SAS443

IMHO, AS had serious issues with Tru Sky early on. I rarely got accurate ceilings when METAR reported low cloud bases (BKN/OVC) not to mention the square cloud patterns. To be fair, the product improved after that.

Short answer, no. Longer answer below, sorry for wall of text (pasted from https://www.pilotmall.com/blogs/news/piper-tomahawk-pa-38-everything-you-need-to-know ) "An unfortunate saga in the Tomahawk’s story is the controversy surrounding its wings. Following a March 1994 dual fatality Tomahawk crash, the NTSB investigation revealed that there were “--reports of significant differences in the stall characteristics between the certification-tested airplane and the production airplanes.” They also discovered that the certification flight testing report did not show any record of turning flight stalls with extended flaps or accelerated stalls with both flap configurations ever having been tested. After checking the records, the NTSB found that the certification testing was all done on a single pre-production aircraft and that multiple test pilots agreed that production Tomahawks were “nothing like the article certified as far as stall characteristics are concerned.” A Piper engineer testified that “--shortly after delivery of production airplanes began, owners and operators of the airplane complained that the lateral directional characteristics at the stall were abrupt and unpredictable, and that the airplane exhibited a rapid roll as the stall occurred.” Piper responded in 1979 by modifying the wing to add two additional stall strips to the existing two stall strips. This modification resulted in the issuance of AD 83-14-08, however apparently the FAA was not involved in any of the testing of the new modifications. According to the NTSB report, a Swedish National Aeronautics Board Investigation Commission conducted their own study after a 1979 stall/spin training accident fatality and they concluded that the Tomahawk “--did not meet the 14 CFR Part 23 certification requirements for wings-level stall characteristics.” This outcome was the same for both the two-stall strip and the four-stall strip configurations." Something just wasn't right how testing was conducted. Never flown a PA38, all aerobatics is in a CAP10.

Great comparison. ASFS weather is much better in the video, IMHO. But hmm the turbulence effects are terribad in both scenarios. Too snappy/jolty. and barely any yawing tendency at all. Looks extremely fabricated and not realistic (more so with MSFS weather, but still). The Sting weighs what, 600kg? based off my own experience flying the similar sized planes, they get pushed around, in every axis

That's where I stand as well. I love Active Sky as a product line. And I think it's great that it is available for MSFS. I recall my first hifisim purchase was back in 2005. Since then plenty of iterations has passed by in my sims (AS evolution, AS2012, AS next, AS2016...I also own Active Sky for XP) But for my style of flying in MSFS which is mostly VFR in largely remote swedish terrain, Meteoblue model is close to the forecasted VFR-areas (vis +5km and BKN/OVC layer +1000ft AGL) published by our local authority. But for other styles of simming I can see ASFS has its audience. Options are never a bad thing.

ICAO Annex 3 has been adopted into EU law since many years back. It doesn't merit a discussion at all. It's very clear cut what CAVOK is, but also what's omitted when a station reports CAVOK. Below is CAVOK conditions. For example.

CAVOK doesn't mean zero clouds. You can have OVC060 measured (but omitted in the human made observation) and still have CAVOK conditions, it's all in compliance with ICAO Annex 3. Assuming blue skies and validating that assumption against ASFS (or any wx addon for that matter) based on "CAVOK" is inconclusive.

You already have. It's the LS push button.

You have an FLS approach option available for the RNAV (this should be shown on the Appr-page in the FMS, and can be toggled off in favor of "FINAL APP") FLS = your FMS is able to create imaginary glideslope and localizer beams (watch your FMA...) since it mimics a conventional ILS you will have to activate the deviation scales, much like IAN approach in the 737.

But the typical cold front is the opposite. It is wedged under the lighter warmer air, forcing it rapidly upwards (compared to warm front, the cold front gradient is steep) with convective clouds and showers as result. I mean they offer two completely different flying experiences. Warm front has poor visibility, cold front has not. Cold front is choppy, warm front usually is not. VFR flyers can navigate through a cold front since visibility is usually fine and you can dodge the showers. But VFR in warm front is where people get lost and disoriented (in fact @Cpt_Piett this is what the 180 degree turn in IMC during the PPL checkride simulates, a head-on encounter with a warm front which gradually puts you in clouds) People write about fronts but fail to deliver what should be both depicted in sim and the associated flying conditions. " I see clouds therefore must be a front". Well no, not all fronts will generate clouds, or precipitation even. And Convective clouds can form without a frontal system being present, such as convergence lines (see below and ask @jcomm about these and he'll be beaming) and obviously your local summer thunderstorm. And we haven't even touched the various types of occlusion fronts and what they bring.

