DLH_FRA

Most operators do a packs off takeoff.... Because this allows a higher flex.. Thus reducing engine wear. At the other end of the scale in limiting situations packs off will allow you more performance.

Nope... Same wing box.... So nothing too exciting

Check out www.hoppie.nl/ACARS you will get full ACARS weather, OOOI, Telex, CPDLC, ADS-C

50,40,30,20 retard retard retard 10...... Why won't PMDG make one? It's the future!

So does this mean it's time for PMDG to make an Airbus ;)

Sorry... Just kinda gets under my skin when people who have never signed the tech log of a commercial airliner start second guessing the actions of a crew.... Last time I was in the Airbus training center (Jan) between about 20 Airbus pilots 320/330 people were discussing this incident... Think how much flight time they have between them... And you know what? They were still not sure....

How many of your are type rated on an Airbus FBW Aircraft? How many of you can explain the difference between normal law, alternate law with and without stabilities and direct law...? Before you sit here having a pissing contest between yourselves... Stop and think...... I'm sure errors were made, and we will learn from them. I have seen pilots of all nationalities have problems in the simulator when faced with unreliable airspeed. It's easy when you know it's coming, but factor in a failure, or some weather or just being dog tired then let something slip in like this... All of a sudden your getting conflicting information... Dark or night lightening all around you, buffeted up against the 5 point harness... Then let's see how well you do! For the record yes I'm a type rated Airbus pilot with a bunch of PIC on it! How flying the MD ;)

8.3.7 POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR IN-FLIGHT FUEL MANAGEMENT 8.3.7.1 FUEL QUANTITY CHECKS 8.3.7.1.1 GENERAL The fuel on board when starting the engines must not be less than the minimum fuel quantity defined by the fuel policy. Refer to 8.1.7.1, “Fuel Policy”. The fuel on board must be periodically checked in flight to determine if the remaining fuel is not less than the minimum fuel required to continue the intended flight. 8.3.7.1.2 IN-FLIGHT FUEL CHECKS In-flight fuel monitoring is made using the Operational Flight Plan (OFP). A fuel check shall be recorded at top of climb (TOC), or cruise altitude on the OFP, thereafter a written check shall be made at intervals not exceeding 1 hour and a verbal check made at 30 minute intervals. On shorter flights one fuel check shall be recorded on the OFP unless the total elapsed time from take-off to landing is less than 20 minutes. PNF will check fuel on board and compare with the Operational Flight Plan. The crew must carry out regular fuel checks noting: • Time of observation • Remaining fuel on board (FOB) • The expected useable fuel at the destination aerodrome Subtract “Fuel used” from the block fuel (recorded before engine start) and compare this figure with the “Remaining fuel on board”. If there is no major discrepancy, the figures read on the aircraft should be used. This type of monitoring would detect fuel leaks and provide a more reliable basis of calculation in case of either Fuel Quantity Indicator (FQI) or Fuel Used (FU) failure during flight. However, without any failure or fuel leak, some discrepancies, which may be considered large can be evidenced. This may be due to: (a) APU consumption which is not recorded by FU (B) FQI errors on block fuel and on FOB © FU indication tolerance Water freezing in the tanks may also affect the FQI indications. 8.3.7.1.3 IN-FLIGHT FUEL MANAGEMENT The commander shall ensure that the flight is conducted so that the expected useable fuel remaining on arrival at the destination aerodrome is not less than: • The required Alternate Fuel plus Final Reserve Fuel, or • The Final Reserve Fuel if no alternate aerodrome is required If as the result of an in-flight fuel check, the expected useable fuel remaining on arrival at the destination aerodrome is less than: (a) The required Alternate Fuel plus Final Reserve Fuel, the Commander must take into account the traffic and the operational conditions prevailing at the destina-tion aerodrome, at the destination alternate aerodrome and at any other adequate aerodrome, in deciding whether to proceed to the destination aerodrome or to divert so as to perform a safe landing with not less than Final Reserve Fuel, or (B) The Final Reserve Fuel if no alternate aerodrome is required, the Commander must take appropriate action and proceed to an adequate aerodrome so as to perform a safe landing with not less than Final Reserve Fuel. In all cases the following fuel conservation measures should be considered in the event of a fuel shortfall: (a) Decrease aircraft speed (down to Max Range Speed / Cost Index minimum) B) Obtain a more direct route © Fly closer to the optimum FL (taking the wind into account) (d) Select a closer alternate aerodrome (e) Land and refuel 8.3.7.1.4 RE-PLANNING IN-FLIGHT Re-planning in-flight may be done when planned operating conditions have changed or other reasons make further adherence to the original flight plan unacceptable or impractical, for example: (a) Bad weather conditions or runway conditions at the planned destination and al-ternate. (B) Fuel penalties due to ATC constraints or unfavourable wind. © Degraded aircraft performance NOTE: A landing is “assured” if, in the judgement of the Flight Crew, it could be completed in the event of any forecast deterioration in the weather and plausible single failures of ground and/or airborne facilities e.g. CAT II/III to CAT I. 8.3.7.2 LOW FUEL STATE If at any time, it becomes apparent that the aircraft may land with less than Final Reserve Fuel; an emergency “PAN” call to ATC must be made, reporting fuel remaining in minutes. ATC must thereafter be kept fully informed of the situation. If at any time, it is evident that the aircraft will land with less than Final Reserve Fuel remaining; an emergency “MAYDAY” call must be made, reporting fuel remaining in minutes. 8.3.7.3 ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL PROCEDURES 8.3.7.3.1 RCF PROCEDURE On a flight using the RCF procedure, in order to proceed to the Destination 1 aerodrome, the Commander must ensure that the useable fuel remaining at the decision point is at least the total of: (a) Trip Fuel from the decision point to the destination 1 aerodrome; and (B) Contingency Fuel equal to 5% of the trip fuel from the decision point to destination 1 aerodrome; and © Destination 1 aerodrome Alternate Fuel, if a destination 1 alternate aerodrome is required; and (d) Final Reserve Fuel

