DC_Ed

How about SimBrief? It's free, you only need to sign up and that's it. http://www.simbrief.com/home/index.php

As said by others above. Short answer is, in a real airplane, no you can't. I'll tell you why. You, as a sim pilot, are in no way prepared to deal with the physical effects of flight. Not just stress, but g-forces, the effects of altitude and basically, the struggle of your brain to adapt to being in a place where you've never been before (despite the fact that you sort of know what you're looking at) and in conditions you've never been before (nevermind flying as a pax, that doesn't count). Once you sit in the cockpit, you will SORT of know where everything is, but it will take you a while to actually figure the whole cockpit out, just because you're seeing the cockpit in a real airplane in a different angle and different ergonomics (this is especially true when most of us used to fly on 2D panels). After you're done with that, you will have to fight the psychological effect of acknowledging that you are effectively flying an airplane (big or small). When flying an airplane for the first time, much of the experience (if not almost all of it), the "wow factor" is omnipresent. Moving a throttle and feeling the aircraft accelerate or slowing down, moving the yoke and feeling the aircraft move about; it is staggering for you, because you've done it in the sim, and you have wished to do it for a while, and getting the chance to do it and feel everything in the airplane is at first just about everything your brain can handle. This "wow factor" will be bigger as the airplane gets bigger, because the physical effects are bigger too, they are more noticeable to you. Think of when you started to drive (even more if you learned on a car with a manual gearbox): You could have played realistic car games all you like, but when you got to do it on the real machine, your brain was too busy coping with the sensorial data it was getting. This will distract you, it will make life difficult for you, it will make you nervous when the airplane/car reacts a bit more vigorously than what you expect (again, the bigger the airplane/car, the bigger the sensorial overload) FS does help you with some things (IFR flying is one of them, helps you LOTS!) and in some ways also how handle the airplane under different conditions, but since your airplane in the PC is a screen, your brain will have to work overtime when you're on an airplane because now your airplane is not just on a screen, it's all around you, you're wrapped in it and this a scenario you know nothing about. That being said, the task of *manually* landing an airplane for the first time it's a complete mental overload, you sort of know the theory, but the reality may have a couple of aces to throw at you; nothing too serious, a couple of knots increase in wind velocity in a real airplane will be somewhat more difficult than in the sim and it will take you longer to react and to re-accomodate the airplane on the proper path, just as you drove slowly the first couple of times you got to drive a car. It's just because you're doing something for the first time. It's in our nature to proceed cautiosly when in an unknown scenario. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, an airplane doesn't stop completely on its own. Well, it can if it has autobrakes, but do remember that autopilots don't work when on the ground, so you still have to steer the airplane on the runway and about 8 or 9 times out of 10, you will need to apply some correction after touching down, because the set of laws of physics that make an airplane fly are different to those that said airplane encounters when it is on the ground. Even harder still, given that an airplane is not a land vehicle. Most likely you will overdo the pedal inputs to keep the airplane centered on the runway (because it is a feeling like no other) and no, PC pedals will not help you much as they lack feedback (unless they do have force feedback! LOL) and the pedal inputs while on the ground aren't well modelled in the sim, so still, you're likely to make mistakes. And while you technically can stop without using the thrust reversers (performance data for airplanes is done with the use of wheel brakes only, at least in dry runways), temptation to stop will be great and you will want to pop the reversers up to help you to stop (because that's what you used to do on the sim), but bear with me on this one, they will scare you! Especially if it is a turboprop plane. The reason why they will scare you (or scared me at least!) is because they are noisy, most likely they will not go into reverse at the same time (unless both engines are brand new) so the airplane will steer away from the centerline, and basically because it's just a complete different feel of how it is on the sim. If you're a keen simmer then you will know that you can harm the engines if you use full reverse for too much/too slow, or in airplanes without computers in the way of you and the airplane, you can over-torque/over-boost an engine, so it is a possibility that you use too little reverse or too much that will scare you and will make you feel tempted to put the power back to idle and start over. So you see, while the sim does help you understand systems and what this and that does, actually getting to fly the plane without real experience is a very demanding task for your brain, because you're out of your environment and your brain will try its best to get the most it can from the new scenario and basically taking your focus away from the theory you know. Bear in mind this is with a completely functional airplane; the name of the game will change 100% if things go south, mechanically speaking. I hope I made some sense, because English isn't my first language, so I might need to repeat myself a couple of times Regards,

