ExNusquam

The manuals included are (nearly) verbatim copies of the real manuals. There's discussion of the dual-ADF option in there as well.

I guess this is the weekly Scimitar thread then?

Kyle, next time I see you controlling I'm going to show up and ask for an ASR approach.

This is incorrect. Per CS-25.123, there is an enroute EO climb requirement. CS-25.123 says Therefore, your climb-limited landing weight, while only speced to include Landing Climb and Approach Climb (CS-25.119/121), can be limited by Enroute-Climb, because the airplane needs to be able to meet enroute climb to be within it's operating limits. As shown in the chart I posted, this can be the limiting factor for performance if certain factors are met. And for the record, this almost exactly the same working as 14 CFR Part 25, which you would have noticed if you bothered to take even a cursory glace at it.

Enroute Climb limit weight can be more restrictive than the other weights, and thus become the climb limited landing weight. Just so we're clear, enroute climb, as per 14 CFR 25.123 is: Climbing at VFTO with: The most unfavorable center of gravity; The critical engines inoperative; The remaining engines at the available maximum continuous power or thrust; and The means for controlling the engine-cooling air supply in the position that provides adequate cooling in the hot-day condition. Resultant climb gradient must be no less than 1.1% for twin engine airplanes. As to your question, if it doesn't plainly tell you on the chart, there's no way to know. This makes sense, since for dispatch you normally don't care what's creating the limit, only what it is for planning purposes. If you are landing at LAX on the 24s/25s, the only obstacles in your flight path are several thousand miles away across the Pacific, but you still have to comply with the climb-limited landing weights. That's what the airplane is certified to do, and an operator is not going to exceed it.

Without seeing the exact chart you're looking at, I can't comment on what the limit is specifically. The weight will be the most restrictive of the following: Approach Climb, Landing Climb, Enroute Climb, or structural. Here's an example. The As are Approach, Es are Enroute, and O is overweight.

Long answer short, a non-temperature compensating Baro-VNAV system will fly a shallower glide-path on cold days, and the procedures are designed to provide safe obstacle clearance even on the average coldest day of the year for that airport. I'm guessing one of the many towers near the final course is close enough to final to necessitate a DA that's 1359' above the threshold. The visibility requirement is high so you can actually see the runway at that altitude. 6.8°=721.1 ft/NM. (721.1 ft/1 NM) * (140 NM/60 Min) NM cancel. Answer should be 1682.6 ft/Min.

That's actually not 9.3°...its 9.3%, which works out to only 5.3°. Interestingly, the Nepal plate you provided lists this as 5.5°, but the Jepp lists it as 5.3°, which matches my math. Additionally, from 3.0 DME to the runway you intercept the standard 3.0°.

The VOR/DME or TACAN Z at KMTN isn't in any nav databases because it doesn't conform to ARINC rules. IIRC, you can't code Arc-Fix (AF) path terminators on the final approach segment (for a non-precision inside the FAF). Here's some of my favorites: How to fail a checkride: KROW HI-ILS RWY 21 Using a Localizer at a different airport: KNZY LOC/DME-A 5-Mile visibility required for LNAV/VNAV mins: KTVC RNAV (GPS) RWY 08 The steepest descent gradient I've seen in CONUS: KDVT RNAV (GPS)-B (there's a reason it's circling only!)

PAPI32, when I say "inexperienced" on these forums I mean I don't have an ATP. I'm a commercial multi instrument pilot; I know what a circling approach is. As stearmandriver has already pointed out, US operators apparently don't "standardize" their techniques as much. Every bit of training I've done on circling procedures has been to acquire the runway, then maneuver to make a normal visual approach to land. That might just mean a base entry, or having to fly a complete crosswind/downwind/base. Basically, if you could fly a visual approach in the jet, you could circle just fine.

I'm a fairly inexperienced pilot, but it still frightens me that it's taken almost 30 posts to explain how to fly a traffic pattern.

Just for follow up on this, I went and looked at the FAA suggested coding for the arrival, which listed it as applicable for all runways. This is likely what Jeppesen followed for their data. Other data providers may modify the coding to be consistent with the ARD.

I'll argue that the data isn't so much "incomplete" as incorrect. As I read the Arrival Route Description, because it specifies RW6L/R and 7L/R, the arrival should be coded in the FMS as runway specific. This is how the European SIDs/STARs are coded, as are many US procedures. This isn't an issue with Navigraph, but likely the data provider (Jeppesen) reading the ARD with a bit more ambiguity. Any pilot should be able to look at the ARD and see that you'd never get the BASET arrival unless you were expecting to land east flow.

This is correct. The Peak AoA on AF447 was 41° (!) and the Air Data computers rejected this value as invalid, because given normal operations, that value would indicate that the sensor had failed or the aircraft was on the ground. The computer wasn't programmed to handle something Minor technical aside, but the Airbus FCTM uses the phrase "added" not "averaged". This means that if both pilots are acting on the controls in the same direction, input will be significantly larger than either pilot would expect.

You've never flown a real airplane, have you? The best stick and rudder IFR guy I've ever flown with never played FS. One of the worst I've flown with played a ton. I don't really think you can draw a connection there.