London-Melbourne 2014: 119 Piccadilly

[MM]

Inquiries for Miss Nellie and the Organizing Committee


13524

Miss Nellie and her crackerjack staff will be monitoring the race from the Royal Aero Club's headquarters here at 119 Picadilly, Westminster, London. If you would like to communicate with the Committee, please post your questions, reactions, and comments here. (If you prefer a less public channel, please use the forum's Private Message system.)

[robert41]

Will this duenna link be ok to post, http://fs-duenna.com/flights/ShowFlight.php?detail=flight&value=MfbjWHpb9DRk3J86F8WIJYEka0
or do we need to post the separate map and text files?

[PRB]

I will "import" the duenna text files into the race tracking site for each leg. While I can find it from the link you posted, it will save me a couple of steps if you post the actual text file.

[MM]

We ask that you do both. The posted jpg and textfile provide an immediate record that everyone can see as they follow your thread. And the authentication is located on the SOH server. The tracking site's record provides the same and more detailed information. And it is located on a different server, although one over which we have no control. Each serves as a backup against the other...in case we have a failure.

If you feel comfortable doing just one or the other, then fine. Others have done so in the past. (Note that your having just one version may make the Committee' work a bit more difficult. We mildly prefer having both sets of authentications.)

Oops, late post. ...as Paul says above.

[PRB]

Just to add to Mike's post, imagine Miss Nellie getting "irritated", tapping her pencil on the desk, while taking the extra steps... Not something you need, on top of the airmanship challenges we're already dealing with... :)

[robert41]

Roger on the two, map jpg and text postings. Do not want to get on Miss Nellie's bad side.

[MM]

Using Opus and FSGRW, and a Duenna false report

Rushed upstairs to peer through the glass door to Miss Nellie's office. She was sitting at her desk, staring at the entry list, and humming with the barest hint of excitement. After a quick knock, I entered and handed her the last two inquiries about weather engines. And then added a more curious one about a false report of in-flight refueling. She examined the information, held up her index finger to request silence, and made a quiet phone call.

The weather matters seem easily resolved. The pilots merely need to follow the spirit of the instructions. If they are to use an auxiliary weather program, they need to be sure that it generates live real weather in a manner that is at least as realistic as the default (Jeppesen-sourced) engine. That is to say: The weather engine depicts the current real world weather and it changes over time as weather stations are newly updated. The winds are not made artificially constant for takeoff or landing. Winds aloft, at high altitude, represent those in the real world and are not made artificially constant over the flight path. Program-induced maximum visibility limits are fine, minimum visibility limits are not. The weather at a distant destination aerodrome may change over time as the pilot flies the leg. And so forth.

As far as we know, Opus supplies the winds aloft from its own sources and does not need to have the default engine's "download winds aloft" setting. If we hear otherwise, the ruling will change.

The second request is to use FS Global Real Weather (FSGRW) which also inserts its own weather representation into FSX (and FS2004 and P3D). We do not have a direct source as to its operation or suitability for this event. However, the professional reviews (and forum chatter) indicate that it is comparable to Active Sky and Opus in their development path. Tell the requesting pilot that he may use FSGRW as long as he emphasizes realism and dynamics in his settings. From a distance, that means that he:




Chooses Dynamic Weather
Allows weather updates while on the ground
Uses the high altitude realism options (even if he is not flying at altitude, we want to be consistent)
Optionally employs natural wind movements (they are ok) if he wishes
Enables other options set toward realism -- as he prefers.


We emphasize comparability to the MSFS default weather engines with dynamic weather chosen. Some of these programs have plenty of extra features such as wake turbulence, enhanced mountain thermals, special densities for clouds, hurricanes, and so on. While admirable enhancements for our testing event, these features are not required.

It will be good to have the young fellow tell us his experiences with using FSGRW in this sort of event.

Finally, we have the instance of the Duenna monitor falsely reporting that the Lancair IVP added fuel when it did not. Apparently, some advanced models simulate the fuel flow in a way that works around the standard fuel weight in a way that keys the Duenna's false reports. We have had similar anomalies before. In these instances, as long as the pilot reports the case openly and quickly, then we can closely examine the flight record to insure that the apparent fuel addition did not affect the competition. This work-around suffice until we obtain a technical solution.


I smiled and quickly left the office. "This is going to be easy this year," I said to myself. "Everything is going to be routine…"

[Ron Attwood]

Wow! The efficiency round here is scary! :encouragement: For my part, I'm going to adhere to the original instructions and configure FSX to El Duenna's liking, as I'm pretty certain that Opus and ASN over-ride FSX anyway...I think.

The phantom fuel filling will be negated by the judicious use of properly prepared flight plans that, hopefully, won't necessitate the insertion of an ad hoc waypoint.


That's my weeks supply of big words all used up!

[salt_air]

If a pilot wanted to fly say the Puss Moth or any of the other range challenged aircraft that actually flew in the real race ... could consideration be made for fueling besides at only the prepared airports that are in the Official Control or Checking Point List?

Could the pilot maybe submit for approval a list of specified airports from the Unofficial Airports List that would allow covering these spans prior to starting the event and perhaps be held to those airports only without additional minutes added and no consideration if an alternate had to be used?



"My Hildegard" may not make it to Marseille without some pretty stiff tailwinds and there are five more legs that are questionable if not impossible for it to make.

How in the world could young Jimmy make it back home in 2nd place (Handicapped) to a DC-2 .... [the only solo pilot to finish BTW] ... with all those bloomin' penalty (doubled) minutes?

:wiggle:

[JimmyRFR]

If a pilot wanted to fly say the Puss Moth or any of the other range challenged aircraft that actually flew in the real race ... could consideration be made for fueling besides at only the prepared airports that are in the Official Control or Checking Point List?

Could the pilot maybe submit for approval a list of specified airports from the Unofficial Airports List that would allow covering these spans prior to starting the event and perhaps be held to those airports only without additional minutes added and no consideration if an alternate had to be used?

"My Hildegard" may not make it to Marseille without some pretty stiff tailwinds and there are five more legs that are questionable if not impossible for it to make.

How in the world could young Jimmy make it back home in 2nd place (Handicapped) to a DC-2 .... [the only solo pilot to finish BTW] ... with all those bloomin' penalty (doubled) minutes?
:wiggle:

Hmm, but wouldn't that effectively eliminate some of the challenge? My choice is going to be the Caudron C.450. At full throttle I can get anywhere from 440 to 540 nm out of it, depending on altitude. In order to traverse some of the longer legs, I have to throttle it back quite a bit, giving up on my top speed. In fact, some of the strategy becomes whether it's beneficial for me to throttle back and skip optional waypoints, trying to save on ground time at the expense of a slower overall speed. Although, I'm not sure how much is gained by throttling back the Puss Moth... one might be better served by a brisk walk, I suppose!!

[salt_air]

Hmm, but wouldn't that effectively eliminate some of the challenge? My choice is going to be the Caudron C.450. At full throttle I can get anywhere from 440 to 540 nm out of it, depending on altitude. In order to traverse some of the longer legs, I have to throttle it back quite a bit, giving up on my top speed. In fact, some of the strategy becomes whether it's beneficial for me to throttle back and skip optional waypoints, trying to save on ground time at the expense of a slower overall speed. Although, I'm not sure how much is gained by throttling back the Puss Moth... one might be better served by a brisk walk, I suppose!!

Hi Jimmy ...


Agree fully, but in the case of the Puss Moth I'm not seeing any engine settings that would allow for that leg out of Greece into Syria ... especially in any sort of wind.

Any consideration would need to be for all pilots that faced those same conditions.



Hat's off big time to you and the Caudron .... had my hands on it early to see if I could make it work and decided to fly another aircraft.

You'll have your hands full and a big round of applause from me and a cold beverage of choice when you get to Essendon!

[MM]

Again, up the circular stairs to Miss Nellie's domain. Opened the door, whispered Puss Moth, and handed the boss a Western Union telegram.

She opened up the file drawer and pulled out a manila envelope. And nodded.

