Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

User Profile

Collapse

Profile Sidebar

Collapse
Gabriel
Gabriel
Senior Member
Last Activity: Yesterday, 20:29
Joined: 2008-01-18
Location: Buenos Aires - Argentina
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
  • Source
Clear All
new posts

  • I didn't.
    1- It's obvious that it is 2020. Microsoft would no announce an exact date more than a year ahead.
    2- It is called MSFS 2020 for a reason, and Microsoft announced that it would be released in 2020 long ago.
    3- Are links part of the post? Because I provided not 1 but 2 links with detailed of the announcement and in both links it is stated that the date is Aug 18 2020.


    Right. In a notebook with a gen 7 i5 CPU, 4 GB of RAM, and no graphics card or graphics memory. What do you think?...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Getting the hardware is still my bottleneck.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Not surprisingly...


    Thank you.
    And if you manually move the levers out of CLB or idle, will they automatically return to CLB and idle? (always with the AT on)

    I need to go back to my manuals of the Mad Dog add-on for Flight Simulator (half-joking)... I think it was different in the MD-80. If I remember correctly selecting IAS/MACH in the vertical mode would do nothing with the thrust. And even if you select a descent the plane would climb if you select more thrust that what is required to hold the altitude at the speed selected in the IAS/MACH vertical mode. I think that the AT mode went to CLMP (clamp, the AT will stop moving the levers), and from there you can manually set the levers where you want or you can select an EPR hold AT mode and select CR, CLB, MCT, or TOGA. If you select a speed hold mode in the AT it would disconnect the IAS/MACH vertical mode and change to a vertical speed mode with the current altitude target and current actual vertical...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Well, it seems we are finally starting to converge here (you and me, maybe not Evan).

    But this is not what happened. Then never got things on target, gear or no gear....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • If they had done a conservative approach and used stabilized approach criteria they would have been much more unlikely to raise he gear after lowering it and not notice or ignore the warnings. For once, they would not have had other GPWS warnings like sink rate and pull up, only too low gear, and they would not have had the flaps overspend warning. And then, they would have had much less workload and would have followed a more standard flow of actions that would have reduced the likelihood of the mistake in the first place.

    AND if they still landed with the gear up, they would have been much less likely to initiate a go around. You'll see, they didn't initiate the go around the second they touched down on the engines. They bounced at least 3 times barely losing speed in the process. They were too fast and overspending the flaps, so lots of lift still and little weight-on-engines and hence little friction. Now, combine touching down way too far down the runway, way too fast,...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Be my guest.

    But if the plan fails and you are not stabilized by 500ft (which includes being in lading configuration, on track, on slope, on speed and landing checklist complete), go around....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • My point, again and for the last time, is that this was going to end bad sooner or later, gear up, overrun, landing gear collapse, loss of control or something. They had already had repeated incidents this year associated with this kind of hasty approaches.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I don't understand what you have in mind. What is the risk? If you could go from TOD all the way down to glideslope-intercept altitude without interruptions (something that you almost never can do due to ATC), I would leave it in open descent all the way to that point. Of course, when you level off at that altitude, or at any point in between due to ATC constrains, you would go to altitude hold and speed-on-thrust.

    And, by the way, I don't know how it works in the Airbus where the thrust levers are normally left in CLB unitl 20ft, but in the Boeing when you select what I think is called LVL CHG (IAS/MACH altitude mode in the MD-80) the thrust levers just stop being managed and they will stay put wherever you put them. You can put them in idle but if you want a lower sink rate you can move them forward a bit to add some thrust, and the pitch will adjust itself to keep the selected IAS/Mach....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Meh, most of that in pressurized transport category planes is defined by cycle and hours. When you use the plane mostly for short flights like PIA does the flight cycles limit is reached first so the hours don't matter much.



    How so? I see 3 minutes at most. Don't confuse how short was the descent/approach with how much time they saved, because they made the descent shorter by making it steeper which means that they flew MORE time at cruise.


    It is the 2nd or 3rd time that you mention this. Do you have anything against and idle descent in open descent mode (i.e. speed-on-pitch)? For me it is the correct way to descend if not using VNAV.


    HE was management. Hence why the Smartwings incident reminded me of this PIA one.