Pay rise to try and use the FMS? Well, it's all a matter of getting to grips with it. If you're used to Boeing or McDonnell Douglas systems, then yes, you will have a hard time with it while you learn the in and outs of it. It's a different approach, just as it is a different manufacturer. I think I have a FMS sim used by the pilots to learn how to use it themselves, albeit from the DHC-8-200 version (I think they are the same, Universal FMS). If someone wants to get a hold of it, I'd be more than happy to look for it and upload it or something, as long as someone gives me pointers on how to do it LOL. Generally, high wing turboprops are notoriously stable, even more those made by "Mr de Havilland" due to their STOL configurations (although the Q400 might not so STOL as say, the TwOtter, but still) Cold and dark scenarios? +1 on that one. I'd love that too AP selections on the FMS? I don't think the real aircraft does that, so I think it would be unrealistic. The -200 series, as most modern aircraft, have FMA's, Flight Mode Annunciator, which does what you say. How are you taxiing the aircraft? Once a turboprop aircraft has sufficient momentum to start rolling you'll need to control the taxi speed with a watchful eye. Use of "beta" (bad labeled anyway, as beta means an entire different thing, don't worry, everybody, including me, calls it that way even when it's wrong) or "DISC" on the -8, even a tiny bit of effective reverse and sometimes even toe brakes is necessary, as just having a bit of positive power, just a smudge above idle will be enough for the aircraft to keep accelerating (depending on weight, wind and the usual factors). I like my taxiing slow anyway, so almost all of the time I taxi with the power levers just a tad above disc and using a bit positive power just to keep it from stopping altogether. I don't fly the actual -8, but I do fly it's older sibling, the DHC-6. I do, however, have a bit of knowledge about the DHC-8 series as I did a ground school years ago. Fortunately, I have a bit of good memory and I still remember some details of it. Tell us your taxi technique! I absolutely agree with you. Any turboprop is a different animal from your 737 and your A320. A turboprop, even a modern one like the Q400, needs you to fly; it can't do everything on its own, thats why I love them. You still need to know what you're doing and you still need to clean up your act immediately if you screw up. I love the jets, but TP's just have that extra magic. The learning curve will be a bit steep, but just like with any other difficult challenge, you will enjoy yourself to death once you get the hang of it (which you will sooner than later if you pay attention. Don't judge this airplane with a PMDG eye, it's unfair to it. This is a league of its own, it's turboprop league! Don't regard it as unrealistic or impossible to fly; we all got used to our jets and this is just a different thing to fly. Open up your mind a bit and you'll love it. BTW, I've only flown the Q400 a few circuits while I relearn my DHC-8 stuff, but it feels a joy to fly it by hand. Bear in mind this is coming from a guy who dropped his sim activity around two years ago and is just picking it up again. I loved it when I got to hand fly it. Loved the feeling of it. Make the effort if you want to fly this aircraft, it pays off. You'll love turboprops (like I do!)

