Archived

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

Guest dlrk

Customizable Electronic Checklists?

Recommended Posts

Looking in the B777 information thread, I see that the checklist's won't be customizable. Is this true(source?)? Why?

Share this post


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

I haven't heard anything like that. Each airline has their own checklists even if they are different than the standard Boeing ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Boeing checklists are perfectly fine in my eyes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it somewhere. It was an older thread about this subject. I am pretty sure that it was Ryan that said that there only will be the Boeing ones available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly think we've pretty much run out of things to ask... we pretty much know everything from what Ryan tells us, the conference & the NGX. I'd just like to see some more screen shots ;)

 

I mean look at my topic the other day about TOGA ha, did I really need a topic about it?

 

I really think the next thing to know is where they are in the project, I'm not sure if they would go into Beta without letting us know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly think we've pretty much run out of things to ask... we pretty much know everything from what Ryan tells us, the conference & the NGX. I'd just like to see some more screen shots ;)

 

I mean look at my topic the other day about TOGA ha, did I really need a topic about it?

 

I really think the next thing to know is where they are in the project, I'm not sure if they would go into Beta without letting us know?

 

There's only two more questions that are on my mind. Can we see into the cabin from an external view and will passengers be modeled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Yes, no.

Are you assuming or do you have valid confirmation.

let me reword that for you ;

on my previous experiences with PMDG ; I do believe you will be able to see inside the cabin, I do not however think that there will be modeled passengers.
I personally would leave it at that until PMDG actually gives confirmation

Unless Im missing something and you own the T7 already

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

 

I did bring this up with the team, but at this point we've formally decided not to do customizable checklists in the product. There are just way too many variables involved for it to work properly and we don't want the support headache of people messing the airplane up with it, which would be possible by definition if we provided a way to custom script the checklists. I suspect most people have no idea how complex this system really is - it's not just a "dumb" list of items you check off with the mouse, the whole thing is "smart" and tied into the systems of the aircraft. Certain checklists items actually make configuration changes to the systems when they're performed and it really is just getting beyond the scope of our intent here to make the whole thing so variable.

 

We're going to have a very good representation of the Boeing standard checklists (both normal and abnormal/emergency) and we think most users will be just fine using this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There's only two more questions that are on my mind. Can we see into the cabin from an external view and will passengers be modeled?

 

Cabin is already modeled including individual seats and no there won't be 3D passengers modeled, way too many polys for 300+ passengers. We'd have to start removing other things if we were to do that so no...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did bring this up with the team, but at this point we've formally decided not to do customizable checklists in the product. ...

We're going to have a very good representation of the Boeing standard checklists (both normal and abnormal/emergency) and we think most users will be just fine using this.

 

Fair enough Ryan, I can see where are you coming from....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gents-

 

Another issue we would have to grapple with came up in a recent conversation with Boeing....

 

The customized checlists in use by some airlines are owned by those airlines.

 

We would be required to reach out to each of them for permission, secure their permission in the form of a contract, pay whatever fee they demand, then add quite a bit of customized logic that was created for that airline by Boeing's engineers...

 

Then we would have a further issue because your PMDG issued checklists/normal procedures and QRH would no longer match your software... And you can't even imagine how much it would cost to provide you with each airline's customized documentation...

 

So while it might be fun to give you guys a scripting language- the bottom line is that we would have to dumb down the actual checklist system logic in order to allow it to interface with a custom scripting process- otherwise you'd be able to put the checklist system into configurations from which it wouldn't recover and this would have a negative impact on your ability to complete a flight effectively...

 

We don't like dumbing things down- as you've probably seen....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gents-

 

As long as you have "In Range Check-list" and not the "Final Landing" one :LMAO:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as you have "In Range Check-list" and not the "Final Landing" one :LMAO:

 

I see you like the FedEx version lol, AA uses descent and before landing, at least on the 737 they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly think we've pretty much run out of things to ask

 

Never! I demand to know the brand of nitrogen which will be simulated inside the tires - this is a deal breaker for me! :LMAO:

 

Joking aside, most checklists and SOPs for airlines are very heavily based on the aircraft manufacturer's standard ones anyway, with only the odd minor bit of customisation. I know this because I've had to produce a few of them over the years for various airlines. The vast majority of the differences are restrictive ones, such as not being able to use this mode or that mode because it burns more fuel or whatever, and when they are not related to that kind of difference, then they are occasionally to do with post-9/11 security matters, and there is no way any airline is going to let you know about those for a simulated PC-based airliner that literally anyone can buy, especially when there was speculation that the 9/11 perpetrators had used the Level D 767 to practice on.

 

More to the point, and as mentioned by Robert, stuff like that is copyrighted and somewhat confidential and controlled too if you aren't an airline employee, so it would be a nightmare for PMDG to get waivers to use stuff like that. We should actually consider ourselves fairly lucky that Boeing are letting PMDG use the standard ones to be honest, and all credit must go to PMDG for having pulled that one off. It's not every FS developer who would have got the greenlight for that kind of thing in today's litigious world.

 

I can just imagine the response a developer without PMDG's credibility and reputation would elicit, when asking for that one: 'Let me get this straight, you want to compromise our security procedures to make a toy aeroplane?'

 

Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of us who fly with Virtual Airlines (Live deltava.org) it would be nice to have the checklist remind me to start my flight via ACARS. lol. 

 

I can't tell you how often I get so deep into the aircraft and take off, forgetting to start ACARS. ;)

 

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great to have the "non-normals in".

 

Doing without customizable ECL will most probably accelerate release of my upcoming PMDG Airbus 350 by some 3 years and more!   :lol:

(That's the X-Plane 256bit version, of course. :ph34r:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites