Vagabondo

You need to download the base package again. If you sign in and go to your previous orders page and then select the NGX order, there should be a download link there. This is the base package updates to 1D.

Usually around between 12 - 16 for us. Like Joe, on time critical sectors we occasionally use 100. Because the descent speed is so slow with CI 15, some airlines SOP is to manually set something like 280 kts on transition for the descent instead of ECON.

There's a lot at our place who wish our company would do the same thing because of endless discussions on how to interpret the Boeing's wording.

As previously mentioned the engines and APU can get all they need by suction. IRL, a fuel left tank or left center pump is usually on for APU service life. WRT to fuel suction feed by the engines, again IRL where the aircraft climbs trapped air in the fuel escapes and can cause cavitation, so it is pretty essential that at least one fuel pump is pressurizing the fuel line to each engine to prevent such cavitation. Once in the cruise, this risk is has usually passed and suction feed to the engines is, according to Boeing (I doubt anybody is will to try it), suffficient. If PMDG has attempted to model this, serious hats off

In addition to Spin's explanation, the official text is in the Bulletin Record chapter of your company FCOM1. We have 10.8A and normally arm VNAV on the ground, If windshear is a possibility, then I don't arm VNAV.

Generally speaking, in these cases do not use LNAV for the first turn after departure. Most airfields without a SID or STAR will have an airport NDB or VOR that will be a waypoint on an airway that will join up with your planned route. In such cases, the FMC will be setup in the RTE page as DIRECT <NAVAID> <AIRWAY> <WAYPOINT>. This can look a little strange, but this is usually the most appropriate as ATC depature clearances will often be of the nature 'turn left/right intercept airway (or radial to/from a navaid) climb to alt/FL. If such an airway does not exist, then just program the FMC so that there is a direct leg from the navaid (or airport if no navaid) to your first enroute waypoint. Once that is set up, depart using heading select, above 400' use HDG SEL to point the aircraft at a intercept course for that leg (intercept about 30 deg if possible). You can use the FMC LEGS page to setup up an intercept by bringing the first enroute waypoint to the top, enter the track from the airport to the way point in the bottom right (should be preset by default) and execute. Then when the wings are level and pointing at the magenta line you can engage LNAV and it will automatically capture the course and fly the rest of the route. This is a realistic approach to the problem and generally the most practical and flexible method.

I don't fly in the US, but we regularly get "descend FLXXX to be level YY miles before ZZZZZ". I have never been given a DME related instruction other than "report XX DME YYY". Maybe because generally we only encounter VORs either enroute (cruise) or as the IAF to a procedure where ""descent to X altitude by Y DME of Z location" doesn't make sense as traffic separation for an instrument procedure is not vertical unless holding in which case the clearance is "hold at XXX as published, flight level/altitude" I should mention, that most altitude constraints are related to descending through different FIRs, probably not something relevant to trans-US navigation.

+10000

I find fs2crew quite unobtrusive, he just does what I tell him to do. May I ask how you find it so?

Resetting the cruise can cause large speed changes depending on the cost index in use or choice of speed for the descent. We use a low cost index and descend at a low speed of around 250kts at transition to CAS. If we re-set the cruise, the aircraft would again accelerate to econ cruise speed when leveling off. Edited to add: Oops! Joe already said this Note to self, read whole thread before opening gob.

Unfortunately you need the Flight Planning and Performance Manual which is not included with the NGX package :( Do a google search for "737 FPPM", there seems to be a few copies on the net.

Choose levels with the greatest change in wind and/or direction as those will not be in line with the linear assumptions that the FMC otherwise makes. Also, with a strong tailwind, it is often a good idea to make one of the entries just a few thousand feet below the cruise altitude. Otherwise the aircraft could under compensate for the tailwind and the speed starts to climb towards the barbers pole. At least, that is how the real NG can sometimes behave, I've never tested NGX to see if that kind of real world behavior is the same.

