adamant365

If you are referring to ICAO codes...it's only B772, B773, B77W, and B77L...there's no 77E or 77F for ICAO, although sometimes individual airlines do use codes like that. That is really quite interesting...never knew that. Is there a list or database of those /x codes where I could find the others? I've always been curious about those.

772/L is different than 77L. I'm not all that sure what the /L means but it has something to do with the subvariant or something. The first 4 digits is the ICAO aircraft identifier ("B772"). BA don't have any 77L's, only 772 and 77W. Nor is this a codeshare flight...it is actually BA2037 operated by a BA 772.

Excellent, thanks!

Did you ever get a response from PMDG?? I don't see that this item has been added to the Issue Tracking Thread as of yet.

This has something to do with FSUIPC assignments if I remember correctly. The gear is "up" but the PMDG code thinks it's down. Do a search for Google search for "PMDG nose down" and you'll find what you are looking for. It caught NGX users as well.

Unless you have an EZDOK profile for the PMDG 777, that will cause you to have to create a new EZDOK profile. If you have EZDOK and are familiar with EditVoicePackX, here is a link to a better way to fix the ATC issue: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/422862-ground-control-not-recognizing-boeing-777/#entry2818722

Can anyone confirm if AT being on at touchdown prevents reverser deployment until nose wheel touchdown in the real aircraft?

So can someone confirm for me if this is an issue with the PMDG sim or not? It seems odd that using the AT (per Boeing recommendation) would prevent reverser operation until after NWG touchdown.

I have always left the A/T engaged until touchdown with the T7 and I have gotten into the habit of pulling my hardware throttle to idle at TOD (hardware throttle override is set to Never, BTW) just to eliminate potential issues later on. Therefore my hardware throttle and the A/T throttle should be at idle at main gear touchdown or very shortly after. Either way, I HOLD down F2 as soon as the mains are down which would certainly bring the thrust levers to idle in FSX. Even when I hold the nose off for a bit, I still don't get REV in yellow on the EICAS telling me the reverses are unlocked until the moment the nose gear is down. Should I have to disconnect the AT when the mains touch? Or is it possible the AT isn't really commanding full idle and also isn't disengaging until after the NWG touches therefore preventing my F2 press and hold from having any effect? It's a minor inconvenience and I have yet to run off the runway...of course I'll only put more wear on my brakes with REV not coming available in a timely fashion. As for the spoilers, like I said, 8 out of 10 panels are deploying on MLG touchdown which should be plenty to put weight on wheels for braking effectiveness. It's just the last 2 panels for the ground spoilers that aren't coming up until NWG touchdown.

Hello Experts, Can someone explain to me the logic behind the ground sensing mechanism and the reverse/ground spoiler lockouts? The reason I ask is that I am unable to unlock and engage reverse thrust until the nosewheel is on the ground. In addition, the ground spoilers only deploy when the nose wheel is on the ground. I get all of the flight spoilers, but I do not get the ground spoilers until NWG touchdown. I don't think this is correct because I've seen many a 777 video where reverse and all spoiler panels come in before the NWG is on the ground. Here's how I perform the landing: 1. Flare 2. Land 3. As SOON as the Main Gear are on ground, I hold F2 until the reversers unlock. 4. I then proceed to use my hardware throttle assigned to reverse to set the amount of reverse I desire. But no matter what I do or how long I hold F2, the reversers don't unlock and those last two panels of spoilers that make the "Ground Spoilers" don't deploy until the nose wheel is down. Can someone else give this a try and see what happens? I have read about this in the manual (FCTM and FCOM) but there is some vagueness about when these two systems are available.

I think Luke is spot on. When you cycle through the views in FSX, but there is no tower around and therefore the view cycles from cockpit to spot view and back to cockpit, it will freeze the displays. As Luke says, simply cycle through the interior views to restore them. It's a strange bug in FSX itself that never got fixed, but it definitely has something to do when you are in remote locations that don't have any tower views available and you try to cycle through the main views.

