ExNusquam

The manuals included are (nearly) verbatim copies of the real manuals. There's discussion of the dual-ADF option in there as well.

I guess this is the weekly Scimitar thread then?

Kyle, next time I see you controlling I'm going to show up and ask for an ASR approach.

This is incorrect. Per CS-25.123, there is an enroute EO climb requirement. CS-25.123 says Therefore, your climb-limited landing weight, while only speced to include Landing Climb and Approach Climb (CS-25.119/121), can be limited by Enroute-Climb, because the airplane needs to be able to meet enroute climb to be within it's operating limits. As shown in the chart I posted, this can be the limiting factor for performance if certain factors are met. And for the record, this almost exactly the same working as 14 CFR Part 25, which you would have noticed if you bothered to take even a cursory glace at it.

Enroute Climb limit weight can be more restrictive than the other weights, and thus become the climb limited landing weight. Just so we're clear, enroute climb, as per 14 CFR 25.123 is: Climbing at VFTO with: The most unfavorable center of gravity; The critical engines inoperative; The remaining engines at the available maximum continuous power or thrust; and The means for controlling the engine-cooling air supply in the position that provides adequate cooling in the hot-day condition. Resultant climb gradient must be no less than 1.1% for twin engine airplanes. As to your question, if it doesn't plainly tell you on the chart, there's no way to know. This makes sense, since for dispatch you normally don't care what's creating the limit, only what it is for planning purposes. If you are landing at LAX on the 24s/25s, the only obstacles in your flight path are several thousand miles away across the Pacific, but you still have to comply with the climb-limited landing weights. That's what the airplane is certified to do, and an operator is not going to exceed it.

Without seeing the exact chart you're looking at, I can't comment on what the limit is specifically. The weight will be the most restrictive of the following: Approach Climb, Landing Climb, Enroute Climb, or structural. Here's an example. The As are Approach, Es are Enroute, and O is overweight.

Long answer short, a non-temperature compensating Baro-VNAV system will fly a shallower glide-path on cold days, and the procedures are designed to provide safe obstacle clearance even on the average coldest day of the year for that airport. I'm guessing one of the many towers near the final course is close enough to final to necessitate a DA that's 1359' above the threshold. The visibility requirement is high so you can actually see the runway at that altitude. 6.8°=721.1 ft/NM. (721.1 ft/1 NM) * (140 NM/60 Min) NM cancel. Answer should be 1682.6 ft/Min.

That's actually not 9.3°...its 9.3%, which works out to only 5.3°. Interestingly, the Nepal plate you provided lists this as 5.5°, but the Jepp lists it as 5.3°, which matches my math. Additionally, from 3.0 DME to the runway you intercept the standard 3.0°.

The VOR/DME or TACAN Z at KMTN isn't in any nav databases because it doesn't conform to ARINC rules. IIRC, you can't code Arc-Fix (AF) path terminators on the final approach segment (for a non-precision inside the FAF). Here's some of my favorites: How to fail a checkride: KROW HI-ILS RWY 21 Using a Localizer at a different airport: KNZY LOC/DME-A 5-Mile visibility required for LNAV/VNAV mins: KTVC RNAV (GPS) RWY 08 The steepest descent gradient I've seen in CONUS: KDVT RNAV (GPS)-B (there's a reason it's circling only!)

PAPI32, when I say "inexperienced" on these forums I mean I don't have an ATP. I'm a commercial multi instrument pilot; I know what a circling approach is. As stearmandriver has already pointed out, US operators apparently don't "standardize" their techniques as much. Every bit of training I've done on circling procedures has been to acquire the runway, then maneuver to make a normal visual approach to land. That might just mean a base entry, or having to fly a complete crosswind/downwind/base. Basically, if you could fly a visual approach in the jet, you could circle just fine.

I'm a fairly inexperienced pilot, but it still frightens me that it's taken almost 30 posts to explain how to fly a traffic pattern.

Just for follow up on this, I went and looked at the FAA suggested coding for the arrival, which listed it as applicable for all runways. This is likely what Jeppesen followed for their data. Other data providers may modify the coding to be consistent with the ARD.

I'll argue that the data isn't so much "incomplete" as incorrect. As I read the Arrival Route Description, because it specifies RW6L/R and 7L/R, the arrival should be coded in the FMS as runway specific. This is how the European SIDs/STARs are coded, as are many US procedures. This isn't an issue with Navigraph, but likely the data provider (Jeppesen) reading the ARD with a bit more ambiguity. Any pilot should be able to look at the ARD and see that you'd never get the BASET arrival unless you were expecting to land east flow.

This is correct. The Peak AoA on AF447 was 41° (!) and the Air Data computers rejected this value as invalid, because given normal operations, that value would indicate that the sensor had failed or the aircraft was on the ground. The computer wasn't programmed to handle something Minor technical aside, but the Airbus FCTM uses the phrase "added" not "averaged". This means that if both pilots are acting on the controls in the same direction, input will be significantly larger than either pilot would expect.

