Cheyenne Chief Pilot

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Cheyenne Chief Pilot

  1. Now back on topic: Da beautiful Airbus will be released soon?
  2. Anti Virus disabling when installing

    For an eternity I haven't disabled firewalls, AV softwares and user account control when installing and/or running flightsims and their addons. In about 98% of all cases things worked as advertised. Only a few installations required disabling some protections, but when running my stuff all the protections were back in place and things worked flawlessly. What's still interesting to note is: Neither Microsoft nor Avast!, Avira or Malwarebytes, for example, flagged the test.exe dropped by "the other Airbus addon developer":
  3. "Feature question": Will there be a Chrome password extractor in the Aerosoft installer für P3Dv4 like in "the other company's" Airbus installer?
  4. Any progress?

    Or maybe 'Baby Herman' is just Hans' new nickname?
  5. Stall Warning Does not Work

    Fly into a massive wind shear in normal law and your Airbus *WILL* stall. The tricky thing is, the moment you enter that huge wind shear, your airspeed information becomes invalid, the Airbus therefore switches into alternate law, so your crash won't be in normal law anymore.
  6. Detail question about the (old) RW A320

    A few more items: the Habsheim accident report in English: From the FCTM: "ALPHA floor is available, when the flight controls are in NORMAL LAW, from liftoff to 100 ft R/A at landing. It is inhibited in some cases of engine failure." So ALPHA floor automatically disengages during landing when below 100 ft radio altitude. The Air Inter crash supplies an example of how the Airbus (wo)man-machine interface has been improved: Vertical speed now has a four digit readout that cannot be confused with the FPA readout anymore. (But the wheel for adjusting fpm or FPA still spins the wrong way - counter-intuitively - as opposed to the logic employed in Boeing planes, for example!) For what the FPA autopilot mode can achieve and what not, this Air Canada flight accident report provides some valuable insight, too (starting on p.57):
  7. Detail question about the (old) RW A320

    Basically the low pass should never have been flown in that particular situation: Pilots weren't thoroughly briefed by their airline (briefing was only written and "last minute"). Pilots weren't briefed by persons in charge of the airshow (trees anyone?) Pilots had passengers on their plane (airshow stunts? With pax aboard? Seriously???) Airline knew about deficiencies of engine spool-up at low height, but hadn't yet informed their pilots (deficiencies beyond those allowed in the certification process) Airline knew about deficiencies of the barometric altimeters, but hadn't yet informed their pilots Pilots were basically conducting an "unstabilized approach", as they noticed the field too late, were too high, had to sink fast, and arrived slightly above field elevation with their engines more or less at idle. I am not quite sure about the "landing mode", but increasing engine thrust from a stabilized approach to go-around thrust is a couple of seconds faster than having them to spool up from (approach) idle conditions.
  8. Unfortunately LNAV still broken..

    I think you misunderstood eefields' post. Love my Cheyennes, BTW. Make me feel like a Chief ... ;-)
  9. Unfortunately LNAV still broken..

    +1 On a more positive note, I picked the Digital Aviation Piper Cheyenne box from the Aerosoft warehouse deals, and I am really happy with that plane (or should I say, with the Cheyenne collection ...)
  10. Talk to the management? Here's your chance...

    Plain customers or also customers who coincidentally happen to be beta testers for Aerosoft, for example? I faintly remember dialogues via a certain skype group ...
  11. Pressurization system/descent mode

    Thanks for confirming, Hans. And I am aware that you made it crystal clear that LNAV has had priority over work on other systems. I fully support that. (But now that - fingers crossed - the LNAV issue is off your chest ... )
  12. Pressurization system/descent mode

    "Descent mode: The cabin full descent schedule occurs when the airplane is in descent. Cabin altitude decreases at approximately 300 to 750 ft/min, to either landing elevation, or maximum differential, whichever is highest. When the landing elevation exceeds 8,000 feet, cabin altitude will be maintained at maximum differential, until the airplane descends, then the cabin altitude will rate up to the pre-selected landing elevation." So normally the cabin should not descend below landing elevation before landing mode has started - and probably not 4.000 ft below before touchdown ...
  13. Pressurization system/descent mode

    Pls. see my post here: On behalf of Aerosoft and Digital Aviation, Frank already admitted defeat (my interpretation only):
  14. Pressurization system/descent mode

    Bumped to the top of the Aerosoft forum. Another customer report here:
  15. Airbus Logic in the CRJ

    My CRJ FCOM doesn't state anything about flashing baro indications. Maybe it's just a version/MSN thingy ...
  16. Airbus Logic in the CRJ

    Once an Airbus tester, always an Airbus tester.
  17. Version

    That is correct, Marco. You can also check the product page:
  18. What Meese suggests is how, for example, PMDG and Quality Wings handle it. I second his suggestion.
  19. CRJ and the GTN750

    LOL, Jerry! I actually had the same rotten idea but never really tested it. Maybe Hans should get a bulk licence from Flight1 and integrate the GTN750 in the next build, so he could concentrate on fixing the pressurization system.
  20. Have to agree with Meese. Hotfix section still states v1.0.1: Pinned in General Discussion is v1.0.1.1, not 1.0.2:
  21. Does this one fit the bill?
  22. V1.0.1: FD going berserk

    Still an eye-catching issue in v1.0.2. Not in the changelog, though:
  23. No one has noticed this yet?!?
  24. Confirmed. Looks like the changelog for v1.0.2 again promises too much:
  25. How am I supposed to test (L)NAV, when waypoint sequencing works like this???öffentlicht-fsx/&postID=981950#post981950