skelsey

At the very least you really need to fill out INIT A (departure and arrival, flight number, cruise level) select the runway for departure and arrival on the F-PLN page (no need to select a procedure), weights and V-speeds on the PERF page (can be auto-calculated) and ideally fill out the PERF APPR page (QNH/temp/wind) as this will let the aeroplane calculate the appropriate characteristic speeds for you. So if you were doing circuits at Chateauroux, for example, you would just enter LFLX/LFLX in the dep/arr fields, bung in a flight number and a cruise level of, say, 2000ft, then go to F-PLN, select the departure runway, go back to F-PLN and select the same runway for arrival. Leave the discontinuities in, then go to the PERF page, put in a flap setting and let it auto-calculate the V speeds and flex temperature. Finally you can page across to the PERF APPR page and enter the current QNH, temperature and surface wind. Looks a lot written down but in reality only really takes a few seconds!

As Dan says, the PMDG 777 is the -200LR. A very, very different beast to the straight -200, which appears to be what the Topcat profile is for. Edit: just to add, for context: the straight -200s have an MTOW over 100t less than the LR and about 4,500nm less range.

As Kyle says, I very much doubt that your problems have anything to do with the temperature or Activesky. Let's sanity check that for a moment -- 35C is a fairly typical daytime temperature in Florida (and indeed might even be considered fairly mild in some places). At a lapse rate of around 2C per 1000ft, an OAT of 12C at 7000ft is actually quite cool if the temperature on the ground is 35C. Aeroplanes take off and climb to cruising levels quite comfortably every day from airports where the temperature is 35+C. A TAT of +35C at FL350 would be a problem, but this does not appear to be the case here. Therefore, the problem probably lies elsewhere -- my first suspicion is the same as Kyle's, if your flaps are assigned to a hardware axis this is known to cause problems.

Of course. Mea culpa! There is no climb required at CRVET as far as I can see. You could be quite happily cruising along over SAV and CHECR at FL350 -- the only requirement is to start a descent to cross CRVET between FL240 and FL290. I would guess that there is an alternative STAR for traffic cruising below FL240, but I stand to be corrected.

I don't use the FAA charts routinely, but assuming the conventions are similar to the presentation on the Lido charts I am more familiar with: FL190 and FL180 (etc) noted next to the route line are not altitude restrictions (as such), they are MEAs (Minimum Enroute Altitudes). In other words, you can't fly the segment between SAV and CHECR at any less than FL190. *1700 and *1600 are MSAs (minimum safe altitudes) for the route segments. MEA is usually driven by navigational concerns (navaid reception, airspace etc) whereas MSA is usually a terrain/obstacle issue. Normally you would be a long way above the minimum altitudes -- they are there for emergency use.

"Go around, flap 20." :wink:

Errm.... don't press all the way down on the pedals? What would happen if you stood on the brakes in your car as hard as you could at high speed? You're locking the wheels and blowing the tyres/overheating the brakes and causing the tyre fuse plugs to melt. Either way, you're not going to go anywhere fast afterwards.

Russia does use metres QFE below TA, but will provide QNH on request and whilst I can't speak for Flydubai, at a Big Airline QFE operations are verboten so it is normal to request and set the QNH (heights will still be given in metres QFE by the controller but the approach chart includes a metres QFE --> feet QNH conversion table). That said, it would be much easier if the Russians would come in to line with the rest of the world, and I suspect as time moves on they will move in that direction: my understanding is that the current situation (also in China with metric) is due to the fact that many older Russian-manufactured aircraft, and particularly military aircraft, are simply not equipped with altimeters calibrated in feet and so the system exists to cater for them. With more Western aircraft being operated by Russian operators, and Russian manufacturers designing aircraft for a global market, I imagine the situation will change sooner or later.

The pressure changes (decreases) with altitude -- this is how an altimeter works, by measuring the actual pressure and comparing it to the datum set in the window. This works because the pressure reduces at a variable with altitude, but known rate -- at sea level, 1hPa = approximately 30ft (actually about 27, but it changes with height and 30 is close enough for flight deck work and a nice round number to do mental maths with). So you can express an altitude either in terms of feet, or in terms of the ISA air pressure at that level (so, for example, the air pressure at 10,000ft is 700hPa according to the ISA and you will sometimes see weather charts that express altitude in terms of pressure (hPa) rather than units of length (feet)). Thus, a change in height of 346ft is equal to a change in pressure of 13hPa (346/27 = 12.8). This is particularly useful to a pilot who wants to set QFE on the altimeter for landing: the QFE is the QNH adjusted for the elevation of the threshold. So if the QNH is 1013hPa, setting 1000hPa (1013 - 13) will make the altimeter display height above the threshold during the approach and landing. Displaying the threshold elevation in terms of hPa on the chart does 50% of the sums for the pilot, so all they have to do is take that value and subtract it from the QNH. QFE is hardly ever used in modern commercial transport operations (FMS systems are normally designed with QNH in mind and setting QFE confuses them), but GA and the military (read: RAF) use it extensively as many of their procedures are based on height, not altitude.

Depends where you fly in to... there are some parts of the world where ATC just loves to keep you high (Italy, for example, is notorious for it), either because of airspace restrictions, terrain, other traffic flows or various other reasons. In other places you might get offered a big shortcut if you can make the profile work (Heathrow, for example, will occasionally offer a very direct routing perhaps from some way prior to the holding fix if it's quiet and the result is usually a high speed descent with lots of speedbrake), but it will be on the basis of mutual agreement. In the UK you will be given your track miles to touchdown at the start of vectoring to final approach so you can judge your rate of descent (ideally to achieve a continuous descent from that point, i.e. avoiding level flight all the way up to glideslope capture and beyond). Generally speaking though, as Dan says, most controllers have a reasonable idea of aircraft performance and will know more or less what is and isn't typically achievable -- bear in mind that they'll generally be working the same sector very regularly if not every day and they will know the points where pilots usually want to start down, how fast they can descend and the normal vectoring profile will have been constructed with typical performance capabilities in mind.

Hmm. Perhaps it might be worth assigning the brakes directly in FSX then, if that is the case, unless anybody can think of a workaround...?

It was back, but it's gone back down again -- there were still some issues with the forum and schedule database, so I assume the tech team are in the process of fixing it (which may be why it's down again). I'll see if I can find out any more. Sorry guys!

Not using pedals, but a spare axis (throttle on my Sidewinder Pro as I am using the Saitek TQ for the thrust levers). Make sure that you are not 'processing' the axes in FSUIPC -- i.e. assign LeftBrake and RightBrake, then go to the Joystick Calibration tab and click the "Reset" button on both left and right so that it says "Axis not processed". You should then find that it works correctly, I think.

Just to update you -- the Tech team are on it and it should be fixed shortly.

No problem!