Bugs

[Guest Pilot53]

After the patch I noticed that most of my problems had not been fixed. 1. The AP Disc message cannot be cancelled2. The Button for ext pwr on the VC overhead works but is not animated.3. The exec light on the fmc does not work in the VC.4. The LOC capture was not horrible but it was not smooth.5. The aircraft autolanded the plane very hard.I think its time pss started work on another patch and formally announced it. Either do that or refund my money.

[psolk 3,040]

Mike,I do not work for PSS but here is my .02. I don't see anything on that list that warrants a refund and minus # 5 I don't even see any that are more than a minor inconvenience.1. Norman and a r/w pilot have already commented that the only way to disable that message in r/w is to doubltap on the Pilots Control column. Disconnecting the A/P in a r/w T7 via the MCP leaves that message as well. It appears to be a FS thing right now...2. You want a refund for a non-animated button? PSS has stated on numerous occasions the last patch was specifically for the flight mechanism of the plane, not the VC or Model. The funny thing is if you have the 2d overhead open like I do and click on the ext-power button on the 2-d it animates in the VC.3. Haven't noticed that one, I will try to verify. I use my CDU on a second monitor and my overhead on a third but I think this is the same thing, when I program the CDU in 2d it animates in the VC...4. Based on your sig and being a proud PMDG supporter I am sure you will know that PMDG actually had to make the ILS intercept LESS stable based on feedback from r/w pilots that is was way too smooth in the sim. Is this really a PSS issue or are you a T7 captain with experience in how it intercepts and holds the ILS? I like the movement on approach, much more realistic...5. Never use Autoland here LOL, always disconnect and hand fly unless it is 0/0. Can you define hard? How many FPM are we talking? Was there any flare at all? -PaulLiquid CooledAMD 4000 San Diego2 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2Dual 7800 GTX 24 inch widescreen dual 19 inch LCDRaid-0

[Guest Ron Service]

I would agree that the autoland V/S is probably too high. I have tried many approaches with different loads, and the V/S is still around 600 fpm. Now I am not a real pilot but I would think the V/S should be 300 fpm or less.The level D 767 for example is around 200 fpm in a worst case. Hopefully another patch will address the remaining issues.Ron

[psolk 3,040]

I would agree with that, 500 is going to be a darn good bump, 300 or less is good. LDS has one of the nicest flares I have ever seen in FS..Hopefully this can be looked at for those that use Autoland. One question though, are these CatI or CatIII approaches?-PLiquid CooledAMD 4000 San Diego2 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2Dual 7800 GTX 24 inch widescreen dual 19 inch LCDRaid-0

[FOD 23]

I suggest we wait for a real world 777 pilot to comment.There are many factors which ensure a good landing and the apparent vertical speed on touchdown is just one - and this will vary tremendously depending on what you are trying to achieve. Compare landing a jet fighter on a carrier with putting a glider down in a nice long flat field!John R

[Guest Ron Service]

It is possible that the V/S indicator programming does not have enough time to change to a lower "indicated" rate during flare.The gear certainly does not indicate damage.My autolands have mainly been done in fair weather.As you say, comments from a real world pilot would be welcome.Ron

[Guest Pilot53]

mod: falling into your old ways again Mike...

[Guest Pilot53]

Is there another patch being developed because obviously the 777 isnt fixed yet. After months of waiting I thought the patch would fix the plane 100% but I guess not.

[Guest NormanB]

http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...e=&topic_page=2

[baw716 0]

I've looked at the manuals and I haven't seen any specific figures, but I am told that ideal is -100fpm on touchdown or less. OK -200fpm. Fair, -300fpm. Anything above that is going to be hard and anything over -500fpm is going to give you a real spinal compression headache. >-500fpm...well the aircraft will likely sustain some damage, like to the wheel trucks, if not at a minimum blow a couple of tires.One trick with autoland that seems to help, add five knots of airspeed and stay at flaps 25 until just over the threshold, then pull flap 30. The additional lift from the flaps and ground effect should reduce the ROD. One other thing: If you are setup properly for autoland, your ROD should not be greater than -800fpm initially, coming back to -600fpm at 1000ft. If you are at 100ft and greater than >-600fpm at flaps 30, and at CatIII minimums, go around. In my opinion it would be difficult at best to avoid a hard landing and the worst thing you could do is bounce, especially if you can't see where you are going.Just a thought...Dave Lamb

