Hi all are all RW approaches possible with the NGX FMC, thanks

I know before they were not, but did see on other DME Arc threads Ryan (Tabs) said it would be possible with SP1. However been to busy to try SP1 yet.

Yup

I think it will need the new type of nav data that Ryan mentioned a few weeks ago !I do not know when this is coming.

Hi bit confused on this one about dme arcs etc where people been saying that they havnt been able to do them. I havnt had any troubles in creating dme arc into rwy etc where i put my own custom waypoints in 20 degrees increments etc. think the way i do it is PBW place bearing waypoints is this the same as the Dme arc thing or is it different all together?

Hi bit confused on this one about dme arcs etc where people been saying that they havnt been able to do them. I havnt had any troubles in creating dme arc into rwy etc where i put my own custom waypoints in 20 degrees increments etc. think the way i do it is PBW place bearing waypoints is this the same as the Dme arc thing or is it different all together?

You can use that method but the DME Arc should be a available option without having to manually make custom way-points off DME from my understanding as what Ryan said awhile ago.Past post on the subject, Tabs post #6: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/346124-vordme-via-arc-possible/page__p__2095123__hl__dme%20arc__fromsearch__1#entry2095123

In the real world, I load the approach from the FMC and the full approach is depicted on the nav display. At that point i verify the points, distance,bearings, and altitudes against the approach plate. Not legal to vnav an approach that's not in the nav data base. I can overly with another approach as long as the waypoints and glidepath angle are the same.

You can use that method but the DME Arc should be a available option without having to manually make custom way-points off DME from my understanding as what Ryan said awhile ago.Past post on the subject, Tabs post #6: http://forum.avsim.n..._1#entry2095123

thx for that guess i keep putting the dme arc manually than the way i been doing it

great info thanks guys

I always prefere to do my arcs manually, using the A/P, the ADF and the DME. I always find it much more fun to do non-precision approaches manually or visual approaches instead of the rather boring departure-LNAV/VNAV-ILS CAT IIIb. :)

I always prefere to do my arcs manually, using the A/P, the ADF and the DME. I always find it much more fun to do non-precision approaches manually or visual approaches instead of the rather boring departure-LNAV/VNAV-ILS CAT IIIb. :)

I didn't find it that fun while shooting these type approaches in the weather while the needle continuously swung around making it difficult to keep on the DME. There was always that feeling in my gut through out the approach. Many times there was a nice surprise as you broke out and found that you were actually out of position requiring quick maneuvering to make the landing. LNAV/VNAV gives you a warm feeling in the weather knowing the airplane is where it supposed to be. During training flights I make the student shoot NDB approaches using the needle while i have the FMS version up on my side. This gives them a good idea of how much you can be off the depicted track while on the needle. I have hand flown some ILS approaches down to mins in the fog and during stormy weather. I once went missed 3 times during a CATII approach before barely seeing a lead in light on the 4th try. I didn't find those boring at all. But, it is a good idea to practice raw data NDB, VOR, and arc type approaches. We do it all the time in refresher sims and training/currency flights.

I get your point, absolutely. And that's one of the not-so-many perks of just being a desktop pilot (only for now, hopefully), when it goes terribly wrong, you can just hit that X, no injuries or material damage follows (unless you start harming your hardware in frustration). Still though, as a desktop pilot, I find the feeling of mastering the plane much greater than the one I get using L/Vnav and autoland.

I agree with you totally. That old school skill of hand flying and nav aid approaches is being lost. I've done a few overseas certification flights and I see errors on both sides of the coin. I've seen guys having a hard time managing speeds and altitude control during hand flying. Difficulty circling and judging a VFR pattern. That shows the over use of automation. On the other side I have seen guys reluctant to use automation. Guys are stand offish when it comes to vnav. I had a guy, while flying around in Africa, that never thought of using the HUD during a night time visual approach into a unfamiliar field. The controller cleared us visual after we initiated a full procedure approach. He was high, struggling to get down, and he pointed the nose towards the airport. I let it go on for a while before i advised that he use the gear and flaps to help in the descent. I told him to use the HUD and flight path vector to pick up a 5 mile final. I cleaned up the FMS and gave him a direct to intercept to pick up a 5 mile final which also gave him a vvi required and a FMS glide path. Over all great pilot, just had a temporary loss of SA when he was rushed with the approach. With newer aircraft, you are more of a automation manager. The big task is knowing how to properly employ the helpful tools, how to set it up, and knowing what it can and can't do. I guess you have to have that happy medium between manual and automation to a point that you can easily adjust towards one or the other when needed. Every training/currency flight we fly consist of NDB/VOR, RNAV, Circling, holding, ILS, manual/auto go-arounds, VFR pattern, and a PAR if we are lucky.

Presenttly DME arcs are represented in the NGx through the nav data provider (Navigraph) as a series of short spaced waypoints/legs. The effect is the same and the plane will fly the segments both laterally and vertically quite accurately.