SAS443

Another SSR code to remember when flying in EASA-land. 🙃 Also note: it replaces the 7 minute rule if you lose COMs while under radar service aswell, increasing it to 20 mins, regardless radar services or not. "New air traffic procedures for lost communications and emergency descent took effect across EU airspace on May 1 under updates to the Standardised European Rules of the Air (SERA). These revisions, which apply in all EU member states regardless of national AIP publication status, include a second transponder code for IFR operations. “The most notable difference is the introduction of a new SSR code 7601.” The revised rules require IFR aircraft that lose communications but elect to continue flying in visual meteorological conditions to squawk 7601, a new SSR code introduced in SERA 14083. Aircraft that continue on an IFR clearance without diverting in VMC must still use 7600, the long-established lost comms code"

This is awesome stuff! Thanks for sharing FYI, Questions 7 and 8 are almost mirror images of what you can see in EASA Subject 033 "Flight Planning and Monitoring"-exams. But we have the luxury of multiple choice nowadays (but still use the trusty wiz wheel /flight computer)

You are assuming his GA is flying the 3 degree glide at 130 kts ground speed then. I'd say anything between 450-550 fpm rates are more realistic for OP, generally speaking.

What are you talking about. I was there, at Toliss A319 1.0 launch. It was half baked, sounds and artwork was freeware quality. in my mind, Fenix v1.0 was by far a more well rounded package through and through.

Or as Abathur (coolest dude in Starcraft-lore) put it "Never perfect. Perfection goal that changes. Never stops moving. Can chase, cannot catch."

uneventful jump from betaversion (1.14.18) to 1.14.20. Smooth, stable on my end.

listed as offensive in both Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries. it is considered a racial slur.

You do realize that ancient circular applies to part 135/part 121 operators running FFS or FTDs. X-plane is certified as a AATD/BATD. For that, you can not use the above (old) circular, but must apply the AC in 61-136 (from 2018). Look what we find in the latter AC "The aircraft physical flight and associated control systems must be recognizable as to their function and how they are to be manipulated solely from their appearance. These physical flight control systems cannot use interfaces such as a keyboard, mouse, or gaming joystick to control the aircraft in simulated flight." So basically something that somewhat resembles a yoke(!) When it comes to flight dynamics, the AC consistently mentions "comparable". Such as "Flight dynamics of the ATD should be comparable to the way the represented training aircraft performs and handles. However, there is no requirement for an ATD to have control loading to exactly replicate any particular aircraft" Obviously any high fidelity addon , regardless of simulator, would have no problems passing those rather lenient requirements. But again. You can't apply a random FAA CA without understanding who the intended recipients are. It looks silly. This is not the first time some of the X-plane enthusiasts have misunderstood what the certification means (or rather *does not mean*)

Been running MSFS and XP side by side since 2004. Back when the titles were FS9 and XP7. Choice is always good, and they are both great simulators. I prefer Asobo offering. But it's more a matter of specific addons than core sim tbh. Also xp has a free demo. Cost nothing to try it.

the NPS is there. But you need a valid FMS route for the lateral scale and vertical scale won't appear until FMS computed ToD. If it is still hidden it might be due to company option perhaps? (which is odd, since the RNP specification outlines exactly that: a continous indication of lateral deviation) (image from A330Driver's recent 777-200ER video linke below) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Eymtqap_5I

The big difference between these two is the reference (and subsequently the referenced distances) which becomes a factor especially when shooting the Localizer approach. Z: uses the ILS DME (id:ICB) Y : uses the Canberra VOR (id:CB). What this means in plain English is. If your aircraft is not equipped with a DME transceiver, you should fly the Y procedure and use Canberra VOR as distance reference. This is because your typical Garmin G1000 or GTN750 etc does not usually come with a "real" DME. It will give you horisontal distance derived from its navigation database - not the actual DME slant range distance. Another problem is that your database might not even have the ICB localizer in it. It is unable to provide any distances at all, or even if it shows up in the database, DME position on an ILS tend to be different than actual Localizer antenna position, which can introduce unacceptable navigation errors. So in the end, since your GNSS does not have a real DME you cannot use it for procedures whose design explicitly requires it. Such as when LOC DME distance is used to denote the missed approach point for a localizer approach.

https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/dap/SCBSR11-179_20MAR2025.pdf (LEECE 1V STAR) Notice the description of the procedure, especially from PILOS and beyond.

The root cause to all your issue is in the actual procedure (STAR) you have selected. You have selected the LEECE 1V, which from PILOS is visual navigation *only*, all the way down to the runway. You are not supposed to connect it to a instrument approach. For that purpose select LEECE 1A instead.

if you have purchased Active Sky, or even better, paired it with RealTurb addon (which also depends on AS, to some extent). P3D stand alone is not able to do anything. It can give you some weather presets, but that's it. At least in XP everything is contained within the simulator and does it with bravado. However, even in P3D with Active SKy, the "radar" do not remotely work like a real one. I can't recall it painted any turbulence -induced shapes such as fingers, hooks, U-shapes nor scalloped edges. It all seems random? And what about shadow areas? in my PMDG I could see severe returns 100+NM which are located behind already intensive areas of precip, areas that IRL would probably black. It's still a gimmick of sorts, if you understand how radars work. It has one thing going for it, and that is radar tilt. in the end, quoting what RSR himself said here

well look no further then. P3d v5 and MSFS24 comparison. Scenery is default (Mount Pilatus, south of Lucerne in Switzerland). You can see the advancements in terrain/scenery. And I don't necessarliy think P3D v5 looks "bad", it's just feels vanilla and generic. GA is MSFS24 forte. Esecially if you pair it with a great GA flyer, such as the COWS DA40 XLS (pictured) or A2A Comanche. And the sim runs great on my 6yo rig (RTX 2080ti, 9900k).