Yeah, the ATC routing changes happen from time to time. We usually just get the first segment input with a discontinuity so that at least we are heading the right direction time is available for a proper entry and confirmation. In that case there is going to be a significant amount of CDU activity so I completely agree with doing stupidly simple first and tidying it up later. Hmm, if you have DEN - YAMMI already in the FMC, bringing YAMMI up will preload the intercept course with the FMC track already calculated between the two, it just needs a double tap to set the correct intercept. Due to variation over the length of the segment it might be a degree off compared to the radial but, that should be fine.

Ah yeah, absolutely. Some airfields simply don't have the terrain or infrastructure for an LVO environment, meaning they can only support Cat 1. Others can support Cat 2 but not 3. Some 3A but not 3B. Understood. But you were saying that Cat 1 has a lower minima than an uncategorised ILS, I'm just saying that I have never heard of an uncategorised ILS is all

Hi Ralph, Great video, I can tell you're a trainer Regarding the statement about the ILS Cat I or no Category ILS, I have to admit I'm not aware of that. I certainly don't believe this to be the case under ICAO. Is that an FAA specific thing you're referring to? Under ICAO an ILS approach can only be CAT 1, CAT 2 or CAT 3 (and subtypes of CAT 3). The system minima for CAT 1 is 200' DH. There is provision in EU-OPS for Cat 1 LTS (Lower Than Standard) minima of 150' DH, but that is predicated on an HGS (Heads Up Guidance System) and undoubtedly other formalities. There is also a normal CAT 1 (200' DH) with reduced visibility requirements, but that is predicated on EVS (Enhanced Vision System - like FEDEX have on their MD11s). With regard to CAT III minima, our charts don't have that information, we have a section in OMC (Operations Manual Part C), that lists the takeoff and landing minima for all runways that we operate from which is primary document for LVO (Low Visibility Operations) and overrides whatever is on the chart (unless affected by NOTAM).

Practically speaking, flying outbound JJS would be flying to something else, if not then you are probably being vectored for traffic in which case you're under radar control on a radar heading. If flying away from a navaid, the clearance could probably be "join the airway UL419" where the airway is the segment between the navaid and the next waypoint in which case you use the same intercept technique as I described above, or you could be cleared direct to the waypoint. I'm not trying for an FMC solution to a problem, just that under some specific circumstances using a higher level of automation can reduce workload and it is up to the pilot to assess the most appropriate solution for the job which means being comfortable with any technique

By stupidly simple, you mean VOR/LOC I presume? I didn't know until recently that 777 doesn't even have VOR/LOC so options become a bit more limited on the big bird! Seriously, on the 737, VOR/LOC is stupidly easy to use, however in practical terms on departure clearances such as "right turn, inbound radial 280 to JJS, flight planned route." Given that LNAV is the general theme of the flight, it is often more practical to simply bring JJS to the top of the LEGS page, enter the radial into INTC CRS which will setup and infinate magenta line extending from JJS on the radial course. Then use HDG SEL to turn to intercept the radial at a sensible angle (30-45 deg usually) and once stable on that heading select LNAV, the aircraft with then follow that intercept heading and then automatically intercept the magenta line inbound to JJS.

Yeah, that is the only logical reason, but why does it say DH and not DA??? Actually, if you think about that a turnback, where you don't take the time to set up for the approach is all about, i.e. a dire emergency - you ain't planning on going around!

FCOM1, Normal Procedure, Pre-flight mentions only to set a decision height or altimeter reference with the baro minimums selector. Honestly, I don't really know why I would set a decision altitude, never mind a height! Ergo, I don't really understand what Boeing is talking about there, neither does anybody else I have asked. Perhaps some of the insiders here do. But anyway, I digress. However, the "altitude reference" part is usually, by most operators, used to display the EO acceleration altitude. This is done merely as a reminder only, it does not trigger anything to be done differently or automatically. The EO acceleration altitude is critical to guarantee for subsequent terrain clearance (whereas two engine acceleration is not). Accelerating early is a big no no, but there is some leeway for accelerating later (higher), but many performance calculation tools don't provide max altitude of an EO acceleration, so it is generally accepted that if an engine is lost, acceleration is at that reference is initiated even if the crew have to momentarily pause a recall checklist to do so. Even though the baro mins is set as a reminder, the FMC Takeoff page 2/2 heights should also be programmed. One final thing, in an earlier post, I said to just set it to 1500'. Wrong! Sorry about that. Set it to 1500' + airport elevation! 1500' would be below many airfields I fly from! :blink:

Nothing to do with navigraph, it is a performance thing. The standard one engine acceleration altitude in the books is 1500'. Some airlines use as low as 800' as a standard when they have the means to calculate airfield specific single engine accel alts with an EFB performance tool. Just stick to 1500', works everywhere

There are no rules to this. But generally, if there is a radial specified for the departure Course 1 is set to the first radial, Heading is set to the runway track and Course 2 is set to the second radial (if there is more than one) or set to the first radial if only one. If there are no radials to follow, just the VOR is tuned with both courses set to the runway track. If there is no VOR then the ILS is tuned. Logical ADFs, if available, are tuned that are either relevant in terms of tracking for the departure or for a return should it be needed. Baro Minimums are set to the one engine inoperative acceleration altitude.

We never fly step downs on approach, always a constant descent and add 50' to the MDA for a possible go-around. Even for arrivals, we will attempt to keep a constant descent going barring altitude restrictions and ATC, which usually means VNAV or VS depending on if ATC speeds or vectors changes the standard arrival. Once we are on the profile under vectors with speed control it is LVL CHG with speedbrake as required and if likely to go below the profile, back to the VS to reduce the descent again. The major difference between LVL CHG and VS on approach in the real aircraft, especially when caught high on the profile, is how quickly the AP reacts to inputs, LVL CHG is generally too slow to react to inputs, VS will change the pitch very quickly is is useful for recapturing the profile from above (provided there is enough drag). VS is not very good when under speed control and will often hover at the bugged speed +10 kts. It is tempting hold the thrust levers closed, but this is not recommended, I usually handfly or if there is room above the current flap speed, just reduce the bugged speed below the ATC speed.

Not during a climb, it just sets the cruise altitude in the FMC. During a descent, pressing ALT INTV will normally delete the next altitude constraint in the LEGS page that is higher than the altitude currently set in the FMC. I say normally, because in the real aircraft there are arrival procedures where ALT INTV does not remove the restrictions, which I have never been able to get to the bottom of. I don't know if this encoding of the arrivals is replicated in NGX as I haven't tried it.

Boeing recommends setting the pressurization controller to the highest planned level for the flight during preflight. They say this guards against problems during the climb if forgotten about and reduces workload. You can also just press ALT INTV (obviously if configured). That will automatically set the FMC CRZ ALT to whatever you have set in the MCP if the MCP is higher than the current FMC setting and initiate the climb with N1 and VNAV SPD FMAs.

Yup, according to my book The Boeing 737 Technical Guide your understanding is correct, thanks for correct me. Another thought is that the maximum normal pressure range of the hydraulic system is 3000 - 3500psi. Where MAX is capped at 3000psi, RTO is uncontrolled and I assume will use all the pressure available to it, which could mean up to 3500 psi on the day with maximum deceleration all the way to standstill. This is the same for MAX MANUAL. Have you noticed how the MAX setting is on a latch, you have to pull the control knob out to select it. Perhaps Boeing's way of saying "Seriously - are you sure about this?" :blink: Nothing dramatic, but I have noticed with Autobrake 3 and specifically landing at a high altitude airfields with a landing ground speed of about 160kts, the deceleration rate is such that the nose has a tendency to drop much very quickly unless slowed with judicious back pressure on the column. Landing performance in the Flight Planning Performance Manual (not included with NGX) and the Performance Dispatch (included in FCOM1) is certified and factored data and doesn't assume the use of reverse. The Performance Inflight (FCOM1 and QRH) is unfactored and is what the crews use to calculate landing performance for the actual conditions and assumes the use of reverse thrust (different operators may have not include reverse thrust in their tables). Using this data you can expect the aircraft to stop in the quoted distances. So, if you float the landing you will most likely not meet the numbers.