Paul_Smith

12 hours ago, AirCanada235 said:

Are you even a private pilot - let alone a commercial pilot - with a valid opinion?  It’s great you have an opinion but without any legitimacy to back it up - well - you come off like a pigeon. 

So you think his opinion is only valid if he is an important enough person in your eyes? That point of view is becoming disturbingly common on this forum, but could I just point out that this is an internet forum. If I claimed to be Joe Sutter would that make my opinions any more legitimate? After all, you can't prove I am not him (despite the fact he died in 2016).

'Opinion', in its normal English usage, is a statement in the absence of evidence. Something "not necessarily based on fact or knowledge" but not necessarily to the exclusion of fact either. James presented a verifiable fact (if you do this then that happens) along with an opinion (it was supposed to do the something else). That opinion would be stronger if it was supported with evidence (expected behavior according to such and such a document).  You have presented an opinion "he is not important enough for me to listen to". Now who do you think comes off like a turkey? 

1 hour ago, JRBarrett said:

He is the same fellow who, in another thread regarding 747-400 autopilot and flight director functions, told two experienced 747-400 pilots (one of whom is a retired senior training captain and type rating examiner), that their knowledge of how certain systems work on the aircraft are “opinions” and “guesswork”...

I am that fellow and I suggest you either provide a reference or apologize.

6 hours ago, Jviation said:

As of January 2019, there are 372 B744s in serivce (and 130 -8s). For comparison, there are less A380s in service; however, everyone seems to be in great demand for a "study-level" A388. Nevertheless, I do find this aircraft adequate for the market and is an overall joy. 

Cheers,

Jordan Davison

Don't mind Anders, he can get a bit touchy when he thinks his religious beliefs are being challenged. You are of course right, there are far fewer A380's in service, however of the 234 that were built (wikipedia), 98 are currently airborne (flightaware) at time of writing which reflects the newness of the airframe, which probably influences its popularity. The 49 airborne 747-400's out of 694 that were built reflects the fact that the 747 is much older and is rapidly approaching end of life, they haven't been made since 2005 so even the newest ones are almost three quarters of the way through their service life. That does not make them any less iconic or reduce the demand for study level sim, but it does put into perspective various claims about relative importance, given that there are 42 airborne MD-11's.

And before somebody chimes in with a ridiculous Boeing vs Airbus comment, I am fully aware that A380 production is also in the process of shutting down. And yes, I would love to have a study sim-level sim of the A380 to PMDG quality, though personally, I think the A350 is more important to the future of the aviation industry.  I already have study level sim's from PMDG for the 747, 737 and 777 so I don't need them again. Yes of course each iteration is an improvement of over the previous generation, but the wow factor has gone.

Just curious, what are the people looking forward to NG3 hoping it will have that NG2 doesn't have?

2 hours ago, Richardnunez said:

Inform yourself before posting please there are over 530 747 in service around the world 

richard nunez

So what you are basically saying is that less then 10% of the 747-400 fleet was actually in the air when I wrote that post? That's not a very profitable way to run a business, now is it? If you were interested in informing yourself, you would already know how to find that out for yourself (hint - look up flightaware or any other similar service). If you makes you feel better, there are currently 75 747-400's registered as airborne. 

3 minutes ago, Olympic260 said:

MD11 is not going to happen, we have said that multiple times.

And you have said that the JS41 and even the Woodpidgeon were going to happen and that the next release of X would be soon. Sorry Chris, what PMDG say and what you do do not always line up, which is absolutely fine. Anybody, and any company, can change their mind. And before anybody chimes in with suggestions that the MD-11, JS41 or even the WoodPidgeon are unused or out of date, can I just point out that at time of writing, out of the almost 700 747-400's that were built, there are less then 50 in the air and this time next year that number will be significantly lower.

Yes it is absolutely beautiful, but like the wing flex and fuel density, I have to ask if it is not a detail too far? I appreciate that they are not transferable skills, but surely the time and resources being put into these visual 'pretties' that do not influence a pilots decision making process could have been spent getting the JS41, MD-11 (or something actually new?) airborne.

