ClearedtoLand

The very gifted Steve Drabek recently showcased the consequences of insufficient planning for stormy weather, and was given a number to call for those who don't quite do flying just right. He was kind enough to promise to pass that number on to me, I just wanted to show him why I think I should also have that number. I would discuss it with my instructor, but, they are, understandably, hard to come by now. Steve, if you're reading this, you have nothing to feel bad about, you have followed the old aviation guideline of landing at least as many times as you have taken off ... that is not true for all of us

So, you could taxi to the gate? When you're done with that number, could you pass it this way maybe?

Great shots as always. Namibia is indeed a greatly underrated destination. The Namib dessert is awe inspiring, Luderitz is quaint, and the Skeleton coast leaves one with an appreciation of the need for humility. I would love a good Windhoek and Luanda ... just in case someone is looking.

It's always a pleasure to report them. I don't really have much that I can contribute to AVSIM, and yet it has been a priceless source of help for me over the years, pressing that report button on spammers is the least I can do as a thank you for the amazing service that AVSIM is.

Just don't make a movie about it ...

Oh, every time I land BAW2157 at Antigua with a 77W instead of the 200ER BA uses on that flight, I can't help but wonder about a PMDG 777 200ER. But then again, why is it only up to PMDG to make our sims representative of real world heavies, I'm sure if enough of us wrote to BA, they'd start flying that route with a 77W, problem solved

It's interesting that this question pops up now because I have been thinking about it recently as well. In the 5 years that I have had my Dell Alienware desktop, I have only had one part break down on me, one of my memory modules packed up last week and had to be replaced. It got me wondering about the longevity of gaming pc's, because I have a suspicion that the 5 year old motherboard is also heading the way of the dinosaur. But to have had to replace only one component in 5 years, to me is quite good. I'd be interested to know what other people have found with their systems.

That's how you get an episode of Air Crash Investigation dedicated to you

I'm glad Kyle is sorting you out so quickly, these guys really are something special. BTW, I bought the 737NGX twice, but that was quite deliberate. They say patience is a virtue, but what good is flying virtue without a weather radar?

Yep, I make myself coffee and check AVSIM, for me, the wait is worth it. My FPS is acceptable, I am happy with the way my sim looks, and I don't want anything other than my A2A, PMDG, and Majestic aircraft, so I won't cut back on those. I take into consideration how long the sim takes to load when I plan my flights, and work around it, so the nuisance factor is managed. For me, personally, it's just the way it is in order for me to have my 100+ plane and scenery add ons.

From launching FSX:SE to getting into the cockpit, 8 minutes. No one can accuse me of lacking patience.

Well, paramedics won't hurt anyone.

Some time ago, around the release of the PMDG 777-200LR, I messed around with it at a small airport in Turkey. The guy who made the airport included animated people, but he forgot to program them with spatial awareness or any regard for airport safety regulations. Needless to say, it was only a matter of time before I saw one casually walk straight into the starboard engine as I was taxiing to the stand ... obviously, an area where DTG should consider making some improvements.

I don't particularly spend much time watching AI traffic other than when TCAS says I should, but they do come up with some gems some times. The one that has always stuck in my mind was an EasyJet Airbus seemingly turning off the M11 motorway at Stansted and driving up towards the runway straight through every approach aid, lights and what not, neatly aligned with the Centre line, not so much the glide slope though. Makes one wonder what the I in AI stands for sometimes.

I'm not denying the validity of anything that you are saying, Simon, and, as always, your post is most informative. However, the validity of your well reasoned position does not exclude the validity of someone else's position who doesn't follow procedures, and here I will admit that my position is very much influenced by the OP's phrase that "I for one have never ever been able to "rationalize" flight simulation of flying over the Atlantic or Pacific for hours upon hours of nothing but water at say 35,000'." When we cannot understand another's reasons for simming the way they do, it should be enough for us to remember that there is no one right way, given that any such right way would mean we need some objective measure of what is the right way to sim and what not, and that question is not answered simply by the requirements of aviation procedures alone. It will end up very quickly with us asking questions pertaining to real life. Should I stay up all night and do my proper procedures and go to work tired, or should I let the plane do what it does, land and not be tired at work? Should I only do long haul flights over weekends when I can sit at the PC the whole day/night? When you look at questions like these, it just becomes a non issue, because it now boils down to the question of what takes preference, simming, or life? To use the OP's term, we can rationalise it either way to great effect, but by the rules of logic, it always ends up at subjective preference, it's a dead end, and I don't know whether the world needs another war to settle the question of whether chocolate or vanilla ice cream is the best.

