Well hello again!
max_cont,
points 1. - 4. in your latest post:
I agree 100% and have never disagreed with those things as I recall.
point 5.:
I see where you're coming from, but I also see that if it was a life-or-death situation, I would try to do EVERYTHING to save my butt and that of the others
.
I know I could be of help even in the situation of me lying on the cockpit floor shaking, unable to do anything, but able to tell the senior cabin crew member where to find this and that. I dunno.. I would like to think that I could, at least. I have no reason to believe I couldn't, let's just put it that way... One has to have a bit of confidence !
point 6.:
Are you suggesting that I would question any instructions I'd be given ? I would not do that, period.
point 7.:
Same as point 6. Not in a million lightyears would I start soloing in a situation like that. It's no place to "try out" the "skills" I've acquired. No way.
Regarding the FMC. This is what I wrote in my previous post:
"Yes, the FMC indeed is a newer gen device, and I wouldn't feel at home with the older ones. However, assuming that the older device has some "self-explanatory" items and me having some quality assistance via radio, I think I'd probably "hack it" . "
Notice two things: assuming that the device had some self-explanatory items, AND me getting top grade assistance from a pilot via radio.
I wouldn't know what to do with the older models of Honeywell FMC, but if it went to the point that I had to try something, I certainly would. There always the option to dump the fmc controlled lateral/vertical modes, and start using only HDG SEL, FL CH etc.
About the Airbus:
I don't like the Airbus' systems. I have also used a pretty good Bus simulator for some time, and I'd have to agree that without Airbus systems knowledge, ANY professional pilot without type-rating in ANY airbus would be in deep deep trouble. It's nothing like Boeing, one can't basically make any assumptions that are based on Boeing systems in a Bus.
RussLightYear,
No need to act like a brat. I just told you what I think. You're just being sarcastic to make a fool of me. You obviously can't stand any criticism without getting the tone right away. I know I can be equally annoying sometimes, but I usually try to back up my opinions in some way. Happy instructing!
Hippy,
Hi there fellow nintendo'er
. And thanks for the support !
Those questions you made are interesting and demand to be answered by pros right away!
I'll sort out the screenshots after I get home from work and post them in the evening. They're actually nothing that special from a simmers POV, just good shots to display panel operation and different parts of it at different phases of flight. Just to demonstrate that it really does what it's supposed to do
.
Pilot Pete,
I've been bombarded by different "abnormal" scenarios throughout the thread, even though one of the main assumptions for ANY serious simmer (not just me) to pull this off were ideal circumstances (i.e. the aircraft working as it should).
Anyway, I enjoy reading about these non-normal encounters as it's a great way to learn... and straight from the PROs themselves, which is great.
What would I do ... hmm.. There are probably two things that _I_ could do in that situation:
1. I could manually add thrust (A/T still on, just fight the throttles a bit, I know this can be done) to make the hard hard landing a little less hard, although flaring at 50ft (assuming speed correct) would probably cause a tail-strike and a very hard and bouncy landing. Not good.
2. G/A. I would disarm the speedbrakes (wouldn't want em to deploy upon the possible contact with the gnd), disconnect the A/P, press TO/GA, rotate, flaps 20, positive rate, gear up.
Once safely cleared the ground I'd start using the automatics again and set the speed not to bust Vfe. ( I'd engage A/P again ALT HLD, HDG HLD, SPD).
I would choose option 2, but I'm REALLY not sure if that would be a wise choice, and now I'm eager to learn what would be!
Thanks,
Tero