14 hours ago, berts said:

I am sure a RW pilot will know this and be along soon to clarify this detail, eh, Paul?

No worries Bert, Manolo already referenced the relevant part of the FCOM.

11 hours ago, berts said:

First of all, Kyle is quite right in what he has said to Paul, who apparently doesn't believe a word I or anyone else says, unless we quote verbatum from a 744 manual. 

Funny that, I read what Kyle wrote quite differently. I took it to mean that he was as tired as I am of people who say "Believe me, I know these things" and fail to offer any support for their beliefs. Perhaps he is more of a diplomat then I thought. 

Lots of things weren't part of the original question, which hasn't actually been answered yet. The original question was :

On 2/1/2019 at 11:43 PM, morph10 said:

Would love to know does the flight director get turned off during approach (before landing) in case of a go around? As I am aware that you cannot turn off the approach button on go around when flight directors are still engaged.

And the answer is no, the flight directors do not get turned off in the case of a go around initiated by pressing the TO/GA button while on approach mode. According to the FCOM, TO/GA mode commands the pitch angle required for go around and the bank angle required to maintain ground track (at time of engagement) both of which will be shown by the flight director. I am not actually sure what effect pressing TO/GA has on autothrottle behavior. I would have thought that it changes to THR limit in CLB setting but I can't find an explicit statement in the FCOM to that effect while the section on the IAS window says it is not blanked when TO/GA mode is selected suggesting Speed control might be left completely to the PF! I am sure a RW pilot will be along soon to clarify this detail.

Again, we see people guessing - and guessing incorrectly. The manuals are there for a reason.

FCOM V2 4-10-15

737

APP switch light extinguishes after localizer and glideslope capture.

After localizer and glideslope capture, APP mode can be disengaged by:
• pushing a TO/GA switch
• disengaging autopilot(s) and turning off both F/D switches
• retuning the VHF NAV receiver.

747

APP mode can be terminated prior to
localizer or glide slope capture by pushing
the APP switch a second time, or by
selecting LOC, LNAV or VNAV modes to
override APP mode.

APP mode will also disengage if localizer is
captured and different roll mode is selected.
If the glideslope only has been captured,
selection of a different pitch mode will
disengage the APP mode.
If TO/GA is selected, or the flight directors
are selected OFF at any time, APP mode
will disengage.

777 (incomplete extract - other options exist!)

The approach mode deselects:
• by pushing APP when above 1,500 feet radio altitude
• with localizer captured and glideslope armed, by selecting heading select
(HDG SEL) or heading hold (HDG HOLD)
[Option – GS capture not inhibited before LOC capture]
• with localizer armed and glideslope captured, by selecting any other pitch
mode except VNAV
• after localizer and glideslope are captured, by selecting TO/GA mode

22 minutes ago, Ephedrin said:

Bertie is one of those flying the 747 for a living. When he states those conditions we can be quite sure that they are correct.

I am sure Bertie won't be offended when I say I prefer the scientific approach to the religious one. I do not care 'who' tells me something, I care if what they tell me can be verified. Bertie isn't right just because he flies one, Bertie might be right if he quotes the section of the manual that you can then go and verify for yourself. This is *his* checklist, it is not the FCOM. One example of the difference is the importance of passing 1500AGL as this involves changing modes and behaviors. This is not very clear in the FCOM (it is improved upon in the 777 FCOM) but is not mentioned at all in Berties list.

31 minutes ago, Sekkha said:

arent you doing exactly this ?

didnt Bertie list exactly the conditions which  the manual states ?

anything wrong about what he said ?

why continue arguing here ?

I am not the one expressing opinions.

No, Bertie did not list the conditions in the manual.

Yes, there is something wrong with the opinions Bertie expressed. And there is something wrong with Marc's opinion of how things work, and there is something wrong with your opinion of how things work, but you don't need my opinion on it when you can just RTFM for yourself. 

The manual will tell you how Approach mode works for the aircraft you are on, but instead of asking how you disengage it, you should seriously consider when and why you might want to disengage it, and what it is you want to be able to do that requires it to be disengaged.

