The screenshot you posted shows your aircraft just a tiny bit high of the glideslope. So it is completely feasible that your aircraft has lost the slight nose-up attitude as it tries to "catch-up" with the glideslope. Jerome

The screenshot you posted shows your aircraft just a tiny bit high of the glideslope. So it is completely feasible that your aircraft has lost the slight nose-up attitude as it tries to "catch-up" with the glideslope. Jerome

You are wrong Sir. 20 sec later, vertical speed = 800 ft/min : Attitude is zero. And I say again: this is not my video: http://forum.avsim.n...uring-approach/. See from 06:12. I have the same problem with the approach attitude.

He is above 1000 ft agl his TAS should be 2% higher. it probably good be a bug

You are wrong Sir. 20 sec later, vertical speed = 800 ft/min : Attitude is zero. And I say again: this is not my video: http://forum.avsim.n...uring-approach/. See from 06:12. I have the same problem with the approach attitude.

800fpm makes more sense. Then the problem has to be the airplane being lighter than what it was when VREF was selected. Try getting an updated VREF for the actual landing mass. If VREF is selected too early without subtracting the remaining trip fuel, you might be flying even 10 knots faster than you need.

Ok guys. I have made a new test. Airport ULAA. Pattern route. No any weather generators. No wind, no gusts. Gross Weight = 64.9 tonns, Vref30 = 148 knots: Compare with FCOM : Excelent! Flaps 30, IAS is Vref+5, attitude is abt 1 degree and vertical speed is only 400 ft/min: Ok, ILS approach 08, autolanding : 240 ft: 80 ft: Flare, 1 sec to touchdown: Sorry for this long story. One more picture from FTCM: Thanks. Great aircraft! But please check this situation.

The REF Speeds aren't updated on the INIT REF page, but the GROSS WT is. If this is an -800, then 130k gives us a REF of 141. That means the selected Vref is correct. According the Boeing's FCTM, 2.4 is about the right pitch for this phase of flight.

You are wrong Sir. Everythings updated. And 64.9 tonns is abt 143080 lbs, not 130000. And see again this picture:

I tend to have similar results(0 degree attitude) when I fly the approach by the official numbers. Could possibly try coming in at 5 to 7 kts slower and compare the results.

You are wrong Sir. Everythings updated. And 64.9 tonns is abt 143080 lbs, not 130000. And see again this picture:

Looking at your post #17, the Gross WT is 130.4. The Vref for that scenario would be 141. The selected Vref is not updated. The other speeds are, but the one that matters, i.e. the one on the speed tape, is not. I suspect we are meaning to say the same thing.

Man you guys are making this complicated. The guy is descending at (about) 3* below horizontal. His nose is (about) 3* above his flight vector. The result is ZERO degrees.

Man you guys are making this complicated. The guy is descending at (about) 3* below horizontal. His nose is (about) 3* above his flight vector. The result is ZERO degrees.

The result must be 2.9* for GP 2.5* and 2.4* for GP 3.0*. And not otherwise.

I think the OP is concerned with whether ZERO degrees is realistic.

I think the OP is concerned with whether ZERO degrees is realistic.

It has to be 3 deg , he can calculate a deviation too. Vladtop just do a calc for your satisfaction to check ROD . Hey hope i am not confusing things here.

I think the OP is concerned with whether ZERO degrees is realistic.

Realy? May be Boeing 737 FCTM is not realistic?

vladtop, can you tell me in short how to operate the FMC i will try it on my frnds rig as I don't have the NGX I can check it let you know.