victorlima01

That's a pretty neat trick. Always learning! Thx Sam.

Hi Leo, Capturing the IAN glidepath and final approach course via the MCP is very similar to capturing an ILS glideslope and localizer. Firstly, select a valid RNAV approach from the FMC database (on the Approachs page). As you approach the final approach fix, with VNAV and LNAV armed/engaged, you should press the APP button on the Mode Control Panel. This should result in having FAC (final approach course) and GP (glidepath) display on your FMA in gray colors beneath the active modes (in green) whichever they may be (If you are already flying with Vnav and Lnav the active modes should be LNAV and VNAV PTH. The FAC and GP annunciations will eventually engage and become green on the FMA, much like LOC and GS would - were you capturing a localizer and glideslope signal in an ILS approach. Simply let the autopilot fly the airplane down to the minima or fly it yourself using the flight director cues in the PFD.

Problem with flightaware is that it will often not give you the routing from Europe to North America. You can either go to http://www.edi-gla.co.uk/fpl/login.php?go=/fpl/index.php and see whether they hava real-world recently flown route that would suit you, or you could do the routing yourself using something like PFPX. Thta program is so great you might come up with a better routing than a real dispatcher!

Hope this doesn't go against Kyle's forum moderation policies http://secure.simmarket.com/paolo-ricardo-fsx-mega-route-rio-sao-paulo-and-natal-city-pack-5.phtml Definately worth it. Yes we came in earlier this morning (June 6th), around 5:30 am local time (0830Z). Hope you guys nail it! I still haven't had time to reproduce the flight. Philip go fly! you can always take that class again next year. haha jk, best of luck with your finals The reason why I haven;t tried it yet is because I have never had to go around in the sim. That's how good a pilot I am hahaha. Jokes aside: yeah I have to brush up on the FCTM and I'll post back. But from my experrience this morning I can tell you that pressing TOGA on a 777 below MLW sure feels like a shuttle launch. flap retraction should be pretty quick.

Hi guys. I was onboard AFR442 from Charles de Gaulle (Paris) to Rio de Janeiro Intl' on their 777-300 ER, which by the way is equipped with a great dash cam for us to get a frontal of view. We were coming in at aournd 5:20 am local time and since I know the area quite well I knew for a fact (which I later corroborated with the crew before leaving the plane) that we were cleared for a GIGSO1A Rnav arrival to join the ILS 15 X procedure for rwy 15. It was still dark outside but as we descended below 4000` I noticed a pretty massive and low fog bank covering all of Rio. Looking at my seat's screen I started trying to scope out the landing lights thinking all the time those guys up front were probably doing the same, just a tad more nervous. We got visual cues from the lighting somewhere between 400 and 200 AGL, right on the mark and the PAPI showed they were right on the money all the way down. But for some reason, the aircraft floated a tad too much above the first third of the rwy and main wheel touch down occured just after the last rwy mark. The captain didn't hesistate and up we go. It was a little unconfortable but also exciting to have a go around after touchdown. They circled back and went for RWY15 again, this time doing a heck of job with the landing followed by a burst of applause from the distressed cargo (I'm sure there about 300 brazilians posting on facebook now how they almost died today). I'm writing to see if anyone wants to reproduce the flight (or at least the approach) under the conditions we encountered earlier this morning. The METAR read as follows: SBGL 060925Z 27004KT 2500 BR BKN004 20/20 Q1019 (my impression is that it was more OVC than BKN...) A few pointers: The region is full of hills. Beware. Because of that, the STARs tend to be steep and leave very little time and space to slow down and capture the LOC smoothly. Adequate energy management is critical to descend in Rio. The 777 is more forgiving but it's pretty usual for 737 crews to have to descend eith speedbrakes in flight detent up until they extend the flaps. I highly recommend you try this is with add-on sceneries available for the area. There is a specific scenery for the airport only avilable from a well-known developer and also a photo-real scenery for the entire city from a stand-alone developer. That scenery is particularly nice for appreciating the dangerous peaks surrounding the airport (not sure I can comment any further). And here you can get teh charts for free (Brazilian AIP website) http://www.aisweb.aer.mil.br/?i=home&lingua=en Hope you guys have fun. Best Regards, Victor

