Stearmandriver

That was my only point: "all" don't have to do it on the PMDG forum either, as it is not policed / audited. They don't actually care if you're using your real name. You just need to use a name. If they actually audited this, they'd lose half their forum.

Just pointing out that it's just as easy to get around the requirement, if someone wishes. I'm not there anymore because my real name will never appear publicly searchable in connection with flight sim video games (professional privacy is of course more important), and I also won't lie about it. But for anyone who wishes to, it's just that easy. There's all kinds of obvious fake names on there; maybe half are real and that's being generous.

You can always just use a fake name on the PMDG forms btw. They don't do any cross referencing to see who is real, and they don't actually care if anyone uses a fake name, no matter how obvious, until other users complain. So, no need to feel obligated to actually expose your identity over there. You just need to sign a name, not your actual name.

Worth remembering that many airlines build their own RNP procedures that would not appear in public navdata and thus wouldn't be in navigraph. I'm not familiar with the airport being discussed, but if it gets regular airline service, decent chance at least some of those operators have their own approaches.

Not really though, not in the examples given anyway. Everyone uses block altitudes. I use them often enough while oceanic even in 737s. I would think BATC could honor a block altitude with no problem; just like real ATC, there would be no need to monitor or care about anything the aircraft was doing as long as it remained in the block. I'm more interested in having it not descend me into mountains or drop me on a downwind and forget about me lol.

Haha right, keeping you honest! 😁 (To be clear, it was a joke - I don't expect BATC to be able to conduct PARs lol).

Quite a few military fields will still offer them to civilian traffic for controller proficiency's sake. Practice approaches will result in a miss, but naturally in an emergency situation where the civilian aircraft needs the PAR, it's a useful backup to have in your area; it'll get you on the ground safely.

PAR would be a lot of fun. Let's test those vectors 😉.

It's really polished. I wouldn't be someone to hear about estimated release dates so I have no idea there, sorry. My personal impression is that they've got almost all of the intended work done at this point (I think I heard some further cabin polishing for the 8200 model is ongoing), but yeah I would think it's "close", in terms of work left to do. How that translates to time, I don't know. Can you elaborate? I'm not sure I've ever done truly steep turns with it, but I absolutely love the flight model and have never noticed any tendency to oscillate in bank when rolling into or out of turns regardless of bank angle (is this what you mean?). There is a tendency to roll out of a bank that starts becoming noticeable around 25 degrees of bank, requiring some continuous aileron pressure into the turn to maintain constant bank angle, but this accurately reflects the inherent lateral stability of the real aircraft.

Er? Not... Legally, it doesn't. 😉

Sure, there are times when you can call the field 20+ miles out. There are also plenty of times when you can't call the field 5 miles out, even when the reported conditions suggest you should be able to. Sun glare, localized haze etc... That's the whole point - a visual approach cannot be dictated by a controller. It's something the pilots must agree to accept, or it doesn't happen. And no, when you refuse, it doesn't mean you'll be "hauled up to explain" or anything like that. Even when refusing a clearance that might be seen as more of a dictate from ATC, a pilot will not get in trouble for using that magic word: "unable". This is a strong point of emphasis as we train new captains these days. We take great pains to ensure they understand that any amount of discomfort they have with a clearance is a fully sufficient reason to decline it. That's their responsibility, in fact. Don't like the approach? Go around. Don't like a clearance? "Unable", and tell them what you can do instead. I only mention this because it IS such a critical item in the industry right now. I agree we've kind of lost the point here, which I would say is this: in a simulator, the user should be able to dictate exactly the conditions of the flight. That's the point of a simulator - I can fly in any weather I want, at any time of day I want, in any aircraft in any mechanical condition that I want... I certainly should be able to tell an ATC client which approach I'm doing, and not the other way around. I'd say the fact that this is how real life works, just supports the point that you should then clearly be able to do it in a sim as well.

You eliminated a lot of context in this story, including the most important detail: it wasn't the requirement for an instrument approach that caused the delay. It was the requirement for a RUNWAY change. ATC would have had no problem clearing them for, and there would have been no delay resulting from, an instrument approach to 28R. Firstly, the ops spec requirement not to fly visual approaches at night to certain airports is industry-common, and it does not require a clearance for an instrument approach. It simply requires that the lateral and vertical guidance of a published IAP be followed. You can accept a visual approach clearance, you just have to fly a published procedure. In the Lufthansa case, SFO had runway closures for construction. They were using 28L for departures and 28R for arrivals. The ILS to 28R was also out of service. Lufthansa either did not have the RNAV 28R approach in their nav data, or they don't do RNAVs on the 350 fleet. I don't remember the specific reason, but they were unable to use the RNAV to 28R for the required guidance. That forced them to 28L, which was stacked with departures and that's what caused the delay. The spacing differences between aircraft on a visual vs instrument approach are trivial for ATC. They would have had no problem being cleared for the RNAV to 28R (or the ILS if it were up), though they wouldn't have needed such a clearance anyway. Stating that which type of approach an airliner flies is purely the captain's decision is not simplistic, it's simply how things work. It's not an ATC decision.

Yes, the iPad in SP1 contains several options to load data to the aircraft, including a one-click "load all" option that uplinks route and perf init to the FMC as well as loading fuel and payload to the aircraft. It's seamless. It's honestly the best EFB implementation I've seen in MSFS. As far as the OP, yes the current release version of the aircraft does uplink route correctly. It also uplinks both enroute and descent winds. You just have to request them via the FMC, as is done in the real aircraft. The enroute winds are requested via the Legs --> RTE Data Page. Descent winds are requested via the Descent --> Forecasts page.

Airliners, like any other aircraft, get whatever type of approach they request. When it's clear and a million, will ATC sometimes assume everyone can take the visual? Sure. And if you're unfamiliar with the area, it's dark, there's some sun haze or a thin layer between you and the airport, or you just don't feel like accepting the responsibility (there are actually airline pilots who have a policy of never accepting a visual), you just ask for the instrument approach and then you'll get that. Controllers don't really care, and they certainly can't argue with pilots about it. There have certainly been plenty of times I've accepted visuals. There have certainly been plenty of times I've stated I'll require a different approach. They're just different approach types for IFR traffic. That's the real world. When I experimented with BATC, one of many things it did that caused me to shelve it was trying to assign a visual in marginal VMC conditions and then not changing me to an instrument approach when I requested it. This is a pilot decision, not a controller decision.

Every single time I've departed JFK in a jet over the last 30 years, it's been a series of turns - not just one, but a series - and typically intermediate level offs, before finally being cleared on course and to altitude. That's just one example. ORD is another. I guess they didn't get the "Ray Proudfoot Avsim" memo. 😁