For Milton Shupe's Puss Moth, the author provides an option to add tanks to reflect the fact that the aircraft was often used in long distance flight via installing increased fuel capacity. From the Installation notes:

"3. I provided many tank options in the aircraft.cfg for mileage ranges stated. Simply comment out the default and uncomment out the desired tankage."

If the young man would like to fly the Puss Moth with the Jimmy Melrose tanks, please let us know. The plane is certainly eligible. We shall send it down to Tex Winter's shop for evaluation. They will work out a handicap number that takes into account the increased range. (If no one wants to fly the Puss Moth, we won't put the demand on Tex's precious time.)

In the papers there is some news about a newly released increased-tank-capacity Miles Falcon Major by Keith Paine. If someone wants to fly that aircraft in the event, he should let us know and Tex will put it through the testing regime.


I turned on my heels, closed the door, and whistled my way down the stairs. "Gonna be easy this year…"

[salt_air]

Ah yes! .... "Read the Book".

I misremembered having that documentation at hand ... thanks Mike!



Appears that there are several tank combinations available.

I will have to run some numbers myself, but please let Tex know that I will post as soon as I can the desired tank option and will be grateful for him putting the new figures through the testing regime.

Proposal for use of TBD tank option should be ready for dispatch to 119 Piccadilly in very short order.



It's as if Miss Nellie knew this was going to happen .... she continues to grow wiser as more events go by.

For all of the trips up and down the circular stairs I have manged to orchestrate or otherwise be responsible for over the years .... I feel that I should donate a large portion of the proceeds (prize money) towards the installation of a lift at 119.



To be clear .... Can any of the tank options that Milton wrote can be utilized?

Also would it suffice to include the intended tank option in the registration post or would Tex rather I reply with that info here ..... or both?



Thanks again Mike .... please give a tip of the hat to Miss Nellie for me .... off to the drawing board.

[JimmyRFR]

Ahem... A nervous telegram has hastily been delivered to the offices at 119 Piccadilly.

It reads:

Please check Jimmy's flight from EGUN into LIRU [stop]
Many inconsistencies in flight log [stop]
Flight topped thirteen thousand nine hundred feet [stop]
Crash landed [stop]
Pilot survived [stop]

[SkippyBing]

Another message for 119 Piccadilly!

Skippy reports climbing to 12222' avoiding a thunderstorm on the coast of Turkey[stop]
Requests clarification if this is sufficient mitigation for exceeding 12000'[stop]
Will return Athens forthwith if required[stop]

[MM]

@SkippyBing. Miss Nellie seems busy and I dare not disturb her. Here my own quick judgment subject to further review.

You (or any pilot) may not exceed a ceiling in order to climb over a storm. If a storm thrusts you upward momentarily and you get back down to your cruising altitude quickly, then all is fine. The Duenna log will report your cruising altitude and indicate whether you are maintaining that "high"altitude or just got bounced for a few seconds.

If the event is as you described -- that you intentionally flew above the ceiling for a storm -- you would normally have to return to Athens and re-fly the leg. If you were bumped upward for just a moment, then you would not.

In this case, make your own judgment. Were you purposefully flying above the ceiling (for several minutes) or did you just "pop up"? If the latter (or close to the latter), then proceed. You exceeded the limit by only 200 feet. If you were above the ceiling for quite a while (cruising high), then please return to Athens.

(Making a real time suggestion: if you can "catch yourself" so that you are above the limit for less than 10 minutes, in this one instance, you may return to a proper altitude and proceed. We are all on the learning curve. But if you have been maintaining that altitude for a while, you will want to start over...without penalty.)



Another message for 119 Piccadilly!

Skippy reports climbing to 12222' avoiding a thunderstorm on the coast of Turkey[stop]
Requests clarification if this is sufficient mitigation for exceeding 12000'[stop]
Will return Athens forthwith if required[stop]

[SkippyBing]

Miss Nellie seems busy and I dare not disturb her. Here my own quick judgment subject to further review.

You (or any pilot) may not exceed a ceiling in order to climb over a storm. If a storm thrusts you upward momentarily and you get back down to your cruising altitude quickly, then all is fine. The Duenna log will report your cruising altitude and indicate whether you are maintaining that "high"altitude or just got bounced for a few seconds.

If the event is as you described -- that you intentionally flew above the ceiling for a storm -- you would normally have to return to Athens and re-fly the leg. If you were bumped upward for just a moment, then you would not.

In this case, make your own judgment. Were you purposefully flying above the ceiling (for several minutes) or did you just "pop up"? If the latter (or close to the latter), then proceed. You exceeded the limit by only 200 feet. If you were above the ceiling for quite a while (cruising high), then please return to Athens.

(Making a real time suggestion: if you can "catch yourself" so that you are above the limit for less than 10 minutes, in this one instance, you may return to a proper altitude and proceed. We are all on the learning curve. But if you have been maintaining that altitude for a while, you will want to start over...without penalty.)

Thanks Mike,

I'll continue to Baghdad at this stage and await the final verdict there. I think it was only a momentary climb as I was aiming to be at 11,500', where I could just about make out blue above, but was momentarily distracted and then realised I'd bust the soft ceiling so quickly dropped down to 10,000' at which point I broke clear of the weather system!
Still could have been worse, I could have misidentified a lake in Turkey and made an unnecessary course correction...

Skippy

[spokes2112]

Landed in OR1A, official scored correctly[stop]
Took off exact same place as landed[stop]
MacRoberston official says T/O was at Z15O[stop]
No such airport Z15O in 9/X[stop]

[SkippyBing]

Log for the flight where I exceeded 12000' attached, as I thought a one off as the rest of the recorded altitudes are around 10000' apart from one at 11787'. I really should have paid for something more than a basic pitch hold autopilot...

I respectfully await Miss Nellie and the committees decision, if needed I shall be in Baghdad's souk district.

13845

[MM]

@spokes2112. No worries. The race officials at the Jaap van Hees aerodromes will often be confused.

[JimmyRFR]

Another telegram for 119 Piccadilly

JimmyRFR reports plane fixed [stop]
Ready departure to Athens [stop]
Awaiting decision on validity of last leg flown [stop]
Will re-fly last leg if needed [stop]
Hopes weather fine in London [stop]

[MM]

A frantic first day with may aircraft in the air all at once. At the Club's desks, we on staff were kept busy compiling the reports from our observers in the field. We had several incidents that need some attention. Perhaps this may not be as easy as I had hoped…

Up the circular staircase, climbing heavily as I clutched a manila folder full of telegrams. They didn't shoot the messenger from Marathon, did they?

I knocked, entered, and gingerly handed Miss Nellie the bundle of problems. She looked at her watch, sighed, and commenced to read the first case.


After a while, she motioned for me to sit down.

1. First, the straightforward falcon409 crash on landing at Rome's LIRA. (EGUN-LIRA) This was apparently due to a scenery anomaly. While expressing our sympathies, there is little that the staff can do to change the result.

Ruling. The first crash-on-landing is a simple 15 minute penalty.

2. Willy had the dreaded "Duenna forgets to pick up the baton" experience. (LFPB-LFML) According to the pilot's testimony, the "Autoarm" button was ticked but the program did not do as expected. A glitch of course, but then it is the responsibility of the pilot to get the Duenna running properly. Happily, in this instance the pilot remembered to take a screenshot of his "Flight Analysis Screen" which can, in some circumstances, serve as a substitute for the Duenna. The young man is lucky on this instance as everything indicates that all was well with the flight. Be he should not believe that he can continue repeating this mistake.

(It should be noted that we have one pilot who cannot make the Duenna work on his machine. We are allowing him to substitute the Flight Analysis Screen for the Duenna simply because his computer will not cooperate. His special circumstance is distinct from the normal pilot who forgets to engage the Duenna or has a Duenna malfunction.)

Ruling. We shall accept the Screen Analysis screenshot in this instance. The leg stands.

3. Ron Attwood had two problems. (YMEN-YBCV) The first was an Out of Memory error (OOM) as he departed Essendon while using the Orbx scenery. This experience led to the NOTAM recommending that pilots using the full-fat Orbx Australia be sure to turn down their scenery settings when departing from or arriving at Essendon. Being a computer-only problem, the pilot simply reported the incident and restarted the leg. A non-event.

