taneb

Thanks for the fast response! But I don't understand how or why it happened. I never did anything to change my .net c++ and is it bad to disconnect active sky while fsx is running? Because that's when the errors started happening is when I closed active sky when fsx was still running

Well, I can't help you a whole lot as I have fsx and am not familiar with that weird control panel he's using, sounds like you may need someone tech support as per that specific panel/simulator. However, if you want my advice, (I'm not trying to be mean) I would seriously consider vatsim. I used to have the robotic atc and it was way too technical. The problem here is that he doesn't know what arrival to expect until atc gives it to him whereas in the real world pilots already know what arrival they're gonna have before they even take off, as specified in their flight plan. If you can't find routes on flight aware, then I guess use the find option in pfpx. That's acceptable too. The reason vatsim is neat is because it is a lot more flexible as far as planning goes. Also, seems like this guy is in the dispatch office the whole flight. He's spending more time planning than he is flying the plane. These are just my suggestions tho, as everyone flys differently. But every flight I have, planning like this and for arrivals is just minority stuff as I have it all planned out. If you want more info from me just let me know. Sorry if I wasn't the best help, but that's my 2 cents. Hope you can get it all figured out.

I usually prepare for a random runway, and am not advised until after TOD. If you on VATSIM (or IVAO I suppose) I get my runway to be landing on when I contact approach. Recently, center controllers have been giving me runway transitions on a STAR prior to reaching TOD. Listen to the atis, see which flow other traffic is landing on. If all else fails, prepare for a runway and if atc gives you a different one then advise them you are unable to comply or request one of the other active runways. I've had to do that before. Also, in pfpx what I usually do is copy a route from flight aware and paste it into the route field of pfpx, then click build route instead of using an automatic calculated flight plan. Flight aware gives you real world flight routes

Ok ok I know there are several threads on this issue. However no ones came up with a definitive solution. The situation-the other night I was about to do a flight and then I noticed active sky wasn't downloading weather data so I closed it (WHILE THE SIM WAS STILL RUNNING) and decided to use the default weather engine instead. Well, shortly after doing this FSX crashed immediately and the event log said it was the MSVCR80.dll was the problem. ? So then doing further testing, sometimes I get the crash, sometimes not. I even get it when active sky isn't running. Happens in the PMDG 737, don't know about other aircraft. Crashes happen ranging from just loading at the airport to about 30 min after I've been in the sim. I still haven't found a fix for the issue Is it because I closed out while the sim was running? I've heard that can cause issues but nothing more Thanks for all the help

Oh ok. Well, thanks for the help! Unfortunately, I don't have fsuipc but I got Christmas money leftover hehe. Seems like a useful tool; if I get it I will try your suggestions. Thanks best regards taneb

Yeah. I got Saitek rudder pedals. You think that could be the case? I'll check and see if that appears to be the issue, I'll report back to you. Edit-yes it appears there is correlation between the rudder pedals and the veering to the left/braking issues. But once I disconnected them the problem stopped. I've never had this problem before, and that's why I asked. Maybe I need to update my drivers? taneb

It just doesn't make any sense. Sorry if I posted this in the wrong forum Here it goes. So pretty much, all in one day I downloaded fs2crew reboot and the level d 767. The level d 767 was causing me serious problems, so I had to uninstall it. Shortly afterwards, I did a flight on the PMDG 737 and it took like 80% n1 just to taxi, let alone take off. And it was having some sound issues, and kept on veering to the left even though there was no wind or anything. I resolved the sound issues by messing with fs2crew, but the engine power issues remain. I turned off windows error reporting systems, but turned it back on with no luck. Maybe that was the problem? I noticed that the veering to the left during taxi and using the massive engine thrust just to taxi were traits shared by the level d 767, so this could maybe be the issue as well? Who knows... Anyways, help appreciated and best regards. Taneb Hp pavillion 500-314 Windows 8 64-bit Orchid-s motherboard AMD A8 7600 3.1 GHz Integrated graphics 8GB RAM

Hey I think you are right. Could you please shed me some insight on how to change the elevation data in the airac? thanks

Sorry guys, haven't been on the forum for a couple of days. I think you are right, I will use some of your suggestions and report back. I am new to RNAV, so I was just trying to be sure.

Hey everyone, I have mastered many things in the NGX, but there's one thing that still has me scratching my head. It's on the RNAV approach. Now, before you say so I am not asking for an RNAV tutorial, but what I am doing wrong. If you get the chance, try this approach and see if you can get it right. So I'm on VATSIM, and I'm making an approach into Denver and DEN_APP tells me to expect the RNAV Z approach for rwy 16L, and so everything is going as planned. I have it all in my fmc, and LNAV VNAV is on, but I can't seem to get on the "glide slope" after LEETS, which is the FAF. It is a very quick approach from the IF (QUIKE) which requires you to to make some steep descents in a short amount of time. Once you get to the FAF, you are supposed to be at 7000. My altimeter is set for the minimums of 5600, and I pass the FAF at 7000, and then it starts to go down with the "three degree glide path" of the approach. But I guess the glide path is not steep enough, because I reach my minimums where I am about to disconnect the autopilot, but I'm already way too high. Is there a way to adjust the glide path, or is there anything I'm doing wrong here? Could anyone try this approach and see if they are able to do it, because I've tried it many times now and I am starting to think that it's impossible. Thanks for the help Taneb

