ccarter06

Flap maneuvering speeds are speeds that you are recommended to not fly slower than for the given flap configuration. This speed provides adequate stall protection while performing "full bank" turns. I quoted the other person because his response is a good one.

Don't listen to these other posters... It's part of the flight test package. Definitely. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Maybe left it as a possible action for government aircraft. They use reversers/beta while airborne for certain tactical arrivals/landings. Whether Boeing did this or not is just speculation. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

I turned the ActiveSky modeling off. I fly airliners RW, and deal with minimum separation behind heavies regularly. Even at low settings, AS will cause unrealistic rolls. I'm not saying they don't happen like that RW, I'm just saying it is always overly dramatic with AS. But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

For what it's worth, RW CRJ pilots try to activate the flaps during turns to minimize passenger discomfort from the pitch change necessary to maintain altitude when the flaps are activated. I haven't dived into the 777 systems deeply yet (and don't have hem handy at the moment), but modern systems tend to have monitoring and lockout if asymmetry develops that would stop the movement of the flaps.

That's the funniest family friendly thread title I've seen in a while. Nicely done! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

KIAD-VTBS, layover about 20-25 hours, then VTBS-KIAD and done. Repeat 3 more times in given month. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

I've experienced this problem with the override set to never as well. With the override set to never, moving my throttle hardware changes the thrust lever position in the sim in HOLD mode. Is this considered normal for the programming as well?

You make it impossible not to like you! Thanks for all the hard work you put into your program!

I've encountered the same problem. Order 232362. There is no such link to click on Tom.

Gosh, I don't know what to say other than... citation needed. ;-) According to 2011 statistics provided by each of the relevant airports, Heathrow saw 54 operations per hour (1317 per day) compared to Atlanta's 105 (2531 per day). Does Heathrow see a lot of traffic? Sure, but others see more (twice as much traffic). There's more than one way to skin a cat. Europe has their way, and it works for them. The US has its way, and it works for us. You claim an accident that is 20 years old that was caused by a landing clearance issued before all other aircraft had cleared. At the very least that's a good track record to prove the system is working. Especially given the increase in traffic over the past 20 years in the US. The thing is, that clearance might be listed as a contributing factor, but it didn't cause the accident. No pilot is ever forced to land a plane (assuming no emergencies exist). I'm sure the actual cause is listed as pilot error, and it probably should be: "hey there's a plane on the runway, I'm going around." It isn't rocket-science. I know, for years airspeed indicators said "Airspeed" on them and altimeters said "Altitude." As for a citation for my comment about Europe's way of doing it being - arguably - less safe: well, I'm the one stating that point, so I'm the citation. I carry the weight of a RW ATP, and RW experience as an airline pilot. I set forth the reason for that position. I don't need to have someone else conduct a study so that I can form that opinion.

The good news is it doesn't have to make sense to you. It doesn't decrease safety even by little bit, and it allows controllers to give these clearances during times when workload(and frequency congestion) is lower, which means they are able to spread out the workload and maintain a more steady rhythm. Giving sequenced landing clearances aids pilots in having a better picture of what is going on around them. Also consider this: generally speaking, controllers should not be giving instructions to planes once they are within 500 ft of touchdown elevation. There are plenty of times when the preceding aircraft has not cleared the runway until after the next aircraft is at or below 500 ft. If a controller had to wait to issue the clearance, they would be doing it during a time of greatly increased workload for the pilots. That is arguably a reason that waiting to issue the clearance - so it makes sense to some Europeans - would decrease safety. Nobody wants to go around because they didn't receive landing clearance, especially if there was no reason why they couldn't have landed. For years, the unofficial word in KATL from the tower was "the green light is always on." Meaning that if the runway is clear when you get to it, land. They only wanted to deal with go arounds if there was an actual need for it. Resequencing a go around with as much traffic as they generally have isn't anyone's idea of fun.

