ARM505

Yeah, this comes up a few times. Testament to the software I suppose, that it makes people feel this way. I actually fly 737's (800's I'm flying now are ZS-ZWA, ZWB, ZWC, ZWP, ZWS, ZWQ, ZWR) Been simming all my life. Depending on the person (ie hand/eye co-ordination, ability to adapt to the new reality and apply the experience they'd gained in FSX because the reality vs the monitor would be quite an overwhelming experience) I'd say it's entirely possible, especially if you decide to go for the autoland option. I'm talking 'they're all dead, help us!' vs 'Routine flying with a safe outcome 99.9999999 times out of 100' type scenarios of course. Flaring for landing would be...interesting....but I reckon you'd survive it. That gear is quite strong really! Reality is a little easier in some small ways actually (better control feel, better ergonomics with switches, better ability to see without restrictions of monitor etc) Now MY question is whether A2A's Mustang gets me back down safely in a real one, given that I'm already a pilot with 1000's of hours in light aircraft (airliners aren't much help there!)

It's amazing the massive difference in opinion that can be experienced by two people reading the exact same thing. Mine, for example, is that the review was indeed biased, quite decidedly so - despite listing the many shortfalls of Flight vs it's predecessors in terms of giving one the experience of flying an aircraft, it then goes on to explain why this is fine, and indeed makes some condescending remarks about 'change', and people not accepting it? (Which, in case somebody may not have noticed, can actually be for the worse too) Why is this not being released on console, an Xbox seems perfectly capable of doing everything that Flight does, and could possibly catch more of it's target market (not meant as a derogatory statement, just fact)? It's just my opinion of course. Hey ho, life goes on. At least we have what we need already.It's funny really. I love flying so much, I made it my career. And yet I'm not even tempted to download the free base package. I beta tested it, so it's not like I haven't seen what they intended. It's not that I'm all rabid about it (I hope my tone comes across as relaxed, and there are plenty of other things that I can play, some excellent choices out there now), but I'll close by saying they've made a game called 'Flight', about a subject that I love, that I (a pilot) don't actually want - isn't that a failure of some kind? All my opinion, but anyway....hopefully it will appeal to somebody.

I'll chip in a few points (having 'lived the dream', as it were):- My family has had to make massive sacrifices too. That sucks. I can handle sacrificing stuff for what I love to do, but it's painful to have to tell my children I'm going away yet again.- My pay is ok, after a long, long time of lower pay and financial sacrifice, and random salaries. My wife has had to carry the can quite a few times. Lucky me that I have a professionally qualified wife!- I've lost two jobs due to the companies folding. Aviation is an incredibly volatile business. Somebody in Asia sneezes, something happens, and aviation takes a dive (SARS, fuel price, world economy, 9/11, Gulf war, any terror attack, bird flu, Euro crisis, you name it, aviation takes a dump. And there goes your job and/or massive increase in the time to command with associated delay in getting a bigger salary, etc etc etc)- My initial qualification was as an engineer, but I had the opportunity to change, so I did. I would have had more money and time at home as an engineer. Nonetheless, I'm happy where I am (eventually!)- If you become an airline pilot, flying at work will almost certainly become 'just a job'. It's hard to get excited about what becomes essentially an airbourne bus. We all like the Ferrari's (fighters, warbirds etc), but that's not actually what we fly day in and out. That's not to say we get all bored. Actually I still find it awesome, the actual flying part at least. Sitting in the cruise is less exciting, but at least I'm airbourne. All the crap on the ground (politics, delays you didn't cause, random cock ups, passengers with no idea of what is actually possible etc) is a giant life-sucking vortex however.- There is no 'glamour' as a pilot anymore. That's ok, it doesn't bother me at all (To be honest, I'd rather wear jeans and a T-shirt, and slip into the cockpit without anybody seeing me so I can get busy flying!) But what it means to me, for example, is that now we get searched for 'dangerous weapons' in the same way as passengers. So, despite the fact that I could kill everyone on board within seconds with my bare hands, and despite the fact that I have a massive axe just behind me, I can't take my penknife through! Retards! Basically, we're not to be trusted anymore. I don't care about the glamour - but at least treat me like I know what I'm doing at an airport!- Company politics, and/or vast quantities of admin. A pain in any job I suppose! I'm lucky in that I don't get 'homework', or have to worry about 'deadlines' though :)- Not that much time off when normal humans are having time off. Weekend event? Enjoy it without me! Family dinner? I'll think of you in the cruise!All in all, I'm happy where I am. After a long, hard slog! Would I recommend it to my children? Not really. Would I stop them doing it? No way, they'll decide for themselves. Do I like it? Yes.My 2c.P.S. As mentioned by many, it's a very difficult comparison - but I reckon doctors are way more hardcore, having studied with a few when I was studying engineering. That is a MOUNTAIN of work! Flying theory just came more naturally to me I guess. But that's just me!

