pilot87

Absolutely! And you're most welcome. Best of luck with the PPL - if you elect to continue past that you will develop a love/hate relationship with the law docs for your exams (definitely speaking from experience there!!! haha)

Sam - I see where the confusion has come from. Directly from CASA's website: CAAPs are basically not regulations but if you choose not to follow it and have an incident, you'll have a lot to answer for. You'll see that to conduct Low Visibility Operations (anything less than CAT I minima) as per CAAP EX-01, it requires a specific exemption issued by CASA and an operator would need to submit the application for a LVO exemption based on the criteria spelled out in that document (intent to train and qualify crew, etc). The document lays out the criteria that would need to be addressed (as I stated previously: risk mitigation) to be considered for an exemption. Part of that would include spelling out how the operator intends to ensure flight crew proficiency which is where CAAP EX-02 comes into play. This document provides guidance to operators on what procedures they would need to develop to ensure flight crew proficiency. It's important to note that proficiency is relevant in more than just autoland procedures - under Australian regulations if you haven't completed an ILS (practice or real) within each 90 days and you're faced with the prospect of needing to do one to safely land - you legally can't! You are quite correct that CAR 215 provides the regulatory guidance for what CASA requires operators to place in an operations manual. This allows operators a guide to build the manual for approval so they're not left guessing. Why is so much of it based on manufacturer specifications? Will that's simply because they are the ones who have the data necessary to determine what the aircraft is actually capable of. An airline that flies 737's, 767's and 747's would have a different operations manual for each aircraft. So if you were writing a manual for a new aircraft the best place to start to collect the information CASA requires for an operations manual would be the person who has all that information - the manufacturer. I certainly was not attacking your experience levels, everyone here has different levels of knowledge and the only way to get answers is by asking questions. I was more reinforcing that these a hugely complex aircraft, that despite flying the same way as smaller aircraft, require a lot of training and experience to fly safely outside of a simulator environment. And you're most welcome! Jaime - No problems! It's not so much a "take" as it is technique or knowing from experience. You could fly into the same airport on the same day 5 times and it could be different in 5 different ways. Flying is an extremely dynamic and fluid environment - no two flights are the same! As you stated in your third point a smooth landing in trying conditions is far more satisfying than a smooth landing in good conditions where it is more or less expected. A particular technique as long as it doesn't contravene regulations or operations manual is not wrong.... just different. The same as two people driving a car won't drive it in exactly the same way even though they're still complying with the road rules and limitations of the car.

The FCOM and FCTM are both fantastic references for a lot of questions! I would respectfully disagree with that statement. The regulations are separate to the operations of the aircraft. In Australia we have the Civil Aviation Act (CAA), Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR), Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR and meant to eventually replace the CARs), Civil Aviation Orders (CAO), Civil Aviation Advisory Publications (CAAP), Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP), Departure and Approach Procedures (DAP) and En-route Supplement Australia (ERSA). These documents all describe the safe operation of flight independent of the aircraft in operation, whereas the aircraft flight manual or standard operating procedures are completely dependent on the individual aircraft to which they apply. SOPs would also be required to not contradict anything written in the suite of regulations provided by CASA. If an airline wanted to amend a procedure it would need to speak to the manufacturer to ensure they were not making a change that could adversely affect the safe operation of the aircraft and then provide CASA with significant information to prove why the change is needed and what actions they are taking to mitigate any associated risks introduced by the change. SOPs cannot contradict the regulations unless a dispensation is sort. Essentially regulations apply to every pilot operating in Australian airspace, whereas SOPs belong to the aircraft and more or less tell the crew how to operate the aircraft in a state that is compliant with the regulations. As far as what a pilot does with respect to each categories procedures, I think you will struggle to find a specific answer to that question. SOPs are not designed to be all-encompassing and assume a certain level of knowledge and experience - a product of many years of training. The FCOM states the minimum altitude that the autopilot must be disconnected by however no maximums. An autopilot is simply a device to reduce the workload of the flight crew. You can fly a 737 without an autopilot. In that circumstance the autopilot would never be engaged and the whole approach would be flown by hand. That would obviously restrict the type of approach you could fly (i.e. CAT III would not be available). You could ask the same question of 20 pilots and get 20 different responses. Remembering that it's an aid to reduce workload, the answer of when to disconnect is really "am I ready to assume full responsibility for aircraft manipulation?" I use manipulation as a pilot is never not "flying the aircraft," even with the autopilot engaged they are always monitoring and ensuring the aircraft is doing what you require it to do. Increased automation can also result in a huge increase in workload and pilot attention so in some cases it is better to just disconnect and fly the aircraft. Absolutely correct. Any instrument approach (other than CAT III autoland) is designed to get you to a point where you can achieve the required visibility to safely land the plane. An excerpt directly from the Aeronautical information publication which applies to all aircraft operating in Australia (with my bolding):

