Jump to content

Peter Clark

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Peter Clark

Peter Clark's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)

  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In

Recent Badges



  1. Hi, Cool, I thought I was losing my mind as long as it’s on the to-do list I’m sure it’ll get addressed eventually. Not exactly the most pressing issue I’m sure. Back to the good ol days using rule of 3 it is! Thanks,
  2. Ok, so we are saying that even though the VNAV profile for all these legs is met as I’m at 12000’ and the altitudes in the CDU reflect this, it’s intentional for the snowflake to be indicating that I’m above the desired VNAV profile at this point because of a future restriction that even the descent profile knows isn’t for long enough away that I don’t need to be descending here? That seems….. odd. But I don’t have any real world CRJ time to speak on it. I will say that further along on the STAR when it actually becomes time to descend the snowflake pops back into the middle of the range and starts over correctly displaying the required profile for the restriction at 4000’.
  3. Hi, Flying into KCMO on OMN.CWRLD4.RNAV36L, during the CWRLD4 STAR there's a level segment after crossing LAMMA at 12000. Even though the CDU displays the FMS wants a level segment, indicating that the system understands there's a period of level flight needed before initiating a new descent later, the VNAV snowflake is showing above profile; Is this related to the strange heading from RAMEZ bug that's been fixed for the next release, or something else? Crossing altitudes don't seem unreasonable in the CDU like the heading. Thanks,
  4. Flying the CWORLD4 into KMCO (say OMN.CWRLD4.ILS35R) there's an odd heading in the path which causes the path from CWRLD to RAMEZ to MICKX to not be flown correctly in LNAV Navigraph latest cycle navdata, but it was there in previous incarnations. I'll try uninstalling the Navigraph navdata and see if that makes a difference.
  5. Hi, FL380 does seem to make the CDU happier. It sequences to 12000 for a few legs and then starts the second descent as expected, so you're likely on to something there; One thing I did notice is a really bizarre distance value between RAMEZ and MICKX. It's only 8.8NM I'm using Navigraph navdata and all the data was prepopulated from the CWRLD4 arrival OMN transition. Not sure if it's navadata related or something in the CRJ. The ND displays the correct route in plan mode; Thanks,
  6. Interesting. I was using FL400 for the flight down. Not sure where 390 came from. I’ll give it a fresh try again tomorrow and see if something different happens. Thanks all,
  7. HI, I did close all discontinuities (OMN) and also closed the vectors waypoint when adding the ILS 36R approach to the end of the STAR while loading the flight plan. Thanks,
  8. Hi, Flight plan was KBOS SSOXS BUZRD SEY HTO J174 ORF J121 CHS IGARY Q85 LPERD OMN CWRLD4 KMCO, entered by hand.
  9. Hi. Flying the CWRLD4 arrival into Orlando I notice that the CDU displays VNAV profile altitudes that would appear to ignore the TOD required to meet the crossing restriction at LAMMA. Ref below; you'd need to be much lower than FL390 at OMN to meet 12K at LAMMA (a little lower for the southbound arrivals that require 250/12000 at LAMMA), and then shows weird altitudes post-restriction (12K restriction, next waypoint FL380 and then FL390). I haven't had a chance to see if this is the profile it's calling for in-flight; I don't believe it is, if I set my altitude down to 5K to meet the IAF altitude on the ILS the airplane keeps descending past LAMMA even though there's a long run track between LAMMA and the 5K restriction that can be flown at greater than 250 knots. Thanks,
  • Create New...