Jump to content

voske

Members
  • Content Count

    231
  • Donations

    $25.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by voske

  1. I don't believe there are freeware navdata updates. I use Navigraph for navdata updates.
  2. What is the date of the navdata of the 737? I believe you can find that on the FMC init page (I am 3000 miles away from my flight sim PC, so I can't check it). OTHH was opened in 2014. Perhaps the navdata is older than that. In that case, OTHH will not be included in the navdata. The only solution would be to update the navdata.
  3. Since August, British Airways no longer uses the 767 on longhaul flights. Most of their longhaul 767s are retired now.
  4. No issues here with the Anniversary update. Just had to register the 777 again.
  5. That's just a placeholder. Latest update from the developer: http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/33966-aerosoft-da-crj-preview/&do=findComment&comment=768062
  6. The normal cruising speed of the Constellation was about 280 knots, according to what I can find. Also, the planned duration includes taxi times.
  7. According to the legend, flights PA130 and PA131 were flown with the Lockheed Constellation and the others with the DC-4. Also, the times are local times according to page 17 and 18 of the timetable. Time in New York is GMT-5 and time in Bermuda is GMT-4. Keeping that in mind, you get the following result. Planned duration of the direct flight from New York to Bermuda DC-4: 4h05m Constellation: 3h15m Planned duration of the direct flight from Bermuda to New York DC-4: 4h35m Constellation: 3h50m
  8. voske

    ATC FPL

    I think it's IFP/MODESASP. According to the following quote this is automatically added to the flightplan by Eurocontrol's Integrated Initial Flight Plan Processing System: Source: page 18 of https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/article/content/documents/nm/flight-planning/icao-2012/icao-2012-fpl-2012-urd-latest.pdf
  9. You're right according to this remark on the Lido chart: Rwy 04L: E arrivals Rwy 04R: A arrivals Rwy 12: B arrivals Rwy 22L: F arrivals Rwy 22R: C arrivals Rwy 30: D arrivals Therefore, the arrival should have been the ALM1F to ULTIS. There is also a remark on the chart though that, traffic permitting, direct routing to ABEGI, ADOVI, LAMOX, and ULTIS for rwy 22L/R may occur. If flying offline or with no ATC on VATSIM, I would probably go from ALM direct to ADOVI, and then LAMOX to intercept the ILS.
  10. www.flightstats.com provides the departure gate (and sometimes also the arrival gate) for a lot of airports, including airports outside the US. I just tried it with flights departing from Amsterdam, Beijing and Hong Kong.
  11. The video was of a flight to SEQM.
  12. A headwind shortens the stopping distance in case of a rejected takeoff. Therefore, V1 is lower when there's a headwind. At least, that's how I always understood it. Others will correct me if I'm wrong. Edit: Some info from the FAA: P. 25 of https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/training/media/takeoff_safety.pdf
  13. I have TOPER for the 777. It allows fixed derates. You can select TO, TO1 or TO2.
  14. voske

    Data link "No comm"

    Thanks for the info! Makes sense now. I was trying to use ETOPS180, but that didn't work out in PFPX, so I switched to ETOPS207. The flight plan was a RW flight plan I found on http://www.edi-gla.co.uk/ Route: N0493F330 DAVMO Y601 GABKO Q4 ASMET/N0485F350 Q4 RIKOP/K0891F350 B114 ASB B434 MAXAT A370 URG A299 OSGAN/K0883F360 A299 TINRI/K0887F370 G359 BELEG/K0890F360 G359 ADERA/K0886F380 G359 ABERI/M083F380 85N118W 80N123W 75N124W/M083F390 70N123W 65N122W/N0470F390 60N121W YXJ J534 STAHL/N0471F410 J534 YWL/N0473F400 T618 YYJ/1353 Enroute alternates were UBBB, ENBO, PAFA and CYEG.
  15. On my flight from OMDB to KSEA I tried to request wind data on the ROUTE DATA page, but "DATA LINK NO COMM" was displayed on the ROUTE DATA page. According to FCOM2 11.34.3 the status message "NO COMM" occurs when - the VHF and SATCOM data radios are operational but not available - the VHF data radio has failed and the SATCOM data radio is not available, or - the SATCOM data radio has failed and the VHF data radio is not available. As I attempted to request wind data between 85N18 and 80N23, my assumption would be that VHF data radio nor SATCOM data radio is available above a certain latitude. Is that correct?
  16. I use this one: http://www.b737mrg.net/downloads/b737mrg_snowtammetar.pdf
  17. Runway 25 Wet or wet patches, 51 to 100% of runway covered Depth of deposit not measurable Braking action medium-good
  18. This topic might solve your issue, specifically post 5: http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/103037-fuel-calculation-for-777-300er-from-klax-from-nzaa/
  19. I know it's probably a stupid question, but did you remove the chocks?
  20. I don't believe there is anything you can do to undo it. On my flight this evening the panels, the FMCs and the PFDs froze. I wasn't entering wind data at the time (did that before t/o), but it may have had something to do with wind data: right before the freeze the estimated fuel at destination dropped to a much lower number and the Using RSV fuel message appeared. That seems consistent with the tailwinds I entered suddenly disappearing. I tried for 10 minutes to solve the issue, but as a result all my FSUIPC autosaves were corrupt as well.
  21. That difference doesn't matter if you just load the ZFW calculated by PFPX as the ZFW on the Payload page of the FMC.
  22. Unfortunately, such a website doesn't exist. For schedules and types I use www.flightstats.com, For routes I often use www.edi-gla.co.uk (free, but registration requires).
  23. Did you switch the Service Interphone switch on the upper overhead panel to On?
  24. I trend to fly longhauls almost every Saturday. During those flights I generally do the chores, read, cook dinner, and watch TV.
  25. voske

    EFIS APP Mode

    I'm happy to be corrected, but I can't imagine that a RW pilot would select a RNAV approach in the FMC if he actually doesn't want to fly the RNAV approach nor use the RNAV approach as reference for a visual approach. Why would he select an RNAV approach if he wants to use the localizer and/or ILS glideslope as a reference?
×
×
  • Create New...