SwissCyul

Yeah, but the season was very short... I think i can't complain about the Habs

Well not this season...

Hello Again!!! I finished the Conversion of FlyTampa's Montreal Scenery. It took me 2 months to make the airport like i wanted it to be. But i think it was worth it. I put the screenshots in an extra folder and attached it because it would take too long to attach them all single to this Post. For those who are thinking about buying this scenery, i would not recommend it. Only for the people that live in Montreal and that want an accurate Airport with all the details they know. As i said it took me 2 months to create Montreal. You have to start with the Airport Layout because FlyTampa doesn't put information about the taxiways into the package. After the Conversion there are Buildings incomplete or have walls that only appear from one side. So you have to spend a lot of time working with the overlay editor to fix those problems. After that the real work begins. I spend almost everyday with World Editor to finish this project. You have to add taxi lines, lights, parking spots, aircraft, taxi signs, and, and, and,... The scenery for FSX is for the use with real satellite images from google maps. So there are standing street lights and signs all over the place. X Plane doesn't display all the streets of the airport. Thats why i created streets with World Editor. Of course no Cars will drive there because they are just pieces of asphalt. Then there are cars standing around in the grass because X Plane doesn't display parking lots. So again you have to spend time putting signs and markings on asphalt... Another big minus is that the Air Canada Hangar and the office building in the middle of the airport are incomplete. I removed all the incomplete objects and created a whole new airport middle that resembles a bit the real world. But the AC hangar is a masterpiece of work and you can't use it after the conversion. But now enough of complaining The scenery looks great day and night. I now really enjoy flying to my hometown airport because i can notice all the things that are there in real life. The Airport is just a great place to fly to. I hope you can make yourself an image of how the airport looks in X Plane with the screenshots. Sadly i am not allowed to give the persons owing FlyTampa Montreal my conversion. All because of copyright issues and i understand that. But you can ask me anytime how i made some things in my version. I will help you and i can send you screenshots of how my airport looks. And for those who already converted it i can give you my apt.data if you want. So you have an accurate taxiway system on your airport. Currently i am working on Quebec Jean Lesage and Mont Tremblant Airport. I will soon make a post about Quebec and Tremblant. That was it from me. Post me your feedback and your questions. Have a great evening and enjoy your Weekend

And it's not even the fault of the company. They already had huge problems with the first crash. And now this is again ruining their reputation... I think you're right, extreme bad luck. I hope the buyers of the Superjet don't cancel their orders...

Well the first crash of the superjet was because the pilots didn't know what the terrain warning was. They just turned it off. And maybe this time they turned the master caution system off because they were making some tests. And they did have one engine off for test reasons at the time of the crash. And for the defenders of the 787: This is a complete different story because the plane itself had no problems. This time it was pure pilot error.

And another accident. Yesterday, a Sukhoi Superjet 100-95 landed without the landing gear out at Keflavik, Iceland. The test pilots were making tests in bad weather. The plane made several touch and go's over the airport. On the final approach they were making a Cat III crosswind landing with one engine out. But they were so busy keeping the aircraft stable that they forgot to put out the landing gear. Official Report (Not yet complete, still in development): Status: Preliminary Date: 21 JUL 2013 Time: 05:30 Type:Sukhoi Superjet 100-95 Operator: Sukhoi Civil Aircraft Registration: 97005 C/n / msn: 95005 First flight: 2010-02-04 (3 years 6 months) Engines: 2 PowerJet SaM146 Crew: Fatalities: 0 /Occupants: 5 Passengers: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 0 Total: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 5 Airplane damage: Minor Location: Reykjavík-Keflavík International Airport (KEF) (Iceland) Phase: Landing (LDG) Nature: Test Departure airport: Reykjavík-Keflavík International Airport (KEF/BIKF), Iceland Destination airport: Reykjavík-Keflavík International Airport (KEF/BIKF), Iceland Narrative: A Sukhoi Superjet 100-95 carried out a gear-up landing at Reykjavík-Keflavík International Airport (KEF), Iceland. The five persons on board suffered minor injuries. The airplane took off from runway 20 at Keflavík Airport at 04:03 hours local time. The crew then flew several circuits with approaches to runway 20 as part of a test or training flight. At 05:10 the airplane was positioned for an approach to runway 11. The airplane overflew the runway and flew a wide circle over sea for another approach. The undercarriage was not down as it landed on runway 11. The airplane came to rest in the grass past the end of the runway.

