QF 737

Richard. Of course there are differences between the mcp's, but they remain interchangeable (am able to reference this, but not in the public domain). A reason why you'd put one where you'd normally see the other would be parts availability at a certain port or some other reason. An airline couldn't care less about how pretty the mcp looks, so long as it (the mcp, and inherently, the ship) remains airworthy for continued operations. I would suggest becoming involved in RPT operations if you're not already, preferably at the op level (pilot, flight att, engineer), to further your knowledge on all this stuff. It is highly complex, exacerbated by the fact that the ng is a nightmare as far as config goes I.e cdu/fmc page diffs, weights, pulselite, powerplant, ife, bsi and so many more that you, nor I, would ever see but know about. Again, feel free to accept or dismiss at your leisure. I've now reached the limit of what I care to share. This ends my participation in this topic and avsim for the foreseeable. Thanks pmdg, and to other avsim participants for furthering my knowledge. Mike McKenna. One more thing before I sign off. Flaps 25 out of qn and obviously F40 in. F5 is the standard for t/o (do your research to find out why f5 is better than f1 for t/o). Enjoy!

G'day James. Nadp 1/2 can be used, absolutely. usually icao b is used (listed as "an alternative" in current charts for yssy and some other ports) for deps, and is reflected in the fms setup and some training stuff. I can't find anything which omits any one of the 3 proc (nadp 1/2 or "alternative") from being used off 34l/34r. Not saying youre wrong, but perhaps a sop for another airline? Are you able to find out? As for lnav only - it is as it is. I've not seen lvl ch engaged during the segments for the proc. it's flown as shown, generally only the speed (to comply with the proc) and altitude (comply with atc) are changed/used until at or > 3000. Michael McKenna.

Yes, and less than a few (1 or 2) at any given time. Quarts on the entire 738 fleet. Mike.

Hey Brett. 738/734 plans can carry a ci of 40, but it isn't the norm. Same for the 744. The plan may have 100, but usually doesn't. I won't disclose the indices. Don't worry too much about them anyway. Just meet the schedule. Richard. Re the mcp - agreed, but the newer ones can be fitted with the Honeywell mcp as well Re oil qty ind - I know because I'm paid to know and check it Re the indices - word of mouth fails when the company manuals and plans state otherwise. The actual index isn't far from 12 anyway, so just continue using it I can't validate what I say without quoting our manuals so you can either accept or dismiss what I say at your leisure. Enjoy. Mike.

Pretty accurate list. To clear up a few things: The MCP can be both types (mostly Rockwell Collins however) Oil qty is quarts, not percentage Single battery as the list states. casa/caa nz etops requirements differ to eu/us. The qf cost indices quoted above are all largely incorrect. To replicate default thrust cutback etc in the ngx use 1000 as thrust reduction and 3000 as accel on page 2 of the takeoff page. Lnav only, armed for takeoff. Call vnav > 3000 Use alternate noise abatement procedure on the charts for most Aussie ports. Mike McKenna.

Thanks for raising the question James. I learnt quite a lot about the non-precision approaches and rules in nz/zqn given that RNP is the norm for qantas into qn. I hope you truly got your answer, because it was a hell of a thing to try and answer given the uniqueness of 1. Queenstown 2. Variance from pans ops 3. Circling approach differences. Mike.

+1 James. correcting my previous suggestion *nz aip. Fly the procedure as promulgated. Mike.

No. You can't turn to align with 23. So you'd be expected to fly to QN, then the circuit (or orbit, as you describe it). Exception: - you ask for a straight in approach, and atc permits. Then you can peel off the procedure at a point where you can fly straight to the runway. Generally, its the same principal for most other approaches - you must fly the published procedure even if you're visual and are aligned with the runway (or are close to being aligned with the runway). Generally, just because you are visual in vmc during an ifr flight, doesn't mean you can go flying anywhere you want. I suggest you read the ersa to get a better understanding. Mike.

The procedures should be flown as published. The vor/dme b procedure is for 05/23 only. You mustn't deviate from the procedure without prior consent from atc or for collision avoidance even if you're visual. Generally you could probably ask for a straight in approach to 23 in this case, it depends and isn't recommended, generally. Mike McKenna.

^^^ made me chuckle. So I'm not the only one in denial about how much I've spent on flight sim, irrespective of the amounts we've spent. Phew!

Well hello everyone. Happy New Year and all that. I am having this issue right now. 5 RTO attempts, all successful, however, none of those were achieved using autobrakes. Was there a solution found to this issue? Mike McKenna.

Thanks Bryan. Mike McKenna

+1 Guesswork, I suspect. Mike McKenna.

G'day. I am considering purchasing your product and I'd like a few things clarified before I do. Can you modify the checklist items and the order in which they're read? Can you modify the Noise Abatement Procedures? At what point does the PNF/FO change the fasten seat belt sign, and can this be modified? Can you modify what lights the PNF switches on/off, and when he does it? Thanks! Mike McKenna.

Precisely what I want Aleksi... Just for the NGX specifically though. I'm not really interested in one that calculates performance for 737-XXX generically. Sorry Etienne i'm glad you found it in the end. Peter - I don't know how PMDG derived their aircraft performance data for the NGX, specifically the 800 - but whatever they used, I would like/enjoy (but don't need) a perf tool based solely on that data. I agree with you - no data skewing! - maybe a web based platform would work for you and many others. I'd prefer an app that's not reliant on internet connx - one that functions like the OPT - Like Aleksi's work. Though I'd prefer a PMDG developed app (no offense intended Aleksi, such is the PMDG benchmark). - I'm relatively conversant with airline ops, given its my paid job to be so. Yes, every aircraft is different - the effectivity of relevant info should always observed. (Which is why I ask for an OPT written specifically for the NGX 800, not generically for all 737's). Yes, weights may vary. There are many control measures in place to manage and monitor the weight of an aircraft (too many to list). I'm sure you can list one or two. Yes, the weather varies, almost predictably - almost. Despite all this, a very high degree of accuracy between calculated performance and actual performance can be achieved at the planning phase - this accuracy is then furthered at the dispatch phase - finally, whilst in the flight deck, last minute changes/info/updates will come through eventually resulting in correlation between calculated, and actual figures. Cheers, Mike McKenna.