Here's how I do it: 1. Open EditVoicePack X. 2. Under the "My Modifications" section, expand the "Aircrafts" and then "Models" sections. 3. Highlight "Models" and click the Edit menu and select "New Modification" 4. In the "Identifier," "Phrase," and "Description" boxes, type: B77L 5. Click in the "Filter" box and type: B772 6. Double-click the AC_MODEL B772 identifier. Alternatively you can search in the "Filter" box for "Triple Seven" and use the AC_MODEL B773 (1) sound. I used "Triple Seven" because it sounds a little more human to me than "Seven Seven Seven" which I think sounds a little robotic (more so than usual for the FSX ATC). 7. To the left of the waveform boxes, click through each voice and select "Copy" to copy the identifier to each voice. You have to do it for every voice to work correctly. 8. Click "Save" up at the top in the File menu. 9. Repeat steps 3 - 8 using B77W instead of B77L if you wish to "Prepare" for the 777-300ER. 10. Click "File" and "Update Voicepack" 11. Leave the "Change Settings" checkbox blank unless you want to change the general phraseology, speed, etc. Leaving the box unchecked will still add the new modification(s). 12. Click "Update" You can also use different phraseology for different voices. So for instance you can use "Triple Seven" for voices 0, 3, 5, 8 and "Seven Seven Seven" for the others just to mix it up a bit. That's it. It works every time I add a new callsign so it should work for the B77L identifier.

UPDATE! You do NOT want to change the .cfg entry to B772 if you use a EZCA profile that is dependent on that .cfg entry. I suggest using Suprojit's method instead.

I found this as well. I think the way to fix it is this (I haven't tested yet): In the aircraft.cfg file for both the 777LR and 777F, find the section after each livery entry that has the heading [General]. It'll be the section with atc_type, atc_model, etc. You want to change the atc_model to B772. So your [General] section will look like this: [General] atc_type=BOEING atc_model=B772 editable=0 performance="Cruise Speed\nMach .84\n\nEngines\nGeneral Electric GE90-110B1 rated at 110,100 lbs / 489 kN \n\nMaximum Range\n9,395 nm / 10,812 mi / 17,395 km\n\nService Ceiling\n43,100 ft / 13,135 m\n\nFuel Capacity\n53,515 gal / 202,570 L\n\nEmpty Weight\n326,000 lb / 147,870 kg\n\nMaximum Takeoff Weight\n766,000 lb / 347,450 kg\n\nLength\n209 ft, 1 in / 63.7 m\n\nWingspan\n212 ft, 9 in / 64.8 m\n\nHeight\n61 ft, 6 in / 18.6 m" Category = airplane Like I said, I haven't had a chance to try it yet. The default entries aren't recognized by the FSX ATC system. Of course you'll want to back up your .cfg files first just in case.

It's really amazing when you think about the capability of the 777LR/F series and how it is perfectly suited for package cargo. According to *ahem* Wikipedia, the 77F can carry more total volume of cargo a longer distance than the MD11, all while doing it on two engines instead of three. Granted, the GE90's are a generation newer than the CF6/PW4460 and a heck of a lot more powerful. The fact that a 77F can carry 170000+ lbs of payload on a sector of roughly 14 hours all while burning less fuel than it's replacement is a testament to the design.

It hasn't only happened at VHHH. My last four flights were PANC-VHHH, KATL-KLAX, KOAK-KMEM, and PANC-KCVG and I saw this behavior on landing at all four destinations since all four came off ILS approaches. I honestly don't think my technique is the issue here. I am able to correct by doing as you say...pick a new aim point and just land a little bit longer. What I'm more concerned with is the fact that there seems to be a slight uncommanded pitch up movement at 50' AGL that simply should not be there. If I'm not stable in pitch and/or have all pitch forces trimmed out by 100', I go around so I know I'm not out of trim. The only yoke movement I make below 100 is roll axis. And then it's only very slight to correctly line up. I've been simming for quite some time, and have been using the CH yoke since at least '06 and I have never had an issue with an aircraft making any uncommanded pitch changes. Yes, I understand this is not the NGX, and the 777 has a complex FBW that the NG does not, but I can hardly believe the real 777 is this difficult to fly manually, especially on approach. The NGX is a dream to fly which as I understand it, it should be the other way around with the NG being tricky and the T7 being much simpler. Now one thing I considered...isn't there some sort of movement of the "flippers" that occurs at about 50' AGL during landing as certain hydraulic systems come on line for landing?? Is it possible that somewhere in PMDG's code this pre-pressurization of these hydraulic systems is causing an issue for the sim?? I don't know....

No, I generally disconnect the AP at the FAF/Glideslope intercept, whichever is later...so usually around 1000' AGL or so. What I'm seeing isn't that I'm inheriting an out of trim aircraft, rather that it is in perfect trim but trying to make further minor corrections is very difficult. And then there seems to be a slight pitch up movement around 50' AGL that is not commanded by me. With the late idle thrust reduction that the sim's A/T provides, I try to start my flare right at the "30" call but since I'm seeing this pitch up at around 50', it's very difficult to perform consistent landings.