Another thing is that Ethiopian can now throw the involved 787 away. With a destroyed fuselage in the back the plane is to damaged to repair. But i am still asking me why the ELT started to burn. The firefighters had to use tons of water and foam to get the fire under control. If the fire started in the air the 787 would have probably crashed. And the 787 is not the only plane that has those units...

Yeah probably everybody is sensitive about this topic. And i just found out the cause of the incident at London Heathrow. The Lithium Batteries in the ELT started to burn. The cause for the fire is still not known but again some batteries are involved... Whatever i hope you have a great weekend

I am not here to start a fight with you. And i know that the 747 had problems. The a380 had problems and now the 787 has. But I can't remember that the 747 had so many problems in that short amount of time.

But the 787 has had a lot of problems. And you have to look at the amount of 787 that are in service. If you are flying right now with a 787 the chances are very high to have a technical problem. The 787 has been grounded before to fix major problems with the battery. Now there are again problems with the APU battery and the fuel pumps. And the fuselage is not fire resistant in the back where the APU sits. A few problems are normal. But not every week a new technical issue with a 787 that has to return because they can't get the situation under control.

Yesterday a 787 from JAL had to return to Boston because of a defect fuel pump. The flight was actually going to Tokyo but the pilot made the decision to return to Boston after an Alarm sounded that one fuel pump is not working anymore. I don't think that Boeing will like that. The recent problems with the fire of the Ethiopian 787 and the technical problems of the Thomson 787 only add to my opinion that Boeing has to rethink over the whole AIrcraft. Also another thing that the fire from the Ethiopian 787 spread over the fuselage. This is not supposed to happen when a fire is in a plane. So lets hope we don't get the message of grounding the fleet again.

How about just searching it

We will just have to wait and see

Yep very true. If we would avoid airlines that had crashes in the last years, we wouldn't be flying anywhere.

And you know that they are going to receive 5 A380's in two years....

And the reputation of Asiana Airlines is ruined. At least in America...

We just have to see what happens with the pilots. I don't know the regulations of the korean juridical system. It could be that they will be sent to prison for the rest of their life.

Alright. Some new information. I talked to a former 777 captain and he explained a bit what the cause was. So the approach was a noise reduction approach to not disturb the people of San Francisco. The 777 came in very steep and had to make various turns to get lined up with the runway. The approach was full manual except the speed. The instructor armed the auto-throttle at about 1000ft in descent. Normally the armed auto-throttle would engage when the plane catches the glideslope. But at this time the ILS system was turned of at KSFO. Now the pilots didn't look at the speed anymore because they thought that the auto-throttle would control it. They were also too concentrated on lining up the 777 with the runway. 35 seconds prior to impact they noticed that they were to low and to slow. By that time you could have managed the situation by pushing the throttle levers to full thrust. But again they were not really paying attention that the plane was already under the estimated touchdown speed. By the time they really put in thrust it was already too late to catch the airplane again. Another feature of the 777 is that when the speed is too low the 777 automatically pushes down the nose when the auto-throttle is not engaged. That caused the airplane to descent even faster and hit the seawall. So the conclusion is that the pilots had just to push the engage button for the auto-throttle and the problem is solved. Asian airline pilots are trained to fly only with the autopilot. This is a procedure to save time and to save money. But when a lot of little problems come together you can sometimes loose track of something that is very important. The same thing we saw with the Turkish airlines 737 crash at Amsterdam. Or the lion air crash 2 months ago. It's still a pilot error but we have also to look at the circumstances the pilots were in. I hope this is a bit more information then you knew.

