March 17Mar 17 Personally I want a better simulated airplane, I don't care about new tablets and cellphones. Missing the PMDG DC6 in MSFS 2024 (she's here, but...).
March 17Mar 17 This looks amazing. I just hope the flap axis will work with my Honeycomb Bravo and ProDeskSim detents too….a problem many face on the discord 🤞
March 17Mar 17 9 hours ago, Farlis said: I'm sorry, but no. This may be the case for your airline, but the pilots I know of from other airlines do the calculations themselves in the EFB and only revert to dispatch doing it for them, should they have a problem that prevents them from doing it themselves. Case in point of the Toliss A340-600 that was used as an example, this is what the real world actve Lufthansa pilot and former A340-600 driver had to say about the capability to have the calculation done by dispatch in the add on when he tested it on stream. It's a fallback for them and not standard. So as far as I can tell your company is the odd one out, not the other way round. I imagine you're aware no pilot is born at their career airline; we all go through various experience building stages before ending up where we want to be. I have worked for several airlines and flown quite a few different fleets. I can assure you there's nothing unusual about the way we handle performance calculations, it's industry standard. It seems there might be some misunderstanding about what is meant by "calculation". No pilot at any airline is really doing their own performance calculation, because they do not have access to the flight test data necessary. That data is extremely expensive and is not shared with line pilots 😉. What pilots do have is a variety of electronic calculation tools or performance charts that will return a solution with at least a known amount of buffer built in. Airlines vary in the way these solutions are obtained; some have a calculator on the EFB, some have access to a much more powerful calculator in the cloud that is accessed via an ACARS dialog, and some use tables. We certainly have the tables, but we use a combination of the DynamicSource cloud calculations, and those same solutions provided by dispatch on a dispatch packet. We can certainly change any conditions of the data we would like, and get new data with any derated or AT reduced thrust or not, up to full rated thrust; a flap setting or bleed configuration of our choosing, etc. But this isn't "calculating" takeoff data, it's simply requesting a solution with any given parameters we'd like to specify. The delivery device for these calculations may vary, but there aren't any pilots out there doing this differently. My point is that when you have a solution you're happy with, knowing all the values that entered into it isn't necessary or even helpful in any way I can see, because you certainly aren't going to alter your takeoff profile for it. We definitely do not want crews trying to apply judgement about when to abort vs when to continue, that's why this is made perfectly black and white in the trained profile. Many accidents have resulted from pilots choosing to go "off script" and make a different decision than their profile called for. Andrew Crowley
March 17Mar 17 10 hours ago, LRBS said: This started with just a simple question about a possible implementation on that tablet. But for some reason, you didn't like my reasonable question. It sounds like PMDG, can't say anything outside the script because we get protective of the product. Anyhow, that's the impression I got, and now we're talking about V1, profiles, etc. Not part of my inquiry. The main point of disagreement is that many airlines teach verifying calculations after they are made, whereas you or your company believes the performance presented is sufficient without verification. Most airlines don't. Every time we review performance, we verify accuracy against each item and allow pilot discretion based on the data available from dispatch or from the agency authorised to make any changes deemed by the PIC. As you know, many incidents and accidents have resulted from incorrect or insufficient calculations. I will stop here; it's getting tiring. I'm genuinely unclear why you're understanding this to be some kind of argument. I asked out of curiosity, wondering why you saw value in knowing some of the parameters you listed, as I assume we agree that we do not want pilots modifying a takeoff profile based on a "feeling". Generating a new takeoff solution with any conditions the pilot would like to specify, of course we want people using their judgement and doing that. But once you have the solution in hand... You're going to fly the same profile every time, so I'm still curious why you think knowing those values matters? Just to clarify, I have nothing to do with development of anything at iFly; my question didn't have anything to do with iFly and isn't a commentary on anything they may or may not do. Andrew Crowley
March 17Mar 17 2 hours ago, Claudius_ said: Personally I want a better simulated airplane, I don't care about new tablets and cellphones. Why do we get short-sighted comments like this. The new EFB is one of many new things included in SP1 including various system improvements. not everything is either or.
March 17Mar 17 8 minutes ago, Lucky38i said: Why do we get short-sighted comments like this. The new EFB is one of many new things included in SP1 including various system improvements. not everything is either or. Many have complained about the iFly B38M's EFB being difficult, but I found it to be fine. What really matters is that we get a highly accurate simulation with a realistic flight model, proper VNAV, solid ILS approaches, etc. Missing the PMDG DC6 in MSFS 2024 (she's here, but...).
March 17Mar 17 33 minutes ago, Claudius_ said: Many have complained about the iFly B38M's EFB being difficult, but I found it to be fine. What really matters is that we get a highly accurate simulation with a realistic flight model, proper VNAV, solid ILS approaches, etc. the EFB may have been fine for you but practically required you to have a second screen, for VR users such as myself, that was beyond annoying. First I heard a complaint about the flight model. like I said already a lot of this is resolved in SP1 as well as the EFB. Why did you double down? Edited March 17Mar 17 by Lucky38i
March 17Mar 17 1 hour ago, Lucky38i said: Why did you double down? Because it seemed like you needed some clarification, especially regarding the flight model. Missing the PMDG DC6 in MSFS 2024 (she's here, but...).