    I am with you that he likely attempted some improvised fuel/time saving profile. But I don't think that the profile they ended up flying was what he had in mind. For example, I don't think that he...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Not only that: Top pilot of the airline, the ase of the base, the hot shot, the boss, who approves the procedures and manuals but then flies and encourage others to fly in a inveterate hubris way, setting up the (un)safety culture of the airline....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • http://avherald.com/h?article=4cbe8434&opt=0

    Kind of reminds me of the PIA accident somehow......
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • No, I wouldn't.

    I don't think that the airline was counting with the 3-minutes reduction in the turnaround time as to squeeze another flight in the day, nor that repeated 3-minutes savings throughout the day would be enough to squeeze in another flight. At the same time, I don't think that the crew would make any less money for saving 3 minutes of flight, otherwise it would be an incentive to make the flight last more, not less. So with all that, the differential cost of operating time is about zero.

    Additionally, the flight profile they flew doesn't seem to be the one you would if you wanted to minimize time, which is extend cruise as much as possible then idle and full flight speedbrakes fully extended to Vmo down to 10000 ft, level off still with speedbrakes and idle, slow down to 250kts, continue descent with 250 kts, speedbrakes and idle until about 2500ft ARL and 10 miles out, then level off and extend landing gear and slats flaps as soon as speed allows...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Where? Post # please?

    Why do you insist with just the gear issue? They crossed the threshold at 210kts overspeeding the flaps. CLEARLY and UNDOUBTEDLY (yes black and white) the gear was not the ony issue here. Even if they had lowered the gear and gotten away with it, this would have been very very VERY bad airmanship worth of immediately firing both pilots and revoking their licenses for life (again, yes, black and white) (although that would have never happened because no one outside of the airline would have know it and the airline was encouraging this behavior)....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • The most fuel-efficient feasible approach is one where you go from cruise altitude and cruise speed smoothly to 2500ft ARL and ~200 KIAS some 10 miles short of the runway, all the time at idle and with the airplane clean, you then have ~ 2 minutes (still at idle) to slow down to final approach speed as you progressively extend slats/flaps and gear and then, with the plane fully configured for landing, for the first time since you started the descent, increase thrust from idle to keep the approach speed and thus finally stabilize the approach, and complete the landing checklist as you arrive to the 1000 ft gate some 3 NM from the runway threshold.

    There are crazier more efficient alternatives, but they are too crazy and the fuel gain is negligible compared to the one above.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • This video has recommendations of components to build your own PC for Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020, at each of the 3 levels (minimum, recommended and ideal) specified by Microsoft.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ2vWrheeVw
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied to Helicopters on Mars
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhsZUZmJvaM

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GhsZUZmJvaM" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I totally disagree.They crossed the threshold with 210 kts and "floated" along the runway for several thousands of feet, way past the touchdown zone, until they touched down still an excessive speed. There are many things that can go wrong in an stabilized approach (especially one that is highly unstabilized and that remains highly unstabilized when you cross the threshold) and forgetting the gear up was the least of the concerns that the industry had in mind when they created the stabilized approach rule. What they did was dangerous even if they had not touched down with the gear up, and this practice was bound to end bad sooner of later if not in this particular flight....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • What liability could be involved here?...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:




  • Watch this! Reportedly captured in 4K REAL TIME!!!! (meaning that's how it looked when they were using the sim, no trick like flying a 25% speed and then playing back at 4x to improve the render and frame rates, no post-production...)

    I wish they told us the specs of the computer they used. But this is just beyond amazing and beautiful.

    MANDATORY TO WATCH IN FULL SCREEN!!!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYqJALPVn0Y

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TYqJALPVn0Y" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • It is possible. Nobody will know for certain what he was thinking when. I think the sequence of events is more consistent with that he first tried to compensate for what he perceived as an excessive pitch up and seconds later he though of the stall. But I can't prove it. Let's see what is NTSB's analysis on this when the final report comes out in the next few days (and yet, they will not be able to prove either what the FO thought when).


    Because there is no such part, we don't have the complete final report but so far nobody is talking of fatigue, except in this NTSB finding (which is rather a non-finding):

    2. There was insufficient information to determine whether the flight crewmembers were fatigued at the time of the accident, and no available evidence suggested impairment due to any medical condition, alcohol, or other impairing drugs....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:

No activity results to display
Show More
Working...
X