Ken.Pascoe

Does anyone know if it's possible to get a URL for the RSS feed to this forum only? The icon below gives me all of PMDG, rather than just the 777.

Howdy All I've just been advised that to date Boeing have not done the certification testing for carbon brakes retrofitted to the 737's. Enough testing was done to ensure that the unit guaranteed at least equivalent/better performance, but to save costs the full test regime was not done to produce the data. Apparently the weight reduction in the hardware involved is about 300kg. The Max on the other hand will come with carbon brakes and the full data equivalent for better landing performance - and rejected takeoff performance.

Hmmm I had thought that Carbon Brakes had better operating characteristics as well, which translated into better braking performance. It would be interesting to know if anyone has experience of a retro fit from steel to carbon and whether braking distance was affected. Ready to stand corrected ... as always ... Hmmm I had thought that Carbon Brakes had better operating characteristics as well, which translated into better braking performance. It would be interesting to know if anyone has experience of a retro fit from steel to carbon and whether braking distance was affected. Ready to stand corrected ... as always ...

Howdy All Great answer from Kyle. Regarding the reversers - remember that if you're using autobrake 2/3/4, reversers are mostly smoke and noise and give you that feeling of being part of a team - but don't make much difference in stopping distance because the autobrakes work on a deceleration rate. So using reversers shouldn't make a lot of difference to distance, just take some load off the wheel brakes. From my 777 line experience and quite a bit of 737 jumpseat time (I have no operational experience int he 737) - the 777 has great braking. Depending on the 737 (most have steel brakes?) - the Carbon Brakes in the 777 also make a significant difference. I went from the A310-300/A300-600R to the B777 many years ago and stopping performance was one of the big changes we saw. So much better in the 777. Ken

Howdy All Years ago I was an FO in Emirates and we had 200/200ER's - all with Rolls Royce Engines. We did simultaneous dual engine starts all the time. Needless to say when the GE's came along one of the changes we had to adapt to was being restricted to one at a time by the FCOM. However human beings being what we are - I can personally attest (based on several instances) that you can start both GE's at the same time, even on pretty warm days in Dubai when the density altitude is pretty high. But as as been described here - it's probably not good for engine life. The APU may be able to handle it ok, but the lower the airflow the more critical the engine start (EGT vs Rotation Speed). I haven't checked to see if PMDG models it well - but the Rollers (with it's 3 spool engines) was very much a more sedate start, feeding fuel in with increasing flow at a fairly regular rate of increase - when the GE's came along the FF went from 0 to about 500 almost instantly, with an associated bump in rotation. The GE's also generate higher vibs during the earlier part of the start cycle. During Hot/Hung starts the Rollers also required a more restricted cooldown/re-engage the start point; whereas the GE's spin for 30 seconds and the gearing kicks straight back in. We were told this was normal and expected, and subsequent operations have certainly borne that out. Ken

Howdy All It's probably not helpful, but the auto throttle behavior in this instance is correct in respect of the actual aircraft. With a single push of the TOGA switches to commence a go-around, the auto throttle THR command aims to provide enough thrust for a 2000 fpm rate of climb (usually somewhat more than that ...) - Hence THR / TOGA / TOGA and less than full GA thrust shown on the N1's. A second push gives you full Go-Around thrust hence the transition to THR REF / TOGA / TOGA. But usually the single push gives you more than most can handle, particularly if you have a early level off and any kind of complication/distraction during the missed approach - the Airline Industry is focusing on two engine go-arounds at the moment as something of a problem, see here for a quite comprehensive analysis into go-around errors. Unfortunately the traditional regulatory focus has been on single engine go-arounds, to the point where we get lots of them, but very few 2 engine go-around in training. But when the AFDS captures altitude and transitions into SPD / ??? / ALT, the auto throttle is no longer encumbered by the 2000 fpm "limit" on thrust. The auto throttles are now commanding for speed and if the aircraft is a little slow, speed will increase. This is most noticeable during manual flight when the airspeed is a little below target - but you see it during autoflight as well, particularly with early altitude captures. I recently wrote about a procedural issue we were seeing in relation to missed approaches and I think I'll add this issue as a sidebar ... Returning to the issue at hand however - I have seen some poorly handled level offs in the FSB PMDG 777, nothing quite this bad when other factors weren't involved (auto flight, not an early level off, no speed change during the capture maneuver, etc). I haven't had much time with the P3D version yet, but hopefully it's better in this area.

The warning that should activate is part of the Takeoff Configuration Warning (FCOM 15.20.10) and the message is CONFIG GEAR STEERING. From the sounds of things you should be getting the warning - it can still go off on takeoff in the aircaft even if the tiller is straight after a turn - because the rear bogies haven't yet return to center and locked position.

Good spotting. I'm going take a stab and say it's CofA annual flight testing. I used to be involved doing some of this ay my previous carrier, and functional testing of RAT deployment was on the checklist.

Bear in mind with 737/777 comparisons that if Boeing had gotten it's way - the 737-NG flight deck would be identical to the 777. However SWA - the launch customer - wouldn't buy the NG unless it had backward compatibility with the older 737s. That's probably the reason for the 737 differences, more than any lack of consistency on Boeing's part.

Far out.

Trimming is only required for a change of reference speed. If you're fully configured and on speed (Vref +5) on final when you disconnet the AP - you shouldn't need to trim thereafter.

I'll hunt it down and tidy it up first. I have also been promising a de (airline) identified copy of the P&T which I will do as well.

"... these EO SIDs are all now programmed in the FMC ..." Only if your Airline pays for it! Actually I would be interested in hearing how they work, since I've never been fortunate enough to work for an airline who codes them in. - How do you activate/execute them for an engine failure on takeoff - How does it work if your EOSID turns left straight away but the normal SID goes right? If you wouldn't mind running through a couple of scenarios, that would be fascinating. I don't supposed EOSIDs are in PMDG?

Thanks Matt. I'll bet that's even in the manual ...

Me too. Realism is great, but I just want the background noise down 50% or so. I've tried the individual FSX sound sliders to no avail.