Several Boeing 737 Type Issues

[CATIII]

Several Boeing 737 Type Problems

Dear PM-Team,

as long-term user of the PM suite I collected quite a lot of descrepancies in the 737 Boeing software suite. Most of them are certainly easy to correct. I decided to post the most important ones here right now and hope these points can be fixed in the near future. All facts have been verified by myself in the real 737-800, since this is my day-to-day working place... I'm sure Jonathan Richardson can confirm these issues, too. Let me start with point no. 1 :cool:

1) When tuning a DME-only station on NAV1 or NAV2, the previously visible VOR direction pointer should be removed. The pointer is annoying and wrong here since DME station has NO VOR part.

2) On the APPROACH REF page: if I select a flap setting for landing (e.g. 15°), I should get a certain VREF displayed on the speed tape. But it displays ALWAYS the Vref40, which is way too low for a flaps 15 landing. I think that the problem derives from the fact, that Enrico did not reserve an offset for a "variable" Vref, but only for Vref40 (which is 0x5516).
Furthermore, it should be possible to overwrite this flap-specific VREF with an own value by overtyping it in LSK 4R.

3) When pushing the INIT REF button I should not get the index page (INIT REF), but on ground I should get PERF INIT and in the air APPROACH REF.

4) Distances shown on the FIX page should display the tenth of a mile (10.x DME) if the distance becomes smaller than 20NM. The same is true for the entry of distance arcs. The FIX page should accept ranges like 12.5 or 6.6 miles. Presently it does not accept comma-separated values.

5) Let's come to the EICAS display. The fuel flow display on the upper display should NOT have an arc (like N1), but should only be displayed as a decimal value in a box. Next, the TAT display should only be shown as a whole number, there's no need to display the tenth of a degree. The N1 arc does not contain dashes for 10,30,50,70 and so on, but the real aircraft does. With these dashes, it's easier to set a specific N1 setting manually.

6) I want to remove all the messages in the Upper EICAS display like AUTOBRAKE OFF or PASS SIGNS ON. These are not present in the 737 at all. May I accomplish this myself or not?

7) One annoying error happens in one certain situation. That's the problem: 360 is set on the Course selector for NAV1 and I'm trying to track radial 360 outbound of a VOR station. Now, if I'm on radial 358 and the VOR pointer properly shows 358, the CDI should display 1 dot off track. But what it shows is 2 dots away (which means I'm at least 4 degrees offset. This happens only on the 360 radial of any VOR station. Strange, isn't it?


That's all from my personal list for now. I hope one can understand my english. As you may guess, it's not my mother language. And please don't get me wrong from my nagging. I'm very pleased with the functional range of the software suite. With the issues mentioned above, the software would be taken to a next higher level.

Best Regards,
CATIII

[Trevor Hale]

CATIII

Please may I remind you that Project Magenta does not read these forums.

Please be sure to send your posting via email to

Support@projectmagenta.com


With regard to your posting "6) I want to remove all the messages in the Upper EICAS display like AUTOBRAKE OFF or PASS SIGNS ON. These are not present in the 737 at all. May I accomplish this myself or not?"

you can change this using the (TAB Key) I believe on that machine. If not there, in the GC.ini file you can turn these messages off.



Best regards,

Trevor Hale
Mycockpit - Admin

[JonathanRichardson]

>2) On the APPROACH REF page: if I select a flap setting for landing (e.g. 15°), I should get a certain VREF displayed on the speed tape. But it displays ALWAYS the Vref40, which is way too low for a flaps 15 landing. I think that the problem derives from the fact, that Enrico did not reserve an offset for a "variable" Vref, but only for Vref40 (which is 0x5516).
Furthermore, it should be possible to overwrite this flap-specific VREF with an own value by overtyping it in LSK 4R.

Yes, this is one that we do want to look at quite soon. It has been hanging around, and we are aware of it and so is Enrico.

>3) When pushing the INIT REF button I should not get the index page (INIT REF), but on ground I should get PERF INIT and in the air APPROACH REF.

Simply depends on when we will have time to look at this.

