speedbird034

I believe you are asking how to get to 250kts at 15000 from FL210... Typically (at least in real world), ATC will give you one of two instructions (in the case of there being no speed/altitude constraints in the arrival), "Slow to 250kts, then descend and maintain 15000." OR "Descend to 15000 and maintain 250kts". These are two very different things. The first is quite specific, you must slow down then descend, the second is descend to 15000 and be at 250kts when you get there. At FL210, you probably shouldn't be at more than 290kts...but even if you are at, say, 310kts, the same is the case. Speed intervene by selecting 250kts, slow to 250kts then select level change. In this way, you should be able to hold 250kts and descent at a reasonable rate. Of course, there are some things we don't know from your post, e.g. how far from your present position do you have to be at 15000ft...but if you remember the 3 miles for every 1000 ft of altitude, you are going down 6000ft...multiply by 3 miles and you should plan to be at 15000ft at 18 miles from the point you start the descent. It won't take a long time to slow from 290 or 310 to 250, just simply select 250kts in the speed window and the a/t will throttle back to give you the needed drag to slow you down. If you don't have to slow down first, the same technique holds, except you would speed intervene, say, 270kts, so that the aircraft will maintain 270kts in the descent. then at 1000ft above your target, select 250kts and when you level out, you shouild hit your target of 250kts once you level out at 15000ft. You could use VNAV; however, you'd have to select your next way point at/below 15000ft and speed select 250kts in the MCDU then execute it. It's a lot of button pushing that probably isn't necessary...unless you are given a constraint that says you must be at a specific fix at 250kts/15000ft. THEN it is usually better to put it in the box and VNAV down to it. From 290 or 310kts you should not have to employ speed brake to slow you down...but if you do, just remember you will increase your rate of descent at the same time, so beware that if you are trying to hit a specific target, stay off the speed brakes unless you have to do so. Hope this answer helps. Dave Lamb FAA Licensed Aircraft Dispatcher KIND

This is a public message for Capt. Rob Randazzo. First, I suspect I echo the sentiments of all PMDG customers (and loyalists) by saying a resounding thank you for all you have done for our community. I also suspect that it is not lost on you the changes that this (I hate using the term "hobby") segment of the aviation market will undergo in the coming years and months. PMDG is on the cutting edge of this and the growth that will come to your company as a result of those changes, while welcome, will bring their own challenges. In this, you have my personal thanks and best wishes for support as you move forward. All this said, I will give you one admonition: Take care of yourself first. I put off my own surgery for far too long and having just undergone my fourth cervical spine operation and my second cervical fusion, the relief I have as a result has me asking the question, why the (insert favorite expletive) did I wait so long? I have one week to go before I start my physical therapy and will be at least August before I can fly my simulator again, but the fact is I will, because I have taken the steps necessary to do so. I wish you well with your surgery and that your recovery is swift and without complication. We all need you back at the helm of PMDG and lead us to the next generation of flight simulation (and training). Godspeed and all the best, David L. Lamb FAA Licensed Aircraft Dispatcher Proud PMDG owner...from day one.

Stan, congratulations. You have quite an elegant solution. Most of what you have is top shelf stuff, but a 1TB SSD drive? I really didn't know they even existed. I'm happy you have the resources to have Jetline do the build for you...if I had the resources, I'd do the same thing. I'm trying to do a slightly different build, but the difference is that I will build the box myself, then have someone who is an FSX expert assist me with the "tweaking". Of course, even that solution is over $2K, so I'm trying to raise the money to build the box...because there are decisions I will have to make with respect to where to invest in software (Prepar3D or X-Plane). Once I make that decision, then I'll build the box. For you, my best wishes for hours of flying on your new rig. Please do tell us how you get on with it. Cheers, David L. Lamb

No question.....Level-D. Are the graphics a bit outdated? Yes. Could it use a facelift? Yes. However, John Tavendale is dead on....for systems, there is nothing better. From a sim perspective, it's also a pilot's airplane. It is VASTLY superior to the CS 767...I know, I have both.

