pilot3033

You takeoff and land into the wind to the extent that's possible with the way runways are pointed. Airports with multiple runways often designate one for takeoffs and one for landings. Sometimes they designate one for, say, south arrivals and departures, and the other for north arrivals and departures. It depends on the particular airport, traffic, time of day, etc. Your best bet is to find the prevailing winds and go from there. Outer runways are often for landings, inner runways often for takeoffs. Sometimes airports won't change runways with the winds until they're very strong because of other airports in the area, like in New York City where it's a big dance with 3 major airports all next to each other.

If you're using vPilot, AI model matching is discussed in the documentation: http://vpilot.metacraft.com/Documentation2.aspx

Not to get off topic, but since you're here... I noticed that the new SODE jetways have trouble getting low enough for RJ's like the CRJ, even at gates they should be able to (e.g. at Concourse F). I had similar trouble at the old Imaginesim KATL in the other direction, the fix I think was to make an adjustment in the limits of the simobject.

VATSIM

SODE works just fine for me. There's an updated version that might solve whatever issue you're having.

Do you have a link? Couldn't find that in the library.

Maybe, but the specific proposal is to hand over ATC to a single organization, not several. The real question should be "what is the justification here, who benefits?" It won't be General Aviation, it won't be Air Traffic Controllers, it certainly won't be pilots. Our current system is the safest, most efficient it's ever been with fewer and fewer people. The solution to this isn't a tumultuous transition to a new system with new hiccups. Compare the fallback plans of ATC loss, a relatively smooth process, to how airlines have handled IT outages. Privatizing our ATC would turn it into something like our national power grid: a hodgepodge system of private companies with no consistent coordinated plan, ruled either by one company and "managers" or, if other proposals surface, the even worse series of multiple, independent contractors. Right now the FAA does an amazing job managing air traffic, and technologies like ERAM and ADS-B are letting is cram more and more traffic into tighter spaces that increase capacity and reduce noise and climate impact. ATC is a perfect example of infrastructure, something that is the backbone of our nation's engine and not something that should ever be concerned with making enough money in a quarter.

I had a chance to play this last year around E3. It's a tremendous amount of fun and I can't wait to try the TOS mode.

Have you tried using simbrief? It allows you to import routes from various sources. As for the actual planning, If you want to do it by hand then simply go to a place like www.skybector.com and plan your route. Copy the output to https://www.simbrief.com and you can download the .fpl file. http://www.fltplan.com is another real world resource that has free tools for you to use.

For what it's worth, I've seen plenty of flaps 25 takeoffs from SNA, particularly because on top of the short runway and hot summers, you have a very strict noise abatement program. No derate, packs off, etc. Additionally, don't forget about standard short field take-off procedures, such as spooling up the thrust while holding the brakes instead of throughout the take-off roll.

I tend to do medium-haul flights with the 777, simulating the "holiday rush" flights you sometimes see. For example, Delta will sometimes fly a 744 from ATL to DTW over Thanksgiving. American flies a 777 from DFW to LAX (and sometimes a 787, too) to train their new international crews. Moreover, it wouldn't be THAT strange to see a 77L from ATL to, say, JFK. Also, the file provided by the SODE developer works great. All of the E gates docked, so did all of the A and B and F gates that I tired (even where a 777 would be unlikely to park, anyway). Matt Kramer

Thus far, the issue is resolved, and I agree that the issue in the first place was that the gates had bad geometric limits. Just wanted to add quickly that the only remaining issue, which is minor, is that the jetways might be a bit too small or otherwise dock too far aft. The open door on the PMDG 777 collides with the jetway hood and bleeds through. I'll mess around with exits data to see if I can move it forward, though I also use GSX which might have something to do with it. Matt Kramer

I've been messing around with flaps 25 takeoffs at SNA and did one with the HUD down to try and see what you saw. Perhaps the dashed line you're referring to on the HUD is the same pitch limit line I described. On the HUD, it appears as a dashed line that runs horizontal across the entire display. Remember, on the HUD you're nose is represented by a -v- symbol, and the pitch degrees flow quite rapidly during rotation, especially if you're uncoordinated. Matt Kramer

My SOP, which I think is consistent with airlines, is to have the Autothrottle switch in the ON position before takeoff. Engage the flight director switch, then the A/T switch, then VNAV and LNAV all on the ground. VNAV goes off when you engage TOGA but you get the flight director as it's armed. Same with LNAV (or HDG SEL if you need that). When you get above 400 AGL you can engage CMD A or CMD B and those modes will become active. I don't think anyone uses the HUD for take-off, though I'm sure you can. You might be interested in FCOM 2 section 4.20.14 which describes the EFIS/FMA readouts for using the Flight Director and Autopilot during takeoff. The various lines and dashes on the HUD are meant for approaches mostly. Section 10.10.14 describes what said various lines mean on the attitude indicator. Which dashed lines are you referring to? There are lines that indicate the pitch limit (two horizontal bars with "flags" that jut out) and there's the Flight Director "+" which can sometimes be more like a V or an arrow. On the HUD, this is represented as two circles, one large and one small. You are going where the large one is pointed, and you should be going where the small one is. When you center the two, you are going the right way. I believe this is call a "flight path vector." There is a button next to the MINS knob labeled "FPV" which will active one on the Primary Flight Display. Regardless, I think your main focus should be on trimming to relieve back pressure on the controls. You can hop into a 172 or other GA aircraft to see more clearly how trim affects flying. Matt Kramer

I downloaded and installed the file. Got gate E10 to work, and as I suspected, the issue was as he described: gates couldn't go high enough. I'll try out some other parking spots.