Greetings!
I would like to suggest/request the addition of the TAM Linhas Aéreas livery to the Airbus A350-900 when the 900 variant is launched. As a matter of interest, TAM is the predecessor of the current LATAM, which became what it is today after merging with LAN of Chile. Before merging, the Brazilian airline TAM had already ordered the Airbus A350-900 and received several with its pre-merger visual identity. We in the Brazilian aeronautical community have great appreciation for TAM, as we have wonderful memories of the high standard of service quality, in addition to the beauty of its visual identity. Therefore, I earnestly request that you consider adding this livery to the A350-900 livery.
Very important note: if you decide to add it, I ask that you choose the aircraft with registration PR-XTA, as it was not only TAM's first A350, but the first A350 in all of the Americas (South, Central and North). And why is this important? Because PR-XTA has a design near the nose of the fuselage representing exactly this milestone (similar to what happened with the Ethiopian Airlines A350-1000, which is already in Aerofly). You can check it out in the photos below.
Another very important point: the design is written in English on the right side of the fuselage and in Portuguese on the left side, so remember that.
I would like to thank IPACS for the excellent work done so far!
Posts by elton747
-
-
So far I'm unable to reproduce this issue. If you can find the specific steps how to get the parking brake to be stuck on that would be much appreciated, then I can find a fix for it.
I'll try to do everything again the same way I did before to see if the error happens again. If I manage to reproduce it, I'll come back with more information.
Thank you for your willingness to help! -
I remember a few times when I flew the A321 and there were some problems with this also, especially after the push back, but in the PC version.
but one question, did you call the pushback on the stop bar and after that the problem begins?
No, I did not activate pushback on the stop bar (?). It was precisely because the problem occurred that I tried to move the plane with pushback, since there was no plausible option left... Still, it did not move. It was indeed a bug...
-
OK, that is very odd. Can you please confirm that the overhead panel has no white lights and no amber caution lights?
Can you please show me a screenshot of the ECAM electrical and hydraulics page?
Does this also happen on the A320 and A319?
There were no white or amber lights on the overhead panel, I can confirm that. I follow the procedures strictly and checked everything.
Unfortunately, I can't provide a screenshot of the hydraulic and electrical systems because I already closed that flight and have done others since.
It only happened on the A321. I’ve done three flights with the A319 and two with the A321 in the last six days, and there were no issues. -
If it happens again please post a screenshot of the parking brake lever and of the brake pressure indicator gauge next to the landing gear lever as well as the ECAM screen. With the parking brake set I expect there to be a green PARK BRK indication on the ECAM as well as the brake pressure gauge showing significant brake pressures.
But the logic of the parking brake is very simple at this time. So if the lever is set then the brakes follow with only a very small delay. I don't see why it would not release after releasing the brake handle. So please double check that the brake control is actually off.
I recorded the screen at the time showing the details. I uploaded the video to Google Drive. You can access it through the link below.
-
What happened?
I was taxiing to runway 16 of SBCF with the A321. Arriving at the stop bar, I stopped and activated the parking brake before entering the runway. When I deactivated the parking brake and accelerated the engines, the plane simply did not move. No matter what I did, the plane did not move (with the parking brake disabled). I even put the thrust levers in TO/GA and it still did not work. I also tried to move it with the pushback truck, but it did not work.
Detail: when I accelerated the thrust levers considerably - as if I were taking off - a warning appeared on the ECAM saying CONFIG PARK BRK ON, but it was not turned on...
I do not know if it was just a coincidence, but on this specific flight I was doing something I had never done before: a second flight leg without leaving the simulator to create a flight plan. I made the first flight plan (from SBGR to SBCF) through Aerofly's own navigation menu, but after I landed in SBCF, I didn't go back to the menu to make the second flight plan. I made it directly through the MCDU. I don't know if this may have contributed to the bug... -
FL430 is too high...
You didn't understand what I meant.
I'm referring to the fact that the programmed cruise altitude cannot be changed in the MCDU. At each waypoint, the system maintains FL430. I did NOT choose FL430. It stays there in the MCDU on the F-PLAN page in an immutable way. It is not possible to change it.
