ATC Message Block

[Michael Benson]

Good evening,

Two questions if I may?

1) Do all airlines have the option to display ATC Messages below the EGT display on the EICAS as outlined below?



2) Is this modelled within PSX as I can't seem to get it displayed?

[Avi]

Where did you get it from?
I never saw it in a B744 manual and it is not in PSX.

Cheers,

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

I believe this is a 747-8 option.  On the 747-400, all of FANS-1/A sits in the FMC and cannot display elsewhere, in particular not on EICAS. The EICAS box simply does not allow random texts, all the messages you see there are triggered by number, as if they were lights. However on the -8 they added loads of stuff basically pulled from the 777 AIMS software and it definitely isn't the same plane any longer, despite superficial similarity.


Hoppie

[Britjet]

BA has it on the 744. However they have 747-8 FMC embodiment now so that would make sense.
Peter

[Lashrathius]

In my 747-400 FCOM:

"Each ATC uplink will be annunciated with an EICAS message ATC MESSAGE, and an aural warning (chime)."

And exactly the way it is in PSX.

So yes, I guess it is a company option if BA has it on the 744s.

Regards,
Henry

[Avi]

I guess it is a company option if BA has it on the 744s.

I wouldn't use the word "option" here since it is not just a pin change in the hardware.
If BA has it (and I'm not saying they don't), it must have been more than just a software upgrade. I don't think that just uploading a new FMC software does it. Maybe they also had to change their displays, upgrade the EIU and who knows what else to get it work.

Cheers,

[Britjet]

I don't use this stuff personally now, but I can confirm that it was s hardware implementation, not just software.
Peter

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

Likely a full EFIS swap for 747-8 kind of boxes.

[Hardy Heinlin]

747-8 EIUs/IDUs and 747-8 FMCs.

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

Man that must have cost them an arm and a leg. I wonder what commercial benefit they got out of replacing all this gear. Are there typical Speedbird ops that a 744 cannot do, that would warrant the expense? Just pleasing pilots definitely is not why you spend seven figures per airframe.


Hoppie

[emerydc8]

I wonder what commercial benefit they got out of replacing all this gear. Are there typical Speedbird ops that a 744 cannot do, that would warrant the expense?

My company is in the process of converting all their -400s to the NG setup too. I'm sure there are many reasons, but the one I hear the most is that the database memory size on the legacy unit is very small (80's vintage) and there is no way to increase its size. They were having to decide which airports no remove in order to make room for other airports that they wanted to keep or add.

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

Aha, the ol' Boeing/OEM package deal. You need item A, but you can only get that with a new box, which only has software B, which needs new boxes C and D, which can only work with display set E. $1,500,000, or you can no longer fly route X which requires item A.

I love this industry.


Hoppie

[emerydc8]

You've got it! I'm no electrical engineer, but I have a hard time believing that a simple upgrade to increase the database storage size would be that difficult.

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

Well, it is. The original FMC hardware from the 80s was by then already "proven technology", i.e., old. Before you can stick commercial microprocessors, such as 68000-like CPUs, in a level B or C avionics box, you need to have statistical proof that those things are darn near 100% reliable. So once you build these boxes and do the 3 ft of paperwork to certify their hardware and software, their design is pretty much nailed down forever. If that design already incorporates a memory extension option, and if the required memory chips have gone through their paces in a few million other applications, you can relatively simply increase the memory capacity. But if those chips did not exist, were not foreseen, or are now as rare as the 68000 CPUs, you cannot use the original design.

This is the main reason that some equipment cannot be upgraded: it becomes legally a new design. Although you may get some certification credit through analysis by showing similarity, this is hard with hardware that is not similar (i.e., does not share the same first 10 digits of the part number). Although electrically the upgrade is straightforward and you could build your first box for a million, you now need to add 10 million for a recertification programme. Often this cannot be amortized over sufficient units to make the cost palatable.


Hoppie

[emerydc8]

But if those chips did not exist, were not foreseen, or are now as rare as the 68000 CPUs, you cannot use the original design.

Boeing couldn't have foreseen the need for additional memory space? Designed obsolescence?

[HercMighty]

But if those chips did not exist, were not foreseen, or are now as rare as the 68000 CPUs, you cannot use the original design.

Boeing couldn't have foreseen the need for additional memory space? Designed obsolescence?

At the time, technology wise, they wouldn't have understood the need or seen how it could have been done in the physical space required.

[Britjet]

The main reason for the BA upgrade was indeed for increased memory space. When I left the airline the database was significantly degraded already with no en-route low-level airways, many airfield approaches missing etc.
Peter.

[Markus Vitzethum]

> the one I hear the most is that the database memory size on the legacy unit is very
> small (80's vintage) and there is no way to increase its size.

if I remember correctly, it had a size of 1 Mega-Words (2.000.000 Bytes), being loaded with 2  3.5'' floppy disks.

I recall one conversation with a good old friend inside Lufthansa that LH already ran into that problem in 2004 when many RNAV approaches were introduced. At least for a certain amount of time, they operated with an East- and a West-Fleet, each with an FMC database for half of the world (East or West). Obviously, not a good solution when you had to switch a plane on short notice.

Markus

[John H Watson]

I recall one conversation with a good old friend inside Lufthansa that LH already ran into that problem in 2004 when many RNAV approaches were introduced.

We were still using floppy disks on our 744s in 2014 

[Markus Vitzethum]

Hi John,

I did not expect anything else.     Could you still buy new 3.5'' disks in 2014? Or using the same ones since 199x?   

Markus