You've never flown a real airplane, have you? The best stick and rudder IFR guy I've ever flown with never played FS. One of the worst I've flown with played a ton. I don't really think you can draw a connection there.

Vanity Fair did a phenomenal piece on AF447, covering automation and human factors. One of the pieces that their article brings up is how Airbus works around not having mechanically linked flight controls, which is to have a automatic callout of "DUAL INPUT" whenever both pilots touch the controls. This callout is heard several times on the AF447 CVR, and the FDR also recorded multiple pushes of the sidestick priority button, signifying one seat was trying to override the other. If they'd had mechanical controls they likely would have been wrestling with each other for control. This was a tragic breakdown in CRM, not some kind of fault in flight control design. It's worth noting that both AAR214 and CJC3407 both involved prolonged improper flight control inputs, and both the DH8D and 777 have mechanically linked flight controls.

Tom's not guessing.

If you can't even get ailerons to work, then I'm at a loss. Make sure you hit apply, then reload the airplane. You might try posting on Majestic's forum. I will note, however, that I was unable to get spoiler axis steering to work until I mapped it directly via FSUIPC. I had been doing this with my other controls for a while to get around the W8 bug where FSX would lose the joystick.

Below are my FSUIPC settings. This setup works well for me. If you wanted to map rudder as well, you would need to do that via the "Axis Assignment" tab and calibrate via the "Calibration" tab.

What you did is correct. IRL you prioritize the more critical failure first, then the next one, and so on. Most modern aircraft with an CAS system will actually try and prioritize the failures for the crew. However, sometimes you still have to do some thinking. For example, in the CRJ L® ENG OIL PRESS was a Red message, while L® ENG FLAMEOUT was a yellow, and so even though the flameout was obviously the root problem, the OIL PRESS message would appear above it. In your case, the Loss of SYS B Checklist is the more restrictive one (due to the loss of things like spoilers, autobrakes), so I'd use those checklists for the actual landing. Because you're single engine, you need to brief the go-around using the Engine Inop QRH, as well as the bleed config if you're going to need the extra thrust on the missed. The most conservative thing to do would be to just do both set's of Descent, Approach and Landing Checklists, but flipping back and forth in the QRH in an emergency seems like a major PITA. I will also make an additional comment on that carrier's SOP with regards to engine failures; in that every bit of training I've done (Corporate and 2 separate US carriers) we never touched the engines until we were stabilized and climbing at final segment speed (min clean speed in the NG), even with an engine on fire. The idea was that an engine fire wasn't going to kill you in the 90 seconds it took to get cleaned up, while going too fast on the memory items will kill you. In fact, neither the CRJ or ERJ even had memory items associate with engine failures, but had "Quick Reference Cards" that were used to check off immediate actions before referring the crew to a specific QRH procedure.

No. You cannot have the same physical axis mapped to multiple control axes without a registered copy of FSUIPC.

(Emphasis probably should have been there in the original) The point was for those who were doubting that FS even modeled ice. I never claimed it was realistic, and apologies for the confusion of that was what was interpreted.

Just in case anyone is doubting that FS does have a limited model of structural ice...I went and tested it. I created a cloud layer with "Severe" icing. Stabilized at holding speed, ~62% N1 holds 230 KIAS. At this point I've been in the ice for about 2 minutes, as indicated on the chronometer. Here, we can see that after staying in the ice for over 20 minutes, our speed has significantly decayed - almost to the low speed caution. And here's what happens after after I turned on both TAI and WAI - the aircraft easily accelerated past 230 KIAS, indicating that I'd actually picked ice up already in the first picture.

Jim, that's actually a really good point. FMS's and avionics are one of the things you can learn really well in a sim or trainer. These days, most systems have similar enough functionality, playing with a Honeywell unit in FS will mean you can probably figure out a Universal box in a real plane. I guess my original comment is mostly targeted at things like callouts and system limitations, things that simply don't enter the averages simmers experience, yet things that you can learn better by using the simulator to supplement traditional learning.

I've found that the truth tends to b e in the middle when it comes to using recreational flight simulators for training. Can you learn to fly an airliner professionally by solely using FSX? Probably not. Can FSX be an amazing training aid? Yes. For every turbine aircraft I've sat training for, I've used some flight simulator to help myself study. I always found using a simulated aircraft greatly helped out memorizing profiles and callouts. Lots of pausing and talking to yourself or a study partner. It's way easier to memorize procedures seeing them carried out than it is to just act them out using a cockpit cutout. There's a reason several Asian carriers have new copilots sit jumpseat and observe before they are allowed to fly. I've seen plenty of people use FSX to "study" for checkrides, where they just end up screwing around. These simulations are useful study aids; you do need to study the books to get something out of it.