Hello guys!

 

As you may have noticed, we've been discussing lately about those RNP procedures and the limitation of the NGX on creating it. You just can't create RF, TF segments. These are becoming more and more common IFR app. nowadays, and in my opinion it will take the majority of charts in a near future.

 

Maybe some of you have also noticed (and forgive me if this has been pointed before) that we have some other type of procedures that can't be created in the SIDSTARS files of the NGX. I will show the Procedure Hold leg here.

It's basically an IFR procedure leg with a MANDATORY HOLD ADJUST before the outbound itself. It appears as PROC HLD on the CDU and the difference between a normal hold is that the aircraft will adjust itself on the hold, intercept the Inbound Course and proceed on the profile without the need of arming an exit. It should be flown on LNAV / VNAV and the aircraft will calculate an constant descent angle in every procedure leg.

 

 

I will take the SBNF, Navegantes, Brazil - RNAV to RWY 07 as an example. (Search in your Jepp charts or here: http://www.aisweb.ae...e7-72567f175e3a )

 

The NG will overfly POMA @ 4000', adjust itself on the PROC HLD while descending to overfly it again at 3000' on the 045º inbound course, then will continue on the procedure to RUMO, without any intervention on the MCDU. Here it goes a pic from the real acft of the depicted procedure:

 

It's the same procedure characteristic as we have in SBJV, SBLO, and so on...

 

Does the team has any plan to include this in a future update?

 

Best regards and FLY SAFE!

Another example of much needed upgrade, not just for NGX but any future PMDG products. I'd happily say that a delay to the 777/747 and SP2 is justified here to ensure that all PMDG products are capable of rnav procedures. This would ensure that PMDG are at the top of the pile over other developers when it comes to realism and full simulation

Not to be smart, but your all's assumption that everyone is up on the more advanced RNAV features is quite a ways from the actuality of life here in FAA-land.

 

We're having to bribe airlines to upgrade...no joke... Search "best equipped best served."

 

RNAV RNP procedures would help N90 (NY TRACON) keep the flow higher in marginal conditions, especially in conflicting conditions like the ILS 13 at JFK. Currently, only one airline that flies into JFK is capable of flying an RNAV RNP approach to the 13s to help out (which means it really doesn't help much, until everyone is doing it).

your all's assumption that everyone is up on the more advanced RNAV features is quite a ways from the actuality of life

 

Seconded.

 

Full PBN capability on the NGX would be nice, but the overall experience the current NGX provides is more than sufficient.

 

You're flying a $70-odd dollar simulation, not the real airframe; of course there are going to be limitations.

 

Mike McKenna.

The NGX is more than sufficient product, yes, but it could be much more better if other things will be added.

This does not mean that those additions are mandatory, but, as in this topic, there is a question about the team plans to eventually add that feature. For me is a right question, without any claim. All the things that will add more realism to the sim is always well accepted, this is valid from a freeware to a billion dollar simulator. Obviously it must not be a claim, it must be a simple question, a suggestion, the team will know if it is something that for them is convenient or not to add. (time to spend on them, money, limitations...)

Interesting thread, as PMDG has baffeled everyone with quantum leaps before, I would not be surprised

The NGX is more than sufficient product, yes, but it could be much more better if other things will be added.

This does not mean that those additions are mandatory, but, as in this topic, there is a question about the team plans to eventually add that feature. For me is a right question, without any claim. All the things that will add more realism to the sim is always well accepted, this is valid from a freeware to a billion dollar simulator. Obviously it must not be a claim, it must be a simple question, a suggestion, the team will know if it is something that for them is convenient or not to add. (time to spend on them, money, limitations...)

 

I agree with you fully. Just like the HUGS, which is modeled as an option, I believe that it should be an option in the sim as well. I was simply pointing out that it isn't like we got slighted by their lack of including it. In other words, it's not like every operator has it, but they decided not to put it in.

 

All I was pointing out is that a lot of the assertions around here that it's "missing" aren't entirely accurate. If by 'missing' one means a good portion of the US 737 fleet doesn't have it, either, he or she would be right. If one means that PMDG's version is out of sync with reality, then that wouldn't necessarily be correct.

Hi,

keep in your mind that a lot of B737 NG equipped airlines don't have all the "state of the art" avionics to navigate.

I.e. when I asked to a RW B737 pilot employed in a bigger B738-based european airline about IAN (Integrated Navigation Approach) I realized I couldn't know that systen because the NAV software of those airplanes wasn't updated to that stage

 

Ciao

Andrea Buono.

I worked on few classics that have the analog ADI and HSI and also few classic hybrids with NG electrical meter, dual battery and so on.... so I know that there are a lot of configurations.

For the NG and other planes is the same. It mostly depends on the aircraft age, company money and also the routes the plane must do, obviously also the local laws.

Yes, maybe "missing" is the wrong word, but in the post itself he was clear in asking about team plans about this addition.

Hello again,

 

THIS specifc case, the procedure hold is in EVERY NG , even the older ones, it's NOT an option like the RNP with dual fmc, etc.

 

The procedure mentioned is the same since 2003 (if Im not mistaken) and since we operate there, and SBJV, etc all our the NGs, even with the LEAST equipped nav, have it on its procedure design, so its not related to EQUIPMENT/AIRLINE option.

This is something that takes time to code, but once it's done, all PMDG Fleet, from the 737NGX to newer projects will benefit from it, so in my opinion it's totally worth it!

Hello,

 

The problem here is, that PMDG uses the same navdata definition introduced with the original NG (or maybe even before it?).

 

As such, the data simply can not hold procedures such as these in them. There is, pure and simple, no way to write them down. It is as if you were to write down a chinese symbol with using only latin. You can think up some form of pinyin, but it is just not the same thing.

 

Anyway, ARINC 424 is around since the 70s and is evolving. In its original format, it only allowed for DF terminator. This looks probably like Hold to Fix? This type of terminator is not possible to implement into current format, other than as a workaround - course to distance, then turn right, then direct fix, possibly.

 

 

Now, about RNAV, RNP approaches... that is a different can of worms. Getting the airplane ready is usually relatively simple, even if not cheap. Especially a modern airliner such as 737NG. The simplest form - LNAV/VNAV overlay - only requires a good database, is all. But it is not terribly precise and risk-free. You need to crosscheck with raw data. You need a procedure for that, and a training program, or getting the database certified to do that. Maybe a software change, for the more precise stuff. More training. More visits from FAA. More simulator checks, more proving that your database is certifiably good.

 

Meanwhile, the database stays the same.