[Next Dcs......p-51]

I'm always a bit sceptical when mass market is mentioned. There is no mass market for flight sims and DCS is the last company that comes to mind when thinking about an entry to the flight sim scene.

Also I have my doubts about the potential as their past developments were focused on either mil-backed technology (thus subventioned) and / or only a single or few pilotable planes.

It'll be an interesting comparison when P51s are introduced to CloD but then again... it's only one plane for a hefty price tag and thus far from the content you get with CloD.

[This Is What You Get When You Try And Land While The Gears Are Partially Down...]

Wow, this looked different on my machine. Maybe a 4.11 issue - it was a fun landing though

[How Did These Guys Ever Get Into The Eu?]

http://randomtextgenerator.com/

You can even select greek as a language!

[777 Has Posted Their Roadmap For 2012. A New Map!]

25$ for a map that is 50% water? The landmass is about 70 square miles or about 43km²

I guess I'll wait and buy it during a sale if it looks good.

Sadly the community can't mod in maps. I'd love to fly those old machines over an exciting terrain like carribean or something. It doesn't even have to be realistic, just nice to the eye.

[How Did These Guys Ever Get Into The Eu?]

I have no idea what this thread is / was about but it reminds me why I reported that moderator rights to everyone might turn out to be a bad idea.

[Gone Laser And Never Looking Back]

Actually there are a number of ink based printers with lower cost / page, especially if you take energy consumption into the calculation. The main strength of a laser printer is it's printing speed and nothing else really.

I'd advise to analyze the requirements for a printer on a per acquisition basis. Factors are:

- size of print

- printing quality

- ink / toner cost

- power consumption standy / use

- multi-purpose? (scan, fax, copier)

- if multi-purpose then size of scan, does it have ADF (automatic document feeder - automatically scanning multiple pages) etc.

It really depends on how you use it. Generalization can lead to very negative results. If anyone needs a printer I'd ask the following quesions:

How often and how much do you print?

What do you print (photo, charts/presantation, text)?

What sizes do you want to print?

Do you want to use it primarily as a printer or an all-in-one device?

If so, do you want to scan multiple documents for office or home-office digitalization?

Based on these answers it'd then be possible to give a valid recommendation.

[Hard Drives]

Just as an info.

A harddrive cache doesn't really help when it comes to previously loaded data. It is meant to buffer through times where a seqential read or write is not possible due to the disc or operating system performance. For example if the harddrive has to write data onto fragmented discs or if the operating system requests data but can't read it due to queue issues or because it's stuck due to performance bottlenecks.

It also helps during the process of compressing / uncompressing.

There is a hybrid generation of drives now, these try to combine the speed of SSDs with the size of platter based drives. It's not working too great though. Basically these drives analyze what data is being accessed often and then move that data onto the SSD part of the drive. I'd recommend going for an SSD + platter drive though as the algorythms used for deciding what data goes where aren't working very well yet. This might change in the future but there are other issues that these types of harddrives have.

Rule of thumb:

• An SSD helps most where a lot of random reads / writes take place. Namely operating systems and normal workflow with software and smaller data chunks.
  
• As for physical (platter based) drives:
  A.) Fast drives, like the raptors, with high RPM (rotation per minute) like 10 or 15k are good for raid environments or when used solo for huge chunks of sequentially written or read data, for example video editing, as their random access performance is good but not nearly as good as SSDs. They have the benefit of lower cost per size though.
  B.) Slower drives, also called green drives, with low RPM around 5k are good for data storage. They do perform fairly well in sequentially read data. Especially if there is NO random access taking place
  

By the way, RAM isn't magic. I run 8 and 16Gb and I still get issues and performance problems from disc access. Especially if your pagefil is hosted on a platter based drive.

[Swedish?]

Jediteo is correct. It is "Niederdeutsch", basically influenced by the medieval age and preserved. Especially in the northern parts (lower) of Germany. "Lower" (Nieder) means altitude here as "upper"(Hoch) usually means south (the alps). That also goes for the language - Niederdeutsch and Hochdeutsch. Niederdeutsch is also often called Plattdeutsch (Flat-German).

It means "Schau in die Küche" (look into the kitchen) and was a term used for high buildings and towers since you were able to look into the kitchen of the households of the settlement, village or city. It is likely that this sign indicates a high tower or building.

Due to German history you can find examples for this even outside of German territory today. Especially close to the baltic sea and generally North-East Europe. Danzig(Dantsig) in Poland or Tallinn in Estland are examples for this. Both towns have "Kiek in de Kök". In Germany it is usually "Kiek in the Köken" though.

"Kiek" is still a dialect term today. For example in Berlin some say "Was kiekste so?" which means "Was schaust du so?" or in english: "What are you looking at?"

"in de" is easy: "in die" or english "in the".

"Kök/Köken" is also easy as the German word is Küche/Küchen (kitchen in singular or plural).

[My Planned New Build..]

Not sure you all noticed....he built the computer way back in october....

Uhm... time sure goes by fast

[My Planned New Build..]

A couple of things.

