Stearmandriver

Just to close the loop on this, I did test it in the real aircraft tonight and verified that point one is valid, as I expected. I'm also not quite sure what the refueling points example had to do with it though. I ran this by two former military and current airline guys; one a former tanker driver and one a former fighter pilot who spent plenty of time hanging off tankers, and they weren't sure either. They actually both asked me the same question: "why wouldn't you just create two PBD or PB/PB waypoints off the same fix(es), instead of creating a second user waypoint off of a first one?" Nonetheless, this was a good find as it should work, so it'll be addressed. Keep em coming! 👍

Nah, this isn't related to behavior in 2024; it'll be identical in 2020. The team is aware, although it only seems to affect this particularly weird case of creating a PB/PB fix using another user waypoint as one of the references. In general user waypoints are handled correctly. No one is quite sure why you'd want to do this 😉, but nevertheless it should work and so it'll be fixed. Note that his second point was erroneous; the iFly behavior is actually correct.

Yep, just an option then. These aircraft are full of them. Just like the difference between geometric path descents on approach only, vs on arrival after the first "at" or "at or below" constraint - both implementations are correct, as in reality it is an option defined in the FMCS Perf Factors pages. So the iFly implementation turns out to be correct for point 2. I still suspect you are right about point 1, but I'll mess with that on the flight home tonight. 👍

For number one, an interesting find! I do agree that it should work like you say, although in all my years flying airliners, I have to say that I've never had occasion to create an offset waypoint from an offset waypoint, and I have trouble imagining a scenario where this would be useful. Nonetheless, you are correct about how the FMC would handle it, and I'll run that up to the team. For number two though, I'm afraid you're incorrect. As you can see in this video I took tonight in a Max 9, line selecting a PBD waypoint does indeed line select the name of the waypoint and not the underlying position information. All I can say is, maybe it's an option or maybe you're thinking of another airplane? Or, I also note that you mention the "Boeing FMC". I'm not sure if you meant that generically, as in "the FMC in the Boeing", or if you meant the literal "Boeing FMC", the new touchscreen FMC Boeing is now producing? We're switching to that one, but in my video you're seeing the good old GE FMC... The same one modeled in the iFly. As you can see, the iFly is correct on this point. Line Selecting a PBD Waypoint

I mean, it's a video game. It's hard to actually have problems lol. But he makes a great point, that part of what makes the classic jets interesting is a whole different level of systems babysitting being required. There's a reason an FE was a requirement. I would think that people interested in learning about the classics would appreciate this kind of info.

A door doesn't flop around, it's held closed by slipstream. Entirely common for doors to come unlatched in flight in older GA aircraft, it's a complete non-event. Hard to see what they'd consider worth modeling here... Unless the door does something entirely unrealistic, you'd never even know it happened.

I know our tech pilot department has built approaches for Horizon in the past; I'm unsure if Horizon has their own department these days. We have an RNAV-M in both directions at SBA, I would expect Horizon uses the same approaches considering they use the same designation. Unsure who had them first though... Probably Horizon? We've only been taking 73s in there for a few years now.

Indeed, but not the part I was trying to quote. Apparently that part is just nonsense syllables I was hearing as words 😂.

EDIT: disregard, apparently I've had the lyrics slightly wrong my entire life 😁.

I can add that U12.0 has start and end point options for the offset, and I think they go back at least as far as U10.7 (entirely possible it is or previously was an option though). I remember this because we've always used them in oceanic airspace for SLOP, for as long as I've been at my current company, and we were on U10.7 when I started. Basically, if you define start and end waypoints, the offset will occur between them. If you don't define a start waypoint, the offset will begin immediately. If you don't define an end waypoint, it will last to the end of the route. You aren't required to define a start or end waypoint.

I did, yep, I thought I liked them. Thanks for checking. So it's like I figured, someone added them to the main navigraph database, intentionally.

Back for the 2020 Kodiak, Canadian Cpt Mustache had a flight model mod for it that did wonders. I was highly disappointed with the flight model and performance after buying the airplane, but the CCM mod made it... Actually feel something like an airplane. I enjoyed it then, until picking up the Blackbird Porter - no looking back after that. But, if the CCM mod is still out there, might be worth looking up. (I have no idea if the 2024 version needs to be modded, but the 2020 version very definitely did.)

Now, yes. But none of this was accessible back when these procedures were first created. As I said, it's a holdover attitude. That said, even things like minimums wouldn't do another operator any good as they would be flying to a more restrictive TERPS criteria than Alaska's anyway, so they would - at best, if they could do the procedure at all - have to use higher minimums.

There's a 100lb difference in useful load between the Porter and the Kodiak. When you factor in that you can get a full Porter out of many more places than a full Kodiak, I'm not sure that's an issue.

The best sim bush plane out there is still the Milviz PC-6. A taildragger is always going to outperform a nosedragger on sloping or unimproved strips. I'm not sure it can be purchased for 2024 though. I dropped the 2020 version in community folder and it works great and is so much fun in Papua. It's still got one of the best stick and rudder flight models in the sim. But, may not be for you if you want native 2024.