Don't worry it caught me... I have never flown the 737... I was on the Airbus and then onto the MD. However just sitting in the jumpseat looking at that overhead panel is enough to put me off it for life! The Airbus and MD11 both have highly automated flightdecks that are an absolute joy. The other thing you notice in the 737 is the noise of the electrical relays when they change they are very loud compared to the aircraft I have operated. I am a big fan of the integrated pushbuttons.. All uniform on a oversized system diagram.. As opposed to the 737 with its array of switches and knobs!

I can't see the MAX offering anything too spectacular... To improve the 737 substantially they need to redesign the wing box.... They have said they are not going to.... A redesign of the wing box is a major modification.. To the point you may as well start again. The A320NEO will be ready sooner and offer the same or greater savings than the MAX.

You need to switch over the electrical source.. It is not automatic like on the Airbus etc. So you need to manually select the generators online once the engines are running.... At a quick guess that is your problem in this instance...

Airbus does not use EICAS but uses ECAM. The problem with the aircraft has been touched upon above... Airbus started with a clean sheet of paper, a big part of Airbuses plan was to develope a family of aircraft that would have enough commonality to operate on a single type rating and then with only differences course to the A320 family's larger cousin the A330/340/380. The A318/19/21 is a common type rating, once a pilot is flying the 320 he needs only a very brief course to then fly for example the A330. Once he is type endorsed on both types A320 and A330 the airline still only needs to perform two simulator events per year and alternate them between the A320 and A330 to keep him current on both types. Boeing on the other hand did not start with a fresh sheet of paper for their narrowbody jet but infact many bits of the 737NG can be traced back to the 707. When Airbus was able to provide airlines with the significant cost savings in crew training that I outlined above.. Boeing had to play catch up PDQ and scratch together a program to try and convince the authorities to allow a common type rating between Boeings Aircraft. *Note the above is based upon European Airlines, that do two training events per year for both the Captain and First Officer (who both hold full type ratings) In the US they do their own thing... Having programs like AQP etc and not type rating first officers for domestic only operations.. Some airlines there also stretch out the training to every 9 months instead of 6 Anyway you get the idea. Boeing did not build a new airplane with the NG and although it is nice.. It is very dated compared to some types.... Just look at the overhead panel..

In the not to distant future... You will be in for a treat a DVD is being made following LH Cargo on a flight to Brazil in the MD11

Jim, As far as I am aware.. Hardy is the only one that works for Aerowinx. I just wanted to address the cult like mentality that some people have regarding these add ons " that nothing can be better" and" it's just like the real thing" When they have no basis to judge this upon. It is good for PMDG to have competition because this will in turn force them to upgrade their products. Granted Aerowinx and PMDG have different markets, ones targeting airlines and flight training organizations, TRTO's etc the other is targeting the hobby simmer. It does just annoy me slightly when people comment that the offerings are so fantastic from PMDG that they can't be any better etc etc (PMDG do have a good product) but guys at least get the FMS to work correctly! It would be really nice to see PMDG deepen the level of their simulators, with regards to the systems.., failure options etc... Let's get down to and beyond the circuit breaker level.