Hi there, As far as I understand, the requirement to disconnect the autopilot is based on a limitation in the system rather than a regulatory requirement. To my knowledge, Australia does not specifically certify aircraft instead electing to adopt the type certificates issued by the FAA/JAA. The type certificates would be issued based on a set of SOP's (in this case Boeing produced) which could be adjusted by an operator however that is usually done through consultation with both the regulator and the manufacturer. If you have a look in the NGX FCOM volume 1 limitations section (page L.10.5), it lays out the requirements to disconnect the autopilot both under FAA and JAA regulations. As to which one Australian operators utilise, I am uncertain and could vary between the few operator of 737. If you then pair that with the FCTM which states that a CAT II approach may be flown with either Single or Dual Autopilots engaged and that a CAT III is based on the approach and landing being flown with the automatic landing system it provides some good guidance to your questions. Unlikely. Flare is a pretty critical part of the landing process and adjusting from autopilot to manual control at that point would be unlikely. Possible. I was taught in my training to wait for a few seconds for your eyes to adjust from the instrument scan to the visual scan. Remember that in a real aircraft your eyes have to adjust from instruments roughly 50cm away to the runway landing environment perhaps 1-2km away (which is where HUD comes in handy!). It's also worth noting that on a CAT I or II approach, as per the regulations, if you are not visual (cloud or visibility) you must conduct a missed approach. That varies with a CAT III approach that has significantly reduced visibility requirements and is planned with an autoland anyway. Based on the information in the FCOM-1, yes. If the crew were using the ILS for guidance on a visual approach they may elect to still fly the instruments either with the autopilot on/off or even flight directors on/off for proficiency and currency. Flight crew must remain current on the instrument approaches to be able to fly them in bad weather. Visibility would not normally effect the decision to disconnect the autopilot from a regulatory stand point but may with the individual. The visibility would however determine which approach was to be flown (i.e. if it was below the requirements for a CAT I approach then you would fly the CAT II ILS instead). That being said, there are aircrew training and checking requirements (in addition to the aircraft being certified) to fly II and III ILS approaches. CASA approval and training in a full motion simulator is required to fly a CAT II or III approach in Australia by Australian crew. I would say that the information you have with the CAT I in good weather is somewhat correct but not completely. Given an ILS to fly is certainly safer in terms of runway aligned approach with a standard 3 degree profile. As you quite correctly stated, it is a preference rather than a requirement. Sydney airport prefer a visual approach via the ILS due to the parallel runway operations. It may also serve as a requirement in the conduct of a visual approach at night (not below the glidepath with less than full scale localiser deflection) amongst other items. There is however nothing stopping a crew during day operations from simply looking outside and flying the aircraft without reference to an instrument approach. Hope that answers your questions. Just as a side note, PMDG require all posts within their forums to be signed with your first and last name either via a signature block or separately - even if your username is your real name.

Maybe if you can't afford $12 million you could just buy the real one that's for sale at the moment for $1,245,000USD..... a bargain in comparison!!

My pleasure :smile:

As Kyle pointed out, for the other items, the column headers describe the sections (Number installed, number of dispatch, remarks, etc). There is no column header for the A, B, C or D but those four letters are standard symbols for repair intervals, so they appear to relate to the repair time interval (i.e. the time period that you are allowed to continue operating the aircraft with the fault. After this time the MEL allowance has expired, the aircraft is considered "not airworthy" and the fault must be repaired before further flight is allowed). Officially the ICAO "Master Minimum Equipment List/ Minimum Equipment List Policy and Procedures Manual" (Googled and can be found here) states the following: And for (M) and (O): As an alternative, when searching for the ICAO definitions, the FAA MMEL Policy Letter concerning definitions (May 11, 2015 and found here) states: And for (M) and (O): As you can see, despite the differences between many countries on their air law MEL, definitions have remained fairly consistent to the ICAO definitions. The Australian CASA definitions are the same (if not worded slightly differently).

In addition to what Kyle has said, it looks like you're not in full-screen mode either: On the image you posted you'll see at the top of the "Views" Menu "Full Screen" [you can also use the shortcut ALT + ENTER]. That will put FSX into full screen mode (like many other games run) hiding your Windows task bar. However if you're trying to follow along on the video as well, it is a little more difficult to switch between full screen FSX and a web browser to watch the video. If you're able to, you may find it easier watching the tutorial on a second device (tablet, iPad, smartphone, etc.) whilst having FSX full screen on your computer.

David and Steve, The above is a quote from Robert Randazzo and should answer your questions regarding it being an actual error in the software - it's from a closed thread entitled "PMDG 737NGX and Prepar3D V3 Error" (the thread was closed due to the answer being placed in a Sticky instead). The thread can be found here if you want to read through the full exchange.

Installation of GSX removes the default FSX tug. I don't know about the internals of GSX, but I imagine that it uses independent logic (as I imagine UGCX will) for pushback which would mean that use of the FSX internal pushback system would not display the FSX default tug.

Paul, I just wanted to clarify - I was not attacking your position on releasing the cabin crew early and I apologise if it came off as such. There are many reasons why you would delay the decision. I merely wanted to present you with the thinking behind the decision to release at the after take-off checklist point. I always do my best to present factual information backed up by references. One of the best parts for me for forums like this is the questions asked by people such as yourself as it gives me an opportunity to delve back into the books. I've been lucky enough to have many mentors that got me where I am and I feel the best way to repay them is by returning to the aviation community.

