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.

Another FW/RW jockey here. So much going on in real aviation these days. And the mishaps that always garner attention and discussion.

SkyForce is being retired. https://rexsimulations.com/skyforce.html

Repeating and summarizing the above excellent detailed post. This is common question. Note that is says "visual" procedure. Meaning it is part of an Instrument Approach Procedure, and if when you get to a given point in the approach you can see the airport environment "visually" then you may continue in visual meteorological condition to the landing. But you are still on your instrument approach, unless you cancel you IFR clearance. Good questions, that's what these forums are all about.

A bit of the background into the development of the X-59. https://www.ansys.com/blog/how-simulation-is-helping-to-make-quiet-supersonic-travel-reality

An RVFP approach may be issued as part of an IFR flight plan. An RVFP is not published for public use and the operator is required to have a specific Operations Specification approval. Required ceiling and visibility minima are published on the procedure chart. An RVFP does normally does not have a missed approach procedure and is not evaluated for obstacle protection. This NOT a VFR approach, although it must be flown in VMC and clear of clouds. I've included a link to the Jepp trip kit for Borgata, with more info than you could ever use. https://www.airalandalus.org/sites/default/files/SKBO.pdf

I agree this will be looked at very closely. The deeper question is what parts get inspected, and to what level (visual, dye penetrant, x-ray, in place, removal and reinstall). And which parts should get inspected is always discussion. For example the average fully assembled Airbus A320 aircraft consists of 340,000 parts. A Boeing 737 MAX aircraft consists of 500,000 parts. Most of which are never looked at during the life of an aircraft. https://simpleflying.com/airliners-how-many-parts/

New on AVSIM, but a reader/visitor for years. Not new to the flight simming online community. I could not agree more. As have I, under several accounts with many lost or forgotten passwords/emails. I am not sugar coating the change, rather giving it a chance to happen and then decide if it's something to continue with. What is Insulting is those who state how bad it is, before the change occurs, or those who complain about the one item (library) which they have stated will stay. And for those who complain about not being able to upload, there are other sites that will meet out mutual upload needs. You must do a lot of grieving in your day to day activities. Over the past seven decades, there is so much that is not as it was at it's conception, changes innumerable. If one grieves then all, grief would become all consuming. My statements concerning FlightSim.com have been towards maintaining accuracy, and stating we all should wait and see what the relaunched FlightSim.com looks like, before ringing the death knell.

Link to an article I wrote a couple years ago about planning and flying the Long Cross County in a C-152. Although it covers all aspects of the planning and actual sim flight, it compares planned checkpoints as shown on the Sectional Chart to what is seen outside the aircraft. Hopefully this may be of some use to the readers of this thread. https://www.flightsim.com/forums/topic/58525-long-cross-country-solo-in-a-c152/#comment-305504

Then make them an offer if it's so prime.