michal

Is it?? Hardly, I see it is all FSX based.

This doesn't make much sense, flying IFR all the way through is a lot less complicated. Also your plan cuts through the northern part of the class B in such a way that it leaves you very little ground clearance further complicating flying (assuming you don't want to enter class B ) - this is a route I would never personally take from the safety point of view. There is inherent contradiction in your attempt to fly 'under class B' and yet later dodging mountain peaks at close to 14,000 ft. Clearly if you fly in something so capable as to go to Lake County you should have no problem flying over class B.

Why pop-up clearance? If someone is willing/capable to fly IFR at least part of the route why not the whole route? With IFR clearance you don't have to dodge restricted airspaces and class B, most likely you will be cleared through class B (if you don't like your IFR clearance you can negotiate after takeoff). This is what an IFR pilot would typically do at least if he/she wasn't confident VMC might not be possible all the way through. On the other hand if I had to fly VFR I would go over class B, this is not a very high class B. I would use V105 to fly over class B. Also notice that your flight plan as drawn takes you over a very high terrain just before your destination airport, you must be flying quite capable GA aircraft or you won't make it. This is part of the trip I would be worried about, not about crossing KLAS.

The report really doesn't address 'why' beyond collecting a circumstantial evidence that this particular pilot was known to engage in reckless flying. There is nothing specific in this report as to why on this flight the pilot did what he did. Yeah, specially in the GA, with lack of any other data, no black boxes, etc. any history of pilot's performance adds to the evidence.

Frankly investigative committees do not concern themselves in psychology and mind reading and attempt to have answers to questions 'why they did it', rather what it is that they did and whether it met SOPs. I don't see any attempt in explaining why Air China pilot took of from taxiway instead of runway in the middle of night at Anchorage airport or why Comair 5191 decided to take off from wrong runway or why Asiana crew failed to notice sinking speed and rapidly raising nose of their 777 before they struck a wall.

Fat chance.

Again, if they were in any time-pressure this was result of their own actions. They further managed to make things worse by not controlling airspeed, flying dangerously close to stall, even keeping the best glide speed could have given them a better outcome.

But she was still climbing .. until they shut down the wrong engine also there were no significant obstacles in front of them - even if the stayed at their last altitude, made no turns, they would have easily cleared everything.

My comment was tailored to this specific example - we already know that the failed engine feathered.

Probably it is not 'shutting down' procedure but rather 'engine out' procedure, identify which engine failed, verify it is feathered, you may need to cut the fuel off and/or you may attempt to restart the engine depending on the situation. The bottom line - you have to know which one failed and you may act accordingly to diagnose further and run through checklists. Calmly and methodically. But your first duty is to control aircraft and do no harm.

This was NOT the case "when every second counts". ATR climbs well on a single engine, they weren't in any immediate danger, just fly the damn airplane, control it's speed and attitude. They could have waited minutes after gaining more altitude to perform a checklist with no rush. In fact they would have been 10 times better doing absolutely nothing besides just flying it. An ATR pilot from Eurolot told me they had 3 incidents in which their ATR's engines inadvertently auto-feathered due to a fault, no one crashed, they were actually able to fix the problem and regain use of the engine after they went through the checklist. This was the case of too quick an action, wrong action, in this respect a repeat of AF447.

This is nothing new. For example KFDW tower(s) have employed a software tool called CTAS that allows them to schedule landing aircraft by time. Some other very busy airports in the US use it as well. There is attempt to also introduce time-based metering to the enroute flight phase, lots of research is being conducted on the subject by NASA/FAA.

It looks like we know a whole lot about this accident now, the right engine failed (or feathered automatically) and the crew shut down the left engine by mistake. http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9JarHTIAAAgAy3.jpg:large

Not sure what's horrible about the plane. Neither do we know if pilot did a great job or there was a major screw-up somewhere. None of that is known at this time.

I think you give the story way too much weight. It is just an advertising gimmick or perhaps a way to draw attention to one's brand, no aviation agency is about to approve such idea. If you read for example Spring Airlines statement they even say - we will offer it provided aircraft manufacturer approves it, regulatory agency approves it, public demands it, etc.,etc.,etc.

Apparently he had plenty of fuel but some valve in auxiliary tank got 'jammed' and he couldn't use up the fuel.

JRBarrett - thanks for comprehensive post, at least someone is making sense here!!! Short story - Mr.Palmer most likely had to refuel westbound.

?????? The same way everybody else does that doesn't have range - with a refueling stop. 'Accomplished pilot' rather has little to do with aircraft range.

But on his return trip I doubt he could have repeated this feat. B)

Post on this forum by Tom A. from August 2014: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/450312-why-we-fly-a-video/

Do you mean Comcast? I do have Comcast internet service and everything is working fine. Months ago I had a problem with accessing many different sites and was getting some error msg like "unresolved host", I don't recall exact error message and found on internet a way to change the DNS server and the problem went away.

Works for me.

Yeah, I noticed. They clearly stated this is because of some 'technical' issues. You get all this data in other places too so it isn't a big deal as far as I am concerned.

And Larry would probably agree that icy runway (sloped runway, grass runways, gravel runways) would be super nice to have. That's far cry however from 'damage modelling'.

No, it isn't training, it is entertainment, it isn't even realism unless you compute exactly how often in this area at this time of day/season I should suffer bird strike, what kind of bird, how it penetrates cockpit, how it splatters blood, how I get injured, how I can remain in control, etc. No commercial grade simulator that costs millions and is used for training pilots does this sort of thing. By the way I agree with your earlier posts - people walking on the ramp, palm trees swayed by winds, etc, it is every much a cartoonish effect. Some may like it, even expect it, I consider it totally superfluous. I appreciate however ripples/waves on waters - they add to pilot's ability to judge distances as all human-made structures, road traffic do. Larry probably meant "human resources" rather then computer resources. Use the human resources when it counts most - provide half-decent ATC, weather, etc. By the way - weather is still in its infancy.