RAM

you don't need special RAM, even when overclocking, on sandy bridge systems.

The reason is rather simple. The frequency you set in the BIOS will stay the same no matter what you do (BCLK, the base clock, is now fixed). Unless you have a locked (non K) CPU that is. So 2500k, 2600k etc. are all good.

Sandy's can run 800MHz, 1333MHz, 1600MHz and 1866MHz - above that things are tricky.

You won't see any noticeable real world performance improvements beyond 1333 with okay'ish timings. So if you're on a budget invest into your GPU and skip deluxe RAM.

Soundcard

Since Vista dedicated soundcards are kind of useless, especially if you're using TOSlink for audio quality. Yes, dedicated soundcards are sometimes better shielded and might have better pre-amps and other enhancements but it's not worth it if you're on a tight budget. Avoid software soundcards by the way!

With Windows 8 things will change again it was announced. Right now it's not the very best idea to invest into a dedicated soundcard if you're on a budget though. I'd skip it and wait what will happen with Win 8.

Misc

The rest of your setup seems to be decent and some dogz made good recommendations. I won't go into the GPU debate because much of that depends on the game you play / benchmark and personal preference. Generally it is recommended to invest into the CPU and GPU. In your case you have a pretty strong CPU already so invest as much as possible into the GPU. If things are tight you can always overclock the CPU (since you wisely picked a K version). It doesn't mean buy the most expensive GPU but buy the most bang for the buck you can afford. Also I'd recommend a dedicated CPU cooler and a 120mm case fan to help sucking hot air out of the case.

• As for the CPU I'd recommend a Scythe Mugen 3 Rev. B or if you want it cheaper a Cooler Master Hyper TX3 Evo.
  
• For the case fan I'd say a Scythe Slip Stream 120 PWM Adjustable. As the name says it's a pulse width modulated fan with a 4 pin connector for your mainboard. It thus reads RPM and can be adjusted nicely and runs and starts on low RPM. It also comes with a pot so you can adjust RPM manually (handy).
  

For UK pricing I recommend to look them up on http://skinflint.co.uk/

[The Ingenious Ju-88]

Good read. It was an awesome plane indeed. Funny to see how little they knew at the time - much was just guessing around after examining wrecks and captured planes. It really shows how much our knowledge today affects flight sim realism; now that we know many details and weaknesses, which wasn't the case back in the days.

Anyways, here's what they got wrong

"Another device not seen on British aircraft, and one which it is hoped we shall never see, is the pedal alongside the control column marked ''Ruder Bremse '' (control surface brake). By depressing this with his foot the pilot can put a brake on the movement of all control surfaces by hydraulic means. Only one explanation seems possible for this—that it is to damp out incipient flutter.

If this is correct, then the whole nutter problem has been approached from the wrong way. For no aeroplane can be considered a flying machine unless all flutter tendencies are eliminated below a certain placarded speed. Then one simply leaves it to the pilot not to exceed this speed. But to provide him with a brake to guard against flutter in its early stages—it will be useless if the flutter has really started—shows a lack of confidence in the design, and must be somewhat depressing to the pilot.

This may be one of the improvisations which were developed when the Ju 88 was redesigned for dive-bombing work. Possibly it was found that such work involved it in diving speeds above its safe flutter speed. (Being unable to trace out the piping on the first very much damaged Ju 88, this brake pedal was wrongly said to be a parking brake in the earlier article. We take this opportunity of correcting the error.) Our drawing shows the aileron mass balance in the wing, and the corresponding photograph shows also the hydraulic piping leading to the mass balance for the application of the brake."

I highlighted a few points. Ironically the earlier article they mentioned was right. The "Ruderbremse" WAS a parking brake - just not for the wheels but actually for the control surfaces.

I quote the original Ju 88 A1 manual here:

']Zum vorübergehenden Feststellen der Ruder im Stand sind Ruderbremsen vorhanden [...]

Da die Ruderbremsen nur beschränkte Zeit bremsen, müssen bei längerem Abstellen des Flugzeuges die bei der Truppe vorgeschriebenen Feststellvorrichtungen an die Ruder angebracht und die Ruderbremsen gelöst werden.

And since I know you guys speak German fluently and only want to check if mine is that good as well I'll just add a translation:

']Control surface brakes are present to temporarily lock the control surfaces while parking [...]

The locking devices, prescribed for the troops, must be attached and the control surface brakes have to be disengaged for prolonged parking since the control surface brakes brake only for a limited time.

So it's just a temporary locking mechanism after all...

I found a version of the manual online on a russian server but it was taken from deutscheluftwaffe.de so I'm not sure about the copyright issues...

There could be more in the article that's not exactly accurate but the flutter thing was just too much and I had to correct it.

[Happy Birthday Cannon Fodder And Gec!]

I'm always amazed - whenever you look at the dangerdogz forums you'll find a new birthday thread

[Microsoft Flight About To Be Released - Landing In Hawaii On 29Th Feb. 2012]

From my reading of the release blurb the P51 seems to be flyable from the "outside" i.e. don't have no 'pit!