Read the actual manual.

A disturbing number of accidents in the real world have been caused because pilots did not understand what their systems were trying to tell them. We have had posters here flatly contradicting each other about the meanings of indicators while saying *exactly* the same thing. Instead of arguing your opinions, why don't you simply quote the manual? It might mean you would have to actually read it again and there is a risk that you might just learn something you didn't know before, but hey, what is life without a little risk?

Approach mode *can* be disconnect by pressing the APP button a second time, but only if certain other conditions are satisfied. Those conditions vary between different aircraft. Approach mode can be changed or disabled in other was as well, and yes, there are ways to turn the Approach mode off without disconnecting the FD's *if* certain other conditions are satisfied.  However, if you are on an approach that is going wrong, which is the usual time when you might want to turn approach mode off, and you *don't* know what those conditions are, or what your systems are telling you, then you will probably crash and burn and kill everybody on board, but hey, as I said, what is life without a little risk?

I suggest you start with the built in lessons and tutorials which will teach you the basics of how to fly, how to land and how to use the sim. If you can't land a single engined Cessna, you will not be able to land a 777. All the advanced tutorials make the assumption that you already know the basics and won't really make much sense if you don't.

P.S. For future reference, most simmers prefer to refer to P3D, FSX, XP11 etc. as sims or simulations rather then games and some of the older ones can get quite touchy about it.

17 hours ago, downscc said:

Paul, the bottom line is that PMDG didn't make money on their MD-11.  It's sales number, that only PMDG knows, were cited by RSR many years ago as the prime reason they would discontinue the product.  I don't recall exactly, but something along the lines that they were disappointed and thought it would have done much better.

Dan, the bottom line is that the boring buses have been all been done. Anything else that PMDG release will be *by definition* less active. At time of writing, there are 30 747-8's in the air and there are 29 MD-11's so can we now agree that the "less active" argument is dead and move on.

I do not know why the MD-11 sales were disappointing the first time round but I do know that the cost to PMDG of bringing a new MD-11 to market for P3D or even XP will be a lot lower then the equivalent costs for an air-frame they have not done before. I do know that the MD-11 is an interesting and enjoyable aircraft to fly and I do know that RSR and PMDG also it is interesting or they wouldn't have done it in the first place. If you would like to suggest an alternative aircraft for them to deliver next, I would be very interested in hearing your suggestions but I must admit to getting quite bored with people just repeating that something wont or cant happen without offering anything better.

22 minutes ago, windshearDK said:

Hmm ok  where are those 732? I understand your interest in the MD11, but to say there are plenty of 732 flying around as a an argument for making the MD11 is not the best defense...

Huh? You asked why focus on the MD-11 which is becoming less active, I gave you three reasons why.

You then suggested the same arguments applied to the 732 (implying it was also less active). I merely pointed out that like the MD-11, there are still plenty of 732's in the air right now. However, unlike the 732, PMDG already know how to make an MD-11. If you want to know what aircraft are in the sky and where they are, then I suggest you google flight tracking, or look up flightaware, or look up flight-radar, or look up any of the other public sources of information that the rest of us use.  

If you want to spend the rest of your sim time flying active boring buses, then off you go, your needs are already well catered for so you have no need to pay attention to this thread. 50% of aircraft in the air right now are 737-800s, A319, A320 or A321's. 18 of the twenty most active aircraft (at time of writing) are mainstream Boeing's and Airbus's. 19 of the top 20 have high quality sims with only the ERJ-190 currently unavailable. Anything outside the top 20 makes up less then 1% of currently airborne commercial aircraft, making *everything* else, by definition, less active. So why should PMDG focus on less active aircraft? The obvious reason is that the more active aircraft have a) all been done and b) are all boring buses.

16 hours ago, Paul_Smith said:

Can you list the steps you follow from cold & dark until the warning is reported.

Sven, there is confusion about *when* you get the fault. The sentence "What happens is when the APU is turned off I get the PACK RST sys fault and I have to reset it every time I do the electrical power-up" has two meanings...

