Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/22/2024 in all areas

  1. I can't help the dissapointed. There is a quite well known phrase, "Disappointment is the difference between expectations and reality". We have tried to be as forthcoming as possible with setting expectations by telling folks it will take the majority of this year getting converted to FMOD and improving the FMS....but beyond that, there are also very big changes necessary 'under the hood'....big and time-consuming. Folks think that its always 'evolution'....just incremental work, but with tech, eventually the patches get too heavy. There is a very major overhaul of the "black box" bits to ensure future compatibility and the IXEG's continued existence....a rewriting of nearly 70,000 lines of code in a new language (that took 3 years to write originally) , stuff you won't see but I have to do to keep the IXEG compatible for the future. Guess what...its going to be silent for even longer while I work on the FMOD and code refactoring / FMS. Settle in...enjoy some other wonderful products for X-Plane, but know that it is not abandonware....and we won't be charging for updates for years to come probably. -tk
    8 points
  2. No idea of what there is to be concerned about.
    2 points
  3. Almost everything is ready, but I have a crashing bug(?) on windows that I'm investigating. As soon as I'll fix this, will be released.
    2 points
  4. I know how you feel Mike....I felt a similar sting reading your comments on Toto's Discord a while back, insinuting a simple swap from your work to mine would "make eveything OK" and I was just too lazy to do it....and clearly my defensive posture resulted in a harsh turn of phrase above..which doesn't make it right. At the end of the day though, we get the customer support emails (a much larger contingent than is present on forums) and as such, I have a broader perspective of my customer base ...and enough experience in this market to know that your changes would result in making several customers happier, but also several more disappointed and I have to answer to those folks. I'm sorry if it stung a bit. What we're dealing with here is a "philosophy of development" given known limitations in 'modeling methodology'. For a good while I've watched us aircraft devs "put in the numbers" and complain to Austin when things don't perform right. But at the end of the day, these are just a big collection of numerical models and approximations, some better than others depending on lots of factors. So as aircraft devs with 'approximate models' in many places, we've always had to determine "which numbers to prioritize" given the state of X-Plane's flight/systems models. If, for example, you prioritize "accurate blade angles and engine parameters per handbooks" but the plane's performance is off in some regime because X-Plane's 'black box models' are off or too generic in places ....then you have to ask yourself, "can a user see the blade twist angles of the flight model? ..... or can a user more easily see the "off-nominal performance" and you make your decision about what to prioritize and compromise. If I said, "I'm putting in all the accurate numbers and will wait for X-Plane to 'come to me' and perform correctly before I release the product....well..you can imagine how that will go, so my philosophy is different. Numerical compromises and fudges are required for more balanced performance across the envelope in my experience. Indeed you have put in a crazy amount of accurate info into Plane-maker, and I do appreciate your work and it won't go to waste. It is not a simple swap and deploy because as you've noted, the X-Plane models aren't perfect so some numbers will have to change to accomodate the ground regime; however, your work is a wonderful springboard that I do respect and will simply have to look at parameter by parameter and gauge the effect against their impacts in a broader range of regimes. I hope I can strike a balance that satisfies enough. -tkyler
    2 points
  5. in progress. I have the FMOD project file going and some sounds ported over, but there's about 140 of them in total I think....and I'm having to audit each one....look at the code, reverse engineer the "equations" ...with multiple parameters and get those to graphical form, then fashion those up in FMOD.....super tedious work, and sorry for the time, but this will free us up for compatibility for many years to come and was an inevitable overhaul. I for one will be super happy when done so I can get on to the FMS stuffs.
    2 points
  6. Hello everyone! Is here someone who would be so kind to make this ASL Airlines Hungary HA-FAX livery for me? Thank you very much in advance!
    2 points
  7. Version 1.0.0

    2 downloads

    Do not hesitate if you find glitches ! Enjoy !
