BrianW

Just because a SID contains no lateral instructions doesn't mean it isn’t a real SID or won’t be issued in the clearance. If it contains any special instructions it needs to be issued to make the flight crew aware of those instructions. We have the same type of SID at Paine Field and I always received the paine4 departure as part of the clearance, even when the initial heading is different from the published headings.

Great news, I’m really looking forward to the DC-6. It took me a few minutes before I realized that today IS Thursday.

Skyvector can give you this info too, great for adjusting your route for more favorable winds. The shortest route isn't always the best.

At least in a twin you have the potential to climb out if the numbers are in your favor. The challenge of a twin is overcoming that instinct to continue even when it really isn’t an option. Forcing a climb by reducing airspeed below VMC is in the same vein and stretching a glide and stalling. You need to force yourself not to do it, which can be difficult when the decision needs to be made in milliseconds. Furthermore, gear and flaps actually reduces VMC, but at the expense of climb performance. VMC is highest when clean at low density altitudes. As for this accident, he made it around the pattern so he was obviously able to make it past the failure on takeoff point. There’s a dashcam video out there that shows the crash starting from the turn from base to final. All I can say is the base leg was very close in and the turn to final was very steep, much steeper than it should have been. At least he got the wings level before he hit. As mentioned before, turning into the dead engine could have been a factor, but generally the power reduction during the approach phase of flight significantly reduces asymmetric thrust.

Maybe I’m reading this statement wrong but the 737NG wing has undergone many changes from the original design, it’s not the same wing as the jurassic or classic. The higher Vref of the 738 and 9 is mainly for tailstrike avoidance by establishing a given pitch attitude as opposed to using the more traditional 1.3 x Vso. It floats because it’s usually carrying an extra margin above stall speed, not because it needs more speed to keep flying due to ancient, and inferior aerodynamics.

This route is just as easy IFR, even 34 to 34. 5000’ puts you in class B airspace for most of the route and flying VFR usually means ATC wanting you out of that airspace as soon as practical which makes it less direct than IFR. Remember that filing IFR doesn’t mean you have to do an instrument approach either, if the conditions are VMC a right downwind to 16R is more common.

At any airport regional weather patterns are always taken in consideration when spending the time and money to fund an approach. In the Puget Sound area, low pressure/bad weather winds almost always comes from the southwest, while high pressure/good weather produces wind from the northwest. Even on the rare days this isn’t the case the 200’ minimums of a standard approach are more than adequate around here a majority of the time, and when they’re not it usually is due to fog and that means little or no wind.

For wind data to display the TAS needs to be above 100 knots, and the wind speed needs to be above 5 knots. Additionally the wind indicator is not displayed with the ND map in plan mode. The wind data is calculated using inputs from: The flight path angle North and east velocity True heading ADIRU TAS Values for the above are derived from the LNAV sub-function of the flight management computing function using inputs from the ADIRU, GPS, Navigation database, and nav radio data.

LOL, why can't I help but think there's some truth in this statement.

I'd like to hear any reviews too. Looks like it allows mounting under a desk which would put it at a more realistic height. I've got my eye on the twin throttle quadrant they make as well. Here are couple links to the products: https://retail.redbirdflight.com/products/alloy-yk1-yoke https://retail.redbirdflight.com/products/alloy-th2-twin-engine-throttle

I'm really hoping PMDG decides to do the DC-3 (if they haven't started already :ph34r:) . With the easy access to one and how much love they (and any true aviation fans) have for it it would seem to make sense. I'd think they could also drum up a bunch of new customers anywhere she goes by telling people they could fly her on their PC.

Here are two approaches for my home airport. CAT I BARO https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1612/pdf/00142IZLDZ16R.PDF CAT II RA https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1612/pdf/00142IZ16RSAC2.PDF Both are pretty popular approaches for 777's :wink:

As Romain said the isolation valve should be open. Leaving it on auto with both packs on and engine bleed on closes the valve which means only the left pack would be providing air. The reason the PSI dropped when you switched the eng bleeds off is because by doing that you made the isolation valve logic open the valve. The left pack sends a portion of its output directly to the flight deck bypassing the mix manifold. As Matt stated this can mess with the controller logic since the flight deck will heat up faster than the cabin. So at minimum turning the cont cab to off should help (off fixes the temperature output to 24C for the left pack and 18C for the right). You didn’t state what variant you’re using but if you’re in an 800, or 900 make sure you have the trim air on too.