>4) Distances shown on the FIX page should display the tenth of a mile (10.x DME) if the distance becomes smaller than 20NM. The same is true for the entry of distance arcs. The FIX page should accept ranges like 12.5 or 6.6 miles. Presently it does not accept comma-separated values.

How important is that though? Because I really am not so sure that will happen so soon.

>5) Let's come to the EICAS display. The fuel flow display on the upper display should NOT have an arc (like N1), but should only be displayed as a decimal value in a box.

Yes, again it requires specific time allocation for that change. We shall have to see if / when that can be done.

>The N1 arc does not contain dashes for 10,30,50,70 and so on, but the real aircraft does. With these dashes, it's easier to set a specific N1 setting manually.

Will have to research this. I'm not sure if it should be a priority item - we have to have a priority list because on the vast amount that has to be done, not only with 737 software.

6) I want to remove all the messages in the Upper EICAS display like AUTOBRAKE OFF or PASS SIGNS ON. These are not present in the 737 at all. May I accomplish this myself or not?

You can try:

//Note: you can set DisableGCMessages = 1 to disable message generation
//in the glass cockpit

If it does not work:

You can switch it off with this Offset
5700, 1 Byte length
DisableGCMessages
0 = off
1 = all
2 = only basic messages

>7) One annoying error happens in one certain situation. That's the problem: 360 is set on the Course selector for NAV1 and I'm trying to track radial 360 outbound of a VOR station. Now, if I'm on radial 358 and the VOR pointer properly shows 358, the CDI should display 1 dot off track. But what it shows is 2 dots away (which means I'm at least 4 degrees offset. This happens only on the 360 radial of any VOR station. Strange, isn't it?

Never seen it. I have no idea why that is. Certainly something Enrico would only be able to comment on. Reporting lists like this here is not the best place, better to direct them to PM via e-mail if possible. But thank you for the report.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson

[michelmvd]

Hi Jonathan,

This looks an interesting number of optimalisation to the real world items for the B737.
It seems great to me that real life people are helping here, as sometimes it is not easy to find out everything from the manuals and compute things right as their should be in real world.

But I would like to ask you - please - one big favor very much, to see that this B738 adaptations don't come into conflict with other types of Boeing aircraft (B744 - B777) an vice versa if there are done for B744. Some of them are indeed the same others not. Optimalisation for the B737 has sometimes resulted in the past to incorrect things in the B744 version.
As I think it has been always the goal of PM to offer several type possibilities for cockpit projects, even you focussed now heavly on one, the small B737, your understanding is very much appractiated.

B. rgds
Michel

[eudoniga]

Hello CATIII,

since you've got "the true one" to make comparisons, would you please tell me if these - listed below - are actually missing/wrong behaviors from PM 737 suite ?

Thank you !

A) The CDU takeoff page shows - incoherently at the same time - the "pre-flight status complete" label, and the LSK links to pages which are still supposed to require some missing input ...

B) The CDU takeoff page doesn't automatically shift to ACT CLB - ACT CRZ - ACT DES pages, as far as the flight progresses from phase to phase (even if you fly constantly in VNAV mode)

C) Whilst the "RTE" page becomes "ACT RTE" after EXECution, "PERF" page doesn't become "ACT PERF" after EXECution.<o ="">:p></o>:p>
<o ="">:p> </o>:p>
D) A few CDU messages never show up, like (in alphabetical order):<o ="">:p></o>:p>

1) APPRCH VREF NOT SELECTED
2) ARR N/A FOR RUNWAY
3) CHECK ALT TARGET
4) DES PATH UNACHIEVABLE
5) ENTER IRS POSITION
6) LOC CAP ACTIVE
7) NOT ON INTERCEPT HEADING
8) OVERSPEED DISCONNECT
9) PATH DES NOT AVAILABLE
10) RESET MCP ALT
11) RW/APP CRS ERROR
12) RW/APP TUNE DISAGREE
13) TAI ON ABOVE 10° C
14) THRUST REQUIRED
15) UNABLE NEXT ALTITUDE
16) VNAV DISCONNECT<o ="">:p></o>:p>

E) Is one expected to hear "minimums" called either by setting RADIO or by setting BARO minimum altitude ?

Regds,

[JonathanRichardson]

Hi

I would not be concerned about this as we are all fully aware of 747/777 and 737 type differences. This does not mean we are able to cater for all of them.... if only it were a perfect world.

