adamant365

I just checked (no time for flying though) and it is back up...in case anyone was wondering.

This is not correct. If N1 increases at accel height, thrust is increasing. A cause for this may be using derated TO thrust but using full CLB (not CLB 1 or 2). On the N1 limit page during preflight, you set your TO thrust limit/derate and CLB derate. That page will show you TO N1 %. Then go to the CLB page and it will show the selected CLB N1 %. Normal procedures would dictate a higher TO %N1 than CLB. If your CLB %N1 is showing higher than TO, you need to select a higher CLB derate (less climb thrust, CLB1 or CLB2). Alternatively, you can reduce the TO derate (higher TO thrust). The goal is to have TO thrust higher % than climb thrust.Okay, well really the goal is to use only enough TO thrust to get safely airborne whilst also leaving enough runway to stop if something happens right at or before V1. Then of course also to reduce thrust (%N1) for climb to save on engine wear while maintaining adequate separation between the aircraft and any obstacles, following ATC, procedures, etc.So I guess it's possible to have higher CLB thrust than TO, but that would be a special circumstance, probably applying to <5% of the world's airports.

LOL. I wish I had that luxury, by the time that happens, my daughter will be up from her napas well.But AS2012 shuold load the most recently downloaded data in the event of failure. Luckily, I flew around this time yesterday as well so my weather is only 24 hours old :(

Hey Everyone,I'm trying to download the weather on initial startup and I'm getting the "Failed to Download Weather" error. Are the servers down?Thanks!EDIT - I attached a screen shot.

I don't see rain on the windscreen in 2D or 3D. Although I have EZCA and I don't know if this has anything to do with it.

I'm confused...

What about the registry fix from Flight1? I had the same issue with the MD11 once I installed it in FSX but a previous post from Tabs suggested the "Flight1 Registry Fix" available on their website. That did the trick for me.EDIT: Here's the link...hope I don't get banned for this :( http://www.flight1.com/view.asp?page=library

Landed about two hours ago in KOMA from KIAH (UA1724). Landing weather 355/17kt, 1/2sm, 900 ceiling in heavy snow. Right at the minimum for the ILS RWY36. Picked up the approach lead-in lights and disconnected the AP and AT about one second before "minimums" call. Nice positive touchdown (~90 FPM) on the target bars. One of my most rewarding NGX flights yet. Beware of "Jamaica time." Your layover may be longer than you anticipate :(

That is correct. I have the A/P disconnect linked to my "1" button on my CH Yoke and A/T disarm linked to the "2" button (the two finger buttons). Keep in mind that if you use key presses, the first press disarms the function and the second press cancels the warning (A/P) and/or the flashing red indication on the Autopilot / Autothrottle Indicators (FCOM Vol. 2 Pg. 205 (4.10.21)).EDIT: By the way, I'm not a pro nor do I claim to be...I've just spent a lot of time studying these manuals :)

No. This has been discussed before. I believe the response from Ryan (Tabs) from PMDG was that they are at the limit for effects in the VC therefore rain effects are not possible.

Awesome. Thanks! So my running list of HGS requirements for major North American NG operators:AA - Required for T/O and LandingAS - Required for T/O and Landing on 800/900 if equippedDL - Required for T/O and LandingUA - Not equippedWN - Required if visibility less than or equal to 1/2SM or at pilot's discretionWS - Not equippedThanks for the replies!

Duh...I guess if I had just looked above my head I would have seen that those two airlines don't have HGS equipped, therefore they can't use it during any phase of flight!Thanks for the replies!

This is a great question and one I ask myself (and my wife asks me) each time I spend two or more hours in front of my PC flying the NGX. And in all honesty, I think how my life would have been different and what I have now, and for me I truly don't think it would have been worth it. That's not to say I don't have the utmost respect for what the guys/gals flying the heavy metal are doing. It's just that at times I would think being a commercial pilot could be quite mundane. If I was to have become a RW pilot and do it for a living, I really think that what the folks up in Alaska (think: Flying Wild Alaska on Discovery Channel here in the USA) do day in and day out would be appealing due to the constant challenge. If you fly large commercial aircraft around the US, it's not every day that you are really challenged like those guys appear to be in one form or another.Bottom line...I think about major commercial airline pilots and I very much equate that to like being a physician. In order to do it correctly and safely, you have to be dedicated 100% to your job. In a lot of cases, your job comes before your life and I personally like having a life at home with my family. Again, no knock against pilots (or physicians for that matter) and I hold those professions in highest regard.One day I do wish to earn a PPL...let's say it's on the bucket list. But I don't have any regrets of the life I've chosen.

So, for the USA:DL - Required for T/O and LandingAA - Required for T/O and LandingWN - Only if at or below 1/2 SM visibility or pilot's discretionAnyone know about WS (WestJet), or UA/CO (Continited)? Of all the North American airlines who operate the NG, those five are really the only I ever fly. And I know there's at least one WS pilot lurking around here somewhere....I'd also be curious as to what some of the rest of the world's major carriers do.I really appreciate all the responses! Thanks!

Great answers! Keep 'em coming.Does anyone know about AA and if they "require" HUD use?

Hello All,I have a question or two regarding real-life use of the HGS/HUD. I had heard that some US airlines require (by SOP) use of the HGS for landing. Does anyone happen to know which airlines that might be? Also, besides the airlines in the US, are there other airlines around the world that require use of the HGS for approach/landing? I always strive to be as realistic to real world operations as I can be, and with such an integral device such as the HGS, I would be interested in knowing what airlines require its use if I'm flying say, an AA flight, or DL, or WS, WN etc...Thanks for any answers!

