Back to the topic...

I'm now wondering why there are differences between what's shown in the navigation display (180 degrees - see 2nd picture), the offset is 5 degrees, and the final approach is 172 degrees (both on the plan view).  I thought I was supposed to hand fly to the right of runway to 177 degrees (172+5 for the offset) but as it turns out there is also a hill to the right of runway 18.

Also, if you look at the plan view there's supposed to be an obstacle with an altitude of 6428 ft but I can't find it in the scenery (last picture below).

Why the inconsistencies? What am I missing? Is one reason because the scenery has not been updated which is why the obstacle or high point is missing in the scenery? (the plan view showing the FAF is from Skyvector) 😵
 

 

 

3 hours ago, anavsun said:

I'm now wondering why there are differences between what's shown in the navigation display (180 degrees - see 2nd picture), the offset is 5 degrees, and the final approach is 172 degrees (both on the plan view).

In essence, I think what you're asking is: When you're lined up on the runway, why is the ND showing a heading of 180 degrees when the runway heading is actually supposed to be 177 degrees?

In my experience, it's not uncommon to see discrepancies of a few degrees like this. There can be several reasons for this (and maybe a combination of all of them):

• The runway may have been placed inaccurately in the airport scenery.
• MSFS's magnetic variation data may be outdated by a few years, and the magnetic variation may have changed in the meantime.
• IIUC, the 737 NG itself contains a magnetic variation database; if the PMDG models this, the PMDG's magnetic variation may also be outdated. (AIUI, the 737 NG's ADIRUs provide true heading, and this is then converted to magnetic heading for display on the ND, using a database stored in the aircraft's systems.)

All in all, I wouldn't worry about a difference of a few degrees like this.

3 hours ago, anavsun said:

I thought I was supposed to hand fly to the right of runway to 177 degrees (172+5 for the offset) but as it turns out there is also a hill to the right of runway 18.

Not sure what you're asking? You need to maneuver visually to align yourself with the runway centerline so you don't fly into the hill.

I think there may be a misunderstanding here: Are you assuming that when you get to SAKYY, you should simply turn to a heading of 177 degrees? That won't work. All of your navigation after SAKYY happens using outside visual references. You'll probably need to fly a slight left turn to get onto the runway centerline, then turn right to align yourself with the runway. Or to put it more simply: "Do what you need to do to land the plane." This is a visual maneuver -- you can use the ND to cross-check, but it's not your primary reference.

3 hours ago, anavsun said:

Also, if you look at the plan view there's supposed to be an obstacle with an altitude of 6428 ft but I can't find it in the scenery (last picture below).

I assume it's simply not modeled. I have to say though, even on Google Maps, it's not clear to me what that obstacle actually is -- I can't identify anything obvious.

Edited February 19, 20251 yr by martinboehme

9 hours ago, anavsun said:

Do airlines pay for the certification, exams, and hours spent by the pilot while preparing and doing the continuing ed?

Yes, regular flight time hourly pay.  Airlines conduct this training in house; they run their own training departments with their own simulators in their own training center etc.  So line pilots bid monthly schedules but also bid for training slots in their training months.  Pay is typically the higher of the training day value or the trip you're displaced from.

9 hours ago, anavsun said:

Also, if you look at the plan view there's supposed to be an obstacle with an altitude of 6428 ft but I can't find it in the scenery (last picture below).

That obstacle is a tower.  These aren't modeled in MSFS unless you're running a 3rd party addon such as We Love VFR.

As far as the course discrepancy, like Martin says, a few degrees in the sim isn't worth worrying about.  Magnetic variation change since the sim world was created will account for most of it.  But also, it looks like you aren't *quite* lined up with the runway in your screenshot... Typically, the large wiper bolt at the wiper arm pivot point makes a great centerline reference, so you need to come a couple degrees left, which is very close to 177.

Edited February 19, 20251 yr by Stearmandriver

12 hours ago, martinboehme said:

MSFS's magnetic variation data may be outdated by a few years, and the magnetic variation may have changed in the meantime

That can be ruled out. It was updated to the current one with the last update.

12 hours ago, martinboehme said:

I assume it's simply not modeled. I have to say though, even on Google Maps, it's not clear to me what that obstacle actually is -- I can't identify anything obvious.

6 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

As far as the course discrepancy, like Martin says, a few degrees in the sim isn't worth worrying about.

Got it. Thank you both for reminding me that MSFS is a simulation and not reality! 🙂

It does make one wonder what the value is in very realistic rendition of anything when that 'anything' is used in an environment that maybe outdated or not realistic anyway.

6 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

Yes, regular flight time hourly pay.  Airlines conduct this training in house; they run their own training departments with their own simulators in their own training center etc.  So line pilots bid monthly schedules but also bid for training slots in their training months.  Pay is typically the higher of the training day value or the trip you're displaced from.

Very interesting info. Thank you.

Are real-life full motion simulators also used to train pilots how to land and practice landing difficult approaches (eg. Paro International Airport - Wikipedia) or are these simulators limited to procedural training for a specific aircraft?