I have flown with Bose A20 (one of the best ANR headsets you can find) for several years now and certain frequencies are suppressed extraordinary well. It's very prevalent when using intercom or listening to ATC, because engine noise is now reduced to almost a "white noise" kind of sound (instead of "in your face"). Bottom line, I wont fly a GA IRL without ANR headset. I used my spare headset (passive NR) last year when the Bose was sent away for refurbishing, and those flights weren't enjoyable at all for me. If you care about your ears and hearing, just get an ANR headset when flying GA. Should be #2 on priority list for students after medical even.

No thanks. Very satisfied with default live weather for my kind of flying (mostly SEP < FL100)

Not sure I agree completely. You can get Airway /RNAV map view instead of VFR sectional view in Skydemon. If you enable IFR features in "planning options" you will get all instrument plates for the airport, published by the national CAA. Approach plates are geo-referenced. Screenshot below with said features turned on and with planned legs /actual track overlay (from a real flight) Also if you file IFR/Mixed rules, Skydemon will include any IFR NOTAM relevant to your flight. Granted it's not on par with FF or Garmin Pilot, but you can easily use it as a PPL(A) IR holder.

So did my first CFI say about me . 20years ago...using FS2000 and FS2004. The fidelity was good enough even back then. I can't even begin to imagine how much advantage MSFS users has towards non simmers.

You just described desktop flight simulation. Congratulations.

Active is on the left side (green text)

I bought the Airsimmer A320 for FS9. Total mess, unfortunately. This was way back in 2009(?) and costed me 55 USD, making it an 80 USD addon in today's money. 😆 It was an arms race back then, we had Airsimmer, Wilco and the Reality XP Airbus (collaboration project) all at one point trying to push out a competitive Airbus. And now we have the FBW A320 for free. Flight Simulation has advanced so far. Golden age of this hobby is here and now. Ps: Honorable mention for a gong-show payware Airbus goes to Aviograsf (yes that's spelled correctly) and their A340 for FS9.

from the SOP:s of a very prominent scandinavian 737 operator (from my exerience, ATPL litterature uses plenty of 737 references)

The bae146 has a TMS, which is a poor mans autothrottle. You basically set a target (N1 or egt) and the TMS will do it's best of maintaining that target (for each engine I might add!). White up / down arrows will indicate if you manually need to adjust the levers to indicated direction in order to achieve set target for TMS. It's very intuitive once you get the hang of it though, you just need to remember that it can only adjust each thrust lever for small ranges. Think of it as a screw handle in a vernier mixture lever. the TMS is doing the fine adjustment (screw) you are doing the coarse push/pull. TMS is disengaged for landing. I was part of the beta for this bird in P3D back in the day so I'm strictly talking about features found there and from memory, but the MSFS variant is probably the same.

Pretty much sums up my experience also. Final approach is not smooth at all. I am using IFR mode. (9900k /2080ti...which usually holds up stutterless) Very neat app, maybe not just suitable for my old rig. 🙂

Can confirm the 1000ft/min climbs. FMS speed target 170KIAS, after FL100 I had to settle at 1100-1000fpm climb performance. TOW of around 22 metric tons (23 is max I think) . ISA-10C

I don't own it. But will definitely purchase it today. I've only read positive reviews about it 🙂

Managed speed change. Likely a reduction from descent speed to terminal area speed (250kts below 10.000 for example)

Oh I don't know. Maybe landing an airliner in gale force winds? PIC had to disconnect ATHR aswell since it could not manage the gusts. And to address the self proclaimed TIR's in here, the captain responded in a YT comment why he continued the approach

Also, I can wholeheartedly recommend turning on the Flight Path Vector (a.k.a the "bird") when flying non precision approaches manually AFAIK, it's fed by the Inertial sensors and will continuously display your flight path on the artificial horizon, making it very straightforward to fly a constant descent angle. The "bird" is standalone from the Flight director. Edit: FPV has also found its way to some of the GA I fly. And it's such a cheat mode. That alongside VNAV means no excuses whatsoever to bust altitudes.

"Oi mate, bit rude putting me in dis holding pattern, innit?"