pilot87

Spoilers actually serve three functions: "Flight" Spoilers --> When used in the air, slow the aircraft and as a result increase the rate of descent. Spoilerons --> When used in turns they are called "spoilerons" as they are acting as both a spoiler and an aileron (in the way Chris explained) "Ground" Spoilers --> dumping the lift on the ground and increasing downward pressure on the gear increasing the effectiveness of the brakes. It's a similar reason you have "flaperons" on some aircraft (e.g. the 777 and 747): in some phases of flight they act as flaps, in others they act as ailerons. When space on a wing is a limited commodity you have to get creative! Remember on most aircraft of the NGX size and above - for every moveable surface you add you also have to add cabling and in some cases hydraulics as well all which eat into the weight you can carry (cargo, passengers, fuel or all three).

No problems - I also found a Honeywell newsletter that briefly mentioned the ability to conduct RNP operations with newer FMS software versions. It was very limited though so I didn't include that. Ah ok - that was my fault: I misread the OP's post and thought he was referring to 26L. I was aware of that. There was a thread in the NGX sub-forum from someone whom I believe is a current Alaska Airlines pilot who had created and offered the RNP approaches into PAJN. I read an Emirates media release sometime ago when RNP was brand new that they had an authorisation from the UAE GCAA to create their own procedures. I'm also aware that Qantas create their own charts (but I'm not sure if they use data provided from elsewhere or create their own procedures). Not sure if you are aware that Navigraph are in the process of updating their chart apps and are returning to Jeppesen data. Interestingly too, whilst the chart data was provided by Lido it appears as though the FMS data was actually still Jeppesen. There well may be an airline created one, but not that I'm aware of. Based on observations it looks like it landing 26R would be extremely rare so it's probably not worth the effort/money in creating the approach. Thanks for the feedback though - I can obviously only give information within the context of Australian rules and regulations. I'm aware of some subtle and significant differences between Australian and US regulations so it's great to hear the confirmation from someone who flies in that environment. As I said earlier, I'm fascinated by the differences in the rules and regulations between two countries that are quite similar and both being ICAO signatories. Not to mention that Australia does not certify aircraft instead relying on the FAA certifications.

Hi Rich, I only mentioned the RNP arrival as you said there was no other approach for that runway. The FAA have it published on their website which can be found here (also on Flight Aware that provide FAA charts) and it's also in the Navigraph subscription (Runway 26L, 04R and 08L). The charts have a requirement for special authorisation so perhaps Foreflight don't include it in their subscription? I'm not on the PSX forum so I'm not up with that discussion but for what it's worth, this Boeing document suggests it is possible to conduct an RNP arrival in the 747 however there are some adjustments that need to be made by interested operators. Doesn't look overly complicated but obviously comes down to the cost vs. benefit discussion.

There is the RNAV (RNP) arrival that the 777 would definitely be able to fly - the older 744 may not be able to although I'm not 100% on that. I imagine with an updated FMS it would be possible pending jumping through all the other regulatory hoops associated with that. You mentioned a few other things that seem to be US specific and that's not something I could help with - it's always interesting to see the significant differences between ICAO signatory nations.

Following on from what Kyle said, I don't think dangerous is the word I'd use. Being a pilot is all about risk assessment and in this case yes the risk is certainly greater than a runway aligned straight-in approach, so then as Kyle said it's up to you as the pilot in command to determine if the risk is too great. However that is also the beauty of a simulator in being able to attempt things that you would unlikely encounter in the real world - the same as real world pilots do. We train for engine failures, fires, etc but the hope is you never actually have to use that training. Based on what you've posted I would say you a definitely on the right track though. I fly in Australia under Australian rules and regulations so the following information is provided in that context: If you haven't already, have a read through the Flight Crew Training Manual (provided by PMDG with all the other documentation) specifically section 5.52 on-wards. This section covers circling approaches and also covers circling areas. As you stated the FAA appears to have changed their circling area guidance in 2013 and the FCTM provided is from 2011, so there is a slight discrepancy however the basics still apply. For reference, Boeing also state that all -200 models are actually certified as category C aircraft whilst the -300, -300ER and F model are category D. Given the final approach course from the VOR is quite oblique to the runway, if the conditions allow you could also request to join upwind instead of trying to cram the entire circuit into a very small area. In that case the principle is the same except you would fly all legs of the circuit instead of just essentially an oblique base and final. The latest charts also have the circling altitude for category D aircraft at 1400'. I notice your chart may date back to 1996. An MDA is a minimum descent altitude so if you get visual early (and can maintain it) there's not really any reason why you can't level off at your normal circuit altitude and fly that. In Australia the circuit height for a high performance aircraft is 1500' AGL. Honolulu has an elevation of 13' so that would make the circuit altitude of 1600' (13 + 1500 = 1513 but you can't set that on the MCP so round up to the nearest 100' = 1600'). Having said that, you are absolutely correct in stating that it's highly unlikely a 777 would be flying a circling approach such as that. Whilst a VOR-A approach is still a legitimate approach type you would probably have a hard time explaining why you elected to fly that one if something went wrong when there were other more suitable approaches. In the case of 26L at PHNL which does not have an ILS the more likely scenario would be the RNAV (RNP) approach. As RNP approaches become more common this seems to be the preferred approach (after ILS and certainly ahead of a VOR circling approach). But if something drastic happened and that was your only option, then it's great to know you can fly that approach.

Uncoordinated pilots perhaps?? haha more likely maintenance replacing components in the MCP and screwing/unscrewing it.

I assume you mean around the MCP/glareshield screws and switches? That looks like the primer paint to me. I'm not a 777 pilot, but that yellow-green is a standard shade used in most (if not all) aircraft as a primer. If you search for aircraft primer you'll see that colour on the exterior prior to the final paint of the respective airline's livery. I'm not sure how Boeing manufacture/paint the MCP/Glareshield but I would imagine it is similar to the rest of the metal structure. Based on the registration, the aircraft is a 20 year old United 777-200ER. I understand United have a fairly high usage rate of the -200ER and as such I would expect to see that kind of wear and tear on the flight deck. After repeated button pushing and screw removal/replacement, the outer brown coat will eventually wear away to reveal whatever is underneath. I would say whomever created this repaint has attempted to replicate the age by adjusting the panel textures. By contrast the -300ER's are brand new and would be unlikely to have that level of wear.

Hi Steve, I asked Bryan the same question a little while back (7th Dec 2016), his response is quoted below (and if you're interested in the rest of the thread, it can be found here):

No problems at all :smile:

This thread of mine might help you out with that question.

Thanks for the quick response Bryan. I figured it had to be something like that. Cheers!

Hi Bryan, I have recently started following the TFDi Design 717 expected to be released late this year (2016). From what I've seen to date it is quite a high end add on that will match the quality of other designers such as PMDG and Aerosoft. The aircraft is still common across the US, Europe and Australia. The designers have advised that an SDK will be produced but that FS2Crew have expressed no interest in working on the plane. I was wondering if this is due to workload with other planned addons or if its due to a perceived lack of purchaser interest in the model? If it's the latter would that likely change if take up of the product is strong? I completely understand that construction of any FS2Crew addon is a mammoth undertaking (experts, voices, programming, etc.) so completely understand the answer either way, but was just curious.

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?"