27 minutes ago, Andrew2448 said:

Wow that's wild. Funny how often you hear when people are teaching Vatsim "You can't just delete the vectors legs" and yet here we are in real life.

As much of an inconvenience it is. It’s helped me to take a closer look at that last vector on a STAR. Is it a heading or a track? Lol

2 hours ago, cepact said:

It's actually a known issue, reported here: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-wants-faa-to-exempt-max-7-from-safety-rules-to-get-it-in-the-air/ (https://archive.is/f514F)

  Quote

Thanks for the pointer. TIL.

Wow, that does not sound like fun.

I know they said they aren't gonna make a fuss about the MAX and that it could drop anytime without much notice, but I'd rather they gave an update on its status instead of pursuing this secrecy. I've been waiting for a MAX since 2019 when they first started talking about it in plain language rather than hints.

15 hours ago, EGLD said:

you've got enough 737's to play with already

I  didnt even buy the -900 because I agree with this statement.

I really dont use the -700 anymore.  I use the -600 for JANET flights from klas to area 51 base. 

-800 is my go to

2 hours ago, threegreen said:

I know they said they aren't gonna make a fuss about the MAX and that it could drop anytime without much notice, but I'd rather they gave an update on its status instead of pursuing this secrecy. 

I think the secrecy about the MAX is because PMDG doesn't want to give information to iFly.

20 hours ago, Jeff Nielsen said:

Here's the link to the full post:  [06JAN24] Update on 777 Beta testing- and a few other small items... - PMDG Simulations 

"Hope you all are having a nice weekend- keep looking forward to 777 release! It is almost here!"

It's the very last line.  I paraphrased that last bit, which I think is fair in this instance.

Probably 2 to 3 months for beta testing, just like tne PMDG 737.

Great news from PMDG, keep it coming, what a year to be in flightsim, many dreams coming true.

I read this as PMDG Updated 6 Jan 24. Then I opened the app and went no it hasn't !

15 hours ago, Andrew2448 said:

Personally I find the "FMC crashes anytime it encounters a vector leg" to be a whole lot more unbelievable. Would be curious what @Stearmandriver has to say about that because I just cannot see that be an acceptable and widespread fleet issue without an immediate fix issued. 

This guy basically discredits himself with the entire paragraph about VNAV not working, a vector leg crashing the FMC, and being unable to do an RNP procedure below .3 RNP.

Vector legs don't affect the box.  At all.  If there is an FMC software version in which this is true, 1. It will obviously be patched and, 2. You have to wonder what kind of an airline would continue to operate with this software version. I can remember a couple times we had to roll back to an earlier version for a specific issue with one approach at one airport, and we basically did it overnight.  But certainly nothing as widespread as every vector leg crashing the FMC.  Choosing to just... Accept this?  I pretty well doubt it.

No RNP below .3?  That's ridiculous.  Perhaps his company doesn't maintain the airplane to that standard or train him to it, but the plane is certainly capable.  Even the -400s could go well lower than that (I believe they were good down to RNP .13.). But we do RNP .10 approaches with NGs and Maxs all day long.

Oh, the engine anti-ice: this is a real issue, but a lot more has been made of it than it really deserves.  Yes, apparently cowling damage could theoretically occur if you operate the engine anti-ice in flight in dry air.  But no one operates the anti-ice in dry air (why would you?), so this is really operationally insignificant.

15 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

…

No RNP below .3?  That's ridiculous.  Perhaps his company doesn't maintain the airplane to that standard or train him to it, but the plane is certainly capable.  Even the -400s could go well lower than that (I believe they were good down to RNP .13.). But we do RNP .10 approaches with NGs and Maxs all day long.

I’m honestly disappointed to read that someone like you @Stearmandriver - a long-time forum contributor viewed as a trustworthy source of info by a lot of our fellow avsim visitors - has no issue to ridicule another B737 colleague or look down on other companies standards and training without proper fact checking?!
 

That Reddit fellow has some valid points in his posts.
And there definitely is a bulletin published by Boeing for the MAX that prohibits RNP AR operations with minima below 0.30 on airplanes equipped with FMC U14.1 and Boeing FMC hardware part number 10-62225-004 installed in either left or right FMC. 
 

I guess your fleet must have a different combo of software and hardware as you are unaware of this publication. 
 

Best regards,
Sylvain

 

EDIT: reason to prohibit RNP AR below 0.30 for those specific airplanes has to do with ‘atmospheric radiation induced interference’ which can occur during all phases of flight but presents the greatest risk during RNP AR operations according to the bulletin. 

Edited January 8, 20242 yr by Sylle

15 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

This guy basically discredits himself with the entire paragraph about VNAV not working, a vector leg crashing the FMC, and being unable to do an RNP procedure below .3 RNP.

Vector legs don't affect the box.  At all.  If there is an FMC software version in which this is true, 1. It will obviously be patched and, 2. You have to wonder what kind of an airline would continue to operate with this software version. I can remember a couple times we had to roll back to an earlier version for a specific issue with one approach at one airport, and we basically did it overnight.  But certainly nothing as widespread as every vector leg crashing the FMC.  Choosing to just... Accept this?  I pretty well doubt it.

No RNP below .3?  That's ridiculous.  Perhaps his company doesn't maintain the airplane to that standard or train him to it, but the plane is certainly capable.  Even the -400s could go well lower than that (I believe they were good down to RNP .13.). But we do RNP .10 approaches with NGs and Maxs all day long.

I normally agree with your posts but I think this is a bit harsh tbh. 

1 hour ago, Sylle said:

has no issue to ridicule another B737 colleague or look down on other companies standards and training without proper fact checking?!

I'm not sure where this comes from... I didn't ridicule another company's standards or training... I said perhaps they don't maintain their aircraft or train to a standard that allows .10 approaches.  This appears to have been a correct statement, if the reason is that the company chooses to continue to operate a software version with known deficiencies instead of going through the minimal workload to install a properly working software version, doesn't it?

Maxs are fully capable of RNP .10 approaches, that's all.

Since when would an aircraft be allowed to carry commercial passengers when its FMC resets mid flight..... 

On 1/7/2024 at 5:34 PM, threegreen said:

I know they said they aren't gonna make a fuss about the MAX and that it could drop anytime without much notice, but I'd rather they gave an update on its status instead of pursuing this secrecy. I've been waiting for a MAX since 2019 when they first started talking about it in plain language rather than hints.

I have the impression that Rob thinks it isn't the right time to release another 737 just now, but they might be able to finish it quickly when a competitor announces the release of a 737 MAX. In the interview Rob gave to Sky Blue Radio ( https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/639614-sky-blue-radio-interview-with-pmdgs-rsr-on-various-topics/ ) he mentioned something along the lines of "737 fatigue" among potential buyers, if I remember correctly, so my feeling is they'll just give it some more time until there are enough people willing and ready to spend some money on the MAX.