I tried the demo of OpusFSX and loved it. I just purchased it today, but am now experiencing continuous updating above FL220. I have updates disabled on approach will cruise set as above 2800 and updates disabled below 2600 with updates disabled for 10 minutes. I don't know if the continuous updates are just being disabled for the first 10 mins and then it's starting, or if it's actually linked to the flight levels. Either way, it's updating about every 5 seconds. Can anyone help with this? Here's a copy of the spy screen: MET Dynamic Weather Updated 11:00:38 AM MET Dynamic Weather Created MET Dynamic Weather Updated 11:00:43 AM MET Weather At Current Location [30,30] KVLD MET QNH: 1015 mb, 30.00 in, Temp: 22/17, Vis: 48000m, Wind: 197/4 Static, Upper 257/45 MET Cloud Layer 1: Base 01200ft, Cover 6 octas, Precip 0 MET Cloud Layer 2: Base 42500ft, Cover 1 octas, Precip 0 MET Reading Import File: C:\OpusFSX\Themes\OpusWeather.txt MET Creating Dynamic Weather Map MET Dynamic Weather Created MET Dynamic Weather Updated 11:00:48 AM MET Weather At Current Location [30,30] KVLD MET QNH: 1015 mb, 30.00 in, Temp: 22/17, Vis: 48000m, Wind: 197/4 Static, Upper 257/45 MET Cloud Layer 1: Base 01200ft, Cover 6 octas, Precip 0 MET Cloud Layer 2: Base 42500ft, Cover 1 octas, Precip 0 MET Reading Import File: C:\OpusFSX\Themes\OpusWeather.txt MET Creating Dynamic Weather Map MET Dynamic Weather Created MET Dynamic Weather Updated 11:00:53 AM MET Weather At Current Location [30,30] KVLD MET QNH: 1015 mb, 30.00 in, Temp: 22/17, Vis: 48000m, Wind: 197/4 Static, Upper 257/45 MET Cloud Layer 1: Base 01200ft, Cover 6 octas, Precip 0 MET Cloud Layer 2: Base 42500ft, Cover 1 octas, Precip 0 MET Reading Import File: C:\OpusFSX\Themes\OpusWeather.txt MET Creating Dynamic Weather Map MET Dynamic Weather Created MET Dynamic Weather Updated 11:00:58 AM MET Weather At Current Location [30,30] KVLD MET QNH: 1015 mb, 30.00 in, Temp: 22/17, Vis: 48000m, Wind: 197/4 Static, Upper 257/45 MET Cloud Layer 1: Base 01200ft, Cover 6 octas, Precip 0 MET Cloud Layer 2: Base 42500ft, Cover 1 octas, Precip 0 MET Reading Import File: C:\OpusFSX\Themes\OpusWeather.txt

There is a fundamental flaw in many of the simulator setups used. It is very difficult to make computer components operate RW controls do. RW it's more about the pressure on the control input. RW pilots don't spend any amount of time worrying about how deflected the control is. If a more rapid rate of change is desired, more pressure is put on the control and less pressure for slower rate of change. The reason the yoke is moved around more RW during landing is because the plane is close to a stall speed (vref is defined as 1.3 times the stall speed for the landing configuration). As the plane slows and approaches a stall condition, the controls become less effective ("sluggish"), and so more input is required to get the desired result. Also, in the RW the air being flown through truely is a fluid. There are all sorts of wind variations including the vortices generated by the previous aircraft, random thermals, wind acting against ground structures. It all plays into the approach, and has to be corrected for. This doesn't translate into sim flying very well. Many airlines have significantly reduce the importance of rudder usage in the wake of the A300 accident in which rapid, opposing deflections of the rudder pedals caused the vertical stabilizer to depart the aircraft and ultimately caused the aircraft to become uncontrolable. Rudder usage is important throughout the flight, but slips and skids have become normal because the pedals aren't used. My feet are on the peddals usually around 2500 ft AGL, and they slide up so that my heels are off the ground and my toes are available for braking around 150 ft above touchdown. Inputs are made on the pedals as needed depending on the attitude the plane is in. More inputs are made on windy/gusty days than on calm/still mornings. Again, this is all very difficult to describe, and even more difficult to reproduce in the sim.

This needs to be clarified a little bit. The maximum speed at which an aborted takeoff can be safely performed is called "v1." When v1 and vr are the same or very close, the meaning is that all the factors that reduce v1 for the given takeoff aren't enough to require that keep the plane from safely aborting the takeoff all the way up to (or nearly up to) the time of rotation. There are plenty of good reasons even in the 737, it just might be that you're taking off at a lot of airports with long runways, low density altitudes, and weather that isn't effecting the stopping ability of the aircraft. In the RW, the captain keeps his/her hand on the thrust levers until v1 is called by the pilot monitoring (the pilot not flying the plane). At that point the plane is committed to takeoff, and the captain's hand comes off the thrust levers. This is all done without regard to vr. If those speeds are close together or the same, v1 is still called first. It is a very critical number. "Rotate" can be called "late" if it's the same speed as v1 without much issue.