Thanks for all the replys guys, it really means a lot :) I'll probably get the PMDG 737NGX when it comes out, and do some short regional flights in Australia and in NZCheersAlex

So in the meantime, knowing that a Garmin 1000 in a Cessna 172 has potentially more useful information than many commerical jetliners do.......I'm somewhat content to stick GA simming & how well it's beginning to duplicate real life. However, I have bought numerous simulated jet airliners just for the looks. I just haven't become proficient at FMC's because I never will in real life, and kind of figure it's a waste of time. I'd prefer to become more proficient with today's glass panels for GA.And speaking of the Garmin 1000/Cessna 172, it's hard to believe that many airliners still don't have uplinked satellite weather, large range GPS moving map screens, or airport diagrams with the aircrafts GPS position placed on it. They are getting there, but GA had it first.L.Adamson

More useful information in a C172? That's not really the case. For example, airliners do have large moving map screens - they're just setup to show information for IFR flight.

More useful information in a C172? That's not really the case. For example, airliners do have large moving map screens - they're just setup to show information for IFR flight.

The 172 is setup for IFR flight also. And yes, many airliners do have this info these days..................but many who still fly daily don't. That's why we get commercial flights landing on taxiways and taking off on wrong runways. Most don't have uplinked Satellite weather like a Garmin 1000 or my Garmin 696 does....either. The process of re-fit is just too expensive. And better than ever, many small GA aircraft now have synthetic vision included. Lot's of Biz jets do too, and eventually it will be normal for airline operations. What's interesting, in regards to the early years of GPS.......is that hand-held portables usually had the improvements first, due to the certification process required for panel installs in certified airplanes.L.Adamson

The 172 is setup for IFR flight also. And yes, many airliners do have this info these days..................but many who still fly daily don't. That's why we get commercial flights landing on taxiways and taking off on wrong runways. Most don't have uplinked Satellite weather like a Garmin 1000 or my Garmin 696 does....either. The process of re-fit is just too expensive. And better than ever, many small GA aircraft now have synthetic vision included. Lot's of Biz jets do too, and eventually it will be normal for airline operations. What's interesting, in regards to the early years of GPS.......is that hand-held portables usually had the improvements first, due to the certification process required for panel installs in certified airplanes.L.Adamson

Interesting thread. I'm an instrument rated private pilot who often uses the C172 with GNS530W to practice instrument flight, and have used some randomized (outside of FS) functions to represent various "surprises" that ATC might throw at me, including randomized radials to hold on a certain VOR. Kind of fun and keeps me occupied throughout an otherwise short flight in my local area.I also love flying airliners- as someone said above, I will never get the chance to do in real life, turning 59 this year :) What I like to do is choose an airliner product in FS that has a good panel auto-save feature (PMDF and Level-D do this very well, although it defines the aircraft that I will fly), then save at TOD into an airport. Then I can use any real or imaginary weather to set up certain runways, etc. at the arrival airport, obtain an "IFR Clearance" from FSX ATC, and find that many of the descent routines are unique and interesting.Thanks, Bruce.

The 172 is setup for IFR flight also. And yes, many airliners do have this info these days..................but many who still fly daily don't. That's why we get commercial flights landing on taxiways and taking off on wrong runways. Most don't have uplinked Satellite weather like a Garmin 1000 or my Garmin 696 does....either. The process of re-fit is just too expensive. And better than ever, many small GA aircraft now have synthetic vision included. Lot's of Biz jets do too, and eventually it will be normal for airline operations. What's interesting, in regards to the early years of GPS.......is that hand-held portables usually had the improvements first, due to the certification process required for panel installs in certified airplanes.L.Adamson

The problem with GPS systems is the reliance on receiving signals from an external source. I'd imagine this is why airliners still use IRS units and onboard weather radar.That said the certification process certainly slows things down. I wonder what the 787 systems are like? I've no read up on it yet.

It doesn't even have to be certified if it is portable and experimental aircraft can pretty much put in the panel what they want.This is a shot of what I was using 5 years ago going into Ashville, Nc. 3d heads up along with a georeferenced plate!..as a backup of course to a certified gps, backup vor's etc.It has only gotten better since then...

The problem with GPS systems is the reliance on receiving signals from an external source. I'd imagine this is why airliners still use IRS units and onboard weather radar.That said the certification process certainly slows things down. I wonder what the 787 systems are like? I've no read up on it yet.