    1 point
  8. thanks and did not mean to double post - just new at this
    1 point
  9. Hello Marco... I replied to this thread with a couple paragraphs and added both the XMidiCtrl_log.txt file and the x-plane log.txt file... but inexplicably, I went to check on this forum today and my reply vanished and turned into steam in the internet pipes. . I am away from my home Mac at the moment, so I can't re-produce those files right now. However, I did act on your suggested remedy of adding the "mode = range" parameter and tried it again. It did partially fix one issue where the movement of the wheel is continuous. but the behavior was not as expected: For each entry for all of values from 0 to 127, I confirmed from the debugger enabled XMidiCtrl_log file that my Twisted sister (My joke name for My control - "MIDI fighter Twister") knob is making the expected 0.0125 changes in the log file - all the way from 1 to -1, however the observed behavior of the Sim's trim wheel still seemed wonky. All changes in value - negative or positive - only turned the trim wheel to values below 0 - (the center marking or takeoff setting on the trim wheel.). I need a positive trim for climbing attitudes! So, it then occured to me to see what happens if I change to "value_wrap = false". Presto! that seems to have worked!!! At first it did nothing ... but I discovered that It required that I do a full twist of the knob to max and then to Mininum .. and then it started working! My understanding of that parameter was that it is designed for a center detented control that utilizes negative and positive values.. but apparently that does not apply to Trim Wheels! I have an idea in my mind that instead of spending $150 on a "real" trim wheel, I might see if I can build my own MIDI trim wheel - maybe with an Arduino chip and attach it to the side of my Throttle control. I want to try XMidiCtrl on some of the instruments now, Like the heading bug, the Altimeter setting and the radio and nav knobs. So I'll keep playing with it. The irresistible feature of the MIDI Fighter Twister (designed for DJ's). is that it has the capability of controlling 128 separate controls (16 knobs that can affect 128 distinct CC values AND each knob also a pushbutton control as well! for toggling - It's magic for Computer Synthesizer geeks - I am one of them! ). If I ever find myself flying a simulated airliner, having this many controls would be better than mousing around! For now, I stick to the trusty 'ol Cessna 172SP .
    1 point
  10. Great job, thank you for publishing this. It definitely gives a more interesting operation to the MU
    1 point
  11. They are. But we may also not be able to fix it without modification to the plane. In the meantime my script linked above does the job.
    1 point
  12. Email the store (once!) and ask very nicely. But be patient, and don’t expect to be successful.
    1 point
  13. You should not be using any version of Gizmo than the one that ships with your product. This is a bug in the version you are trying to use.
    1 point
  14. Got the StreamDeck+ to work with the HotStart Challenger 650, on a M1 Macbook Pro with xmidictrl. AND IT WORKS SPLENDIDLY!!! This gets rid of the latency issues I had when I first set it up using the StreamDeck+ without xmidictrl (and only sending keypresses). Now the dial knobs on the SD+ work like a charm to control the heading, speed, map range, VS/pitch wheel, and more. Here are the individual steps, in case anyone else with a Mac and a StreamDeck+ wants to do this. I assume that you have the SD+ connected and the Elgato Stream Deck app is installed. I basically got all the info from Xplane.org, https://mauer.github.io/xmidictrl/#/, and Trevliga Spel's youtube videos. Many thanks to them/their sites for all that good stuff! The xmidictrl plugin officially supports some Behringer and LoupeDeck, so it was just a matter of adapting that. 1) launch the Elgato Stream Deck app, and from there, click the icon to get to the Elgato Marketplace (the colorful one near the top). From there, find the Midi plugin from Trevliga Spel and install it. 2) download xmidictrl, from Xplane.org. Version 1.12. Unzipped it and moved the resulting folder to Xplane/Resources/Plugins, as per the instructions. Also make a copy of the CL60_XMidiCtrl.toml file in that folder, and place it in the X-PlaneNN/Aircraft/X-Aviation/CL650 folder. You may need to edit this file later on to make the magic happen, but this is real easy and only involves making some numbers match. I've attached my copy of that file here, so you can just take that and place it in the CL650 folder. 3) Set up the Mac's midi interface. On the mac, launch the Audio MIDI Setup.app (comes with Mac OS). Once it's launched, you need to reveal the 'MIDI studio' part of the app, by going to the menu bar, selecting the Window option, and then the 'show MIDI Studio' option. Now select the IAC Driver icon shown there, by double-clicking. An IAC Driver Properties window will appear. Here, you want to add 2 ports that will have specific names. To do that, below the Ports subwindow that is shown, click + to add 2 ports. Name the first port 'StreamDeck2Daw', and the second one 'Daw2StreamDeck'. Each port will be created with one MIDI In and one MIDI out connection. Finally, near the top of the window, set a checkmark in the 'Device is online' option. 