This is very interesting and makes total sense. I've been doing this habitually for years. The Challenger 650 and CRJ even have the HDG SYNC button. 

2 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

That's the idea; ASAP/FOQA data shows that the habit of resetting the heading bug  after every LNAV leg cycle just introduces multiple opportunities every flight to inadvertently bump something on the MCP and change flight guidance mode.  As ubiquitous as this habit has become, it's never verbalized and basically ignored by the other pilot, so there's no opportunity for good monitoring to trap the error.  Hundreds of examples of this in the data. 

Conversely, the habit seems to originate (at least most pilots will tell you this) from the idea that if the flight guidance mode spuriously degrades into Heading, at least the plane won't start an unintended turn.  Thing is, most flight guidance lateral modes don't degrade like this anyway, plus it rarely happens, plus there are multiple indications of it so the airplane really isn't going to have an opportunity to wander very far.  An argument could even be made that the beginning of an unexpected turn could help alert the crew to what has happened, vs the airplane trucking straight ahead in Heading and the crew still thinking they're in LNAV.

The data doesn't really support there being any value in this habit, and it does indicate real risk, so a cost/benefit analysis pretty conclusively says we should stop doing it. 

Obviously the heading bug is there for a reason, and I'm not saying not to use it when in Heading mode, or as a reminder of an upcoming heading, first heading on a missed etc.  The philosophy is shifting to just know WHY you're moving it, instead of "just because."

Now personally, I think it stems from pilots being OCD and wanting the Heading bug to point in the same direction as the airplane.  I'm pretty sure that's why it's been such a hard one for me to try and break; I still do it sometimes. 😁

You are entitled to your opinions, no question about it.

At the airlines, we have specific procedures to have heading bug to match the course for many reasons not "just because".

As an airline SOP, we always announce "heading select" and verify all the fma changes and modes, this "crew still thinking they're in LNAV" it does happen when the crew is not following SOP. 

Also, just to let you know, many airplanes (especially the new ones) have hdg sync buttons or just automatically sync and we use them accordingly. 

We should wonder if there is such a "risk" why the airlines use it without issues and why the aircraft manufacturers still provide either "managed" or "automatically sync".

Actually, the real risk here are the beancounters or people without any understanding of the real picture and try to be important with cost/benefit analysis.

Now, regardless of what you or I say the airlines still use it as above described. 

Just out of curiosity, what do you do with the hdg bug when you fly? 

How do you set it when you are on vectors, what do you do with it after an intercept, how do you set it when on course of an airway?

3 minutes ago, Vlad Tepes3 said:

Actually, the real risk here are the beancounters or people without any understanding of the real picture and try to be important with cost/benefit analysis.

Now, regardless of what you or I say the airlines still use it as above described. 

Just out of curiosity, what do you do with the hdg bug when you fly? 

How do you set it when you are on vectors, what do you do with it after an intercept, how do you set it when on course of an airway?

A bit of a misunderstanding here I think: first, I've been an airline pilot for 22 years, and a check airman / instructor for much of that. I helped initialize AQP at my former company; I'm fairly well versed in aviation human factors, the data that drives it, and the application of it to flying the line.  I'm not sharing opinion here, but a current industry best practice, as indicated by ASAP and FOQA data. 

Secondly, you seem to have understood me to say "never use the heading bug" which I tried to take pains to point out I wasn't saying.  I was specifically talking about the common tendency for pilots, after a turn in a mode other than Heading Select, to want to "marry" or "sync" the heading bug; ie align the heading bug with the aircraft's present heading.  Often, they'll continue to do this periodically on the same leg as shifting winds require slight heading changes, resulting in a bug that's out of sync. All of this is indeed moving the heading bug "just because" as it accomplishes nothing, and it is rarely if ever verbalized. 

What I do with the heading bug - what I ATTEMPT to do when old habits don't get me 😉 - is use it as necessary, and leave it alone otherwise.  On vectors, obviously we use (and verbalize) it.  After an intercept or on an airway? Leave it alone, or possibly set it to the next expected heading as a reminder if applicable. 

8 years into flying it, I do still wish the 737 MCP had a push-to-sync heading bug.   😉

If you fly for an operator that uses AQP you'll likely be hearing about this eventually; it's a relatively new item on the radar and each operator will weigh it against other changes and areas of training emphasis based on their own trend data, but you'll hear it eventually. 

Well, I'm not gonna put my resume here. At least it looks like you "wish the 737 MCP had a push-to-sync heading bug" and we're not so off.

People are resistant to change, but I don't know why this idea seems to bother you so much.  It's just a simple point of improvement the data has identified.  That's the whole reason to collect and analyze this data, isn't it? 

I only included my experience to show that I wasn't one of those "bean counters" or "people without any understanding of the real picture who try to be important" that you were attempting to dismiss. 