For example, on my last flight between VTBS and RJBB, the programmed cruise altitude was FL370 and then a stepclimb to FL390 (flying with the A380). However, even though I selected the FL370 altitude in the MCDU, the system does not update it on the F-PLAN page. It maintains FL430 for all waypoints at the cruise level. It is not possible to change them, not even one by one directly; the system simply does not accept changes. This ends up causing some problems, for example: on the ACTIVE/PERF page, where we have the flight phases (T.O, CLB, CRZ, DES, APPR, GA) the system does not leave the CLB page, even when we stabilize the flight at cruise level. This is a problem because the flight computer understands that we have not yet reached cruise level, since it erroneously establishes FL430 against the will of the pilot in command. So it spends the entire flight believing that the aircraft is still in CLIMB mode. This happens on both the A350 and the A380.
Another reflection of this error is that on the altitude and route graph on the navigation display, the aircraft is always outside the altitude line, for obvious reasons, as I have already explained. -
Why can't I change the altitude on the F-PLAN page in the MCDU of the A350 and A380? The system maintains FL430 throughout the cruise level.
-
A disconnection is not simulated. The thrust locked indicates that the stall protection has activated and the current manual input is overwritten by the protection max thrust command.
The correct recovery from the stall is to reduce the angle of attack and to increase airspeed.
FL410 might be above the ceiling for the current weight, which is near Max landing weight. I'd recommend staying below FL390 and keeping the speed high for increased Mach ram air effect, which increases thrust. If you get too slow then you can only recover by diving down, which means loosing 5000ft or more.
I didn't know that the A35K's weight was set to something close to MLW. In fact, this must be preventing us from flying at high flight levels, which is a shame, because it is completely realistic to fly so high on short routes like SAEZ-SBGL and in the final legs of long-haul flights, which already consume a lot of fuel, and the step climbs programmed in SimBrief allow us to reach altitudes like FL390, 410...
I am used to flying the B77W and have never been in situations like this. If it is also configured by the system with a total weight close to MLW (which is actually 30 thousand kilos more than the A35K), then this shows how impressive the power of the GE90 engines is, which deliver about 18% more thrust than the RR Trent XWB.
Does IPACS intend to add fuel consumption and its consequences on weight and balance in the future? What is the main challenge that prevents us from already having this in the simulator? -
Greetings!
Before starting this topic, I want to make it clear that I'm not an expert and I don't know if my conclusion is correct, so feel free to add your knowledge to this thread.Here we go... I was flying BAW248 between SAEZ and SBGL with the A35K. My planned cruising altitude was 41,000 ft. From the ground up to cruise level, the wind was around 2 kts. Once I leveled off at FL410, I remembered to adjust the wind speed according to the real flight plan from SimBrief. In this case, the forecast indicated a tailwind of 79 kts. Since Aerofly allows a maximum of about 39 kts, that’s what I set. I went back to the main menu and increased the wind speed to the maximum, as well as adjusted the direction to match the forecast. Then I jumped back into the flight and continued as normal...
A few minutes later, I heard the autopilot disconnect alarm. Along with it, there was an alert on the ECAM saying “ENG THRUST LOCKED,” and on the PFD it showed the aircraft had entered "A. FLOOR" mode (ALPHA FLOOR). This A. FLOOR mode is a stall protection that automatically activates to prevent the aircraft from losing lift.
Since A. FLOOR was keeping the aircraft flying, I decided not to address the loss of lift right away and focused first on the ENG THRUST LOCKED alert. I tried a few things based on my knowledge, but nothing worked. So I quickly searched ChatGPT about the ENG THRUST LOCKED alert, and according to it, this condition occurs when the aircraft loses the signal between the thrust levers and the FADEC. The recommended procedure was to move the thrust levers to idle for about 3 seconds and then move them back to climb or TO/GA. This should resynchronize the FADEC with the lever positions — but it didn’t work.