1) I turn the APU off and *immediately* get a PACK RST sys fault reported on the EICAS (unlikely). 

or

2) I turn the APU off. Some time later when I later do an electrical power-up, I get a PACK RST fault that I have to reset. 

If the answer is (1) then the issue is related to shutdown and that is what Dan has been trying to help you with, but I think that is very unlikly. 

If the answer is (2) then the issue has nothing to do with how you shut-down. Given that you say you get teh same result with default and saved cold&dark, I think this is the more likely option.

Can you list the steps you follow from cold & dark until the warning is reported.

There are plenty of 737-200's in the air as I type, but PMDG haven't done a steam gauge aircraft since the DC-6 (for X-plane) and before that, the JS-41. They have done the MD-11 and know (knew) how it works.

1 hour ago, windshearDK said:

why focus on an aircraft that is becoming less and less active in the real world?

Because:

1) it rewards the pilot who puts in the effort to learn it, but punishes the pilot who doesn't.

2) it is a more interesting and enjoyable aircraft to fly then most Boeings because it requires the pilots to fly it.

3) PMDG already know how to do it so they just have to make it prettier.

We keep hearing "there's more people who use these planes than just the people on the forums here" or words to that effect and of course it is true, but is it relevant? Is there any evidence that those on the forum buy differently from those who are not? Is there any evidence that suggests the people on the forum think differently from those who are not? In other words, has anybody got any evidence that a forum poll would *not* be representative? 

On 1/12/2019 at 2:46 PM, seahawks said:

No FSX is still alive,...

<sigh/> That's what they used to say about FS2004. Next he will say that FSX is not dead, it is just just pining.

FSX is not pining...

It's passed on! This parrot is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet it's maker! This is a late parrot.

It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies!

Its run down the curtain and joined the choir invisibile!

THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

(With all respect and rights to Monty Python...)

10 hours ago, pete_auau said:

In  fairness  to  Dan  maybe  he  didn't  see  your  signature   since  some  signatures  you need  a magnifying  glass  to  see  them,   and  did  you need  to  say  to him his  a forum  police and  need  to see  rest  of  my  papers uncalled  for.  You would  have been  more better off being more  polite  in  your  response(Dan  my  signature  is there if you  would  take  a  closer  look)   and  you  might  have  gotten a  apology From  Dan

Perhaps... but the dogmatic claim that Chris's suggestions were not just mistaken but "absolutely false" was neither polite nor in keeping with the usually respectful tone on this forum. That Dan was subsequently shown to be incorrect probably didn't help his mood. Throwing in an off topic comment regarding a forum etiquette breach to a regular poster on a thread where the moderator had been actively involved would have been neither constructive nor helpful at the best of times, but not bothering to take the three seconds or less required to check if Chris was actually in breach (I know his name is Chris because it says so in his signature block) pushed the post into the area of being rude and showed Dan making at least two significant mistakes in one short post. I am pretty sure that Dan is aware that he was out of line but I am not sure what you think Chris could have said that would have elicited an apology if one was not already forth coming. I personally thought Chris's reaction was not unreasonable and you must admit it was certainly politer then mine would have been.

20 hours ago, killairbus said:

I tend to file my flight plans with enough fuel to reach my alternate that's above my reserves. 

Am I too conservative with this? Is it ok to divert and land with some of my reserve fuel used?

-Angelo Busato 

To answer the original question, Yes it is OK to use your reserve if you need to and No, you are not being too conservative. 

Being able to land at your alternate without having to use your reserve is better then landing at your alternate with most of your reserve gone, but you must admit that both are still better then not being able to land at all.

If you are flying a familiar route to a destination that rarely has problems and has lots of available alternates then you can reduce your reserve requirements to the minimums required by the relevant rules, but the reverse is also true. A long haul into somewhere unfamiliar with a poor reputation at a bad time of year and few alternates might encourage you to carry far more then the minimum required reserves. Try hauling freight from Perth (YPPH) to Reunion (FMEE) during cyclone season with the nearest alternate in Mauritius (FIMP) and you will consider pushing your reserves to max take-off weight!