David  all you got  to do is  to  remove it  from the fmc  options   as  this  is what I get  when I did it,  so I cant  see  whys  yours is  different  to mine

 

That doesn't just remove the sticker. There are a number of other options that are removed. They are listed in the Intro Manual.

Because, I just find it unbelievable how you nitpick on those relatively unimportant details when compared to what they represent. Equally unfounded is your assumption that it is unrealistic. It is enough that any one operator put that alert for its crew and or maintenance personel to make it valid and realistic. It is a common practice too when an item is inop.

 

There are special preflight checks that have to be conducted by maintenance or flight crew on these airplanes before an etops flight.

 

I guess I just find your complaint unjustified and irrelevant.

 

so keep your opinion to yourself.

 

whats the point of flying anything but the PMDG livery then? I mean it's just simulating an airplane you can make believe you are flying another livery, see this conversation can never end.

 

I think it's important to me, and the large sticker is right in my face if I am flying. I'd like it to be removed.  - David Lee

so keep your opinion to yourself.

 

whats the point of flying anything but the PMDG livery then? I mean it's just simulating an airplane you can make believe you are flying another livery, see this conversation can never end.

 

I think it's important to me, and the large sticker is right in my face if I am flying. I'd like it to be removed.  - David Lee

 

Just walked down to our Oversight Branch. In line with my earlier statement, I was told that if an aircraft is part of a mixed fleet of ETOPS/non-ETOPS aircraft, it would be unlikely that the FSDO approving the company OpSpec would not make a requirement of the operator to placard the capability. The placard is a realistic addition in this simulation of the 737. As mentioned, this is in line with other placarding requirements to note the capabilities (or lack of capabilities) of the aircraft, such as the flap limits.

Just walked down to our Oversight Branch. In line with my earlier statement, I was told that if an aircraft is part of a mixed fleet of ETOPS/non-ETOPS aircraft, it would be unlikely that the FSDO approving the company OpSpec would not make a requirement of the operator to placard the capability. The placard is a realistic addition in this simulation of the 737. As mentioned, this is in line with other placarding requirements to note the capabilities (or lack of capabilities) of the aircraft, such as the flap limits.

 

not doubting airlines have their standard for etops, just that the sticker used by pmdg is not realistic. United have that yellow sticker on the captain and fo. Alaska have their version of one and others too. I have seen some that incorporate it into the registration plate.  It would be nice to be able to remove that default one and let us paint a realistic one on there. For people that have ocd like myself - David Lee

 

 

just that the sticker used by pmdg is not realistic

 

...for your purposes. It's realistic in the fact that it would satisfy FAA regs. While you're correct that there could be more "professional looking" options, it isn't exactly within the scope of what we're doing to be able to incorporate every possibility of placard in existence.

Nobody listens to me ;-). Alaska does not placard ETOPS capability, like I said. We note it in the release for each flight.

Nobody listens to me ;-). Alaska does not placard ETOPS capability, like I said. We note it in the release for each flight.

What about the red lei in the vertical stabilizer eskimo logo ? Is that their "placard" just kidding, but I guess there is some truth to it ?

Nobody listens to me ;-). Alaska does not placard ETOPS capability, like I said. We note it in the release for each flight.

 

 

What about the red lei in the vertical stabilizer eskimo logo ? Is that their "placard" just kidding, but I guess there is some truth to it ?

 

It's just how the FSDO approved their OpSpecs. ASA said "here's how we're going to let crews know," and the FSDO said "that is appropriate enough for us."

Haha wouldn't surprise me! Yeah theoretically those are the ETOPS planes but I'm not sure how official that is ;-). And actually they do say ETOPS on the nose gear door too; I was just meaning cockpit placard. I still agree I don't see the problem with the sticker though; if nothing else it lets you know you've got ETOPS turned on in the settings! Seriously though... unless you're trying to replicate one specific tail number, there's no reason to get hung up on that stuff. Placards actually vary to some extent from tail to tail in the same fleet depending on when they were delivered etc. Put it this way: if I got into a -900ER tomorrow and saw that sticker, it wouldn't surprise me. I might not even notice. I'd just be verifying ETOPS equip and status on the release...

Haha wouldn't surprise me! Yeah theoretically those are the ETOPS planes but I'm not sure how official that is ;-). And actually they do say ETOPS on the nose gear door too; I was just meaning cockpit placard. I still agree I don't see the problem with the sticker though; if nothing else it lets you know you've got ETOPS turned on in the settings! Seriously though... unless you're trying to replicate one specific tail number, there's no reason to get hung up on that stuff. Placards actually vary to some extent from tail to tail in the same fleet depending on when they were delivered etc. Put it this way: if I got into a -900ER tomorrow and saw that sticker, it wouldn't surprise me. I might not even notice. I'd just be verifying ETOPS equip and status on the release...

 

that's the point, I am trying to replicate specific airplanes. Thank you for the inside info