Regards
Jonathan




Hi Jonathan,

This looks an interesting number of optimalisation to the real world items for the B737.
It seems great to me that real life people are helping here, as sometimes it is not easy to find out everything from the manuals and compute things right as their should be in real world.

But I would like to ask you - please - one big favor very much, to see that this B738 adaptations don't come into conflict with other types of Boeing aircraft (B744 - B777) an vice versa if there are done for B744. Some of them are indeed the same others not. Optimalisation for the B737 has sometimes resulted in the past to incorrect things in the B744 version.
As I think it has been always the goal of PM to offer several type possibilities for cockpit projects, even you focussed now heavly on one, the small B737, your understanding is very much appractiated.

B. rgds
Michel

[michelmvd]

Great to know Jonathan ;) ;)

[CATIII]

Hello CATIII,

since you've got "the true one" to make comparisons, would you please tell me if these - listed below - are actually missing/wrong behaviors from PM 737 suite ?


yes



A) The CDU takeoff page shows - incoherently at the same time - the "pre-flight status complete" label, and the LSK links to pages which are still supposed to require some missing input ...


Of course, the prompts for completed pages like PERF for example should disappear in the PM software as they do in the real one.



B) The CDU takeoff page doesn't automatically shift to ACT CLB - ACT CRZ - ACT DES pages, as far as the flight progresses from phase to phase (even if you fly constantly in VNAV mode)


The pages DO shift automatically in the real one, but not in PM, you're right.



C) Whilst the "RTE" page becomes "ACT RTE" after EXECution, "PERF" page doesn't become "ACT PERF" after EXECution.


Correct for the real aircraft.



D) A few CDU messages never show up, like (in alphabetical order):

1) APPRCH VREF NOT SELECTED
2) ARR N/A FOR RUNWAY
3) CHECK ALT TARGET
4) DES PATH UNACHIEVABLE
5) ENTER IRS POSITION
6) LOC CAP ACTIVE
7) NOT ON INTERCEPT HEADING
8) OVERSPEED DISCONNECT
9) PATH DES NOT AVAILABLE
10) RESET MCP ALT
11) RW/APP CRS ERROR
12) RW/APP TUNE DISAGREE
13) TAI ON ABOVE 10° C
14) THRUST REQUIRED
15) UNABLE NEXT ALTITUDE
16) VNAV DISCONNECT<o ="">:p></o>:p>


I know these messages although I see them very seldom on my CDU. My guess is they're not implemented in PM.



E) Is one expected to hear "minimums" called either by setting RADIO or by setting BARO minimum altitude ?


Both callouts "Approaching Minimums" and "Minumums" are based on the captain's minimum setting, no matter if it's a barometric or RA-based setting.

Hope this helps!

CATIII

[CATIII]

Hey Jonathan,

thank you for your reply to my post.



>3) When pushing the INIT REF button I should not get the index page (INIT REF), but on ground I should get PERF INIT and in the air APPROACH REF.

Simply depends on when we will have time to look at this.


Are you able to specify a rough timeframe for adddressing these (and other) subjects?



>4) Distances shown on the FIX page should display the tenth of a mile (10.x DME) if the distance becomes smaller than 20NM. The same is true for the entry of distance arcs. The FIX page should accept ranges like 12.5 or 6.6 miles. Presently it does not accept comma-separated values.

How important is that though? Because I really am not so sure that will happen so soon.


If you ask me, it's quite important. I think, it's a relatively small software change, since it's only a matter of formatting the DME value.



>5) Let's come to the EICAS display. The fuel flow display on the upper display should NOT have an arc (like N1), but should only be displayed as a decimal value in a box.

Yes, again it requires specific time allocation for that change. We shall have to see if / when that can be done.


See above (concerning timeframe).



6) I want to remove all the messages in the Upper EICAS display like AUTOBRAKE OFF or PASS SIGNS ON. These are not present in the 737 at all. May I accomplish this myself or not?

You can try:

//Note: you can set DisableGCMessages = 1 to disable message generation
//in the glass cockpit


This setting doesn't do anything in PFD.INI. I don't use PMSystems...