4) Launch X-Plane. It will give you a warning about the xmidictrl plugin not being able to be run because it's not signed. Select the cancel option (not the 'move to bin' option. Now switch to MacOSs' settings app, go into Privacy and Security, and find the warning that xmidictrl is not signed. Allow it to run anyway. When this is done, switch back to Xplane, quit, and relaunch it. After relaunching, in the top left menu bar, find Plugins. You should see XMidiCtrl. Select, and click the Show MIDI devices. At this point, you should see a window showing 2 sections. One lists INBOUND PORTS, and the other OUTBOUND PORTS. Both sections should show 2 entries, Port 0 with a corresponding MIDI device named 'IAC Driver StreamDeck2Daw', and port 1 with a device named 'IAC Driver Daw2StreamDeck'. Go back to Plugins - XmidiCtrl in the menu bar, and this time select 'Settings'. Go to the MIDI tab, and read the channel number for virtual MIDI messages. It said 16 on my mac. Make a note of whatever number you have there, and close the settings window. 5) Using the Mac OS finder, go to the CL60_XMidiCtrl.toml file you copied into the Xplane/Aircraft/XAviation/CL650 folder earlier, and open it using TextEdit. For each CL650 control that you want the SD+ to be able to drive, set the 'ch = ' entry to the channel number you noted earlier. Comment out all the other ones by putting a # at the beginning of each line. If your channel was 16, and you copied my version of the .toml file, you don't have to do anything. 6) Final step. Open the Sream Deck App (it normally minimizes to the Mac OS menu bar top right of the screen) by clicking on it's logo. Now, for every CL650 control that you want to drive, drag a 'Generic Midi' item to a rotary button on the interface. Then configure the dial rotate action to send a 'Control Change (CW/CCW)', so that the 2 channel numbers match the one you put into the .toml file, and the 2 Ctrl values match the 'cc = ' value for the control in the .toml file. I've attached a screenshot for one of my dials so you can see what it looks like. For more controls, you can just copy and paste from one dial on the SD app interface to another, and then tweak the Ctrl values. The HotStart 650 is already an incredibly good simulation of the real Challenger. Adding the SD+ and Xmidictrl as described above just takes it to an even higher level. Might be an idea to donate to both Marco Auer, who created the xmidictrl plugin, and to Trevliga Spel, for his StreamDeck plugin. Cheers. LCV PS. the VC, VNAV, NAV, APPR and other buttons I configured to just send keypresses, no need to use Xmidictrl for those. Just for the dials. PPS. Attached my version of SD+ profile for the HotStart. Note you may have to edit some of the key bindings in either XPlane or the Stream Deck profile, as mine are not standard. CL60_XMidiCtrl.toml XP12 CL650 Stream15.streamDeckProfile
    1 point
  15. Same here, and IMO, mostly for the reasons I mentioned above. In the business sense, they absolutely are. I believe the flight sim market to be big enough and each player to be competitive enough for end-consumers to reap the benefits and ergo, I see the competition between MSFS/Laminar healthy as is. Now the "intra-X-Plane" competition for distributing 3rd party works spawned by Laminar's entry into the store space ....then that is a different discussion regarding the benefits of competition, one I'm not interested in participating in textual form...its just too big of a discussion. If one competitor is so big and formidable as to render the others non-competitive, then there could be undesired collateral consequences. I think the XP community is aware of this and relevant players are working to limit such collateral damage. -tk
    1 point
  16. Labels are relative to our own points of view, both views can be construed to be accurate depending on the argument at hand. Near where I live, we have two coffee shops within 1/2 kilometer from each other and indeed two starbucks within a kilometer of each other. From the perspective of "starbucks corporate", those two stores don't compete...but ask the managers of each of those stores if they're competing with each other for 'performance bonuses' and from their perspectives they are competing. Regarding the two coffee shops NOT the same company, each has some 'value point' niche they cater to (i.e. the "space") which allows their business to attract customers and be profitable, because the size of the market supports it, BUT, they each do need that 'niche hook', whether it be location, a "convenient driveway" or just plain better coffee. I'll point out that "loyalty" can be a hook too. So while MS / Laminar spaces obviously overlap, it can definitely be argued that there are portions of those spaces of 'the simulation experience' that do not overlap and each excels in differing areas where those markets are big enough to support both. XA has some hooks that I don't think Laminar can effectively cover in a cost effective manner, nor handle the logistics of supporting products of a certain fidelity level as they tend to be 'high maintenance'. In the space XA occupies and we don't see much changing and expect to continue providing high-fidelity products. -tk
    1 point
  17. Flying into a small French airfield for an FSEconomy contract... turns out they're shut at night and have no runway lighting, except for a PAPI the airfield manager forgot to switch off (Still landed safely and mostly gracefully, though)
    1 point
  18. No, this is not in an active development state. The 737 has priority at the moment.
    1 point
    Very nice livery Christophe. Really suits the Challenger.
