@Stearmandriver, this bold statement is what actually triggered this:

"Syncing the heading bug is actually a bad habit that both pilots - PF and PM - should stop doing"

Unfortunately, this data that has been identified has nothing to do with this procedure, it's just bad training or us not following correct flows and precipitating pushing wrong buttons.

On the same note, I fully agree with you that airplanes that don't have this automatic sync heading bug might be a "challenge" for some and quite an inconvenience, but not to the extent of stop doing it. 

All the best.

Edited January 15, 20224 yr by Vlad Tepes3

48 minutes ago, Vlad Tepes3 said:

@Stearmandriver, this bold statement is what actually triggered this:

"Syncing the heading bug is actually a bad habit that both pilots - PF and PM - should stop doing"

Unfortunately, this data that has been identified has nothing to do with this procedure, it's just bad training or us not following correct flows and precipitating pushing wrong buttons.

On the same note, I fully agree with you that airplanes that don't have this automatic sync heading bug might be a "challenge" for some and quite an inconvenience, but not to the extent of stop doing it. 

All the best.

I don't mean to continue de-railing this thread, but you've got me curious: could you explain what you mean here?  How do you feel that the data I referenced has nothing to do with the "procedure" of synching the heading bug?  You seem to feel the procedure should be continued, despite the fact that every time a pilot touches the MCP an opportunity for error (which has nothing to do with good or bad training) is created.  What positives come of this procedure that you feel outweigh that? 

As far as I can see AQM is a complete protocol regarding a way of training and certifying pilots.  Large US operators have accepted it and mainly use use smaller operaters do not.  It is not a mix and match job.  I see no authorisation for the ignoring of procedures for setting the heading indicator in airlines that do not use AQM.

 

 

Getting back on topic, when do you guys think the PMDG 737 will be released? Next month hopefully?

1 hour ago, Stearmandriver said:

I don't mean to continue de-railing this thread, but you've got me curious: could you explain what you mean here?  How do you feel that the data I referenced has nothing to do with the "procedure" of synching the heading bug?  You seem to feel the procedure should be continued, despite the fact that every time a pilot touches the MCP an opportunity for error (which has nothing to do with good or bad training) is created.  What positives come of this procedure that you feel outweigh that? 

If you really think that "every time a pilot touches the MCP is an opportunity for error" and has nothing to do with proper training and understanding of the systems then I'm speechless.

Yep, don't touch anything, it's an opportunity for error!

33 minutes ago, captain420 said:

Getting back on topic, when do you guys think the PMDG 737 will be released? Next month hopefully?

Not until we stop centering the heading bug! Havent you been following??!!!

 

 

36 minutes ago, captain420 said:

Getting back on topic, when do you guys think the PMDG 737 will be released? Next month hopefully?

Personally, I’m leaning towards the late Spring/Early summer. Seems kinda crazy to think that far out, but just my two cents.

2 hours ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Not until we stop centering the heading bug! Havent you been following??!!!

 

 

Imagine if this topic was about the Q400 (with its dual heading knobs). Oh my. 

6 hours ago, Vlad Tepes3 said:

If you really think that "every time a pilot touches the MCP is an opportunity for error" and has nothing to do with proper training and understanding of the systems then I'm speechless.

Yep, don't touch anything, it's an opportunity for error!

You seem to be confusing a lack of understanding of how to use the flight guidance with "error". That would not be error, but poor training. 

Error is, by definition, unintentional.  If a pilot makes an incorrect but fully intended change to flight guidance, this is not an error.  This is an improperly performed task. 

Error would be an UNintentional change to the MCP, such as bumping another control while manipulating the heading knob.  Again, it's not as if I'm preaching a pet peeve of mine, I'm just telling you what data from all over the world shows - pilots have a tendency to make these errors, in all aircraft types. 

The acceptance of the inevitability of human error is the foundation of all of human factors; it's why we do basically everything we do.  It's why we have defined pilot flying / pilot monitoring roles, it's why standardization and TEM / CRM exist, it's why checklists and briefings are held almost sacred in the industry.

If we could simply, through any level of training, convince pilots to just stop making mistakes, we wouldn't need any of that, would we?  Imagine how much money we could save.  😉  But that's impossible, because humans are human.  And so yes, every time you touch anything, an opportunity for error is introduced. 

You still haven't told me; what value do you see in this act? Why are you so staunchly defending it?  I love this stuff; I really want to know. 

As I understand it aligning the heading bug with the heading of the plane gives a quick check on direction of flight also in the event of a failure such as decrompression it makes it easier to turn the heading off the airway to facilitate a descent. 

10 hours ago, captain420 said:

Getting back on topic, when do you guys think the PMDG 737 will be released? Next month hopefully?

When PMDG has published videos of the 737, it will be released 1 month later. So don't panic, i bet for the next month. 😉 

So, I'm not trying to be a "llama drama" here, but does anyone else interpret that as a problem? This was posted today on the official PMDG forums and just screams problems. 

 

6 minutes ago, Keirtt said:

So, I'm not trying to be a "llama drama" here, but does anyone else interpret that as a problem? This was posted today on the official PMDG forums and just screams problems. 

 

That definitely is not a good sign. Asobo needs to pull their heads out of their you know what. 

12 minutes ago, Ridvan Celik said:

That definitely is not a good sign. Asobo needs to pull their heads out of their you know what. 

Agreed. I try not to read into things but it's hard not to after reading this. 

48 minutes ago, Ridvan Celik said:

That definitely is not a good sign. Asobo needs to pull their heads out of their you know what. 

I'm not usually one to comment on issue involving other devs, but I feel the need to point out something that simply isn't true.

There is absolutely nothing regarding the SDK that presents a blocking issue to aircraft development besides a custom weather radar API.

I can say that with 95% certainty having worked with aircraft development in MSFS for nearly a year and a half, and having spoken to numerous other devs and with Asobo developers themselves. Although we primarily use HTML gauges at FBW, we also use WASM gauges for systems and autopilot/fly-by-wire, the same technology that payware aircraft use for all of their code. And if Aerosoft is able to put out the CRJ as a complete product (with the exception of WX & terrain radar), I don't see why others cannot do the same.

 

Also, in my personal opinion, Robert's message borders on unprofessional. Having had contact with Asobo developers for quite a while now, they have been nothing but helpful and nice. There are obviously cannot fulfill every one of our requests at once, but are understanding and help out as much as they are able, given the constraints of working on such a large platform with countless other third party developers to communicate with.