From what I understand of the situation (and what I know is what I read on the forums), the issue is about licensing. Specifically, PMDG's license from Boeing is for entertainment only. P3D is a training platform. In order for PMDG to build an aircraft to the degree to which they do, they must have cooperation from Boeing. Since Boeing has it's own training division, it really doesn't make sense for them to support a competitor's product. They are in business to make money, after all, and training is a HUGE area for them (see all the $$$ they have in simulators around the world and you'll understand better). This situation is certainly not PMDG friendly, nor is it PMDG's fault. I've read a couple of comments lately (not from Steve; I only use his post for reference) that have made me speak out on this issue. The reality is this: IF and only if LM brings out an "entertainment" version of P3D could this problem be solved. As I understand the licensing under which LM has developed P3D, they are restricted from doing anything "entertainment" related, since MS is retaining the entertainment license. Even if they wanted to do so (and I rather think this very unlikely), LM can't develop a version of P3D for the entertainment market without violating their licensing agreement with MS. So, LM can't develop an "entertainment" P3D. PMDG can't develop a plane for P3D because it violates their licensing agreement with Boeing. Therefore, I doubt you will see in the near or mid term future any possibility that PMDG/P3D is a reality. I wholeheartedly agree with Steve that this is a bad thing for us, since P3D is an improvement over the FSX platform and yes, FSX is a dinosaur. The only way I see anything resembling this is a. A new Flight Simulator platform. Unless MS will sell a license to someone in the entertainment business who will "supe up" FSX or recode it for the 64-bit environment, this will have to be built from scratch. If MS spent $Ms to do this, I doubt seriously that anyone else has that kind of capital lying around to get it done. b. X-plane. This needs work too, since it is a far from perfect program. That said, there are many very good things about X-plane and since PMDG builds airplanes for "entertainment" purposes, and X-plane is an "entertainment" product, the licensing issues should not be such a big deal. They have said themselves that they are looking at X-plane, we should take their statements at face value and see what plays out. While I certainly understand the frustration of the FS community in this regard, there is nothing we can do about it, unless, of course, you have a bucket full of money to but out MS's rights to FSX...which would certainly solve part of the problem. They other aspect is actually building the product from that code...a nightmare??? I rather think this would take a (B)illion buckets of money...none of us have that kind of loose change in their back pocket. Unless their is a billionaire in the bunch who happens to be a simmer?? Unlikely. It is my opinion...in fact this entire post is MY opinion and nothing more: PMDG will do everything that is possible to create products for the future of flight simulation. How that will take form is up to them and I am not going to ask them on an open forum, nor frankly, would I even ask them period. Mr. Randazzo and Co. know what they are doing...they do it right and with a significant amount of integrity...they do what they say and they say what they mean and nothing more. I am a proud PMDG supporter, owning every aircraft they have ever sold (both in FSX and FS2004) and will continue to purchase their products as they are released. The why of it is simple: We are the engine that makes them go. We are the people who purchase their products. They are a customer centric company with a passion for getting it right. They also understand the limitations under which they are required to work...and they do a pretty fantastic job given those constraints. So let's put the P3D discussion to bed and focus our attention on the 777-300ER that is coming. With the upcoming line of products that PMDG has already in development and with Boeing's future airplanes that are being built around the 737 and 777 platforms, they have lots of products they can produce. Their future is bright indeed as is ours, because every product they make....EVERY product they make, advances the line just a little bit on where our "passion" for flight will take us. Something for which we should be very excited. My best to all... especialy to the team at PMDG and Captain Randazzo. ps -- my apologies if I got anything factually wrong. Again, anything I write is based on what I read in the forums..and there's a lot there...most of it conjecture and not fact.

My sense is that it will be a very long time, beyond my lifetime for sure and quite possibly yours, before this country will permit a "pilotless" or remote operated passenger aircraft. Just an opinion, nothing more. There are certain situations in which the use of an autopilot at low altitudes is a very good idea. RNAV SIDS and STARS in certain dense traffic areas are areas two examples in which engaging an autopilot as soon as possible can be a good idea. I can't give an opinion about 200 feet, but in certain situations I have seen the autopilot engaged at 400ft AGL and for good reason. I therefore tend not to make sweeping statements about anything anymore, because, frankly, I haven't seen it all, nor do I know everything. Just be careful, and be safe.

