Leaderboard

Sunset over the Norwegian mountains during LNAV/VNAV testing.

"A Piper PA-28 Arrow III crashed on a IFR flight into Hof Airport (EDQM). The airplane crashed while on approach in IMC. Later investigation found out, that the pilot, who was the only person on board, extensively deflected the rudder while flying the procedure turn for the ILS 26, which led to a unsteady approach and a subsequent stall of the right wing. The pilot couldn't end the stall before hitting the ground ca. 6 NM before the threshold." Contributing factors were: - using a joystick with a twistgrip - Night time - Close proximity to the ground - lacking flying knowledge - Possible ice accumulation on the wings The aircraft was declared missing by Munich Radar, after the pilot quickly disconnected from Vatsim...

It has to be my 737-200 flight. I was approaching LOWI, runway 26. Intercepted localizer and switched autoland. The plane for some reason didn't descend at a proper rate, so around 500 feet above I had to go around. But since I wanted to land quickly I performed a quick turn right. Now, if you know the terrain around LOWI, you probably know where it is going. I didn't have altitude to fly over some hills, full power didn't give me enough so my speed in turn was bleeding fast. I almost made it but once airspeed dropped below 130 knots I started to lose lift, my right wing dropped, nose dropped and I slammed into the forest on some rocky hill.

They look the same as this 737-300.

All to many times I've forgotten to engage ALT SEL for descent on the Q400 and gone to read a book. I'm sure IXEG will introduce many such mistakes.

I wonder if you ever (and I bet you did) crashed while flying (in x-plane of course)? Since its a simulator and we try funny things, Im talking about the flights you were taking seriously. Which aircraft? Where? What happened and if you know, -why did it happened? I´m pretty sure we can collect and read some interesting stuff with all the little and big incidents we had. Lets see when we will read the first IXEG 737 accident report

Enjoying the beautiful Florida weather...

Depends on which 737, the winglets were a bit different for a few of the models. ...and it also depends a bit on the angle of the view as to how they look, I can say unequivocally though that I'm done debating it (did that enough with my team members) or willing to change it . -tkyler

Not in V1.0. They'll add it later.Check the "What's not going to be in V1.0" thread to see what isn't going to be in v 1.0

A DHC-6 300 Series (equipped with floats) crashed into Kalamalka Lake in the Canadian Rockies, 3NM southeast of Vernon (CYVK). The aircraft was operated under VFR. The crash happend during an attempted landing at CVW2. The aircraft was in correct water landing configuration (wheels retracted, flaps full). When touching the water, the sudden deceleration let the aircraft pitch nose-down, forcing the float tips to plunge. Subsequently, the aircraft overturned. While IAS was within the limits of a water landing, GS was not - apparently the pilot had forgotten to check the METAR and attempted to land with a tail wind component of approx. 25KN. Second accident: A DHC-6 300 Series (standard gear variant) crashed on a VFR flight from CYRV to CYKA, 9NM west of Revelstroke. After takeoff from CYRV RWY12, the pilot followed the Trans-Canada Highway towards Mt Griffin, climbing to and maintaining 4,500 ft. The weather at the time of the accident provided dense clouds between 6,000 and 11,000 ft, prohibiting proper VFR operation at or above minimums (8,100 ft for this area). 9NM down the highway, both engines failed. Being low AGL in a narrow valley, the aircraft collided with terrain before the pilot's attempt to restart the engines succeeded. FDR data analysis prove that the double engine failure was caused by the crew shutting down both fuel pumps. OK, quick version: I forgot sitting in a DHC-6 and not in a EMB-110 (where you actually shut down fuel boost pumps at cruise, but in the DHC-6 I accidentally caught the main fuel pumps switches). Plus I ignored minimus, doing a canyon ride to keep visual contact with the terrain. Both together = very bad idea...

That sounds like the beginning of an Air Crash Investigation! xD And @Hovercat, that sounds like an NTSB report

Good one Hovercat

Yes, I have learned all of that the hard way

There isn't an ILS at LOWI, the localizer and glidepath are just there as a guidance for the loc/dme approach. You need to land manually and use the charts to plan your descent. That's also why Cat II or III is not possible at LOWI, and there are very high visibility minima for Cat I apporaches.

