im not being rude, your assuming it.

 

your pax and crew will be fine for 20 mins, ( i was crew before I worked in flight planning )

 

but its a long way from 30 west to gander, shannon or kef.  they wont be alive for that long if you have a rapid decompression and you need to get down to a breathable altitude for an hour or so, and then you might loose an engine.  this is where advanced drift down comes in.

 

As for the old chesnut about terrain not strictly true... 

 

for example if you are flying EGLL to VHHH and you are over  the Himalayas  and you have to get down to 12000 quick you should have enough fuel to reach your enroute alternate, ie russia, kaz or china as you would have a lot a fuel anyways as you are going to HK etc etc.  The terrain issue I believe from a while back when a/c fuel flows where not as they are not on tripples and  330s etc etc

 

I know at the airlines I WORKED for since 1998, the terrain issue isnt really an issue any more and if you have a rapid decompression you're going to try and get to a breathable alt as soon as possible.  

There are EOSIDS..and as 777simmer mentioned in specific areas. With  RNP AR procedures they will self present when certain parameters are reached via the air data computer and other engine monitoring instruments. All the crew needs do is select it and the aircraft flies it.

They don't neccesarily have to be an RNP AR EOSID's either, they could be company specific as long as they are in the navigation database. Jeppesen, who produce the navigation database for Virgin, for example, also publish EO SID charts for them (which aren't related to the RNP-AR EOSID procedures). I therefore assume they also include the data in their navigation database to be selected in the EO-SID on the DEP/ARR page.

 

James correct. I just used RNP AR as an example.

 

This topic seems to have strayed a fair way off engine drift down but its got some great info and comments in it.

This topic seems to have strayed a fair way off engine drift down but its got some great info and comments in it.

Seems to be a common thing around here B)

 

And while we are drifting off topic, you crewing on QF25 this year?

Regarding to pressurization issue, all the 777 and the A340 and the 747-400 ( of which the airline I know is operating ) have oxygen tanks to provide oxygen for passenger needs for about 35 to 45min for a full passenger load. The A330-300, which the airline I know is operating, has chemical generation for the passengers which limited to about 20min. Flight crew oxy supply is a minimum of 2 hours for all type if my memory is correct. Talking to flying the over the Himalayan ranges ( I mean on airway Y1) if you go straight to FL120 you will certainly crash into a mountain well before that considering the Grid MORA there can be as high as 25,000ft. That's why there's escape route on the charts, even on the escape route initially you may need to maintain let say FL180 for a couple min then step down as you go before leaving the area so that you will be able to fly at 10,000ft.

Even if you taking the northly route flying over Urumqi, china on airway B330 you can't go straight to FL120 for some part of the route. Although for ENG OUT is not so much of a problem up there comparing to Y1.

To be honest , there's no right or wrong. Lets enjoy flight sim. I am very happy to share what I know here with other enthusiasts.

Regarding to pressurization issue, all the 777 and the A340 and the 747-400 ( of which the airline I know is operating ) have oxygen tanks to provide oxygen for passenger needs for about 35 to 45min for a full passenger load. The A330-300, which the airline I know is operating, has chemical generation for the passengers which limited to about 20min. Flight crew oxy supply is a minimum of 2 hours for all type if my memory is correct. Talking to flying the over the Himalayan ranges ( I mean on airway Y1) if you go straight to FL120 you will certainly crash into a mountain well before that considering the Grid MORA there can be as high as 25,000ft. That's why there's escape route on the charts, even on the escape route initially you may need to maintain let say FL180 for a couple min then step down as you go before leaving the area so that you will be able to fly at 10,000ft.

 

Even if you taking the northly route flying over Urumqi, china on airway B330 you can't go straight to FL120 for some part of the route. Although for ENG OUT is not so much of a problem up there comparing to Y1.

 

To be honest , there's no right or wrong. Lets enjoy flight sim. I am very happy to share what I know here with other enthusiasts.

Ah yes, the good ol' Y1 airway.

 

 

Nice zig zag escape routes

But anyway.....

 

The things left unanswered (unless i missed something) are:

 

Does it have an EO Vnav Driftdown page that works like the real thing?

and

Does Vnav go into engine out mode if an engine failure is sensed at V1?

 

If not, too bad but those would be my two X mass wishes for SP1 :-)

 

 

Kyle you've just contradicted yourself mate

 

Yeah, I'm not sure why I haven't been as guarded with my words lately, or why I made the mistake of using such a broad term ("no such thing," implying anywhere, ever), but you're right.

 

 

 

There are EOSIDS..and as 777simmer mentioned in specific areas. With  RNP AR procedures they will self present when certain parameters are reached via the air data computer and other engine monitoring instruments. All the crew needs do is select it and the aircraft flies it.

 

Right, but again, they're not centralized data.  The FAA does not develop these procedures.  As such, in the manner SIDs and STARs exist, EOSIDs do not exist in a publicly-accessible world.  As that's the case, they exist for us about as much as the ASA RNP approaches to AK airports, and JBU RNP approaches to JFK.