First of all, don't buy any more airplanes. With upgrades of the Q400, 747X coming and a potential Airbus solution a year or so out...you got plenty in the hanger. Next, a decision you might want to consider....do you like flying the military stuff or the commercial stuff? If I see what you have highlighted, it tends to gravitate toward the commercial stuff.... Lastly, consider which airplanes are better "procedure" teachers than others. In other words, if you can't fly a crabbed approach in a Cessna, it's a lot harder in a 737. I know they are apples and oranges, but I'm talking about techniques. Also, learning VOR flying is much better in the Cessna than on a jet, because it requires you to do more thinking and working than just pushing "GO TO" on the FMC. IF these are your considerations, then you will know which airplanes to keep and those to "retire for awhile". I can't tell you, because my opinion doesn't matter. It's what your gut tells you that you should do that matters. BTW, unless you really want to learn to fly a computer, stay away from the Airbus. Don't get me wrong, I have it and love it....but it requires a slightly different mindset than the other aircraft which are more "traditional" in the manner in which they are flown. If you aren't ready to go there....don't. All the best, Dave

I'd like to add, and I'm not sure this is the same issue that has happened to others, but I ran into a problem with my screen stuttering every 5-8 seconds and with the PMDG 737NGX it was worse...after many hours of troubleshooting, we discovered that the problem was in the FSUIPC Wide Server/Client setup. Not using the WS with FSUIPC solved that problem and I've run several short flights in the 777X and have had no stutter or freeze.... One other point...if you have more than one network driver, you might get some severe latency issues which could interfere with your streaming from the internet. Ryan from PMDG suggested to download the software then test through Device Manager and I noticed a significant improvement after disabling the redundant network connections. There were a few odd spikes disabling some of the USB drivers, but I saw significant improvement when disabling the redundant network drivers. Just a thought... Cheers, Dave

I stand corrected. I went into the FCOM on a real world 777-200LR and the max ZFW is 460,033...(209106kgs x 2.2 lbs). The PMDG 777 FCOM states 461,000lbs. The weights I was quoting previously were based on MTOW/Max fuel. If you go to 460033 on ZFW, then you will be range limited due to the max structural takeoff weight of 766,000lbs. For our purposes, I'd use the PMDG numbers and what is in the aircraft.cfg file, since those are the weights that are "in" the airplane. Cheers, Dave

The more conservative option would be to round up when determining a figure to put in the RESV line in the FMC.

Ah, this was one of the critical things I disabled in my computer. I stopped automatic updates. Don't get em. Now my anti-virus software (I run ESET Smart Security v6.0) will tell me when I need a critical Windows update and then I load ONLY the critical Windows updates....usually the major security fixes. The rest of it, I don't put on the computer. The reason is exactly what you put in the post above...had a Win 7 update, ran it and FSX crashed. I got rid of all of the updates, then selected OFF automatic updates and now my AV software tells me when I have to do something. Not everything MS puts out is 'vital' to the operation of your box and remember, especially with an older hardware build, saving every resource is critical. Just a thought... Cheers, Dave

From the "BIG BOEING FMC USERS GUIDE" by Bill Bulfer (page 78, to be specific) "1) The purpose of the entry in the RESERVES field is to initiate the FMC message, INSUFFICIENT FUEL. 2) While you must dispatch and takeoff with at least the reserve fuel stipulated by regulation (FAR121.639 and FAR121.645), there is no regulatory requirement to land with that amount. Some operators publish guidelines for the minimum fuel on board for landing. These values fall in the range of 15 to 30 minutes of maneuvering fuel. One operator refers to this as Minimum Desired Landing Fuel (MDLF). Some pilots have personal minimums in excess of these numbers. The point on which we may agree is that the Captain is responsible for determining the minimum fuel that he or she must have on board at the destination or the alternate. Boeing and most operators specify that "FAR Reserve" Fuel be entered in the PERF INIT page. While the warning message INSUFFICIENT FUEL, would be valid at break release on takeoff (the point at which the flight "officially" begins) it might nnot provide a meaningful warning after the airplane had detoured through a thunderstorm or two. Additionally, there can be significant differences between FAR fuel on a domestic flgiht and on an international flight. In equivalent terms, the '...45 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption' (calculated by one operator at FL250) can be as little as 30 minutes sing the same criteria and the provisions for a close-in Redispatch. One operator's procedure solves the inconsistency dilemma between domestic and international reserves: Minimum RESERVE fuel entries: The Captain may choose a larger value than those listed here, but should avoid values which result in spurious INSUFFICIENT FUEL messages: 1) If no alternate is required, enter Minimum Desired Landing Fuel or FAR fuel whichever is greater. 2) If an alternate is required, enter burn to most distant alternate, plus MDLF. 3) If no alternate is named, but Minimum Arrival Fuel is required (such as Sydney or Hong Kong), enter that value 4) If alternate is deleted or added enroute, update the reserves fuel line. End Quotation" So what does this mean practically? A couple of things: 1) There is no "set" amount that is to be entered...it is not something that is on the flight plan per se, since there are variations as to what could be entered 2) The Captain is the one who makes this decision and updates the reserves line in the PERF INIT page as changes are required en route (e.g. add or delete an alternate). From a dispatch standpoint, we operate with FAR fuel, which we otherwise call MIN FUEL. You will see a min fuel line (MIN T/O) on the PFPX flight plan. MIN FUEL is defined as trip fuel, reserve fuel, hold fuel and alternate fuel. EXTRA fuel is simply fuel that is added by the dispatcher or captain as additional fuel which is onboard but not required fuel. For domestic and international operations, this is the minimum fuel that must be on the aircraft at takeoff. One pould (or kg) less and you go back to the gate and get more fuel. A simple way of thinking about reserve fuel is "what fuel MUST I have when I land?" A diversion decision is a great place to think about this. There is always a point in a flight by which you must make a decision to divert if you can't get into the airport to which you are flying. I do diversion calculations almost daily and the fuel required to get to the alternate plus the reserve fuel are the absolute minimum required fuel at the time of the diversion decision. For the captain, this is BINGO fuel and if you think in terms of...."When I hit this number, I must divert or be on the ground at my destination". SO...my recommendation would be to do this math: FAR RSV (or whatever reserve is dictated if you use EU Rules or JAR OPS) plus ALTN fuel (if an alternate is specified). The total of those two figures from your flight plan is your "RESERVES" that you enter on the PERF INIT page of the FMS. Put another way: An example.... Boeing 737-800 Winglets Fuel numbers as follows: KLAX-KSFO ALTN KSMF TRIP 5446 / 00:55 ALTN KSMF 2230 / 00:22 FAR RSV 3775 / 00:45 MIN FUEL 11584 / 02:02 EXTRA 2406 / 00:30 TAXI 750 / 00:30 RELEASE: 14600 / 03:02 The amount you would put into the PERF INIT page in the FMC: BLOCK FUEL: 14.6 RESERVES: 6.0 (6001) ALTN + FAR RESV. If you use the concept of BINGO fuel as the basis of your RESERVES entry in the FMC, you should never get an INSUFFICIENT FUEL message until your onboard fuel hits 6.0.... ..and you will always know when you need to be on the ground OR if you have an alternate included, by when (in lbs/kgs) you must divert. In closing, I know I've put a lot of information here, but there is an important concept here, not just an entry issue....you ALWAYS want to know your BINGO fuel number, since if you get to this point, you better be on the ground or diverting somewhere. Hope this explanation is slightly clearer than mud. Cheers, Dave

I'm sorry to hear that you are having such difficulty with FSX. FSX is just one of those creatures that was never perfect (far from it, actually), never really given any real support, then dropped by Microsoft. There is a reason that are so many people that still use FS9 (not just the issue of older, slower hardware). Understanding this critical point, and further understanding that it is the environment in which we must live in order to sim (x-plane notwithstanding), there are a number of serious choices that one must make when using FSX. There are those who want to make videos and to do that, you need a whole lot of horses under the hood (aka CPU) and a pretty hefty graphics card....among other things. You also need to have some depth of understanding as to how to make your hardware work with FSX, because it does not work the other way around. I have been using FSX for the past six years; on a PC that I built five years ago specifically for FSX and, yes, with an ATI card. Through a lot of trial and error, reading of posts, experimentation, seeking of advice, cries for help and lots of aspirin, I've been able to get an acceptable level of performance out of FSX and mitigate (not eliminate) OOM errors. I can run PMDG's aircraft well with frame rates that are between 15-30 fps (depending upon where I am and how much wx is injected into the program), but I've had to sacrifice quite a bit in terms of scenery add-ons. I use only airports for scenery add-ons plus a couple of utilities and that's pretty much it. I've stripped Windows 7 bare to free up as much processor space as I can save and cobbled together a network which allows me to run AS2012 fine...AS2012 and the AivlaSoft EFB mostly with some success and of course, PFPX on the laptop. I have Saitek yoke, pedals and throttles that have been a serious problem to install, but I've got them working now for all my aircraft and now, I'm in the process of trimming down the number of aircraft I have in my hanger to those I actually will fly on a regular basis, again, to gain some performance. It takes a lot of work, but I'm satisfied with the results. As long as I don't OC my CPU (which I keep at 2.8ghz), my little quad core Q9550 intel chip just keeps chugging along. For now, that seems to work. I can do some screen shots, but there are limitations to that...but no videos. I guess what I'm saying is this...if you REALLY want to fly FSX and use PMDG's software, you are going to need to take your PC, do a lot of reading, tweaking, more reading, more tweaking and spend a lot of time on forums and YouTube to get the right mix of information, help and guidance to get you going. You just have to want it bad enough....and it's ok if you don't. It's pretty frustrating. As long as I can effectively run PMDGs products on my current profile (which I can), then I will continue to do what I'm doing. I understand the issues involved with Boeing and the EULA that PMDG must face and respect their position. Perhaps I am more optimistic than most, because I see a great future for us in flight simulation...because of the work of PMDG, Majestic, and others who build incredible products that truly represent the best in this business. At some point there will be a simulator platform that will be one in which we can all operate, but for the moment, our three choices are FS9, FSX and x-plane. Since I've invested literally thousands of dollars over the years on the FSX platform, here I will stay. As for PMDG, they make the best aviation simulation aircraft in this industry....full stop. The good news is that some of the other guys are getting better and actually have developed functionality outside of FSX (I speak of the Majestic Q400) and that opens the door to even more possibilities down the road. So for me, it's pretty simple. Stay the path...and be loyal to those vendors who really put out the quality stuff...like PMDG. Sorry for the long winded post, but I think a positive point of view about where we stand is in order, because while I understand the frustration of the OP, we are actually headed in a positive direction....and the PMDG 777 is the next installment in our future. I look forward to what comes next...

Actually, I didn't state my answer correctly. If the ZFW increases and Fuel increases, then yes, MTOW would (theoretically) increase. The problem here is that in all the documentation I've seen, the PMDG (and rw) 77Ls have a MRWG of 768000lbs/MTOW 766000lbs. These are the maximum structural weights for the aircraft, regardless of the ratio of fuel to ZFW. After looking at the PMDG manual and the actual aircraft files, the base numbers listed in the OP are essentially correct. If the MTOW (MRWG) doesn't change and the fuel capacity increases, then ZFW must decrease. Pretty simple... If you want the exact figures, then you have to pull them out of the aircraft.cfg file...then you can match it up in PFPX and you should be in good shape for planning purposes. Dave

OK...I consulted the Boeing FPPM/FCOMs and the easy way (aka SWAG) is to take the MRWT (Max Ramp Wt) - FUEL CAPACITY = MZFW. Since the weights mentioned above are maximum weights, e.g. all the 777-200LRs have the same MTOWs, and since the fuel capacity is greater in the 3-aux tank version, as I said before, the ZFW has to come down. So... 200LR - No aux tank - 768000 - 320825 = MZFW 447175 lbs 200LR - 1 aux tank 768000 - 333424 = MZFW 434576 lbs 200LR - 3 aux tank 768000 - 358508 = MZFW 407492 lbs So I'm not entirely certain how you can come up with a MZFW of 460924 lbs... Looking at a 200LR FCOM I have in KG, the 200LR with no aux tank has a ZFW of 460,033....so given that the ZFW mentioned in the OP is very close to the ZFW in the manual I have and the fuel capacity is 305354 lbs (converted from kg)...I think the fuel numbers are off...but again, this is a guess. I'll have to look closer at the PMDG actual aircraft files. The PMDG manual does not seem to state anything about 3 variants...am I missing something? Dave

They really shouldn't. The difference is in the ability of the aircraft to carry additional fuel. The one thing I did see that makes me scratch my head is if you add additional fuel tanks (aka weight) and your MTOW doesn't change, then the ZFW has to take a hit. I don't see that above and I'm going to have to look into Boeing's dungeon to look up the different ZFW figures; because they can't all be the same. My guess is that we would be restricted in the amount of cargo we can carry, but that's an educated guess. More research to follow... Kind regards, Dave

Yes, I ran into this problem the first time I engaged the autopilot on the 777; it would not disconnect using the Z command...I had to use the disconnect bar on the panel. I just think it's a simple key mapping thing and I will investigate it some more before I go to PMDG and say anything. You are not imagining things...it did happen. Of course, I suspect there is a fairly easy fix....so watch this space. Cheers, Dave

It sounds like I might need to consider putting out some tutorials on dispatch... Any takers? Dave

