WestAir

Amiir stated on a number of occasions how they have an internal list of "goodies" that they'll treat us to as time permits. I am hoping MEL's and more crew / dispatch simulation are some of them, but the hint in this blig about a new secret feature has me excited. Can't wait.

Been a long time since Ive flown IFR but if I remember correctly (and someone will correct me) it should be something like "Noel 123, cleared direct CHRON, descend via the AVSIM 1 Arrival." or "Cross CHRON at 12,000." I'd verify then submit a ticket to the devs. Unless this is a normal phraseology in the region you fly in. As an aside, you can always ask for clarification of what the controller wants you to do. They can't take your cert for asking dumb questions.

That's awesome! I would love to get one that has 360 degree movement on all 3 axis. I imagine you can get pretty close to the feeling of flight in normal or transport category flying, as far as your senses are concerned. As opposed to desk chair VR where your vision tells you youre banking but your inner ear says you aren't. 😂

Absolutely. Also I get all sorts of vestibular and somatogravic illusions when I fly using VR. A motion platform chair with VR would be pretty great, especially with a force feedback yoke... Currently VR is stuck in this sort of middle area where you now have peripheral vision but your inner ear and skin are in disagreement with your vision. Get all 3 working together in conjunction and desktop Sims will be a lot closer to reality.

There's a lot of positive training in simulating down the line damage. The pilot raises the gear, counter to hot brake actions, and now you get to practice wheel well fire actions. Pilot mishandles a manual pressurization action and now the crew gets to simulate an emergency descent and high cabin altitude actions. Pilot is oversaturated after a V1 cut and leaves the engine at TOGA for 20 minutes and... You get where I'm going. Additionally, this being a game, there's a certain quality lost if there are no consequences for failure. Flying through squall lines should be game-ified. Theres less entertainment value if the game doesnt respond to player actions.

My favorite quote on this specific topic of emergency simulation is that "pilots don't rise to the occasion, they sink to the level of their training." Between you and me, having emergencies as an optional feature would be pretty neat. Imagine how rewarding it would feel to wrestle a plane to a safe landing after bending metal in a thunderstorm.

Another cool feature would be if the radar couldn't see through mountains.

I am so glad this team had skin thick enough to ignore all the comments thrown their way about release dates. Whether it's on AVSIM, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, or Asobo Forums, almost every comment is critical of the team for taking their time. I'm sure it sucks pouring so much time into this project only to get hate whenever you show off your work. Kudos to them for ignoring us and doing it right the first time.

Had a chance to give this a whirl despite my initial doubt. I have a lot of time in the Shady 80 and when I first heard this soundpack was being made I assumed (incorrectly) that it would be rather exaggerated; A lot of people complain about the default sounds because those loud as hell JTD8's can't be from the flight deck. My first time in the real thing I remember thinking "This is what a deadstick takeoff would sound like!" and the default nailed that feeling so I questioned what an "immersive soundpack" could offer... Color me surprised with this soundset. It's faithful to the real thing while being so much more crisp and immersive than the Leonardo version. You also get far more realistic sounds as you move around the cabin. The APU sound is a bit less dramatic than the real thing (In the real world it'll make you deaf and god help your ears if you board via the airstairs with it running) and the wheel rattle is a bit too much (but maybe it was really like that on the aircraft they recorded) but everything else is really well done. The distant external roar from the rear brings me back. Nice work!

First, I want to apologize to the forum mods for derailing this thread with my nonsense. I'll stay quiet next time so the topic can stay, well, on topic. As to how I know its GPT, you can tell by this part of the announcement. That "X isnt just Y, it's Z!" along with the excessive usage of — are two of Chat GPT's hallmark signs. You recognize it instantly. That said, I've had time to watch more of the video and I absolutely adore these sounds, so, I think their lazy usage of Chat GPT can be forgiven.

Hey, we all have our quirks. Life would be boring if we were all the same! 😂

Im rarely a negative person but my pet peeve was just triggered seeing this dev use Chat GPT to write a 2 paragraph overview. That sort of thing really puts me off. Its such an easy thing to write themselves but they were too lazy to do that. It sounds like a weird and grumpy opinion, I know, but if you resort to using AI for a 1 minute job where else did you cut corners or take the easy way out?

