Um, no.

Both XP and FSX can be certified as a PC-ATD, good only for IFR work (I think 10 hours), and only with a specific hardware configuration. You just can't throw a PC on a desk and call it a PC-ATD.
It can only be logged as "Simulated flight time" and not regular flight time.

There's a FAQ that covers this as part of the Part 61 regulation - www.aerodynamicaviation.com/documents/pt61FAQ.doc

The heading "What is a PCATD?" covers what you can and cannot do with a properly certificated PC-ATD.

To be certified as a PC-ATD, it must follow the guidelines set forth by AC 61-126 and it must be pass an on-site inspection.

g.

The "right hardware" bit indicated that you need more than a desktop PC with the FS installed.

Sorry, why would I wish to 'hunt' for your work??



How about the jump seat of an Airbus 330 having a detailed conversation with the pilots? At any rate, there's plenty to learn in aviation which is why I take stock in the opinions of experienced, commercial pilots rather than rely on my own views exclusively.




Perhaps not - or perhaps the FAA takes a common view against desktop 'simulators' and that view is 2.5 hours is what you get. However, my opinion was not formed on the views of the FAA with respect to certification; my views are formed on the basis that commercial pilots I have met (multiple, from different airlines) consider MSFS the preferred choice for a number of reasons including 'approach rehearsal' -more specifically - this was achieved with the LDS767 add-on installed.

But reading this:

This makes sense - essentially the FAA is completely ignoring the flight model at any rate - so it wouldn't matter whether X-plane's modelling is a joke or not because it is only being evaluated by the FAA on it's approximation of simulating an aircraft tracking a VOR radial, etc.




Well, I have my own opinions about Aces/Microsoft collectively but without actually being there, no one will know for sure. What I CAN say is that, regardless of WHO was at fault, creating a product that did not include 64-bit, multi-core support off-the-shelf (which FSX now does after patch) on the back of an OS that was being touted as doing precisely that was the biggest farce in MSFS releases I have ever seen.

But let's call a spade a spade - MSFS code-base has been stale for a very long time. It needed to be dropped and rebuilt (aka 6-million-dollar-man style) and hopefully Flight will be the overdue re-engineered product that we should have had with FSX. Through the hands of fate, however, we should be far better off with a product developed now rather than earlier because it will be done with Win7, DX11 and GPU trickery in mind which had not existed in 2006.




Bug-free was not the point. FSX was a shiny, new car that had been delivered without a decent suspension system. That's not a bug - that's a design flaw. Completely different problem.




I doubt anyone on the 'Flight' team will lose sleep over your 'goodwill' (or lack thereof) - but you are welcome to your indulgences, particularly if you are placing heavy stock into the ATC/AI which is completely secondary to the essentials in my view.

Personally, I think they are making all of the right noises. They are starting with the most complicated form of scenery first and are working down from there.
A fine plan to be sure.

Time will tell what we actually end up with.

You've asked for it for reference puurposes or something like that...


As for the rest: Fair enough. I have no interest in continuing this.

Yes, I did. Are you not willing to cite your work? You said you were an FS developer. I just wanted to see what you've done. Isn't that fair?



Hasta La Vista!

hasta la vista actually but what does it matter anyway.

lol - right you are, Dave.
Spanish: not one of my strong suits