I wish the 737 had a push to sync heading bug for convenience when actually using the bug as intended, not so I can reach up and mash it every ten minutes for no reason while not in heading select.  That's what we should probably be avoiding. 

On 1/12/2022 at 8:35 AM, Greazer said:

I'm talking about a Copilot that is visible in the cockpit

I'd rather not see *this* co-pilot. 😄 Immersion wise.

Is there actually any news of any practical sense in this thread including the op?

Goodness.  Looking at this picture the runways still look terrible in MSFS, right?  Is it still that projected mesh thing?  Anyway, glad to see PMDG is getting closer.  

5 minutes ago, micstatic said:

Goodness.  Looking at this picture the runways still look terrible in MSFS, right?  Is it still that projected mesh thing?  Anyway, glad to see PMDG is getting closer.  

Yer that runway looks terrable just like all the flat lifless runways in P3D, lucky like when I used P3D I only use addon airports with stunning textures and all the slops of the real ones. Amazing how slops bring a runway to life.

Edited January 14, 20224 yr by Nyxx

14 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

Yer that runway looks terrable just like all the flat lifless runways in P3D, lucky like when I used P3D I only use addon airports with stunning textures and all the slops of the real ones. Amazing how slops bring a runway to life.

I like slopes also.  But I don't like the poor looking ground textures.  Not sure why you would feel compelled to turn this into a comparison with p3d.  That's kind of bizarre.   I also only use addon airports.  Really in any of my sims.  

Edited January 14, 20224 yr by micstatic
add last line

40 minutes ago, micstatic said:

I like slopes also.  But I don't like the poor looking ground textures.  Not sure why you would feel compelled to turn this into a comparison with p3d.  That's kind of bizarre.   I also only use addon airports.  Really in any of my sims.  

If you only use addon airports then you wont see the default runways, so why make a reply pointing out of how "terrible""  default one looks That's kind of bizarre. When you never see them.

But they still look far better then from my last sim default runways my a mile. you said "Looking at this picture the runways still look terrible in MSFS, right?" Default airports in MSFS are a far cry from P3D default airports, so even if MSFS runways are not perfect there still far better then what i would compair them with. Its like saying the clouds look bad..well sometimes they do, but still a million times better than an "old" sims.

Its a new standard of "terrible". its still very good and far better then before, but addon airports as always go a step more. Thats my point.

Edited January 14, 20224 yr by Nyxx

I disagree that payware runway textures in msfs look better than payware runway textures in other sims.  It's easy to compare for yourself.  I'll just not say anymore on this.  We disagree and it's not the subject of the post.  I was simply commenting on my initial observation. An observation i've made with payware airports also.  And an observation that developers have explained.  

3 hours ago, tweekz said:

I'd rather not see *this* co-pilot. 😄 Immersion wise.

I would rather to have not seen your posts 😂

Anyway, what about the brightness of the cockpit? Is it too dark? I was just spending quite some time lately to find a way to brighten the cockpits in P3D that are way too dark and this is even worse now in 5.3. After finally being successful in that I came across the PMDG update thread. I remember from other screenshots that PMDG shared of the 737 in MSFS that the cockpit was much brighter than in this screenshot. Mr. Randazzo replied that the cockpit becomes this dark when the sun is far behind the airplane and that it's otherwise brighter, saying this is the result from MSFS's lighting engine but also emphasized that the screenshot was taken just with the Windows snipping tool so may be a little inaccurate.

Personally, I find this to be too dark based on my 'research' I did when adjusting the P3D shaders, but I also don't sit in the cockpit every day. Any thoughts? Perhaps @Stearmandriver could help out here if possible.

Edited January 14, 20224 yr by threegreen

I think I see what you mean, but my gut feeling is to agree with Randazzo, that this is more of a lighting engine thing.  The panel looks natural where the stripe of sun falls on the right side of the MCP and the FO's EFIS control panel.  I've noticed that even with the latest patch, MSFS does seem to auto-adjust exposure a little bit based on where you're looking, and the outside, front-lit world is nicely exposed in this shot, so maybe we're seeing a little underexposure of the cockpit? Not too bad though, I'm not seeing details lost in shadow or anything. 

It's always hard to compare like this; given all the variability in display types, color correction and gamma settings etc, it's hard to say if any two of us on here are even seeing this photo in exactly the same way. I can't say it's not too dark for you.

But I'll say this: in the last round of photos Randazzo posted, showing full sun in the cockpit, there were several photos that I'd have believed were photographs of a real airplane, no exaggeration. All the little details like the level of translucency of different materials like the fire switches, the wheel on the gear handle... it was ridiculously good.  When desktop sims get so good that you honestly can't tell it's not a real photo... wow. 

I'm looking forward to this one.   👍