No turboprop I know has autothrottle (and I mean in real life), it's a jet gizmo as far as I am aware of

The short answer: Very carefully! As you would with any DHC airplane: Wings and flaps that produce more than sufficient lift, notorious for being STOL airplanes (hence the wings and the flaps) as well as having large tails, which by itself is advantageous but needs to be properly managed, especially when it's windy. Long answer: Stablise the approach early enough, that is get gear, flaps and all your proper landing checks in advance, so you can concentrate on flying the plane. "Speed is the key" with any airplane, but even more with this kind of turboprops. On final approach (say the last 1000ft or so) you should basically replace the artificial horizon with the airspeed indicator in your instrument scan. Constant scanning (and control!) of the airspeed is critical to a successful landing. So if landing from an instrument approach you should be doing something like: speed, flight director, speed, glide slope, speed, localizer, speed. Once you're flying visual, it becomes a game of two: Speed and out the window, then back to speed, and so on. Proper scanning leads to proper power lever movements. Also, as others have pointed out, there's no autothrottle on a turboprop (not those I know anyway!), so the IAS mode on a turboprop is (since you're familiar with PMDG) the equivalent to the LVL CHG mode on a B737. It will only maintain speed with pitch. Please note that I said "maintain" and not "control". Enjoy the beauty of turboprops: real flying my friend! You'll love it once you get the hang of it.

+1. Looks like a normally executed landing to me.To really judge whether the landing was made "by the book" you would need to have an instrument view, he could have been too slow, too fast, a bit low or high and all sorts of whatnots.As both a pilot and a videographer, the look of the landing is good because the video is in great quality and showing great colours! :(

The Twin Otter has an "intake deflector" on its engine intakes; it's a plastic plate with slots on it, when they are extended, a slot on the back of the engine opens and lets out water and other foreign particles by "inertial separation", preventing them from reaching the gas generator turbine (compressor). It's the propellers which must take the worst part on those landings

Nothing less than a Twin Otter for that operation. A true workhorse :)

It's quite simple really. The airplane is on VNAV the whole flight, it's just that once it reaches cruise altitude the autopilot "basic mode" is ALT HLD. Try and look for the other modes during other phases of flight (climb, descent). I'm not familiar with the 777 per se, but the same basic principle applies to Boeing airplanes. You should look on the FMA (Flight Mode Annunciator) for "THR HLD" (Throttle Hold) on descent and something with "SPD" on it on climb in one of the FMA columns, the autothrottle or speed column to be precise, which is the one on the top left corner.It's just the way the airplane manages its own basic automation modes to achieve the more complex function of VNAV itself.

RedSpinnaker: Noted! It's actually its little sister, the mighty Twin Otter :)

I'll get this last cable then and I think I'll buy the digital recorder, since it records in MP3, it is definitely easier to merge with the video later while editing. About the sound issue, with the GoPro, the thing is that I fly a turboprop and the noise it makes at certain stages of the flight is just superb and I want to capture that. Besides as an aviation videographer I cannot dismiss ambient sound, it's a package deal for me. I know the GoPro is superior as far as image quality goes, but the Bloggie gives better balance since it has greater sound quality and image is also good.Thanks all for the replies

I decided to buy the Bloggie because I had the opportunity to use a GoPro Hero Original for a couple of days and the ambient noise it records has a bad quality compared to the Bloggie. Haven't bought the Bloggie yet though That's exactly what I want to do, that's the kind of recorder I want to buy. I heard a Morse code identifier somewhere on that video, so I assume the method you used also records intercom? Sorry, I didn't quite get that bit. It's been a long day for me and English is not my native language. I understand you record the intercom/ATC audio directly to the camera, so I figure you don't record ambient sound unless you have an external mic or something. Can you clarify that bit for me please? :blush:By the way, I wrote Aircraft Spruce with basically the same description in my OP and they told me this is the one that would do the job: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/patchcord.phpAlso, maybe noteworthy to mention that the aircraft I fly doesn't have additional intercom jacks; just two: pilot and copilot, both of them are used in all flights.Any new inputs in the light of this new info?Thanks to all for the replies! :D