The second problem is a computer-controller glitch en route. At one moment, when the pilot was shifting from the internal view to the external view (using a programmed button on his controller), the aircraft surprising refilled the tanks with fuel. Those on the scene attest to the pilot's shock and puzzlement. A close examination of the Duenna confirms the report. The accidental refueling, in this case, did not have an impact on the nature of the leg, which was much shorter than the aircraft's full-fuel range. Seeing no possible competitive advantage, and accepting the testimony of the witnesses, we rule that this was one of those computer glitches that do not present any difficulty. Note, however, that this glitch cannot continue to plague the run. The pilot should make an effort to understand why the "view shift" button produced a refueling with this particular aircraft. He should effect a remedy.

Ruling. The leg stands as filed.

4. Spartan pilot spokes2112 reported a crash-on-landing on his arrival at Athens LGTT. (EGUN-LGTT) (He is using the Jaap van Hees vintage MacRobertson scenery.) Verbal testimony at the time, using vigorous language, indicated that the pilot had hit a building in the darkness. The Duenna record shows the pilot in the process of landing at the field, some 40 feet above the runway. The leg had been completed and the pilot was in the final circuit. This is a crash-on-landing.

Note that this "final circuit" or a "short finals" are distinct from a descent or "distant" approach, say several miles out, in which a pilot might hit a mountainside. This second situation is a "mid-air" incident rather than a "crash-on-landing" and carries a more consequential penalty (1 hour penalty plus the need to re-fly the leg).

Ruling. The first crash-on-landing is a simple 15 minute penalty.

5. Beech Boy 2 jt_dub experienced a computer failure but was able to persist. While en route, flying on multiplayer, he was cut from the server. Both FSX and the Duenna froze. Eventually, FSX restarted as though it were normal. The Duenna asked if the pilot would like to continue offline and he replied in the affirmative. The leg continued and was ended successfully with the Duenna tracking the event throughout. The Duenna record does show when the real time weather ended and when it restarted.

The evidence is entirely consistent with the pilot's report. The pilot will have lost a few minutes' time when his FSX was frozen. But the implied invalid leg is entirely explained by the events.

Ruling. The pilot has the option of re-flying the leg or accepting the slightly less optimal leg as it stands. (The pilot has indicated that he will accept the finished leg.) The pilot should not worry about it.

6. Pilot falcon409 has shifted aircraft from the Flying Stations Mew Gull to the Spartan Executive. This is fine. He should inform the staff as to which Spartan Executive he has chosen. (The Milton Shupe FS9 version ported to FSX or the FSNW (authorized) translation of the Shupe Spartan into native-FSX format? Note that the two aircraft have slightly different Handicap Allowances.

Ruling. The pilot may switch aircraft. The only consequence is that the entry is not eligible to win a prize. The pilot understands this.


Miss Nellie firmly pushed the report across the desktop toward my seat. I lifted it and slowly returned to cable the decisions to the racing community. This is going to be a learning experience, I optimistically thought.

[Ron Attwood]

The pilot should make an effort to understand why the "view shift" button produced a refueling with this particular aircraft. He should effect a remedy.

I can confirm that the pilot now understands (sort of) the reason for the button anomaly. He inadvertently assigned said button whilst in the middle of a brain fart! A remedy has been effected and no more such incidences will occur.

Thank you for your forbearance. :)

[MM]

Lucky to have caught Miss Nellie on her way out to tea. Showed her a couple of telegrams. She took a quick look and gave her blessing. "Tell the young men to keep up the excellent flying."

She turned, paused for a moment, and looked back. "Congratulate the lad flying the Lancair for fixing his technical problems."


1. JimmyRFR. The crash on landing is normal and the standard "repairs" penalty is in effect. The flight above the soft ceiling is fine. Miss Nellie sends a personal note hoping that you enjoyed your scenic tour of the Alps. You should depart for Athens at your own convenience.

2. SkippyBing. Your incident in the storms over Turkey is understandable. The evidence indicates that you were cruising well below the soft ceiling when the storm temporarily pushed you over the limit. You immediately returned to the lower cruise altitude. All is good.

(Note that the ruling would have been decidedly different had you cruised for a half-hour while over the ceiling. You did make a timely adjustment to the excursion over the limit.)


Good flying, gentlemen.

[paiken]

During my first leg between Essendon and Charleville, my FSX installation froze up and would not recover. I'm not sure if I should score this as a "bail out" or not. Could you please check with the rules committee (or Miss Nellie, but only if she's in a good mood) and let me know. I've read the rules regarding bail out's, but the rules made no specific mention about the program not responding. Thank you.
Patrick

[MM]

Hi Patrick. If you have a computer problem, you simply abandon the leg and start over. No bailout. No penalty. Just note the event in your thread and nothing gets added to your logbook. (It is as though the event did not happen.)

Note that the "computer froze up" situation is different from the "my wife insisted that I go to that wedding" event. The latter is a "bail out" for our virtual race...and perhaps more in real life.

[paiken]

Hi Patrick. If you have a computer problem, you simply abandon the leg and start over. No bailout. No penalty. Just note the event in your thread and nothing gets added to your logbook. (It is as though the event did not happen.)

Note that the "computer froze up" situation is different from the "my wife insisted that I go to that wedding" event. The latter is a "bail out" for our virtual race...and perhaps more in real life.

Thanks...fortunately I was only 30 minutes into the flight rather than nearing the destination. Mind is still a little fuzzy from last nights celebrations, but another cup of coffee has burned through the haze and things are looking sunny again.

[manfredc3]

I have a question for the committee.....
This weekend I was not able to make the full leg from Mildenhall to Marseille.
I do not want to cheat, so is it allowed to make a partial flight, like Mildenhall to Paris, and then Paris to Marseille the next day?

[Moses03]

You can certainly land in Paris as it is listed as an unofficial airport. Keep in mind though that the cost in time goes up.

From the rules:

* Additional Listed Unofficial Airports from the 1930s. These are contemporary airports with good facilities. However, the RAeC will not have prepared the local officials and airport staff nor will they have RAeC officials on hand to expedite matters. It will take additional time for the landing pilot to find and engage the airport maintenance personnel, to negotiate with the local government officials, and to arrange the appropriate payments. Refueling stops will take longer than at the RAeC official control or checking points: 90 minutes rather than 45 minutes.

[manfredc3]

Thanks Moses.

As I am not participating for the competition, but for the experience, I'l take the time hit.

[spokes2112]

New facts have come in. During the time the pilot was in the hospital the Greek Aviation Authority & Local Police did a thorough investigation into what caused the crash into the southernmost hangar at Tatoi AB. Reports from the Police state that during interviews with local inhabitants that at no time was the aircraft anywhere near an established approach and may have been lost. One such statement reported that the aircraft made a right turn towards Tatoi AB while flying very low to the ground just prior to hitting the hangar. The Greek Aviation Authority officially is reporting the cause as "Loss of Spatial Orientation" & "Controlled Flight into Ground".

The final report lists that the aircraft had 22 lbs of fuel left and the accident occurred at 19:55 Local time.

The pilot requests that the 15 minute penalty be rescinded and replaced with a 1:00 penalty. The pilot also requests using the "crash option" adding an additional 1 hour penalty. The crash option flight would take off from LGEL Elefsis AB or LGTG Tanagra AB @ 19:55 local with no more than 22 lbs of fuel on board.

Of course this option would have to be reviewed by Ms. Nellie as being a valid request.

Attached - Official crash reports.

13926

[Dangerousdave26]

If a pilot wanted to fly say the Puss Moth or any of the other range challenged aircraft that actually flew in the real race ... could consideration be made for fueling besides at only the prepared airports that are in the Official Control or Checking Point List?

Could the pilot maybe submit for approval a list of specified airports from the Unofficial Airports List that would allow covering these spans prior to starting the event and perhaps be held to those airports only without additional minutes added and no consideration if an alternate had to be used?



"My Hildegard" may not make it to Marseille without some pretty stiff tailwinds and there are five more legs that are questionable if not impossible for it to make.

