Most waterlandings arn't successful (well except for the one in the Hudson) but otherwise have you heard of most planes aptempting a waterlanding? They did not end well but hopefully in the future there will be better training and procedures for that

Pilots aren't trained for all-engine-outs (except in single engine aircraft) let alone ditching. This is an EXTREMELY rare situation.CheersNick Jones

Yup, it is extremely rare for pilots to have any kind of water ditching training of any real substance (unless they are in the military, where it is often done). If there is any, it will invariably be cabin crew that get it, so they know how to don life vests properly, arm the door slides, and detach them to use them as rafts, as well as which doors it is best to use for water evacuation (incidentally, the Boeing's inflatable door slides are not fully certified, nor intended to be used, as flotation devices, although Boeing do say they could theoretically be used as such if they had to be, as can the seat cushions of course).Funnily enough I did actually once do some ditching training for a flight on a helicopter that I had to make way back in the early nineties (as a passenger), but it was more about getting familiar with the immersion suit you had to wear for the flight, since it was out to a gas rig at sea and so it was a legal requirement to wear one and to do the training course. All it consisted of was basically sitting in a mock up of what looked a bit like a SeaKing, which was suspended over a pool on a hydraulic rig; it got dropped into the pool and rolled inverted when under the water (which we were told is what happens when the rotor blades hit the water) so you could practice when to hold your breath and how to let it go and learn how to get out of it through the hatches and such. Most of us doing that course were convinced it was of dubious use given how rapid autorotation descent rates are and how rough the sea can be, in spite of the nice training films we had to watch were it all went smoothly, and so treated it as a big joke (when the instructors were not within earshot of course).The flight training manuals of most aeroplanes do actually have some info about landing on water, but it is generally about how to tell which way the wind is blowing when observing the waves and pointing out that you should try to land along the swell and not nose it into any big oncoming waves (like you couldn't work that out), although the vast majority of that info would be completely useless at night when you wouldn't really be able to judge the height you were at over the water. Beyond that, there are sometimes side-view diagrams of conveniently intact aeroplanes sitting on calm water to show the angle at which an aeroplane will settle at when floating (that's so you know which doors to open and which to leave shut), since an aircraft would invariably not be floating level on the water, if it managed to stay in one piece that is.Al

While on the topic of ditching, there is actually a ditch checklist in my NGX QRH. It goes for 4 pages and talks you through the procedure regarding speeds and rate of decents. Interesting to read all comfortable at home, very scary if you had to pull it out in the real airplane.

But have a look at what Howard Hughes at the controls of in your Avatar picture. Al

Yes indeed. Mr Hughes and his Hercules.But lets be fair, no jet liner is designed to be ditched, which is what makes the whole Hudson thing so amazing. Friction of water at those speeds, add that to the surface area of the underbelly, and the even angle you need to be to prevent the wing tips from catching the water, very small window for success there. No plane manufacturer is going to design for a water landing contingency at the severe cost of aerodynamics that would entail. It just doesn't make sense. It is far sensible to invest in more reliable systems than for the off chance you need to splash the thing down.Or you do what Matt Damon said in his guest role on 30 Rock:"You know what a good pilot does in that situation? Not hit a flock of birds." [sic]

Funnily enough I did actually once do some ditching training for a flight on a helicopter that I had to make way back in the early nineties (as a passenger), but it was more about getting familiar with the immersion suit you had to wear for the flight, since it was out to a gas rig at sea and so it was a legal requirement to wear one and to do the training course. All it consisted of was basically sitting in a mock up of what looked a bit like a SeaKing, which was suspended over a pool on a hydraulic rig; it got dropped into the pool and rolled inverted when under the water (which we were told is what happens when the rotor blades hit the water) so you could practice when to hold your breath and how to let it go and learn how to get out of it through the hatches and such. Most of us doing that course were convinced it was of dubious use given how rapid autorotation descent rates are and how rough the sea can be, in spite of the nice training films we had to watch were it all went smoothly, and so treated it as a big joke (when the instructors were not within earshot of course).Al

I was UKSF for 9 years Al. Did MANY a scary thing in that time. NONE scarier than what you describe. For some reason, that training module scared the **** out of me. Thankfully, it was never required for real (phew!)