You're absolutely right. The P51 will not have a virtual cockpit. I edited the opening post.

Yes, I'll try the free version... but I'm getting mixed feelings.

Obviously it might be a game useful to draw new people into flight simming. Especially missions, challenges, score hunt and other social things are very desperately needed to keep the genre alive. Something I tried to communicate to maddox games as well.

The thing is that this doesn't have to affect the sim community in a negative way. Let the newbies fly with mice and keyboard (I've flown IL-2 with keyboard and landed etc.) as that may be fun to them and inspire them to buy more hardware etcetera. On the other hand side they'd have to make sure that realism is conserved as flying is way too simple and if the flightmodels are simplified it's just no fun at all.

That said it raises one question. How much would you have to pay for a decent pool of planes. Obviously they'll charge 15€ for a small plane with virtual cockpit. What about a few dozen different planes of various sizes and a decent area to fly above? With the entry price points they currently have you'd quickly end up paying several hundred dollars for the planes and thousands for new areas. Not to mention the effect this would have in terms of multiplayer. If everyone has different planes and areas unlocked... the community is bound to get clustered.

I guess that means I'll stick with the free version for a very long time.

[Crazy Carp Fishing...]

Carp aren't destructive - they're actually a very valuable part of the ecosystem over here. However, as they are bottom feeders inserting them into environments that are not adjusted to this is simply stupid. Generally it is stupid to introduce any animal into foreign ecosystems as you never know how it turns out. As carp are very tolerant and can exist in water without much oxygen it is really a gamble. Here in Germany the carp is preyed upon by many predators so there is a balance. From the many eggs it lays almost none grow up to a respectable sized fish.

That aside it's absolutely needless to murder and torture the fish like that. If they ruin the lakes ecosystem then it's the people introducing them to it who should suffer. Most likely greedy fishers who thought that they'd profit from these huge "meatballs".

[Microsoft Flight About To Be Released - Landing In Hawaii On 29Th Feb. 2012]

I didn't find a better place to post this thread, I hope it's okay here.

Microsoft will launch Microsoft Flight on the 29th February.

Changelog:

- edited P51 Mustang - flyable from outside only

Price and content available

Some content, the biggest island of Hawaii and the plane Icon A5, will be "free". Additional content, planes and areas, will cost money.

At release they will offer a few paid extensions:

• the first expansion called "Hawaiian Adventure Pack". It'll cost 1600 MS-points (about 20€). and will offer the other (I believe 7), much smaller, islands and the Vans RV-6A, an agile civil and trainer aircraft. Additionally it'll offer about 20 new missions and challenges.
  
• For another 1200 MS-points (about 15€) they will offer the Maule M-7-260C, a robust "outback" plane that can be used for transporting cargo and passengers and landing on grass and dirt strips.
  
• For 640 MS-points (about 8€) they'll offer the P-51 Mustang. Flyable from the outside only (no virtual cockpit), it won't have weapons either and will be lighter than the original and can be used for "stunt" type challenges.
  

That means the game would cost around 43€ total for the complete area of Hawaii and 3 ½ planes. While Hawaii is pretty big and awesome... it's not exactly cheap.

Gameplay

Gameplay will be civil aviation. Each pilot will have a career, the career is linked to paid add-on content though. There are numerous missions and challenges available, an interesting concept. I don't know if missions and challenges can be flown in co-op.

The game will be very flexible in terms of experience requirements. Beginners can fly with mouse and keyboard in a simplified external view. Experts can bump up realism and are required to even prep their planes before flight. A detailed cockpit will be available of course. Complex control options are available (probably even hardware linking).

System requirements

Minimum

Dual Core CPU (2Ghz+)

Dirext-X 9 GPU

OS: Windows XP

Recommended

CPU: Dual Core (3Ghz+)

GPU: ATi Radeon HD 5670 or nVidia Geforce 9800T

RAM: 6 GByte

System requirements seem to scale pretty well. It should be possible to run the game even on low-end hardware and laptops.

Take-off?

Personally I'm a "little" sceptical about the price point. Why release a "free" game if even minor add-on content costs about 8-15€ (11-18$)? I guess the community will end up clustered and scattered like this. I'm interested in the missions and challenges but I'm disappointed you require special planes for them. While it's okay to buy a few I don't want to end up buying hundreds of virtual planes worth a real one just to progress on my virtual pilot career or to have fun with friends on-line. Personally I'll wait and see how it progresses instead of dumping money worth a full retail game on 4 planes and a few islands.

Please discuss

[Transparent Window, With Windows Running On It?]

Also I fear that the issue of "spying neighbours" has just gotten worse.

[Air France 447 Crash Cause Discovered]

Madfish, please don't construe the following as any sort of personal attack, but it's clear that your understanding of commercial aircraft operations is rudimentary. The following is only meant to increase your understanding of the many factors at play, all of which contributed to the accident.

No worries, you're entitled to your opinion of course. However, once again I must disagree with some things. Especially now that you mention some new aspects.