How in the world could young Jimmy make it back home in 2nd place (Handicapped) to a DC-2 .... [the only solo pilot to finish BTW] ... with all those bloomin' penalty (doubled) minutes?

:wiggle:

Sorry for jumping in late.

Jimmy's Puss Moth was a flying gas can. The back seat was replaced with tanks (normal happens even today to ferry planes from US to Europe via Iceland). In our last Melbourne Event which was run shortly after Milton released the Puss Moth. Fliger747 had released a modified aircraft.cfg file with the appropriate tanks to simulate Jimmy's flight. This was an approved modification for that race.

I have to look at my backup of FS at home later I don't have the Puss Moth installed anymore. I will post the aircraft.cfg file and the committee can decide if they want to approve it. That is if I can find it.

One thing to note though she was very heavy and need a lot of runway to takeoff.

During our last Melbourne event some of my longer flights were 14hrs long.

[Great Ozzie]

I'm just looking at what we did in 2009... Dave, you and I had a flight longer than the "std" tanks.

http://fs-duenna.com/flights/ListFlights.php?detail=ac&value=DH80+Puss+Moth+Melrose

Here's what I have from that section of the aircraft.cfg.


------------------------------
//----- 436 miles tanks -----//

LeftMain = 0, -2.1, 1.5, 26.5, 0
RightMain = 0, 2.1, 1.5, 26.5, 0


//----- 570 miles tanks -----//
//range 285 miles/tank = 570 miles

//LeftMain = 0, -2.1, 1.5, 34.5, 0
//RightMain = 0, 2.1, 1.5, 34.5, 0


//----- 700 miles tanks -----//
//range 350 miles/tank = 700 miles

//LeftMain = 0, -2.1, 1.5, 42.5, 0
//RightMain = 0, 2.1, 1.5, 42.5, 0


//----- 1300 miles tanks -----//
//range 650 miles/tank = 1300 miles

//LeftMain = 0, -2.1, 1.5, 80, 0
//RightMain = 0, 2.1, 1.5, 80, 0

[falcon409]

While I was never an "Official Entrant" for the London to Melbourne Race, I am "Officially" removing myself from any further consideration in regard to legs flown, or aircraft changes. After three consecutive crashes due to rwy lights with crash boxes, an entire flight where the weather service for FSrealWX_lite was unavailable and a sim lockup this morning after 30 minutes of flight. . .the handwriting on the wall is quite evident. Good luck to the competing pilots!

[Dangerousdave26]

I'm just looking at what we did in 2009... Dave, you and I had a flight longer than the "std" tanks.

http://fs-duenna.com/flights/ListFlights.php?detail=ac&value=DH80+Puss+Moth+Melrose

Here's what I have from that section of the aircraft.cfg.


//----- 1300 miles tanks -----//
//range 650 miles/tank = 1300 miles

//LeftMain = 0, -2.1, 1.5, 80, 0
//RightMain = 0, 2.1, 1.5, 80, 0

I must have had the 1300 mile tanks installed.

http://fs-duenna.com/flights/ListFlights.php?detail=user&value=Dangerousdave&value2=&race=0&live=0&p=4&p=5

Notice one of my flights was 1,351 nm long and 17 hrs 50 minutes.

Now thats a leg. :very_drunk:

That install of FS I had the puss moth in is history. The backup drive is non responsive. it was an install of FS9 dedicated to RTWR it had few extras in it to keep it lean. I never backed it up anywhere else. Which is fine.

[flyon]

While I was never an "Official Entrant" for the London to Melbourne Race, I am "Officially" removing myself from any further consideration in regard to legs flown, or aircraft changes. After three consecutive crashes due to rwy lights with crash boxes, an entire flight where the weather service for FSrealWX_lite was unavailable and a sim lockup this morning after 30 minutes of flight. . .the handwriting on the wall is quite evident. Good luck to the competing pilots!

You're still flying P3D, right?

I'm in the same "never an "Official Entrant" for the London to Melbourne Race" category, flying in P3D myself. I would like to know there is at least one other P3D flyer out here in this event...

That alone not withstanding, you went and did all that duenna P3D testing for this event, and you're gonna just up and quit now? BS Ed.

Who else here knows P3D better? No one imo.
You're the P3D authority on this site in my book. Please reconsider... illegitimi non carborundum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum)

[MM]

This message responds to the request of spokes2112 for an adjustment of the ruling concerning his arrival at LGTT on 10-25-14. He asks for a one-hour penalty rather than a 15 minute penalty. And, having asked for a mid-air crash penalty, he also asks that the corresponding normal complete re-flying of the leg be substituted by a flight from a nearby field under the same conditions as the original incident.

I took the wire, along with the associated police report and witness accounts, up to Miss Nellie. She seemed a bit surprised at the request, but took the reports and got on the phone to Slipstick Williams and his accident investigation team. Several hours later, she sent down the following response.


Tell the young man that his request has received considerable attention. A careful reassessment of the claim and the associated materials led to a second investigation of the incident. The facts suggest the following.

The pilot intended to land at Athens Tatoi (LGTT) at night (at 18:55 GMT or 21:55 EEST local summer time) on October 25, 2014. [This is the Jaap van Hees 1934 scenery, located slightly to the west of modern LGTT.] The aerodrome has a relatively short hard runway with faint outline lighting. In darkness, the aircraft approached the field downwind from the southwest, flying northeast not quite parallel with the runway, and made a slow and gentle descent (59-62kts and -66 to -280fpm) for about 30 seconds as it neared the grounds. Then, in the last five seconds, the descent increased (to -385fpm and to -468fpm) and the aircraft hit Tatoi's southwest hangar.

The airport stands at 784 feet asl. The aircraft was last flying at 835'. Our on-scene forensics suggest that, a second later, it clipped the top of the hangar at 827'. (There will be minor differences of perhaps 6 feet in actual altitude and that of the aircraft's center point.) The airspeed, just before the crash, was consistent with a landing attempt. However, the contact occurred 0.1nm from the runway (though only one hundred feet from the grass field).

The police report notes that eyewitnesses believed that the pilot may have been disoriented. Our investigation, which includes reports from those listening in on radio chatter, corroborates in the sense that the pilot's description immediately afterwards indicated complete surprise. His comments suggested that he was circling to land and hit the hangar in complete darkness. The direction of the flight was across the runway rather than on line with it. (Although the grass field accommodates directional flexibility for landing.)

The sudden descent and drop in altitude further indicate disorientation. The aircraft was flying downwind just at or just below stall speed. The vertical flight path, with its sudden departure, is consistent with either a sudden downdraft or an accelerated/turning stall. In either case, the pilot was exhibiting poor judgment if his intent was to execute a landing pattern in darkness.

The evidence is technically consistent with a completed flight with a crash on landing. Had the pilot safely landed at the crash point, it would have been registered a valid leg. (The Duenna usually allows more than a mile leeway in what it counts as "on airport".) The hard evidence of airspeed and direction and descent speed are consistent with a final approach for landing. The verbal reports, however, indicate some pilot disorientation in the middle of a landing pattern.

For purposes of the penalty to be assessed, this incident illustrates a not-quite-standard version of a "crash-on-landing." The rule's intent is to recognize a crash when making a landing after a long leg has been (almost) fully completed. The relatively modest penalty aims to minimize the "racing cost" of a single incident that can arise from the first mistake on landing. (The penalty is 15 minutes for the first incident, 30 minutes for the second, and one hour for further incidents.) The rule also covers hitting a tree or a berm on the threshold or a crash landing a few hundred yards short of the field. This incident is to be distinguished from a crash due to running out of fuel, or flight into a mountain, or breakup in midair due to structural stress on the airframe. (Or, as one analyst suggested, hitting a duck.) For example, crashing into a mountainside 10 miles from the destination is a full-penalty mid-air crash. Crashing into a hangar on the field is a crash-on-landing.

The Committee acknowledges that the pilot believes that he was not landing and that a new flight, from a nearby field under the same conditions and the same fuel load, would constitute a demonstration of a completion to a safe landing.

