I chose both, responding I also highlighted some Airbus hallmarks.

 

The fact people tend to forget is that an Airbus is still an aeroplane that has to obey the laws of gravity.

Or physics in general. True that is. I doubt that Rónán, being a rated 737 Classic pilot before, downgraded to being a bad pilot when switching over to the A321 and A330. Well, if that was the case though, he would never tell us.

 

Seriously, I can understand the doubts and even upsets about that different philosophy on the later Airbus planes. I encourage them since the critical thinking is what makes the tech safer and better.

 

By this, I don't think any current airliner tech setup is 'the one' or even closer to being more perfect than the other one. I can find reports about failing stick and rudder skills, confused crews and therefore high body counts on both ends. So, for me, that blindness some experience can only be explained with a single word. I leave it out for now. Hence the note on the feeding. :( They always ask for food though. ^_^

 

 

If I could describe Airbus planes in general, I always had the impression that they are eager to include 'latest' tech. That's a relative statement since even the FBW laws and protections are decades old now.

 

Take the older and more normal A300 for example. You already had that engine performance computer (not the real name) and the very advanced autopilot on it. For that kind of plane and time, it was very advanced.

 

It also picked up that widebody twin engine concept and rendered it quite successful. Or take the ETOPS stuff.

In 1977, the A300B4 became the first ETOPS compliant aircraft – its high performance and safety standards qualified it for Extended Twin Engine Operations over water, providing operators with more versatility in routing.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Airbus_A300

LOL. Well I made it my mission for 2013 to interview either Capt Sullenberger or De Crespigny for Avsim, so I have 12 months to accomplish this. We could then really find out about Airbus quirks!

Now that's an ambitious goal, Will. Good luck with that! Would be great.

 

Sullenberger spoke were honest about his experience and, of course, had some critical thinking in place. That's what needed actually and while the PR folks wanted to render his Airbus 'landing' to be the outcome of the great Airbus tech, he just said the the plane's (tech) impact was negligible. Ha!

 

Made me laugh since the whole PR department of Airbus must have gone :( after that one. At least they've tried. And PR departments always do. ^_^

 

So, on that case, the praise of the crew's work (and Sully never left out his crew) is well deserved. The good or bad character traits of the Airbus plane in use did not influence the event as much as the crew did. For me, that's a good sign.

 

Well, in the end, the Hudson thingy wasn't a miracle or a hero story, it was good work of the crew. Lets not forget that. Pay them good and let them do their work! Sullenberger stressed that one too, making use of the hero status. Good man!

 

 

The main message for me on the Sullenberger landing was another one. Stress. He spoke about that one too. Openly. And he admitted that he experienced all mental and physical symptoms of high stress throughout the whole event and even later.

 

And that's from an experienced Captain. Adorable, since there's no need for any hero gameplay and he knows that. I think the honest folks will agree that even the most skilled pilot gets slightly upset when, suddenly, both pods run silent (or close to, as on the Hudson case).

 

And you can't train that stress in the sim.

To believe that a (two) mechanically broken engine(s) can be 'bypassed' is, for itself, a overwhelmingly surprising statement.

 

It's 1/2 time at the Orange Bowl so I have a few minutes....heres a nice little explanation of the difference between Airbus and Boeing throttles....

 

http://amostimportantblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/miracle-on-hudson-it-didnt-have-to.html

 

Please be sure to check this pulots bio as well, although I'm sure some will question it all :-)

I left out a thing. I think, for the sim, a dedicated joystick could make sense. Well, if that doesn't spoil your current hardware setup.

 

The shorter ways of the stick (deflection) in regard to the larger turn inputs being necessary on the yoke could make a difference. By this, it would be important to know what the dev actually used as his standard.

 

Well, I have a joystick for all planes, so maybe I'm cheating in a way. Or just receive to sensible yoke planes then. I don't know. Compromises. B)

A guy who only flew B737-300 and 400s and has never been or flown an Airbus. This is getting boring. Why don't you read the accident to Turkish airlines 737-800 at Amsterdam, where the aircraft was allowed to stall.

 

No aeroplane is perfect, but I think is ludicrous to have impact damage and expect all sensors and parameters to work perfectly to provide you a rosy picture. It is akin to the person (a pilot who had never flown the aeroplane) who stated control should not have been lost when a Russian missile hit Korean 007 over Kamchatka.

 

I left out a thing. I think, for the sim, a dedicated joystick could make sense. Well, if that doesn't spoil your current hardware setup.