That's really quite cool. I like the "real world" examples. I myself have toyed with the idea of doing the VHHH or RCTP to KMEM in the sim, but gosh, that's 14+ hours. Just out of curiosity, what does your buddy do on a freighter on a 14+ hour flight? I mean, I'm assuming there has to be a relief crew, but it must be a pretty boring ride. Is there any sort of cabin crew that is there to serve meals, socialize with, etc? What about meals? Do they have the same rules as passenger flights, i.e. they can't all eat the same meal? EDIT...sorry, I just realized I just attempted to hijack the thread....

Ok, thanks for this. You described it best with five words: fighting the aircraft on approach. That's exactly what I feel I'm doing. I can tell you what I'm not doing is floating due to excess speed. I have the aircraft pretty much always nailed to VREF +5 from the FAF on down with AT on. Either way, what is happening is it feels like the aircraft is pitching up on its own. I can see a subtle amount of ground effect being added, but i shouldn't have to use an aggressive forward pitch on the column to force my way through it. The aircraft should just settle and that is not what is happening. This is a definite pitch up at around 50 feet AGL. What's worse is sometimes trim seems to work and sometimes not.

Hi All, I am wondering if PMDG has confirmed in any way that the FBW/handling behavior has issues or is being tweaked? For the third flight in a row, I had issues after disconnecting the AP to perform a manual landing from an ILS approach. I was fully established, had a very smooth 3deg glideslope, and was stable in trim. However, as I crossed the threshold at the "50" call out, the nose pitched up about 2 deg and my ROD decreased to about -450 fpm without and (and I mean ANY) input by me. It wasn't a wind gust (wind was steady 090@07 at RWY07R in VHHH), and I had also completely disabled AS2012's thermal effects. It is very frustrating after a 10+ hour flight (compressed to about 4 hours) to have a nicely executed approach end with a fair bit of float and touchdown beyond the aiming point. I can't think of anything I would possibly be doing wrong and this is three flights in a row this has happened. In some capacity or another, I have had issues with manual landings since release (unless it is a manual circuit where the AP never controls the AC). Is anyone else experiencing this and/or have PMDG confirmed there is an issue with FBW or manual control? Sometimes it just seems like the aircraft has a mind of its own when it comes to trim and this mysterious FBW system.

Are complex animations turned on in the FSX settings menu? Settings --> Display Settings box --> Customize --> Global Options box. Also, are you using the CDU "FS Actions --> Doors" menu to open the doors? Here's the Google translated version to Francais: Sont des animations complexes activés dans le menu des réglages FSX? Paramètres -> zone Paramètres d'affichage -> Personnaliser -> boîte de dialogue Options mondial. Aussi, utilisez-vous la CDU "FS Actions --> Doors" dans le menu pour ouvrir les portes?

I'm pretty sure it's the EEC (FADEC) that limits the thrust, not the A/T. The A/T is merely an "autopilot for speed." It will command necessary thrust up to what the EEC says is the maximum. Even with A/T off you are limited by what EEC deems is the maximum. Have a read through Chapter 7 Section 20 of the FCOM v2. Specifically pages 7.20.7 - 7.20.10 (525 - 528 of the PDF).

Yes.

See, if it were me, I'd go ahead and buy the 77L/F. Why? Well, you can be 100% certain the -300ER (and future -200ER) is going to require the LR/F base pack. Second, why not start learning the systems? The 200LR and 300ER are almost identical in terms of systems and at the same time different than anything else ever seen in FS. As has been said many times, this ain't the NGX. Third, even if you do nothing else but fly circuits in the LR, it is totally worth it to hear those massive GEs spool up and also to feel the truly amazing flight dynamics the team (Dr. V?) have developed. Go for it...very much worth it.

What you are trying to do is not possible with the PMDG failure engine. You can either do service-based or system-based failures, but not both. As for service based failures...I have over 500 hours in the NGX and have yet to encounter even an advisory issue with service based failures turned on. I would say the 777 is even more reliable. You could probably put thousands of hours on the 777 and never encounter something that requires diversion. Such is the nature of an aircraft designed for ETOPS. If diversions were a common occurrence for the T7, it would not have ETOPS-330 certification (http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=20295&item=2070). The chances of a sim pilot, who definitely doesn't put the number of hours on the A/C as someone who does it for a living, running into a diversion situation are very low. But knowing it could happen keeps you on your toes. Besides, if you do ever have to divert, it sucks. It isn't supposed to be fun. Can you imagine how un-fun it would be for the airline and/or the crew? If you are concerned with realism enough to want failures but don't want "serious" failures, you should probably leave them off anyway.