Generally you would want to use baro unless noted on the chart. Usually CAT II and III approaches will use RA because you’ll already be over the runway environment by the time you reach the minimums. Using RA on a CAT I has the potential to have you descend lower than what’s safe if the airport sits on a plateau or has terrain that sits much lower on approach than the airport.

AOPA live video: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/aopa-live?watch=b70ed6a761273221aa04055bfaa75fa6

Good find Ryan, thanks for posting! I currently use the free FlightSimGPS utility but I'm going to give this a try since it looks like it may give the traffic and attitude info too.

Which engine is started first can vary by operator or conditions, many airlines do use an engine 1, 2 starting procedure as a standard. Starting engine 2 first though lets you isolate a pack which helps with cabin heating or cooling on really hot or cold days. Double check your isolation valve is open, the left engine and the apu bleed are on the same side of this valve which may be why engine 2 isn’t starting for you.

That’s the point I’m trying to make, they aren’t within 60 minutes and they may not even qualify as valid alternates anyway if you’re flying under 121 rules. Part 121.161 defines the 60 minutes as single engine still air time, any route time over that requires ETOPS. Sure most BBJs operate under 91 which negates any ETOPS requirements. Depending on the PFPX profile you’re using the alternate distance might be set too high which is why it would look like they were in range.

Not sure what you’re using as a diversion speed but PLPA is 900 miles away from PHKO which means you must be using around 450 kts. I haven’t tried running the numbers against the FPPM, but it seems high for an engine out speed, even when taking drift down in account. Even if it is in range there’s the question of Part 139 subpart D applicability. Being a private/restricted airport I’m not sure it does. What about the weather minimums for an alternate, how do you know you’ll be able to land since there’s no official weather reporting there? I know it doesn’t qualify as an ETOPS alternate but as for a regular alternate I’m not sure.

Sounds like a great trip. I bought a UPS a few years ago for the same reason. I was getting tired of the brownouts that happen around here anytime it gets fairly windy. We don’t get too many extended outages they’re usually just long enough to spoil a flight with a PC reboot. I’m wondering how you came up with this conclusion? NSTU to YBBN is doable, but I’m not seeing doing PHKO to NSTU without ETOPs planning. The easy answer is since you were flying as a BBJ you weren't operating under part 121, the way you worded it though sounded like you expected ETOPs planning.

You certainly do have a route issue if you’re flying over Ecuador on that route :ph34r: ...sorry I couldn’t resist. In all seriousness though I had a similar problem on that same route with the RTM version of the 777. I had to use heading select between IMKOT and SUHIL because LNAV refused to follow the route. If I recall correctly there was an issue with the 777 following airways that were parallel to lines of longitude that was later fixed in one of the service packs. Maybe the 737 has a similar issue?

Sorry, I should clarify that it's only on aircraft that offer it. At this point I pretty much only use aircraft that have detailed systems and failures, I've found I get bored too quickly with those that don't. That's why I'd gladly pay a higher price for something I'll use for years vs. a cheaper less detailed one that I'll never use again after the newness wears off.

No worries, but that was an important detail to leave out since ECON is the more common mode. The route length is also important because there are differences in the FMC OPT calculations between short flights (<400 NM) and long ones, but again only in ECON mode.. LRC differs from ECON in that the OPT altitude is only based on aircraft weight. Do you remember what the winds were? Maybe you just lost a good portion of tailwind at the lower altitude.

I’ve been around along time too and It does seem like that at times, and I’ve seen more than a few people with a lot of real world experience get scared away because of the “your post count is low so you don’t know anything” argument. Maybe we both need to start padding our post count with a bunch of “I agree”, or “+1” posts. :rolleyes: As for your page 16 question: Failures allow a deeper understanding on exactly how the systems and their backups are supposed to work. It also gives purpose to all the preflight tests you go through as opposed to just going through the motions. I only occasionally use the pre-programmed failures, and when I do it’s usually only on local flights, or to try an ETOPS diversion. The random service based failures I use on every flight though. The chance of a failure using the random failures is pretty low, so there’s no reason not to expect to make it to your destination. When they do happen though it adds some variety as opposed to just droning along from point A to B on every flight.

Why LRC? ECON below a CI of 35 will give you better range than LRC if that’s what you’re looking for. A CI of 0 will give you the best range.