Jump to content

CRJay

Members
  • Posts

    263
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

CRJay last won the day on February 24

CRJay had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

CRJay's Achievements

Collaborator

Collaborator (7/14)

  • One Year In
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Dedicated Rare

Recent Badges

370

Reputation

  1. Known issue with multiple people reporting steps to reproduce but no fix. Good luck.
  2. Maybe now that SU10 has implemented access to terrain and weather API for WASM, we can get an update implementing WX radar... ?
  3. For us, it is only used in a com check procedure when entering the aircraft after it has been cold & dark. Not used in normal procedures.
  4. In my experience in Europe, not that common. Some larger airports like Frankfurt or Charles-de-Gaulle will sometimes ask if you can accept a late change. It will often then be a visual side step to a parallel runway. If you have the time to have a quick look at any changes that may bring, like missed approach procedures etc, it is usually fine. Often it is also anticipated and briefed already (eg. "in case of side step, we do this this this). I do not think I have ever had it asked of me below roughly 1700ft. I find that in Europe, runway changes seem to be mostly planned ahead quite well. So there is very little scrambling around. They will sort of pick a cutoff point, like everyone within X nm of the airport will finish inbound the current runway, as long as wind limits permit, and the rest get the new runway.
  5. No clue, I have never started a RL flight that way. You always know the runway for departure, and if you know it, why would you not put it in? There is a slight chance that SOPs might make a difference, but I don't think they really do. Anyway, for us, it is always the full plan, whether it is a 20 minute flight or a 3 hour flight. We have many tools at our disposal with all the weather information, so we can make a solid guesstimate of which runway will be in use and which arrival to expect based on the flightplan. In my opinion, there is no reason to leave it blank 'because the weather and runway in use might change'. If that happens, you change it as soon as you have updated weather/airport information. And if you put in all the data at the start of the flight you will generally get more accurate time and fuel predictions.
  6. Yes. For example, if you are inbound to that waypoint, but get an assigned heading due to traffic or military activity for example, then get cleared back inbound that waypoint. You can still do it either way. Some pilots like to do it if the initial turn prediction is a bit off (e.g. setting the direct to at speed of 210kts but while turning to the waypoint still accelerating). In those cases the initial LNAV line on the MFD will look a bit off and as though you are overshooting. Some people then set the waypoint again in the LEGS page to get it looking pretty again. Personally I just tend to let the plane sort it out.
  7. Both ways are equally feasible in real life. Setting the desired waypoint on LSK2 or going via the DIR INTC page.
  8. @JRBarrett I can tell you from flying the actual approaches into Billund from multiple sides, from UVINA it is not an issue. Even with a nav to nav transfer. Since the main source of navigation these days is GPS/GNSS, it flies very nice on LNAV mode and usually corrects for wind very well also (perhaps it is worse for non-GPS equipped older models). You may almost want to delay arming APPR mode until established on inbound track, because the LOC intercepting in green needle has been very poor since some point during the pandemic. It will roll out too early or late, go into the reduced gain mode for roll because of LOC capture, and then S-turn around the LOC for a bit. I am fairly certain there was some sort of logic change either shortly before or during the pandemic, as I had never seen such behaviour in the years before, but that's a story for another time. Anyway, we fly STARs with 90 degree turns onto the final approach track and localiser daily, without overshooting much. So there may be a disconnect here between the theoretical side and the practical side.
  9. That question was for @nwva . Since they are seeing SYNC when pressing TO/GA, there might be something messed up in their assignments if they are pressing the button via some hardware like thrust levers/joystick/yoke etc.
  10. When you press the T/O button, is that a button on your joystick that you have assigned or are you clicking the TO/GA button on the thrust levers with the mouse in the virtual cockpit? If it is a button on your joystick, I'd suggest it is probably assigned wrong and to the SYNC function, which sets the speed or VS target when you fly manual. Or perhaps you found another bug and it is a messed up assignment in the addon. Pssst, there is one on the right thrust lever as well .
  11. A bit offtopic, but would it perhaps be an option to take a bit of time every now and then, to go through some of the topics of the past that may have been checked/worked on, and giving some quick bits of feedback like this? As part of taking steps towards better communication about development. There are quite a few issues documented very clearly* that have never received any feedback other than that it is on the list somewhere (if even that at all). *(I do not count my own thread linked above among those, but for actual examples take a look at some issues posted by @KuntaKinte that rarely got any feedback despite being described in detail and with the correct behavior added for good measure)
  12. Could it be this issue I reported aaaaaaaages ago that has not been looked at and is somewhere on a list? Easy way to test would be to make sure you EXEC every single change.
  13. Does this update (finally) include the rate of descent required to the next restriction in the VNAV MFD window? Has been bugging me since the original CRJ X that it is missing when the data is clearly available.
  14. This part has never been implemented in the AS CRJ unfortunately. It's been missing since the original CRJ X.
  15. I'd love to agree, and I hope the update turns out great, but 160nm to go on a predicted 120kg of fuel does not exactly seem sensible to me yet.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use