Hi Kabekew,Fantastic route you provided there! Really fun flying down the river to runway 01 at DCA.Now to the big one. I flew the route just as you described. Although I had to remove one Altitude constraint which is DRUZZ at 15000 because that's an "Expect to Cross". So I had in total 5 restrictions. I did the test with real world weather provided by Active Sky Evolution and the model was the 737-700WLI must say I expected it to behave correctly and it did. It started it's way down just at waypoint BUCKO and then it was smooth sailing all the way down. It met all the waypoint crossings all the time! Even the 150degree localizer intercept it did with only one overshoot. All in all I was very impressed!I can only assume it's a user error then.Kind Regards,

anakletor, the Navigraph data DOES include at or above/below. The altitudes are correct in the FMC per the STAR.Leffe, this is indeed a PMDG problem, not a Navigraph problem. See it for yourself -- I gave the steps to reproduce it.And jgoggi, I'm glad you don't get the problem on other routes. Neither do I. But it occurs on this route.Why are some of you so defensive about bug reports? Bugs occur in software, and may not get discovered until after it has been released. That's why publishers issue service packs and other program updates. It's nothing to get defensive about!

Ok, here I made that plan. (didn´t knew your dep rwy and your appr rwy however)Didn´t EDIT anything in this plan.I don´t have any peculiar thing here./ Leffe

According to the Chart you want to be at REVUE 15000 - PUGEE 12000 - ELDEE 8000Okay so check the charts before you do your approach and if the FMC does not match what the charts are then manually enter the data and the plane will follow it the way it is supposed to. Navigraph supplies the data and the PMDG FMC use that data. If there is a problem with Navigraphs data it is not the NGX's fault.Now according to that chart the way I read it you want to cross at those altitudes exactly at so you would not use so you would not use A or B.For each waypoint you would type in. Example280/15000 280/12000 250/8000 This tells the FMC that it MUST cross at those altitudes, NOT Above or Below.A does not stand for At. It means At or Above. If the chart tells you Cross at or above 15000 then you would see 280/15000A but the chart I see above says to cross at 15,000. So to cross at 15,000 type in 280/15000Another example is my descent right now into Sao Paulo Brazil. FMC Shows me this.PERNB - 6000AOM094 - 4100I may cross somewhat above 6000 at PERNB because A means to cross at or ABOVE and that means the FMC will decide for itself what to Cross PERNB at. But OM094 must be at 4100 so the FMC will cross at 4100.

I am assuming you get your data from NaviGraph. This is their problem I believe, and when I find these, what I do is send it to them. They even state they will release fixes for their cycles due to issues like this. That is why I always double check my legs page with the actual charts usually on taxi before I even depart.

Hi Kabekew,Fantastic route you provided there! Really fun flying down the river to runway 01 at DCA.Now to the big one. I flew the route just as you described. Although I had to remove one Altitude constraint which is DRUZZ at 15000 because that's an "Expect to Cross". So I had in total 5 restrictions. I did the test with real world weather provided by Active Sky Evolution and the model was the 737-700WLI must say I expected it to behave correctly and it did. It started it's way down just at waypoint BUCKO and then it was smooth sailing all the way down. It met all the waypoint crossings all the time! Even the 150degree localizer intercept it did with only one overshoot. All in all I was very impressed!I can only assume it's a user error then.Kind Regards,

Hi FirstOfficer, you need to check your charts because DRUZZ on this arrival has an altitude restriction of 15,000. You can find latest U.S.charts at airnav.com. Those lines you see above and below the "15,000" at DRUZZ means it's "at and maintain" that altitude, it's not an 'expect to cross' -- maybe you were looking at SHAAR (which is an 'expect to cross')?PMDG does load this STAR correctly, however, it just does not fly it. I don't know why you people are trying to claim there's no bug here. There is a bug. And it's no big deal, look at all the bugs SP1 fixed. This is just another one, so please don't get so defensive about this!Here's a screenshot of the FMC after following the exact steps I listed:See how DRUZZ is correctly listed at 15000 per the STAR, REVUE correctly listed, PUGEE correctly listed, but then it shows CAPSS 7.7 miles later at FL279?! This is simply not correct, and no aircraft could possibly fly that profile. And if you fly the route as I listed in my steps above, you will see how the PMDG 737 misses all the crossing restrictions. This is a bug. People, please don't get defensive about this and call it user error! It's a bug.--Gabe Keewaydin

