Some people are just always going to be closed minded about airbus and those people should just stick to boeing. If you really have a problem with airbus then just dont fly it. Its always going to be there. Before I even knew much about boeing or airbus I went straight for the airbus because the cockpit was just more appealing to me. The simplicity of it makes it very convenient or the pilot. The boeing cockpit on the other hand quickly confused the hell outta me with all the different master autopilot switches lol.

This thread derailed into something silly rather quickly.

This thread derailed into something silly rather quickly.

 

I have found the discussion/debate to be rather interesting. If you consider it beneath your IQ of 200 please keep it to yourself.

 

 

I have found the discussion/debate to be rather interesting. If you consider it beneath your IQ of 200 please keep it to yourself.

 

What on earth are you talking about? This thread was about Airbus add ons not Boeing vs. Airbus. If you need to spout off with personal attacks and child like rants then I'd suggest keeping the to yourself. I said nothing insulting towards anyone.

Back on topic, I have no doubt the FSL version will be excellent, but it appears Aerosoft thinks it's model is so good it's the basis for their professional product. Since accuracy is much more important on a professional product, then FS, it appears it will be pretty good as well. I don't think Aerosoft would risk it's reputation in the professional market, if it wasn't that good.

Agree, I think the ability to put the MCDU into your Ipad would be awesome! I hope ti works better than the apps available in themarket.

What on earth are you talking about? This thread was about Airbus add ons not Boeing vs. Airbus. If you need to spout off with personal attacks and child like rants then I'd suggest keeping the to yourself. I said nothing insulting towards anyone.

 

It was a condescending and pointless remark just like this one you've just posted is. You could have said something like "let's bring it back on topic guys" instead of being offensive.

Oh my.

If someone developes the MCDU for ipad - then I might actually buy an ipad. But then again the ipad might be better use for SIDS & STARS - CHARTS.

I bet all those dead passengers at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean would disagree on that 'flight envelope protection' bit. And the Airbus that crashed with the media on board. I would say the design goals and reality are quite different.

 

Ray

 

After reading all the follow on posts I really didn't glean any new info on these two Airbus crashes. After all is said and done, in both cases, the flight crew was lulled into thinking 'all is well' when it was anything but 'well' but was not able to, or failed for some reason, to take control of the aircraft and recover from a bad situation.

 

So as I stated earlier - everything works fine until it fails. In both of these crashes, the flight envelope protection failed to keep the crew and passengers safe.

 

Ray

After all is said and done, in both cases, the flight crew was lulled into thinking 'all is well' when it was anything but...

 

On AF447 I believe the stall warning was sounding for the duration of the incident, though presumably the crew believed the A330 couldn't stall - even in direct law under a triple ADR failure.

 

I know Airbus have since be rolling out a BUSS (Backup Speed Scale) PFD update for the 330 and as an option for the 320 - whether this might have aided the crew, we'll never know.

Actually I think that plane did not go into landing mode in case of AF296 air show flight, but instead flight envelope detected coming stall when crew tried to pull up from too slow speed and from way too low altitude and thus prevented them from pulling the nose up...

 

Had flight envelope protection not acted in case of AF296 I believe that they would have just stalled into the forest and maybe more people would have died, now they almost like "landed" there.

 

So I wouldn't say that flight envelope protection itself failed anywhere, in case of AF447 like said only pitot tubes failed which simply turns off the protection, and in AF296 flight envelope protection did just what it was supposed to do, prevented plane from stalling. Stopping crew from actively flying their plane to the forest is not something it can do.

 

It's of course crews job to keep themselves and their pax safe, flight envelope protection is just there to help in certain situations if crew fails... They should understand that its just limited safety feature and not something they should rely on... Maybe crew of AF447 believed that flight envelope protection which wasn't working anymore and other fly by wire features would fly the plane for them when in fact it was time for them to take the control.

I don't think Aerosoft would risk it's reputation in the professional market, if it wasn't that good.

 

Hmmm, I think Aerosoft may have already taken a bit of a dent in its reputation over their original Airbus because a lot of people had major problems with it. I mothballed mine because the FDE, derived from the FS default I believe, was terribly flawed. There were also throttle problems and CTDs. Some people reported smooth operation, but I have to say I don't remember an Aerosoft product being quite so controversial. I don't blame them for the decision to limit its FMGS functions to the very basic, because they never made any claims that it was realistic in that regard. But it was so frustrating to have such a good looking aircraft behave so badly in so many ways.

 

I really hope the Extended 'Bus finally delivers a reliable product that hand flies properly AND enables us to navigate realistically - laterally and vertically! The new FBW is supposed to be a major improvement, so I can't wait to try that. So, good luck to Aerosoft. It will be great to finally have a reasonably 'state of the art' Airbus, and hopefully it will fit nicely alongside the forthcoming FSLabs bird, which as we all expect will offer something much more comprehensive systems wise.

 

I shall definitely get both as the Airbus famine has gone on too long, and it will be nice to celebrate. B)

 

Ian

So I wouldn't say that flight envelope protection itself failed anywhere . . . .

 

 

It should be obvious, be you seem to be missing the point. Any crash, stall, airspeed failure, etc, is a condition that is outside any 'flight envelope'.

 

Ray

If the wing falls off a plane the plane will crash, even tho it had nothing to do with flight envelope protection