Check this out. http://forum.avsim.net/topic/340367-hi/

CONGRATULATIONS! You've managed to reverse my thinking of whether I would purchase an addon based on the price and what type of aircraft it is to I HAVE TO GET THIS THING no matter how much it costs. Although I don't have unlimited funds if it is TOO expensive in my opinion I will have to wrestle with that purchase not to mention with my wife. Normally I am a low slow GA flier but I LOVE this thing so far and I can only hope it's as good in the delivered product to a 4Ghz machine with no glaring show stopper bugs on release.

... I will have to wrestle with my wife.

I love wrestling with my wife!!! :(

I built my PC in March of 2009. It's an i7 920, which I have OCed to 3.6 Ghz in the simplest way possible (set bios to auto .. I don't do voltages). For cooling I use a Corsair H50. The mother board is an Asus P6T Deluxe. For graphics, I have an EVGA GTX285 with 1GB.

Wow, that's EXACTLY the same as mine, the only difference is that mine was built in May 2009 and still has 6 Gb of Ram instead of 12. Crossing fingers, on Monday FSX will arrive on my computer... My concern is anyway how things will be with complex sceneries, clouds and the 737...

Wow, that's EXACTLY the same as mine, the only difference is that mine was built in May 2009 and still has 6 Gb of Ram instead of 12. Crossing fingers, on Monday FSX will arrive on my computer... My concern is anyway how things will be with complex sceneries, clouds and the 737...

James, I'm using REX, Orbx, NY Megascenery, and all kinds of addon airports along with MyTrafficX and I'm very satisfied (sometimes even surprised) at the performance I'm pulling down with the PMDG 737NGX. The only difference between your machine and mine is that I have mine clocked up to 3.6 with turboboost (I could probably go higher, but I keep hyperthreading on for other applications and that pushes up the heat a bit). When you get FSX set up, be sure to head over to Bajote's Tweaking and Tuning tool for FSX and run your fsx.cfg through this tool. Really improved things for me, and aside from adjusting sliders (which I keep very high) I haven't done any other tweaking (I HATE tweaking).

When you get FSX set up, be sure to head over to Bajote's Tweaking and Tuning tool for FSX and run your fsx.cfg through this tool. Really improved things for me, and aside from adjusting sliders (which I keep very high) I haven't done any other tweaking (I HATE tweaking).

Ya know, I knew about that webpage for a while now, I even linked it to someone who wanted help but I never actually used the tool myself. I never bothered because I have done a bunch of tweaks already and was happy with the results assuming I would get no gain from that tool. Just then I decided to try it anyway after seeing your post, I did a loaded a standard situation I always use to check frame rate changes and before the tweak I was at 45-48fps (and happy), after this tweak (which I assumed I would gain nothing) I am now at.......58-60 fps..... Wow, thanks for bringing this up again and thank you ******* (Bogote) Everyone should use this tweaking tool, no exceptions.

The only difference between your machine and mine is that I have mine clocked up to 3.6 with turboboost (I could probably go higher, but I keep hyperthreading on for other applications and that pushes up the heat a bit).

Vin, yesterday I tried to go up simply by changing the BCLK Freq parameter in the BIOS setup to 180, with CPU Ratio to 20, thus having 3.6 GHz. I did some tests with FS9 and temperatures were quite acceptable, even if a bit high. But, when I flew on the FSDreamteam JFK scenery, I got a CPU overtemperature, with the core 0 reaching 85 °C. The room temperature was quite high (almost 27 °C), but I got a bit scared and lowered the frequency to 3.4 GHz, anyway better than the 3.2 I had until yesterday. You mention "turboboost", what is it?Thank you.James

what is "hyperthreading" do and will it work on the i7 870?

turboboost is something that the newer intel cpu's have ... they will automaticly clock up if needed if the temps are fine of course

what is "hyperthreading" do and will it work on the i7 870?

If you haven't deactivated hyperthreading you have it with the i7 870 ... that just mean every core of your cpu is having 2threads (small version of 2 cores to say simple but not correct overall)so windows sees your cpu as '8core or 8threads' dispite having only 4coresJust open task manager and you will see it

oh, that why I have 8 cores showing on my screen? it says it is locked @ 2.93Ghz :)