8 hours ago, martinboehme said:

No problem, glad we got it sorted out!

Yes, we have the problems sorted out and knowing the problem is half the solution.

In the picture below, pressing 'b' does not change the barometric pressure which is 29.92. Live weather show a different value 30.22. The 'b' shortcut is keyed or bound to 'set altimeter'. To keep it simple, I used the default Cessna 172 to take complex aircraft such as the 737 out of the picture, practically removed all add-ons in my Community folder, and spawned in KTVL (see over-arching picture below  - info overload! 😄).

I am running out of ideas why the 'b' shortcut does not work. The PC was rebooted, and the key, also did not work using the Cessna in a different airport (KSFO). Using the 'b' key does not change the standard temperature.

 

12 hours ago, martinboehme said:

I've just gone back and rechecked, and the Navigraph charts (which come from Jeppesen) list the runway heading as 177 degrees. I see two possibilities here: a) Jeppesen introduces minor inaccuracies into charts that are made available through Navigraph, to discourage people from using them in the real world. (The charts do, after all, say that they are for flight simulation only.) Or b) This is an actual error in the Jeppesen chart. I'd be interested to hear from someone who has access to the real-world Jeppesen chart what the runway heading is that is charted there.

I'd be interested too if there is an actual error in the Jeppesen chart. Perhaps someone has access to real-world Jeppesen charts.

What do real airlines use??

46 minutes ago, anavsun said:

I am running out of ideas why the 'b' shortcut does not work. The PC was rebooted, and the key, also did not work using the Cessna in a different airport (KSFO). Using the 'b' key does not change the standard temperature.

If the b short cut does not work than you need  to set it  in your  controls for each aircraft you have got, in your  pic  above  you have  got b  key assigned to your brake

Thank you for your time and reply. No, I have 'b' bound to 'SET ALTIMETER'. See the picture above again. "B is Brake" is just the name of an old profile (a separate story... I didn't want to use a joystick button with my joystick which has a limited number of buttons so I created a profile and named it "B is Brake" which is just the old profile name).  Sorry for the confusion.

 

14 hours ago, martinboehme said:

I've just gone back and rechecked, and the Navigraph charts (which come from Jeppesen) list the runway heading as 177 degrees. I see two possibilities here: a) Jeppesen introduces minor inaccuracies into charts that are made available through Navigraph, to discourage people from using them in the real world. (The charts do, after all, say that they are for flight simulation only.) Or b) This is an actual error in the Jeppesen chart. I'd be interested to hear from someone who has access to the real-world Jeppesen chart what the runway heading is that is charted there.

I just looked at current jepps.  The courses and chart dates are the same as Navigraph.  I really doubt that Jeppesen is willing to invest a penny or a minute of their resources into "hobbling' the chart data they provide Navigraph.  They slap the "not for navigation" watermark on there, relieve themselves of all liability, cash the check from Navigraph, and go on with their actual business. 

I think it's as simple as mag var data is constantly changing, and the rate of change has been increasing lately as the magnetic north pole drift is increasing.  Different databases get updated at different times, and different chart and navdata fields pull from these different databases at different times for different updates.  It's a jumble.  It's all *relatively* up to date, but it's not all from the very same survey. 

And the important thing is, it doesn't matter.  A few degrees of heading is functionally irrelevant.  If you're on runway 18, you aren't going to mistake it for another runway if your compass reads 175 or 185.  Course data is more important for some aircraft on certain approaches, and that tends to be updated more frequently for ILS approaches because in some aircraft, the inbound course set in the MCP does effect localizer presentation, even though everyone learned in their Cessna that it doesn't.  (The 737 is one of these aircraft btw.)

But on an RNAV approach - even a real tight RNP (AR) variety - these courses rarely matter, because of the conventions used by the ARINC-424 data spec.  Almost all of the leg types in these procedures are RF (radius to fix) or TF (track to fix) leg types.  This means that all that's important is the positional data for all the waypoints.  The FMC constructs and draws the procedure from the navdata, choosing whatever courses it needs to, for instance, draw a track from one fix to another.  The regional mag var in the FMC database is kept quite current, and so it all works. 

As a pilot, a lot of that is transparent to you.  You don't even have a way to see which leg type is coded for each leg on an approach.  You need access to the actual navdata database file to see this; it's an engineer function. 

But the takeaway is, when you're verifying an approach in the FMC against the chart, you're focusing on the sequence of waypoints, arcs on what should be RF legs, altitude and speed restrictions, and the angle on coded glidepath segments.  A couple degrees difference in a course between waypoints is irrelevant.  We don't even technically teach people to check course data.  We focus on verifying waypoint sequence, speed and altitude restrictions, RF legs and glidepath angle. 

So don't sweat the minor course disagreements.

I think I have it figured out. Very likely an error of some sort in my part. Thanks to @pete_auau I re-did my key bind and this time used a different payware plane also, FSReborn's FSR500 and it worked. I then reloaded the 737 and that worked too. Both barometric pressures in the live weather metar and the aircraft agree. 