Seating.... What PMDG should really do is just make a way to edit the DOW and CG directly. As stated the seating layout does not really matter but the DOW and CG do.

Springbok, What areas did you have difficulty in? As you know the 744 is older technology and the 737NG and 777 have more commonality in some areas. But specifically where did you struggle? *edit the above to say... The main panel and displays are newer technology than the 744... However if your struggling with some of the systems.. Then yes I can see why. The 747-400 has a very nice user friendly overhead panel, making the understanding of the various actions that are made when you make a selection that much easier.... The 737 overhead panel on the other hand...... Well that is throw back to the 707. Proffesionally I have flown the A319/20/21 and MD11... When ever i have jump seated in the 737NG I have always thought what a nice main panel it has.... Then I look upto the overhead and it is a total mess! Not to mention the jump seat in the 737 is a right contraption that folds out like Japanese origami! Most uncomfortable.

Some examples of the charts http://www.lhsystems.com/solutions/airline-solutions/airline-operations-solutions/lido-navigation/lido-route-manual.htm#tabs-2

LIDO is designed for airline use, Jeppesen is designed for everything from GA to the space shuttle. When your airline purchases LIDO, you get a custom set of charts.. Tailoured to your airline, custom minima is right on the chart (no need to go looking elsewhere) just look at the clarity provided in the airport and taxi charts.. Using the same color coding you would see on the taxiway/runway. The AFC is a one of a kind chart (not modeled at all by Jeppesen) that gives and overview of the airport and surrounding airspace.. Showing the various approaches and minimum... This is your "go to" chart in the event of an emergency requiring and immediate return. Jeppesen is US centric.. Fine for if you only fly in the US. LIDO is more "ICAO" and then points out the various differences that you encounter around the world. Jeppesens text pages are nothing more than a book of words in a very non user friendly format. LIDO's General Part is something that is very quick and easy to looks something up, or to sit and read over increasing your knowledge of a particular area of operation before a flight. Then when we talk about the EFB... Jeppesen tried to re-hash a very old product Jeppesen Flightdeck into an EFB (it's shocking) as opposed to build a new product such as the LIDO electronic Route Manual (eRM) A few of the US major carriers are also going to be leaving Jeppesen shortly....

PSX has improved outside visuals and an out of the box support so that you can use any visual system you like. In this way it works exactly the same as a full motion simulator. Why constrain yourself to false flight models and the other limitations of MSFS simplify to get an outside view? When you can do this anyway! Recently I read that Microsoft has sold the FSX visual to a company to use in real world sims, why not follow the lead and just use FSX or the visual at home? It also has its own weather and magnectic database, this will mean things such as the weather radar and Windshear detection etc will work. You will have the possibility to create endless scenarios and play what if as ALL systems down past the CB level are functioning, it essentially features a DFDR and QAR so again you can see everything you did in detail and build scenarios around that.... Or complete a oceanic crossing and know that you completed it as close to reality as possible. As I say, I would love to see PMDG step upto the plate with the 777 or other aircraft and build in this kind of functionality.... Or even just follow the correct specifications for the FMS database.....

Like I said... They are better if they want a toy..... Do British Airways and Lufthansa use PMDG? No. Do British Airways and Lufthansa use Aerowinx? Yes Simples

You know what the best bit is?......... After a long flight or series of flights... No charts to put away! Oh, and your never missing a chart, or have an outdated / damaged chart.

They will put it on the lot I think.... Our wide body aircraft are being trialled with a "connected" EFB that uses the Internet connection from the cabin.... For updated information en-route

I think it is being tested.... I came off the Airbus onto the MD....have to see if it is there when I go back!

We use central load control (an in house company) so the handling agent just gets told where to put the stuff... We update the fuel load via ACARS and then the load sheet comes back via ACARS. No the Altitools does not have live traffic information yet... But it does know all the airspace restrictions etc.. So is able to suggest direct routes that should be available from ATC that can take advantage of winds. Within LIDO/OC they have various tactical options for dealing with delays etc and manipulating the cost index for various sectors. This is the program http://www.pace.de/products/aircraft-performance/pacelab-ci-ops.html

The weight saving alone should justify it... I will find the figures from LH later it was quite amazing! Also we now have a program called Altitools that helps suggest an optimum profile to us en-route.. With significantly more processing power than the FMGS it is able to calculate the profile in real time and suggest direct routes that would be acceptable to ATC and get us in or out of the wind as required. The only paper we have now are normal checklist, qrh and OFP. OFP will be moving to the EFB on all fleets shortly What are you using for load control?