And Leffe, after SHAAR your route should show ESL, then DRUZZ then REVUE then PUGEE. What you're showing is not the ELDEE5 arrival route. Make sure you load the ELDEE5 arrival (SHAAR transition) using the DEP/ARR button.--Gabe Keewaydin

kabekew-You are continually and repeatedly violating forum requirements by failing to sign your name to your posts....I have deleted without comment your other thread. This is your sole warning to comply, or this one goes too...I'd hate to kill another valuable discussion.... thank you.

If this is a bug then it is a tiny little bug with a very simple and logical workaround.Just change FL279 at CAPPS to 12,000 and get on with it.If you are concerned about a bug then file a ticket about it with PMDG. Fred.

Hi rsrandazzo, sorry if I forgot to sign my posts! I am trying to be constructive here, and I would like to formally sign all my posts --Gabe Keewaydin if you could append that to my posts above. Thanks!--Gabe Keewaydin

If this is a bug then it is a tiny little bug with a very simple and logical workaround.Just change FL279 at CAPPS to 12,000 and get on with it.If you are concerned about a bug then file a ticket about it with PMDG.No use whinging about it here really.Fred.

I tried that (and same with the bad altitude at DMALL) but it still misses the DRUZZ restriction.Hey guys, I am simply reporting a bug here. Often it's a very simple fix for the developers. No need to get so offended! I paid full price for this and I love this addon. Okay? I'm just reporting a weird bug, that's all. I'm trying to be helpful here.--Gabe Keewaydin

might support my idea the current max is 4 and if there are more than that it just ignores them all.

That's not the issue.

It's an Navigraph thing. Has nothing to do with PMDG. / Leffe

It's not a Navigraph thing. I've looked at the data. It's correct.

Up until SP1, the VNAV descent seemed flawless!

No. It has had this issue since at least Hotfix 3 if not from the very beginning in the circumstances below.

I can only assume it's a user error then.

It's not user error. You assumed the runway and type of approach didn't matter--it did.All--the issue exists for a few select other STARs when coupled with the right approach. The issue seems to revolve around anything with a final altitude restriction that is AT OR ABOVE just prior to the RWxx leg entry. In this case, what "kabekew" (please sign your full name ) didn't mention is he flew it with the RNAV 19 approach, which has a final restriction at FIROP of 234A immediately prior to reaching the RW19 leg. This throws off the descent profile and you will see the altitude at DARIC at FL241 as he stated. If you pick any other approach, this doesn't occur.You could also make this same type of thing happen on the CLIPR1.19 at KDCA by using the RNAV 19 approach and entering a restriction of say 15000 at TROYZ. You'll see the next leg, BELAY, indicate FL207.This type of issue also occurs on the BENKY1 and BULLZ1 at KORD for example, if no approach is selected, or if any of the RNAV approaches are used with an AT OR ABOVE restriction immediately before the RW leg entry (RNAV 09L at OGSIF has 1720A for this example). On the BENKY1, if you punch in the FL240 restriction at BENKY, the next leg, NEWRK, stays at FL279 assuming your cruise is high enough.These are pretty easy to duplicate in the FMS on the ground. For all I know, the PMDG model behaves exactly what the real thing does in these circumstances, but I suspect not.The workaround, should you encounter this fairly rare situation, is to modify the last restriction by re-entering it without the "A".

Good catch, cplwitz, that's correct I put in the RNAV19 approach.So the steps to repeat this bug are:1. Place aircraft at KCMH (active runway or anywhere)2. Load up the route KCMH ZZV AIR J34 SHAAR ELDEE5 KDCA3. Select RNAV 19 approach at KDCA with DEP/ARR button3. Fill out the rest of the FMC stuff as usual (doesnt matter)4. Look at LEGS page. Note all the restrictions on the published STAR correctly appear (DRUZZ at 15000, REVUE at 1500, PUGEE 12000A etc). However the fix after PUGEE (CAPPS) shows FL279 ?!.5. Likewise the next fixes POOCH 11000A and WZRDD 10000A are accurate per the STAR, but the next fix DARIC is back up to FL241?! Likewise next fix ELDEE as published is 8000, then DMALL after that is FL188?!6. Fly the route, cruise level FL370. Dial in 8000 prior to SHAAR (i.e. descend via ELDEE5 arrival). Note how the FMC misses all the crossing restrictions.Your workaround doesn't work for me 00 if I put in a hard altitude of 234 at FIROP the FMC says "ALT CONSTRAINT DRUZZ"I think the real workaround if you see the descent profile is messed up, is to just fly it manually with the V/S button and hand calculate your T/D point!(and JasonG thanks for the tip)

