machine2035

Are you using the purchased registered version of FSUIPC? The free version will not allow you to utilise numerous useful features of FSUIPC, one of them being the flight controls feature.

To put it quite blunt, no. PMDG have on numerous occasions expressed their thoughts regarding including an EFB.

ADS-B and MLAT (mainly the TASWAM project) coverage suits us real well .....and here our air navigation service provider publish most RNP-AR procedures and are in the DAP's for the general public to view (and for controller to access easily)....someone needs to get on the folks at the FAA to do the same Anyway when I read your posts I always remember your FAA disclaimer from the VATSIM forums so I sometimes need to hold my tongue before I correct some of your Americanism's etc.

The few main differences I can think of are; The main one discussed around here, the taxi cam (or technically called the Ground Maneuver Camera System) - GMCS is only featured on the 300/300ER. The 300ER also features a tail-strike protection system. If a tailstrike is detected to be imminent, back pressure will be released automatically to reduce the chance of a tailstrike (I am not too sure if this is shared across the whole T7 fleet, or just to the 300/300ER fleet). There is obviously some differences between the -F and the pax versions. Such things include overhead panel differences (Supernumary Pax Signs, Environmental Control System etc.). There are also numerous differences on the synoptic pages.Those are some of the differences I could come up with off the top of my head, but as Richard posted above, you can find alot of helpful information on Smartcockpit and with simple google searches - There is a lot of info on the T7 out on the WWW (World Wide Web).

I guess the only thing you would obtain BY NOT purchasing the NGX is the initial 'WOW' factor when you first load into the T7. The feeling I felt when I first loaded up in the NGX cockpit would no doubt be felt by a non-NGX user when first loading up in the T7 (Although I am sure I will feel a similar 'wow' when I load in the T7, it just won't be as warm as when the NGX was first loaded up in my sim with the multitude of amazing features that were introduced in the 737 in contrast to a past product such as the MD11 etc.).

Hi Kevin, I agree with you that it's fun to fly with conventional navaids and raw data, afterall the best real flying is when you're in a 172 using a RMI and a fixed card ADF to shoot an NDB approach - Good and challenging fun! In regards to "Why is there still ADF and VOR displays etc", well when shooting an NDB, VOR etc. approach, it is a requirement to have that raw data displayed and to be monitored. While you may have the approach in your FMC navigation database, and are flying it in LNAV/VNAV (or IAN if the aircraft is fitted with this feature), unless you have approvals from the safety regulator of that country, you must monitor the 'raw-data' of that approach while flying it (i.e. Identifying the NDB isn't OOS and it's identified correctly - either by listening to its morse code or checking that its identified correctly on your PFD/ND). In regards to why there are still VOR's, well they are still there, but there is some decommissioning going on in parts of the world. I would just like the make the point that many countries are starting to de-commission conventional navigational aid facilities, in particular NDB's. It won't be long where we see non-precision approaches such as the NDB and VOR approach, be replaced with more accurate and precision (bolded on purpose) GPS approaches (such as WAAS, GLS etc.) which utilise ground based stations to confirm the integrity of the GPS data being recieved by the unit. These ground based units happen to be a whole lot cheaper than installing a localiser/glideslope (however once you add up the cost of making all aircraft compliant, it probably turns out to be overall as economical as installing a localiser/glideslop setup). While a real NG skipper might not fly around with the ND on VOR mode, don't let that stop you doing so in the sim...Afterall it is a game B)

Ah yes, the good ol' Y1 airway. Nice zig zag escape routes

Seems to be a common thing around here B) And while we are drifting off topic, you crewing on QF25 this year?

They don't neccesarily have to be an RNP AR EOSID's either, they could be company specific as long as they are in the navigation database. Jeppesen, who produce the navigation database for Virgin, for example, also publish EO SID charts for them (which aren't related to the RNP-AR EOSID procedures). I therefore assume they also include the data in their navigation database to be selected in the EO-SID on the DEP/ARR page.

Meant N2, by the way. Unable to edit after long period time since posting.

PFPX generates ENGINE OUT and DECOMPRESSION scenarios. Anyone that owns the program (releasing on the 28th August) will have the neccesary data on their OFP's. There will be no need to have access to the commerical flight planning software that you mentioned.

I always have a sense of relief when I realise I was the first one to start a thread regarding this topic (The first of probably about 75 which have flown in and out of the forums). .... I bet when you see this thread on your recently discussed forum topics you're going to think 'God damn it, NOT AGAIN!'.. :P :lol: :lol:

The altitude tolerances for both PPL and CPL tests (We dont have ATPL checkrides here yet, although they are getting introduced) are alot more than 4ft.

Yeah, it should, but it doesn't. I have had the same issue numerous times aswell. It would be nice if there are duplicate entries if it would prompt you (like the FMC, PFPX has a prompt aswell). Although since he is using a real EK OFP, and they are using one the of best briefing systems in Lido, I am sure he will be able to have a nice peice of Danish bread when he arrives in Kastrup without going on a scenic tour through Paraguay :lol:

Most likely a VOR with the same identifier. VATaware uses Simroutes to parse its route maps etc., so most likely it didn't choose the right one causing the massive detour.

Mmmm, yes those Dutch Coffee Shops Probably not the best place to visit before a long-haul flight :He He: :Hypnotized:

Delicious

They are planning to originally do IST-SIN-SYD on the 77W, and eventually move to a direct service once they obtain a 77L. ...and don't get me started on Air India. They have been planning a service to SYD/MEL for god knows how long (even putting flight details in the GDS reservation system), and then never end up operating the flights. Drives us crazy!

With AUTOSTART off, you would flick the fuel control switch on when N2 reaches max motoring (Which is when the acceleration of the N1 is at it's slowest, around 1% per 5 seconds). For an AUTOSTART, The Fuel Control Switch can be moved to RUN during the engine start as soon as the CM2 has moved the Engine START/IGNITION selector to START. There is no requirement to wait for Oil Pressure, engine rotation or oil temperature.

Don't forget what airline RSR was employed by ^_^ ^_^ :lol:

I think he was saying in the 777 they need to be manually deployed, whereas in the Airbus they are armed. Just the absence of a comma (,) made it sound like you still need to deploy them manually when armed on an Airbus B)

http://nopamp.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/acars-chime.html BTW, don't forget to sign your name in the PMDG forums B)

Very cool. That Iraqi Airways livery looks real exciting....NOT :lol: :He He: ...and Ryan your up rather late (it's rare to see you Americans on when its 20:30 in Sydney!)

You assumed correct. The EICAS landing gear position indication changes to UP for 10 seconds and then blanks. With the landing gear retracted and all doors closed, the landing gear hydraulic system is automatically depressurized.

Nope, no need to arm spoilers for takeoff. Here is an RTO in the Virgin Australia T7 sim.