Etai Charit

Just quoting you again because I saw that the forum notifies you when it happens. Just so you'll see the newer more accurate answer to your question, and perhaps the developement of the thread... :-)

Different than the system I know, probobly like said before a newer pumps and/or logic. Most of the NG's, at least the old ones are as described, with no auto-shut of the pumps, so it is important to switch them off when low pressure is lit. About landing with a certain amount on the center tank - according to specific company procedures, all in all there's no safety instruction or rule. I know to empty it completely. By that logic, indeed landing with fuel in the center tank is a planning mistake and/or system operation error.

The fuel is taken from the center tank until it's completely empty, only then from the wing tanks. The Master Causion will illuminate with "Fuel" indication. The Center tank fuel pumps low pressure will illuminate whilest the pump is on. The pumps would NOT TURN OFF AUTOMATICALLY so you must switch to off so they won't overheat and may fail or worse. There's a method to avoid the Master Caution disturbing warning, if you are already aware that the tank is almost empty (about 50 kg left): Open the Cross-Feed Valve and turn off one of the Center Fuel Pumps. Thus you won't get the Master Caution, everything's calm, and both engines would still dry out the center tank before feeding from the wings. When the center tank is fully empty, the remaining pump low pressure light will illuminate, so switch the pump off and close back the cross-feed.

Small addition about your comment of the Airbuses: CWS is indeed similar to FBY in actual plane actions, but is really not as used. CWS is like I said, merely a last piece of automated stage between the unintented CMD disconnection and the pilots realizing that and reacting upon.

Sorry mate, a bit wrong. 1. CWS in reality is never used, it doesn't appear in any procedure (as far as I know, correct me if any company involves it in its procedures). It's the "stupidest" automation level that the aircraft can perform. The only practical use of it is when a CMD disconnects from some reason, it's better to auto-engage CWS until the pilot takes control than to have a completely uncontrolled flight axis. Actually some companies began blocking the CWS engagement buttons (with INOP stickers on them).Fun in the sim is another thing. Irrelevant to professional flight. 2. YD: as a passive system, it has a delay. If you turn nice and slowly, it will catch up and the incoordinated period will be unnoticed, and the turn probobly would be more acurate than the human pilot. If you put your leg in anyway, the YD as a hydraulic powered system will resist you. The rudder is powered by system A+B, the YD is as said in the video correctly is powered by only B (or in STBY RUD flight contols mode by the standby hydraulic system). Thus, you unwillingly create a situation in which you make hydraulic system B or the STBY resist the pressure in system A, thus the system is loaded (not to much, but a bit) for absolutly no reason. So when you have a YD on, whichever hydraulic system is powering it, and you don't make strong manuevers, no need of legs in turns.In the other hand, in case of strong turns (terrain/traffic avoidance, gain of control in single engine operation etc), the YD doesn't keep up and the delay can be felt critically. Thus as the pilot making the turn manually in the stick, you simultaniously put your leg in. Just for the banking moments. When stabilized in a turn, even a strong one, you can leave the leg gently out and the YD will balance and take your place.

I'm curious about NGX's behaviour in abnormal procedures. Just the obvious ones (Engine fire, decompression, and their secondary effect on other systems, and how are they simulated in those cases). Could try a scenario and share?

I know some real airliners that fly the FS9, practicing normal and abnormal procedures prior to type rating tests and/or serious level-D simulator. It's about getting natural on the automation, mainly, and to have better control over the flight flow. Confidence and practice, mainly. The airline sends one to practice in an expensive level-D simulator and later on in the actual route as a student (with the captain being in addition their instructor and another sub-f/o for a worse unwanted scenario in flight). So one doesn't want to get into those expansive final stages without being sure of your system and procedural control of the aircraft. FS9/X is an excellent tool for that matter. In addition and to differ from the airliners, the FSX is a great tool for instrument training: PPL will find it an initial training in just reading and interpreting the instruments, so in the real flights they'll be easier with it and concentrate on the meaning and responding rather than the reading. IFR is great for the navigation itself - the flight feel is this time unnecessary to the pilot's performance (it might even interrupt - no feelings in IFR!), and the pilot can practice routes and procedures with the instruments. When he gets to the plane, he will only need to disregard the actual flight feel and do exactly what he's done in the FSX (plus don't forget, flying the plane he knows from PPL).

Adding my support to the request of El-Al Israeli Airlines.

VS value is indeed irrelevant in terms of climb, but when leveling-off, it is very relevant. There is a method that says that devide the VS value by 3, gives you the how many feet below the desired altitude to start leveling off. Ex: climbing at VS of 3000 FPM to FL180, 3000/3=1000 feet in advance start leveling-off gently, that means at FL170 I'll begin lowring the nose.

About ATC clearance, deviation and rules, only one tiny addition to the massive discussion: ATC can be notified about a bad weather, advice, inform etc. Eventually, if you are flying directly into a monserous CB on your route, you have ability to know it in advance (WXR, visual sight), and you think it might be a danger to the plane, you fly the plane to safety. When possible, talk to ATC, resolve problems, saparations, restricted routes and areas. But initially get the aircraft out of immediate obvious danger. If along doing it you broke a rule or two, at least you live to explain your actions later, on solid ground and with your undamaged plane. along with the passengers you are responsible of. This was just another point of view. Ofcourse ATC interaction and cooperation can be the best way to avoid conflicts. But the obvious immediate danger overrides any rule. Wurst case you don't communicate, they'll hold and divert other traffic away from you - the sky is big enough. Trivial weather avoidance solutions, even due to only turbulence with no phisical danger: Request specific heading vecor, request other altitude. In accordance with your WXR. Ex: "Swiss radar, Elal 347 request heading 340 to avoid". As simple as that, no big deal. just check what it does to the rest of the route and vertical profile calculations. Another thing: passing right above visual bad weather in what seems to be a clear path will usually give good turbulance nevertheless. The air is thrown up and down from the visually seen clouds, so usually lateral avoidance is the best way.