The Committee recognizes that the pilot is likely to have been executing a pattern rather than actually landing. His maneuvers at low altitude show poor situational awareness and poor airmanship. However, the pilot had fully completed the leg's distance and was in the process of landing, for which pattern work is integral. The incident occurred on the field. It is covered by the intent of the crash-on-landing rule. There is no need to invent a new solution to the problem.

Ruling. The pilot's request is denied. The previous ruling stands. The pilot is deemed to have crashed on landing. The penalty is 15 minutes for the first such pilot error.


Thus, we regret to inform the pilot that his special request is not accepted.

(When I got back down to the staff room, one of the smart guys there observed that, while the Committee could not impose a different penalty, the pilot could. He could simply start his Duenna and record an additional 45 minutes on the clock before actually taking off on the next leg. Personally, I would recommend that the pilot abide by the Committee's ruling and not attempt to take matters into his own hands.)

[Willy]

I completed the flight from OIBB to OIZJ, bounced/rolled to a stop and to my amazement, I had a red duenna. The text file indicates 2 errors. There was no crash (although I did land on the sand next to the runway) and nothing else that I can see would cause an error. However, I did access the flight planner twice during the flight. In the original flight plan, I had included a ndb waypoint that as I got near the first one (LAR in the mountains) I decided the final one would be unnecessary. I first accessed the default flight planner and decided to not make the change. A few minutes later, I changed my mind, reaccessed the flight plan and removed the last ndb waypoint. I then saved the plan, clicked no to going back to the start point and continued the flight.

Errors:
30.10.2014 14:52:54z Warning: FS unavailable
30.10.2014 15:10:23z ERROR NEW: [Same A/C]
30.10.2014 15:10:23z AT N 27* 46.1' / E 54* 11.0' at 9334ft GS:220kts, IAS:182kts, VS:-122ft/min
30.10.2014 15:10:23z STATE
30.10.2014 15:10:23z AIRCRAFT / Counter 0
30.10.2014 15:10:23z
30.10.2014 15:10:24z ERROR RESOLVED: [Same A/C] (Duration 00:00:01)
30.10.2014 15:10:24z AT N 27* 46.1' / E 54* 11.0' at 9334ft GS:220kts, IAS:182kts, VS:-122ft/min
30.10.2014 15:10:24z STATE
30.10.2014 15:10:24z AIRCRAFT GeeBee_Model Z Merc Air / Counter 1
30.10.2014 15:10:24z
30.10.2014 15:13:39z ERROR NEW: [Same A/C]
30.10.2014 15:13:39z AT N 27* 42.3' / E 54* 18.8' at 9322ft GS:219kts, IAS:181kts, VS:0ft/min
30.10.2014 15:13:39z STATE
30.10.2014 15:13:39z AIRCRAFT GeeBee_Model Z Merc Air / Counter 0
30.10.2014 15:13:39z
30.10.2014 15:13:40z ERROR RESOLVED: [Same A/C] (Duration 00:00:01)
30.10.2014 15:13:40z AT N 27* 42.3' / E 54* 18.8' at 9322ft GS:219kts, IAS:181kts, VS:0ft/min
30.10.2014 15:13:40z STATE
30.10.2014 15:13:40z AIRCRAFT GeeBee_Model Z Merc Air / Counter 1
30.10.2014 15:13:40z

I'm attaching the text file for Miss Nellie's perusal.

[MM]

See temporary ruling in your thread.

Things look ok, pending an investigation by Slipstick Williams and his crack investigation team. You should proceed and for the moment ignore the errors.

[MM]

We received a sealed packet from our counterparts in Paris. Looks like someone had to make another trip upstairs…but no one volunteered. After a few minutes of standoff, I sheepishly agreed to go.

Miss Nellie was busy with a series of calculations when I knocked. "An international incident?" she asked as she took a quick glance a the yellow sheet with the ominous header Deuxième Bureau. Happily, it was from the less worrisome police de l’Air.



Apparently, the DC-2 pilot manfredc3 landed near the aerodrome at Paris Le Bourget (LFPB). He came down in the countryside near the commune of Noissy-en-France about 8 kilometers northeast of the airfield. He had to walk to the airport and convince two local members of the maintenance staff to work overtime and drive their trucks over to the landing spot and refuel the aircraft. Apparently there was some cheese, bread, and good wine involved in the negotiations. While eventually successful, the whole affair took a bit longer than the pilot realized.

There seems to be some question about how this foreign pilot was able to clear the regulations at Le Bourget without getting his passport stamped by the appropriate officials. The government asked that the pilot report to police headquarters in Paris immediately.

Happily, our colleagues at the RAeC and Whitehall were able to smooth matters and convince the government to revoke the arrest orders. It is helpful to have worldly supporters who have relations with other governments. The pilot should proceed and need not worry about the army at Aleppo.

In all the confusion, the pilot wants to account for the additional Ground Time associated with his afternoon with the refuelers. Instead of 1:30:00, the time should be 2:30:00. (In the Golden Age, LFPG is not on the "list" -- and of course did not exist in the 1930s.)

Inform the pilot that he evinced ingenuity in getting those French maintenance personnel to leave their station and work outside the official regulations. Let him know that we were able to keep him out of jail … this time.

And wish him well on his journey.

…

Oh, please tell the Gee Bee pilot Willy that Slipstick Williams has completed his investigation and that all is well. Apparently, in accessing the "menu" of his aircraft he triggered a momentary glitch in the Duenna. No problems here.


Back down to the staff room to send a couple of wires.

[manfredc3]

Thanks so much for all the effort. I was already wondering why those gendarmery were laughing at me and raising their wine bottles. Now I know why I only had a few boxes left after returning to the plane.

Kudo's to the french mechanics though, for being able to get my plane airworthy overnight. They told me they only did it because they rarely get to work on such an iconic bird.

The message of my mishap must have travelled fast, as eyes were constantly following me, and the pointing fingers got me nervous. For that, I am glad I made it out of there.

Thanks again for preventing middle aged jail time.

[srgalahad]

Crawling over to the Official Tent at Athens, I hoarsely whisper...

"Could you pass a request to Miss Nellie and her wonderful staff to, if possible, see that an appropriate handicap be written for my records... please... "<gasp, cough>

I need Ouzo!

...and sleep <thud>

[Moses03]

Submitted to Miss Nellie-

On our flight from OIZJ Jask to VIJO Jodhpur, we momentarily crested the soft ceiling of 12,000' by 13' to reach a max altitude of 12,013'.

From the co-pilot; "I tell ya...I should have stowed the beer kegs near the center but I didn't and they rolled to the back of the plane when we took off causing a slight nose up attitude. Yeah, that's it, nose up". (Think James Cagney voice).

[MM]

The Sikorsky pilot Moses03 self-reported an altitude violation. He was recorded at 12,013 which is just above the soft ceiling of 12,000 feet. Miss Nellie took charge and conducted several extended telephone conversations. (Apparently, the pilot has a close cousin on the staff. He excused himself from the considerations.)

Sikorsky pilot Moses03 exceeded the 12,000 soft ceiling by recording a maximum altitude of 12,013 feet. This is a violation because the 12,000 foot ceiling is meant to be observed except in cases of emergency or obstacle-avoidance such as surmounting a mountain range.

The investigation revealed that the pilot was cruising over Persia and India (Iran and Pakistan) at something like 11,800-11,900 feet for four-and-a-half hours of the flight. While this cruising altitude is near the maximum, none of the 10-minute Duenna cycles registered an altitude over 12,000 feet. The 12,013 reading was apparently a brief momentary violation rather than a sustained event.

The Golden Age soft ceiling aims to protect our pilots from dangers due to the consequences of oxygen deprivation. It is enforced as a rule to prevent pilots from taking risks merely in order to seek competitive advantage. Of course, pilots may choose to fly up to 15,000 feet if doing so aims to avoid obstacles and enhances safety. And in addition, we understand that the nature of the weather will sometimes produce sudden shifts in winds and barometric pressure that will "thrust" aircraft upwards and downwards in unavoidable ways. (Apparently, this has something to do with "bugs" in an electronic machine "program" that produces a "computational simulation".)

