Great Ozzie

Can't comment on the use of radar (ground based or onboard) as I never have used it inflight - only wished for it. All my thunderstorm avoidance was done either visually, or as you say, staying on the ground. I understand the desire to keep things "original" but I wonder how many of the scoffers are actually doing the flying. Yes, KHEF inside some very serious airspace and the penalty for screwing up makes that a logical comparison (more than worth their weight in gold).

Sorry, I tried finding something before posting - only thing that I was aware of would have been AOPA's Online Pilot (via subscription). Maybe Rob (RSR) could put someone (Kyle ) on asking AOPA for a .pdf of the article. @BrianW - thanks for posting the AOPA Live link. Big fan here of updating panels. Cool that wx radar - and a radar altimeter too?

AOPA Pilot - December 2016 Sharp looking crew, gorgeous looking airplane - inside and out. Nice article too. Fires the imagination - dreams of being type rated etc. Here's to PMDG's continued success and that Tabitha May will have many years ahead as an ambassador "inspiring a new generation's interest in aviation." -Rob Osborne

Let's tag team Fr. Bill... yolk, n.2 - A greasy substance composed of excretions (e.g. suint, lanolin, etc.) from a sheep's skin and sebaceous glands, which coats the wool and protects it from environmental factors. Phrase: in the yolk: designating raw or unscoured wool; designating wool which still contains yolk. Now hist. Oxford English Dictionary - The definitive record of the English language

Hi angeli662, What is "not true" for RealAir may be completely inapplicable to A2A because of the way the aircraft is modeled. Lewis has posted on this a number of times going back several years e.g. see Lewis' post: Re: Expectations. I have no reason to doubt him. If you want to make the "not true" claim, I recommend opening a thread at the A2A Forum (in the 'Pilot Lounge' for example) and give Lewis or one of the developers a chance to respond. Best, Rob

I only watched from just prior to the landing (isn't that the most important part? ). A couple things I noted: At about 9:40 he makes a callout regarding being cleared to land. B) Impressive was his debrief / self-eval (starting about 14:40). He says in part, "It was very hard, yes, because obviously I have no knowledge whatsoever of the seven three, but I do know the basic stuff which is very common in everything and that's what I actually what reverted to, and just operating down to the basics, down to the common procedures, the common things that we all do at the same places and the same, you know, in any aircraft. So that's what I was using there rather than specific things that I wouldn't know because obviously the aircraft is completely different. Just wow. Mark, I think he was asking "if I master (a PMDG or A2A airplane) will I be able to fly the RW counterpart?" I answered wrt the C172... you, Ian and others re: heavy(ers). I don't see how anyone could refute the statement that practice with a good sim is going to help / be beneficial toward real world training. The one caveat with the training done in the sim... were there negative training aspects that took place. Without an instructor, I find it hard to believe that there won't be some things that will have to be unlearned when flying an actual aircraft. Improperly configured aircraft happen with all aircraft 'sizes' - and have resulted in fatalities. AOPA's Bruce Landsberg went so far in his article Flaps and Lapses to suggest not lowering the flaps for a preflight check and explains why he feels they should be left up. I didn't want students (a student pilot) doing touch and goes - and one reason was the potential for having the aircraft improperly configured during the go.