kabekew-You are continually and repeatedly violating forum requirements by failing to sign your name to your posts....I have deleted without comment your other thread. This is your sole warning to comply, or this one goes too...I'd hate to kill another valuable discussion.... thank you.

Thanks for deleting my constructive thread. By the way, I think your aggressive attitude is an outstanding way for your company to increase sales, by threatening your users for posting simple bug reports. Users and bloggers respond really well to that.(Signed) Gabriel Keewaydin--Gabe Keewaydin

Thanks for deleting my constructive thread. By the way, I think your aggressive attitude is an outstanding way for your company to increase sales, by threatening your users for posting simple bug reports. Users and bloggers respond really well to that.(Signed) Gabriel Keewaydin--Gabe Keewaydin

Well if you would have signed your name as per the rules than your posts wouldnt have been deleted

In this case, what "kabekew" (please sign your full name ) didn't mention is he flew it with the RNAV 19 approach, which has a final restriction at FIROP of 234A immediately prior to reaching the RW19 leg. This throws off the descent profile and you will see the altitude at DARIC at FL241 as he stated. If you pick any other approach, this doesn't occur.You could also make this same type of thing happen on the CLIPR1.19 at KDCA by using the RNAV 19 approach and entering a restriction of say 15000 at TROYZ. You'll see the next leg, BELAY, indicate FL207.

How are you connecting the STAR segment to the approach segment in the FMS to produce this result? (Where the 234 restriction at FIROP affects preceding waypoints)?There is no direct linkage between the final waypoint of the ELDEE5 STAR, and any of the IAFs of the RNAV19 approach at KDCA. The STAR terminates at SABBI (well south of KDCA) - where it is "depart SABBI heading 192 degrees for vectors to the final approach course". Unless given further descent clearance after ELDEE, one would expect to maintain 8000 feet to SABBI.In IFR R/W ops with RWY 19 in use, ATC would most likely issue vectors for a right turn back to the north after SABBI, direct to the RNAV19 IAF at AML at 8000, thence the rest of the approach as published.The point being that one should not tie the final STAR waypoint (SABBI) directly to the approach IAF (AML) in the FMS prior to arriving at SABBI, as this could certainly produce an unpredictable results in the LEGS page of the FMS (insofar as speed/altitude restrictions for preceding waypoints), since the Navigraph database correctly lists the terminating STAR waypoint SABBI as (VECTORS).Unless you are flying this STAR/APPROACH combo on VATSIM, you won't actually get "vectors", but if I were flying this in the sim without ATC, I'd follow the scenario above, and would depart SABBI on a 192 heading, initiate a right turn towards AML, then select direct AML, at which point I would fly the full RNAV19 approach as published.Another possible issue is that the KDCA RNAV19 is an RNP approach with curved segments, and I don't think that either the NGX, nor Navigraph's nav data fully supports this type of RNP approach at this time. Perhaps that has some effect as to how the FMS and LEGS page "reacts" to this particular approach.Of course, in RW ops at KDCA, when the weather permits, it's likely that arriving flights would be taken off of the ELDEE5 STAR by ATC either at, or prior to ELDEE, and given vectors for the River visual approach to runway 19.I tried the OP's test scenario, parked at KCMH, and entering the route KCMH ZZV AIR J34 SHAAR ELDEE5 KDCA as he indicated, (without selecting an approach) and I did NOT have any of the incorrect altitudes on the legs page at TAPPS, DARIC etc.EDIT: I just saw that kabekew confirmed that he DID pre-select RNAV 19, so I'll try it again that way, starting at KCMH, and see what happens...I have not tried actually flying it as yet, to see if the aircraft misses its crossing restrictions.