9 hours ago, cowpatz said:

That 2800A at GRITY is the reason. It is not possible to have a higher crossing altitude following a lower one on a descent path.

Yes, the question is, should it be? I see what he's saying. He's on the ground trying to enter this restriction, which should just become a hold down on the climb. There's room to cross his point at 2000, climb to reach the cruise altitude of 4000, and then create an idle path descent that honors GRITY above 2800. The box is acting as though it's in descent mode before takeoff.

That doesn't seem right, but like I say I'm not really certain it isn't. I fly flights shorter than this occasionally in the real airplane, but I'm never modifying altitudes when I do it. I think that if you were already in flight and this close to a computed T/D, I could see the box already being in descent mode. But before takeoff? That seems less likely. But I'm not certain.

6 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

Yes, the question is, should it be? I see what he's saying. He's on the ground trying to enter this restriction, which should just become a hold down on the climb. There's room to cross his point at 2000, climb to reach the cruise altitude of 4000, and then create an idle path descent that honors GRITY above 2800. The box is acting as though it's in descent mode before takeoff.

That doesn't seem right, but like I say I'm not really certain it isn't. I fly flights shorter than this occasionally in the real airplane, but I'm never modifying altitudes when I do it. I think that if you were already in flight and this close to a computed T/D, I could see the box already being in descent mode. But before takeoff? That seems less likely. But I'm not certain.

I'm afraid that @cowpatz isn't familiar with how Boeing VNAV manages low-altitude level-offs, climb, cruise, and descent, including SID/STAR crossing restrictions and user-defined conditional waypoints.

In this scenario, the vertical profile is valid. The FMC has a properly defined climb segment, a distinct Top of Climb (T/C), a cruise segment, and a Top of Descent (T/D), with no conflicting altitude or speed constraints. 

As you suggested, I also entered the restriction before activating the route. That avoided the initial error message. However, after passing CRI, VNAV still became confused. Instead of immediately resuming the climb and accelerating to the scheduled climb speed, it remained level at the crossing altitude and speed for a period before eventually recovering and continuing the climb profile normally. That behavior is inconsistent with Boeing VNAV logic, where, once the crossing restriction has been satisfied and no further constraints exist, VNAV should promptly transition back to the commanded climb schedule.

The interesting part is this: prior to takeoff, assuming an ATC clearance such as "Cross CRI at or below 2,000 ft and 180 knots," entered on the LEGS page as a manually defined conditional waypoint, the FMC sometimes fails to accept or process it correctly, resulting in the message shown. What's particularly puzzling is that the issue is intermittent. The exact same setup may work correctly on one flight and fail on another.

That makes me wonder whether this is an edge case in the VNAV coding, perhaps related to the recalculation of the active vertical profile when user-defined conditional waypoints are introduced before departure. Since it isn't consistently reproducible, it's difficult to determine whether it's a logic flaw, a timing issue in the FMC's path generation, or another intermittent condition within the VNAV code. I can't quite put my finger on it, precisely because of its intermittent nature.

Speaking of RNP approaches, anyone know if one exists for RWY 14R at RJOO? Or at least a RNAV Visual? None exist in Navigraph, but I wonder if one of the Japanese airlines might have designed one. Not sure how common that sort of thing is in Japan.

Here is the approach:

1 hour ago, RNAVV19R said:

Speaking of RNP approaches, anyone know if one exists for RWY 14R at RJOO? Or at least a RNAV Visual? None exist in Navigraph, but I wonder if one of the Japanese airlines might have designed one. Not sure how common that sort of thing is in Japan.

Here is the approach:

Last time, over a year ago, there were no approach plates published for that 14L/14R runway. We had an additional chart, similar to JFK CRI lead lights. As you can see, there are 7 lead lights that provide only lateral guidance, with no vertical guidance unless on very short final/turn and seeing PAPI. That was a visual procedure assigned by ATC: circle to land from RWYs 32L/R when minimums were good. We used it with 3200 VIS and MDA 760 crossing LEAD #1. They use it quite a lot for the locals and still wonder why there is no published procedure for it. They spent time putting those LEAD lights; why there is no full approach or visual chart is beyond my understanding. 

