Jump to content

BeechPapa

Members
  • Content Count

    661
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

32 Neutral

About BeechPapa

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    KSNA

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

1,327 profile views
  1. Hi Jean-Luc, I enabled "Connect GPS to VOR1" and that seems to have done the trick. I was able to pick up the glideslope on CDI and AP was able to follow it in APR mode. Thank you for the help, looking forward to my adventures in the C172.
  2. I have since attempted to use the GTN750 in the bone-stock Cessna as a 2D panel, and have encountered the same problem. It seems this is related to how the GTN750 interacts with the Cessna's avionics. I have attached a screenshot of the RNAV GPS 21 approach into KSMO, the plane is well beyond slope intercept point at MOVVE as I maintain 3,000ft. There is no GS indicator on the course deviation indicator, and I believe I have set the rest of the equipment up correctly. I have been able to use the default GNS530 for the same LPV successfully, and the only consistent variable that introduces the failure is the GTN unit.
  3. Thank you for the instructions. I appreciate the kind support you've been providing to everyone, including me. The Baron flew the approach beautifully. It was my first truly satisfying landing in XP11. It appears there is a problem with one of my Cessna mods/addons then. I removed REP temporarily, and the problem in the Cessna still persists, so I think it must have something to do with this mod: Do you mind looking at the ini file and telling me if anything looks obviously wrong? I know this is not your responsibility, and freeware mods can be unreliable, but would appreciate your knowledgeable input. The current ini values are in this post:
  4. Hi Jean-Luc, I will test it out later today on the default Baron. Is there a way to quickly install the GTN as a popup gauge rather than in the VC? I am very unfamiliar with the process of VC installation, and used a pre-existing mod for the Cessna.
  5. Bought GTN 750/650 during the sale this weekend, based on my positive and reliable experiences with the GNS+FSX. Just getting into XP11. Am using these in the REP Cessna 172. GTN failed to capture LPV on IMC approach. Pretty disappointing. The weird thing is I have repeated the scenario and seen a number of different variations... - The GS is seen, but AP doesn't engage APR mode. I can follow down manually. - The GS is never seen at all. -The GS is seen, but doesn't capture. I switched CDI from GPS to NAV and then back to GPS. This is the one and only time it ever worked. APR engaged and took the plane to decision height. -The next time I tried the above method, I completely lost both lateral and vertical GPS guidance. Edit: -On a recent flight I think APR mode did engage, and the plane began to descend, but I never saw a GS indicator on the CDI. The GS bars stayed level with me from start to finish, GS indicating red flags, even though the plane was descending in APR mode. CDI works fine in ILS. I feel like I have seen every kind of error at this point. The randomness of them is frustrating, and as I read through this long thread I am starting to get nervous. I hardly understand most of what is being said about the INI files and observing datarefs. I'm a beginner to XP11, and just wanted a comprehensive and reliable avionics system. Addons/plugins: GTN750/650, ActiveSkyXP, REP for Cessna, Better Pushback. XP11/RXP most recent builds. Only been flying in XP11 for about a week.
  6. Recreated the 777 distance record described here: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2005-11-10-Boeing-777-200LR-Sets-New-World-Record-for-Distance Hong Kong to Heathrow eastbound, flight time was roughly 23 hours in real time. Tried my best to duplicate exact date and flying conditions, weights, route, etc. It was very educational and a whole lot of fun.
  7. Pilot is confirmed dead, body has been recovered. Last I read the man with minor injuries was attempting to rescue the pilot. Very sad event, especially with memorial day coming up. My sympathies go out to the pilot's family and flying buddies.
  8. Would be helpful to others (and thoughtful of respondants) to post his solution here.
  9. Depresses me to see where computers are going nowadays... Powerful PCs dying off and being replaced with simplified tablets with simplified apps.. marrying of hardware and software generations that limit combinations of use... companies going to cloud-only model, forcing us to rent our software... Overclocking being locked out of the majority of cpus and bios... There used to be a lot more emphasis on making powerful computers and powerful software, more freedom in the choices we could make, and more fun being an enthusiast. Sad to see how locked down and profit-driven the entire industry has become.
  10. 1. You got the gist of it. Altitude limits are dialed into the MCP and you can pick from a variety of modes for your climb, IAS 170-180 kts being a typical setting. Then just adjust your throttles to climb power and you should be good till cruise. There's a relatively simple vnav mode for descent. In the fmc you set the desired altitude at x waypoint, the descent rate you want to use to get there, and 10nm before calculated TOD you roll down the altitude window and engage vnav. It's nothing too fancy, and doesn't adapt to changes in descent path automatically but it gets the job done. The airplane was designed this way partly to make type ratings easier for pilots coming from simpler turboprops. 2. There's a v speed calculator made by Airline2sim via Aurasim and a number of free v speed calculators dispersed on the forums. Personally, I've never used a calculation tool. The plane has an enormous amount of thrust available and I've never found it wanting, even on short runways like CYTZ. Knowing how much to derate the thrust can be tricky, but I've found you can usually go down to 80% and still be ok. Also helps to pull flight plans from flightaware so I know all the airports and routes I use are approved for the q400. 3. No, never got into virtual co-pilots personally.
