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.

Ultimately you're right, but let's change "sometimes" to "rarely." There are very few true emergencies on an airliner. The plane being on fire, all engines spooling down, or smoke are real emergencies. The intended destination being below minimums for landing (or whatever the reason to divert might be) isn't an emergency, and so the dispatcher must be consulted. In the US, the dispatch and PIC share responsibility for the safety of the flight. Which means the dispatcher should agree with the diversion decision. Also, the dispatcher can get the ball rolling at the diversion field to ensure that fuel, and passenger handling are in place for your arrival. Very rarely do diversions just suddenly become necessary to the degree that there isn't time to discuss it with dispatch. In every flight that I've had to divert, or that there's been a possibility of needing to divert, I'd say there was about a 10 minute window during which possible courses of action could be thought out before really needing to make a decision. If there's a true emergency, and the plane needs to be on the ground immediately then no one will fault a crew for proceeding to the nearest field and putting the plane on the ground. For every other diversion, you can't just go where ever you want to go. US carriers each have their own table of approved airports for operations, and you have to go to one of those airports. For all the non-emergency diversions, a long list of variables are considered. Available fuel is definitely high on the list, but generally speaking it's the cost of receiving services at the possible diversion airports that is typically the determining factor. Airlines have contracts at each station that will determine the cost of the required services, along with alternate transportation if it becomes necessary. Also, if numerous aircraft are diverting, dispatchers have to keep track of total diversions to each field so that the ground services don't become too overwelmed and so there's enough room to even park all the aircraft. Just because the intended destination's weather drops doesn't mean you're going to go looking for the field with the best weather conditions, beyond ensuring they're above minimums for arrivals and departures, the weather is a low concern compared to costs.

I will definitely agree that PMDG's attention to detail in the MD-11 and 737 certainly make flying more fun and realistic, but - for me - is more about the freedom to fly what I want where I want when I want. The sims can help people learn basic concepts and proceedures, but are no replacement for real flight training. The sims have their good points, and their bad points. At the end of the day no RW pilot has the means or opportunity to fly all these different aircraft anywhere anytime, and even if they did there would still be a mountain of stipulations attached to it. I bid on the routes I want to fly at work, but that's limited to the routes available to bid on, and I'm limited by my seniority. None of that exists in the sim. I load up and go where I want.

I was having the same problem with a PMDG-supplied AeroMexico 737-700 livery. I believe I've fixed the problem on my setup. I had an override ini loaded so that no matter what plane I flew, the setup would be the same. The "override" field I'm reffering to can be accessed on the FMS by: MENU key -> PMDG SETUP -> AIRCRAFT and then LSK 5R "Fixed Config." I deleted that override, reloaded the aircraft, and FS2Crew worked just fine. The override that I had in that field is for a 737-800. It might be possible that using that config file was causing the conflict. Thought I'd share this to see if it helps you. (By the way, I was having this SDK Error problem today with all up-to-date updates (SP1c for 6/7 and 8/9.)

I had a similar problem not too long ago. I used the Flight1 Registry Repair Tool to fix it. It's free on their website. This is the thread for the problem I had, if your problem sounds similar I'd suggest the repair tool: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/375294-lateral-deviation-issues/#entry2379926

I had one new afcad from the Avsim database (reputable creator, but VERY new file, newest ADE used), I removed that file and that didn't really seem to have any effect. I then ran the Flight1 Registry Repair tool, rebooted, and ran FSX. That tool seems to be the key to fixing the problem. It's possible that the Afcad file caused the problem, but the registry tool definitely fixed the problem. I may experiment with the file, and see if re-adding it to FSX causes the problem to reappear, but for now I'm happy to have my plane holding the line. I submitted this problem as a ticket to PMDG as well. They were very prompt (5 hours, 45 minutes to get a response), and they suggested the repair tool as well. Thanks to everyone who responded!

Also, If I attempt to use DIR in the FMS to go direct to the next fix, the plane banks left and re-establishes its course to the fix with the deviation .

I started noticing a problem with my MD-11's ability to hold the localiser on an ILS approach a few flights ago. Even in relatively calm winds (right crosswind of 4 kts), the plane was unable to hold the localiser better than one to one-and-a-half dots of deviation left of course. I clicked off the autopilot 3 miles out because inside that distance a correction to return to centerline would've required larger and larger bank angles. If I had let the plane autoland (it was available), I would've most likely touched down in the grass. This problem has continued, and I've noticed enroute devations left of course as well. Usually the deviation is about 1nm left of course. If I input an offset parallel course into the FMS of right 1nm, the plane flies almost on the original intended course. If I remove the offset parallel course, the plane returns to it's track about 1nm left of course. I have had other PMDG MD-11 users claim to have similar problems starting about a month ago. I looked through my flights (I fly with a VA that keeps position reports accurate and often enough to show the deviation enroute), and this problem started about a month ago for me as well. I initially suspected the navigraph update was the error, but that doesn't REALLY explain why the plane is showing itself left of course on the map display, and fly well off centerline on ILS's. Also, I am using PMDG's recommendations for weather addons to counter-act the sensitivity of the PMDG products. Has anyone else encountered this problem? Has anyone found a fix? I intend to submit a ticket to PMDG as well.

Ha! That sounds like something I might say from time to time. Although usually we're too lazy to go chasing (it's usually fruitless)... we just look down and mouth something that could be mistaken as being offensive. Nearly never. I cannot remember doing an external start that didn't involve AT LEAST one trip out of the cockpit during the attempt. I watched "Training Day Tuesday" up in KIAD when I was based there (2010). It really seemed like rampers were brought out (in a large hoard), shown how to marshal a plane in, and then each one was given a turn while everyone watched. There were some good times.

I bet that was interesting. What base? SWA is known for keeping things moving (although they are holding people up in ATL a little while they figure out the lay of the land); however, they aren't (shouldn't be) getting preferential treatment or priority handling. They might have company specific arrivals/approaches (we have some here and there as well), but if they are being moved to the front of line for takeoff it's because there aren't any delays to the airport that flight is going to while the other flights out there in line DO have arrival delays. Either that, or someone further up in line has a maintenance problem, and no one else has access to a taxiway to get to the runway around the offending flight. To give one plane (airline, cargo, corporate, private, or otherwise) preferential treatment goes against FAA Joint Order 7110.65, which is basically the ATC handbook. Priority is only given to planes in very specific circumstances. Even being a military flight does not necessarily mean the flight will get priority. There has to be a specific mission requiring it.

I agree Tom, and it seems like there's alot of wasted realestate (sp? it's late)... on that lower DU. But that's just my opinion, and to date the FAA has not listened to me once, yet.