Good thread! L-39 in DCS. I knew I was low, still I wanted to push the limits and do a downwards half loop. I love them outside-in russian artificial horizons. No matter what position in space I have, getting the wings level for maximum lift is a no-brainer. Well, everything went fine, but altitude...

hi guys, been looking for a while for photoreal scenery for the carolina's. both south and north carolina are some of the most beautiful places to fly in the entire country, and yet i rarely ever see anyone develop them. so if anyone has a desire, i know that there are many, many pilots who would love to add this to their xplane collection. thanks in advance.

I assume you don't really have to step into something to know you dislike it. Be it becuase of the overall design, idea behind it and so on. Personally, I think A320 is one of the best looking narrow body aircraft that flies today and I can get behind the general idea of a very complex computer that helps flying it. But I guess some of the aviation purists think that flying using mainly FBW computer technology is a hearsay. Which I can partially agree on

I've had a crash a few seconds after VR with the FF 767 in Tenerife South. Reason was a bird strike on both engines with loss of thrust on both engines. I hit the runway and bounced serveral times and came to stop behind the runway. (sry for my english)

B1900D, somewhere in Canada (I think). Went to make some pasta, came back and the plane was in a lake.

Hi gentlemen, I´m not sure, from where the strong wind against us (Navigraph) is coming from and I don´t know Mr. Cameron but here a few words from our side (Navigraph): I have nothing found in my personal mailbox about IXEG or X-Aviation. We are currently looking in the official Navigraph mailbox (https://www.navigraph.com/ContactInformation.aspx), if we have overseen something (which can be happened - for sure, we are humans too). Further, I haven´t found anything here in my mailbox of the forum. We can´t have our eyes everywhere to look for, which developer wants to use which format for which platform. Yesterday, a Navigraph customer had wrote us a PM in our forum and pointed us to this addon (thank you very much for that) - so the communication is possible, if wanted. This posting isn´t very objective and therefore here a list of our (Navigraph) addons, which we can provide & where we have the fully support from the developer: Aerosoft Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321Aerosoft Airbus X Extended v1.10 (and below)Aerosoft Airbus X Extended v1.15 (and above)aeroSystem 737 AvionicsAirSimmerAirSimTech / ASTAirTrack*AivlaSoft EFBAviograsf A340Blackbox Simulation (all products)Captain Sim 757/767/777Carenado (all products)CPS - Concorde Performance SystemDispatch Planner XDreamfleet & Eurowings ProfEADT KLN 90BEaglesoftEFASS - Electronic Flight AssistantFeelthere Embraer Regional Jets v2/Embraer E-Jets v2Flight1 ATR72Flight1 Aviation Technologies G1000 StudentFlight1 Aviation Technologies G1000 Student ProFlight1 BN2 IslanderFlight1 Cheyenne/Fokker/Mustang/Super 80 Professional/C182T/King Air B200Flightsim Commander 9.5.1 (and above)FlightSim SolutionsFS InstructorFS Instructor Panel 200XFSBuild 2.xFSiPanelFS-Navigator 4.xFSTrampFsXPand - FlywareGlobal Air Traffic ControliFLY 737NG 3.2 (and above)iFLY 747-400 2.0 (and above)iFMSIntegrated Simavionics (ISG)JARDesign A320neoJARDesign A330Jeehell A320 FMGSJet45 FMS - FlightDeckSoftJRollon Planes CRJ200JustFlight DC-8 JetlinerLevelD 767Majestic Dash8-Q400MilVizOnlineSim.org SFC YARCOpusFSIPFPX Professional Flight Planner XPMDG (all products)Pointsoft Pro ATC XProject Magenta Airbus/Boeing/RJ-Type Glass Cockpit, GA IFR PanelProject Magenta Airbus/Boeing-Type FMCProject Magenta General Aviation Glass CockpitProject Magenta Instructor StationProject Magenta QuickMap/Moving MapProsim 737PSS Airbus/Boeing/DashQualityWings (all addons)Sim-Avionics - Flightdeck AvionicsSimBriefSimcheck A300B4SimLauncherXSSG Boeing 748i FMCTOPCATTuneVNAV Descent Pro3Universal FMC (UFMC)vasFMC Flight ManagementWilco A320 PIC for FS2002Wilco CRJ Next GenerationWilco/Feelthere 737/777, Legacy, Airbus SeriesWilco/Feelthere CRJWorld Traffic 2.0 (and above)x737FMCX-FMC 2.5 (and above)X-Plane 10.30 (and above)X-Plane GNS430, 777 Worldliner (Ext/Prof), Flightfactor B757 Professional, VMAX B767, X-Crafts Embraer E-175 Ok, now back to the "issues" - again, I don´t know which format IXEG exactly use but it must me an existing one (because you have compared Aerosoft with Navigraph). Someone wrote here, that it exists a syntax difference between Aerosoft