If that were truly the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't understand how anyone can post such a statement, "I think someone could do it" UNLESS they are type rated in something like a 737 etc (I take those statements to mean, "I could do it!" ). Everyone has an opinion - and I know I will ruffle feathers here but... the only value I find in these posts? The ones where someone is speaking from actual experience (or it appears as such). This is the kind of thing I look for in a post. There is a sense of humility. There is a sense of experience. A sense of honest self-assessment. Traits of a "good pilot" imo. Some great posts by Mark and Ian as well. KenG... Ron... Thanks for taking the time to post your assessment. I thought the same myself Mark... one of the cabin crew would be infinitely preferable over someone who says, "I fly FSX" (but wasn't going to post an opinion as what do I know about piloting a commercial aircraft). My reasoning was the cabin crew is intimately acquainted with procedures (as non-pilots) and company SOP. They know how to take instructions and give them. "Daily" they are in the air and understand the risks. There is a certain "familiarity" they will have with the aircraft. There is a demonstrated "professionalism" that they have to maintain as part of the crew. Essentially you are getting what I would call "a known quantity" with someone from the cabin crew. They are vetted. This coming from someone who has only eyeballed a flightdeck. Wrt experience (to my limited understanding) things have changed quite a bit in the U.S. the last decade or so. When I got my Comm/Inst. the Regionals (not the major carriers mind you - the regionals) wanted 2500hrs TT with 1000hrs of that as Multi (don't remember the turbine exp. required). It may be terribly exciting for a noob to hit that 250hr mark with his/her Commercial/Instrument - then be seated in the right seat. But there is a lot to be said for the vetting process that takes place over the number of years it would take to build 2500 plus hours. But now we're back to needing more experience... anywhere from 1000 to 1500hrs. --- I was actually "on edge" listening to the Unintentional King Air pilot (AOPA Interview) even though I knew the outcome. Rarely do I sit thru a youtube for more than a couple minutes... but listening to the ATC communications and watching the radar track (both Center then Approach Control) had me absolutely captivated. This guy had guts -- and a head to get him thru a situation that could have easily killed himself and his family. Outstanding job too by the controllers. They were calm, clear, supportive, and gave the pilot everything he needed from their end to get that pilot back on the ground safely. Amazing job all around.

Yeah there's some Class G areas that can exist up to 14,500msl where it becomes Class E (tlll 18,000 msl - then it's Class A) but only places I know of are "out west" (west of the Mississippi). Looking at Wiki for airspace (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class) seems there's a good deal of difference between the UK & U.S.

Well ordinarily... you do *not* want to be anywhere near (5nm) of an airport. Good way to find yourself involved in a mid-air. Finding a practice area just for "normal" maneuvers for a certificate (Steep Turns, Lazy Eights, Chandelles, Stalls / Spins) may require a bit of work and a few minutes of flying. But safety is paramount. In the U.S. that would likely put you below 1200'agl if not below 700'agl.

§91.303 Aerobatic flight. No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight— ( a ) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement; ( b ) Over an open air assembly of persons; ( c ) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport; ( d ) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway; ( e ) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or ( f ) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles. For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight. --------------- A person can get a waiver from 91.303 from the FAA for a Certificate of Authorization for an Aerobatic Practice Area / Contest Box. I don't know of where there is a list of these Boxes -- contacting your FSDO or your local IAC chapter is a place to start. I did see one IAC chapter that has posted their boxes online - the Minnesota Cloud Dancers. The Aerobatic Box has specific dimensions - you're going to have to contact the box "owner" - a NOTAM will be filed when the box is active etc.