If it does not work:

You can switch it off with this Offset
5700, 1 Byte length
DisableGCMessages
0 = off
1 = all
2 = only basic messages


This offset (value 1) works perfectly. Thank you!

Regards,
CATIII

[eudoniga]

Thanks CATIII for correcting my guess: I thought the relevant setting for the minimums was taken from the instrument of the pilot flying, whose FD was "master" for the time being, regardless to the seat he was occupying ...

And I knew about the need of "synchronize" and cross-check both altimeters, in type (BARO/RADIO) and in setting, but I didn't know the captain's was always the "leading" one for minimum callout ...

My memories can be wrong, but I don't remember hearing "minimums" called (by PMSounds) with a DA set on the BARO alt, whilst a DH set on the RADIO alt surely produces correct calls.

Thanks for helping !!!

Eugenio.

p.s. I think I caught one more. Fuel used shown on the EICAS page: I reserved a button to switch from F/F to F/U and back. I normally use Lbs as unit of measure, and the fuel quantity gauge in fact displays Lbs as reqd; but, when I switch to F/U after a flight, the displayed value is almost half of the used fuel. My guess is that this value is showing kilos, not pounds.

[CATIII]

Hi Eugenio,

the "minimum" callouts are based on the captain's altimeter and his minimum settings because in case of an electrical power failure, his instruments are the only displays which are powered by the standby power system. And if you fly without F/D guidance and without A/P (which happens from time to time for training purposes ... and for fun :cool:), then there's no FCC-Master specified.
Therefore Boeing decided to look at the captain's PFD settings - these are always available. And if not, you got bigger problems... :shock:

Regards,
CATIII

[eudoniga]

Got it, thanks ! :D

Eu

[Thomas Richter]

I normally use Lbs as unit of measure, and the fuel quantity gauge in fact displays Lbs as reqd; but, when I switch to F/U after a flight, the displayed value is almost half of the used fuel. My guess is that this value is showing kilos, not pounds.

Make sure you use in FS lbs as well !

[JonathanRichardson]

>Are you able to specify a rough timeframe for adddressing these (and other) subjects?

Hi

Personally no. I would like to get to some of these things but it also depends on Enrico's schedule. I will cross check the Project Management list to see if and when they could be scheduled in the near-ish future.

>If you ask me, it's quite important. I think, it's a relatively small software change, since it's only a matter of formatting the DME value.

I agree, unfortunately there are also many other requested 'small' changes. They all take time and up up to a massive amount. I wish I could be more specific but I honestly can not. Right now the current plan is to try and release a new CDU and MCP build. It won't contain the above so do not expect that...

>This setting doesn't do anything in PFD.INI. I don't use PMSystems...

You will have to send it via an offset (as I outlined) I checked this and it worked in the simualtor.

>This offset (value 1) works perfectly. Thank you!

Okay good.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson

[eudoniga]

To Thomas: yes, I made sure that my FS9 is set to the "US System" defaults, so it doesn't think about fuel in terms of kilos ...
Now I still don't see why the GC gauge (737 EICAS PAGE) cannot convert the "Fuel Used" value from kilos to pounds, since it now displays kilos, when all other values (Fuel Flow, Fuel Quantity) are correctly expressed and displayed in Lbs.

To Jonathan: I admit that - very reasonably - big questions and big problems deserve big brains, so I understand that Enrico's (or yours') priority list just can't have these small bugs/small missing features or details on top of them ... that's okay to me.

Less reasonably, though, a restricted number of (very qualified, indeed) people is caring about a project with a very very wide goal (all Boeings, all Airbuses, RJs, GAs, Instructor Stations, and more ...), whilst smaller projects (confined to one single aircraft model) are taken care by a larger number of people ...

Quite for sure, if we are to wait that you or Enrico himself have enough time to write every single line of coding that's missing and needed, with adequate following testing, we'll never be done.

Thinking positive and proactive: isn't there anyone else that can helpfully be assigned those supposedly easier programming tasks ?

:roll:

[JonathanRichardson]

>Thinking positive and proactive: isn't there anyone else that can helpfully be assigned those supposedly easier programming tasks ?