Correct! Common sense and in fact regulation drives the decision to release or not release. Under any conditions the first priority on leaving their seats is to check on the passengers since departure and then commence preparation for service. Say a passenger on their own has passed out and no-one has said anything, or someone looks distressed and has not yet alerted the cabin crew to this - cabin crew are trained to sight this. Say a passenger has released their seatbelt and jumped into the toilet whilst the seatbelt sign is on - believe me it happens more frequently than you think. There's a lot more to the role of cabin crew than might be perceived. I did say normally. And it wasn't a theory, it was based on ICAO PANS-OPS (which is the design criteria for all ICAO signatory nation IFR departures and arrivals) which requires an average bank angle of 15 degrees. An IFR standard turn at 210kts would be 28 degrees. Even for the BIG 1X departure the 180 degree turn is limited to 230kts so your angle of bank for a standard turn would be 30 degrees. However FCOM Volume 2 Section 4.10.12 states "In LNAV, bank angle is limited to 8 degrees below 200 feet and 30 degrees above 200 feet AGL" So if the autopilot is functioning correctly you should never end up with more than 30 degrees angle of bank even for the most complex of departures if you're flying the procedure coupled to the autopilot. So even a 360 degree turn is going to be a 15-30 degrees bank angle which is what can be commanded even above 10,000ft with the seatbelt sign off and all crew and passengers up and about. If that wasn't safe, it wouldn't be designed to do that. As a further example, a TCAS RA could occur whilst all crew and passengers are out of their seats as could a rapid descent. From a strictly safety perspective, you could argue that you should never give anyone the option to remove their seatbelt due to something possibly occurring. You can only make a judgement call based on the information currently at hand. I do agree though that SIDs are more than just obstacle clearance, but remember also as PIC you can decline a SID. Just because ATC give you that doesn't mean you have to accept it. Let me ask you this question - when should the after take-off checklist be called for? All SOPs allow some flexibility for flight crew to decide when an appropriate time to do that is. With all due respect, YouTube is not really the finite resource to confirm procedures for a particular airline. You're unlikely to find an SOP that says you must do the after takeoff checklist the second the aircraft is clean. It would be entirely inappropriate to call for the checklist whilst you're about to level off at an altitude for example. In this circumstance the FO has determined legally you can release the crew, but it's still your call whether you do or not. It's simply a question, you don't have to release the passengers at 10,000ft either. In fact if required (and I have done this on a few occasions) you can return all passengers and cabin crew to their seats at any stage of the flight if required. Remember that each of these SOPs are modelled after particular airlines. If I've read correctly SOP 2 is based on an Australian airline and that's obviously how they do it, so that's been modelled. Vernon has also confirmed that it's how the SOP 3 airline does it as well and I believe he has access to that airlines actual procedures. I can only speak from my real world experience as a pilot and the regulations that exist within Australia. If you're speaking from a general flight sim perspective that's a different story. My question still stands, maybe what is needed is a way to release the cabin crew if you've declined it at the after take off checklist point?

Just because the flight crew release the cabin crew does not mean they have to immediately commence service. That's where training, experience and a thorough pre flight briefing from the flight crew comes into play. Remember the cabin crew primary role is safety, food and beverage is secondary. Normally above the MSA there shouldn't be any need for a complex turn as by definition the minimum safe altitude within 10nm and 25nm is above all terrain within those distances from the airfield. From a CRM perspective the discussion on when to release the flight attendant is usually between both crew. Which comes back to my point that just because the FO asks doesn't mean you have to release. And vice versa in the real world when the FO is pilot flying. In the real world environment the crew (usually the captain) will brief the head flight attendant (or all cabin crew depending on the airline) before reaching the plane. This will include weather, flight times, any potential delays to service or need to stop service and any defects that might affect the cabin. Should the question perhaps be "is there a way to request the pilot monitoring release the cabin crew if you decline at the after take-off checklist point?"

Some companies will release above the "minimum safe altitude" for the airport. In Australia at least, it is a requirement to accelerate to 250kts as soon as practical (unless told otherwise by ATC). Remember your cabin crew are trained professionals, who are aware how to do their job properly. You may also be on a short hop to which means they need all the time they can get. Take a typical Sydney - Melbourne pairing for example. Quite often the flight time is 50-60mins which is not a whole lot of time to serve 180 or so passengers, allow time to eat or drink, collect rubbish and then be seated for landing. If it's smooth and above the minimum legal height for people to be up out of their seat (in Australia that's on completion of take-off and not less than 1000ft above terrain [CAO 20.16.3]) - there's really no reason why you can't release them. As far as why it's done after the after take-off checklist - usually you'll be above the required height and secondly the first priority is always to fly the plane (which includes checklists) Of course, as the pilot in command it's your decision as to when (if at all) you release both the cabin crew and passengers, so if you're not happy - delay.

I've seen it at certain angles taxiing behind A320s and 737s before. Based on the infrequency of seeing it I suspect you need fairly specific conditions/angles to see it (i.e. lucky photographer & right place at the right time)