dlrk

Suggestion in title

I was practicing approaches and reloading a saved state at 1000 feet. After doing so four or five times, X-Plane CTDs. Log attached Log.txt

On the airspeed limits placard, one line reads MMP (30,9990 FT TO 41,000 FT).........0.85. I believe this is meant to to be MMO.

What does the TAWS option of "mode 4 alternate airspeed" do when enabled?

Any ideas for why I might be getting AUX TANK HEAVY starting with zero fuel in the tail or aux and following these directions? It seems to come on shortly after fuelling, so like a slosh thing?

That's my impression from the checklist, that INOP message should only be on the deactivated pump. With regard to the ICE message, it's not that the ICE EICAS comes on, it's that it comes on in yellow, even if the anti-ice is on and green, whereas in two engine flight, ICE is green and doesn't cause a warning

Well, here's hoping we (not just me, I didn't make this thread lol) hear something in March

What do you mean "the decision isn't up for change"? It seems that a decision hasn't been made at all, other than not to prioritize random failures. I, the OP, many others (I don't know the percentage) would like this feature, or at least an answer on when we might hear if it's coming. Not trying to have a debate or an argument here, just trying to get something like "we'll have more information for you folks at ___". That said, I'm lost as to why an RNG linked to the failure system is such an issue.

With respect, you knew I was going to ask it because the difference between "No, never" and "maybe later" is a definition of later. I understand of course that this isn't the time for major code changes. But would adding an RNG that trigger a failure in the exist code base be such a change? Personally, I see unplanned failures as being implicit with having failures modeled at all. But no one (or at least not me or anyone I've seen) is saying "This was promised, it's not here". It's more of "This is widely requested, and seems like it would be relatively simple to implement".

When is that time? I'd understand this more if this was a niche, difficult to implement feature, but and please correct me if I'm wrong, this doesn't seem to be the case here, this is a widely requested feature that just amounts to some sort of RNG triggering failures.

This would really be great to see in the next few updates rather than something to be revisited afterwards. This airplane has such great systems modeling, please let us fully enjoy it by implementing some sort of random failure system, even if it is (if only as a placeholder) a global MTBF number.

In single-engine flight, disarming the affected side fuel pump illuminates INOP lights and displays both yellow fuel pump EICAS warnings. When ice is detected in single engine flight, the ICE light comes on yellow even if wing anti-ice is on illuminated green, and the 14th crossfeed valve is open. Is this intended/expected?

See Discord

I'm a bit confused about what speed to be targeting for crossing the threshold/touchdown. Do I want to cross the threshold at vref and touchdown below vref, or do I want to cross the threshold at vref+wind additive and touchdown at vref?

The PFD stall warning doesn't show up when the SPS is tested, but does in an actual stall

I'll certainly shut up about it if you're asking me too, but it's hard to see how copying the study pages into a PDF would be an issue. No reasonable person is expecting you to provide a free type rating courses (or even has time for that). But I agree this has run it's course.

If it's not literally word for word and organized in the exact same way, it really shouldn't be an issue. But you are absolutely right, and I don't think anyone would disagree with you, that a clean-room rewrite of the voluminous manual would be prohibitively labor intensive. But a condensed/simplified manual wouldn't be. For many, if not most systems, it would be as simple as taking the study window textboxes and diagrams and putting in a PDF with headings and a table of contents. For others, it could be simply writing a simplified description "There are 4 pumps. This is always on normally, these are only on as boosts in auto", or literally copy and pasting explanations given in the forums or on discords into a PDF.

Facts are not copyrightable, compilations of facts are.

Cameron, and I really want this to be said as respectfully as possible, writing an original manual that explains the systems would not have been impossible. It is certainly understandable if HS/XA decided not to do so because of the availability of 605 docs and the fact that many purchasers might not have read an original manual. But please stop deflecting by pretending people are asking for the full Bombardier-written manual for the real thing. @Ben Russell If it didn't copy from the bombardier manual, it's not infringement or plagiarism.

I apologize for the tone.

Looking on Flightaware, every CL60 I see there has multiple flights in a day.

Corporate jets never do more than one flight a day? *doubt* These are used for charter ops too. Also, what about fuel stops, or picking up more pax?

Any tips for avoiding floating when the approach speed has a significant wind additive?

I don't think it has anything to do with the airport.

I tried a V1 engine failure and it seemed pretty easy to handle