Additionally, you'd get a lot better of a response from people if you weren't so abrasive.

Could not agree with you more Kyle! I was going to get involved in this debate here but decided not to (see my post above) due to the unfriendly and inappropriate tone around here!

 

Besides, Ryan said they are looking into it.

 

 

Mr Scandinavian, the first time I reported the problem , the official reply was about keep hand flying and bla, bla, bla, instead of just checking my info. And it sounded very unpolite, as well. I am just keeping the same level of conversation.

 

To be honest, your first post has nothing to do with the title, and includes "Pity we dont have the 80 kt , VR and positive climb call outs..." and "till waiting for the SDK and a 2D front and overhead panels to be launched."

 

Bringing up 2D panels just sets everyone off around here, so it's almost assumed that you're intentionally trying to ruffle feathers by bringing it up.

 

Additionally, your title has no supporting info at all, so why should I bother fact checking?  You never even added supporting evidence until after Ryan's post.  If the team ran to the manuals to fact check every assertion here without supporting evidence their days would be spent chasing unicorns.

 

If there's a problem, come with facts, and put those on the table from the start.  If you don't, don't get upset that people didn't immediately jump on your issue.

 

 

 

Mr Downscc, among other places, for instance, try to request a SID from Zurich , runway 14, that meets your engine out climb gradient. Sorry to inform you that there is none. The minimum is 9.5% until 2500 feet.  Considering 180 kt as V2, it will be 1700 ft/min.  Just impossible to attain.   That's why ALL the commercial companies publish, some with the agreement of the country Aviation agency, an Engine out procedure.

 

Firstly, TERPS development is an FAA thing.  Zurich is definitely not under the purview of the FAA, or its TERPS development.

 

Secondly, it was really a generic comment about how TERPS are designed.

 

Thirdly, he was referring to the standards of the development.  You can see some of them in the various diagrams here:

http://vtmea.com/pdfs/Section%204.pdf

 

 

 

But this is not the case here.  We are talking about 2 Autopilot features that are not in line with BOEING aircraft. Availability of TRK-HDG select below 400 feet and the TOGA inhibiting any other roll mode when airborne below 400 feet.  The wings are flexing, the rivets are all there,even the turnaround time was modelled, but the Auto Pilot is not correct.

 

Right.  All you needed to do from the outset is say:

FCOMv234 11.43.237 states:

"[The plane should behave this way.]"

This is currently not the case.

 

Done.  No argument.  No mysterious intention (when the first post doesn't match or address the title at all, it's unclear what you're getting at).  No drawn out discussion.

Mr scandinavian,  check this: www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation...safety/.../AC120_91overview.ppt‎         

 

 

Mr scandinavian,  check this:

 

Yes, as someone who's helped plan airport development to ensure compliance with TERPS requirements.  Luckily, because of that work, I have the PPT file you're referring to as your link didn't post properly.

 

Now...what is your point?