So I decided to exit A. FLOOR mode by diving to regain speed. After recovering, I climbed back to FL410 at the same planned speed, Mach 0.85. Everything was fine for a few minutes, but I noticed that the speed was gradually decreasing. I didn’t interfere — I just observed the aircraft’s behavior to try to understand what was going on. Eventually, the speed dropped enough for the aircraft to enter A. FLOOR mode again, and the “ENG THRUST LOCKED” alert showed up on the ECAM once more. I tried again to resynchronize the levers by moving them to idle and then to TO/GA, but it still didn’t work. So I dove again to exit A. FLOOR mode and climbed back to FL410. Since I was already close to TOD, the issue didn’t happen again. I began the descent and landed normally.
But I wasn’t able to solve the in-flight emergency or identify its root cause.
In discussion with a friend, we came to the following conclusion: the fact that I abruptly changed the wind speed and direction from 2 to 39 kts caused a “shock” to the aircraft when I returned to the flight, which made the FADEC lose synchronization with the thrust levers. And maybe due to some limitation of the simulator — after all, we’re talking about a mobile simulator — it was unable to resynchronize. Also, it’s worth noting that I was flying close to the aircraft’s maximum operational ceiling, which in itself puts the aircraft in a more sensitive flight envelope. Could we be right?
Another thought I had was regarding the lack of fuel consumption in Aerofly, which leads me to believe that the aircrafts have fixed and unchangeable weight and balance. If that’s the case, then maybe the A35K wasn’t designed with the correct weight and balance to remain stable during flights with strong tailwinds at very high altitudes, close to its operational ceiling. Please clarify if that’s how Aerofly works.
Thanks to everyone who reads and replies!
-
I'm from Brazil, I miss Brazilian paintings, the only ones that are available are from TAM and the FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL, some Brazilian paintings that may be available:
Gol
Azul
I know it takes a long time to make the planes and the paintings I don't know, but I hope to have these paintings one day.
I know you really want to see other Brazilian liveries on Aerofly, but I must remind you that there are not only these two that you mentioned. These are all the Brazilian liveries present on Aerofly:
LATAM Brasil Airbus A319-100 (PT-TMT)
LATAM Brasil Airbus A321-200 (PT-MXJ)
LATAM Brasil Boeing 777-300ER (PT-MUI)
TAM Linhas Aéreas Boeing 777-300ER (PT-MUJ)
TAM Linhas Aéreas Airbus A320-200 (PR-MHW)
Avianca Brasil Airbus A319-100 (PR-AVB)
Força Aérea Brasileira Airbus VC-1A (FAB2101)
Robinson R22 (PP-MQQ)
I also want as much as you - or even more
- new Brazilian liveries, but for that, we need them to launch new planes first, like the Boeing 737-800NG/MAX8 and Airbus A320-200neo so we can receive the Gol and Azul liveries.
I know that Azul has already operated the Airbus A320-200ceo and it would be great to have this livery until we have the addition of the A320neo. As a curiosity, the A320ceo that it operated was the PR-AJB. Here is a picture of it below:
-
I think a private jet like a G550/650 or a PC24 would be nice to add to the sim.
I love Gulfstream jets, but unfortunately they do not allow their aircraft to be developed in simulators.
Although IPACS already has a relationship with Bombardier - see the CRJ-700 and Learjet 45 already present in the simulator - I believe that the best manufacturer for new executive jets would be the wonderful Embraer.
They have amazing executive jets! It would be incredible to be able to fly the new Praetor 600 on Aerofly or the jets from the Legacy family.
While we are talking about Embraer, please IPACS, if you ever consider adding Embraer E-jets, start with the E-195 E2.
-
I would like to request through this post the addition of Tahiti-Faa'a Int'l Airport - NTAA, French Polynesia.
It is an iconic airport located in the Pearl of the Pacific! There have been and are some great real-life flights to take there with interesting airlines that we already have available on Aerofly; Air France, Corsair, Air New Zealand, United Airlines...
Also, the addition of this incredible airport would fuel the desire to have the Boeing 787-9 available in the simulator with the wonderful liveries of Air Tahiti Nui and Air New Zealand.
