PhrogPhlyer

Welcome aboard WIlSil !

Just as one does in real aviation. Read the FAA PTSs to understand what the FAA sets as standards you must obtain. https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_standards

Received email, all good. Thanks!!!

I also had not heard of FSXMissionsHangar.com, however I did create an account, and am waiting for the confirmation email.

As is taught by FAA instructors from day one, Good Aeronautical Decision Making. I believe that a variation of "get-there-itis" came into play. We all have fallen or started to fall for this pressure to complete the mission, as planned, and on time. I can understand what the pilot was thinking. We all as pilots need to work harder at recognizing the internal and external pressures we face. A procedural fix would be that "book number" required runway lengths be actual runway length minus the distance from the threshold to the touch down aiming point (approximately location of VASI or PAPI). In this case: 6725 - 989 = 5282 Now we see that the runway is not an acceptable safe runway if you need 5900 to 6500 feet.

I have landed on EWR runway 29 several times. It is "IMPOSSIBLE" to strike a vehicle on the NJ Tpk if the aircraft is on the proper glide path as identified by visually using the PAPI (3°). This incident has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with any ATC guidance or other communications. This pilot at the controls flew a path below the established visual glide path... PERIOD. Using the Boeing 767 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning document, the required runway length for a 767 400EW was between 5900 and 6500 ft. Rwy 29 is 6725 ft. This is technically an acceptable runway, ASSUMING you have the full length to use. The PAPI is located 989 ft past the threshold. Leaving you with much less available runway. I agree with @SayAgain that the Capt should not have considered Rwy 29, and proceeded to the alternate airport. But I would say that a plane with over 200 tired customers, who just flew from Italy was the deciding factor in his poor aeronautical decision making.

Just found this, def. helpful!

Merry Christmas to all of you and your families.

Cost, compared to VR goggles, probably wasn't a consideration. And VR can not give you the total tactile experience of their DIY sim. I applaud their work, amazing.

As both a real world and sim helicopter pilot I believe THE GOTO site for helicopters is HeliSimmer.com. Along with the rest of the site, his How to Fly Helicopters tutorial is the best out there. https://www.helisimmer.com/how-to-fly-helicopters

You should be counter torque with the "anti-torgue" pedals.

Agreed.

Again, that was his decision. I may not agree with it, but I can't dispute that it is his right to do what he did.

ScruffyDuck developed ADE, offered it to all of us for free, and then retired. To say he is being selfish detracts from the years of tireless support he gave the thousands of us who have used ADE through the years. With his retirement, he made a decision not to allow continued development. I believe we all should respect his decision. If people don't like it, then they can put thousands of hours into developing a "free" application for public use, and then sit back and have everyone tell you what's wrong with it and how they could do better if you'd allow it. Again, this is my opinion, which may or may not reflect the opinion of others.

What is disappearing? AI aircraft. your aircraft? What is PT? That will help us to help you.