Service Based Failures

[Avantime 81]

A quick trip through the MEL will tell you what can and cannot be deferred.  I would be stunned to learn that any MEL on any transport category airplane allowed dispatch with an attitude indicator deferred. 

 

That might be true in The West but there are plenty of places in the "third world" where only money matters, corruption is rife and the rules get bent, The example with LAPA was that they were an airline owned by the Argentinian military, and people looked the other way because no one wanted to mess with them given their infamous reputation. AFAIK defects were simply not written in the tech logs and people would falsify maintenance documents so as not to pull any aircraft out of the line. Some pilots would not log the any hours flown over duty time limits because of company orders and also to protect their own careers if they leave. They do all this to create "plausible deniability" and it was only when they lost a real 737 back in 1999 did some of the sordid details emerge, for example the captain in that accident didn't have a valid license. Again I would highly recommend watching the DVD.

 

There are definitely more colorful stuff happening in Africa, the Hajj charters, freight and GA (first hand). As for PPRuNe I've been there for 12 years and I generally find that it's quite informative as long as you ignore the main rumor and news forum. Of course with internet anonymity people will say things they wouldn't have said in public so an element of "reader beware" is required, and most tend to do with T&Cs and working conditions not tech.

 

As for the 777, I'm thinking perhaps PMDG can create an external program (like Maddog and Majestic) where we can select common MEL items and see the consequences and restrictions, so we can simulate flying an aircraft that is barely dispatchable, and use it perhaps for LOFT scenarios. IMO the simulation/FS action menus in the NGX's CDUs ain't very user friendly and the FAA MMELs are a nightmare to read.

[rsrandazzo 6,353]

Iain-

 

If you want a simulation of an airplane where nothing works, I can probably give you a list of products already on the market that will satisfy that need.   :ph34r:

 

And those products don't even simulate failures- so it sounds like you'd get just what you describe.

 

Good luck.

[EGLL77W 1,508]

If you want a simulation of an airplane where nothing works, I can probably give you a list of products already on the market that will satisfy that need.   :ph34r:

 

Oh my god.. I literally just bursted out laughing LOL!  :LMAO:  :LMAO:

 

Olli will love that...

[Avantime 81]

Iain-

 

If you want a simulation of an airplane where nothing works, I can probably give you a list of products already on the market that will satisfy that need.   :ph34r:

 

 

Ahh I see what you mean!  :lol:

[aceridgey 330]

The multiplyer sounds exciting Robert thanks for the clarification.

 

Is this still dependant on a certain livery, or is there a way to implement this over an aircraft variant?

 

Alex 

[Vaux 1]

Thank you for the answers! This is great news.

Unfortunately I was not abled to comment because the website wouldn't let me. Hope this works now.

[Tabs 2,790]

The multiplyer sounds exciting Robert thanks for the clarification.

 

Is this still dependant on a certain livery, or is there a way to implement this over an aircraft variant?

 

Alex 

 

Specific to each livery - if you want it on for all of them, you'll have to set it for each one.

[aceridgey 330]

Specific to each livery - if you want it on for all of them, you'll have to set it for each one.

 

 

Good stuff! I guess with the multiplyer it won't matter like on the  current version of the NGX, Cheers Ryan

[MDChase 6]

What is the obsession with failures, as a pilot who flys a very old aircraft (albeit with great maintainers) we never hope for failures or care to see them. If you want things as real as they get you're probably not going to see a failure. I went 20 flights in a row simulating engines out but I've never even seen an oil pressure out of limits. Yes things happen but typically maintenance just wouldn't let a plane go flying if it wasn't to standard.

 

-Matthew Chase

HC-130H Pilot

[FLEX1978 373]

Hey Matthew,

 

Sure many want to simulate being in an airliner and sit for 10+ hours with no issues, others want to train for failures and "what if" scenarios just like pilots do during the sim check every six months.

 

Fortunately PMDG have given us the option to do both, personally I like to get out the QRH and test as many failure scenarios as possible.

[MDChase 6]

I completely understand training for failures, that's what we do in our sims, my point being that real practice in the aircraft is done by simulating the emergency and in the sims they are all triggered, while the idea of waiting for them to happen is practical in a simulator sense I don't think it's realistic to expect PMDG to make them occur more frequently than they do in the plane. I have been playing Flight Simulator my entire life and I completely understand the quest for realism.

 

-Matthew Chase

[Flamin_Squirrel 71]

I don't think it's realistic to expect PMDG to make them occur more frequently than they do in the plane.

It is realistic because they've already said they've included it.

[MDChase 6]

It is realistic because they've already said they've included it.

 

It's additive, and a good model to replicate service based failures but that doesn't necessarily mean realism, that is simply adapting the sim environment to be a microcosm of real world flight time. I do training sim's all the time where I get compound emergencies, engines out on the same side while a bleed air valve won't close etc... That is training but it's not really realistic, most people will fly their whole careers without seeing things like that, however we train for the worst so it is an instinctual reaction. I hope that makes sense on my perspective of realism. Nobody does realism better than PMDG but there is just simply some things a simulator won't replicate.  That being said I also completely understand why people want failures, it tests their system knowledge and ability to manage the aircraft, however I just got the tone that people want to see failures all the time, and that's just not the case, and please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

-Matthew Chase

[Flamin_Squirrel 71]

That being said I also completely understand why people wan't failures, it tests there system knowledge and ability to manage the aircraft, however I just got the tone that people want to see failures all the time, and that's just not the case, and please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

-Matthew Chase

It allows people to accelerate failures such that they occur with a regularity that might be experienced by a line pilot. I don't have thousands of hours available to fly a SIM, so this is the next best thing.

 

More importantly to me, it forces me to do the required checks and procedures, rather than ignoring them because I know evening is/will be working.

[MDChase 6]

Flamin_Squirrel, on 21 Jul 2013 - 4:39 PM, said:

It allows people to accelerate failures such that they occur with a regularity that might be experienced by a line pilot. I don't have thousands of hours available to fly a SIM, so this is the next best thing.

I completely agree, it is making sim time a microcosm of real flight time, that in itself is not realistic though, and not how line pilots practice to handle emergencies, that's my only point. I agree, having system failures modeled does make the more mundane parts of flying (checklists) much more pertinent in the sim environment and adds a realism factor not present in other simulations.

 

I think this discussion itself is evident of the layers of complexity PMDG brings to the table.

 

-Matthew Chase