Hello,
Is there way to create random failures during flight. Like low oil pressure, wrong magneto etc.?
Thanks
1 Like
While this does allow for failures, by setting it up the pilot know what will fail as well as the window of time it will fail. This can be good to simulate a specific situation, but I think what OP is asking for is if there is an option to allow for random failures in general: to which I believe the answer is no.
I’d also like this feature for a number of reasons. For example, I’m doing an around the world trip in a C172. Rather than choose the type of failure and when it would occur, it would be more realistic and immersive if the sim simulated a failure of any given system when I least expect it, forcing me to deal with the failure in a realistic manner.
As an example for how this could be simulated: the sim could allow a selection for “probability of random failure” before starting a flight, or even in the difficulty/assistance options. There are a number of ways it could be implemented.
It’s a bit boring knowing your plane is in 100% working order every time you take off. It’s just not like that in the real world.
4 Likes
That’s why I like to fly with live weather in the small GAs. Just to throw in that extra bit of difficulty. I like to pretend that I’m delivering emergency supplies or some widget that’ll get the furnace running again. 
I’d like to have a more global setting so that I could dial up a probability of failure that’s way less than 1/flight.
4 Likes
- To be realistic and immersive, the failure rate of any system in MSFS aircraft should match whatever it is IRL. Flying IRL is extremely safe which should be matched by MSFS. However, for training purposes, failures should be simulated as needed. For example, practicing a single engine failure at 500 ft after takeoff in IMC conditions.
- Every potential failure should have a corresponding checklist of procedures for troubleshooting. Some checklists need to be memorized because some failures happen so fast that there is no time to find and perform the checklist. For example, stall recovery needs to be acted on quickly and correctly to prevent a secondary stall or spin. I assume that each study-level aircraft has complete emergency checklists. Most other aircraft in MSFS lack complete checklists including emergency procedures that are packaged with the aircraft documentation.
2 Likes
Failures like tank leaks and others are so exciting! For example what to do against the imbalance one tank is almost full but the other one runs empty and it´s not possible to activate cross-feed and one engine will therefore be shutting off.
Or hydraulic pumps overheating, hydraulic leaks. The gear not going down and therefore being in need to use the gravity gear lever.
The 737 freighter has even a cargo room depressuration system if the fire does not go out when all extinguishers are discharged one can go to very high altitude and empty the air out of the cargo compartment to get rid of the flames.
But… nothing ever happens. Even with failure settings to very high (for the pure exitement…)
Not for stupid crashes - but to try saving the plane.
I think we agree but let me know if I’m not understanding your take: failures should occur at essentially the same rate as IRL failures. Ideally, the sim would have some behind-the-scenes logic with failure probabilities that are then occur in the sim proportional to the estimated failure probability.
If such a system were implemented, it begs a number of interesting questions and complexities including:
-
Should the failure rate be the same for all systems? For example; Is the IRL failure rate for control surfaces the same as failure rates for navigation instruments? (Probably not. How would that be accounted for?)
-
What would the “IRL” failure rate in the sim be based on? I’m sure the data exists but I don’t see manufacturers like Airbus and Boeing, or airlines tripping over themselves to share data (ex. Maintenance records) on rates of failure for various systems for their aircraft/fleets.
-
Legal/Licensing issues: similar to the question above, imagine failure rates for Boeing are higher than comparable Airbus aircraft: what sort of protest or threats to withdraw licensing might Asobo suddenly face?
-
How granular should the system failures get? Maybe attitude indicators fail at a rate 10X less often than altimeters. Should each instrument have its own failure rate, or would they be placed under a more broad umbrella of “instrument failures”? What about the rate of analog vs. digital displays? In theory, a C172 could have very different failure rates than the same C172 with a steam cockpit.
-
How would such a system interface with third party aircraft? Does this now cause additional and/or retroactive work for third party devs? More time = more expensive and potential increases to product release.
Its a cool idea and I’d love to see some version of it released, but given the mammoth list of bugs, wishlist items, and planned WUs, it’s hard to see Asobo adding an IRL failure rate option anytime soon.
1 Like
Correct me if I’m wrong, but i believe the RandFailures mod I sited above has percentage sliders by each possible failure. For example, you could set “left flap failure” to 2 percent and it would have that chance of failing.
All excellent points! The aviation industry requires strict maintenance designed to repair or replace parts before any failure. The NTSB and similar organizations have data about failures that result in accidents but it would be difficult to compile for MSFS. The Aviation Safety Foundation maintain a huge detailed database of aircraft accident information. They categorize reasons for failures and one category is Aircraft. This database deliberately excludes GA aircraft. An ambitious person could analyze all of these categories to produce somewhat meaningful “failure” rates. For example, there have been 9 APU failures over the past 55 years. This is an average of about 6 years between failures!
1 Like
Would it work to set the time range based on desired error percent and flight time? For example if you plan to fly a 2 hour leg and want a given failure to have a 0.5% chance of occurring, set the failure time between 0 and 24000 minutes? Does it work that way?
I notice that some aftermarket planes, in particular the C310R by Milviz, has an option to model wear and tear on the aircraft.
2 Likes
After I made my post yesterday I was thinking about “failures” in general. Looking at the incident reports from Aviation Herald for scheduled airliners, many of the incidents are bird strikes that create different types of havoc. A “bird strike” isn’t a specific failure but maybe having a “bird strike” failure as an additional option since they impact GA aircraft as well. Another common incident seems to be a general “smoke in the cockpit/cabin” that might occur due to a number of failures. A generic “smoke” emergency might be another failure option. Of course, the pilot has to determine the origin of the smoke!
1 Like
The Fenix Airbus has a bird-strike option for one or both engines
In 99% of all cases this is the cause of the smoke…
3 Likes
Another “failure” that occasionally happens IRL is pilot or co-pilot becoming incapacitated. MSFS sort of replicates this by having the AI co-pilot who hands ATC calls disappears making me handle the radio calls. And the AI co-pilot sometimes vanishes during an approach and arrival in IMC. This is when it would be great to have the ability to declare an emergency in MSFS.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.