Stearmandriver

Yeah, I do that with the FA intercom. It's a way to get an early heads-up on any issues they're dealing with back there, because they'll always discuss it amongst themselves first. PAs though, only time I ever select that is to make sure I'm not about to talk over one of the four of them... That's not something that keeps the coffee hot and topped off 😁. But yeah, everyone has their techniques.

I would personally be very un-thrilled if a PA of mine ended up in a video game, without my consent or licensing. Wise of Fenix to not be allowing this. I don't really understand the draw to hearing cabin crew announcements in-sim. Folks do seem to like it, but it's nothing a flight deck crew is listening to in reality. Is it part of the move towards pax simming, where people like to sit in the cabin and stare at the wing?

I would point out that he currently flies 330s, after years of flying 73s. That definitely doesn't make him an authority on the 320... But probably more so than most on this thread 😉. It's worth noting that there are different ways to judge how long an engine start takes. Are you talking about the starter duty cycle time, or the time until the engine is fully accelerated to a stable idle? I blessedly quit commuting many years ago so it's been forever since I've been in a bus jumpseat, but from getting curious enough to watch a couple YouTube videos, it does look like the starter disengages about 30 seconds after initiating the start. Full accel to stable naturally takes longer. So, hard to say what Emi might have been talking about, and I'm not a bus guy so haven't tried the Fenix so I don't know what it might do .. but just a consideration.

Note that there is difference over there between posting on the forum, and submitting a support ticket. The forum is just a forum; not a support venue. They do always respond to actual support tickets. Not saying they'll always immediately fix the issue to your satisfaction of course, but they do respond. They'll usually acknowledge a real issue, and/or offer some advice if they think you've got something wrong on your end. Worth a try.

Well, it's over there. What caught my eye was all the stick pumping and left/right oscillations. The left/right stuff is a PIO; when you deflect the yoke far enough you start to deflect spoilers which causes a sudden quicker roll moment, which the pilot then tries to correct by banging the yoke back the other way, etc. I know you can find videos of people flying the plane like this on YouTube, and no one ever seems to point out that it's not great airmanship. Both the fore/aft pumping and quick side to side deflections are destabilizing; making life harder than it really should be. We would emphasize smoothing that out, ideally in the sim, but on OE. It would be a debrief item on a line check. Airplanes are designed to be easy to fly. Airliners are the easiest of all. No need to make life harder. 😉

That doesn't necessarily make sense, as one sim isn't modeled off another sim. They're both trying to represent the actual airplane. Sure in an ideal world all 3 things would be identical, but that's what I'm trying to explain - they aren't. Both sim renditions are going to have their quirks. Note that variant also matters... A -700 is going to respond differently in the flare than a -900.

The FO WAS on speed for conditions when he ballooned in my example. I hate to burst your bubble, but level D sims don't really fly like the airplane either. They're very good for procedural training, and they're ballpark enough for flight modeling so a trainee can get an idea of pitch/power/control deflection/control force relationships, but in the end, nothing really flies like an airplane except an airplane. There's a reason a newly typed pilot isn't just turned loose to go fly the airplane, but completes roughly 60 hours of training in the actual plane with a check airman. This is called OE (operating experience), and is where pilots really learn how to land.

What do you mean, when conditions are right? In what conditions are you seeing the PMDG do this, that you think the real airplane wouldn't? Like I say, a mishandled balloon or bounce is one of the leading causes of a tail strike. I mean, I've had to take the controls from an FO and go around - from idle thrust - because of a severe balloon. In the actual airplane. I don't understand why folks who have only flown the sim variety think that this can't happen?? You can be on-speed at ref +10 or 15 (for wind additive) and balloon for sure...

^^^ This isn't just a sim issue. There is a significant real-world trend towards flying crazy wide patterns in GA airplanes. It seems to be a function of generational creep - every new generation of instructors is accustomed to slightly wider patterns, so they then allow their students to fly slightly wider patterns for the sake of comfort (for both the new student and new CFI); those new students go on to become the new crop of CFIs, the trend continues. It used to be standard procedure to understand that if you're beyond power off gliding distance from the runway, you're too far out. People will try to argue that faster and more complex single engine aircraft require wider patterns, but this isn't true; it's a lack of comfort with the airplane or perhaps laziness. You can absolutely keep a Columbia 400 or Cirrus or RV within a half mile of the runway with proper energy and config management. Of course in the sim, you can do whatever is comfortable for you, and maybe consider it a fun challenge to work your patterns in tighter.

That's because the FCOM is speaking to presumably qualified pilots who understand the importance of energy management and flying on-speed. Excess energy can absolutely result in a balloon, and this is in fact one of the leading ways that pilots accomplish a tail strike.

Oh not nearly; I'm banned. 😁 If the PMDG has an Achilles heel, it is definitely their current LNAV flight guidance and inability to handle RF segments. But taken in total (flight model, engine perf, single engine perf, systems modeling and depth and range of failures etc) it's hard not to see the PMDG 737 as one of the best-simulated (if not the best) aircraft in the sim. The behavior of those running the company is a different story 😉. But I don't see that as really related to the performance of their sim aircraft.