Hi

No there is not anyone else I'm afraid. And every change requires thorough thought and consideration now. We have a lot of customers running different simulators. We are not going back to the old times of people posting bug reports (many incorrectly) and only to make a change and find that we were just going around in circles, it did no good to the software at all. Enrico already outlined this will not happen again in another post somewhere here I think.

But aside from this, the original post is an "ideal" as are most requests here, there is nothing wrong with the request, I know Michael and that he is a very good real world pilot and perfectly on the ball with this type of stuff because he is also into programming and software development himself - so he understands this. I can assure you the software (especially Boeing 737 software) if set-up correctly is perfectly usable in a professional training or any other enviroment. You have to obviously tailor your demands and needs to what the software is capable of and understand you have a unique product that costs a fraction of the alternative (160,000 [when I last checked]). I was in the sim for several hours yesturday with pilot and trainee and we threw almost everything you could imagine at the simulator (and the pilots), it flew perfectly, the software performed perfectly, there were no problems, no complaints - and this is reality - I do this all the time as I have said before on this forum. We don't do long transatlantic flights, we don't mess around with all sorts of changes, we just do a training detail and understand the limitations of what we want from the simulator. The other reality is the one of "ideals" and if you have 160,000 - then you can buy into that ideal. My standards are quite high when I am faced with professionals who also have high standards, I don't want to be sitting there making excuses - and I can honestly say, I don't and nor does Enrico. I am often left wondering what everyone is doing here with the software - my thinking is, not enough attention is spent on simple things, and too much focus is on the ideal or really advanced complex stuff that you'll probably never really need anyway. The CDU route line problem is a worthy diversion from this - we had a on/off problem - but I think as many have posted in 393a it is very much improved and it will progress further.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson


:roll:[/QUOTE]

[dcutugno]

Hi Jonathan, as you said many times before you have a full working sim, but most of us have problems with their sims it would be helpful to give us as many detail as possible about your sim config, Like .air file used, aircraft.txt and build numbers of the software and also .ini file.

Best regards,

[JonathanRichardson]

>[QUOTE=dcutugno;49473]Hi Jonathan, as you said many times before you have a full working sim, but most of us have problems with their sims it would be helpful to give us as many detail as possible about your sim config, Like .air file used, aircraft.txt and build numbers of the software and also .ini file.

Hi

Builds are always the latest. And depending what we are doing also beta builds if in an area of development.

Good luck - you will get there if you work at it very hard!

Regards
Jonathan Richardson

[michelmvd]

>. I can assure you the software (especially Boeing 737 software) if set-up correctly is perfectly usable in a professional training or any other enviroment. You have to obviously tailor your demands and needs to what the software is capable of and understand you have a unique product that costs a fraction of the alternative ...
..... I do this all the time as I have said before on this forum. We don't do long transatlantic flights, we don't mess around with all sorts of changes,
.....I am often left wondering what everyone is doing here with the software - my thinking is, not enough attention is spent on simple things,..... The CDU route line problem is a worthy diversion from this - we had a on/off problem - but I think as many have posted in 393a it is very much improved and it will progress further.

[/QUOTE]

Hi Jonanthan,

I 100% agree that using the soft on a correct and well -tuned fixed system is mostly resulting in very stable operations and satisfactory to work with. Also on my B744 project we don't change every minute configuration or types. And you can fly for hours (even over the Atlantic ;) ;) ) without any problems.
Lot's of reported problems of users are in my personal opinion related to fine tuning - models, in-correct use of clb, crz, descend figures (airliners are flown by the numbers) and has indeed nothing to do with PM. But you has to know how to fine-tune. Sometimes it is very difficult to find out how to do it, due to lack of documentation or unawareness of the function.

I very rarely must reports real software bugs, but as you know, mostly basic B744 related items which aren't correct. (VNAV, MCP Altitude / speed handling and graffical differences)

But the biggest problem for me are these bugs with the routing input, reset, fixes-handling star / sids not working as it should soft wise, and here we don't speak about typical type related things or "never used extras" but the pure basics, used in every Boeing from B737 up to 777. Route handling is overall the same. Maybe your proffesionals don't used it so much for the training in your sim, due to the use of raw data purpose.

