Vagabondo

Regardless of Brembo's lack of social skills, he correct, the FD's should retract (disappear) at around 50' RA. If they don't then it is a small bugette.

The manual gear extension handles (cables actually) are located under a door on the floor of the flight deck just to the rear and right of the aft electronics stand near the F/O seat. You can see this in NGX, but there is no clickspot there unfortunately. Perhaps there is another way to manually extend the gear in NGX? Just to the Partial or All Gear Up Landing QRH checklist if you can't extend the gear

Interesting, I have never noticed the optimum below the max! I can say that in real life positive ISA deviations in the climb can have an instantaneous and considerable effect on the max altitude. I'm guess FSX wouldn't really model such variances by default, so I presume you are using a third party weather app that uses real world data?

Well, probably yeah, SFP probably the same, never tried it to be honest. But why are we talking about the speedbrake lever in the flight detent position on the ground? Time to sheath our swords and retire to our castles methinks

Hi Berni, Love your vids too man I think I know what you mean, if so then interesting, perhaps there are different versions of the ACPs available. Certainly on our aircraft selecting the transmit switch does not illuminate the related receiver switch if it was not already illuminated. This logic is useful, because then you know that you will not be able to hear anything on that radio after choosing a different transmitter.

Thanks Kevin, I don't disagree, perhaps PMDG's animations are a bit out in relation to the control wheel movement. The only further comment I have is regarding the following. I think there are definitely some differences between ground and air with both SFP and non SFP versions of the NG. For example the maximum deflection position is different, something like 30 degrees in the air and 60 degrees on the ground. Taking that maximum deflection into account, on the ground with the speedbrake lever past the flight detent, full aileron will move one side of flight spoilers from 30 degrees up to full deflection (60 degrees) and the other from 30 degrees to retract - I presume to try to maintain the total weight on wheels during braking.

Increased flight spoiler extension on the ground, winglets, two position tail skid, reduced idle thrust on the ground and sealed slats increase takeoff weight reduce landing distances. The SFP option is the reason different people see different behavior in NGX. I don't know. Taking into account the fact the ailerons on a 737 aren't particularly effective in any phase of flight (anyone who has experienced manual reversion can probably attest to this), then at less than flying speed on the ground they'd be even less effective. Perhaps also it there are wing structural considerations. Perhaps aerodynamic considerations. Perhaps the engineering solution of controlling roll through controlling spoiler extension means less parts, less weight and less maintenance. Who knows the answers to these things except the people to made the original design compromises. You say you have data, what data do you have? Perhaps that would stop this pointless conjecture

On this point are correct for the standard NG. However, try deselecting Short Field Package in the CDU equipment options. Now you should see the flight spoilers partially extended on the ground. We're not given any specific details, but one of the features of the SFP is extended flight spoiler deflection on the ground. With regards to spoiler movement vs control wheel displacement. I don't know for sure, but I imagine that on the ground with the ground spoilers deployed, flight spoiler response would have to be exaggerated compared to in flight to ensure sufficient roll control during cross wind landings. Difficult to know for sure to be honest, but it doesn't seem particularly wrong.

Peter, spot on. Like Kyle you make a nice and rational post. May I mention that I hinted at the knowledge side in an earlier post, but I am really glad that some people understand the vast complexity associated with operating these aircraft in international airspace. On a complete tangent. Did you know that Judaism is an official religion of Iran, there are 17 synagogues in Terhran and about 70 or so in the country as a whole. Like Christianity, they even have representation (albeit small) in their parliament. Not a lot of people know that.

Sorry Lukas, nearly forgot to reply. The answer is through the MCDU.

Fair enough mate. My apologies for the mis-interpretation.

You could be right, I'm just going by what my last chief pilot told me which could have been specific to that CAA at that time. Regardless, these are the key points: procedures, training and policies, which need to be incorporated into Ops Manual B. Some do this through Boeing which means Boeing tailor OMB for the operator (I can imagine this was the old way) or the operator produces a separate addendum to OMB (which my last two airlines did). In either case this has to be approved by the state - which in practical terms for most CAAs will be difficult if Boeing isn't involved to some degree.

I have never heard of airline using the A/T with the A/P disengaged in any mode other than ARM. Even then, Boeing have said that they will only bless it with specific training.

Absolutely not. If the operator does not use a piece of equipment, then the crew operating those aircraft will not be given any information on it. As Kenny said, the FCOM is operator specific, meaning it only talks about the options actually used by the airline. For example, we have the HGS on our fleet, but we don't have the HGS control panel - even NGX doesn't cover all the variables! Not knowing about certain options in no reflection on the professionalism of a pilot. Unless you are aircrew, you probably don't really appreciate the depth of knowledge requires in all matters, technical, legislation, procedure and management. It is a full time job retaining sufficient knowledge of all these things with the level of proficiency required not just for fundamentally safe operations, but to maintain the standards the company is looking for. With regards to training, type rating training is either company specific or generic. With regards to generic training I very much doubt there are many Independence FTOs out there with an HGS in their sim that hasn't been ordered by specific operator.