-
New year, new information, new images... Do we have it?
-
Flight controls are moving! It's quite funny how the outer most spoiler raises up for flaps CONF FULL but not for CONF 3
Considering that you prefer to add the largest variant of each family first to facilitate future updates, I imagine this is the A350-1000. If it is indeed, then something needs to be fixed... The A350-1000's winglet is slightly different. That winglet is identical to the one on the A350-900...
See the A350-1000 winglet below.
-
Thank you very much for this incredible aircraft, I hope to see the Brazilian presidential painting as well
I would love to see this livery in the simulator too! I hope it gets added, it would be awesome to fly in it!
-
We're happy to announce that the A319 is coming to Aerofly FS soon!
The Airbus A319 is the third member of the A320 family and has a slightly shorter fuselage compared to the A320. Just like the A321 this aircraft comes with two engine options: the CFM56 and IAE V2500 engines, which depends on the airline livery that you select. Some liveries also have the Sharklets installed.
In terms of features the A319 is very similar to the A320 or A321 but of course this aircraft is the lightest variant of the family and has a shorter takeoff and landing distance, ideal for smaller airports.
Announcement and Screenshots:
Thank you for this addition and for all your dedicated effort. I am even more grateful for having taken the time to add a Brazilian livery!
Avianca Brasil was an extremely respected company here, it always provided a very high quality service and we are proud of it! I'm excited to fly the skies of South America and the world with yet another variant!
-
When I go to the bakery and buy bread, I pay. Nevertheless, I am very grateful to the baker for selling me bread. Even though I have paid an annual subscription, I can still use IPACS very well
You're right, what I find strange are the members acting as if they were partners... "IPACS this, IPCAS that..."
IPACS is not your football team, you understand? Lacks pragmatism... -
We never thank them enough 🥲
You need to review certain principles. IPACS is a company!
I'll cite as an example the competing simulator, you know who I'm talking about, it's the most famous, it has online multiplayer, etc... Its community simply became a lot of kissing the developers' ass, when someone questioned something in the community, A group of lunatics appeared defending the company as if they were simply perfect and did not have the responsibility (self-assigned, by the way) to always seek the best for the simulator. There were countless stupid mistakes and there was no clear criteria for what they wanted to deliver to customers (we, who paid for it).
Fortunately, this is not the case with IPACS, I have nothing to complain about until then, I know that they make a great effort to deliver the best and we see this in the results. Even though we don't have things like fuel limitations, real weather, multiplayer, it's perfectly understandable, given the absurd quality of all the other items. However, here's my addendum: don't get carried away by fanaticism, we are clients, not partners. We must expose our expectations with the simulator, not try to reduce what part of the community wants to be added.
Do you thank the ATM for withdrawing your money? So why should you overly thank a company for providing you with the service you paid them to provide? It may seem a little rude, but the reality is one. And it's okay to show gratitude for the developers' work, but this is perfectly done through constant subscription renewals, purchasing new planes, reaching out to newbies... Anyway, I hope you understand. -
I agree with the focus on realism. Nevertheless, isn't it fantastic that we will have another aircraft to explore globally? Whether it's the -900 or the -1000, the developers are clearly dedicated to making this simulator exceptional.
I understand that everyone wants to fly their favorite livery. However, let's remember that this is a mobile flight simulator. What is being offered here surpasses anything I could have imagined 10 years ago.
Moreover, other teams seem to be working on additional improvements. It's going to be great!
Yes, getting both -900 and -1000 will be great! But that doesn't change the fact that the experience with the -1000 will be limited for those who REALLY seek realism by only doing real flights.
I can even use the MAX 9 itself as an example, which despite having many units in the Americas operating for United, Alaska, Aeromexico and Copa, in the rest of the world there are few companies and few routes that use it. If it were the MAX 8, WOW, we would have wonderful possibilities all over the globe.
Yes, I am very grateful for the very high level of quality that IPACS delivers, for a very good price, by the way. But a forum exists precisely for this, to debate ideas, express our wishes, evaluate, and of course, strengthen the community.