Close, I'd say, Ron... it doesn't hold water, but substitute "altitude" for what gets it there - the wing. Get rid at the outset of the idea that the airplane is only an air-going sort of automobile. It isn't. It may sound like one and smell like one, and it may have been interior-decorated to look like one; but the difference is -- it goes on wings. And a wing is an odd thing, strangely behaved, hard to understand, tricky to handle. In many important respects, a wing's behavior is exactly contrary to common sense. On wings it is safe to be high, dangerous to be low; safe to go fast, dangerous to go slow. ... And -- most spectacular contrariness of all -- in emergencies, when the airplane is sinking toward the ground in a "mush" or falling in a stall or spin, and you are afraid of crashing into the ground, the only way to keep it from crashing is to point its nose down and dive at the ground, as if you wanted to crash! It is largely this contrariness of the airplane that makes flying so difficult to learn. For flying *is* difficult to learn -- let nobody tell you otherwise. The accident record proves it, and so does the number of men barred from flight training or eliminated from training for lack of aptitude. What makes flying so difficult is that the flier's instincts -- that is, his most deeply established habits of mind and body -- will tempt him to do exactly the wrong thing. In learning other arts that are comparable to piloting -- sailing , for instance -- skills, ideas, habits must be developed where there were none before. In learning the art of piloting, much carefully learned behavior, many firmly held ideas must first be forgotten and cleared out of the way, must actually be reversed! And it is largely because of this contrariness to common sense that the conventional airplane sometimes requires "nerve" from its pilot. Again, let no one tell you that this is not so. There are situations in flying when he who "ducks," he who flinches, is lost. The most important example is the recovery from a stall at low altitude -- getting that stick forward and pointing the nose at the ground; that does require courage, and no two ways about it. But there are many lesser examples as well. One of the government manuals on flying puts it that the pilot must learn not to give in to his instinct of self-preservation, but to substitute for it carefully trained reactions. That is only a very polite way of saying "guts." From all this it might seem that learning to fly the conventional airplane must necessarily be mostly a matter of drill, like animal training, like making a dog not eat when he wants to eat, making him jump through a flaming hoop when he does not want to jump. And in fact, there is much of animal training in our flight training methods, at present, necessarily: for you simply cannot go against your common sense, against your most powerful instincts, except by drill, and more hard drill. Wolfgang Langewiesche - "Stick & Rudder" If y'all think you can get this kind of training solely from a computer simulation like FSX... you see something in it that I don't. -Rob

Yair, I have PM'd Lewis B. @ A2A... hopefully he will get with you soon to resolve the forum access issue. Rob

Yes, it was hard earned knowledge. It was terribly expensive to earn knowledge. And it was at times, "putting the fear of God in me" knowledge. In the last decade using FSX, I have made a number of great friends, had a lot of great times (multiplayer) and been incredibly impressed with the level of knowledge many here have - and have never stepped foot inside an aircraft! Incredibly impressed! And those guys have helped me (yes I learned from them) in my journey of learning to fly. I am still learning. But knowledge does not equate to experience. Or ability. So I don't know man... try and find out without an instructor. I am sure it can be done. In fact, it obviously was done a hundred years ago. But then, alot of people died tryin'. And a lot of people have died throughout the years trying. And people still die today trying - with an instructor. You can fire off a smart aleck comment like the above and think you are cute doing so. But I think it very disrespectful toward the individuals who have spents years of hard work obtaining advanced licenses - who are willing to share that hard earned knowledge with people, many of whom will never get the chance to actually fly. I have already stated I think sims like FSX can be a valuable training aid. And the information exchange that takes place on sim forums I find, not just fun, but valuable. I have said a number of times, it is like "iron sharpening iron." But I will tell you, it's comments like that which make me wonder, "Why do I bother to come here." Hi vololiberista, To Ken's point, to be approved for use in the U.S. as part of a flight training program, they will need an FAA LOA (letter of authorization). Rob re: the links... impressive.

Ken, Good post / interesting points. I know the regs for simulators have been in flux until recently. Seems maybe the dust is starting to settle. Probably too because the terms "sim" and the "device" (such as Frasca) have been around forever. And it's not like the recent terminology "aviation training device" rolls off the tongue that easily. And... we've had a "flight sim" since the days of subLogic. I think I would refer to an ATD "colloquially" as a simulator (unless told ) and get to the specifics at the opportune time. Course I'd imagine having an FSTD would give one bragging rights. :Big Grin: The FAA Safety Briefing came out with an article in the Sept/Oct 2012 Issue "Real Learning through Flight Simulation: The ABCs of ATDs" if anyone interested (that's a direct download link). May not be completely up to date with the current regs, but reiterates / expands a bit on Ken's points. -Rob

Those little contacts in the molex connectors have a pair of dog ears (example here) that snap into the connector itself. It's possible - tho not likely - those dog ears are missing allowing the barrel to slide within the connector. A slight tug on each wire should suffice to check. I know... it is very frustrating with a new build and have a component doa. An opportunity here to say thanks for your posts Martin - one a handful of people I trust. I almost missed the "issue" part in the thread title - was looking forward to what you had to say about your new build.