 

They may be out there, but since they're operator-developed (again, I'll restate my FAA realm of argument here just to be sure someone doesn't point out the obvious), the likelihood anyone would be able to get to the data or use it is rather slim.  So yeah, sure they're out there, but until they exist in the sense current SIDs and STARs exist, they don't quite exist for us.

 

 

 

Your USA centric mentality works in the USA, but not necessarily for the rest of the more advanced aviation countries around the world. 

 

Thus why my last post had [FAA Info] and [/FAA Info].  I'm growing very tired of people assuming I should have equivalent worldwide knowledge to my FAA knowledge, or speak to a world perspective.  To be honest, I don't care what other countries do.  Until I start flying there, or own an airline that goes there, it doesn't affect me in the least, and would only serve to distract me from keeping up with the FAA stuff that's constantly changing.  Part of the reason world-class footballers are so good at football is that they don't also have to worry about being good at cricket, too.  It's not a difficult concept.

 

Instead of pointing out what I say is only valid for the FAA (which I clearly stated by the second post), how about people start to just fill in the blanks of where I don't cover?

 

...and "more advanced?"  Right...  :rolleyes:

Last I checked, radar was a late 1800s technology, and commonplace by the 1960s.  We've got full coverage.  How about ya'll?  And when the rest of the world can push as much traffic with the efficiency we do, we can discuss this again.  Until then, hyperbolic statements aren't necessary to point out that FAAland isn't perfect.  Believe me, I know first hand...

 

 

Does Vnav go into engine out mode if an engine failure is sensed at V1?

 

Just to clarify, it's not the fact that an engine is out at V1, or anything related to V1.

General sensed failure:

VNAV active, below EO accel height and below thrust reduction point.  Forces VNAV SPD at V2+15 and AT remains THR REF with the limit at TO.

 

EOSID call:

Flaps still extended and an EOSID in the database.  It will call it, but it must be EXECed or ERASEd.

We've got full coverage. How about ya'll?

ADS-B and MLAT (mainly the TASWAM project) coverage suits us real well

 

.....and here our air navigation service provider publish most RNP-AR procedures and are in the DAP's for the general public to view (and for controller to access easily)....someone needs to get on the folks at the FAA to do the same

 

Anyway when I read your posts I always remember your FAA disclaimer from the VATSIM forums so I sometimes need to hold my tongue before I correct some of your Americanism's etc.

Right, but again, they're not centralized data.  The FAA does not develop these procedures.  As such, in the manner SIDs and STARs exist, EOSIDs do not exist in a publicly-accessible world.  

 

Kyle; perhaps not in your FAA world but they are available in other worlds. Just because it doesnt happen in the FAA world id no reason to assert that they just don't exist. They do.

 

 

 

 I'm growing very tired of people assuming I should have equivalent worldwide knowledge to my FAA knowledge, or speak to a world perspective.  To be honest, I don't care what other countries do.

 

I appreciate that and its obvious. You quote FAA and from your comments basically tell people that because FAA doesn't do it then it either doesn't happen, is of no value, or it doesn't concern you. Not everyone lives in FAA world.

 

 

 

.and "more advanced?"  Right... 

Last I checked, radar was a late 1800s technology, and commonplace by the 1960s.  We've got full coverage.  How about ya'll?  And when the rest of the world can push as much traffic with the efficiency we do, we can discuss this again.  Until then, hyperbolic statements aren't necessary to point out that FAAland isn't perfect.  Believe me, I know first hand...

 

A couple of comment on this one.

I dont do hyperbole.  B)

When we get the population you have which covers most of the country I guess we too "could" have full radar coverage. And you are quite correct. radar is a very OLD technology. 

Which is why this country has ADSB coverage over most its continent above FL300. ABSD is a rather newer technology wouldn't you agree? Believe me, I know first hand...

 

 

 

Instead of pointing out what I say is only valid for the FAA (which I clearly stated by the second post), how about people start to just fill in the blanks of where I don't cover?

 

Which is what people have attempted to do. However you tend to greet this with your standard response of "it cant happen because thats not what the FAA do". You see the issue here? People try to fill in the blanks only to be reminded of FAA world again and again..

 

 

 

And when the rest of the world can push as much traffic with the efficiency we do, we can discuss this again.

 

I agree you push a heap of traffic no argument. Its the "with the efficiency we do" which is questionable.

 

 

 

 

And while we are drifting off topic, you crewing on QF25 this year?

 

Unfortunately No James. I will be in the Middle East again during that time.

sorry guys dont know why it attached my response to James to the response to Kyle. gremlins

 

 

ADS-B and MLAT (mainly the TASWAM project) coverage suits us real well

 

What's the source for MLAT, though?  ADS-B in and of itself is not a very secure system, which is why it hasn't been accepted as a primary means of position data yet.