Thus, brief excursions above the ceiling may be allowed as long as they seem intended to insure safety or reflect momentary surprises.

However, pilots should take care that they do not intentionally or accidentally sustain flight above the ceiling. And when the lead pilot transfers the aircraft to a co-pilot or auto-pilot, he remains responsible for the aircraft's flight.

Accordingly, the prudent pilot should allow for a reasonable margin of error at all times. Even small weather shifts can cause problems when the safety margin is too close. And the command pilot should be especially careful when allowing others to fly his aircraft. (Some unsupervised co-pilots and autopilots will only poorly maintain altitude.) Under these circumstances, a momentary violation is understandable and may be allowed if it is immediately corrected and if it is not part of a pattern of sustained flight.

Ruling. This incident is judged to be a momentary violation of the soft ceiling. The record reveals no sustained flight above the limit. However, the evidence does show that the pilot cut his margin of error very close for a long period of time. He is warned that this carelessness should not happen again. No penalty for this violation. The pilot may proceed.


When I got back into the staff room, a brief note lay on my desk. Stick Williams (our chief investigator) wrote:

Miss Nellie cannot say this. But here in the office we are informally adopting a standard that multiple Duenna readings of flight above the ceiling will constitute prima facie evidence of either intent or unacceptable poor practice. Pilots who register multiple violations in the same flight (indicating 10-20 minutes or more in excessive altitude) should expect to re-fly the leg. Of course, extenuating circumstances may alter such a judgment.


The hope is that all pilots will take extra care when they allow their unsupervised assistants to fly the aircraft. Miss Nellie seemed more disappointed than upset. But it is never a good thing to cross Miss Nellie.

[salt_air]

Well after going over this flight and opening the flight log text file I see something I don't remember ever seeing before ... at least not to this degree.

14325

FS unavailable for the whole flight?

Errors:
02.11.2014 14:56:24z Warning: FS unavailable
02.11.2014 14:56:40z Warning: FS unavailable
02.11.2014 15:01:28z Warning: FS unavailable
02.11.2014 15:01:49z Warning: FS unavailable
02.11.2014 15:02:36z Warning: FS unavailable
02.11.2014 15:03:26z Warning: FS unavailable
02.11.2014 15:03:39z Warning: FS unavailable
02.11.2014 15:03:55z Warning: FS unavailable
02.11.2014 15:04:09z Warning: FS unavailable
02.11.2014 15:04:27z Warning: FS unavailable
02.11.2014 15:04:54z Warning: FS unavailable
02.11.2014 15:05:07z Warning: FS unavailable
02.11.2014 15:09:13z Warning: FS unavailable
02.11.2014 15:09:34z Warning: FS unavailable
02.11.2014 15:09:51z Warning: FS unavailable
02.11.2014 15:10:01z Warning: FS unavailable
02.11.2014 15:10:23z Warning: FS unavailable
02.11.2014 15:10:28z Warning: FS unavailable
02.11.2014 15:10:44z Warning: FS unavailable
02.11.2014 16:20:14z Warning: FS unavailable
02.11.2014 18:41:50z Warning: FS unavailable

Info: Looks like FS2004
Info: Configuration-File: C:\Users\Austin\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\FS9\FS9. CFG
Info: REALISM/CrashTolerance: '1.000000' (OK)
Info: REALISM/CrashDetection: '1' (OK)
Info: REALISM/StressDamage: 'True' (OK)
Info: REALISM/UnlimitedFuel: 'False' (OK)
Info: Weather/LoadWeather: '1' (OK)
Info: Weather/DownloadWindsAloft: '1' (OK)
Info: Weather/DisableTurbulence: '0' (OK)

Summary:
Direct distance: 568.4 nm
Flight time: 05:14:00
Baton time: 05:14:04
Average GS: 108.6 kts
Valid: VALIDATED

Flight Simulator: FS2004
Crash-Tolerance-Setting: 1.000
FSUIPC: 3.999z
Validation-ID: 382 0F0 D63 (Rev. 1)


New one on me .... any penalty here?

Refly with an adjustment somewhere or setting I neglected?

I can't fly again until Monday afternoon, so I'll chill out until I here back.

[MM]

Austin, we'll send this over to Stick and his boffins for closer examination.

At the moment, it appears that "FS was Unavailable" some 21 times during your long flight. That message may arise from many things, some of which we know and probably many that we don't. (I'm guessing that you did not access the FS9 menus 21 times in your flight!)

The Duenna record looks fine. All green. So you might as well go ahead with the next leg unless we hear that Stick sees something that is not obvious.

--M

[MM]

rwhsim. Off-airport excursion in search of Jask

Got a buzz and climbed up the circular staircase for news on rwhsim. Apparently Stick Williams and his boffins have examined the record and a ruling is in order. When I entered through the glass door, Miss Nellie merely smiled and, with a hint of approval, gave the verdict.



Pilot rwhsim apparently became disoriented while searching for Jask during an evening sandstorm. He skillfully landed on a nearby beach and obtained directions from the local citizenry. He then flew directly to Jask and crashed on landing, hitting an obstacle in the darkness of night. (Apparently the Jask runway maintenance leaves something to be desired.)

An examination of the timing indicates that the journey's first part (leg one for these purposes) was scored correctly. (Flight Time 5:12:16; and Routine Ground Time 0:45:00 for the work done in Baghdad)

The journey's second part (leg two) should be scored as follows. (Flight Time 0:21:21; Routine Ground Time 0:00:00; Special Ground Time 0:30:00; and Penalty Time: 0:00:00)

The Flight Time is the Duenna recorded time. There is no Routine Ground Time. The Special Ground Time reflects the amount of time spent on the ground while seeking directions. The young man spent more time than this but, because he was acting in good faith, we assess a fixed cap of 30 minutes to limit the damages. (In the event, he spent some three hours on the ground. He restarted the simulator clock to reflect only one hour ground time--and did not improve the conditions from that of a half-hour time frame. He landed in darkness.)

The crash at Jask would normally earn a fifteen minute penalty for the pilot's first crash. However, as he is a designated Rookie, the crash penalty is waived on the first (and second) such instance. Thus, there is no penalty assessed at this time.

Please ask the pilot to wire ahead to his future destinations to be sure that the runways are likely to be clear on his arrival. A bit of preparation can help avoid the occasional unexpected disaster.


Apparently all is well. And another note from Stick. Some sort of technical gibberish that rwhsim might be able to decipher:



We do not know the circumstances of the crash. The photograph suggests that there were scenery clashes between the 1934 scenery of Jaap van Hees and the underlying autogen. Those trees and buildings on the airstrip should have been eliminated by an exclude. You might check to see that the Jaap van Hees scenery is at the top of your scenery priority list -- so that his excludes will eliminate the autogen placed by your landclass.

[rwhsim]

My sincere gratitude to Miss Nellie and her team for this ruling, and for reducing the ground time at the off-field landing site so generously. Rest assured that should such an event occur again (heaven forbid!), the clock and engines shall be kept running while directions are sought post-haste and a rapid onward leg executed.


The photograph suggests that there were scenery clashes between the 1934 scenery of Jaap van Hees and the underlying autogen. Those trees and buildings on the airstrip should have been eliminated by an exclude. You might check to see that the Jaap van Hees scenery is at the top of your scenery priority list -- so that his excludes will eliminate the autogen placed by your landclass.


Stick's coded message understood. I reply in code he shall understand. Confirmed that Jaap van Hees 1934 scenery was top of scenery list. An exclude file existed in the scenery folder of said add-on scenery, but possibly was corrupt or being ignored by the Prepar3D computer machine thingy. Have radioed ahead to all other fields at which stopovers are planned, and no such problems exist with any of these.

Messrs ADE (Ace Demolition and Engineering) arrived yesterday, and co-opted hordes of locals armed with axes, picks and hammers (with a generous day's wage each supplied by my sponsor Lord Goldrich). An absolutely splendid job has converted Jask to a manicured field that should double as a fine golf-course. Note that no re-positioning of the landing strip was done during this process; it was merely watered down and rolled flat and hard, using a roller borrowed from a local cricket club!