    1 point
  19. Version 1.0.0

    15 downloads

    Fictional agressor livery. Cf. https://www.aerosociety.com/news/flying-for-the-dark-side/ See Readme file for the optional electronic sensors pack (all credits to his author)
    1 point
  20. Let's hope they are taking time to work on FMC and Autopilot function, as promised before release.
    1 point
  21. https://www.mobiflight.com/forum/topic/7854.html
    1 point
  22. Hello, I have the same problem, I use the latest Challenger 650 v1.7and latest version of xplane 11. can you help me ? I unistall and install Hotstart C650 the problem still persist it's strange. Best regards
    1 point
  23. Hi IXEG Team. Can you bring back this amazing and realistic effect, when braking the plane the shock absorbers behaviour? 883276915_2024-01-2808-48-19.mp4
    1 point
  24. 1 point
  25. Hi guys, I have the same problem. I redownlaoded and reinstalled the product already, but its still not working. Any Idea? I also tried to just reautenticate in the x-aviation license manager, but without any success. BR, Jonas
    1 point
  26. 1 point
  27. My sincere apologies for making any inference that you were not being proactive toward the development of the MU-2.
    1 point
  28. Hi, I'm looking for a command to "press" the ALT button on the transponder (GNS-Version). DataRef came up blank, at least I didn't find a way to change the mode. I'm ok with a lua-solution. I also have a question regarding the GPSS-Roll-Steering Button (GPSS/HDG). Is it intended/realistic behaviour, that I can't change it and don't have an indication, unless I already have the AP active in HDG-mode? Lastly, GPSS behaviour: If you follow a flight plan and do a "direct-to", the GPSS turns even before your "accept" by pressing the "enter" button. Is that correct?
    1 point
  29. https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/82888-flywithlua-ng-next-generation-plus-edition-for-x-plane-12-win-lin-mac/
    1 point
  30. View File N781MM - MGM Resorts - Hot Start Challenger 650 MGM Resorts operates a fleet of aircraft including a BBJ, two Embraer Lineage 1000s, and a Gulfstream 550, and a pair of Embraer Legacy 500s based at KLAS Las Vegas. This file contemplates that MGM bought Challenger 650s instead of Embraer Legacy 500s. This file is not affiliated with MGM; Please do not modify or redistribute without permission. Submitter reversethrust Submitted 01/13/2024 Category Hot Start Challenger 650 Livery For https://www.x-aviation.com/catalog/product_info.php/take-command-hot-start-challenger-650-p-212  
    1 point
  31. Version 1.0.0

    115 downloads

    Hot Start Challenger 650 - Second Anniversary Group Flight (OFPs, Decal)
    1 point
  32. Been learning/flying the CL650 over the past couple of weeks and thought I'd seen largely everything it had to offer. Then I get an oil pressure warning as we approach Skiathos. Turns out we should be checking the oil before each flight. As a RW pilot, I know this but am flabbergasted to see it modelled in the CL650. I've been simming for the best part of 40 years and have seen nothing like this. The rest of the industry really needs to see how far up the bar has been puished and attempt to rise to the challenge. Anyway, my heartfelt thanks and appreciation to all behind this wonderful aircraft. Owain
    1 point
  33. Hello, A while ago I asked how to get access to the Xplane 11 version of the classic, explaining that I run a fixed-base two-seat sim and a good friend who is joining me in the cockpit wants to download the XP11 version as both of us run XP11. I can't afford to update to XP12 as i run 3 copies of XP11 in the sim and it's a bit expensive! You replied saying if he would buy a copy of the xplane 12 version of the 737 Classic then you'd be happy to provide access to download the XP11 version. All well and good. He duly bought the XP12 version. Since then we've had a bit of a problem. For a reason known only to the gods of the internet, his emails are not generating support tickets and as such you can't respond. I get that you need a system of work which keeps tabs on what's going on. But we've reached an impasse - my further enquiries have met with the response that he should try again to raise a support ticket. He tried again still with no ticket raised. I have since raised two more tickets - the last one has not yet been responded-to (I've checked spam just in case). I would really like to get this resolved in some way - I too am planning on buying the XP12 version in order to get access to a download for the XP11 version - I need another copy for my testbed machine. But I'm reluctant to part with the money until we can sort this issue with my friend. Surely it's possible to provide us with a time- or copy-limited download link to resolve the issue? I'd appreciate your help. Many thanks, Roger Harris.