Also let me mention something general here. I always try to see the flaws of the plane first because it's much easier fixed than pilots and their skills. But that's not really the issue here I fear.

"First of all the crew ignored basic training by not checking the weather and planing ahead"

This is incorrect. An airline flight is planned by a team, which includes licensed dispatchers, meterologists, and others, who generate a release that contains the flight plan, NOTAMs, fuel planning and a weather package, in addition to many other bits of info. This information is reviewed by the captain (and often the rest of the cockpit crew) who then signs the release before the aircraft is allowed to depart. Additionally, the captain conducts a flight crew briefing to discuss the flight, including any areas of significant weather. Enroute turbulence is of special importance to the cabin crew. Thus, there is no possibility that the crew was unaware of the existance or possibility of severe weather.

I never tried to say that they didn't know about the weather but that they ignored it until the last minute. I understand your explanation and it's logical but still the captain is responsible no matter what some random weather report guy said. I believe they didn't check (aka think) about it hard enough or willingly flew into it and only tried to evade when it was too severe. It doesn't really matter how many teams there are that tell them this or that. It's still human error to me - either by people on the ground or the flight crew or both - and when something goes wrong it's always the captain that takes the blame. They don't have a weather radar just to tell passengers what the weather will be when they're landing. Also note red text and compare and see the next paragraph.

"Yes, the pitot tubes iced - but this is not a Cessna flying at low altitude in sunny weather. It was at an altitude of 10.000m or so and climbing to over 11km in the middle of a tropical storm"

Pitot heat is required, by certification, to be capable of keeping the pitots ice free under moderate icing conditions. While severe icing is, by definition, icing that overwhelms the anti and deice capabilities of an aircraft, AF447 was not in severe conditions and yet had pitot icing issues. Why was this? The pitot heat was faulty. This was a known issue, that had caused similar failures on other A330 aircraft, and the faulty tubes were replaced as aircraft came in for scheduled maintenance. Significantly, Airbus chose not to issue an Airworthiness Directive (AD) that would restrict the operation of A330 aircraft until the faulty pitot tubes were replaced. Why? I can only speculate, but it seems to me that Airbus was thinking to avoid the negative publicity that follows a fleetwide grounding and/or that the risk wasn't worth the cost of a fleetwide grounding. Bottom line: the tubes should have worked, were known to be faulty, and a conscious decision was made to not mandate immediate replacement. This places at least some of the blame upon Airbus.

So you might notice that first you said that there is no possibility the crew didn't know about the existence or possibility of severe weather and now you say AF447 was not in severe conditions. Yet the captain went to bed and the crew made evasive maneuvers BECAUSE of the weather or rather to avoid flying through the tropical storm. I don't see the logic in there at all.

On top of that please note you say that the pitot tube icing was a known issue and yet the crew failed to realize it and take it into consideration? While it may be true that there is a flaw in the Airbus pitot tube implementation I can't blame the machine at this point anymore. All I see here is a lot of human error even IF the sensor is indeed faulty. They (airlines) should've exchanged them and they should have trained their pilots to deal with IAS instrument failures if the tubes fail. But pilots themselves should also care about their plane and know it to the last screw. That's why Airbus says that modern pilots are more or less engineers but obviously they rely on reflexes more than on knowledge.

"If under such conditions a pilot initiates a course change (drag), reduces throttle and then, when the speed indicators fail due to ice over pulls the nose up instead of keeping it level... that's nothing but pilot error.After this they keep climbing, ignore the stall warning...............The whole thing goes on - even after the captain returns and hears a stall warning he doesn't believe it's necessary to check the AoA at all. This whole ordeal is unbelievable"

The old guys all say that the first thing you should do when faced with an emergency is wind the clock, or wind your watch, or sit on your hands- the point being that to begin fixing a problem before you know what the problem is, is a recipe for disaster. Take some time to determine what's going on before you start doing things. Here then, is where blame can rightly be assigned to the crew- they made control input before they understood what was happening.

I agree since that's what I said (or tried to say). I'm still surprised though since even my basic GPS can tell me my speed above ground - doesn't an airplane of that size have a decent GPS or any backup system or other methods to tell the speed? Or did it just never occur to them to check it or anything else that tells them the speed? Eventually even just rate of climb. Again, keep in mind that the pitot tube issue was known as you said and thus the crew should've known it too and responded correctly.

But it isn't that simple. Consideration must be given to how the crews were trained, to the design philosophies of Airbus, and to the specific flying qualities of the A330. Consider this opinion, from an experienced A330 pilot, published in the June 6, 2011 issue of AVmail:

[...pilot oppinion...]

The crew was in fact screwed in that very special way that only an Airbus can screw you- by the design philosophies that underlay it's developement. Understand that I hold the abilities of the Airbus design and construction engineers in high regard, but they have a worldview that causes them to use their considerable talents in ways that can lead to disaster.

Even without being an airbus pilot I have to disagree partially.