Yes! In fact I think the shorter NG's were designed to have a higher body angle at touch down. Check pages 282-288 (6.16 - 6.22) of the Flight Crew Training Manual and there are very nice charts showing the allowable angles. The previous pages show the classics. The whole "Landing" section in the FCTM is a realy good read if you're like me and actually enjoy reading stuff like this. I've actually re-read the Landing chapter just to "brush up" and make sureI haven't learned any bad habits.Oh and also, I don't think I've read any Boeing documents that use any wordage that suggest a "greaser." In fact, every Boeing manual I've ever read specifically states "Do not hold the aircraft off the runway attempting to acheive a smooth landing." Furthermore, a "Boeing Landing" is one which V/S at touchdown is -150FPM. So aim for less than or equal to -150FPM, but never waste runway trying to get close to 0FPM.

Because if you have your eyes on a plane, it's your responsibilty to stay clear of that aircraft. If you overtake that aircraft, you may no longer be able to see them.Either way, Steve is correct; if you listen to SFO tower and they are doing parallel visual approaches on the 28's, you will hear that instruction a lot.Kenny,Yes, there is plenty of space between the runways. During low visibility operations, they do still do simultaneous approaches, but there are special procedures. The FAA charts have "SIM CLOSE PAR" on them. I don't know what that means, but it is special.

I too have noticed this issue. Only started in the last few flights, and not all flights, since installing SP1b. I have installed AS2012, but the first time I had the issue was before I installed AS2012. What's weird, is I get a solid 30-locked FPS most everywhere. Before this issue, the lowest I've been is around NYC at dusk with 70% UT2 traffic and even then it was only dropping to around 12 or so but still smooth. But this is totally different. All three times it's happened have been on approach. Once to CYYZ, once to KBOI, and once to KMSY. I know it's not scenery related because all three of those airports are stock/slightly modified AFCAD only changes. And I don't use any fancy scenery or anything like that. And I don't think it's temp related since my Coolermaster 212+ is staying around 75% the whole time and my temps never really go over 55 or 60C during any FSX session.But it's like BAM, down to 2FPS slide show for about 30 seconds to a minute then right back up to 30.

Yes, by changing the Cost Index. I forget which way it works. I probably have this backwards, but I think a lower CI will cause a higher climb angle and possibly higher rate of climb. My thinking being to be more fuel efficient, you have to get to cruise alt faster, but your time to destination is longer. Conversely, a higher CI causes a slower rate of climb because more energy will be spent traveling forward as opposed to upwards. You'll get to your destination faster but burn more fuel as you will spend more time at sub-optimal altitude. And I would think it would work the same for descent.EDIT: Someone else may have to weigh in on how CI affects climb rate. From what I've been reading, CI only affects IAS. I don't know how that would affect climb rate, if at all.

I don't think it's possible to have the root of the drive be the FSX directory. The installer is merely asking what folder to put the FSX folder in. I don't know if it would be even wise to try having your root drive the FSX folder. If you merely tell the installer to install in D:, it will create the FSX folder in the D drive. As far as performance, I think having a D:FSX folder is the optimum situation.Bottom line, I don't think you can have your Addon Scenery, Autogen, Categories, etc folders right on the root. There has to be at least an FSX folder.

It's pretty simple really. At the point in the installer where it asks the location to install FSX, (probably something like C:Program Files (X86)Microsoft Games) simply change the drive letter to the drive you want to install it on. At the same time, remove all the folder structure so that you simply have the root of the drive in the "Install Directory" field so it looks like D:That's all it takes. As far as I know there are no restrictions on where you install FSX as long as the registry entries all match up, which they should if you are using the installer. I have two drives and every time I install new software on my PC, I have to remember to change the drive letter from C to D in order to not take up precious space on my SSD. Since I installed the OS and FSX on the SSD, those are the only things I want on the SSD. I would have had the SSD be FSX only, but I also wanted my OS on the SSD because it's so darned fast to boot.About the iTunes...why not stick those on an external drive? Or pick up a cheap internal HDD and migrate them over. Just ideas....

To the best of my knowledge, that is correct thinking. Personally, I prefer to have one big SSD for FSX and the OS as opposed to two SSD's with one drive for the OS and one for FSX. The reasoning there is that two drives means twice the possibility one will fail. Either way you slice it, if you lose one of your drives, you're not flying for a bit. However, one big drive means you lose FSX and your OS if you have one and it fails. Probably the best idea would be to have two big SSD's (at least 128GB) in RAID 1 configuration. That of course if you have the cash...

I have a 128GB Crucial SSD and I love it. Like Steffen says, it doesn't increase my FPS that I know of, but Windows and FSX both load with lightning speed. I have my OS and FSX on the same disk. As far as having FSX on it's own drive, I don't think that is really all that necessary if you are running both on SSDs. Since there is no read head moving around and the data throughput is so amazingly fast, it's not a huge deal to have the OS and FSX on the same disk. But you will want to have FSX on the root of whichever drive you install it on. For example, if by default it wants to install to C:/Program Files (x86)/Microsoft Games/, you will want to change it in the istaller just install to C:/.Your setup will be nice...having two SSD's that is. I don't have space issues using just the one, but I only have FSX and the OS on the SSD. I have other slower HDDs for other programs.Oh, and you will NOT want to try to defrag the SSDs. By their nature, they don't get fragmented. I don't know if it would cause harm, but it's totally unnecessary anyway.

Yes. Both Delta (with their CFM56-7B26 equipped 737-700 "rocket jets") and United 737-700's (I think they are B24's) operate from UIO.EDIT: I'm sure there are others...those are just the US operators.