Modern airliners do use GPS these days, as one of three sources. A good friend of mine fly's the 737 - 800. He says that the GPS is always the most accurate from the three sources, as they make constant comparisons to each other. And I can imagine it would be, since it's usually close to 3'. I've been using aviation moving map GPS since around late 1993 & early 94'. Can't remember the exact date, but I sure believe in them! I'm on unit #5 now, as well as a number of non-aviation GPSs.L.Adamson

Yup, you'll find stuff like the latest shiny Boeings and Arbuses have a lot of GPS stuff in them, which they actually need if they want to do some of the more recent fancy continuous-descent approaches down from cruise to finals, and most airlines do want to do that sort of malarkey, as it gets them a better slot and is less likely to see them holding and using fuel.It takes a long time for GPS approaches and navigation to get certifications, because it is still basically making use of a military satellite network a lot of the time, and occasionally that network gets turned off, anyone who is a fairly regular pilot in the UK and northern Europe will have seen NOTAMs relating to that, when military exercises take place over the North Sea, where the NOTAMs warn pilots that GPS will not be available in the area for a day or so.Even so, it has been a long time coming for airlines. Funnily enough, I once did a writing course for an avionics company, and so I prepared some exercises where I basically 'invented' an avionics product that they could practice writing about, so I could demonstrate various PR techniques to them. Since they were fairly secretive about the stuff they were R&D'ing when I spoke to them in advance, I had to make up a product, and I chose to make up a product that would enable an ILS approach to be made in zero visibility without ground-based aids for an airliner, using GPS. I made up a name for the system, how it basically worked and all that stuff, so that they would have something to work with when I presented the writing course to them. Comes the day of the course and I commence the exercise, telling them we were going to write a press release for this fantastic avionics GPS landing system that could get an airliner down onto a runway with no ground-based aids, their reaction? 'HOW DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS? THIS IS SECRET!'. I nearly died laughing when I explained to them about how I was a pilot and that it was common knowledge that avionics companies were trying to develop that kind of thing.Al

Modern airliners do use GPS these days, as one of three sources. A good friend of mine fly's the 737 - 800. He says that the GPS is always the most accurate from the three sources, as they make constant comparisons to each other. And I can imagine it would be, since it's usually close to 3'. I've been using aviation moving map GPS since around late 1993 & early 94'. Can't remember the exact date, but I sure believe in them! I'm on unit #5 now, as well as a number of non-aviation GPSs.L.Adamson

I know they use GPS, but that's not the primary NAV source.

So i hope i understand whats the big deal about heavy metal flying, and how it is fun.

Take a look at this: (that why metal flying is fun)

Honestly, I choose longer flights to I can set the ap and do something else. I'm too busy to monitor the systems. I haven't flown in a month as it is. I have something going on with FS (Think I need to reinstall FSDT scenery) and I don't have the time ti fix it. Also, a bunch of stuff that has been released lately so I know I have a days worth of work before I'll be able to get in the air.When I do fly, I usually start at the gate, go through the AES thing, push back, start up, takeoff and get to cruise atl. I leave the sim until 125 miles from the airport, descend and land.

I think it also has a lot to do with the type of person you are. For instance, I am in the engineering/design profession. So I am big on maths, physics etc. So as a result I am a list maker, I am ordered, disciplined, I am methodical, I love checklists, flowcharts etc Therefore I lean towards and enjoy heavy jet simming immensely.

Yup, I occasionally hand over the aircraft to the co-pilot that MCE has and let 'him/her' fly it, then whilst in windowed mode I can look on forums and do other stuff too, so if there is a 'boring bit', that is what I will do, but to be honest, I tend not to do very long flights that often, typically it will be two hours flight time for jets, which is why I like the 737 especially.

Alan, Which 737 do you use?

I tend to use the Ariane 737 - see, I really was telling the truth in that review, I do like it :( Having said that, I do also use the Wilco one (but the Wilco one doesn't like MCE), and I occasionally also use a freebie one (a B737-200) I got from FS Pilot Shop (I think, it might have been another online shop, anyway, it comes with a pale blue livery if anyone happens to know the one I mean) as a customer reward, which I have souped up with ISG instruments. Like everyone else, I'm awaiting that new PMDG one with great anticipation though!Al

Thanks for all the help guys,Just another newbie question, what separates a 737 from a md-11. I know the MD-11 is more complex, but in what ways?CheersAlex