First of all newer airplanes are Fly by Wire, which includes the Yoke. You can simulate some force feedback and maybe airbus should think about something like it but that's about it. On the other hand side it's questionable what good it would've done. Sloppy controls would indicate a stall but why would they test that out just for fun and giggles? The pilot himself said that at that altitude controls respond way to sensitive and no input would've been the best input. Also as you said yourself they should've tried checking on what's happening. I am very unsure if in a plane of that size getting rid of FBW would do any good at all.

As for the disconnected controls - I think it has advantages. First of all FFB would be more failure prone I guess. Also a lumped over pilot (unconcious, killed by a terrorist attack or whatever) would block the controls.

Also the yoke (2 hand input) was designed to allow for greater force application and not because it's so uber precise I believe.The sidestick was designed to be stress free and avoid muscle spasm or tiring muscles and gives the pilots more space in the cockpit to avoid stress. Further it allows for better one hand control so that you can handle the throttle easier. Something that again doesn't match with what that pilot you quoted is saying, that they most likely didn't handle the throttle properly, because the joystick setup would've made it easier for them to begin with.

If anything there's probably more of a preference thing going on and pilots should be filtered out depending on their control preference. Also it seems to me that they were just untrained and unknowing (again, pitot tube issue).

Also, please let's be honest here - we're not even talking about unprecise inputs anyways - we're talking about a stick pulled completely back!

As for the AoA of the plane, resulting of that crazy input, I cannot believe that they had no instruments that gave them a correct reading so that they can stay leveled out. Same with the airspeed - I still doubt that there isn't anything like a GPS or whatsoever that can be used in an emergency. It's maybe not ideal but much better than stalling a plane for no reason... on purpose - because still, I refuse to believe that anyone sane would blame the sidestick for that input. Lack of training, yes. Fear, yes - call it what you want but I doubt a trained pilot would pull the stick back completely. In fact in real life I haven't seen anyone ever pulling a joystick fully back with pressure like that - most people hesitate to do that even. (That's why many believe that pressure / force sensing sticks are better for dogfighting as they make inputs much faster since humans do NOT rapidly swing their hands around like crazy).

For me there's just no indication that the sidestick is worse than a fbw yoke. I believe that an input like this would've resulted in the same problem with yoke or stick.

And what is this mindset? Let me explain.

The airline that I flew for was the lauch customer for the Dornier 328Jet, and our initial crews were trained in the Netherlands by some of the same engineers who designed the aircraft and it's systems. One of our captains asked what would happen if the flight displays all failed at the same time? The engineer confidently replied that this was not possible, and proceeded to demonstrate why, using the systems diagrams. He was supremely confident in his work, and was certain that he had considered every possibility.

The captain who had asked the question, a month or so later, experienced a total flight display failure shortly after entering an overcast.

I'm not sure if that's a real story or just a joke or something but most people that wen't through engineering, heck even school, would tell you that it's maybe highly unlikely but impossible? It's always possible. A sad statement for an engineer. I have to agree on that.

It is impossible to consider every eventuality. Or, Ernest K Gann put it in his superlative 'Fate is the Hunter', every now and then "...some totally unrecognizable genie has once again unbuttoned his pants and urinated on the pillars of science".

How does this relate to AF447? Consider that the A330 will stop displaying AOA information, and stop sounding the stall horn below certain airspeeds. Why? In short, because some engineer decided that below a certain airspeed, AOA and stall warning were not needed, likely because no one would ever fly so slowly. It was impossible.

I'm not experienced enough to comment on that stall warning system. Especially during loss of sensor it's bound to act up eventually though. Are you sure there's no logic to it? Also are you sure that pilots do not know about it? And what's with that crazy AoA to begin with - maybe they should just try to limit the AoA of the plane and stabilize it like they do with 5th gen combat jets (that only kinda follow pilots orders if they "can make it")

However, given that this is a design feature and given that the pitot issue was known and thus the loss of airspeed indication I can only see human error here. First eventually a bad design decision but I'm not experienced enough to say if it makes sense or not. But for sure a bad crew that obviously again didn't put 1+1 together.

Impossible, until AF447, that is.

The crew made an ill-considered control input, and because the aircraft went outside of the design engineer's conceptual flight envelope, were deprived of information that could have led to their salvation.

And this is the 'European model' that I reference. This idea that we can consider every eventuality and train for it, and design for it, and eleminate it.

The crew, in my opinion, didn't just only make an ill-considered input. But that aside what what do you suggest when you critizise that "European Model"? Modern combat jet's already prove that computers are much smarter than any human when it comes to controlling an airplane. Yes, the pilots didn't have airspeed indication but that alone caused them to go nuts. So what are the lessons learned by it? Personally I believe that it's still better to assist humans and fix the sensor issue and put in more backup systems if necessary.

However, and this let me say. Personally I think that todays modern airplanes are much safer than the machines of the past. So obviously progression did bring something positive here. It's not that they put FBW and all these computers into airplanes just to make them crash more often. Even if a sensor is faulty or a system malfunctions it's still not really a reason to say "hey let's just strip them from all the electronic stuff and let "hero pilots" handle the rest.". While I believe that there are some amazing pilots out there I also belive that many emergencies outcomes depend on luck, training and equipment quality.