Glad to see my questions brought up such an interesting discussion. The reason why I brought it up is that here in Brazil I know of at least two or three scary stories directly related to the Wx radar. And it's not like we have the worst weather in the world down here, mind you. So in my opinion a Wx radar-related item in the before-takeoff checklist seems like a good idea and I don't think that is micro-managing the crew at all. Having a Wx-radar......off item in the taxi-in checks seems just as important to protect the ground crew from harmful radiation. That being said, having a functional Wx radar on our PMDG planes is a novelty to us, which means we're more prone to forgetting about it altogether than your average RW driver.

Since we're on the topic of procedures and Wx radar, allow me to quickly hijack the thread and ask a quesiton of my own. I still haven't found a single RW before takeoff checklist that reminds the crew to turn on Wx radar. Shouldn't it be there or is it a non-essential item that doens't merit its own place on a checklist? I think even more importanly would be a "Wx radar...........OFF" on the taxi-in checklist. I thought the emission from the Wx radar was rather harmful to ground personnel.

Hey Rob, I think DP in his case means Departure Procedure (as in SID). Take a look at the context. He'd like to use destination airport as origin airport of route 2 to build a route from original destination to destination alternate. And by placing his original destination field as origin in rte 2, he'd be able to choose from that airports' SIDS (or DPs).

Matt, ever since I read this on the FCOM I always leave the Left FWD fuel pump on during ground ops while the APU is running and engines are on cutoff. I can't remember where but I read that you could theoretically leave the pump off and the APU would still be getting its fuel but that it's good practice to leave that particular pump on for APU operations. Could you corroborate this? Thanks Edit: And just to comment on the OP's issues: like many, I've also found out long ago that FSX birds use way more fuel and thrust than their real world counterparts when taxiing. I have found that 220-280 kgs is what I end up using for my usual 5-12 minute taxi. I have thus edited PFPX to always assume a 240kg taxi fuel. This always works for me. Although I'm inclined to change it to 13 kg/min to nail it

You can adjust it by right clicking the red DHM button on EZCA control pannel. There are a million input controls, so I simply gave up and disabled it altogether. A good vibration profile fro the NGX would be much appreciated. Please let me know if you run into one! And to answer your original question, whatever you edit in the 737 profile will not carry on to the 777.

Hi Chris, Thanks for the quick reply. Is my signature not showing? It's supposed to say "Cheers, Victor". That's my name. And as luck would have it, my last name actually is Lima. No, my dad isn't in ATC. Just one of these bizarre coincidences of the universe where the guy who loves aviation gets to have a first and last name from the NATO phonetic alphabet! So I'm not blaming you for reminding me to sign my posts with my real name... but it sure gets a little old after 10+ years of hanging around these forums! And thanks to all for the replies as well. Informative thread. I kow of the universal "spoilers down and stable approach by 1000 AGL". I was just really wondering about possible structural damage as Simon pointed out. A Brazilian Airliner's SOP actually recommends NG drivers to drop the gear as high as 8000' to help maintain the vertical profile of some of hese STARs. Rio presents some challenging terrain, but in my honest opinion some of the procedures were very badly planned out. And a lot of controllers and pilots seem to think the same.

Hi guys. I am currently unable to access my manuals and I just landed from a flight from Miami to Rio on a B772. The STARs that link to the most commonly used approach to RWY15 are rather steep and usually present an unusual challange to crews in terms of energy management. Today I was seating right at the trailing edge of the right wing and noticed that the crew had the spoilers up to pretty much flight detent all the way from around 9000' to gear down, flaps 20 (somewhere around 1500-2000'). I remember from the 737NG manuals that spoilers should not bet used with flaps setting greater than 5 (or 1 - can't recall exactly). Does anyone know off the top of their heads if there is such a recommendation for the 777? Obvisouly if the PF decided to opt for this maneuver I'm imagining it might not be explicitly written in the flight manual that it's forbidden or even "not recommended". But it might be frowned upon. Anyway, he proceeded to get us down quite smoothly after the spoilers went down. Thanks in advance for your input.

Every so often these wonderful posts pop-up on the forums. Thank you to PMDG and for my fellow simmers for taking the time to appreciate their hard work and for putting the complaint threads on hold. Every time I see one of these threads I will join the chorus.

Patrick, I don't know how well versed you are in the basic stuff that private pilots learn in their first weeks of ground school regarding rules and regulations. But it might be worthwhile to buy a few books on these subject matters and entry-level texts on IFR flying as well. I know nowadays simmers seem to think that things are as simple as following the magenta line down to 2000 agl and arming approach. But, like someone stated here, if you learn the basics behind ILS, VOR navigation and other "old-school" stuff you'll get things easier and then all you'll have to worry about is learning to fly an aircraft that experienced captains spend months of intense studying and training to learn as well Rod Machado has some funny entry-level books which could help you. Maybe you've crossed that bridge already, but when I was trying to learn all these things alone 16 years ago without the benefit of these forums it helped a lot. Anyway that's my two cents. I know a little about your background and I have to say I admire your perseverance greatly! Welcome aboard!

Hello Laurence. There is a 2d panel in the NGX. However, do not count on there being one for future products. The 777 does not come with one and PMDG has already made it clear that they have moved beyond 2d panels. Purchase the NGX. You won't regret it.

Hi Vernon. This whole RNAV nomenclature sure is hard to get a grip of, and I am just coming to grips with it as well. In the US you have tons of Rnav approaches that are either RNAV (GPS) or RNAV (RNP). From what I gather, the whole nomenclature is rather misleading, for they sound similar in nature but are in fact very different indeed. RNAV (GPS) (or GNSS in other parts of the world) is a type or area navigation non precision approach where your primary means of acertaining position comes from a certified GPS (GNSS) receiver. Its just one of many ways of doing area navigation. GPS is so widespread today that you could have a 737 and a small single-prop airplane being certified to shoot an RNAV (GPS) approach. And within the GPS world, there are all sorts of subsets of approaches based on WAAS to lower the minima, such as LPV. These are not our primary concern since we are not general and business aviation simmers. Boeings and Airbuses don´t belong in the WAAS world, as far as I know. However, RNAV (RNP) approaches are different in that the aircraft must have a flight computer capable of executing performance based navigation (PBN), and in so doing offer a minimum required navigational performance to guarantee the safety of the approach. This is the part that took me awhile to figure out. It doesn´t matter how the computer is getting its data and calculating its position and navigation performance. If you go to the FCOM, you´ll see the NG FMC uses GPS, radio (DME/DME, VOR, LOC and ILS), and IRS signals in a magical mathematical formula to derive its current position and tell you how well its performing. Thus, to shoot an RNAV (RNP) approach, you do not have to necessarily have GPS working. If you can maintain the minimum RNP of the approach without GPS updating the FMC, I believe you´ll still be eligible to continue the approach. If at any time the FMC spits out its unable to maintain the RNP you must execute a missed approach. So you´ll see modern airliners executing RNAV (RNP) approaches, but not Skylanes, even if they have WAAS enabled GPS receivers. Mainly because they have no FMC capable of performance based navigation. If you start studying the minima of the RNP and GPS charts, you might go crazy, like I am right now! And some charts don´t help at all. For example, try to find KMIA´s RWY 30 RNAV approach plates. There´s an RNAV (GPS) RWY 30 and an RNAV (RNP) RWY 30 approach. You´d expect aircraft with an FMS and no GPS might be eligible to shoot the RNP approach. But the chart states clearly that GPS is required to execute the approach. In other words, it´s an RNP approach where GPS must be used by the computer. Infuriating, isn´t it? I believe they might´ve put both types of approaches there so that the maximum number of airplanes will be able to use the rwy with similar minima. The RNAV GPS approach would cater WAAS based general aviation and business aviation while the RNP approach would service GPS equipped airliners. But I do beilieve there are many RNP approaches that do not require GPS.

Very intresting topic. My thanks both to OP and Rob. This brings up another issue I´ve found lately and which I can´t find in the manuals.I hope Preston is ok with the wuick hijack since his issue has already been solved. I haven´t been able to start RTE 2 form scratch whilst airborne. In other words, while flying an active RTE1 I cannot enter a departure and destination airport on RTE2, like I can on the ground. The only way I cant get something to load on RTE2 is if I copy RTE1 to RTE2. Is this common behavior?