PMDG 737. As an owner of both, I do enjoy both aircraft and they have served me well. But I think the style of the NGX is a lot more "natural" if that makes any sense. And because It's a jet you don't have to learn anything prop related like the feathering, but that's just my opinion. The truth is, it all depends on whether your willing to read the manuals or not. Both aircraft are very similar in complexity, and if you get good at them then you can start them up and get going really quickly. But, in your case it depends. I learned the NGX first, so when I went to the dash 8 and the whole dang plane seemed so "alien" to me but if you start out with the dash 8, you will think that that's the norm and the 737 is "alien." But both could take around the same time to learn or master, since as I've said above both have very comprehensive learning curves. I don't know though, the NGX has around 3,000 pages of manuals, and the majestic dash 8 is not really close to that, but still equally detailed. And it depends on the type of aircraft and preference as well. The two are very different types of airplanes, so that will need to come into account. May I suggest to you the feelthere ERJ/E-jets? Those are aircraft that really aren't as hard to learn as the NGX, but are extremely realistic in terms of how close they are to their real world counter parts. The fms is a little different, but I would say it's a great transition aircraft because the just flight a320 up to the NGX is an extremely large jump in realism. But I've had a lot of fun with the E-Jets, they are simple, yet complex at the same time. Here's the thing. I can't relate that closely to you, because the NGX was the first addon I've gotten, which was about a week after I bought FSX so immediately I jumped into the deep end. Now I've pretty much mastered it after having it for about a year, but I'm still learning ;-) These aren't the only realistic aircraft out there though, so with that in mind you might check out the LDS 767, or the leonardo maddog md80. If you liked the just flight airbus, I would go with the AXE or the wilco one, which is actually pretty complex, but could be used as a transition aircraft. Anyways, best of luck to which ever you choose! I prefer youtube videos as opposed to the manuals for the quickest ways to learn about the aircraft, but still look into them. Best regards taneb

Oh ok this helps, although unlike the e170 the packs sound doesn't go off when you start the engines, so maybe that was misleading. Thanks!

No, I think there's a misunderstanding. What I mean is, a 737 and many other planes I know of require the packs to be OFF for engine start, since you must have enough air pressure to start the engines, air pressure provided by the apu. What I was saying was that the ERJ from feelthere is able to have the engines started even with the packs turned ON, and I was wondering if that's normal or if they just didn't simulate that, because on PMDG 737 and many other aircraft, if the packs are on then the engines will not start.

Hey everyone, I'm just curious about this, and if there's a way to fix it. Although this is in the wrong forum, I know it will have more of a chance to get some insight. So on the wilco/ft erj, how am I able to start the engines without having to turn the packs off? And it doesn't seem to make a difference whether I turn the hydraulic pumps on, I could leave them off the whole flight and it wouldn't matter. Is this just things that weren't simulated? Thanks Taneb

Well, I cannot argue with statistics. And I can't say anything about drones in warfare. Here's the thing. Automation takes a job one human can do and make it more efficient and multiply the work output of the machine by the productivity of a human (obviously). And I have no doubt that it will happen with aviation someday, replacing the jobs we have today and doing our job ten times better than we can, making more money (one of the only things that matter to society these days). However, you can't balance feelings with any kind of statistics. What's happening is one argument claims it is going to happen and why, and another argument is IF you agree with it or not. Personally speaking, (and I mean no offense, just my OPINION) I don't really understand why any true aviation enthusiast or pilot would agree with pilots being up for replacement. Unless you just want a different job or are okay with a computer smiling at the clouds for you, while in the mean time you are on the ground, back to the way things were before 1903, watching the clouds go by. And to make it clear, I know that it will be a while before this happens, but still... To tell you the truth, I could see people going at it back and forth for days trying to see who has the right opinion, trying to back it up with as much evidence as possible using methods of pathos, ethos, or logos to try and convince those who disagree with your opinion. If it were me, I would rather be in the cockpit, although I'm talking from a commercial perspective, not a military aspect so I don't confuse you. Having wanted to fly since a young boy, I always enjoyed listening to the presentations of pilots who talk about how they liked their job or never let the negatives get to them. Several years in the future, It will really be nice when kids fly in automated planes staring out the window and decide that's what they want to do for a living. And then they find out that the age of pilots has long since been gone Cheers! taneb

Man, you are lucky. Those are one of my favorite planes, the E190. I currently have yet to get the E170/E190 from feelthere, but I have their E175/195 set mainly because I was fond of the new 175, and a lot of the airlines use it (one of the planes I would like to fly). And I was being sarcastic about the robotic gate agents, I didn't think they would actually exist at Gatwick. But hey, proves my point right? We're all up for replacement these days.