 

The shorter ways of the stick (deflection) in regard to the larger turn inputs being necessary on the yoke could make a difference. By this, it would be important to know what the dev actually used as his standard.

 

Well, I have a joystick for all planes, so maybe I'm cheating in a way. Or just receive to sensible yoke planes then. I don't know. Compromises. B)

 

Have you got a favourite? Brand or design? Am reconsidering my decision not to use a joystick.

 

Have you got a favourite? Brand or design? Am reconsidering my decision not to use a joystick.

The Logitech Extreme 3D Pro is a surprisingly good value. It is slightly stiff (the joystick closest to the ultra-stiffness of the real Airbus side stick I have experienced). More importantly, it is extremely precise and responsive.

I'm stuck in that small force feedback niche, so the options are limited. Running the Logitech G940 here and my tuning on the plane then happens with FSForce. One can set up profiles there, so I have an Airbus one.

 

For yoke planes, this must be as wrong as can be from the actual input device. But since you can really tune the response, damping, leeway and all sort of things, you may receive a very flyable setup. Well, for planes coming with a stick setup, it's spot on if the dev also used a stick.

 

But I guess that for just flying the Airbus, a normal stick will do. Owen's text looks good.

 

The whole force feedback tech is highly subjective. I like it, it may work around the lack of feeling the sim plane's response. We sim folks may be really bound to instruments by this. So even that artificial setup of feeling forces while the real (Airbus) plane of course doesn't feature any feedback there could make sense. For more normal planes, one can for example feel out of trim setups.

Thanks guys, will have to have a look in the next few days. Do you find the force feedback is reasonable? Heard of a program to "augment" or correct force feedback but not sure anyone tried it?

 

Is it better for trying out an Airbus in FSX or P3D?

Is it better for trying out an Airbus in FSX or P3D?

My experience is that it worked in the same way when it comes to the sim's default FF implementation. And FSForce (which replaces the sim engine) would support both sims, so one is free to chose or switch.

 

Well, the FF stuff isn't cheap. Clear downside. And the cheap stuff doesn't really cut it. My experience.

 

By the way, if one was looking for a FF yoke, the prices are.. somewhere in the sky.

Lol, thanks guys, I will go to my local supplier in the next few days and see what I come back with.

 

Keen to try it out

Re: Automation

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQnZMf7-Pbk

Good video. Came up after the first report. The final one wasn't out at that time. The first minute is vital, we don't have a 'pilot's head recorder' so far. And, on the case of AF447, my guess would be that the main clue could only be found with such a fictional device. The plane was flying fine, but the pilot's weren't. :unsure: The question is why. Unsolved, even after the final report.

 

That automation fear and/or believe is strong and one shouldn't underestimate the concerns. I think that, if you get 'out of the loop' an a plane, it doesn't matter if it's a highly automated one or just an older setup though.

 

If the ways of flying a modern airliner lead you to get out of the loop sooner, one should react and take back control. As far as I can tell, all of them allow for hand flying and all of them respond to the laws of physics. By this, it's a pilot's and company's policy thing to avoid getting degraded.

 

Maybe there should be a law that airline pilots must own (and fly!) a J3 too. ^_^ Or even better, a sailplane.

I'm stuck in that small force feedback niche, so the options are limited. Running the Logitech G940 here and my tuning on the plane then happens with FSForce. One can set up profiles there, so I have an Airbus one.

 

For yoke planes, this must be as wrong as can be from the actual input device. But since you can really tune the response, damping, leeway and all sort of things, you may receive a very flyable setup. Well, for planes coming with a stick setup, it's spot on if the dev also used a stick.

 

But I guess that for just flying the Airbus, a normal stick will do. Owen's text looks good.

 

The whole force feedback tech is highly subjective. I like it, it may work around the lack of feeling the sim plane's response. We sim folks may be really bound to instruments by this. So even that artificial setup of feeling forces while the real (Airbus) plane of course doesn't feature any feedback there could make sense. For more normal planes, one can for example feel out of trim setups.

 

Hi!

As a long time user of a Saitek X52, I'd like to buy a new joystick very soon. I really like the look and feel of the Thrustmaster Warthog, but I am really interested in the force feedback feature of the G940. After I had the opportunity to drive a few races with a FFB wheel with Gran Turismo 5 on the PS3, I really like the idea of having this sensation transported into FSX somehow. Beside airliners like the AXE, I love flying aircraft with big radial engines, and for those, the G940 could be very nice addition. How do you like the quality of the G940 and its FFB feature?