Originally Posted by
Meester proach
What a tale of woe. The VNAV won’t like descent at .85 because it considers its to close to the barbers pole, it always seems to do .838 in the descent so straight away you get “ drag required”. Just start descent 10 miles earlier or up 838 in the cruise just before descent. Hardly taxing is is it ?
incidentally it’s “ chop “ not “ chops” . OP must be from Denmark / Holland as they always refer to turbulence as a measure of a pork dinner.
Nope, not taxing but you serve my point well - it's just too
hard to account for the wing's characteristics in the software? Don't seem to hear many of my AB colleagues with similar complaints, much as it pains me to admit. I didn't even mention the bizarro logic of reducing thrust and pitching down when already far below profile and the addition of thrust when high and fast.
Line techs were (still are, I left) Boeing GoldCare. Freely admitted that many of the obscure fault messages were a mystery to them. To be fair, some of those have since been solved with software updates.
Like the Max, Boeing sells this thing as catering to the lowest common denominator pilot but some of the most basic functions of VNAV are crude at best, just plain wrong at worst. Not an issue for those who understand energy management but in the hands of the many magenta line children out there it's a recipe for tears eventually.