I find the most realistic setting is max sensitivity for pitch and roll with . When I say realistic, I mean in terms of control displacement to flightpath relationship for most normal and non-normal maneuvers (even during sim training I very seldom have required full delection and only once in the real aircraft when caught in wake turbulence). However, because there are no control forces, which are significant in the real aircraft, such a setup takes some getting used to.

Go to the FMC INDEX. Select NAV DATA. Give your waypoint a name in the scratchpad and enter with L1 key under the field labeled WPT IDENT. This will bring up the WPT IDENT page where you can enter the coordinates. Insert the the coordinates in the same format as you described above but omit the periods so that N13 22.6 E100 41.2 is entered first as "N13226" in the scratchpad, then line selected using the left key (L3 from memory, but could be wrong) then "E100412" with R3. Press EXEC and repeat for each additional waypoint. If you make a mistake. Enter the wapypoint name. Press the DEL key, then L1 to remove it. When you have finished, simply enter the WPT IDENT names you created into the RTE LEGS page (LEGS key on the CDU).

You'll enjoy this then http://aerowinx.com/forum/topic.php?id=1382

There is no order of sequence with the use of autopilot and lnav/vnav. The selection of pitch and roll modes with the FDs on drives the FD pointers on the PFD. The autopilot will automatically follow the FD pointers or display CWS P/CWS R if no pitch or roll mode is selected. Also, be careful with the use of the term "arm", the A/P is never armed, it is either on or off. lnav/vnav can (should!) only be armed on the ground. In flight they are selected either on or off. Minimum height for manual selection is 400' RA (AGL) for hdg sel or lnav. Some aircraft have the option for automatic selection of heading select when nothing is armed on the ground after takeoff.

1) This is a simplistic way of viewing engine thrust, but generally, all other things being equal (OAT, pressure, TAS)) N1 = thrust. To maintain a speed in cruise a specific level of thrust is required hence N1 not changing much. If TAI is selected on, N1 should be more or less the same. You should see a slight increase in fuel flow with engine TAI on - this however is not reflected or explained in the FCOM1 Performance Inflight tables, I need more info to clarify this. 2) The EEC engine idle is changed to approach idle for both engines, when either engine TAI is selected on in flight. 3) Power (thrust) loss would only really be evident near max rated thrust with significant bleed demand (such as packs and/or wing anti-ice). Engine TAI on its own does not affect take off or go-around performance, I presume because other factors such as fuel flow and engine compression are not, with such a small bleed demand, limiting or limited factors.

As a real NG pilot I have to say I have never paid any attention to how the engine spools up when I set 40% for t/o, I am only interested in seeing the thrust at the right amount and increasing symmetrically. I do see many differences during engine start between different aircraft and during different conditions. temperature, weak APUs, the bleed system, tailwind/headwind all affect the duration and the way the engine spools up before and after the engine start lever is moved to idle detent. I believe that each EEC is also tuned for each individual engine too, which I guess could also add differences. I am absolutely certain, that all these factors would affect how the engine spools up from idle N1 too. Another factor is the software version of the EEC. Different spool up profiles are used for different conditions and phases of flight across different versions. There is a bulletin out at the moment for the current EEC version warning about slow spool up speeds in the cruise which could, remotely possible lead to a slight under speed with sudden changes of wind direction/speed. I think the the attention to detail nor the desire to get NGX as close to reality as possible is admirable. However, I think the FSX environment (or for any other sim for that matter) is just too stable and canned and as such would make such replication practically impossible. As long as the engine responds characteristically like a turbofan then I think that is sufficient.

. Seems about right rsvit. I assume AS has the benefit of real data for those profiles. I have seen ISA +20 on ground and with ISA+22 from around 9000 to 22000! If climbing the FMC will issue UNABLE FL3X0 messages until the ISA deviation drops back down in the mid to high 200s

Well researched Brian. We still arm VNAV on during on the ground despite the bulletin. The recommendation is to consider not arming it if the conditions for windshear exist. The further point is, if windshear is anticipated, then one delays the departure :excl:

All good. Just a quick response to mention that, strictly speaking, you should be entering the average ISA deviation for the descent. In the real world this is probably more relevant because ISA deviation can be higher at altitude than on the deck.

Except for Qantas guys, they know they do it best

On our aircraft, arming VNAV was not permitted until 10.8A. I don't actually know if this was hard feature or just some kind of certification issue.