Many pilots were just lucky or unlucky - but let's face it: training and high tech airplanes are both the result of design and engineering. Emergency procedures weren't invented by genius pilots alone but mostly engineers and / or the result of crashes.

Bullshit. We can't. Thus, the design philosophy of the A330 must share some of the blame.

You reference the safety record of carriers like Lufthansa and Air France, and they are quite good, but consider this: the path to the right seat of an airliner is very different for a Lufthansa first officer and ANY U.S. carrier's first officer.

The Lufthansa pilot candidate will have been thoroughly screened prior to being hired, then sent to an ab-initio school in Arizona where he will recieve absolutely excellent training, and upon completion of that trianing, with approx 300 flight hours of experience, will complete his type-specific ground and simulator training, also absolutely excellent, and then will be in the right seat flying passengers. Lufthansa has had excellent results with this method of training. It produces pilots who have had excellent training, but little experience.

The US carrier's pilot candidate will, typically, begin his training for a private pilot's license, whether at some FBO or at a formal flight school, because he wants to, and as long as he has the funds and perform at some minimal level. He then progress through his instrument rating, and finally obtain his commercial certificate and multi-engine ratings. He will have about 300 hours flight time. From there, he will typically follow one of two tracks- either a flight instructor's certificate and a starvation diet, or flying freight in ill-maintained aircraft in any and all flight conditions, late at night.

And a starvation diet.

As our prospective airline FO builds his time and experience, he hopefully aviods killing himself, and eventually finds himself with a corporate flying job, or flying charter, and eventually at a regional airline. From there he will build still more time and eventually present himself for an interview at a major carrier with an average of 5000 hours of flight time. This is the American model. It produces pilots who have had uneven training- some excellent, some terrible, but have a much greater store of experience. And remember that experience isn't simply a log of hours, but of what you experienced during those hours.

So you're saying it's better to have pilots that train on machines with completely different control mechanics? I'm not convinced. Especially because this is the type of thing you don't want in so many situations as pilots may end up acting false because of it.

To be honest with you - there have been "bad" US pilots that wen't through the training you mentioned. And a lot of lucky heroes. For example that hudson river guy. That little bird strike could've very well ended up in a plane crashing into a boat or breaking up on impact. Not to mention a ton of people eventually drowning in an icy river.

Also, to only hire pilot's who went through every possible condition instead of designing the machines to be generally safer instead? I can't see where that would be the better approach. It's like saying "hey let's dump the seatbelts and let's not teach theory in driving school - just go outside and do cart racing until you are ready to drive a schoolbus".

Just on a sidenote: the reason why german pilots fly to the US is because Germany is rather small and there's simply not much space to fly around for training purposes. Lufthansa has giant training complexes even here in Berlin where I live but the airspace is also rather cramped and it may take a few more years until we have some desert here as well. .

And, knowing that we can't think of everything, that we can't train for everything (Air France released a statement that it wasn't the flight crew's fault, because they weren't trained for this particular situation) which pilot would you rather have?

The pilot with excellent training whose ability to meet a situation is limited to what's in the airline's training syllabus, or the one that, in addition to his airline's syllabus, can remember that one time, back when he was flying clapped out Cessna 206's, when he suffered a wierd instrument failure on dark and stormy night?

Which pilot would you rather have? One that's used to a yoke and crashes an airplane because he can't use the sidestick or one that was trained on planes with stick controls?

Also while it may be true that you can train pilots it's not possible to "think of everything, [...] train for everything". It's also not possible to expect a well trained pilot to deal with everything you throw at him.

Compare the CVR transcripts of AF447 with United 232. United 232 had a total hydraulic failure that Douglas' design engineers calculated at odds of a BILLION TO ONE of occuring. Al Haynes and his crew were able to call upon their training, and their considerable experience, to devise a workable solution to their predicament.

Comparing apples with bananas I think - or what does a pitot tube issue have to do with hydraulics? Also note that you credit the succsesful "save" to pilot skill. Wasn't most of your post about trying to convince me the pilots weren't at fault but only a victim of Airbus and Europe and all that? I believe that it was lack of pilot skill that didn't prevent the catastrophe although it was the "fault" of the pitot tubes.

Personally I believe this:

*The plane had faulty pitot tubes. So either Airbus could've grounded the fleet or eventually just gave recommendations (e.g. don't fly through tropical storms)

*The issue was known so Air France could've trained their pilots for it

*The crew didn't know about or ignored the pitot tube issue.

*The crew could've minimized the risk by not flying into the bad weather and reacting too slow.

*The pilot shouldn't have pulled the stick way back and according to what the pilot above said (and most likely all training) not even a pulling it a little but and instead should've left it alone for the moment and analyze the situation.

*The pilot should've communicated his actions better to help the co-pilot analyze the situation (e.g. I'm pulling back 20° (to level the plane) - and co-pilot could've checked if they're leveled out or whatever)

*Even though the IAS wasn't displayed they should've kept the plane stable because from what I've read no other instrument was malfunctioning

A chain of unlucky events but still, to me as a "noob", it's still uncomprehensible how that pilot could pull that stick back in panic like that for like 3 minutes. Pilots are only in the cockpit to help when the computer fails. We can't reverse that progress anymore. Is it better? Not sure. Is it only Airbus or european pilots? I doubt it.