Hey guys, need a little help here.One of my hobbies is to make aviation videos. I'd like to restart making them again since I stopped two years ago, but this time I'd like to take on board footage along with aircraft intercomm and ATC sound.The method I plan to use is this: Sony Bloggie camera on a window suction mount and/or a clamp assembly to attach the camera anywhere in the cockpit. Sound will be recorded via a commercial MP3 recorder connected to my headset. The thing with this arrangement is that since the signal to power the headset is too strong for the MP3 recorder the sound will be distorted and I've been told to buy an adapter cable for that. So here are my options:http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/recordingCable.phphttp://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/StereoVideoPatchCable.phpI don't know whether either one of those will work, so before I part with my money I'd like to know if anyone has ever successfully done what I'm planning to do here. Any help is appreciated.Best regards

Well, it is true in my country. You do need permission from ATC if you want to shoot the full approach (i.e. from the holding pattern), given that if you shoot the approach, you are flying in protected airspace for IFR aircraft and they have priority to use that airspace over VFR aircraft. You ask for permission to fly that approach, ATC knows if they have no incoming IFR traffic and they will clear you. If there's an IFR aircraft arriving to the airport and it will soon be commencing their IFR approach, your request will be denied or at the very least delayed until that aircraft lands.Again, that's how it works in my country

If you are flying VFR and want to shoot the ILS approach from the start you need to ask ATC permission to do so, since other IFR aircraft might be arriving to that airport and they will shoot the approach as well and they have "priority", so to speak, over a VFR aircraft to perform an IFR approach and of course the IFR aircraft is issued traffic separation, i.e. taking you (in the VFR aircraft) away from the approach path. If you are just flying into an airport and decided to fly the ILS signals just by intercepting them, say, in the final leg, then you are OK without ATC's permission.

Not likely; they were on an IFR approach, so IFR separation is given Not likely either; that particular approach seems to be the visual circle-to-land, so they did not have to meet any new altitude criteria Funny that your company has "tried over the years to press out of the pilot group that wilful disobedience and normalization of deviance" but still have that ancient view that a go-around is somehow "embarrassing" when every modern flight instructor will tell you what, for example, I was told in my initial training: "A go-around is probably the safest manoeuvre in aviation". Or is that just you? I'm not defending such thing; I think I said precisely that "I don't condone such type of behaviour". What I am saying is that while he technically did break a rule, it's not something to make such a fuzz about, again, given the conditions. Again, had they been in solid IMC or with heavy traffic around or something of that order, I would agree with you; but in this case, my feeling is that you're blowing things way out of proportion.And since by inference, you're calling me wilfully disobedient towards basic aviation rules and that somehow it's normal for me to deviate from standard procedures without even knowing me (which I find offensive), I will stop commenting on this argument. I've expressed my view towards this particular incident very clearly and I will not allow you to accuse me of things I don't/won't/didn't do, especially without even knowing me a tad, when in fact I try to do my job as good as I can, which obviously needs adherence to proper procedures.Will remain as a bystander from this point on.

Did I say you had to break the rules to be cool? I consider myself as doing my job the right way since every abnormal situation I've ever had I've solved properly and it even has been stopped while it was possible. I'm also not saying that just because something has never happened it will never happen. Take this for example, had they been in IMC, at night now that would have been really stupid and I'm sure if something was ever to happen, the minute the airplane issues any type of warning that bloke would have thrown that cellphone away and get on the business as fast as you'd have never seen. What I am saying is that while he did overdo that photo session a bit there it's not likely to get him killed, what he did was not dangerous (given the conditions they were doing that approach) and just because one day you decided to take some photos of one awesome approach you rarely go or have never been to (with agreement from your flightcrew member) then you will become someone who disregards the rules permanently.By the way, since, according to you, to agree with this point of view you've "never been through any type of professional pilot training", I inform you I am both a former aircraft dispatcher and a current F/O on a commercial transport aircraft.As far as I am concerned, the only wrong thing that 757 F/O did was taking photos of the approach while there was a camera filming him so people with such a "black and white" view about these type of things would bash him for doing it and calling him, basically, an outlaw and a potential disaster.