I have to join the group that is on the "low end" of the computer spectrum..I'm running a QuadCore Intel Q9550 chip on a MSI board, 8GB RAM and an HD5770 1GB graphics card. My FSX runs fine. Of course...and this is the key factor, I've learned to do a few things with my machine and have done a LOT of research to get the best bang out of my 2.8ghz that I built five (yes) years ago. The key word with using older hardware is "compromise". Based on what I'm hearing from some of the folks with higher end systems, sounds like they are having the same issues. What do I compromise with my machine? I use high end airports only for those places that I go to frequently (EGLL, EDDF, EHAM, KJFK, KLAX, KSFO) and only load the two airports that I am using for that flight. This seems to have a positive impact on OOM errors. (operative word -- seems). I'll let you know after my next 10 hour flight. Other than airports, I only use the FSX base textures. Nothing that would impact CPU usage. I run my WX program on a laptop over the network (specifically AS2012). I have my sliders set mid-range...and yes, I use Word Not Allowed's tweaks... Since there are so many limitations on FSX due to its age, I've been hesitant to spend the $2500 or so it would take to build a high end machine that would fit my needs. That said, I might make some minor changes to my existing box (bigger power supply, different motherboard, slightly newer graphics card); but no big expenses, since I'm not certain that there's much bang to my buck and since performance for me is key (each of us to his/her own...), this is the direction I've gone and it works. While double the frame rates would be nice, I'm not sure, at the moment, it's worth the big bucks.... My suggestion, evaluate for yourself and make your own decision. Just make sure you do a LOT of research. This will save you time, headache and money. All the best, Dave

Would be nice if they made one for Android... Just saying for all of us who -don't- have devices with a chewed Apple on the back... Cheers, Dave Lamb

The idea brought forward is a good one. Knowing what to do in an emergency is critical and pilots practice, practice, practice until it is automatic. The differences in flying the airplane in an emergency between a 737-800 and the 777-200 in terms of -what to do- won't vary much...the first thing is FLY THE AIRPLANE. The differences come in -how to do- which are very different between the 737-800 and the 777. Mind you, this is my impression based on observation and being taught in a full motion simulator how to do emergency procedures in a 737-800. I'm not a pilot, just a dispatcher, but I've sat through enough instructional rides in various full motion sims watching pilots sweat out their lessons. I will ALWAYS defer to pilots who are type rated in these machines to provide guidance, since they are the guys who actually have to do it...and have my enormous respect for what they do. Dave

The key as Micheal Cubine wrote is arming AUTOFLIGHT before you take the runway. This arms the A/T system. Once you are on the runway, advance throttles to stabilize (70ish percent seems correct without checking the FCOM) then push beyond 70% and you will here the click and T/O CLAMP is displayed on the PFD. The engines will then spool up to their rating set up in the FMC for the takeoff roll. Once airborne you are hand flying until you press AUTOFLIGHT again, then the full auto flight system is activated. PMDG has this spelled out in their documentation...there are also numerous YouTube videos on it. If you really want to learn it and want to spend the money, I recommend Angle of Attack's MD-11 series training. It's as good a training tool that you will find for the sim world and it will get you operating the MD-11 as it should be operated. One point...The MD-11 is a quirky machine. It has functions that are inherent to Airbus and Boeing, so it can be a bit confusing. Spend some times with the systems and practice, practice, practice....lots of pattern work in this bird is required to get proficient in the low speed regime of flight. Good luck! Dave

I've got 2.1, but would also appreciate some guidance on settings...I've got an older machine that runs FSX OK; I've got it tweaked as good as it gets for an older 2.8ghz machine and AccuFeel does work....I just don't know how to optimize it. On a different but related question, I have EZDOK which has Dynamic Head effects. Does this in any way interfere with AccuFeel? I have no idea and would also appreciate some guidance in this regard. Thanks! Dave Lamb

Captain Randazzo, Excellent work...I shall continue to look forward to the release of the 777-200 and flying it for British Airways Virtual. Cheers from KIND!

There are different "standard" weights for passengers as follows: Summer: Adult - 190lbs Child - 82lbs Winter: Adult - 195lbs Child - 87lbs Average bag weight is 30lbs. Summer: Apr 1-October 31 Winter: November 1-March 31 NOTE: The weight of children under the age of 2 has been factored into the standard average and segmented adult passenger weights. These weights are driven by the FAA and apply to all Part 121 carriers that have a carry on baggage program. See FAA Advisory Circular AC-120-27E Kind regards, Dave Lamb FAA Licensed Aircraft Dispatcher