Hi all,

 

in the CDU I've set that random failures for all systems may occur. However I set it to zero (0) events per 10 hours. Question, is it possible that I will, at some point, experience some kind of failure?

 

I didn't want to set it to 1/10h, because in real world, failures likely won't occur as often and it would take away the moment of surprise when something goes awry every 2-3 flights, depending on the flight time.

 

Thanks,

What you're looking for are the service based failures.

I just took another look at it, to be exact, I have service based failures activated as well as random failures, albeit those with 0 events per 10 hours. What can I expect, plainly spoken?

Not sure what the 0/10h setting does to the system, but as far as system based failures are concerned, components will start failing based on real world statistics and expected component life times. You will need to service your systems regularly if you want them working. And no, there won't be any warning before they fail. They just will, and you'll need your QRH handy to figure it out.

Thanks, I'm getting a clearer picture here. So in order to avoid/reduce service based failures, I have to use the CDU for maintenance?

 

I still think I'm more looking into random failures (like an engine or generator failure) that happen in real world too despite good servicing.

I'm not really sure how PMDG did the service based failures. If it's anything like i think it is, there should be at all times a chance that something would fail, and that chance would go up the closer you get to the maintenance due date. So there might be a chance that something fails even with good servicing.

 

If you're into emergencies and things like that, i suggest you keep the service based failures on. It might take a long time until you get a failure, but that's how it is in real life too. Airplanes are built to be reliable, after all.

 

 

Airplanes are built to be reliable, after all.

 

Good point, that's exactly why I deem 1 failure per 10 flights too much when flying 'as real as it gets'.

 

My preference would be to have as many (or better, as few) failures as would be statistically expected in real world aviation while keeping perfect maintenance.

 

 

My preference would be to have as many (or better, as few) failures as would be statistically expected in real world aviation while keeping perfect maintenance.

 

Which is exactly what service based failures is supposed to do