Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5,087 Excellent


About Chock

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Her Brittanic Majesty's Kingdom of Englandshire
  • Interests

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

18,757 profile views
  1. Although not very likely, it is worth bearing in mind the admittedly remote possibility that the aircraft's transponder was sending erroneous data and therefore plots we have of speed and altitude are incorrect. Since there are two military bases nearby, I assume the investigators could check this against radar plots if they thought it was a possibility. Seems a remote chance, but everything needs looking at because something definitely went really wrong on this flight, and it is just possible that it was not entirely the crew's fault until we have absolute proof that it was. Remember, in most countries - with one or two exceptions, where there is an automatic criminal investigation opened, which proceeds concurrently with the relevant AAIB's efforts (and often gets in the way if history is anything to go by) - that it is not the job of an air accident investigation board to apportion blame; it is the job of an AAIB to determine what happened; it's then up to other authorities to determine if further legal proceedings should occur in regards to blame.
  2. Never said they did. I was referring to the many low cost airlines who do indulge in this sort of thing, which creates an unrealistic expectation on the part of passengers as to how much an airline ticket actually costs on average. This puts pressure on every airline to trim every corner possible in order to try to remain in business, with the knock on effect to everything else.
  3. What needs to happen is for airlines to stop with the fantasy that they can operate 737s and A320s on medium haul flights, yet constantly tell holidaymakers that they only need to charge 50 quid for a seat on the things and it still be a viable proposition for a business. This sort of thing has lead to a completely unrealistic level of expectation from people when they look to buy airline tickets and lead to such narrow margins that many airlines are a wafer-thin distance away from collapse.
  4. Most stuff can just be pointed at the V5 folder, a notable exception is add-ons which have the A2A windscreen effect; the V4 compatible version of that crashes P3D V5, so you either need an updated V5 installer, or to disable that effect in your add-ons installed folder if it was a V4 installer that you used and it had that A2A effect included. A2A have patched this now incidentally.
  5. Nope. Even if there was a bounced false glideslope signal, there are so many other visual, audio and instrument reading clues to indicate that you are not on the glideslope when flying in the envelope those guys were in, that you'd have to be deaf and blind to miss them and just go: 'well, I know we've got all these warnings and alerts going off skipper, and the gear won't come down because we're so fast, but the PFD needle says we're in the pipe five by five, so let's go for a landing shall we?'. One of the many reasons you don't dive down on a glideslope signal, but instead fly into it from underneath when you're nice and stable, is because you'd be chasing a descending signal and this can mean you might pick up a bounced signal. This is why you don't do it. If you're five or six miles from the runway threshold at well over twice the height you should be, and getting close to 100 knots over the speed you should be, it doesn't matter if the glideslop needles are saying 'yeah, you're good mate', you know that's a false reading. There is no mistaking the sight picture out of the window which shows no sky whatsoever because you are in a steep dive, nor is there any mistaking the alarms which are sounding, and the ECAM messages allied to those alarms, which are telling you that you are going so fast that your landing gear is not going to deploy. We need to wait for the investigation to confirm everything which was going on, but even a novice pilot can see that this was not the way you go about landing an aeroplane, and certainly not when you are a professional pilot with the responsibility for the safety of many lives. At this point with the information that we have, it really does look like there is no excuse for the actions of the crew.
  6. I'm pretty sure the point was that if someone's not got to the point they wanted to discuss after 149 pages of a forum thread on particular subject, then it's not looking likely they're ever going to get there.
  7. https://a2asimulations.com/product/accu-sim-t-6-texan-p3d/
  8. Can't say I blame em scrubbing for weather, I was out this evening test flying my new RC MQ9 Reaper to check the balance of it before I put the camera on it. It flew, but that wind was making it a bit 'interesting' shall we say. 😄
  9. I've had EZDOK, but found it a bit of a faff, Chase Plane is a lot easier to get to grips with.
  10. Well, if you're gonna have to go with A2A then that's no bad thing. Personally I think their A2A Commanche is the best flyer you can get for FSX and P3D.
  11. Shame it's been scrubbed, was all set to check it out, but you gotta go with safety in these kind of ops.
  12. You might want to take a look at the most recent versions of Lionheart's Bellanca Viking for P3D. Being that it is only 2,217lbs (which is about 300 lbs less than a Bonanza) but has a turbocharged 300hp engine, the Viking is fairly fast for a GA single . But regardless of performance, the reason I'm suggesting it, is that unlike most recent P3D add-ons, it has 2D gauges which are easily swapped out for others, rather than 3D gauges which are part of the model. This was done deliberately to allow users to switch out gauges to their own preference, so you could put any gauge you particularly wanted into the thing. If on the other hand you want a faster GA which is good for IFR practice/training with realistically simulated systems, the FlySimWare Cessna C441 Conquest II is definitely worth a look. The 441 makes a great IFR trainer: It cruises at 300 mph, can get up to 35,000 feet and has a 2,400+ fpm rate of climb, so it is well suited to doing IFR procedures which could have more demanding mandatory rates of climb than a little single GA might manage.
  13. Pretty sure that makes it a JAR one since they are part of the EU.
  14. Nah, that was just footy banter. I was a massive supporter of Michael Schumacher when he was racing, and I'm not German, never shopped at Benetton, didn't smoke Camels, nor drove a Ferrari, and as far as footy goes, I'm a Liverpool fan even though I'm from Manchester, so I've got absolutely no room to talk. 🤣
  • Create New...