Levels of ATC concern:"You have 25 miles to touchdown" - unconcerned, thinks you know what you're doing, just giving you an idea of what to expect. Nice."Are you happy with your height?" - mildly concerned, thinks you should be checking your energy on the approach."Slow down to XXX (200> at the least) knots" - genuinely concerned, giving you a definite speed to see if you can do it. Final check of your skill/sanity."Go around, maintain runway heading to XXXX', contact approach on XXX.XX" - given up on you, thinks you're clueless.:)

I wish, I wish I could comment...I'll just say that I only fly three aircraft in FSX - the A2A Spit, the A2A P40 (spot the trend?) and the PMDG NGX. I doubt I am Flight's target audience.Flying the FSX demo at least had the reassuring feeling that no matter what MS did, somebody would add in something better. I lack that feeling at the moment.

Comair (South Africa), which includes the British Airways franchise, and the low cost (kulula). B733, B734, B738.

Often if the aircraft is light, it will run away if you don't use brakes. The correct technique is to allow it to accelerate, then brake down to a slow speed, then allow it to accelerate etc etc. Although at normal weights it shouldn't be necessary.

I just did this in the sim - lightning strike, followed by standby bus fail. It was in the B734 sim, but I think the NG is roughly the same - you won't be able to use the A/P. It's quite a crappy failure actually.

And given the number of times toilets go u/s due to equipment failure etc, pretty soon they'll have plenty of flights with NO functioning toilet onboard. Nice. Management =/= operator or user of the actual equipment of course. On a totally, utterly unrelated note, I've just found out that the oxygen masks in the NGX test in the proper way. Wow. Between this and the A2A Spitfire, everything else has been rendered obsolete.

The kulula NG should be a 189 seater as well, for what that's worth. ie A flying salami - thin skin, filled with meat - not a very pleasant analogy, but hey, it's the reality of air transportation nowadays! And yes, modeling pax could then introduce that realistic aspect of when you climb out of the cockpit to go to the toilet, you stare back at 189 people who you know are all now thinking, 'Hey, the pilots going to the toilet now!' Privacy fail.

I'm weird in that my hard drive is big enough to install both of them. Odd, I know :)

Ok, this time I actually had to go and look at our SOP's. On my day off too! It's to minimise the chance of a tailpipe fire/fire during startup being blown towards the aircraft. How relevant this is could be debated, but there we are... The airconditioning points mentioned above are all decent reasons too, surprisingly enough we don't do it very often. Startups are accomplished so fast that it's a whole bunch of extra switch flicking to be done while both crew are supposed to be monitoring the start, or so says our little bible. What we do carry out on hot days, is to quickly switch both packs on as soon as both engines are stable, ie we don't wait for the normal point to do that part of the flow. This works fast enough to keep the cabin cool enough for our purposes.

Ugh, completely correct about the inlets in the wing root of course, brain failure......this is what too much work does!

I'm still here! Just really busy at work :) Also, most questions here are answered pretty well by the collective knowledge actually. It's our company policy (as stated above) to start the downwind engine first - exhaust gases will then be blown away from the pack inlet in the wing root (we hope), and not get that lovely JETA1 smell in the cabin (mmmm!) To be honest, it doesn't really make that much of a difference, and I've never really found any technical reason why one should be started before the other. Some other reasons could include - starting the #1 first since the engineer is normally walking along on the F/O (#2) side, and it minimises his exposure to working in close proximity to a running engine, starting the #1 during a ground air start (since the engineer must walk in and decouple the connection after the #1 start, similar situation), equalising running time on each engine (although airframe hours are the ones that get counted I guess) and.....er....thats about all I can think of. It is our company policy (and indeed might be down in black and white from Boeing somewhere) to NEVER start an engine while passengers are boarding, or even while any main exit or cargo door is open.

Just on and off, they got it right - it takes a loss of power to get it back to 200'.