Is long haul defining realistic? If so, not every.

 

I usually plan a flight for max 2 hours in various aircraft. I do plan long routes with multiple legs ... that way I can do a 1-2 hour flight land, save, return another day do the next leg of the route and repeat over several days/weeks until I complete the plan.

On long haul flight especially with the 777, VHHH>KEWR is 16.3 hours.

I have had the pleasure of flying in the new Cathay Pacific business class on VHHH–KJFK. The suites were clean, feature-rich, and spacious, so surviving the flight was not as difficult as doing so on some of my previous flights (notably on Delta/Northwest). However, standing in line for two hours—with jet lag and without air conditioning in preparation for the regional connection flight—and eventually boarding the aircraft and taxiing out—only to have severe weather cause a cancellation after another two hours—is a different story. . . .

 

here is no way I'll spend more than a two or three hour leg real-time in FSX, and even there I usually walk away from the computer during cruise to do other stuff.

All of my flights, including those in the B747, are less than two hours long. I like to maintain a high manual-to-automated flight ratio. Due to academic commitments, I can only use FSX two days per week, so I must make the best out of the time I have for FSX. Plus, constantly having actions to perform, such as creating fixes, forecasting wind, matching HDG SEL with LNAV, and setting approach speeds and minimums, is engaging and fun.

 

I run 2 PC's side-by-side. one for FS, one for whatever (Forum browsing, youtube-ing, chatting etc).

I use my school computer for purposes other than running FSX and, occasionally, . . . Tribes: Ascend.

 

For what it's worth, using autoland isn't unrealistic and from what I recall, each aircraft's autoland is tested every x number of days to ensure it's still functioning etc. but also it's sometimes needed obviously when weather dictates. It's still rarely used in comparison to manually landing, but that doesn't mean it's unrealistic to use it now and again.

If the autolands of some FSX aircraft were a bit smoother, such as

, I would admire and enjoy them more.

 

autoland should be tested every 28 days on 777 but from simulation point of view it does not help to learn any skills.

One can observe how the autopilot reacts to both large and subtle environmental changes. For example, through autopilot observation, he or she could be more aware of small wind changes during manual flight that might otherwise be countered through unnecessarily large corrections, or observe how the autopilot flares and idles thrust during various weather conditions.

I enjoy Long-Haul flights, but I do not sit there for 7+ hours. I never NEVER increase the simulation rate. But usually I just watch a good TV show or go outside for an activity, sometimes I will let my plane fly over night. Lately I have been doing a bit more short hops though, I try to mix it up.

I have had the pleasure of riding in the new Cathay Pacific business class on VHHH–KJFK. The suites were clean, feature-rich, and spacious, so surviving the flight was not as difficult as doing so on some of my previous flights (notably Delta/Northwest). However, standing in line for two hours—with jet lag and without air conditioning in preparation for the regional connection flight—and eventually boarding the aircraft and taxiing out—only to have severe weather cause a cancellation after another two hours—is a different story. . . .

 

 

All of my flights, including those in the B747, are less than two hours long. I like to maintain a high manual-to-automated flight ratio. Due to academic commitments, I can only use FSX two days per week, so I must make the best out of the time I have. Plus, constantly having actions to perform, such as creating fixes, forecasting wind, matching HDG SEL with LNAV, and setting approach speeds and minimums, is engaging and fun.

 

 

I use my school computer for purposes other than running FSX and, occasionally, . . . Tribes: Ascend.

 

 

If autolands of some FSX aircraft were a bit smoother, such as

, I would admire and enjoy occasional ones.

 

 

However, one can observe how the autopilot reacts to both large and subtle environmental changes. For example, he or she could be more aware of small wind changes during manual flight that might otherwise be addressed through unnecessarily large corrections, or observe how the autopilot flares and idles thrust during various weather conditions.

 

The autoland of the MD-11 is pretty smooth.

Is anyone like me and fall asleep overnight and when you wake back up you only have 3-6 hours to go?

 

Does everyone think that it's the same pilot up front from start to end on flights like this?

 

777 Crew Rest Area:

 

I wonder why they would put that there...