I hope progress is made here on that matter, and if you could communicate any status to us, it would be great. Cdu393a was no improvement on that specifc matter as you know from my reports, but generally routing handling was surely improved very much.

Looking forwards to hear from you here.

B. Rgds

Michel

PS Any change for the requested updates of the offsets in the upcoming builds?

[JonathanRichardson]

>But the biggest problem for me are these bugs with the routing input, reset, fixes-handling star / sids not working as it should soft wise,

It is all on-going.

> and here we don't speak about typical type related things or "never used extras" but the pure basics, used in every Boeing from B737 up to 777. Route handling is overall the same. Maybe your proffesionals don't used it so much for the training in your sim, due to the use of raw data purpose.

It is 50 / 50 raw data and FD work and FMC. I do not see such big problems, may be because the routes are much shorter and less room for errors.

>Any change for the requested updates of the offsets in the upcoming builds?[/QUOTE]

Not that I'm aware of.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson

[michelmvd]

Not that I'm aware of.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson

Okidoki Jonathan ,
Thanks for info. Yep this is maybe a possibility, because short route (EBOS/EBBR or EBOS/EGLL don't give me problems either ;) ). But a B744 isn't used to do always this shorts hops and as you know I'm trying to simulate real life commercial flights and do a lot of online flying ;) ;)

Ok, will ask this offsets straight to Enrico, can't imazine that this must be a big work

B. Rgds
Michel

[Thomas Richter]

Not that I'm aware of.


Ok, will ask this offsets straight to Enrico, can't imazine that this must be a big work

B. Rgds
Michel

Hi Michel

In the case that there is no logic behind that, there is no need to define this Offsets from our side now. If there is a need for you to have defined Offsets for those switches than you can define this Offsets for yourself in the sysvar in the more less used 5700 range (pmSystems range).

In our case it would not make sense to define / reserve something when we don't know if we use them later.
In the 5700 - 57FF there is enough space so that you can decide any free Offset there.

[Jan Pemöller]

Hi Thomas,

i just had a look to your homepage: http://www.technical-service-richter.com/ and I am wondering why you are offering a new check-tool for pmsystems with including the AFT Overhead, when PM not official released the AFT-part of the overhead until today. Will I get also the missing logic from you?

You have great programms on your site. Will you continue on this business?
Maybe you can offer a PM-System update with several new failures items. I would pay for that, of course! I am not happy about free updates, when they come in such big steps ...

My SIM works for normal procedures very well with the actuell PM Status. But to have a real training SIM with PM Instructur, some work is still to do. Maybe more programms like your break-tool will follow ?!?!? ;-)

Please inform us here on mycockpit.org.

Keep on going
Jan

[Thomas Richter]

Hi Thomas,

i just had a look to your homepage: http://www.technical-service-richter.com/ and I am wondering why you are offering a new check-tool for pmsystems with including the AFT Overhead, when PM not official released the AFT-part of the overhead until today. Will I get also the missing logic from you?


The Text / Logicfile for that is finished and I put in Enrico's hands, I thought it would be download able earlier but we need to wait.



You have great programms on your site. Will you continue on this business?
Maybe you can offer a PM-System update with several new failures items. I would pay for that, of course! I am not happy about free updates, when they come in such big steps ...


Should not be a "passing Craze", I will see what makes sense to realize what is may be not or only very tricky possible with pmSystems or may be not needed in commercial Simulators.



My SIM works for normal procedures very well with the actuell PM Status. But to have a real training SIM with PM Instructur, some work is still to do. Maybe more programms like your break-tool will follow ?!?!? ;-)


We will see what brings the time.
Cockpit Systems B737 is released
AutoBrake Pro B737 is released
Electronic Checklist B737 is released

Autobrake Pro for B744 and Airbus will follow as well and ... Where is the time.




Please inform us here on mycockpit.org.

Keep on going
Jan

[michelmvd]

Hi Thomas,
Thanks for your addional information. This is in fact making sence. Will see if I can work something out, and if I will need help, I will come back to you in private .

I was asking, because this are major checklist items, and I supposed that in the futur it was the goal to continue working at the B747 lgc, so then PM would need the offsets "offically".

Thank you very much for your appreciated help.

B. rgds
Michel