XPJavelin

Simple Ground Equipment and Services has been updated to refine the 733 dataset with an aft stair. Just a follow up. Best regards.

I had this behavior with airfoilabs xjet plugin. Check that.

I spent so much time studying the 737 using IXEG model. This is with emotion that I would have bought directly the update in X-Plane 12 if I would have been able... Congratulations for the achievement. It's a great model.

Looks good so far. It always have been the best 737 out there. I have to ask : can we use it with Linux as in the past in XP10 ? I'm afraid I quitted Windows a long time ago.

Woah !

owww that hurts. Thanks for the help.

Hi, Log.txt Backtrace is: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x42520) [0x7f31e174f520] /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x91197) [0x7f31e179e197] /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(pthread_cond_timedwait+0x23b) [0x7f31e17a0f1b] /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libnvidia-glcore.so.525.105.17(+0x146d340) [0x7f31cebf0340] /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libnvidia-glcore.so.525.105.17(+0x123b31a) [0x7f31ce9be31a] /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libnvidia-glcore.so.525.105.17(+0x14702fa) [0x7f31cebf32fa] /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x94b43) [0x7f31e17a1b43] /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x126a00) [0x7f31e1833a00] 2023-04-14 19:06:59 CL650[xplane.c:1748]: This is the CL650 (v1.7r1) libacfutils-960c721 2023-04-14 19:06:59 CL650[xplane.c:1770]: BOOT: glew_init 2023-04-14 19:06:59 CL650[xplane.c:1784]: BOOT: glutils_sys_init 2023-04-14 19:06:59 CL650[xplane.c:1786]: BOOT: mt_cairo_uploader_init 2023-04-14 19:06:59 CL650[except.c:117]: Caught SIGSEGV: segmentation fault (0x21) another log file : Log.txt I have x-plane 12.04, stable release, Ubuntu 22.04, and X-planes freezes upon loading a flight wxith the CL650. My nvidia driver is 525.105.17 Best regards

A temporary work (subject to frequent updates to better en-light the subject) of synthesis Getting_to_grips_with_approach_minima.pdf

Based on your previous help Rich, n' use of the raw and current information from agencies I'm tempted to correct what is available at Jeppesen AOM publications by : That would help me find some peace of mind ... it it was correct

Now, Rich, Let's practice for the US. Let me settle on an example, that would be the KABQ RNP Y 03 in its 2D flavor. (LNAV only). My LIDO flavor is the one for us customers, as indicated by the TERPS mention, not the LIDO AESA worldwide option, if i am correctly interpretating the LIDO commercial information. I see 2400m rvr. If I'm flying CDFA, no problems, 2400m rvr applies. Now if for any reason, I need to do this the old grandPa way : if I just arrived from Merluchon city, France, and my company is AESA approved, I do 2400mm+400m=2800m, and since this are TERPS I read, I don't apply the 2400m cutoff, since the table 6 is inexistant in TERPS. my minimum is 2800m. 2800m, If I carry candies, merluchons, frogs, or undeclared Goat cheese in my cargo holds. Now, let's pretend I'm used to the smoke-kissed flavor of freshly roasted green chiles and the earthy fruitiness of red chile sauce, backbone of the New Mexican cooking and I'm paid by an FAA approved airline. (Do the pilots there fly with their Stetson and stirrup ?) I can see on an original TERPS document the origin of the rvr2400m As there is no occurrence of the text string CDFA in it, Order_8260.3E.pdf I can co sider 2400m whatever I choose to do, old grandPa or CDFA. (The advisory circular 120 108 on CDFA advises me to opt for a CDFA with a Derived decision altitude, but this not a regulation and othing I side concerns visibility) I am completely wrong in my homework? Now something that explains the confusion I had in the whole thread, is this page of a jeppesen publication where non cdfa penalty is mentioned in the line TERPS... Here it's still confusing to stare at this page since I have just shown the TERPS original document out of the FAA does not mention CDFA. Finally, if I come back to ICAO DOC 9365, for an MDH of 310 with FALS, I find the RVR of 700 meters... I will need to ditch studying the ICAO doc, and retain only AESA doc versus TERPS, I guess, to keep clear of brain melting I fear.

After the night a fresher mind helps recollect all the processed data from the docs and help from Rich That would be Rvr2800 m if I elected non CDFA for this NPA/2D approach that I elected to study as witness, but I keep 2400M because it is already the maximum due to the AESA cutoff in table 6A for cat C, and parameters like angular final track within 5deg of runway track and so on. r2400m + 400m - cutoff = 2400m. CDFA is required, which I was really ignorant before, I thought it was operator or pilot preferences, even if nowadays aircraft designs instead make naturally opt for the CDFA due to advanced avionics. By the way, instead of the annex above from 2012, I use the same AESA doc, but consolidated 2022. Easy Access Rules for Air Operations (Regulation (EU) No 965-2012) – Revision 17 (February 2022)_0.pdf Now, I am at LFLC RNP Y 26, I have RVR 1600m. If I do this non CDFA, I add 400m for my cat C, giving me 2000m and this is inferior to the cutoff 2400 from table 6A. As I fly less and less 2D approaches, there is a chance I forget about doing the increment while flying...

Yes I was re re re reading the doc 9365. I don't believe it's the 200/400 addendum but the wave off of the 1500/2400m cutoff when no CDFA is applied. Butthat not aesa doc, it's icao 9365... so why jeppesen publication in its system thesis table says 9365 does ot requires a non cdfa penalty when I read 9365/6.5.22.. sure it's not the same penalty, but it is one I believe... Now to the AESA part Indeed I add 200m or 400m depending of my category. No that's not quite I took hours to conclude earlier today : The more I work, the less the picture is clear... Practically, if I fly the LGSA y 29 with dive and drive, I use 2800 m rvr, not 2400 ? As charted ? Oww...

Sure, some State still retains old charting or procedure conception habits

I understand better what you say here, after some thinking, provided Jeppesen applies state minimums in priority, which by the way are TERPS in you country. Otherwise, doing dive and drive you would apply a visibility penalty under TERPS rules. Panops don't. Earlier today I concluded easa don't also but I'm confused to ight by a jeppesen doc saying also with aesa the penalty for noon cdfa.

And also carry errors or "interpretations". I have seen military guys saying they purposely avoid in the Air Force private providers and exclusively use State Aip worldwide. So.... I'd would be an airline manager, I'd use LIDO, far more clearer an constant presentation over the years.... ... than jeppesen.... At EDDF ILS z 07L, jeppesen makes no mention of the LTS cat 1 minimums as described in icao doc 9365.... Lido does. Same for lfpg ils 27L. However, I like the recent evolutions at jeppesen, effective 2020, were the mention "vnav DA instead of MDA is operator dependent" now explicitely appears on revised CDFA 2D approach charts. It required at least5 years of charting wigwags at jepp, but at least now itsbetter. A last thing about LIDO, I said it was based on AESA, it's true but in fact two flavor are available, AESA OPS worldwide, or US customers flavor, which has TERPS within Canada and USA territories. Since I see TERPS minimums in Aerosoft Lido KBOI charts for instance, I conclude that Aerosoft is distributing the second option... Which is not bad, to have FAA rules in FAA land. I'd be curious if a more recent documentation of Lido still references AESA OPS or doc 9365...