 

So, in the interest of realism, it would actually be more realistic to run off and pass out for a while. Of course, it would be more realistic if you had someone sit there and watch the controls while you did that, but let's be honest, there's a certain amount of realism that is lost from real life to sim...

So, in the interest of realism, it would actually be more realistic to run off and pass out for a while. Of course, it would be more realistic if you had someone sit there and watch the controls while you did that, but let's be honest, there's a certain amount of realism that is lost from real life to sim...

 

During WorldFlight I was on the New 737 sim up about 80km away from the City. As a result of it's remoteness, there were less crew that applied and as a result we had about 6 pilots instead of the 15 they have at the 747 "QF25" sim.

 

During some of the longer flights (Most of which took place at night/dark hours local time in Sydney) I was on crew with a real life pilot and on a section where we had a 6 hour flight followed by a 5.5 hour flight, he actually put a rest schedule in place for 3 hour sleeps for one crewmember on both flights. The suggestion was a 3 hour sleep, followed by a 20 minute "wake up" period with some physical activity (walking around the building the sim was in) and then get back in some 30 minutes before top of decent for the arrival briefing. Worked out really well being the "night Crew" with one member on the headset with ATC, and one resting.

Flying for British Airways Virtual, we have to log in every hour using our in house ACARS software Pheonix. So in my case "very" realistic, I just wish FS2Crew would allow my co pilot to fly some of the way...;-)

 

Actually - as Kyle said - this is not at all realistic, a 16 hour flight would have 4 pilots to allow adequate rest. It's actually more realistic that the PF would do take-off and landing whilst getting a good rest during the "boring bit". Maybe BAV should be updating Phoenix to allow FS2C to update the flight logger during cruise?! B)

 

 

Actually - as Kyle said - this is not at all realistic, a 16 hour flight would have 4 pilots to allow adequate rest. It's actually more realistic that the PF would do take-off and landing whilst getting a good rest during the "boring bit". Maybe BAV should be updating Phoenix to allow FS2C to update the flight logger during cruise?! B)

 

Since when did a 737 on a trip to Malaga have 4 pilots?

No real world commercial pilot sits up front for 16 hours non-stop, let alone 12... there are always relief crews on board for the longer hauls...

 

I am quite happy to use the 777/MD11 and possibly the 747 if I get it as a short to medium haul, high capacity liner...

 

I tend to work on other stuff after take off and climb to 10000... just checking from time to time to make sure all is well...

 

I get the impression that not too many of us use the failure mode

 

A

Since when did a 737 on a trip to Malaga have 4 pilots?

 

SInce when did a 737 trip to Malaga take 16 hours (which is the example in my post)?

I did Tokyo(maybe Hong Kong)-Anchorage in the MD and had an engine stop due to frozen fuel while I was off doing something else. Didn't even know it did that... Complained that the missus must have seen the caution light on and she didn't say anything. Got a blank look. My only other long hop was SFO-HNL. Frozen fuel no problem. Six hours is long enough for me. I've been tempted to use 2x, but resisted. Pause does get used as and when required. And I will pop down to the shops in a long cruise, making sure I'm back before TOD.

I did Tokyo(maybe Hong Kong)-Anchorage in the MD and had an engine stop due to frozen fuel while I was off doing something else. Didn't even know it did that....

 

You can prevent that by flying lower, or pack different fuel. You can do this by changing your fuel type via the fmc.

 

The flying lower was pretty much enforced on me! Once it was stable, I read the relevant bit from the manual and got the noisy thing spinning again, so all was good. ;-) I'll have to explore the fuel option some more. That's something I didn't know. Thanks.

 

Mike

The flying lower was pretty much enforced on me! Once it was stable, I read the relevant bit from the manual and got the noisy thing spinning again, so all was good. ;-) I'll have to explore the fuel option some more. That's something I didn't know. Thanks.

 

Mike

 

... and the PMDG MD-11 even allows an in-flight fuel change ... presumably somewhat harder on a real one at 38,000ft over the N Pole?

I love long haul flights. I can't fly long haul when school is but when I get some free time on weekends I usually fly continent to continent. And when the B777 comes out I just have to try the ultra long flights i.e. London- Sydney, New York - Singapore.

When I fly long haul flights I usually fly on the night so I don't turn my time zone up side down.