Would it be possible, for the NGX, to let the user specify not only the amount of failures per time cycle, but the length of the time cycle itself. For example, I'd like to have failure events once a month, and, say, 2 failures max per flight. Your newer aircraft seem to share the interface for configuring failures, so would it be possible to make the change I suggested or at least make it possible to choose "x failures/month" instead of per week?

As we've heard from the PMDG team they are redoing the whole module for failures. They said we'd be blown away. There were even some ideas to having it for the J41 but it wasn't to be. But for the NGX, that's for sure, from what they say.

The best failure system, would be the one based on real world statistics. Some bad things happen, but not all the time. If You will get two left engine failures per month, You will get bored fast, but if You will get one critical failure after 3 years of flying your plane... man You will be delighted! What is the point of other failure system? Would You board a real airplane knowing that something will get broken 30000ft agl? ;)

I know airlines where to dispatch with things not functioning (or deferred) is just company policy. ;)On average there is one in-flight fire per DAY resulting in a forced landing. More for other things. Still wanna fly?Best regards,Robin.

Sure, so You take: one in-flight fire per DAY divide it by number of airplanes in air per DAY, and You get the right probability of this kind of failure and put it into failure system. Easy and realistic. And hell yeah, I still wanna fly! ;)

I know airlines where to dispatch with things not functioning (or deferred) is just company policy. ;)Best regards,Robin.

I don't know airlines that would NOT do this.Even 'new' delivered aircraft may have some deferred defects.Regards,Harry

I don't know airlines that would NOT do this.Even 'new' delivered aircraft may have some deferred defects.Regards,Harry

Exacly. After all it's an incredibly complex machine.

http://avherald.com/

The best failure system, would be the one based on real world statistics. Some bad things happen, but not all the time. If You will get two left engine failures per month, You will get bored fast, but if You will get one critical failure after 3 years of flying your plane... man You will be delighted! What is the point of other failure system? Would You board a real airplane knowing that something will get broken 30000ft agl? ;)

+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1It would force you to do your checklists!!!Carlos G-R. SPAIN. LESO.

The best failure system, would be the one based on real world statistics. Some bad things happen, but not all the time. If You will get two left engine failures per month, You will get bored fast, but if You will get one critical failure after 3 years of flying your plane... man You will be delighted! What is the point of other failure system? Would You board a real airplane knowing that something will get broken 30000ft agl? ;)

Spot on. Basically, the failure system should have a mode where the aircraft is well-maintained and airworthy. You have every reason to expect the aircraft will complete its flight (and many future flights) without a significant failure. But, you can never assume....Sure, it is fun and useful to crank up the failure generator and practice abnormal procedures, but the generator should have an "airworthy" mode.EDIT: I remember an ATP who once commented on this subject. He said most ATP(s) today, including himself, go through their entire *career* without a single, significant failure. The generator should be capable of generating that type of probability (as an upper range).Roland