  11. Thank you, Dave. Always considered you one of the most helpful and informative avsim members, so that's especially nice to hear from you.
  12. Like a lot of things in aviation, it depends on the situation, and some real life benefits don't effect us in the sim. If you have a nav system that accepts airways, it's easier to enter an airway than the entire set of waypoints along the way. That's the ease of use argument. Other times there may be terrain or busy airspace boundaries that the airway conveniently routes around, in which case it's a safer alternative than plotting your own course. Because traffic is routed in an orderly manner, you also have the benefit of adopting a prescribed system for traffic management and easier for atc to handle. Other times the traffic issue might be a bigger hindrance than a benefit, such as if you are in a VLJ that can easily climb to a jet airway, but because of its relatively slower speed compared to commercial jet traffic would be constantly in the way of big airliners. Generally, I would only use airways if they offer an efficient route to your destination. If you find yourself going out of the way to accommodate an airway, just fly the waypoints. Airlines seem to use airways only when they fall along an efficient route. If not, they'll just rely on individual waypoints. Hope that helps.
  13. Tony, thank you for your thoughtful reply as well. There really isn't a right or wrong answer to this issue, but I'm glad to be a member of a forum community that can discuss its ramifications with thoughtfulness and maturity, regardless of the various opinions bound to be raised. Your contribution is appreciated. I feel very much the same way you do, and I think you raise good points. Regardless of the actual laws on the books, this does seem to be very much a moral/ethical issue and it is the divorcing of the press and its moral/ethical standards I find to be the most disappointing. I cannot fathom why they think this is an attractive item for the general public either. When I see pictures of people who just moments ago heard their relatives died in a plane crash I can only imagine myself in their position and what I imagine is wanting to crawl into a very small hole, away from all the prying cameras. Waking up the next morning to an existence void of their loved one is bad enough, to see their own tearful faces slapped on the cover of every paper around the world must make the experience so much worse, like throwing salt on a very open wound.
  14. Mike, thank you for the informative quote from the ACLU and your very thoughtful reply. It is much appreciated. I can understand the spirit of the law (especially in a free society that protects free press and free speech) in allowing public places and events to be recorded. However, this does seem at odds with the relatives' rights to grieve privately, which we both feel they should have the ability to do. This gets into a very sensitive grey area it seems. I'm not exactly sure how a law protecting the privacy rights of grieving relatives - especially in the midst of such a public event - could be worded without encroaching on other valued rights, such as those of the press. But if we cannot have such a law protecting grieving relatives, then it would be nice to at least see the press respecting the relatives' emotional state, and refrain from publishing such pictures without the requirement of prohibitive laws. I don't see how such pictures are attractive for them in the first place. When I am reading articles about a recent crash, seeing photos of relatives in shambles does not attract me to read those particular stories. I often skip to the next news source, feeling pity and shame for the surviving relative's picture I just saw, and like I am encroaching on a deeply private moment. Regarding the mental state of relatives being integral to the story, I'd have to respectfully disagree. The crash of the airliner itself is certainly a public matter since it involves an airplane used by people all over the world, an airline conducting flights and selling tickets even as I write this, and an airport still accepting arriving passengers. The cause and nature of the crash have repercussions to the flying public, but I can't imagine how the personal experience of a relative in emotional despair has those kind of repercussions, or is knowledge that everyone should be privy to. Does it add to the depth of the story? I suppose to a certain degree it does allow us to know more about the families involved and the "human face" of such a loss. But the fact that the crash is emotionally devastating to surviving relatives is no surprise to anyone, and whether that emotional experience is shared with the entire world I personally think should be within the consent of those experiencing the loss. If relatives would like to contact a news company and tell the story of their loved ones - why they were on the airplane, where they were going, what their lives were about and why they were loved - I think that is a wonderful thing that helps people understand the true human loss of the crash. But that knowledge, and the knowledge of the pain experienced by the family, should be their right to share, not our right to dig into.
  15. After every plane crash, within hours of the event there are usually photos published of distraught relatives in tears at the arriving airport. This seems like an invasion of privacy to me. These poor people are emotionally broken, in perhaps the lowest state of their lives, and on top of that must deal with cameras going off all around them and pictures of themselves in despair and grief on the front of every news site or paper. I understand the airport is a public location, but is there any responsibility for news gatherers to have signed permission from the subject before publishing the photos? It's extremely hard for me to believe that these relatives might have signed a release right after hearing such dreadful news. And if they haven't, I don't personally think the news outlets have any right publishing these pictures. Unlike the crash of the airplane itself, the mental state of surviving relatives isn't really a public matter.
×
×
  • Create New...