[Iain Sealey 1]

Dave,-100fpm is NOT an ideal touchdown figure.Hard Landings are better than soft "smooth" landing as everyone thinks.Airline companies, prefer there pilots to make firm landings, the reason, Tyre wear.The firmer the landing, the less tyre tread that is lost, a smooth landing burns a #### of alot of tyre wear, and can also create bald spots, which means a tyre change."One trick with autoland that seems to help, add five knots of airspeed and stay at flaps 25 until just over the threshold, then pull flap 30. The additional lift from the flaps and ground effect should reduce the ROD."The aircraft MUST be in landing configuration at 1000ft RA or a go-around MUST be exicuted.The typical landing FPM is around 500-600fpm, anything more, is a little to hard, andything less than, is too soft.An aircraft undercarrage is heavily tested before aircraft certification, it must be able to withstand an overweight landing plus a 1.5 factor of saftey.Another thing to take note about is on a 3 degree GS, your ROD will vary with speed, the faster your speed, the greater the ROD.Cheers

[FOD 23]

Hello again Dave,A little bit of realism. Ask your source what he thinks the rate of descent is when landing a Phantom into the wire on a min length tactical metal strip runway - or, even better, into the wire on a carrier!You do not need the flap trick to do a greaser - on a manual landing all you need is the usual 5 kts "for the wife and kids". If doing an autoland - leave it to the computer. It can do it alot better than you can in the visibility that it is designed for.Finally, I am still not sure what the final autoland fps figure is for the PSS 777 - the last I see is usually 400 fps reducing whilst looking from the outside, it always looks a very reasonable landing with some kinetic energy being disippated by the touchdown itself.Regards as alwaysJohn RPS Iain came on whilst I was writing - totally agree.

[Brian Doney 127]

Autolands can only be made using F20 or F30, with both engines operating OR one engine inop, assuming LAND 2 or LAND 3 annunciated.

[Mike T 208]

Iian:I'd really have to disagree strenuously here. What you said about Tire wear and soft landings is totally false.HARD landings and excessive braking lead to excessive tire ware and bald spots. Soft landing in NO way make tires wear faster. If anything, a soft landing gives the tires a chance to spin-up without the full weight of the aircraft on them. Hard landings cause the full weight of the aircraft to fall on the tire before spin-up causing bald spots. The tire is motionless at landing, putting the full weight on that spot hitting the pavement causes the tire to skid before spinning up, thereby baldspot. You do not get this with consistant "firm" or "soft" landings.The reason that check-airmen and training captains teach their pilots to make "firm" landings is because pilots trying to "flare" the aircraft will tend to float down the runway and out of the target landing zone. This makes for inconsistant landings. Additionally, some pilots will hold the aircraft at 10 feet AGL a bit too long and lose lift as they leave ground effect thereby dropping the rest of the way to the runway. AND that is not proper landing technique ESPECIALLY in a heavy. Heavies should NEVER be flared as you would a 737 for example. The proper landing technique is keeping aiming for the TD zone (or your pre desired aimpoint on the runway) reduce thrust and VS but NOT flare. 777 / 747s have huge wing areas which tend to cause settling in ground effect at half the height of the wing. In heavies you fly the aircraft to the runway at all times. Ground Effect will arrest the decent rate and allow a nice firm / soft landing but more importantly a CONSISTANT landing in the TDZ every time. Excessive flaring WILL causing floating in ground effect and as airspeed bleeds off can cause a tail strike at high AOA.As a matter of fact, it is now being tought to arrest the decent rate with trust and not the yoke; just as you would on approach. At 10 Feet AGL apply enough thrust to arrest VS but not increase AS. It takes practice but it allows consistant TDZ aiming AND nice soft landings.But back to the topic. A 800fpm decent rate is excessive. Anything below 500fpm is a good landing. And if you can kiss it in the TDZ then bonus points for you! The current FPM on the PSS T7 is consistant with a firm landing and is correct for that aircraft. The failure here is with the MSFS flight engine which doesn't model ground effect properly which would arrest the decent rate of the T7 even more. This is not PSS's fault.

[Guest Pilot53]

Norman,From the post you referenced me too I am happy to read that there will be another patch. Howeven I am also concerned by the history of the way pss has handeled the 777. When is the patch coming? Is it under development now? Is it number 1 priority?