and Navigraph. For sure, because Navigraph uses Jeppesen as source and Aerosoft Lido. Jeppesen is a standard database - Lido codes the lines my yourself - but and that´s important to know: The result should be the same and several addons show this - look at the GNS430, look at the 777 Worldliner and there are several other addons (not only in the X-Plane world) - this addons can handle both provider without any issues. All procedures are there - no procedures are missing from the FMS as the poster here mentioned. So, it´s possible to make the addons compatible with both addons ... As I wrote, the coding is different yes but the result should be the same - just as an example: EDDF SID ANEK1D Jeppesen coding: SID,ANEK1D,07C,4CA,0,68.0,2,800,0,0,0,0,0,0DF,DF152,50.070553,8.708008,0, ,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1DF,DF150,50.010247,8.751739,2, ,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,1,220,0,0,0SID,ANEK1D,07R,4CA,0,68.0,2,800,0,0,0,0,0,0DF,DF152,50.070553,8.708008,0, ,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1DF,DF150,50.010247,8.751739,2, ,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,1,220,0,0,0SID,ANEK1D,ALL,5IF,DF150,50.010247,8.751739, ,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,1,220,0,0,0TF,DF157,49.791100,8.672295,0, ,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0TF,ANEKI,49.317272,8.480428,0, ,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0Here the LIDO coding: SID,ANEK1D,07C,4FA,RW07C,50.03261667,8.53463056,0,FFM,251.2,4.1,68,2,800,0,0,0,0,0,0DF,DF152,50.07055278,8.70800833,0, ,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1DF,DF150,50.01024722,8.75173889,0, ,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,1,220,0,0,0TF,DF157,49.79110000,8.67229444,0, ,0.0,0.0,0,0.00,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0TF,ANEKI,49.31727222,8.48042778,0, ,0.0,0.0,0,0.00,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0SID,ANEK1D,07R,4FA,RW07R,50.02754167,8.53417500,0,FFM,247.4,4.3,68,2,800,0,0,0,0,0,0DF,DF152,50.07055278,8.70800833,0, ,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1DF,DF150,50.01024722,8.75173889,0, ,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,1,220,0,0,0TF,DF157,49.79110000,8.67229444,0, ,0.0,0.0,0,0.00,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0TF,ANEKI,49.31727222,8.48042778,0, ,0.0,0.0,0,0.00,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0You see one and the same procedure, two different codings. Now whats the different between Jeppesen and Lido: Lido declare the SID as Runway "only" transitions (that´s the letter "4" in the SID line).Jeppesen split the SID into a runway transition (4) and a common part (5)This is a major difference between both provider. EDDF is only a simple example, but there are more complex example, where you have a runway-transition, common-part and enroute-transition. The result should be the same, because when I select ANEK1D for 07C, the FMS should merge the runway-transition with the common-part (+ when existing and selected the enroute part). Next difference is the FA and CA terminal path in the first lines Lido coded this as fix to an altitude (means from the RWxxx to altitude)Jeppesen coded this as course to an altitude (means from the current position to an altitude)The result, should be the same - or not? Again, I have looked for a very simple example, there are a lot of procedures, which are more complex like this one. All in all, I don´t see any reason, why an addon can´t handle different sources, when the FMS is developed clean and correct, according the specifications. A really good example is the "standard" GNS430 dataset, which will be used on all platforms. The GNS430 dataset is in real the Fokker/Cheyenne dataset and this dataset exists since many years. Currently, we have no reports about any issues with this dataset, so it would be helpful (if issues exist), to report this issues, that we can fix it. Thank you very much - again, we are ready for all, when something is wrong, let us know please. We will try to contact you outside this forum, to see how we can help and how we can provide you ... but please stop the foreclosure, there is no reason to do this.

Chill guys. Easy change. QC is our final step in the test phase of 3D model for now. Systems first. Nitpick after release, because what you see now is not final until it's, well....final.

Your obsession over a stick is starting to concern me.

Please consult my prior reply with regards to your concerns at this stage.

I would rather see cockpit Picts xP CMB Sent from Tapatalk