Recently we have seen a lot of codes used to unlock our products being offered for discounted prices. Almost all of them are bought using stolen credit cards. These codes will all be blocked by our systems and you will have to try to get your money back from the seller, we are unable to assist in these matters. Do be very careful when you see a deal that is almost too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.

Jump to content

CAPFlyer

members
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About CAPFlyer

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Groundwork
  1. I can confirm seeing the same the last 2 flights I've made. It also isn't accurately following the VNAV descent path when in MANAGED mode. I have had it in both the A319 and A321.
  2. Frank, with due respect, that response is wrong. First, the vast majority of A321 aircraft in service have at least 1 of the ACTs. In fact, looking at the Type Certificate Data Sheet, the models listed that are "non-ACT" equipped suggests the number to be less than a few hundred out of nearly 1800 A321ceo's built. It also appears the vast number of A321neo's will have at least 1 ACT installed as well, and that version has the option for 3 (2 aft, 1 forward) instead of the 2 of the A321-200ceo. As for the A321 competing with the 757, that's from Airbus's own mouth. When the A321 was announced, the 757 was still in production and the 737-900ER hadn't yet been announced (and the 737-900 had hit its snag with emergency exits so it was no longer Boeing's "replacement" for the 757).
  3. I know in the past there's been talk about manually modifying the Center fuel tank to give the capacity of the ACTs (which are installed on most of the A321 fleet now), but does that still work with the new version? Also, is there any way this could just be done as an official update? I find it odd to have an airplane that kinda-sorta is a -200 model but doesn't have the extra fuel tanks that make it a real competitor to the 757.
  4. After that flight, I installed the experimental and I can confirm that pressurization is now working correctly so far on the return flight. BTW, the flight legs are - EGPF-EGNM and return. FL190 down, FL200 back.
  5. Here is a couple of screens of me at FL190 (cruise for this short flight) - http://prntscr.com/kg7g5i http://prntscr.com/kg7gmu http://prntscr.com/kg7mkr (Added 3rd screenshot showing ECS MFD and pressurization settings in same window)
  6. I am not using the experimental built, but I am having pressurization problems on ALL flights. I have followed the checklists and procedures, but no matter what I do, I either get a stuck pressurization (set landing alt after departure) or no pressurization (set landing alt before departure). What for me is the worse issue is that MAN control doesn't work - period. I have switched to MAN, increased rate to max, set cabin alt to DESC, and the rate stays firmly at 0. Tried changing landing alt to 0 and landing alt. Tried even changing it to a high alt and then back down and nothing got it to work. I did verify that all pneumatic systems are correctly set with both packs on, including cycling them. I also verified that all doors are closed.
  7. I'm still not seeing 1.0.1.3, only 1.0.1.0 Hotfix 1, but that did fix the issue. Are you sure 1.0.1.3 has been released to the public? I'm using Updater v1.1.6.0, which should be the most current version.
  8. I was using 1.0.0.0 and just updated to 1.0.1.0 Hotfix 1 (the only update available through the updater) and I left the seatbelt sign alone (with the CoPilot on) until I got to 8000 feet (but still above transition level) and then I tried to turn on both the PED and Seatbelt signs and they were both automatically cycled back to off, even if I disabled the CoPilot. I will re-run the updater and see if it shows me 1.0.1.3.
  9. Rolf, here's the thing though - turning on the seatbelt signs shouldn't break the system, and it is. This is a programming issue, not a "realism" one. In Real Life, most airlines dictate that the seatbelt signs be turned once final descent has been initiated. That means if you're on a STAR that has an optimized descent, you could be turning it on as soon as you begin your descent from cruise, especially going into major US airports where the profile descent is a big thing now. I've been using FS for quite some time now and I've used various addons with "co-pilots" and 3rd party programs (like FS2Crew and Multi-Crew Experience) to add a "co-pilot". None of these have ever broken because a switch was already on or off before running a checklist. Occasionally, it will turn something to the other state instead of leaving it in position, but it never stops the system from working. For an addon of the quality that Aerosoft wants, this shouldn't be a question of whether it's a bug that needs to be fixed or not. It simply gets fixed because it's a point of failure that prevents the system from working.
