If Boeing can make planes that crash and kill people due to that, we can give fenix a break about that issue :)

so true, ive had so many floaters with the fenix whereas with the pmdg 737 my landings seem way more consistent

@@theob4301 go back to the older versions of the fenix if you want better landings, Fenix blames the floating on Asobo which is partially correct

@@noahking5531 Dude. No.

Every plane in MSFS has this issue

That's exactly it! I agree on the drag, take an IDLE descend at 250kt, the Fenix gives you 2300fpm. The real one is somewhere around 1800.

@@A330Driver hopefully they get it right in V2 of the Fenix

Haha, to be fair, they are much better than anything in flight simulation, but yeah, they also have their quirks.

Thanks! I tried a bit of manouvering ver close to Vls and in light turbulence in the Toliss and had much less problems.

Hi, that's a valid concern for sure, the question however is, what includes lesser risk at that time. If this happened at FL350 things would look totally different than if it happens just after takeoff. The best glider isn't worth anything if you got no place to land it. Sure, it's a risk. But a calculated one. It's worth to think about the entire situation and how your plane is build at well. The wind of the speed will prevent the fire from being able to travel on the outside of the plane as it would just be blown off. So it has to travel via the inside. And that takes time. How much nobody can tell. Eventually bad things will happen. But you've got some time. Though you can't tell just how much.

You'll be in for a surprise soon 😄

Thank you very much. The answer to your question is yes and no. Think about how to fly the 180. It wouldn't just be a 180 degree turn as that would displace you from the runway by the diameter of the turn. The best way to align yourself with the runway immediately again would be a 80/260 procedure turn. Which makes 340 degrees which you have to turn in total. Compared to 360 degrees on the pattern. Then you need to think about the wind which will likely drift you towards the airport during the manouver since you took off into the wind plus that you want at least a bit of a final and all of that final you want (plus wind correction) is distance which you first need to fly into the opposite direction. Assuming you fly the procedure turn correctly and indeed end up lined up on the Centerline you then still to make a tailwind landing out of an uncommon position. Includes quite a bit of uncertaintys which might lead to go around, especially when you take into account that you're mentally under extreme pressure anyway already. If you just fly a traffic pattern you take away quite a bit of those risks and it's not going to take you that much more time. Try for yourself and measure the time it takes. I'd bet there won't be much more than a minute difference in flight time. In my opinion a worthwhile tradeoff.

Not really, you have t I apply common sense but in 99,x% of the cases the suggested ECAM action is the right one so generally you do things out of the ECAM. But there are cases where you should question it. For instance if you get a pack related message shown after you took off and had a failure that took your attention for a while. You may simply have missed turning the packs on after takeoff which then caused a pressurisation problem, so instead of following a lengthy ECAM procedure for PACK faults it might be an idea simply to switch them ON. That’s what I mean with “don’t BLINDLY follow the computer” but keep thinking.

Certainly is! :D

Yep, computers are very good at many things, in many even better than humans. But logical reasoning is certainly not one of them.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Hi Andrex, Keeping in mind that I only know the Airbus Full Flight Sim and not the real plane yet I'd go all in for the A330 over the 737. You can really feel that Airbus build the Cockpit from the very beginning and did not just take an existing Cockpit and add or change new things around. That gave them the freedom to design everything around the pilots needs (and I'm not just talking about the table here 😜) while the 737 feels a bit mixed together.

Through the MCDU failure tab. It does exactly what it needs to do.

I would argue it's easier to learn "engine fire is always top priority in the ECAM" than to learn "well mostly [...] but sometimes the ECAM actually prioritizes engine shutdown because ..." because the ECAM can't really tell what's the right thing. Maybe it could say "check fire" or so, but how would it know whether the whole wing is about to fall off or if it's just a small fire?

The big problem is that this falls in a Grey zone. If the fire is too bad and your other engine fails on the downwind or your wing comes off the first thing everyone will ask Airbus is why they didn't tell the pilots to shut the engine down. QF32 was another excellent example of why in some cases it's just the only feasible way to give the commander the authority to make the ultimate decision and not the computer. However I do agree that some sort of an alert, like turning the numbers of a failed engine amber or red, would be quite useful here.

Thanks for a very good example of why a cool and thinking pilot is very important in any plane. One question: While we are practising cool and thinking, I instinctively felt the urge to start the APU 😅 Would that have been beneficial in this situation? I know you can not fly on the APU alone 😊

@@svendwinsnes9139 That is what Captain Sullenberger did by instinct and it help them having the flight computers still active. The APU start is on the checklist but it is far down on the list, something that the investigators pointed out, and I am not sure if Airbus have amended the checklist.

