Stearmandriver

Your question doesn't reference a menu, or lists, at all. So I'm not sure how you think you asked anything about a menu or lists? Read your original post. And then ask yourself: if the point you're departing from is dictated by the point of last landing - how could you depart from anywhere else? Then your departure would NOT be the point of last landing. That's where the "only" comes from. You asked if people takeoff from where they last landed. I do not in the sim, as that seems extremely limiting and is the opposite of the reason I use a sim, that's all. If you want this question to be about a menu, you're going to have to go back and edit your original post, because it doesn't even mention menus or lists.

IAN mode wouldn't fly these types of approaches at all. It can't handle the steep glidepath, it can't handle RF segments (it almost requires straight in approaches in fact) etc. There's reasons most airlines don't use IAN - they'd need to use LNAV / VNAV for more complex procedures anyway, and if you train an LNAV / VNAV profile anyway, you might as well just use that for all RNAVs (really, most non-precisions of any type.)

That's literally the entire question you asked.

I'm not sure why we're talking about a menus? Maybe I missed something; I didn't read the whole thread, just the question you asked, which didn't mention any menus? Choosing to only depart from where I last landed -as you asked - would be me putting a (to my mind) bizarre restriction on myself. I don't personally see what the value would be in that, that's all.

Sure it was - you asked if my last arrival was my next departure. For me, I've never even considered doing that, because that would be placing a restriction on where I was starting from - restricting my departure to the last point of arrival. That seems bizarre to me. I'm not saying anyone else shouldn't do it, just offering my own thoughts as one data point.

Oh yeah, that is an arc, I missed that when I looked. It's been an awful long time since I've done this one. It has a charted angle as well but just being a visual, I'm not sure if that's coded as a GP leg or not. Either way, fun to see other people digging into this stuff!

Definitely not, no more so than I always fly in real time, never use time accel, etc. To my mind, the entire point of the sim is that it removes these types of real-world restrictions.

Quoted you in the wrong response sorry. But yeah, that's a cool one too... Just a visual, not really a full approach w GP legs or RF segments I think. Good to have something to hold onto for that maneuver to 01R for sure though!

Naming conventions that allow the FMC to recognize the procedure as the correct type, and leg termination types mostly. Waypoint Type codes in some cases as well. Basically, read the real ARINC-424 specs and it tells you what you need to know. Was a fun little project to learn... Now I have a couple dozen to build haha.

PSP is a good suggestion. The RNP 33 into PANC is public and does a 360 to lose altitude in the bowl if you choose the right transition. But probably the most interesting public approach I know is into Khatmandu landing north... Runway 02 maybe? It reminds me of some of ours; uses RF segments to weave through terrain. Just requires more terrain clearance than some of ours because of public TERPs.

This is why I chose the "combat" style footrests when I ordered my Crosswind pedals. There's nothing "combat" about them, but they look like real rudder pedals, intended to be used with heels on the floor, unlike so many other sim pedal designs. Too many years flying taildraggers; it feels beyond wrong to have my feet anywhere near the brakes on landing - that's a guaranteed ground loop lol.

With help from several sources, I've finally managed to bang together a working custom RNP (AR) approach in the new PMDG navdata format, including RF legs etc. Figured I'd show it here as a proof of concept; it can be done, and in the end it isn't even all that hard, there's just a few conventions you need to understand. This is a real-world procedure, the first RNP (AR) approach ever built anywhere in fact - which made it seem appropriate to experiment with - to RW26 in PAJN. I had an approximation of this working in the old navdata, but let's just say there's no longer a need to approximate. I used the 777 for testing but am interested to see how the 737 will do it when that gets the navdata update, as the 777 won't really fly an approach speed schedule in VNAV, you have to speed intervene (my understanding is that is accurate to the real aircraft.) Takeaways: the new navdata is basically real-world, and the new flight guidance tracks it almost perfectly ( just an occasional twitch of such short duration it doesn't affect anything.) The autopilot actually got a little lazy following the flight guidance down low though, and so short final on the coupled approach wasn't quite lined up with the runway. When I hand flew it though and manually stayed in the flight guidance, it dropped me on a perfectly aligned final.

It depends on the segment, but generally changing it to be the same as the outbound heading from the upcoming waypoint helps. In the navigraph data it's typically a couple degrees prior to the outbound heading from the next waypoint, and what I *think* is happening (I do not know this for sure) is that when the plane hits the magnetic heading, it switches into more of a TF or DF leg direct to the fix. This happens almost at waypoint passage, so can manifest as a wing rock. Apparently the recent 777 update tweaks some of this behavior though, so worth trying that before you make too many database edits.

I have personally found exactly that to be fascinating about flight sim; it's just a video game, yes, but it's gotten so nuanced and detailed that we can actually HAVE these conversations. That's pretty incredible, I think.

I'm using the 777 primarily to build custom procedures in the new PMDG navdata (which actually looks to be the standard Navigraph DFD format) so that I can move them over to the 73 database when that gets the navdata upgrade, and I've noticed something interesting. In my testing, I've flown several RNP (AR) approaches in the 777 where I've seen strange flight guidance behavior, and also some that it handles better. I've also seen this strange behavior on some of my work, and what I've learned is that I can eliminate it with tweaks to the navdata. For instance, the "snap to level" behavior that folks complain about - I don't see this at every waypoint transition, but where I have seen it, I've been able to reduce or eliminate it by altering the magnetic heading that defines the end of the segment (it often seems to be RF segments where this happens, and that's where I've fixed it). This same parameter can control wing wagging behavior at a waypoint in the middle of an RF segment; the waypoints don't move, the magenta line doesn't move, but the AFDS behavior is changed. I've got the RNVM26 into Juneau almost done, and the long arcing 180 degree RF segment into the Gastineau channel works perfectly - smooth roll in, rock solid all the way through the arc, smooth roll out to hit the exit waypoint and pick up the TF leg to the next fix. So, I'm starting to wonder if some of this behavior we've been critical of is due more to the values in the Navigraph data for some procedures?