    1 point
  34. Is there a future that sees a full Turbo SR22T G1000 TN is not the same performance or numbers
    1 point
  35. I'm one of this 1%!!! I'd like to do the maintenance, polytechnician-pilot! ;-) The very complaint I have with this fantastic addon is that my nights are very short since I have this beautiful bird. What you guys have done is just amazing, a step forward in Flight Simulation, definitely worth it! I'm speechless! Congratulations to the devs, the team, X-aviation and thank you for the joy!
    1 point
  36. Hi all. I have made a LUA script that enables random failures for the Challenger 650. Check out the link below for more details:
    1 point
  37. View File All Nippon Airways(fictional) - Hot Start Challenger 650 Two options are available: with or without registration number. Please do not modify or redistribute wihtout permission. Submitter yonekan24 Submitted 06/08/2023 Category Hot Start Challenger 650 Livery For https://www.x-aviation.com/catalog/product_info.php/take-command-hot-start-challenger-650-p-212  
    1 point
  38. Usually I'll release a zip file with install instructions for users that are feeling adventurous. Sometimes X-Aviation will create a beta-gizmo installer. Then when we're confident that it's ready for a wider release the new Gizmo build will be incorporated into the official product installers.
    1 point
  39. Here is my Simbrief profile for the Moo. The profile is based from the Kingair BE20. The weights are accurate. Nevertheless, the fuel calculation is necessarily approximate, because you cannot create a profile from scratch in Siembrief. The fuel consumption should be less than 250 pounds per engine and per hour, so around 450-500 pounds per hour. Of course without reserve, alternate and winds calculations. I will check this on my next flights and maybe update the profile using the P000 option. Payload : 9 passengers, 85kg each (187 pounds), 55 pounds for the luggage. The equipments of the aircraft are very basic. I use the model with GPS. I did not fill the PBN field (the Kingair BE20 has not). https://www.simbrief.com/system/dispatch.php?sharefleet=30045_1658249223478 All suggestions welcome in this topic
    1 point
  40. The ODP or SID is not intended for OEI terrain and obstacle clearance since the criteria does not consider both the actual takeoff flight path of the aircraft following an engine failure nor does the climb gradient on an ODP or SD account for all obstacles that much cleared to meet the operating rules. An ODP or SID provides obstacle clearance with all-engines-operating because that's what its criteria assumes. Make sense? With the proper obstacle information concerning obstacle height above the runway and distance from reference zero, the FMS calculator can be used to calculate OEI takeoff obstacle clearance in accordance with the operating rules. Here's an important caveat. You need the relevant terrain & obstacle data and collecting that data no small feat. There are multiple data sources that need to be consulted, which is why the airlines have performance engineering departments dedicated to that task. For the business aviation community, we have contract providers such Aircraft Performance Group, ASAP Inc., Aerodata (now owned by Garmin), and Jeppesen OpsData through ForeFlight that provide this type of engineering support, and provide takeoff performance/obstacle clearance data in the form of airport runway analysis. As real CL300/350 pilot, I would never attempt to gather the obstacle data from the various sources and use the FMS calculator, in the same way that I would never attempt collect obstacle data and build my own instrument approach procedure to a runway. The FAA is expert in building instrument flight procedures and these performance engineer providers are the experts in airplane performance and engine failure escape procedures. I was never really quite sure why the FMS manufacturers (OEMs) put the obstacle clearance routine in their FMS. It's not unique to Collins. It's in the Garmin 5000 as well. If you had one known obstacle that you wanted to clear, one that as not accounted for in your contractor-provided analysis, for example a temporary obstacle, then yes, I could see a use for it. Although in 18 years of flying Collins FMS equipped aircraft, I have never used it other than for experimentation and familiarization. Rich
    1 point