@@se-kmg355 on my Qrh (from 2012, sully did that in 2009) the APU start in the ENG Dual Failure - fuel remaining (A320 QRH@ABN70.01) checklist happens when the engine relights where unsuccessful and you are below 25.000ft. Although I can't speak for the later checklists, the 2012 one is probably quite outdated. Edit: My 2017 A320 FCOM also tells me to start the APU only after not being able to relight it. (pro-abn-eng p 1/94)

Yes, would be a good idea. Quite some things indeed which the second crew member could do during this time like attempting a restart of the other engine, etc.

There's a small drop in the radio altitude, because the sensor is towards the aft of the plane, and thus comes a bit closer to ground when rotating. Good catch!

Oh took the time to actually watch the clip too... the baro altitude shouldn't change like that lol

@@rejiix I think so too, that doesn't seem that normal to me

With the current technology I don’t think it’s possible, at some point in the future however I could well imagine it. But we’re talking years into the future, I don’t think I could live to see it, maybe my children one day would. We haven’t even made the step to fly single pilot, let alone without any pilot. That article suggesting 2025 and 2030 is nonsense. Even IF an airplane manufacturer had an airplane ready right now they would still have to certify it, the necessary legislation would need to be created (and that alone would take easily ten or twenty years) and then the plane would need to get certified. How would you want to get that plane into the air in one and a half year from now? Let alone replace a fleet of over a thousand aircraft completely for RYR and EZY alone, ignoring that there would be others who would want to buy those planes as well?

@@A330Driver Thank you for your response. The article I read suggested refitting RYR and EZY current fleet of B738 and A320 to have pilotless capacity via a software update instead of building a whole new aircraft. After push back the flight attendant or one of the passengers if there is no flight attendant would push the autopilot button to start the flight and the AP would automatically switch off at the destination gate.

Yeah not going to happen. Just like in the land of automated cars, the technology isn't solved yet and even if it was working RIGHT NOW it would take AT LEAST 10-20 years, no joke, for testing and legislation to catch up. Probably longer just on the legislation alone. Now it might start happening in small test cases on very specific approved routes in that time frame.

@@max11well001 You would trust the passengers to know what to do to get the flight going?

Incredibly dangerous and would slash an unbelievable amount of jobs, unions would throw a fit

In terms of “flying over the city at low level with an engine on fire that may fail at any moment” that is certainly a valid concern. But also take into account this: I’m sitting on the left seats so I can only see the field during a left hand pattern. Also what’s gonna happen if the other engine fails? If we fly a right hand pattern the FO would likely become PF at some point because he could see the field. But if the remaining engine now cuts out we would go into EMER ELEC configuration, in which only the captains flight instruments would remain, so at that point the captain would have to take over again, now without being able to see the field and having to rely only on the FOs judgement if you can still make it to the field or have to put the plane into the grass. Not a decision I’d like to take without being able to even see the field myself. Obviously you could now say that once the remaining engine fails the whole thing becomes only a theoretical debate anyway and you are somewhat right with that depending on the actual situation you’re in when the second engine cuts out. You see, there’s plenty of things you can consider but in a situation like this, when it actually happens you’d have to take a rapid decision and don’t have the time to consider all this. If it happens at your Homebase or an airport you frequently visit a good pilot would have thought about things like this already in the past and thus might have a general plan for what to do already. Overall though I think we can say that there’s so many things to consider, in the end nobody will ask questions if everyone survives. Think Sully. His decision to put the plane into the Hudson was perfectly reasonable for the moment it happened and since everybody survived only some theoretical engineers questioned it, but quickly out their doubts down again. But what if the plane had flipped over on landing and everybody would have died? I’m sure we would see his decision to ditch in the Hudson totally different if that had happened and everybody would have said something along the lines of “how can you be so stupid to ditch a plane when you could have put it in a highway or on trees or something the likes”. You see, there is no right or wrong here, it’s a grey zone and there are arguments for both and the captain has to decide. Finally, procedures in Düsseldorf, there may be some or not, at that moment I don’t really care, my plane is on fire with the only remaining engine about to fail any moment, I do whatever I deem right to safe the plane and really couldn’t care less if any noise complainers will wine that I overflow their house in 400AGL with an engine in TOGA thrust. I really couldn’t care any less at that moment.

@@A330Driver Totally agree on most of your points and already thought of the issue of not seeing the field with captain as pilot flying. For me, it 's been obvious to hand the control over to the FO seat and let him fly the right downwind or - with the experience of a captain knowing the field - go and fly be myself. But I didn't took the EMER ELEC config into consideration. Since I know the field and the area around (meine Heimat) I thought about the higher safety of not flying over the city. And, just for the record, with porcedures I meant possible safety procedures, not noise avoidance. Safety first! Lastly, i like these "Gedankenexperimente" - maybe it would make a good series.

@@saschaschrader3182Dont get me wrong there, your point of view is a valid course of action. I don't think one is "righter" than the other. Indeed a series like this is something I also thought about - but I have a feeling I'd run out of cases quickly, there really aren't that many "flaws" in the system 😂

Would be a quite good idea. But as far as I know, the checklists don't require you to do it. (ABN70.03; ABN70.04; ABN70.05)

Yep, definitely a good idea.

