The instructor may also want to consider visually checking the checklist as the student performs it to prevent this from happening again, or something similar. After all, the instructor is the PIC...

The student moved the switches to the OFF position on downwind, without telling his instructor. It sounds like everything was kosher at the completion of the after-takeoff checklist.

This statement pretty much sums it up. It can be found in the 7110.65 4-7-1 Altitude Information -

A descend via clearance must not be used where procedures contain published “expect” altitude restrictions.

This is the proper response to the question on DEN's procedures. The POWDR, LANDR, LARKS, QUAIL, SAYGE, TOMSN, RAMMS, and DANDD arrivals all have "Expect clearance to cross" information printed on the chart. We issue "Cross [fix] at and maintain [altitude]." Our new RNAV arrivals have crossing altitudes that make the use of "Descend via" appropriate.

[!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Kris Kendrick)--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE (Kris Kendrick)[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I think the important thing to understand is that the LOA's are set up in the RW to maximize flow and efficiency. I am a firm believer that our LOA's do not necessarily have to be a carbon copy of the RW, as long as it works for us in the environment that we are working in.[/quote]
The only thing that would be in an LOA would be crossing altitudes in the case of STARs with "Expect to cross [fix]" information. The use of "Descend via" would be contained in a facility SOP or addressed to controllers in training. I get your point, however.

I'm not trying to be a pessimist, but is there any evidence that MS was actively working on FS11? The petition asks Microsoft to "resume" work on it, but I don't even believe there was any work done on it period.

There's also a license now that Lockheed owns which may prevent Microsoft from doing anything with the series. It may be best to show Lockheed that there is demand for this type of product.

"How do you read" when you file /R/ is the result of people filing /R/ and sometimes /V/ when they actually meant to file /T/. /R/ pilots sometimes send a text, to which ATC responds on voice, and then 5 minutes later the same pilot sends another text, usually something like "??" Sometimes we have to check to make sure you're really able to receive voice as it says in the flight plan remarks.

Zach,

I think a number of us were confused when you said "I don't get why we base our operations on the real world... ," after Don had said we will be (to an extent). I think that was the basis of Rahul and Marcus's responses, though I can't really speak for them. Re-reading your quote it looks like you meant to say something else -- that this isn't a big deal. I agree.

Another tip...you can use the Java AIRMET/SIGMET viewer if you'd prefer not to scroll through a bunch of text. IRL the weather displays in towers and centers automatically grab the appropriate SIGMETs for the area and put them on the computer display or send it to the flight strip printer.

aviationweather.gov --> SIGMET/AIRMET --> Java Tool

Mouse over the SIGMET/AIRMET icons to get the full details on the advisories.

Congrats, Nils!