RobertK

Whenever the release, count me in as a buyer. I have flown on the Katana already and am planning to do my PPL with it. So I am very much looking forward to this one. Regards, Robert

That it is not unique, but a rip-off of the Dornier 728 Regards, Robert

Just ask for Robert Kattanek. That being me. Regards, Robert

I'll be working there from 1300UTC to 2100UTC. Perhaps hear you on the frequency. Regards, Robert

Same here - this thing just looks too good, and since I'm a sucker for good design.... Regards, Robert

I really would love to, but appearing at work every day with one or two (or more!) visitors would probably annoy some people here, especially the poor soul who has to coordinate them all with security. Of course, bribing me with a free Aerosoft product might help in individual cases. Regards, Robert

If you ever fly into Munich, you're welcome to contact me and I can try to arrange for a visit at Munich Approach. You might find it interesting. Same applies to Stedders of course. Regards, Robert

I am fully aware that there are very differing procedures, for ATC and pilots alike, in different countries and within these countries at different airports. And all of these procedures, as different as they are, have good (general and local) reasons. To make it fully clear what I meant - the Aerosoft Airbus X, as it stands right now, is unrealistic if I want to simulate the experience of a real airliner flying into Munich, or some other large airports I named. For other airports, that is not the case. Regards, Robert

No, obviously I only know about actual operations of commercial jets in a high-traffic approach environment at places like Frankfurt, Munich or London Heathrow, as witnessed from looking over their shoulders on multiple familiarization flights. And from witnessing which kind of instructions from me work well for them and their systems and which ones cause workload, confusion, ruffling of (paper-)charts etc. What they do in their training might be different (as we work differently during ATC training in the simulator compared to what we do with "live" traffic). As I stated, I work at Munich Approach. If you wish to make further assumptions about my knowledge feel free to PM me, I am always interested in the views of pilots and ATC alike. Regards, Robert

Good catch. And you're right, in most situations the five waypoints will suffice, and in some of the other situations it would not be a big deal to not have all waypoints programmed - it will still be easier though (things like me re-clearing you direct to another waypoint of the transition). It's the difference between pressing three buttons or pressing seven. And in general, I still think having pre-programmed SIDs, STARs and transitions selectable is the easiest way, which brings me back to the question why omitting this feature (which is included in the real airplane to ease pilot's workload) make's this an easier to-use add-on. It's not as having such a feature would force anyone to use it, or to learn its concepts. And, although every "hardcore-simmer" will probably cringe at this, having such a feature would be the only way to use SIDs and STARs without having to learn their concepts (push three buttons, watch beautifully rendered airplane do everything correctly). So, to sum up, IMHO Aerosoft's decisions are perfectly valid, and theirs to make. I just disagree with some assumptions (on real-life and simulation behaviour) presented here with regards to them. Regards, Robert

Okay, first to clarify, I am talking about real life procedures here. In that context, what are you talking about when you say"GPS"? Since that's just one of the systems the FMS uses for navigation reference, you still have to look at and use the FMS here. Now, RNAv transitions are completely disconnected from any VOR/DME, they are pure coordinates. So you can't use any of that for lateral guidance, regardless how well prepared you come. And GPS? Once again, your head is down there with the FMS for that. That one's "direct-to feature will take care of the first waypoint, yes. Now, do you prefer to manually input the other 11? Or simply being able to select something like ROKIL26? Either way, once again you can't do either without using the FMS. Or can you? I'm not a pilot, I am an air traffic controller. We have to learn how our procedures are flown, and I have flown into "my" airport on the flightdeck of a CRJ and an A320. They used the FMS, as I had expected, but I am now curious about your whizz-bang method allowing you to leave it aside, just as Aerosoft left it aside in their A320 ( which I'm still going to buy btw). Regards, Robert

No they don't. Most do at their homebase, yes, but the rest...I see enough deviations from procedures to not believe that. And how could they - flying to four or five different airports a day. And even those who do - you can't follow an rnav transition re-clearance without looking at the FMS. And being able to quickly select a procedure might just help there, avoiding that nagging question from the controller "are you turning yet?". Also, folks at PMI might have a certain way of controlling their traffic, which works best for them. But I assure you life at LHR, FRA, MUC or AMS is quite different. Regards, Robert

How would you fly an RNAV Transition without lookin at the FMS? What do you do when ATC clears you for a different transition than the one expected? Just wondering, because that's what is done at my 'homebase' (Munich approach) every day. btw, may I ask what your homebase is? Regards Robert

VATSIM and IVAO are learning environments, and I am sure/experienced myself that usually you will always be helped out if you indicate that it is necessary to do so (I certainly did when I was controlling virtually). So of course, you will be given vectors if necessary, you can just "orbit left" instead of doing a hold...there are many ways to support a newbies. But what shouldn't be forgotten is that because it is a learning environment, you should also be willing to learn, and eventually use things like charts/procedures. Also because - something that seems to be forgotten easily - the controllers are also doing this as a hobby, for their enjoyment. And I can assure you a large event with a lot of traffic will be less enjoyable for controllers if the majority of participating pilots have to be taken by the hand with bespoke vectors - just as even one aircraft unable to follow procedures can be irritating in real life. You don't need to know SIDs and STARs when entering these communities, but if you understand other pilots and controllers as fellow simmers who also want to enjoy this - and I think you should - you might quickly notice that being able to use these things can and will make it easier (and more fun) for many. I did, and thus took the time to learn these procedures, instead of demanding vectors forever. So, an airplane that, by design, is unable to efficiently and flexibly follow procedures as they are used in real life - and simulated at VATSIM/IVAO - can of course be used for online flying. But, in the end, when one wishes to further his knowledge and ability in this learning environment, IMHO it cannot be "great" for that. Regards, Robert

Probably asked before, but...is there any chance for another version of this product with more advanced systems for those of us willing to endure the learning curve...and willing to hand over a bit more cash? It would be very tempting, especially since your Airbus looks beautiful, and there is a distinct lack of advanced Airbus simulations for MSFS. Regards, Robert