Also note a funny fact: ever noticed how all the airliner seats are facing forward? Even a donkey knows that backward facing seats would be safer and in most (all?) military transports seats are set up this way. But it appears that some decisions aren't always governed by logic alone. So unless there's a company out there willing to build planes that generally change that I guess it's just that "shit happens".

Air France, Airbus, and the crew all contributed to what happened that night. To think otherwise ignores the facts.

Maybe it's stupid but I strongly believe that mechanical problems are the lesser ones and WILL get fixed. So I'm not worried about that. This said I agree with you. All contributed but I still believe that it was mainly the human error that actually crashed the plane. Of course you can say that it's the fault of winter when cars crash because of iced roads and certain things fail. But even if they're iced it's the well trained human that makes the decisions. That said I'm not sure if the "U.S." way of learning to fly airliners is better than the european. In fact I'm unable to see any difference in crash results when looking at statistics. But then again - I believe that flying has become MUCH safer in general now that we actually train pilots for these aircraft, that we try to build them well, try to add a lot of high tech stuff that may have issues still but mostly made all this air traffic possible and safer.

All in all my first post maybe sounded a bit too focused on the pilots. I still think they downright sucked but I wouldn't ever feel insulted if someone told my why they didn't. I just found some of your statements largely contradictive. Pilot training is always important though and much much harder than fixing a sensor. I know how crappy I can land virtual planes and wouldn't want to subject anyone to a "real dose" of it. But doesn't that make it even more important that we judge the professionals harshly and expect them to be more than just "average"?After all, to me, that is the difference between a pro(fessional) and an amateur.

[For Brits Only; Input Solution!?]

Yes, someone bid e.g. 100€ brit thingy (whoa my keyboard doesn't have that pound icon-.-). If no one would bit he'd get it for the minimum amount currently shown but as you make your bids the amount raises until you bid more then he did.

That said, for auctions that I really want to win but not raise artificially I do this:

- Log in and open the page 2 times and put them next to each other.

- decide on the amount you want to pay at most

- enter that amount on the one page but don't send it yet

- watch the auction on the other page and then 10 seconds before it runs out send your maximum amount

Using this technique you won't end up overpaying and you won't artificially raise the bids before the auction runs out.

[edit] oh wow, seems I was late [/edit]

[For Brits Only; Input Solution!?]

Haha, no offense but you couldn't be more wrong.

Yes, I do have an CH fighterstick, a rudder and 2 yoke. But I'm not using them anymore. In fact, and that's why I said that I don't see much sense in buying CH products as they are seriously behind their competitors these days (until they release something new maybe).

I also have an old Saitek X36 and X45 as well as a Thrustmaster Cougar and racing wheel and I recommended the T16000 or X52s for people that wanted more precision (hall sensors) but for a fair price.

From that I hope you can see that I'm not a CH fanboy at all (and btw: I hate company advertisment logos on MY hardware)

The reason why I said it is exactly because I am NOT a fanboy, which includes Thrustmaster. Thus I felt it's worth mentioning that the Warthog is a great specialized stick but only an average multi-purpose device - aside from it's precision it has serious ergonomic flaws. If you want to fly Freespace with that thing you get tears in your eyes because it's basically impossible without binding half the stuff to the keyboard again. Some target driver software abuse can overcome this a little, yes, but it's still not ergonomica, practical and by far not very time saving.

But as I said - there are sadly almost no alternatives to the warthog right now, in terms of quality, if you're willing to put money down. The logitech hotas has force feedback but is a joke otherwise with all it's firmware issues. The saitek has force sensing so it's not for everyone and the warthog has the traditional stick but is very specialized and made for the rougher grip and hand.

As I plan to do a lot more flying again this year I am looking into this myself and will most likely buy a Warthog too. But I know I will regret it because it's just not a great joystick - it's a great replica stick but there is a difference between the two.

It's precise and has a few switches etc. that you need in some modern jet-age sims (western simulations, the russians are using very different HOTAS layouts) but I don't just play modern sims, in fact I largely try to avoid them due to complexity / time restraints. I play WW sims and sci-fi / action stuff as well. It doesn't have force feedback, it has only 3 flap settings, it could use some more buttons, the ergonomics could be better and not made for wearing gloves (including all switches / hats etc) and I'm not at all happy with the input availability on the throttle grip unit at all as it's bulky but their could be way more controls on it.

That said I'd still recommend watching the auction. It's a decent stick, precise, overpriced and not well engineered but an awesome quality copy of the original. Sadly no alternatives as I said. Only eventually if you like force sensing stuff (which I don't really for some reason).

[For Brits Only; Input Solution!?]

