Now, the chances that both engines recieved enough birds each to render them both completely inoperable are slim

In Sullenbergers own words. "About 90 seconds after take off I noticed there were birds filling the entire windscreen from top to bottom, left to right, large birds.. too close to avoid. You could hear them, loud thumps. It felt like the airplane being pelted by heavy rain or hail, it sounded like the worst thunderstorm I'd ever heard growing up in Texas. It was shocking". I think it's extremely likely the engines received enough damage to render them inoperable.

FlightSimLabs who made Concorde X are making an Airbus A3XX Master Collection which will have all Airbus aircraft in PMDG Quality. FlightSimLabs CEO is the ex-CEO of PMDG. FlightSimLabs Website: -- http://flightsimlabs.com/

I never knew Leftaris was the Ex-CEO of PMDG??? I was always under the impression that RSR founded and led PMDG from the get go....

Lefteris Kalamaras was not the CEO of PMDG. RSR started the company and has always been President & CEO. Lefteris was a programmer here.

Lefteris Kalamaras was not the CEO of PMDG. RSR started the company and has always been President & CEO. Lefteris was a programmer here.

- my two cents worth- Lefteris( who hated to be called "lefty") programmed the original NG for FS2002/04, and the Queen. Shortly after the Queen for FSX, he jumped ship. EDIT- and he provided "supporting" development on the MD11

Yes, FBW is designed to make you safer, but its main idea is to make an aircraft more effeceitn. How? Well with FBW, a computer is constanlty trimming the aircraft, keeping it stable for the pilot. With the airliner, they can make teh aircraft less stable, because the computer can maintain stability at all times. By making it less stable, you can improve aerodynamics, and do more with teh airframe, because measures to maintain stability in a manually controlled aircraft are built into the plane, however it loses aerodyamics so that it can be stable. Jet fighters that use FBW, F-35, F-22, Rafaele, cannot be flown if all computers shut down, it is too unstable to possibly control, so teh pilot would eject. The airliner can be flown if all computers are lost (rudder and elevator trim are non-computer), but they aren't made as unstable as fighters, since 100-400 people can't eject (it would be cool though!). For Airbus, I think they're designes aren't as safe as Boeing, because Boeing allows the pilot to override the computer whenever he chooses, in the Airbus, it maintains measure to 'save' the aircraft until there is a dire emergency; that cannot be overridden at any time. For US Airways flight 1549, I beleive the Airbus logic contributed to the loss of the plane, because during the birdstrike, I believe that the measures programmed to save the plane and components shut off both engines, in case of damage, preventing restart. Now, if you see a video of a plane gulping up a bird/birds, it has flame-outs, its spitting out junk in a fireball, and many times the engine continues operating. Now, the chances that both engines recieved enough birds each to render them both completely inoperable are slim; my hypothesis is that the computers, in measures to save the engines, shut them off permanently, so restart could happen. Airbus and investigators would never admit this if true, because it would cause panic, thats my hypothesis. I also don't like how Airbus put a pitot-tube on the A330 that wasn't sufficient to deice the pitots at temperatures that occaisonally are reached. But that acciden twas pilot error. I don't see how you could favor the European-French plane if you're American, especially if you're a servicmember. Boeign has made the best jet airliners since the 1950's, with the 707 onwards. Even acclaimed Douglas lost that with the DC-10, their only bad design. You're like a guy born in Los Angeles, with Californian parents and family that roots for the Celtics instead of the Lakers. You've got a champion team at home, why go to the enemy of your home-team.

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. Just to bat down one of the many incorrect things you said, the pilot can at anytime turn off the FBW computers. As for 1549, both engines were damaged enough to make them inoperable. They hit more than one bird. I'll leave it at that because I think it is dumb to sit and debate who makes a better metal tube with wings. They are airplanes, get over yourself. So because I am American I HAVE to like Boeing? You're almost worse than those church guys that come to your door and shove their religion down your throat. To say Boeing has made the best jetliners since the 1950s is nothing more than YOUR opinion, there is no facts to back up a claim like that or vise versa. Judging by your grammar and lack of knowledge, I'd say it is safe to say your probably a kid, still in school.