@@A330Driver worked for Sully.....

It all depends on the situation of course. If you have nice large fields in front of you things might be different than if you're in an urban area. If there's one thing we learn in aviation it's that most situations are grey zones and there often are no definite answers. As the plane wasn't in direct law it should have Auto trimmed that pitch away. Under normal and alternate law the trim setting shouldn't matter to you in flight.

The manual trim set is only for the rotation in ground mode? I think ground mode blends into normal law 5 seconds after 8° of pitch is commanded. So at the point of engine incidents the aircraft is definitely in normal law and the takeoff trim is disregarded. Could be completely wrong though.

⁠correct. From that moment on the plane will rotate the trim wheel itself.

😂

@@A330Driver 😁But in all seriousness, thank you for making these awesome videos, they were already very good from the beginning and they just keep getting better and better. Lucky for us you are changing types too so we get to see both Boeing and Airbus content!

⁠You're welcome! Very happy to hear that!

Pretty sure as soon as you pull the fire handle, it's going to shut the engine down, so you don't get a choice in the matter.

@@CaptainKevin exactly. The pushbutton is like an emergency off switch which you have to push before discharging the agent

Flaps 3 is not a requirement for single engine landing.

On the final I came in a bit higher than I would have liked to. So I needed the drag of the full Flaps to get me down. That falls under the captains emergency authority to deviate from SOPs to ensure the Safe conduct of the flight. As @buzzlite3 said though, I was wrong that on the A320 you should use Flaps 3 on single engine. That's the case on the A330 but apparently on the 320 you can choose between 3 and full. However when you planned a Flaps 3 landing and then go Flaps full it's still a deviation that you'll have to explain. However if you've got a good explanation that's all fine.

My personal rule of thumb is CONFIG 3 over 60 tons in A320. I believe sim performs better than real aircraft.

@@A330Driver Thank you.

Not at all, the plane can take much more.

Sure, in the A330 you'd turn off the three PRIMs and then you're in direct law and with that basically in a conventional airplane. In the 320 there's an equivalent, though I'm not sure which of those computers exactly those are. However this is NOT what you should need to do. Something like this simply shouldn't happen in Airbus logic.

@@A330Driver Is "direct law" also a computer, that can fail?

Yep, understanding your computers and what they can and can not do is one of the most important aspects of being able to fly an Airbus aircraft.

Hi, I mean if you don't have any problems with the fuel such as a leak or something then prob yes because if you lose all engines the RAT will only energize (apart from the HYD) the AC ESS and DC ESS buses, if you wanna have the ND (supplied by the AC bus 1) you'll need the APU gen but in this case he didn't have time to turn it on :)

Yes, it definitely would. That's where the two man crew comes in.

@@A330Driver thanks for response 😁

@@anslucasi0980 Thankyou

I'm rather sure, yes. We're close to Vls, but the plane still flies perfectly below it. It's not close to stalling or anything the likes. If you try the 737 in CWS mode you can see that it's quite possible in MSFS to maintain the attitude and bank in aerodynamically "shady" areas of MSFS.

Hahaha, I feel you. But think about it this way: Your engines are always on fire, aren't they? Just that they burn in a slightly different place now than they usually do. If you're at high altitude and in gliding range of airports the situation would be totally different, I fully agree.

@@A330Driver Tbf out of war time I don’t recall seeing/reading a civil jet have an engine failure that destroyed the wing. Modern engines seem to be more resilient to debris ingestion maybe more fragments etc bypass the core like heavy rain does. Interesting topic would love to know what a real sim should do. Msfs/xp12 not going give you the flying characteristics of such an incident. Interesting video 👍

@@gwalker3092The only case I know of apart from the DHL A300 that got hit by a SAM would be Concorde.

@@A330Driver good point the debris on takeoff from previous flight

No way, really? Or is it just the light that is not powered anymore but the agent still discharges?

Certainly not on our CEO’s but it does on NEO. If you look at what is powered in QRH EMERG ELEC CONFIG it shows only agent one when on battery.

@@buzzlite3True, I found it hard to believe but now that I checked the table it's true indeed. I would not have imagined that!

A rate of climb around 200-400fpm is totally normal and expected, in that regard the Fenix seemed alright.

@@A330Driver The issue for me has more to do with the aircraft still on the runway. If I insert an engine failure at V1 (or even at VR) the plane simply stops accelerating and doesn't even go close to the expected engine out performance. It always shoots at the trees after the runway end.

They redeveloped a lot of the flight computers for their V2 Update, I think things will be quite different there.

And here's part of the reasons why we don't have fully autonomous planes yet.

Age isn’t a good indicator for professional qualification. There are people who could be 60 years old and not have the right qualifications to be a captain and there will be people in their twentys who are good captains. But yeah… “the air cleans itself” is certainly a true statement.

Check some of the other comments

You deserve an award for making the most asinine comment