If one is to interpret the question posed by the OP as one relating to the ability to complete a long haul flight without running into performance problems, then the answer is down to two simple aspects, the first is preference, i.e. I like doing long haul flights for any of a number of reasons but don't have the time to sit there for the whole night for any of a number of reasons, the second being because my system can handle it, essentially, I do long haul flights because I can. I don't actually think that that is how the question was intended, but it can, of course, be interpreted that way. I don't see any reason that suggests one cannot learn the features of an aircraft or the basics of flying that excludes finding enjoyment from doing long haul flights, those don't seem to be mutually exclusive. Again, setting aside performance related limitations, I see no answer to the question as it was posed which is anything other than personal preference, underpinned by any number of different subjective reasons. Anything other than that would be quite remarkable to observe, and by anything other I mean someone who comes on here and professes to do long haul flights because they hate them ... or because it was a full moon (permit me a bit of humour here). My own reasons for doing long haul flights are two fold, my system can handle it, on the extreme long haul routes OTHH (Taxi2Gate) to KLAX (FSDreamteam), CYVR (FSDreamteam) to YSSY (FlyTampa) to long haul flights between Aerosoft Airports, UK2000 Airports, FSDreamteam, LatinVFR, Flightbeam and a long list of other less detailed airports with either no performance hits or acceptable ones. In short, I do them because my system can handle them, and if I am out from 8AM till 10PM, those ultra long haul flights are great to come home to and finish before going to bed. Overnight long haul flights are a luxury of not having an appointment in the morning. So, I do them because time and system permit, and because I like them. There is another reason that I sim, but it applies as much to long haul, as short haul, as simply taking a Cessna for a hop around somewhere. But that is a reason that I definitely do not share with many of you on here, and that is a good thing and I hope none of you ever join that club. The main point is, as in my previous response, regardless of what others' preferences and expectations are, there exits a variety of preferences and expectations which are each equally valid, and the important thing is not necessarily to understand each of those reasons, but simply to understand that different preferences can and do exist, independently of our comprehension of them. Whether we understand each of those or not is of secondary concern.

You're committing a very basic error in reasoning. You already recognise that it is simulation, and so, not real. Since it is not real it does not have to follow the rules of reality, however you define reality and however you formulate rules, bearing in mind that your views on reality and rules are not universal. It may seem silly, but it's important, so don't ignore that bit. You already recognise that there are several different way of simulating reality, you refer to simulating the 16X simulation rate, which really isn't an option in reality. Since 16x simulation rate isn't the only of way bending the rules of space time in the sim, there is already an implied way of not making the sim real, a notion which is in any case already implied in the concept of a simulation. You can't make times pass 16x faster on earth than it does, so if you are ok simulating a violation of the laws of physics in your sim, why is not ok to violate FAA rules where the pilot just ignores the plane for 8 hours in his/her sim? There might be a philosophical question in there somewhere about which is easier to manipulate, the FAA or the universe, but it's never going to get published in any journal. If I am honest with you, the question doesn't really make an awful lot of sense, well, it does in one way, but that way is more of interest to cognitive psychologists and sociologists (that's not a compliment) than to logicians (they've answered it and have subsequently moved on to more interesting things [No, they question of whether this universe is a simulation isn't actually new either and has too many limitations to be of any real interest either]). The answer to it is very simple, you do not need to understand why someone prefers to simulate a 14 hour flight of which they spend 8 hours asleep and another 5 hours doing whatever they do, since it's not a moral question and as such the notion of right or wrong doesn't feature at all. All you need to understand is that there is more than one way to skin a cat, a number of way of not skinning cats, the theoretical possibility of cats skinning you, and some anecdotal references to dogs chasing cats (outrageous) but mostly, it's just that where rules are not hard coded beyond anthropocentric concerns and subjective preference plays a part, right or wrong goes out the window and counsel for the defence is not required.

Strange things do indeed happen from time to time. I always try to take off at the same time as the actual flight. On approach to Heathrow from Cape Town (BAW 58) once I wasn't off the runway fast enough, so the plane behind me was told to go around, nothing unusual, except the conversation started like this: Speedbird 58 Heavy, go around! I say again, go around! Acknowledge.

Have a look at Post #4 in this thread, doesn't get more official than that. There's also a lot of discussion on the subject in the links I posted in my reply there if you want to see what has been discussed. I have no idea about the LED-lights, though.

Quite a few people agree actually, I'm one of them, but the question is asked fairly regularly and there are a few discussions about it. I'm not sure what the official PMDG position is on it, but given what the talk is on the rest of the forums, it doesn't seem like it's been ruled out, but it's not a priority at the moment either. If you go through the links below you can get a better idea of what the discussions are about. http://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/490558-split-scimitar/ http://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/484937-model-only-split-scimitar-winglets-update/ http://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/413703-split-scimitar-winglet-modeling-on-the-ngx/

As Jimbo Jones said in the Simpsons (Homer the Vigilante), Now I don't believe in nothing no more. I'm going to law school.

Embarrassingly, that is not an entirely inaccurate observation. Note to self, less Godel more Shermer.

I imagine that it is simply to make it easier for whoever is responding to the post to recognise that the person is an actual customer without having to scroll through the thread to see if any post had been signed in accordance with the rules. As for the location of the signature, I don't know, perhaps consistency, creating a single spot that everyone knows where to look rather than having to hunt around for it. Either way, I think it's just common courtesy to comply with the rules in this regard as it shows that you are trying to make it easier for people to help you.

I saw that too, reminded me of an article I read on the unintended consequences of irony earlier today.

I don't know who read it and who didn't or what the reasons behind it are, neither does anyone else, my point is that we should not assume a poor reason for not reading something, which is unfortunately something that is assumed all too often, even in the absence of any justifiable reason for doing so. And were we then to find that the person actually had a good reason for not doing what we consider a bare minimum requirement, we will then claim in our defence that we could not have known their reasons, to which the countercharge is, of course, we could not have known their reasons, but we could have known that we could not have known, and as such, we don't really have a good reason for assuming that we are justified in being impolite to someone for not doing what we expect them to have done simply because we didn't know. In the end, we acted as if we did know, even when clearly, we did not. Politeness, if misplaced, is easier to bear than misplaced impoliteness. It also easier to defend.