14455

Any P3D user still planning to visit Jask is welcome to contact me if they have the same problem, and I shall upload my modified AFCAD file (nothing to do with Africans now!)

Rob

[MM]

Dangerousdave26. Early Incidents.

A quick note sent down from upstairs. In Miss Nellie's handwriting.



A clarification for Dangersousdave26 on his first days in Australia.

Post #5. Wrong aircraft. Aborted and restarted. No advantage. No problem. No penalty.

Post #7. The overstress looks to be a mid-air crash, flying at about 7,000 altitude. This occurred almost 3.5 hours into the leg, at 4:07:23 UTC on 10-26-14. The penalty for a mid-air crash is a one hour penalty and a need to re-fly the leg. No Flight Time on the log. Done.

Post #11. Controller abort. This is a "computer problem" and a "non-event" for the race. No penalty.

Please remind the youngster that Accu-Feel is optional. And, when using Accu-Feel, turbulence is optional. A common practice would be to keep Accu-Feel operational for many of the realism and sound effects, but turn down or zero-out the added turbulence.

And please send along our best wishes for a safe and enjoyable journey now that things all systems are in good order.


Whew! No need to go up the circular staircase.

[srgalahad]

One of the office clerks was just going for tea when he heard "What are these guys doing?" in a fairly loud voice coming through the door of Miss Nellie's office. Knowing it was a sign of another one of 'those messages' he grabbed the tea service and gingerly entered the inner sanctum.

Miss Nellie was waving (or fanning herself with) what appeared to be a facsimile copy which he was directed to read.

3h46m - Arrgghh!!! FSX locks up completely! I get the Windows "waiting" circular icon, but no message to say that FSX is closing...
About 8 minutes later, having closed a whole load of other apps that were running, FSX comes back to life, and I'm still flying. Phew!! But by now, Duenna has lost its connection. I may have lost Duenna tracking, or it may still be running...

Anyway, I'll keep going, cross my fingers for Duenna, and make sure I get other evidence of the flight...

The next directive from her exaltedness was curt: "Get this to the technical staff, have them investigate and get it resolved!"
Cables and calls ensued and when the clerk was summoned back to "The Office" he was handed a note in Miss Nellie's own handwriting:

"Cable this Mr Spookster67 and tell him he may continue but must record the full time shown on his Duenna time-slip. The eight minutes he spent asleep, floating in the ether or visiting the spirit world is a minor penalty he must endure. Further, send a message to all competitors advising them that the technical staff AND I remind pilots that this is dangerous stuff and strongly suggest they avoid partaking of extraneous activities while in flight. No matter whether it is writing love-notes, communicating with the press corps or calculating how they might spend their prize monies, this sort of activity in the midst of a flight is known to have hazardous consequences and we cannot be sure that the next such technical glitch or gap in the continuum might not result in a crash or it's many equivalents. Mr Williams notes that electronic devices used in flight have been reported to have unpleasant effects on aircraft systems and are frowned upon, pending further testing."

The poor, shaken clerk went off to the communications centre to send the messages then wandered about the building closing all open windows. Shortly after, a small note was found taped to the stair baluster.
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here!"

[rwhsim]

Dear Miss Nellie and L-M Race Authorities

We hope you receive this note smuggled out of the Barracks at Z13T airfield, Allahabad.

ZS-GPL mistook the Z13T airfield for VIAL on landing yesterday, again in low visibility fog/smog. It appears the military in charge of this airfield have installed a secret weapon (probably electro-magnetic?) that "detains" planes landing without authorisation (The Royal Air Force may be interested in investigating). Our attempt to escape this "field" was captured on film, also smuggled out for investigators as evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_mH_zYRjXUI

Our attempt at escape could hardly go unnoticed, and led to the entire crew being detained and consigned to the airfield barracks. We hope the race authorities will be able to intervene on our behalf, and some solution / decision / judgment acceptable to all can be reached to allow this team to continue onwards.

Sincerely
Capt. Rob

[rwhsim]

Dear Miss Nellie

This message contains technical code (Simisms) that Stick should understand, and he may be able to explain to you, which may assist in your pending decision Re: the incident at Z13T.

Extensive testing, involving chasing many red herrings like airport flattens and excludes, has finally revealed the problem!

It seems that the Prepar3D engine has either changed, or has a problem with, the modeling of variable-pitch propeller behavior (as per FSX SDK). Since the DC3 in question is an aged plane designed for the FSX engine (similar behavior is experienced with all FSX conversions I have been able to test), it falls foul of this "problem". These planes cannot be moved / taxied downwind or crosswind under their own power (from a standing start) in the Prepar3D engine (if they are kept rolling, e.g. after exiting a runway, they can be made to move downwind/crosswind). From a standing start / stop these planes must have a headwind, component of headwind, or zero-wind to "break away" . If facing even slightly into wind, then no-problem, the props will "bite" and the plane is able to move-off and accelerate.

The landing at Z13T was onto a crosswind runway (shorter of the two). In desiring not to move the plane from the landing position, except slightly back down the runway to allow for some takeoff run, the DC3 Flying Springbok fell foul of this FSX model - P3D engine incompatibility.

Rob

[srgalahad]

Stick wandered into the office, bottle of Highland Malt and two glasses in hand and laughed.

"Did you see the note from that Douglas pilot about being stuck in the monsoon muck? Dang old airplanes that should be put out to pasture!"

"Why didn't he offer to pay the Indian Air Force to hook a couple of water buffalos up to the tailwheel of that Gooney Bird and drag it to some place on the airport where he could get better conditions and get his sorry crew over to VIAL? If that won't work we'll have to see if they can organize a training mission for one of their big Rooski helicopters to airlift the Douglas out of there and THAT will probably get expensive!"

"Betcha 'the boss' is not going to be any happier today but I'll try to keep her from going totally ballistic."

With that he got up ( and took the bottle with him) and sauntered back out the door whistling something that sounded like "Fly me to the Moon"

[salt_air]

I told myself that I would just fly along no worries and not bother the "staff" or have to have the Good Miss Nellie consulted for any reason regarding my efforts towards Melbourne ... yep, that's uh what I told myself .....


Flight Log text file attached for my flight into Aleppo from Tatoi AB has an issue .... not sure about any effect on scoring .... here now to humbly submit for review as time allows.

14709

The duenna never stopped running until it auto stopped after a clean landing at Aleppo Int'l.

Says flight was validated for takeoff and landing, but had an error in flight.

I noticed during the flight that (on the face of the duenna screen) there was mention in red type of overspeed for 0.00 secs.

All fields were green so I continued flying uninterrupted to destination.



Thanks once again,

[salt_air]

I told myself that I would just fly along no worries and not bother the "staff" or have to have the Good Miss Nellie consulted for any reason regarding my efforts towards Melbourne ... yep, that's uh what I told myself .....


Flight Log text file attached for my flight into Aleppo from Tatoi AB has an issue .... not sure about any effect on scoring .... here now to humbly submit for review as time allows.

14709

The duenna never stopped running until it auto stopped after a clean landing at Aleppo Int'l.

Says flight was validated for takeoff and landing, but had an error in flight.

I noticed during the flight that (on the face of the duenna screen) there was mention in red type of overspeed for 0.00 secs.

All fields were green so I continued flying uninterrupted to destination.



Thanks once again,



========================

After review: (hopefully now this is reduced to a simple question .... what's that you say ... salt_air with a simple question?)

I flew a test flight off line to check for overspeed indication and found it present as written in the config file at blistering 125kts top speed indicated and would continue that way indefinite no crash ... no damage written to air file? .... over my head.

Opened the flight log again and found a log of error for a duration of 12 seconds .... just as info for now citing GS: 127kts.

Further along in the log there are numerous entries where the GS is over 125kts .... mucho plenty ...

I see zero entries in the flight log of indicated speeds at or over 125kts


=== It has to get worse folks before it can get better .... but it does get better .... I think ===


Now .... copied and pasted from the aircraft cfg file paragraph.

