martinboehme

You can search ASRS for "dual FMGC failure" - I find 21 reports. (You don't need the IRSs to fail additionally - without the FMGC, how would you perform RNAV navigation?)

You can navigate though - you just can't have the autopilot automatically follow the radial. Lots of systems failures cause an increase in workload, and as things go, this one isn't terrible. I'll readily admit, I had exactly the same reaction you did when I flew an Airbus in the aim for the first time and learned it can't track VORs. It seemed so weird - you're telling me it can't do this basic thing? Realistically, though, it's not often an issue in practice.

What does the fact that they're based in Germany have to do with whether they are reputable or not? If it doesn't have anything to do with it, why mention it?

I like the free version too. Have GSX as well but never use it as it's just not my cup of tea. The only drawback of the free version is that Fenix warns against its use - hence I'm wondering if the paid version will be compatible. The feature list does make an oblique reference to "compatibility with add on airplanes", but doesn't go into specifics...

Does anyone know if it will be compatible with the Fenix?

I have all three of these sins installed on the same machine without any issues. I'm not aware that these sims share any common components, so you should be fine.

Got it. Well, that seems workable at least. In Germany, which I'm used to, airspace G only goes to a maximum of 2500 feet AGL - which would be much too restrictive. It's interesting how differently different countries use the airspace classes.

Wow... that seems very restrictive. How high does class G airspace go?

Huh - that seems very confusing. When I was an active glider pilot, I always converted meters to feet when giving position reports. It's just common sense to fit in when operating in an environment that otherwise uses feet.

I don't think @dokkemann has the US government to thank for outdated procedures at ENAT (which is in Norway)? 😉

Of course, this could also be about the Rockwell Commander 112/114 or the Aero Commander 500. I believe there's an MSFS version of the latter, but I haven't found the former.

TIL. I'm more familiar with the situation in the EU, where the laws for protecting designs are considered to be essentially a limited form of copyright.

He was at Saitek previously. Edit: Saitek was bought by Logitech in 2016 - IIUC this was also the year that he started Honeycomb.

Same. I was considering getting a Bravo as an upgrade from my ancient CH Products throttle quadrant. To me, Honeycomb really hit the sweet spot on the price / quality spectrum.

That's a concern for sure. My point was, design isn't protected by patent law. It is, however, protected by copyright law - if they do see infringement, hopefully they'll have the capacity to protect their copyright amid the current turmoil.

IANAPL, but I'm not sure how. much they even have that's patentable and how important it would be for them to patent things. IMO their greatest assets are that they have a great brand and great product designs. Hopefully, they'll be able to salvage these assets through the current turmoil.

Maybe you only read the first email? I found that pretty confusing too. The second one is more explicit. Some excerpts:

In this particular case it brought to the threshold of the physical runway, in other words the start of the displaced threshold. Hm, so much for that theory then...

No, in the default aircraft the distances appear to be fine. In the ATR, the only distance that appears to be affected is the distance from the last waypoint before the threshold to the threshold. But whatever the ATR is calculating, it doesn't appear to be slant range. Going back to the first example that @mryan75 gave, the RNP RWY 11 at TNCC. The distance from ELUVA (the FAF) to the threshold is supposed to be 6.0 nm according to the chart. The ATR reports the distance as 6.4 nm. But this cannot be explained by slant range. Let's calculate what the slant range from ELUVA to the threshold would be, using the Pythagorean theorem. The crossing height for ELUVA is 2000 feet. The airport elevation is 36 feet, the TCH is 50 feet. In other words, from ELUVA to the threshold is a vertical distance of 1914 feet, or 0.32 nm. The horizontal distance, as noted above, is 6.0 nm. Using the Pythagorean theorem, we obtain a slant distance of sqrt(6.0^2 + 0.32^2) = 6.01 nm. In other words, just a tiny bit more than the horizontal distance, and certainly not enough to explain the 6.4 nm displayed by the ATR. This is an interesting observation. From this, it sounds as if not just the distance displayed is wrong, but that the ATR is actually navigating to an incorrect position. If you follow the RNP RWY 11 guidance at TNCC all the way down to 50 feet AAL, where do you end up? Is it about 0.4 nm past the threshold? If so, that would mean that the distance the ATR displays is consistent with the vertical guidance -- it's just using the wrong position for the waypoint.

I just did a test of my own with some enroute waypoints, and the distances I get in the ATR check out against what Navigraph shows me. So it looks as if the ATR has an issue specifically with runway waypoints. Interestingly, I note that runway 10 at TTPP doesn't have a displaced threshold -- so the problem occurs not only with displaced thresholds.

None of what we're discussing here is about DME -- it's all RNAV. Indeed, there is no DME station at either of the waypoints in question (ELUVA and the runway 11 displaced threshold at TNCC). And the ATR is displaying an incorrect distance between those two waypoints (6.4 nm instead of 6 nm). (Maybe this is what you meant -- but I wanted people to be clear that DME doesn't enter into the picture at all.) I don't think the waypoint for RW11 is necessarily misplaced. You do need a waypoint for the non-displaced threshold, for when you're departing from that runway. I believe it's possible for approach procedures to code waypoints that aren't otherwise accessible by name outside of that approach procedure. I suspect that this is how the displaced threshold is coded; it doesn't need to be provided as a "standalone" waypoint because there is no need to use it outside of an approach procedure. I assume the non-displaced threshold does exist as a standalone waypoint because you need it when departing from that runway (and you might not be departing on a SID, so the non-displaced threshold can't be coded merely as a waypoint that is "internal" to the SID). Edit: As to the question of why the ATR is displaying the wrong distance -- could it be that the ATR's distance calculations are just generally wrong? Has someone checked with a two enroute waypoints and compared against the result from another source?

Just checked, but no... apparently a leg from ELUVA to TNCC is 7.3 nm (according to the GNS 430 in the default 172).

I first thought it might be computing the distance to the runway midpoint rather than the threshold, but runway 11 at TNCC is longer than two times 0.4 nm. Maybe it's computing the distance to the ARP? Should be relatively easy to check... if you create a leg from ELUVA to TNCC, how long is that leg?

I'd go beyond that. I enjoy flying on VATSIM and consider myself reasonably proficient. When there's a good number of controllers and pilots online, nothing beats VATSIM. But there are times of day and areas of the world where VATSIM can be pretty barren. It can feel a bit pointless making Unicorn transmissions that no one hears, and lonely parking up on an empty ramp. For those situations, I'm hoping Beyond ATC will provide an immersive option. I'd say, irrespective of how much experience someone has, it's really a prerequisite to become familiar with an airport one hasn't flown into before. Professional pilots do exactly this. So don't feel like your preparation is a sign of "noobness" - it just means you're doing exactly what a real life pilot would do.

You'd be shocked. Apparently, some incorrigibles are still flying the Stearman, which first flew 90 years ago! (Sorry, this one was just too good to resist... 😉)