  41. I neglected to answer your questions on approach climb and landing climb gradients, and what they are based on here. What we have in the FMS is a good hearted attempt to provide information to the pilot that is really relevant to performance. I'll explain in a moment. Approach climb is certification performance requirement. It is the climb gradient available with the aircraft in the approach configuration (flaps 20 for the CL65), landing gear retracted, with the thrust set to go-around thrust, a climb speed not more than 1.4 VSR (reference stall speed), and based on the published AFM procedures for a OEI go around. The minimum climb gradient is 2.1%. Landing climb is also a certification performance requirement. It is the climb gradient available in the landing configuration, landing gear extended, at VREF speed, and with thrust available 8 seconds after go-around thrust is selected (which may be less than the actual go-around thrust as the engine spools up). The minimum climb gradient is 3.2%. These two climb gradients are "certification requirements" and established as part of the maximum allowable landing weight for the aircraft in the AFM Limitations Section. For the CL650, they are published in the AFM Performance Section, but incorporated into the Limitations section by reference. The operating regulations for flying the airplane require that airplane's takeoff weight, less fuel and oil consumed in flight, allow the airplane to arrive at the destination airport and alternate airport (if applicable) at weight that is less than the maximum allowable landing where the approach climb and landing climb requirements are met. The AFM has an Approach and Landing Climb weight limit chart. That chart is incorporated into the FMS performance module. When you complete the APPROACH performance page, if you are overweight, for the information that you entered for landing, the FMS will tell you: MLW Maximum Landing Weight (MLW) is determined by the most restrictive selection among the following: structural limit weight, climb performance limit weight, and runway length limit weight. If MLW is unable to be computed, the MLW data field is blank. When landing weight is greater than maximum landing weight, the MLW shows in yellow. In addition, a CDU message CHECK APPROACH PERF shows under these conditions. MLW values are synchronized on the APPROACH REF pages All of the one-engine-inoperative (OEI) takeoff, OEI approach climb, and all-engines-operating (AEO) Landing climb gradient requirement are not true climb performance requirements. They are statements of excess energy available to the aircraft in the stated configuration, at the applicable speed, and with the available thrust. That excess energy can be used to climb the aircraft or accelerate it, as appropriate. Further, the climb gradient values are "spot gradients" that a valid only at particular point in takeoff or landing phase. For example, the 2nd segment climb gradient data and climb gradient value determined is only valid at the exact instant that the landing gear is fully retracted after takeoff at V2 speed, with the takeoff flaps, and with takeoff thrust with one engine inoperative. Once you leave that "spot", the climb gradient decrease. For 2nd segment, or reference climb gradient as Bombardier calls it, the decrement in climb gradient that occurs as the aircraft climbs is built into the two flight path charts that I posted earlier, and is why the takeoff flight path charts are used to determine obstacle clearance rather than computing a "rise over run" climb gradient requirement, e.g., 300' obstacle, 1 NM away, minimum climb gradient 300 ft/NM or 4.9%. That doesn't work out that way when you use the flight path charts for the reference climb gradient required for obstacle clearance. Using the flight path chart, the reference climb gradient required to clear a 300' obstacle 1 NM (6076 feet) from the runway end (assuming takeoff distance required is equal to the runway length) is 5.3% (see example). As long as your Maximum Landing Weight is not showing overweight in the FMS for the conditions you entered, follow the AFM go around procedures, and you will meet the performance requirements. For OEI go around, climb a speed not less than VAPP and for all engines missed approach, a speed not less than VREF. However, at most landing weights, you'll be well below these limits and the AFM procedure will likely result in speeds being attained above these limits at the recommended go-around pitch attitude. If that's the case, take the extra speed. Rich Boll
    1 point
  42. Just to clarify, a missed approach climb gradient and SID/Obstacle Departure Procedure ODP climb gradient are based on normal, all engines operating aircraft performance: https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2018/InFO18014.pdf The approach (one engine inoperative’ and landing climb (all engines) gradients provided on the APPROACH REF page 3/4 are spot gradients at the airport pressure altitude and temperature. These climb gradients are certification requirements, but do provide a gouge on climb performance on a missed approach or rejected landing provided the missed approach climb is relatively short. I suspect this example, by the looks of the landing minima is a mountain airport. At such an airport, I would have the one engine inoperative departure procedure for that runway programed in the ALT LEGS page and ready to fly should I go missed or rejected landing and then have the engine fail. Rich
    1 point
  43. Correlation does not equal causation. These parameters have no affect on the x-aviation licensing system.
    1 point
  44. Could please someone make this beautiful livery? https://www.planespotters.net/photo/1087322/oy-mmf-maersk-air-boeing-737-3l9 Thanks
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...