 

 

 

.....and here our air navigation service provider publish most RNP-AR procedures and are in the DAP's for the general public to view (and for controller to access easily)....someone needs to get on the folks at the FAA to do the same

 

We have a ton of RNP ARs that the FAA created, which are public.  I'm talking about company-specific procedures like some of ASA and JBU's approaches, along with most of the EOSIDs.  Those are proprietary because the FAA didn't develop them.

 

 

 

Just because it doesnt happen in the FAA world id no reason to assert that they just don't exist. They do.

 

I spoke in too broad of a sense once in this thread.  I admitted that.  Can we move on?

 

 

 

You quote FAA and from your comments basically tell people that because FAA doesn't do it then it either doesn't happen, is of no value, or it doesn't concern you. Not everyone lives in FAA world.

 

Find a spot where I've said that and I'll concede it.  At max, I've said "if it's outside of FAA land it doesn't affect me so I honestly don't care."  At no point, anywhere, have I told anyone that the world outside of the FAA is of no value.

 

 

 

A couple of comment on this one.
I dont do hyperbole. 
When we get the population you have which covers most of the country I guess we too "could" have full radar coverage. And you are quite correct. radar is a very OLD technology. 
Which is why this country has ADSB coverage over most its continent above FL300. ABSD is a rather newer technology wouldn't you agree? Believe me, I know first hand...

 

ADS-B is certainly newer, but it can't beat the radar system that we have in place right now until all of its issues are solved.

 

Those who know the "cutting edge" story of Windows Vista will understand what I'm getting at.

 

"YAY WE HAVE ADS-B!!!"

Good for you! I can ruin your arrival stream with an antenna and a laptop...can't quite do that with radar.

 

 

 

Which is what people have attempted to do. However you tend to greet this with your standard response of "it cant happen because thats not what the FAA do". You see the issue here? People try to fill in the blanks only to be reminded of FAA world again and again..

 

If anything, I only greet it with "well, in the FAA realm," which fits in to exactly what I'm saying.  I don't jump on other people for not stating what the FAA side of things is, I simply add in "that may be the case there, but it's like this here."

 

 

 

Its the "with the efficiency we do" which is questionable.

 

I'd really like to see anywhere else in the world attempt to tackle what we do here, given the traffic levels we have.  I'm sure a lot of things seem efficient when you're only pushing a tenth of the traffic (I'll concede the fact that this is probably at a concentrated number of major airports, but still).

 

 

 

sorry guys dont know why it attached my response to James to the response to Kyle. gremlins

 

The forum groups posts where it can to save space.

What's the source for MLAT, though?  ADS-B in and of itself is not a very secure system, which is why it hasn't been accepted as a primary means of position data yet.

 

Multilateration runs off a bunch of interrogator and Mode S receiver antennae on the ground. Every time a transponder responds to an interrogation, the Mode S receivers receive the response. The delta in receipt time is used to triangulate the position. 

 

ADS-B has been approved in Australia and other countries for separation purposes. In Australia, ADS-B is approved for 5 NM separation where the accuracy reported by the aircraft meets the requirements and there are no RAIM outages detected by the monitoring station co-located with the antenna. RAIM outages, etc., are handled in the same way as a radar failure.

 

In terms of security... there are lots of protocols that are in use in aviation that are completely unsecured. Voice comms is the most obvious: anyone can buy an airband transceiver and start messing around. Earlier this year, media reports indicated that researchers had found a feasible way for anyone to spoof ACARS (or CPDLC; articles were not clear and only hinted that route uplinks were possible) messages. Now having said that, spoofing ADS-B messages in busy airspace probably has more potential for disruption that someone impersonating ATC on the radio.

 

 

Now having said that, spoofing ADS-B messages in busy airspace probably has more potential for disruption that someone impersonating ATC on the radio.

 

Bingo.

 

Thus why I didn't address any of the other things.  ADS-B has a larger vulnerability because of the scalability of the attack.  Add multiple targets into a busy arrival stream?  Arrival stream sequencing ruined.

Just to clarify, it's not the fact that an engine is out at V1, or anything related to V1.

General sensed failure:

VNAV active, below EO accel height and below thrust reduction point.  Forces VNAV SPD at V2+15 and AT remains THR REF with the limit at TO.

 

EOSID call:

Flaps still extended and an EOSID in the database.  It will call it, but it must be EXECed or ERASEd.

yes, but are you talking real word 777 here or modeled by PMDG for their 777?

 

1) (I already accepted the EOSID call will not work for the PMDG 777 but now I am confused)

 

2) Additionally, I am still not sure what the PMDG 777 Vnav function does when I have an engine failure diring take off (for example at V1).

I hope as in real life?

 

3) And I dont know if the PMDG 777 offers you a Vnav driftdown if an engine failure occurs at cruise (FL380 for example).

I hope the original question has been answered..we are WAY off topic here.

 

Kyle are you a MOD by any chance? I'd like to get our part of the thread moved to its own thread and let the engine out drift down surface again. 

 

Some interesting stuff here.

 

Any MODS can help here??