Making the pilot care about the systems

[AirbusA340300 0]

Failures always keep pilots on edge. when i am flying a c152 in real life on a x country or training flight, there's always that thought, what if something goes wrong? and i am constantly on the lookout for any indication of a problem. flight sim has come a long way since i started with FS2000, but there is one thing that hasnt changed, and that is the predictability. i know that in the manuals for the MD-11 and 744, and also for the LD767, it gives the proper techniques and procedures to do things. and when it comes to engines, the manuals say to follow procedure and be careful of a hot start and such. and also to moniter for fuel leaks. why? i know i will never have a fuel leak. all that it all pointless, because i know that no matter what i do, the engine will start fine, and unless i program a failure, i know that the flight will go off without a hitch and i can even skip or totally mess up some procedures and everything will still more than likely be finei know i know, PMDG has a random failures module, but the most you can set it too is 1 failure every 10 hours, and im sure that modern airliner failure rates are higher than that. thats the one thing that i like about the leonardo md-80, the engine can have a hot start, and if you give it too much power, the engine will get damaged, and also the failure rate is something like 1 in a 1000 hours. what i would like PMDG to do is to give the user the option to set the failure rate to a realistic probability, and also allow for hot starts, or compressor stalls, a fuel leak ect ect. and really make the pilots care after the aircraft and always be on the lookout for any failures, and to take the boring out of flying.adam

[FLEX1978 373]

Failures always keep pilots on edge. when i am flying a c152 in real life on a x country or training flight, there's always that thought, what if something goes wrong? and i am constantly on the lookout for any indication of a problem. flight sim has come a long way since i started with FS2000, but there is one thing that hasnt changed, and that is the predictability. i know that in the manuals for the MD-11 and 744, and also for the LD767, it gives the proper techniques and procedures to do things. and when it comes to engines, the manuals say to follow procedure and be careful of a hot start and such. and also to moniter for fuel leaks. why? i know i will never have a fuel leak. all that it all pointless, because i know that no matter what i do, the engine will start fine, and unless i program a failure, i know that the flight will go off without a hitch and i can even skip or totally mess up some procedures and everything will still more than likely be finei know i know, PMDG has a random failures module, but the most you can set it too is 1 failure every 10 hours, and im sure that modern airliner failure rates are higher than that. thats the one thing that i like about the leonardo md-80, the engine can have a hot start, and if you give it too much power, the engine will get damaged, and also the failure rate is something like 1 in a 1000 hours. what i would like PMDG to do is to give the user the option to set the failure rate to a realistic probability, and also allow for hot starts, or compressor stalls, a fuel leak ect ect. and really make the pilots care after the aircraft and always be on the lookout for any failures, and to take the boring out of flying.adam

Dont want to get too deep into it but, the minimum PMDG failure 1 in 10 hours is too high compared to real life. There are a few posts here about how the failure system could be improved, just look at the LDS 767 system and you will know what i'm talking about.Anyway if your looking for extra failures that PMDG have not added there are other programs out there. I dont use use FSPassengers for the air hostess callouts etc but it has fuel leaks, engine failures, bird strikes, rapid decompression's, left/right brake failures, Hot starts (but not from pushback into tailwindwind etc) Rob

[coturnix 1]

Quoting Mr. Randazzo from the "PMDG BAe JetStream 4100 Product overview" sticky thread:"Oh- and since you only get to see those attention getters and hear the warnings when things break- we are hard at work on an all-new failure-control module that will reflect some of the changes that you guys have been asking for over the past few years. There is some question in my mind as to whether this module will be ready for release-time, but we'll keep you posted. If it doesn't make the release- it will come to you in an update for certain. (We hate not delivering a finished product...so we'll see how it plays out...)"

[Chock 17,769]

If you check out Just Flight's Air Hauler add-on (which you can fly all the PMDG aircraft in, as well as any others you fancy), the aircraft in your fleet have to have 100 hour checks and can also incur damage from overspeeds and heavy landings etc. Their damage is listed as a percentage and that percentage, if you don't fix things, works as a chance random failure generator, with a higher percentage of damage making a failure more likely.To be honest the failures it generates never include losing an engine, but pretty much everything else can happen, from the flaps jamming to the heading indicator going on the blink, and faults will stay that way every time you use the aircraft in Air Hauler until you pay to have it repaired, so you do find yourself having to divert with failures on occasion if you have deferred a repair until later and something plays up. It's not a perfect system, but it does mean that you have to care for your aircraft and not go past VFE or overspeed it and stuff like that, and it does of course mean that you can never be certain whether it will or will not happen unless you keep your aircraft's condition at 100 percent and do the 100 hour checks on time.Might be what you are looking for to make you care for your virtual craft and fly it by the book, and of course Air Hauler itself is a brilliantly entertaining add-on anyway, so that damage factor stuff is just one of its many plusses.Al

[Guest Buzz313th]

Very true. Whens the last time you did a runup in FSX, or decided to abort the takeoff roll because something wasn't right with one of the engines. Whens the last time a prop didn't feather completely? I agree, one of the biggest factors at keeping you frosty as a competent pilot doesn't exist in the flight sim world. I too wish some developer would make a great, "Potential failure/failure generator".JB

[VIPERGTSR01 22]

I have been harping on about this for a while, Captain Randazzo has made what sounds to be good progress (hopefully) with the upcoming J41 failures module which I hope will be included in a future MD11 patch (wishful thinking) aswell. Lately due to the high frequency of failure rate (1 in 10 hours) I have been arming failures on the ground and during take off and climb (for the possibility of a failure before V1 or after) then shutting it off for some of the flight as if I leave it on I WILL get a failure at that rate and I don't want one every flight. Usually later in the flight I will arm it again.

[downscc 1,327]

A failure rate of 1 in 10 hours doesn't mean you will have one failure within that ten hours.. there are probabilities that it will occur once, twice, none or even a small chance of more than three failures. I assume the failure model uses some form of the Poisson distribution for error rates... anybody remember their high school stats?

[VIPERGTSR01 22]

A failure rate of 1 in 10 hours doesn't mean you will have one failure within that ten hours.. there are probabilities that it will occur once, twice, none or even a small chance of more than three failures.

Thats right, but when I have it armed on long flights I still get atleast 1 most the time.... Seems to me I get them more often then I should going by the odds (on average), dunno maybe it's my bad luck but whatever the case it is waaay too frequent for me to just leave it armed all the time which is unfortunate as I like dealing with failures from time to time. (without expecting it)

[michal 44]

I assume the failure model uses some form of the Poisson distribution for error rates... anybody remember their high school stats?

Of course Dan, it is Poisson though I doubt they teach it in high schools :( . I don't know what the issue is - you should be able to set whatever probability you wish and Poisson distribution should generate the actual "hits". Whether someone prefers 1 in 10 hrs versus 1 in 10000 hrs - it should not matter, the software should be able to handle it.