Aw come on. Cut them some slack, nobody in a two-men cockpit is going to be killed just because the pilot (the monitoring pilot) took 5 seconds to take a photo of the (I'm sure) breath-taking scenery on that approach.Yes, the sterile cockpit rule yadda yadda yadda, but be honest here; he wasn't talking to the captain about his next door hot female neighbour nor he wasn't at all uninterested in the approach whatsoever, he just grabbed a camera, took some photos (albeit one too much if you ask me).Listen, aviation is such a beautiful thing and every pilot I've known is always talking about any exciting approach he did just a while ago, that rare destination he flew into last week or that abnormal situation/emergency he had some months/years ago. Just as anybody has photos of the rare places they went, usually a pilot has photos as well. I'm not condoning this type of behaviour completely, in my opinion, he overdid that photo stuff, but it's not like "Oh my god, he took a photo on approach, they're gonna get killed!" or "Oh my god, they laughed about a funny little comment they made for 5 seconds, they're gonna get killed!". But seriously, a little photo, a little funny comment, one moment out of the loop IN CERTAIN CONDITIONS is not likely to get anybody killed just because that single event triggered a whole huge sequence of events which led to a crash. At least not with proper proficient pilots anyway, since one of the abilities of a pilot is to quickly re-introduce himself to the flight deck situation.Come on, no one ever keeps quiet below 10000ft every flight. Yet you don't hear airplanes falling out of the sky because of that.Posting under AVSIM staff label, but this is my own opinion. Usual caveats apply

It's not that he broke any rule, as said before: it's done more commonly that you think. They are not flying an IMC approach, they are fully visual and that doesn't really "puts the lives of everyone on board at stake". Given that the public is always so harsh and judgemental about these type of things, he should have done better and just haven't done that while there was a camera filming him (or in the cockpit, for that matter)

That's very pretty but... that's close to sacrilege! BTW, what screen resolution are you using and could you show me how did you fix the landing gear lights? I followed the installation instructions but I couldn't fix it.Thanks in advance!

Please don't tell me they will ask you that type of useless questions at any exam! I've never ever had to make such a calculation while flying... :(

Zach's right. Besides the starter limitations, some engines also have starting temperature limitations. If you were to start the engine above this temperature, you are most likely to get a hot start. The JT8D-219 on the MD-83 for instance, needs to be below 90 degrees Celsius (if memory serves me right) for start. Since the EGT could be above that limit after shutting down the engine, you would need the engine to cool down or you would have to motor the engine, which would imply more wear on the starter shaft, increasing maintenance costs, which in the long term, would be higher than the money saved on fuel.

Certainly not to the point of landing completely without instruments (especially on bigger airplanes as previously pointed out), but it helps to "cross-check" your instruments, so to say. If you feel a bit high, a bit fast, a bit slow or low you suddenly take a glimpse at your instruments and they confirm the information given to you by your feelings. This shouldn't be applied when you are flying IFR or at night or in bad weather, as your primary reference should always be your instruments; your feelings may cause you spatial disorientation. The wind speed over the cockpit windows (or lack of it) is something very helpful to establish a "ballpark" figure of your speed. Once you get used to the point of view you fly (i.e. from how you set your seat in depth and height) it also helps you to roughly determine your pitch.If all of your instruments were to fail, I'd assume someone with a decent amount of hours on type should be able to pull a decent landing (considering that if you lose all of your instruments, you are deep in problems).

Well, I talk from my experience. Flying here in South America, I've never come across a 30-knot headwind at 8000ft, that's why I make it negligible. Perhaps there are several places where you could find those wind speeds at those altitudes, but I'm unaware of them. Your remark is spot on, nevertheless

For practical reasons, yes and no. If you are flying a jet at FL300, yes; if flying a single engine at 8500ft hmm, not so much, the difference would be negligible. Murmur's explanation sounds about right (and you could, again, skip the conversion to TAS if flying low level on a low speed aircraft, it's just a 4 or 5 knot correction anyway)