13 hours ago, martinboehme said:

All in all, I wouldn't worry about a difference of a few degrees like this.

Yes, I'm realizing it doesn't make a difference in the sim. But I imagine a few degrees is the difference between life and death when auto-landing in the real world. 

6 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

That obstacle is a tower.  These aren't modeled in MSFS unless you're running a 3rd party addon such as We Love VFR.

I just double-checked. I thought I also had the add-on installed when I took the screenshots but I'll check to see if I have the latest version of the add-on too.

7 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

But also, it looks like you aren't *quite* lined up with the runway in your screenshot... Typically, the large wiper bolt at the wiper arm pivot point makes a great centerline reference, so you need to come a couple degrees left, which is very close to 177.

The info on the wiper arm pivot as a reference point is fantastic info. Thank you very much for this. I did move the aircraft to the left as you suggested but the heading on the plane didn't change. It's still 180 degrees. 😖

But... this is a sim so I suppose I should lower my expectations regarding accuracy and reality, and accept approximations instead in MSFS.

Same setting as above but now showing the external view after moving the aircraft from its default position for runway 18 as defined by MSFS.

Looks like the aircraft is perfectly on the centerline and headed in the right direction, but the cockpit view shows your eye being positioned a little to the left. If you moved your eyepoint to the right by about six inches, you'd see yourself right on course, with the wiper bolt lining up with the runway centerline.

Edited February 19, 20251 yr by prolixindec

3 minutes ago, prolixindec said:

Looks like the aircraft is right on the centerline and headed in the right direction, but the cockpit view shows your eye being positioned a little to the left. If you moved your eyepoint to the right by about six inches, you'd see yourself right on course, with the wiper bolt lining up with the runway centerline.

Kinda tough to do using slew mode even when using the joystick to slew (it's impossible to do with the keyboard). I suppose I could taxi but a few inches might be a moot point considering that MSFS has the runway pointing 180 degrees when in fact it's 172 degrees with a 5 degree offset (I'm still unclear if the offset should place it at 167 or 177 degrees ie. minus or plus 5 degrees from 172 degrees).

2 hours ago, anavsun said:

The info on the wiper arm pivot as a reference point is fantastic info.

Every upgrading captain on 737s appreciates the heck out of that little nugget 😉.  Makes taxiing very mechanical.

 

3 hours ago, anavsun said:

Are real-life full motion simulators also used to train pilots how to land and practice landing difficult approaches (eg. Paro International Airport - Wikipedia) or are these simulators limited to procedural training for a specific aircraft?

Their value is more in procedural training, but they are good enough to give pilots at least a starting point in airmanship.  Pilots new to a fleet (or maybe new to the company) will do dozens of landings in the simulator before seeing the real plane, and their first flight in the plane IS a live flight (meaning with paying passengers on board) but it's also considered another phase of training called OE (operating experience), and as such they are paired with a specially qualified instructor called a check airman.  OE is really where a pilot learns the nuances of flying and landing the plane.  It typically lasts for several trips and we try to get them as many landings as possible.  I was a check airman on another fleet for years and it's highly rewarding flying, but it keeps you on your toes. 

But yes, the simulators are used for special airport training.  We have a whole slew of them in the system.  Folks new to the 73 here spend a lot of their simulator time in Juneau for instance, but anyone that's going to be Southeast Alaska qualed gets at least one OE trip through Southeast.  FOs usually get Ketchikan - Sitka - Juneau-Anchorage on day one, and Yakutat - Cordova - Juneau - Seattle on day two.  Captains usually get Ketchikan-Juneau, then Petersburg-Wrangell-Ketchikan-Seattle day two.  But it's somewhat scheduling dependent, and at a check airman's discretion as far as when they're comfortable issuing the qual.  They have a lot of discretion actually; they're the last step of a training process and are the ones to decide when a pilot is ready to be "turned loose" for normal line ops.  They also conduct line checks - in addition to simulator training every year, captains must receive a line check with a check airman evaluating from their jumpseat on a line flight every so often.  

This is confusing. The airport's elevation for KTVL is a fixed value (6260 ft MSL). Why would the barometric pressure in the metar alter that fixed value by 100s of feet (6420 instead of 6260 ft)?

To comply with the minimums in an approach which value should be used in MSFS (6420 or 6260) ?

An altimeter is just a barometer.  It senses air pressure changes, that's all it does.  Air pressure changes with altitude, but it also changes constantly as barometric pressure changes.  To make an altimeter read correctly, you need to tell it what the current barometric pressure is.  If you give it the wrong barometric pressure, it will give you the wrong altitude. 

I suspect you've got your sim weather set to a preset instead of live weather in your shot, because it's acting like the barometric pressure is the standard 29.92.  This is the default pressure of all the presets.

You can hit B to automatically set your altimeter setting to current barometric pressure... Which is a handy way to see what it really is in the sim.

Field elevation and touchdown zone elevation (TDZE) on the chart snippet you shared are not minimums.  The minimums block is below the profile view of the chart, down at the bottom.

Edited February 20, 20251 yr by Stearmandriver