True to some point however the problem is that whenever you do that and e.g. crash you need to manually reset all switches because they're not magnetic latching. So while it can be "abused" like this I'm not the biggest fan of it. It's a replica after all - realistic but unergonomic to some degree in many sim titles (stiff switches, specific layout, made to be used with gloves on etc).

Sadly CH isn't pushing out anything new so there's barely any multi-purpose HOTAS alternatives of quality, aside from the force sensing Saitek that is. A HOTAS modeled after the PAK-FA stick would be something but I doubt we'll see that anytime soon.

[For Brits Only; Input Solution!?]

Great controller - one issue though: it has a ton of "flick" switches (on - on, on - off, on - off - on) but barely any "trigger/button" switches. This is a bit lousy for most simming activities unless you go full real in e.g. a DCS A-10 or similar as most commands are actually bound to regular key presses and on-off etc. states are rarely recognized.

That said it's good hardware and very precise.

[Happy New Year]

Happy new years from me as well.

My goal for this year is to finally return to flying. I've talked to my JO class mate beta4good and I heard that our class is still around and kicking

Best wishes to the DD's

[Air France 447 Crash Cause Discovered]

Interesting read. I remember having a discussion on this and saying it was purely pilot error some time ago, not sure where though. However, I now believe it even more.

European model of commercial aviation? Airbus? I can't say those are the reasons for the crash.

First of all the crew ignored basic training by not checking the weather and planing ahead. I'm, not a pilot but a sailor and if a sailor does that we'd call him a retard. Weather is nothing to mess with - no matter what equipment you have. Yes, the pitot tubes iced - but this is not a Cessna flying at low altitude in sunny weather. It was at an altitude of 10.000m or so and climbing to over 11km in the middle of a tropical storm. On top of that the outside temperatures were even higher than usual.

If under such conditions a pilot initiates a course change (drag), reduces throttle and then, when the speed indicators fail due to ice over pulls the nose up instead of keeping it level... that's nothing but pilot error.

After this they keep climbing, ignore the stall warning (not talk about it either) and at such an altitude (over 11km...!) not even take their chances and push the nose down that's not just pilot error that's murder. Even amateur pilots like us would've most likely tried that, possibly before all else. They could've eventually checked their speed through GPS even - not sure if you can do that in a commercial plane but I can do it on a boat and in my car.

The (senior) co-pilot actually did say to level the plane and gain speed - but the younger co-pilot again, after the stall was under control, pulled back.

Instead of keeping focus on the instruments, and even the speed indicator was de-iced again, the senior co-pilot ignored what was going on. Didn't watch the altitude or climb rate at all but "only" called the captain.

The whole thing goes on - even after the captain returns and hears a stall warning he doesn't believe it's necessary to check the AoA at all. This whole ordeal is unbelievable.

So all in all if you mean modern fly by wire and automation with "european model of commercial aviation" I must say that maybe it's not enough yet? Maybe the computer has to take over route planning as well to not plunge airliners into tropical storms to begin with. No one would even feel well to drive a car during such weather but this crew felt it was cool to fly their liner into it.

Secondly the unlinked controls are not an issue either. As said above the senior co-pilot didn't care at all about AoA - even after he did for a second and that fixed all problems he ignored to check on it after the plane stalled again. Not to mention it was still in a climb.

Thirdly I believe it's not a problem of european airlines in general. Air France and Lufthansa etc. have very good track records and if you compare the track records you'll see this was an exception. But it also was a deadly one and it indicates that todays training is eventually either not able to filter out the "bad guys" properly or it is insufficient in training pilots. Probably both happened here.

And lastly I also disagree with you on that issue of training vs. experience. The captain returned and didn't even bother to check on the AoA. Experienced? Yes. Trained? Maybe he lost his sharpness. It seems very unprofessional to overlook the simplest thing during a stall really.

Although I'm not a RL pilot I've been in many critical and life-threatening situations and I know how it feels if your limbs start shaking under adrenaline rush - but I never lost the mental sharpness and especially not the basics I was trained for. The way I see it the crew managed to do wrong what it could. It was a really, really bad day.

[Salute To Bg]

Damn, some things are tough to comment on. It makes me feel weird typing this as my thoughts are literally disabling my ability to voice what I truly think and feel. Reading through this thread makes it very clear that you're a great guy that will be missed by everyone and it's making me sad I haven't had the chance meeting you yet. No goodbye's from me, I hate them. Stay strong

[Broke Daughters Computer]

It was mounted before on the rises of the back, when I put it in this time I used mounting screws. I'll check for any problems that may be behind the MoBo.

Thanks, but I think I'll be getting a new MoBo and CPU and memory soon. Pooka

Not sure if I'd replace the MoBo for such an old system instead of just upgrading it and selling the old components.

Long beep means there is a memory issue. So first of all what you'd do is unplug everything aside from CPU, Ram and GPU (if not onboard). Obviously you need the PSU connected as well. Then make sure the Ram is seated absolutely properly. Be very gentle with it. If necessary clean the ram slots with a toothbrush or something and the same for the modules.

If you get the board running try to run Memtest. It's included in some bios'es, can be run from USB or a CD/DVD/BR.

Good luck