The one problem I'm still wondering about is what to do with the 5 degree offset. Given that there might be something wrong with the charts (an obstacle recorded on the chart but missing in the scenery and the data source for the Jeppessen chart might have an actual error) it's not clear if the 5 degree offset shown in the charts should be plus or minus 5 degrees ie. resulting in an approach course of 177 or 167 degrees). Since this is only a sim  and an incomplete one at that (where are the pilot-controlled lighting?? 😵) and the landing will be hand flown and not flown as a precision approach, the offset info is probably inconsequential.


 

16 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

So don't sweat the minor course disagreements.

I just read your reply. Good advice all around and not just in flight simming but also in life. 🙂  Thank you!

6 minutes ago, anavsun said:

The one problem I'm still wondering about is what to do with the 5 degree offset.

Nothing. You do literally nothing.  Pretend it does not exist and just fly the procedure as it loads.  Don't adjust ANYTHING. 

All that offset means is that you, once you see the runway and you are manually flying, will need to make a very slight turn to align with the runway and land.  The automation doesn't do it.  The pilot does it, with your hands and feet on the controls.

Just ignore the fact that there is an offset. When you see the runway, look out the window and land.  It's just that simple.

4 hours ago, anavsun said:

I think I have it figured out. Very likely an error of some sort in my part. Thanks to @pete_auau I re-did my key bind and this time used a different payware plane also, FSReborn's FSR500 and it worked.

glad you have it sorted for  the key bind,  you can make  separate profiles for each plane you have

You know, I have been really impressed with this thread. There are times when people ask multiple questions, and they end up being told to "find it on YouTube" (or something to that effect). It has been nice to see all of the helpful and patient replies to anavsun's many questions in this thread. Well done, guys 👍

Edited February 21, 20251 yr by Christopher Low

 

 

@Christopher Low I agree! I can think of two other posts who said the same thing about how helpful these message threads are.

All credit and kudos go to @Stearmandriver and @martinboehme for this message thread.  All my questions were answered patiently and completely. I learned a lot (almost everything I know about flying the PMDG) since I seriously started flying a tubeliner about two weeks ago.

Because of the two of them, I've been trying to find out (unsuccessfully) how to pin or bookmark this and another post below in Avsim where they also answered a LOT of questions.

Is auto-landing the PMDG 737-800 on KSJC ILS 30L possible? - Page 8 - Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020/2024) - The AVSIM Community

Both of them remind me of two other super helpful Avsim-ers @Bert Pieke and @ark who voluntarily just give and give their time without any expectation of being rewarded in return. They're like those Energizer batteries ad from the 1980-1990s. They just keep going and going and never give up! 😵😄

They should all get some kind of recognition from Avsim (@Bob Scott) for making Avsim what it is today.

 

On 2/20/2025 at 8:37 AM, martinboehme said:

(The charts do, after all, say that they are for flight simulation only.)

That's pure legalese and nothing else. They are the exact same charts as the "real" ones.

It's a simple matter of licensing and lawyers covering their bases.

 

So that they can sue you in case you crash in your real aircraft and are found of having used the cheaper sim licensed charts instead of the more expensive ones for real aviation. 😉

Edited February 22, 20251 yr by Farlis

On 2/21/2025 at 4:51 PM, Farlis said:

So that they can sue you in case you crash in your real aircraft and are found of having used the cheaper sim licensed charts instead of the more expensive ones for real aviation. 😉

Good one! lol

Back to school.

Can someone please suggest on why VNAV refuses to work?  I tried to get it to work before taking off and after, but it still would not work. |

I don't see any discontinuities. I also tried changing the altitude from 5200 to 5600 ft which is the MSA for the area but it didn't make a difference. VNAV still won't arm or activate. On a previous flight I also set it to 5200 instead of 5250 in the FMC but that didn't work either (5200 is approximately an 'exciting' 50+ feet above the highest point on the mountain).

Is there a way to fix and activate VNAV enroute? See the first two pictures below.

Also, what is the difference between the three altimeter options in MSFS 2020? What is the Kollsman? See the last picture. Thanks.

10 minutes ago, anavsun said:

What is the Kollsman?

The Kollsman window is where your manually adjusted altimeter setting is displayed. No idea why MSFS has the options grouped like that. 

For VNAV, are your performance parameters inserted? (Weights, CI, etc)

Edited February 23, 20251 yr by SAS443

20 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

The Kollsman window is where your manually adjusted altimeter setting is displayed. No idea why MSFS has the options grouped like that. 

For VNAV, are your performance parameters inserted? (Weights, CI, etc)

That was it.  Good catch. Thank you!

I must have flown this route half a dozen times but this is the first time this issue came up which is why I never looked at this screen. Any idea why this was an issue even before taking off from the runway? What could have caused it?



EDIT. So far, I've not yet used a checklist. So I guess that's probably one reason why. I must have missed something. Another lesson learned. Use a checklist.

Edited February 23, 20251 yr by anavsun