That landing wasn't a result of idle thrust (he had just pulled to idle as he tried to flare, and he should not have since he was slow, but the power is just rolling back as he touches down). He was obviously slow. If you're slow, popping the yoke back isn't going to do anything, since the wing doesn't have any excess performance to give you. If you're 10kts fast and do that, you'll get a very different response. You can see this in the PMDG; if you're at ref or ref-5, you're not going to find any balloon or float capability. You are, in fact, probably going to plant it just like this video. One thing to check might be your assistance settings in the sim; if you have any of them on, they interfere with the PMDG flight model in severe ways. Sometimes they get turned back on as a surprise from a sim update. If that's not it, and you're really seeing a severe balloon, you're simply too fast. If you think you're on speed, you've probably got something wrong in the FMC perf init that is causing the plane to think it's heavier than it is, and give you a ref speed higher than is actually required. Balloons are much more about excess speed than they are about excess thrust.

Guy needs to watch a Bob Hoover performance... Thrust is only one part of the energy equation, and not the most important part 😉.

And how many of them have you flown, to prove this? ;)

Oh my friend, if I had a nickel for every time I've seen someone balloon a 737.... A little bit too abrupt of a flare, a few knots of mismanaged energy, and that semi-critical airfoil skips right off ground effect. Zibo is a great freeware project and so I never like to say anything negative about that project, but if we're comparing flight models... Well, there's no comparison. There are so many things in the PMDG that are so good, but most people will never even know about unless they can recognize it from the real airplane. The PMDG 737 flight model is very good. Their engine out / V1 cut performance is the best I've seen in any sim aircraft. I know people like to nerd out on the Zibo and for freeware it IS incredible... But it's definitely not the same level.

Just a note: unless you've manually placed the EECs in alternate mode, it'll be impossible to overtemp or over boost the PMDG engines. Even with the EECs in alternate, it'll be tough. It's just a more modern, robust engine with more built in protections, is all. PMDG has modeled that well. The Maddog is absolutely a fantastic sim aircraft though... For my money, worth every penny as-is. 👍

My personal hope would be for a 727, but I'm not saying I think that's likely it. I do think a PMDG-level 72 would do well, but who knows what this is...

I've flown a 737 transcon - live flight, with pax - with the FMCs MELd for a corrupt database, meaning they weren't just "technically" on MEL but actually were inoperative. It wasn't a big deal at all. I've also done this in various biz jets and other airliners. An FMC is a nice tool, but that's all it is... It certainly isn't mandatory. And sure, dual FMC failures have happened in flight in reality.

Because when the IRS / GPS / FMC isn't working, then you can't navigate? I would think that matters lol. I've never flown a jet that can't couple to a VOR. I've flown several modern jets. That's... Pretty weird to me. But, Airbus has a different design philosophy, we've always known that...

Is this actually true in the real plane? I've been flying for the airlines for 25 years and never knew this about the bus. That's actually kind of hilarious. 😉

I've never seen an ATIS change meteorological data without a corresponding METAR being generated first though, so if you're hitting refresh every couple minutes on WSI you're gonna see a new METAR before a new ATIS. I've checked the MSFS visibility depiction during very low vis and found it to be very good. I use runway lights or centerline lights for reference; runway edge lights are 200ft apart, and centerline lights are 50ft apart (in the US, unsure if it's a meter-based value elsewhere.). So if you're sitting on a runway in 600rvr, you should be able to see 3 runway lights during the day, and 12 centerline lights in front of you. It's usually pretty darn close. In higher vis, you have to take into account the fact that the sim is blending vis at your airport with vis at the next airport in the direction you're looking. Like Bob said, this is not an unrealistic situation, to have different visibilities in different directions.

Yes, if you fly VFR outside of class D or lower airspace, you basically aren't using ATC at all. Flight following is just a courtesy they provide, workload permitting. So that's the point... This software wants $30 a MONTH, and doesn't actually even provide any real (IFR) ATC service? This seems crazy to me. To each their own, but... What would the point of flight following even be in a simulator?

I don't get it... If it's VFR only but doesn't do anything with AI traffic then there's no flight following... So what does it do other than act as a tower controller and tell you how to enter the pattern, and maybe give you taxi instructions on the ground? I mean, this is barely a fraction of what ATC actually does... For a hefty subscription?

They're not just on a clock though; we aren't talking about equal representations of the airplane and it just being a matter of which releases first, not if PMDG doesn't get their FMCs modernized first. The iFly handles modern navdata types beautifully, with arcs, RF segments, and rock solid LNAV flight guidance for hand flying. Until PMDG brings their aircraft up to that level, I really don't see the purpose in buying a PMDG Max just cause it releases first. We already have 737s... Might as well wait for a fully working Max, if PMDG releases first but still has all the old navdata and flight guidance.

It doesn't really handle that differently. It's a 737. Roll control might be a *little* crisper with the FBW spoiler coupling vs the old hydraulic mixing unit, but we're really talking nuances that'll never come through in a desktop sim. If it really handled differently, it wouldn't be on the 737 type. That was actually the entire point of the MCAS system in the first place, to make stall recovery feel like an NG - which it does.