Case closed everybody. Thanks to everyone for your thoughts and support. Sorry about the mixed opinions, I hope no ones feelings were hurt, just interested on your input. Anyways see ya later ;-)

Yeah, true. Safety record may vary depending on the aircraft. But still, I wish they would keep pilots in the cockpit. I don't see why any pilot of today's world would even want something like that, unless they just flat out hate their job or just don't really care. But I guess that's the future of today's world, according to nasa at least. But as for now, it is the way it is. Seems like a pretty controversial subject as I've said before. Anyways, thanks for all the great input though, it's a lot of interesting info. Now I'm just bored with the subject, it's not worth worrying or arguing about. We'll just have to see when that time gets there. Once again, thanks everybody. You can keep posting if you want, I'll keep reading them. And thanks KevinAu, who's been following this topic since the very beginning. Moral of the story, just enjoy flying the way it is in the here and now. Edit-By the way Kevin, not to be rude, just out of curiosity, are you still an airline pilot? Thanks

Well, yes and no. It's like I hear many people when they say, "I'd feel safer in a plane that has fly-by-wire than in a plane with traditional hydraulics." There's two types of accidents-an accident, or a flat our fatal crash or fatal accident. From 2006 to 2009, the U.S went without a single fatal disaster until that Colgan air q400 ruined it. You see the thing is, how many problems are computers solving as opposed to the ones that they are creating? While Uav might reduce the amount of accidents, the accidents it would have are far more likely to be fatal rather than small misdemeanors. Luke, like you said, it's a trade off. It all just depends on which end of the bargain you prefer. I assume that one of these days we'll probably have electronic flight attendants and robotic gate agents, technically we really don't need them either. Let's face it, no matter which job or career you choose, there is probably a machine that can do it ten times more productively, airline pilots just happen to be the ones for replacement at this point in time. I guess that's just automation for you.

Eh well I guess single pilot flying is better than none, but is that the plane flying by itself and a pilot standing off to the side just in case? That would indicate that by then planes would be capable of doing fully automated flight under perfect conditions without any failures? I still think that the pilot should have at least some input as to what the plane does IMO. And what is the future of GA or corporate flying? Will those be fully automated as well, or does it only apply to the airline industry? The reason I ask is because airline isn't the only way a person could fly a plane, maybe someone wants to go for a cruise in their Cessna 172 just for fun? That way, I could still go fly for enjoyment, because when the wright brothers created flying in 1903, I'm pretty sure it was because they wanted to see a birds eye view of the world, not for a machine to enjoy it for them. As for accomplishing a certain task, I can understand that, but those are just my thoughts on it. It's still a little while before that even happens anyway.

True, flight crew errors are the majority of accident causes, but on the contrary, flight crew skill and critical thinking are what landed the U.S airways flight safely in the Hudson. Could a machine pull that off? How well is automated flight on a failed engine, or in the case of a bird strike two failed engines? Has there ever been an autoland on road or on water? A computer would have to be dead on precise to handle that kind of situation appropriately, not accounting for bad weather or crosswind etc.

Well, at least that means I may have the opportunity to fly the 737 max in my lifetime. Back to the topic, what happens if a pilot in a single pilot airliner decides to do something bad? As KevinAu already said, a pilot committed suicide with everyone on board (I believe he's talking about the German wings crash) well, on a single pilot plane there is no co-pilot to stop him from doing what ever he wants? So you may say that the controls will be airbus like and stop the pilot from doing un-wanted inputs, but who knows? At least these days if there's a computer failure there's a pilot that knows how to solve it and a co-pilot to check that he's doing it right as well as assist in flying the plane? I just don't see it working. Uav's in the military don't have any pilots on them, but they don't have any passengers on them either. I guess it's just a really controversial subject. I know it will happen for sure, I'm just not sure we're quite ready to advance to that level yet... Anyways, if they make airliners unmanned, hopefully GA aircraft would still be in the mix to fly, but if there's no air traffic controllers, who knows. We'll just have to see taneb

True. Those are all good points. I guess there are a lot of aviation related careers. I'm not much of a prop person though, I want to fly jets. I guess in that case the best option would be a corporate jet business, or something along those lines.

By the way KevinAu is that you? You were the real life airline pilot that answered my questions about the ERJ 145 a few months back. Good to see you. Anyways, klamal, you are right. The airlines have turned flying into an industry, so I'm not surprised to see that money is their first priority, and (hopefully) safety next. Such a shame :-(. I'm grateful for all of your opinions. To be honest I was more or less just wondering if most of the aircraft flying now will be flying by around 2025 to 2030. Only reason I ask is because a lot of these aircraft today I wish I could fly but I'm not sure how much longer they will be around.

That is a great point. But a least planes these says can still be hand flown, and I'm glad that they have vor and even adf receivers in jet planes as a back up even though they rely on gps. Even though it's our future, and it may be productive as well as cost saving, it's a shame that they would even want to remove pilots, it seems like a great job to have. I doubt any aviation enthusiast really likes it though. Piloting a plane (virtually or reality) is basically the whole reason avsim was created. I guess it just is what it is.