Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Check_Airman

MISC questions from flying this week

Recommended Posts

It’s me again!Here’s the weekly round of questions:1. Has the DITCHING switch been modeled? I tried it after a complete engine failure with the RAT supplying power, and I didn’t notice any indications that anything happened.2. No matter what I do, I can’t get the BANK ANGLE warning to play.3. I notice if engine 1 is started 1st, pack 1 doesn’t come on until engine 3 is started. However, pack 3 comes on as soon as engine 3 is started. Is this how the real bird is designed?4. I remember watching the airborne CARGO DOOR test on the Martinair video, and seeing some level 1 alerts displayed. I couldn’t replicate it in the sim though. Is that an airline option?5. I’ve also noticed that when a non-precision approach is selected, the value entered for the MIN PROF ALT is transferred as an altitude restriction for the arrival runway. The landing altitude on the AIR synoptic is correct. The field elevation on the APProach page is also correct, but the FPLN page is incorrect. Can this be corrected?I don’t have the FS9 patch installed btw. I’m going to hold off on that until that stab trim issue is sorted.Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

2. I've had the BANK ANGLE warning play... only when trying to pull mad G's though.I use the FS9 MD-11 patched... and I have no issues with the trim settings. It seems like if there is an issue with that, it is only affecting the FSX version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Has the DITCHING switch been modeled? I tried it after a complete engine failure with the RAT supplying power, and I didn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the answers Michael. One thing i dont know if you guys experienced. When i set a completely empty MD11F with the intention of using ballast fuel to bring the ZFWCG within limits, i notice that nothing works when the MD11 is loaded. Everything is dark, the gauges in the VC are missing and on the 2d panel the only thing that appears to work is the battery indicative by the OFF light which illuminates or extinguishes when pressed. (FS9 version with patch)RE: The ditching switch i had noticed that too. I know one of the things its supposed to do is close the outflow valve, however with all engines out, no APU and the RAT supplying power with the emergency switch in ARM and its ON light on, the pressing the ditching switch doesnt appear to do anything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the answers Michael. One thing i dont know if you guys experienced. When i set a completely empty MD11F with the intention of using ballast fuel to bring the ZFWCG within limits, i notice that nothing works when the MD11 is loaded. Everything is dark, the gauges in the VC are missing and on the 2d panel the only thing that appears to work is the battery indicative by the OFF light which illuminates or extinguishes when pressed. (FS9 version with patch)
This is a known issue that will be fixed in the next update.Meanwhile, if you add just one passenger (or for the MD11-F one cargo block) you'll be ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Michael,Looks like I've got some more reading to do (never a bad thing).I'm still a little unclear about the PROF ALT though. It is my understanding that the FMS calculates a descent path which crosses the runway threshold at 50ft. In this way, you can do a so-called "VNAV approach" (or Profile approach for the MD11 purists). If my understanding is correct, the crossing restriction for the runway should be just about field elevation. Does PROF recognize the new restriction as a "pseudo-restriction" and still display a proper verticat deviation indicator, even though it won't be followed?Furthermore, the last time I noticed this was as I was executing the approach to LPMA runway 5. Whoever created the procedure included some "false waypoints" in the FMC for guidance. Two of them were at ~700ft and ~400ft, and they were displayed as such, even though the runway crossing restriction was set to the MIN PROF ALT (~930ft I think). How is it those waypoints were unaffected?Sorry if it seems like I'm criticizing, because I'm not. You guys have dune a truly amazing job with the MD11. I'm just trying to get a more thorough understanding of this bird.Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm still a little unclear about the PROF ALT though. It is my understanding that the FMS calculates a descent path which crosses the runway threshold at 50ft. In this way, you can do a so-called "VNAV approach" (or Profile approach for the MD11 purists). If my understanding is correct, the crossing restriction for the runway should be just about field elevation. Does PROF recognize the new restriction as a "pseudo-restriction" and still display a proper verticat deviation indicator, even though it won't be followed?
The MIN PROF altitude is the altitude down to which PROF guidance is available. When you reach the MIN PROF altitude PROF mode is automatically disengaged. The vertical path is calculated starting from the runway up to the next altitude restrictions, so that a vertical path up to the T/D is created. There is no "pseudo-restriction" at the MIN PROF altitude. There is a point along the calculated vertical path at which the estimated altitude will be equal to the MIN PROF altitude. After this point the F-PLN page does not display any altitude predictions, but instead displays the MIN PROF altitude, indicating that this is as far as you can go using PROF mode. At this point you will be at a distance from the rwy that will allow you to make the approach, but it has to be done manually, not in PROF. Also note that this point is not created/displayed on the F-PLN page. It lies some distance before the first waypoint that displays MIN PROF as the predicted altitude. Actually a small font "MIN PROF" label should be displayed before this waypoint, but I think that currently there is a bug that prevents it from displaying (will be fixed).
Furthermore, the last time I noticed this was as I was executing the approach to LPMA runway 5. Whoever created the procedure included some "false waypoints" in the FMC for guidance. Two of them were at ~700ft and ~400ft, and they were displayed as such, even though the runway crossing restriction was set to the MIN PROF ALT (~930ft I think). How is it those waypoints were unaffected?
Wherever an altitude constraint exists for a waypoint the altitude field in the F-PLN page will display the constraint value in large font instead of the predicted altitude (small font). So what you see there is not the altitude along the calculated vertical path but the contstraint altitude. In most cases for hard constraints these two values will be the same, but there are cases (e.g. soft AT/BELOW, AT/ABOVE constraints) that they might be different

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites