kevinh

I've been searching for an answer to this for a while and Google led me here, but the solutions offered are still less than perfect. I found that INSERT is bound to two things (in my installation at least) which is the root cause of this. 1. CAMERA / CAMERA MODE SWITCHES / TOGGLE DRONE CAMERA 2. CAMERA / DRONE CAMERA / TOGGLE DRONE The first press of INSERT switches you from COCKPIT (or EXTERNAL) to SHOWCASE FREE CAMERA (DRONE), as expected. Subsequent presses of INSERT toggle you between this and SHOWCASE FIXED CAMERA (EXTERNAL), instead of returning you to COCKPIT (or EXTERNAL). This is what prevents you being able to switch easily between DRONE camera and cockpit and external views. Deleting the second assignment of INSERT to TOGGLE DRONE removes this contradiction and allows you to switch directly between Cockpit or External and Drone using INSERT. END now toggles you between Cockpit and External or between Drone (free) and External (fixed). I reassigned CAMERA / DRONE CAMERA / TOGGLE DRONE to another key in case it is needed, but it doesn't seem to do anything.

Well it's broken again, either that or search functionality has been drastically reduced. You can't choose what forum you want to search (there is no advanced search any more). Under "Content Search" there is no mention of "forum", let alone a means to select the forum you want to search in, as there used to be. If it automatically searches the forum you are in that's all very well until you search again too soon. Then you get taken to an error page (which belatedly tells you how much longer you should have waited to search again). Then you have to navigate back to the forum and re-enter your search because you can't easily get back to the search page. I understand searches must be limited because of server load but there will be a much bigger server hit if every search looks at all content. Also you get a lot of irrelevant matches that way too. Controls over what area you want to search in are essential, surely?

Where did I give the crew the benefit of the doubt? I was just correcting what you said about the crew getting to cruise before they noticed the problem. Of course the error should have been caught on the ground. Has anyone said otherwise? Surely an unacceptable error requires more action, compared to an acceptable error?

No, the IRS takes it's initial alignment position from the departure airport. But then the crew adjust this lat/long for the exact gate position. They can use slew keys but in this case the Captain entered the data from the keypad, incorrectly. The aircraft didn't have a software mod that checks for sensible inputs, but since the incident all Air Asia planes have been updated. You do have to manually enter the alignment position in a Boeing, though of course you can copy last position or current GPS position to the scratchpad to help you. But for precise alignment you need to enter the gate position. According to the linked report they recognised the problem as soon as the aircraft took off. A gate return is less of an issue than an air return, but a safe air return is still far better than the alternative of attempting to continue unsafely.

Yes. After you uninstall the FSX version, next time you run the installer you will get the option to install both the FSX and FSX-SE versions

That headline you quote is very misleading. It may reduce jet lag effects but it is never going to end it. Even if cabin pressure could be made to be sea level, time zone change would still have a significant effect people.

If there's no entry for it then I think it defaults to settings in cameras.cfg which is located where FSX.cfg is.

Initially you did generalise to all Asian crews. It's good you are qualifying that now. In that case all mistakes are unforgivable. The problem here was the entry was not checked. Surely you would forgive the pilot if the mistake was found in a cross check and corrected? In this case nobody died. Hopefully both crew members, and the operator, learned from the experience. Far better to recognise an error and overcome it safely, as they did, than sweep it under the carpet and risk making the same mistake again. The crew made a mistake and they corrected it. Is that unforgivable? It must be said it is rather easy to upset the Airbus IRS position with a single entry. It does ask you to confirm and the FCOM is very clear about the risk. But I suppose that during preflight they were less concerned about the consequences. Do the same thing in flight and you are in a world of trouble. Easier to correct on ground, as long as you are aware something is wrong....

A more readable font would make it easier to get help.

It doesn't disconnect in that situation as far as I'm aware. IIRC you will get an A/T caution if the difference between actual and commanded airspeed is greater than 10 knots. The FMC shouldn't command an airspeed less than Vref.

Surely the checklists are the same whether you start cold and dark or short turn.

At lower RPM engines have stability bleed valves and variable stator vanes to prevent things like compressor stall. If you slammed the throttles from idle there is a risk a bleed valve might not close or the vanes might not open and that engine would accelerate slower, leading to a thrust differential at takeoff thrust. So the usual procedure let the engines stabilise at around 60% (also known as standing the throttles up) to ensure bleeds are closed before setting takeoff thrust. If you run ignition continuously the whole flight the igniters will soon wear out. So you use ignition in critical phases of flight and when a flameout is likely (in cloud or precipitation). If you save the panel state after each flight and restart from that state, fluid loss will be carried over.

Which AP is selected will also affect which side is master. If AP A becomes master for some reason then the Capt FD becomes master too. If only AP B is engaged the F/O FD will definitely be master and should stay that way.

Yes you're right, but in my defence there was a higher power development, Dectra, which had transatlantic capability. It wasn't widely adopted and INS finally killed it off.

A320s regularly operate there so it's certainly possible for a 737.