- my two cents worth- Lefteris( who hated to be called "lefty") programmed the original NG for FS2002/04, and the Queen. Shortly after the Queen for FSX, he jumped ship.

Peter- This is not factual information. All projects released by PMDG are the result of a team effort. The individual you mentioned was but one member of a team of very talented folks and his contribution was no more or less important than any other individual.

It wasn't this Peter that said it! Anyways, thats my hypothesis, however I would still say that at least one engine may have remained operable. We'll never know the exact cause, they're keeping it a secret if it relates to any logic of Airbus

Peter- This is not factual information. All projects released by PMDG are the result of a team effort. The individual you mentioned was but one member of a team of very talented folks and his contribution was no more or less important than any other individual.

Hey Robert, My intention was NOT to imply that he was the only programmer. But its factual that he didnt like to be called Lefty ;) See you at the Air races!

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. Just to bat down one of the many incorrect things you said, the pilot can at anytime turn off the FBW computers. As for 1549, both engines were damaged enough to make them inoperable. They hit more than one bird. I'll leave it at that because I think it is dumb to sit and debate who makes a better metal tube with wings. They are airplanes, get over yourself. So because I am American I HAVE to like Boeing? You're almost worse than those church guys that come to your door and shove their religion down your throat. To say Boeing has made the best jetliners since the 1950s is nothing more than YOUR opinion, there is no facts to back up a claim like that or vise versa. Judging by your grammar and lack of knowledge, I'd say it is safe to say your probably a kid, still in school.

I'm not saying you have to, but it makes sense.

Not to get into this Airbus/Boeing debate too but I have to agree with Spartan7W in the sense that there are little things with Airbus's design I know for a fact that makes them less safe that Boeing's design. Case in point the motorized throttle quadrant while on auto throttle.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447I believe that if the Airbus had motorized throttles while on autopilot - it would have helped the pilots’ situation awareness and prevent this aircraft from stalling. Throttle movement I believe help pilots monitor thrust while the aircraft is in autopilot, when one of the the pitots tube froze and started feeding the FMS false readings - the throttle assemble would have had some erratic movement that would have made anyone with common sense to disengage the autopilot.

We're not going to be getting into Airbus vs. Boeing here - this thread will be locked if it continues. I think the pilots pulling back for 4 straight minutes and ignoring the repeated stall warning callouts had a lot more to do with AF447 than the autothrottle's lack of servos. Remember too that a 737-800 was allowed to go to full idle and stall on approach with AT servos...

Peter- This is not factual information. All projects released by PMDG are the result of a team effort. The individual you mentioned was but one member of a team of very talented folks and his contribution was no more or less important than any other individual.

It's amazing how much the folks on here think they know about PMDG, isn't it?

Not to get into this Airbus/Boeing debate too but I have to agree with Spartan7W in the sense that there are little things with Airbus's design I know for a fact that makes them less safe that Boeing's design. Case in point the motorized throttle quadrant while on auto throttle.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447I believe that if the Airbus had motorized throttles while on autopilot - it would have helped the pilots’ situation awareness and prevent this aircraft from stalling. Throttle movement I believe help pilots monitor thrust while the aircraft is in autopilot, when one of the the pitots tube froze and started feeding the FMS false readings - the throttle assemble would have had some erratic movement that would have made anyone with common sense to disengage the autopilot.

this reply is getting into the debate ... yet you start by saying you are not getting into the debate ..

this reply is getting into the debate ... yet you start by saying you are not getting into the debate ..

And still everybody continues to debate on that regardless PMDG admin allready warned to close the threat if you continue to. STOP it now. This is about the wishes of dreamers of the next plane after the Dash 8 and B777.... So, please make a wish, and a suggestion why and be good.

How about a PMDG Gulfstream G-159 turboprop... ahh those RR Darts are music to my ears!! Alex

Air France Flight 447 was pilot error. The pilots were low-time copilots. The pilot was in the crew rest facility at the time. They screwed it up. The pitot tube loss contributed to the flight's problems, but it was almost all pilot-drawn error.