Edited July 22Jul 22 by LRBS

38 minutes ago, LRBS said:

Last time, over a year ago, there were no approach plates published for that 14L/14R runway. We had an additional chart, similar to JFK CRI lead lights. As you can see, there are 7 lead lights that provide only lateral guidance, with no vertical guidance unless on very short final/turn and seeing PAPI. That was a visual procedure assigned by ATC: circle to land from RWYs 32L/R when minimums were good. We used it with 3200 VIS and MDA 760 crossing LEAD #1. They use it quite a lot for the locals and still wonder why there is no published procedure for it. They spent time putting those LEAD lights; why there is no full approach or visual chart is beyond my understanding. 

Yep, no publicly available approach. But I was wondering if an airline may have created their own approach, in which case the chart (and the approach itself) wouldn't be available to anyone other than that airline and anyone else that they sold it to. It's a long shot that anyone here would have this knowledge, but was just wondering.

Deleted.

Edited July 22Jul 22 by cowpatz

On 7/22/2026 at 10:00 AM, cowpatz said:

That 2800A at GRITY is the reason. It is not possible to have a higher crossing altitude following a lower one on a descent path.

Ignore that comment. I should have grabbed my reading glasses and looked a little more carefully before responding. I mistook it as being in the descent phase when in fact it was in the climb. I should have looked more closely at the plan view.
I can see no reason why it won't accept that constraint as it appears valid. Has anyone tried experimenting with changing the constraint values or trying higher and lower cruise altitude values to see if it still returns as an invalid entry?

On 7/21/2026 at 3:28 PM, LRBS said:

Hi Andrew,

Is this something particular for the 737? It did not happen in the 734 or other Boeings.

In this scenario, CRZ ALT is 4,000, and I tried to apply a restriction at CRI 180/2000, but it returns an INVALID ENTRY. This should not happen. I see the T/C before CRI, but it should not give that message. I would expect it to take the entry and recalculate the T/C somewhere after CRI. 

Thanks

Do you have the flight plan details SID/STAR etc? I’d be interested to see how the iFLy 737 MAX copes with that, assuming that the procedures are in the data base.

Horizon Air also has a number of custom, proprietary RNP approaches, so I'm curious if the RNP-M approaches for places like PUW, EAT, and SUN show up, or if they didn't get added because they don't work with the 737.

Disregard, double post

Edited July 23Jul 23 by ndts
Double post

Horizon Air also has a number of custom, proprietary RNP approaches, so I'm curious if the RNP-M approaches for places like PUW, EAT, and SUN show up, or if they didn't get added because they don't work with the 737.

4 hours ago, ndts said:

Horizon Air also has a number of custom, proprietary RNP approaches, so I'm curious if the RNP-M approaches for places like PUW, EAT, and SUN show up, or if they didn't get added because they don't work with the 737.

I would guess not, though I haven't looked. I assume these SE Alaska approaches are in the navigraph database for all aircraft? Or is it just for the 73s? I don't actually have any other airliners currently installed to check.

It's interesting though that nowhere near all the proprietary approaches are in there. It seems they've very specifically only added KTN, WRG, PSG, SIT, and JNU. Even YAK, CDV, and ADQ are missing and they're certainly part of the Southeast system. Nothing for the arctic system is in there, and Adak and Red Dog are missing too. So it's really just specifically those five airports. I'd like to see SBA, would save me having to build it lol.

2 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

I assume these SE Alaska approaches are in the navigraph database for all aircraft? Or is it just for the 73s? I don't actually have any other airliners currently installed to check.

MSFS2020

CRJ V2 550/700/900/1000

PAKT RNAV

Edited July 23Jul 23 by vonmar

MSFS2020

FBW A320

PAKT RNAV

Edited July 23Jul 23 by vonmar

10 hours ago, cowpatz said:

Do you have the flight plan details SID/STAR etc? I’d be interested to see how the iFLy 737 MAX copes with that, assuming that the procedures are in the data base.

I'm sorry, Steve. The only user WPT was after CRI. It was the SID from JFK on 31L, followed by the approach to EWR 29. As I mentioned, it is intermittent (a total nightmare for a programmer). Sometimes there are issues with Conditional Waypoints, Place Bearing/Place Bearing Waypoints, and Manually Entered Airway Crossing Waypoints. The first one was an eye-opener; the others, as I called them "hesitations," most likely are not an issue for many. Having said that, I think this product is quite solid and stable compared to others.