March 17Mar 17 Can you use the efb in browser on external device ? Like the efb of fenix or fslabs. That's the one think I miss in the pmdg's 😞 Edit: should have watched the video first, feature is in the update. Thanks 🙂 Edited March 17Mar 17 by Bam2000
March 17Mar 17 4 hours ago, Stearmandriver said: I'm genuinely unclear why you're understanding this to be some kind of argument. I asked out of curiosity, wondering why you saw value in knowing some of the parameters you listed, as I assume we agree that we do not want pilots modifying a takeoff profile based on a "feeling". Generating a new takeoff solution with any conditions the pilot would like to specify, of course we want people using their judgement and doing that. But once you have the solution in hand... You're going to fly the same profile every time, so I'm still curious why you think knowing those values matters? Just to clarify, I have nothing to do with development of anything at iFly; my question didn't have anything to do with iFly and isn't a commentary on anything they may or may not do. Andrew, I see that you don't place much value on knowing or verifying certain numbers. That is your choice. Once again, we divert our discussion to "flying profiles" when we're actually talking about something else. Clearly, that's not the case here. As I mentioned, most airlines see this differently and act accordingly. Perhaps the issue is that we can't imagine other airlines doing things differently. To answer the question briefly, many airlines, including me, see value in knowing and checking those numbers based on extensive information, including where things went wrong due to inaccurate data. I'll leave it at this: a constant learning process of how airlines handle certain situations differently. 747 Captain for the last 39 years, and still learning.
March 17Mar 17 8 hours ago, LRBS said: Andrew, I see that you don't place much value on knowing or verifying certain numbers. That is your choice. Once again, we divert our discussion to "flying profiles" when we're actually talking about something else. Clearly, that's not the case here. As I mentioned, most airlines see this differently and act accordingly. Perhaps the issue is that we can't imagine other airlines doing things differently. To answer the question briefly, many airlines, including me, see value in knowing and checking those numbers based on extensive information, including where things went wrong due to inaccurate data. I'll leave it at this: a constant learning process of how airlines handle certain situations differently. I'm unsure which airlines you're familiar with, but most major airlines in the US do indeed use the cloud-computed DynamicSource / Aerodata system. The on-EFB calculator is a less accurate (but cheaper) calculation tool, because of the relative difference in computing power between an iPad and remote servers. I guess where my confusion lies is in what kind of verification you believe you are performing. If I'm understanding you correctly (and of course, correct me if I'm not), you're comparing values to each other - but you're getting all those values from your performance calculator. If that's the case, you can see my point - you're simply trusting that the data returned by your performance calculator is correct, the same as my airline and others. You can't really perform a verification unless you're comparing data from different sources. Since everything you're comparing is being returned by your performance calculator.. is the comparison process really verifying anything? That's why we keep the data solution simplified. Obviously if there were a safety based reason to provide this data, we'd have it and more, and the FAA wouldn't have certified the largest airlines in the country to operate this way. Andrew Crowley
March 17Mar 17 23 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said: I'm unsure which airlines you're familiar with, but most major airlines in the US do indeed use the cloud-computed DynamicSource / Aerodata system. The on-EFB calculator is a less accurate (but cheaper) calculation tool, because of the relative difference in computing power between an iPad and remote servers. I guess where my confusion lies is in what kind of verification you believe you are performing. If I'm understanding you correctly (and of course, correct me if I'm not), you're comparing values to each other - but you're getting all those values from your performance calculator. If that's the case, you can see my point - you're simply trusting that the data returned by your performance calculator is correct, the same as my airline and others. You can't really perform a verification unless you're comparing data from different sources. Since everything you're comparing is being returned by your performance calculator.. is the comparison process really verifying anything? That's why we keep the data solution simplified. Obviously if there were a safety based reason to provide this data, we'd have it and more, and the FAA wouldn't have certified the largest airlines in the country to operate this way. This clarifies everything:" You can't really perform a verification unless you're comparing data from different sources. '' That's the key point, yes, we do. Most airlines, here in the States or abroad, will provide the information I was referring to in the performance data printout. Based on that, we will either request new calculated data or use the iPad or whatever device we have. That data is approved and certified not only by the FAA, ICAO, CAA, you name it. Hope this puts to rest our disagreement. 747 Captain for the last 39 years, and still learning.
March 17Mar 17 10 hours ago, LRBS said: Andrew, I see that you don't place much value on knowing or verifying certain numbers. What an odd comment to make. You do know he's an airline pilot, right? Like, you know that right? How can you tell a literal airline pilot that they don't place much value on knowing or verifying certain numbers? It was honestly embarrassing reading your comments. I need to go take a shower now or something. Yikes.
March 17Mar 17 1 hour ago, Bdub22 said: It was honestly embarrassing reading your comments. I need to go take a shower now or something. 🤣 Maybe you should. You know he is also an airline pilot?
Create an account or sign in to comment