According to V1's very lengthy test video the Fenix wins out on every normal operations test except for the battery test on initial load in and the brake temperature simulation. I'm interested in seeing how his abnormal procedures comparison turns out. That's one area FSLabs does enjoy to dig deep into. (As evident by their tail strike simulation).

I agree with you. My story wasn't meant to antagonize you, I only thought it was humorous and fit in the discussion of "Whats CFI stand for?" That got the other guy all riled up. I don't post in AVSIM often so sometimes I forget the etiquette here. Sorry.

For the sake of time I shortened the story exponentially, haha. For the longer version, the pilot passed his CFI Initial and was shopping around for his first CFI job. He called a school at his airport to check on an application he had sent. The Chief Instructor and Co owner seemed irate off the start, talking about how all these fresh CFI's know nothing and need way more experience before shooting out applications. The CFI couldn't get a word in through the co owners rant. Finally the Co Owner asked the CFI what the name of his cert was, and after the CFI answered Certified Flight Instructor the Co Owner told him it's actually Certificated, and that he didn't even know the name of the certificate he had... how could he expect to teach students? And then hung up on him. Of course all of that is way more words than my initial tongue in cheek response, and since its off topic I didn't want to clutter the thread with it. That I'm lying? Could be. But what would be the point? Cheers.

Off topic but I heard of a CFI who didn't get hired at his flight school after they asked him what his certificate was called and he said Certified Flight Instructor. Apparently the FAA calls it "Certificated Flight Instructor." In aviation the only thing you can be sure of is there's more unknowns ahead. 😂

Disregard

So that's 5 signs pointing to a dual engine failure: 1. High AoA descent into terrain. 2. Lack of engine sound in the video. 3. Deployed RAT in the video. (Visually seen and audibly heard). 4. The ATC call reporting loss of power. (Though it's not clear if that's electrical power or engine power). 5. The survivor reporting flickering lights preceding a bang, which is consistent with loss of powerplant generators and deployment of the RAT. The question is what would cause both engines to lose power absent of a birdstrike? I know Jon has his theories, but does anyone else?

I like this theory better than mine. Raising flaps instead of gear is about the same error that was made in that ATR crash where the training captain in the right seat feathered both engines instead of dropping flaps. The only problem is the crash photographs showing extended slats, and the top comment on this video that I have no way of verifying it's accuracy, but this is what was written: "Hi I’m an ex 787 captain, in this phase of flight due to the flight envelope protection and auto gap protection, the system doesn’t allow you to retract flaps even accidentally ."

Yeah, I don't know why I wrote glide power. They were clearly producing thrust on rotation due to the displacement of the dust at the threshold end rotation. Just not enough to rotate where the performance charts surely would have had them rotating. I should have wrote reduced thrust.

Joining in on this train of speculation, I can agree. I think the most likely scenario we'll find is insufficient thrust throughout the entire departure, at least starting after v1 speed. The aircraft should have rotated many thousands of feet sooner than it did. The gear remaining down could be due to a lack of hydraulic power to raise them, rather than intentional or unintentional pilot action. It is absolutely possible to rotate and climb to VS0 in 600 feet with glide power. The mayday call would back this guess. If we're throwing our assumptions and guesses into a hat before the investigation even begins, my armchair shot in the dark is reduced engine power during the takeoff roll, after v1, that resulted in insufficient thrust to sustain flight. We'll see in 1-3 years if this was the case or not.

Ray, in pictures of the crash scene- which I recommend everyone avoid due to the horrific and graphic nature - the wings are mostly intact and the slats are clearly extended. At the very least they had flaps 1, I suspect flaps 5. The BBC commentator is likely incorrect unless flaps 1 or 5 is insufficient.

I've noticed a trend nowadays where experts and professionals will intentionally use popular nomenclature when talking to a broad audience. Effectively "dumbing things down". I started doing the same when discussing my career and it's honestly the path of least resistance. When I do it online I inevitably get the "Aha! You're not who you say you are because you used x term!" I like to think this Dev is falling victim to this now.

First thing I could think of is ground obstruction and reflection? If there's a mountain between you and the cloud the cloud should not be visible on the radar. I'll have to check if MSFS simulates this at all.

I own the FSL A320 for P3D and the Fenix for MSFS. The FSLabs was my favorite aircraft in P3D by a mile. Fenix is my favorite aircraft in MSFS by a mile. I'm sticking with the Fenix because they plan to add FSL features like MEL'S, tailstrikes, icing, etc while expanding on their own offerings.