Hey!!! I did two videos with X Plane and i hope you like them Swiss RJ100 Take Off with real sound in Zurich: Swiss A330 landing in Montreal: More to come

Or the passengers would do a thrilling sightseeing flight Maybe they even would pay more for such an experience

Well done buddy. That was a really risky flight

Why Wikipedia? Do you mean another post or mine? I copied the information from the aviation safety network. Thats where the official reports come out. http://aviation-safety.net/index.php

There we go: Status: Preliminary - official Date: 06 JUL 2013 Time: 11:28 Type:Boeing 777-28EER Operator: Asiana Airlines Registration: HL7742 C/n / msn: 29171/553 First flight: 2005-02-25 (8 years 4 months) Engines: 2 Pratt & Whitney PW4090 Crew: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 16 Passengers: Fatalities: 2 / Occupants: 291 Total: Fatalities: 2 / Occupants: 307 Airplane damage: Destroyed Airplane fate: Written off (damaged beyond repair) Location: San Francisco International Airport, CA (SFO) (United States of America) Phase: Landing (LDG) Nature: International Scheduled Passenger Departure airport: Seoul-Incheon International Airport (ICN/RKSI), South Korea Destination airport: San Francisco International Airport, CA (SFO/KSFO),United States of America Flightnumber: 214 Narrative: A Boeing 777-200 passenger jet, operated by Asiana Airlines, was destroyed in a landing accident at San Francisco International Airport, CA (SFO). There were 291 passengers and 16 crew members on board. Two passengers died and 49 were seriously injured. Flight OZ-214 originated in Seoul-Incheon International Airport (ICN), South Korea were it departed at 16:35 local Korean time. Destination of the flight was San Francisco, CA. The weather at San Francisco was fine with 6-7 knot winds and a visibility of 10+ miles. The pilot undergoing initial operating experience was in the left hand seat as Pilot Flying. An instructor pilot was sitting in the right hand seat. The relief first officer was in the jump seat at the time of the approach. The pilot flying had logged about 9700 flying hours. Flight 214 was his tenth flight leg on a Boeing 777 while undergoing initial operating experience. The flight was cleared for an approach to runway 28L, the ILS glidepath of which had been declared unserviceable in the current Notam. The airplane was configured for landing with 30 degrees of flaps and gear down. Target threshold speed was 137 knots. According to preliminary information from the cockpit voice recorder, the crew did not state and anomalies or concerns during the approach. The throttles were at idle and autothrottle armed. At 1600 feet the autopilot was disengaged. The aircaft descended through an altitude of 1400 ft at 170 kts and slowed down to 149 kts at 1000 feet. At 500 feet altitude, 34 seconds prior to impact, the speed dropped to 134 kts, which was just below the target threshold speed. The airspeed then dropped significantly, reaching 118 knots at 200 feet altitude. The instructor pilot reported that he noticed four red PAPI lights and concluded that the autothrottle had not maintained speed. Eight seconds prior to impact, the throttles were moved forward. Airspeed according to the FDR, was 112 knots at an altitude of 125 feet. Seven seconds prior to impact, one of the crew members made a call to increase speed. The stick shaker sounded 4 seconds prior to impact. One second later the speed was 103 knots, the lowest recorded by the FDR. One of the crew members made a call for go a around at 1.5 seconds before impact. The throttles were advanced and the engines appeared to respond normally. The main landing gear and rear fuselage then struck a sea wall, just short of runway 28L. Airspeed was 106 knots. The empennage separated at the rear bulkhead. The airplane then ballooned, yawed left and spun 360 degrees before it came to rest to the left of runway 28L, 735 m (2400 ft) from the seawall. A post impact fire occurred when a fuel tank ruptured inboard of the nr. 2 engine, spilling fuel on the hot engine, causing it to ignite. Weather at the time of the accident (11:28 LT / 18:28 Z) was reported as: KSFO 061756Z 21006KT 10SM FEW016 18/10 A2982 RMK AO2 SLP097 T01780100 10183 20128 51005 [10:56 LT: Wind 210 degrees at 6 knots; Visibility: 10 or more miles; few clouds at 1600 feet AGL; Temperature: 18°C, Dew point: 10°C; Pressure 1010 mb] KSFO 061856Z 21007KT 170V240 10SM FEW016 18/10 A2982 RMK AO2 SLP098 T01830100 [11:56 LT: Wind 210 degrees at 7 knots, varying in direction between 170 and 240 degrees; Visibility: 10 or more miles; few clouds at 1600 feet AGL; Temperature: 18°C, Dew point: 10°C; Pressure 1010 mb] The ILS glidepath for runway 28L and 28R at SFO had been declared unserviceable from June 1 until August 22. Sources: » NTSB

Yeah you should probably zoom in the display

No problem. Of course i will ask for the serial number and the name of him to try if he really bought the scenery