  10. FYI, I had this same problem, however I had set the seatbelt signs prior to 10,000 feet (I did it as I started my 2nd descent phase). As above, there was no way to fix the behavior through landing except to completely disable the checklists. I understand that the seatbelt signs should be on before 10,000 feet, but there's also times when you start the approach checklist "high" because of a rapid approach and high workload and the signs may not be on, so this behavior could cause a major problem. Because of my high workload, I couldn't disable the checklist until after landing, making it very annoying.
  11. I suspect what you're seeing is that the airplanes you're using are too small (in diameter) for the animated awning to fully cover it. The awning always extends fully (the awning just "disappears" into the fuselage), so if it's not covering, then it's because the awning can't go any further. BTW, the jetway awning isn't to fully seal the connection. Even in your picture you can see the forward upper corner of the awning is separated from the fuselage by a fairly good amount. The purpose of the device is simply to provide shade and some shelter from the weather. It was never intended to be watertight, much less airtight. Here's a good shot of a CRJ at a jetway - As you can see, the jetway awning just barely touches the fuselage at the back. Also, with the CRJ (and any other aircraft with integral air stairs) a "bridge" piece has to be used with the jetway, making the awning even less likely to fully cover the gap.
  12. Simultaneous refueling and boarding is an airline or airport policy issue. There are no locations that are ICAO signatories where it is prohibited by regulation. The only thing that is restricted by regulation is fueling with an engine operating and starting/stopping the APU while fueling.
  13. I'm not sure where the whole "Cleared to Taxi" call comes from. I've never seen it in any airline manual or regulation that I've worked with, including British Airways and Lufthansa. Technically, the ground crew has no authority to "clear" the airplane to move. That's the responsibility of the Air Traffic Controllers and Ramp Controllers. The suggested series of calls I was taught to use is something along these lines - FC = Flight Crew, GC = Ground Crew FC- Ready for Pushback, Tail (straight, left, right, normal) GC- Roger, tug connected, (steering pin installed/link pins removed/steering disconnected), release parking brakes. FC- Parking Brakes released. GC- Beginning pushback. (Pushback Commences) (When clear of all equipment) GC- Clear on the left and right, engine start your discretion. (Flight crew may advise when ready for engine start prior to this which would require either the above or a "Hold/Not Clear" response) (When pushback complete) GC- Pushback Complete, set Parking Brakes. FC - Parking Brakes set, OK to remove equipment. (GC removes pin, reconnects pins/lins as required and disconnected towbar) GC- Steering pin removed/Steering Pins connected/Link Reinstalled, towbar removed. FC- Roger, you are OK to disconnect intercom. GC- Roger, disconnecting intercom, wait for my hand signal on the (right/left) have a good flight. For a gate start, if an intercom is used (unlikely) it's only to verify that the equpiment's been removed and all doors are closed. Otherwise, hand signals are used for engine start, removal of chocks, and marshalling out of the spot.
  14. Have you tried checking the configuration in AES Help to ensure that the L1, L2 and UL1 doors are all mapped? There should be the capability for mapping at least 3 doors on the left side of the airplane, so if they're not mapped, try mapping them and see what happens. UL1 would probably best be mapped to the "OverWing Exit" with L2 being mapped to the "Rear Exit".
  15. Oliver, I know it was brought up some time ago, but I'd not heard anything since so I was wondering if any decision had been made on either changing the fuel trucks to the right side of the aircraft or making it where the fuel truck's location can be set by the AES Helper? I had been thinking about this recently, and my thought is that maybe a small box with 3-degrees of rotation be added to AESHelp that allows you to position it to the fuel panel on an aircraft. It would have 2 boxes available, one left, one right, and a checkmark as to whether it is gravity fuel or pressure fuel for maximum flexibility. Initially, this would simply determine which side of the airplane the fuel truck would come up to. Later, this could be used to animate the truck to not only park appropriately, but "connect" fuel line(s) to the airplane to fuel it. I have a couple of pictures showing where the fuel panel is located on a few airplanes that I can use as examples, but having fueled almost every type in service currently (sans notably the A380), I'm aware of where everything is if you want help in locating them.
×
×
  • Create New...