Hi Rob. This is not what I have seen in the rw. Every single NG driver I´ve known jokes that their plane doesn´t have spoilers installed and complains that they´d be better of calculating descents with a TI calculator rather than the FMC, even when dispatch is spot on with the forecasts. I know a lot of guys who elect to do a lot of descents with LVL CHG rather than Vnav because of these shortcomings. DRAG REQUIRED is a constant in this plane. As a matter of fact, where I live some of the STARs are pretty unforgiving and call for high speed/steep descents, which in the Ng translates to high drag approaches. So it is not uncommon (BTW it´s stated in comapny SOP) that pilots should lower the landing gear well before expected to help manage speed during these descents. I´ve had the privilege to witness said approaches from the jumpseat in both 737s and 77s and I can attest that their behavior is very different!

Please disregard my last paragraphs. That's what happens when you proofread at 12 am after a couple of glasses of wine.

Many years ago when navigraph data cycles were way slimmer than today´s cycles, I remember going through the trouble of creating files for SIDs, STARs and IAPS for some airports I regularly flew out of and that werent in the database (or at least not all procedures were). I remember from the tutorials that adding gate informaiton to the .txt files was ridiculously easy, albeit a pain in the a... I just checked randomly many different airport files in the PMDG/SIDSTARS folder. Some appear to have all gates, some have a few, and some have none. Apparently it´s a crapshoot! I remember reading in some other post God knows where that in some instaces for the gate coordinate to load properly in the FMC you´d have to append the taxiway associated with that gate (i.e Gate 12 lies off taxiway S) I cannot recall whether the taxiway should be input as a prefix or suffix (S12 or 12S). Some trial and error might prove that theory true. I certainly get a kick out of inputing a gate number on the CDU and getting the matching coordinates, but not so much that I´d go through the trouble of modifying the aiport procedure files for hours on end. Finally, most (if indeed not all) times I´ve had the priviledge to sit in the jumpseat (mostly 77s) I saw the crews actually just copying the GPS coordinates from the scratchpad and crosschecking it with their PDC from Jeppesen. Two notes: I remember reading o OP, if you want to go through the trouble of inputing gate coordinates in your preferred airports,

Same way you shut all engines down in modern airliners. Use the fuel cutoff switches. However, remember to have the electrical system properly transferred to the APU or a ground source or else you are going to find yourself in a gloomy flight deck when the generators go offline once the engines stop spinning.

And here I thought Aerosoft jetways were static! At least I can´t get them to move. Ctrl+J doesn´t seem to work for me. Guess I´ll look into the manuals

Not my case Ethan.

It seems the problem really lies in these programs from your findings Steve. Perhaps we should report it to the devs. I still haven´t witnessed this weight problem because all of my calculations are in kgs. And I always make sure that the Takeoff weight in topcat matches the actual weight I hav loaded into FSX, Even so, I continue to get all kinds of ridiculous calculations. What is funny is that sometimes Topcat N1 values and the FMC values match perfectly. But most times the assumed temperature Topcat calculates results in underthrust by at least 5% of N1. I´ll try taking off from EGLL rwy 27L with ASN set to historical mode from 29 aug 1200Z. I´ll set my weight TOW at 300,000kg (661,400 lbs). I´ll let Topcat calculate for optimum flaps and derate with antice auto packs on. I´ll post results here and if you want you can try to repeat the experiment.

Well that´s worth looking into Xaver, thanks. But like Steve, I use ASN and I use exactly the same procedure described by him. I load it up and let it download live Wx before I open anything else. Next, I plan my flight with PFPX and export the weights to Topcat. I never fail to to upload Topcat with current ASN Wx, and I always confirm the Wx I see on FSX matches the METARs on the main ASN. And still my FMC calculations are very different from what I get on Topcat. This does not happen to the NGX, leading me to believe that something is amiss on my T7 or, more likely, TOPCAT itself. Steve, would you mind comparing results with me when laoding the 777 at same weights in the same place with identical Wx so I can verify the issue?