that my fellow BAV pilots and I took the Race across the Pond as a "game".Rob,let me just point out,that as I read through your post,point-by-point it is becoming increasingly obvious that because I chose to Fly at a speed greater than the "standard opaeration cruise speed"-you are stereotyping all BAV pilots...? "it became a "game"...but as you say it was a race, not real world ...for BAW pilots."I find your train of though very interesting when you explain the whole idea of Mach .84 being the same as .86...I wont say anymore as you are entitled to your own thoughts and views."my operation of the aircraft was within the boundaries that exist in the real world operations"-well thats great! So this gives you the Right to criticise me now? You use the whole results thing as your reason for your postings but let me re-itterate for the 3rd time rob that I never posted any results or times...RegardsJohnhttp://www.bavirtual.co.uk 650Hours ;)P 2.53 GHZ512 RAMWINXPGFORCE 4 128MB Ti4600http://vatsim.pilotmedia.fi/statusindicato...tor=OD1&a=a.jpg