[Reference Speeds]
flaps_up_stall_speed=43.000
full_flaps_stall_speed=43.000
cruise_speed=108.000
max_indicated_speed = 128 //Red line (KIAS)


Now with all of this tossed into a crap grinder .... let's see what the simple question is ....



[Is it the Ground Speed or Indicated Speed that is measured for overspeed assessments?]



Hopefully no one will have to make the climb up the infamous spiral stairs ... like they would have enough energy after all this reading.:mixed-smiley-010:

[MM]

A quick call down to Stick Williams indicates prima facie evidence for an unexplained "glitch" in the Duenna coverage. The 12-second failure does not indicate an overspeed. He says that the men will conduct a slightly extended investigation, but that you should not wait. Please fell free to move on now.

We all want to avoid having to bring Miss Nellie into this matter if it is merely a technical failure in the Duenna.

[srgalahad]

I woke this morning to find an envelope slid under my door. Fearing something from the hotel management or some 'agent' of the government, I was far from relieved to find it contained a note on the letterhead of 119 Piccadilly. (Oh, why ME?)

"Sir,
After the expense of significant time and following some unusual discussions we feel we can finally put this issue of Springboks, Wallabies, Water Buffalo and DC-3's to rest. It appears that the sticky situation that occurred in Allahabad is somehow related to failure of the crew to obtain and install the latest 'service Bulletins' for the equipment Mr. Williams calls "FSUIPC". Thus, we have determined that the pilot and crew "rwhsim" shall have to record the total flight time of the delayed segment from OIZJ to VIAL via Z13T as shown in his logs, plus the 30 minutes of 'Special Ground Time" that it took to determine he landed at the wrong airport.

Fortunately it arises that there is some familial connection between a member of the Race staff and a certain Brigadier of the Indian Air Force and as a result of carefully-crafted communications it has been ascertained that no charges shall be laid nor costs levied for the housing and feeding of the crew at the barracks and the arrangement for use of certain large animals. We have made a contribution on their behalf to the Indian Air Force Benevolent Fund in consideration of which we have assessed an additional 30 minute charge against the team in lieu of cash payment (which we deem unlikely to be able to collect in light of their loss of sponsorship).

Please communicate this information to the relevant parties forthwith and let us hope that we can enjoy a continued flight with no further interruptions.
We are pleased that there are some willing to be test subjects for this new "P3D" flight system but caution that the cost of the supply of ASA tablets in the office has risen significantly and will have to be considered for the future.

N."

PHEW! It seems the atmosphere at the top of the circular staircase has lightened somewhat. Onward we go!
In summary, "rwhsim" will have their log totals amended as follows: Flight Time OIZJ-Z13T + Z13T-VIAL + the usual 0:45 Routine Ground Time + 0:30 Special Ground time (Z13T) + 0:30 Penalty Time (IAFBF donation) without prejudice.

Is it 5 o'clock somewhere?

[MM]

manfredc3. Flight from LIRU-LGTT.

Another ring of the bell and back up the circular staircase. Carefully knocked on the glass door and was beckoned inward. Miss Nellie looked up from her paperwork and muttered something about Stick Williams' clearing up a backlog of paperwork.



Here is a ruling on the flight of manfredc3 from Rome to Athens (LIRU-LGTT). One of the staff forwarded the report several days ago, but it took a while to get a definitive assessment.

It appears that the young man took the beautiful DC-2 to about 13,500 feet and cruised for more than two-and-a-half hours. [The violation markers are 15:30:45-17:50:53 GMT on 1/11/2014.] The pilot declared a need to fly at this altitude "to cross the mountains." For the Golden Age (as here), the rules set a soft ceiling of 12,000 feet. They allow temporary excursions in the 12,000-15,000 range for emergencies or to clear dangerous terrain.

In this case two factors are relevant. On the flight path chosen, there appear to be no mountain ranges of above 11,000 or so. The vigilant pilot can easily avoid the few peaks that threaten the normal altitude levels. Further, the long period above the limit indicates a cruise rather than a brief excursion. Finally, the pilot will note that he is responsible for the aircraft even if it is operated by an unsupervised co-pilot or auto-pilot.

Normally, this sustained flight above the ceiling would constitute a violation of the rules and require a repeat of the leg.

However, there are mitigating circumstances. At the time of the leg, the case of another pilot's temporary excursion over the 12,000 feet ceiling was under review. The clarification was posted on November 1, 2014 just as the manfredc3 event occurred. Further, the pilot is a warmly-welcomed rookie and may reasonably have been unsure about how the rules apply.

Ruling. The sustained flight over the ceiling indicates a violation of the rules. However, the mitigating circumstances suggest leniency. There is no need to re-fly the leg here. The leg stands as flown.

And let the young man know that we are delighted to see pilot and crew continue onward without any evident symptoms of oxygen deprivation. Best wishes on a safe journey in the magnificent Uiver.



Well, this is easy news to deliver.

[ratty]

Er, excuse me . . . sorry to trouble you, but on my last flight I - er - lost my log. (Gulp)

My machine was acting up towards the end of the flight, so I was a little distracted. I'm sure I put it somewhere, but when the time came to post it I couldn't find it.

Please convey my sincere apologies to Miss Nellie, and my assurance that it won't happen again.

[Spookster67]

Er, excuse me . . . sorry to trouble you, but on my last flight I - er - lost my log. (Gulp).

Don't worry - they're also stored online (http://fs-duenna.com/flights/ShowFlight.php?flight=WxB9wZG4yKyYE58QqK51zM4NH8). Here's what you need:
http://fs-duenna.com/flights/logs/WxB9wZG4yKyYE58QqK51zM4NH8.txt

[Spookster67]

A question for Miss Nellie, please.

On leg 6 (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?90596-Spookster-s-Mew-Gull-adventure&p=917733#post917733), about 55 minutes in, my PC locked up completely, so I had no option but to hit reset and abort the leg. Does that count as a "bail out", or something else? I'll need to return to WMKA to fly the leg again. What penalty applies?

Thanks!

[PRB]

Er, excuse me . . . sorry to trouble you, but on my last flight I - er - lost my log. (Gulp)

My machine was acting up towards the end of the flight, so I was a little distracted. I'm sure I put it somewhere, but when the time came to post it I couldn't find it.

Please convey my sincere apologies to Miss Nellie, and my assurance that it won't happen again.

As Martin has pointed out, the data is online. I've retrieved it and updated your race log.

[Moses03]

A question for Miss Nellie, please.

On leg 6 (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?90596-Spookster-s-Mew-Gull-adventure&p=917733#post917733), about 55 minutes in, my PC locked up completely, so I had no option but to hit reset and abort the leg. Does that count as a "bail out", or something else? I'll need to return to WMKA to fly the leg again. What penalty applies?

Thanks!

Martin- Please see your race thread. A no penalty refly for the PC lockup.

[salt_air]

Me again .... :dread: ... with a question.

When I checked my progress in the Standings Screen, I notice that I musta mistyped ... in the "Go to Airport" ... OR0S instead of OR0G.

I had been checking/scouting down range (of what would be the next leg) before taking off.

Was ready to go back to Baghdad and take off straight away ... planning complete ... obviously paid no attention to the fact that wasn't at Rasheed ... Baghdad, but not Rasheed.



Reckon I need to know whether or not I need refly that one?

The flight would have been a couple of NM's shorter from Rasheed and I actually fueled at Rasheed.

Dumb mistake ... fumble fingers ... no excuse.

I'll await a verdict and prepare to take what gets handed down.

[PRB]

I fixed it. That's happening a lot at that airport. Not sure what the deal is, but it's "no factor".

[salt_air]

I fixed it. That's happening a lot at that airport. Not sure what the deal is, but it's "no factor".


A Gentleman and a Scholar .... thank you!

[paiken]

I noticed the yesterday that the handicap allowance for my flight has changed to 1:24:00 from what page 37 of the rules shows should be 7.4 hours. Is this a clerical error? Curious as it greatly affects my placement in the final standings.
Patrick

[Moses03]

Our main statistician has been out of the country on business with limited net access. That coupled with a few of the planes having the incorrect handicaps to begin with have presented a little bit of a problem. We hope to have the final standings out soon. Thanks for your patience.