HdG

*sigh*Some people here just don't get it that sticking to the forum rules (and give others a hint when they violate these) is protecting PMDG's interests - and thus in the long run the interests of EVERY paying PMDG customer. OK - I didn't use 'please' and 'thank you' in my post. Did HE use any of these words in any of his posts? What I consider to be rude is showing disrespect to the PMDG community and violating rules by using a fake last name. And no - I do not feel to be forum police and never will. But the folks at PMDG have at the moment a lot of other things to do than to police this forum. So it's up to the majority of the users here to point things out to the minority breaking rules. Nuff saidHermann Withanonfakelastname

... and sign posts with your REAL name as per PMDG's forum rules, I know for sure that 'Ohnenachname' isn't your real name, pal...

Beer on Ice?*shudder*You're from the US, I presume?LOL

Hi Folks,having 2 operative ADFs is still a requirement for aircraft doing IFR approach procedures in many parts of the world (the former USSR, Africa, even Europe!). The fact that NDBs and the associated approaches largely disappeared from the US does not mean they have disappeared elsewhere. It would be really great if PMDG considered enabling ADF2.BTW, a 2nd ADF might have saved the lives of the crew and pax of the CT-43 (military 737-200) back in 1996. The fact that the crew was not able to monitor a 2nd NDB on final approach disgraded the crew's situational awareness and subsequently was one of the major factors why they ended up on a hill 9 degrees to the left of the Final Approach Course. That plane was just not equipped properly for that particular airspace although the military was eventually throwing smoke and tried to put the blame on the local national authorities (and on Jeppesen!!). By checking their RMI with 2 NDBs switched onto it, it would have been apparent to the crew they were off course

@ PMDG or AVSIM staff, I (and supposedly many others) would highly appreciate if this thread could finally be locked. 181 replies to RSR's announcement and only a few are relevant and on-topic. Now we even have a discussion going on about some other add-ons. This is getting a real pain in the butt as one tends to look up here for possible follow-up info by PMDG, only to find posts that contain no information or even no connection to the topic.

@Jason and Etienne Thanks for the info, it's 'back to the classroom' for me... Cheers

Etienne, I could not find any reference to the C/R button on the Lower DU Selector in either FCOM or Bill Bulfer's 737 Cockpit Companion. What does C/R mean and where can I find any detailed description of the Fail Operational Option including Procedures?TIAHermann (da German)

Fred, are you serious on that?British ATC is notorious for keeping aircraft high on the STARs and put them in one of their stacks to descend there to an intermediate approach altitude. This is happening every day, their whole airspace management system is based on handling traffic this way.And, a published speed restriction for a particular hold is there for a reason: to keep the aircraft within protected airspace and clear of obstacles. The only reason I can think of a pilot wanting to alter holding speed is turbulence. But then, ATC has to approve that deviation first. Regards

Peter,before you flame people for not having read a 3500+ pages set of manuals - and call them lazy, too! - please have the courtesy and quit writing your posts the way you do. By using only small letters and SMS abbreviations, non-use of commas or periods etc. and bad spelling, YOU make it hard for other people who have to decipher your posts first and then mentally arrange them into blocks of information that make sense - if there is any. You have already received remarks by other persons reference to this, but you appear to be ignorant about it.Laziness? Sloppiness? Or some lack of respect for others?Sorry, just couldn't resist.