Hi Devinci,Empty tanks will have vaporized fuel, and with constantly running pumps there is a small but existing risk of static electricity forming due to the small liquid amount. Combined with the fact that the pumps are electrically driven. There is a tiny risk of a spark forming (not sure if it's due to static electricity or pump operation itself), and if that should happen in the gaseous atmosphere of the empty tank, it could ignite the entire tank and possibly lead to a fuel-system wide explosive fire. The pumps should be stopped just before they are no longer covered by the remaining fuel. Not sure, what the spec is in the NG though.In the 757 the center pumps should be turned off when there's 0.2 tonnes of fuel remaining in the tank. To keep the pumps covered.edit: also, the secondary reason: why would you want to run pumps on an empty tank... the pumps will constantly cavitate flammable air to the system. No reason to do that, and wear out the pumps.Tero

Thanks for the reply. It's obviously a good thing to turn them off. There was a time I understood the fuel system on the Concorde :(. I think they didn't have to do that because the fuel was almost constantly moved from one tank to another.

I think the investigation after the Thai Airways TG114 accident was what triggered FAA to issue the amendment for the complete 737 fleet. Even if it seems unsure what caused the explosion (pumps, packs?) running electrical motors dry in an environment with combustible vapours would not seem to be a good idea at all. Or running hot air conditioning packs located right under the tank for a prolonged time for that matter.http://en.wikipedia....onal_Flight_114http://www.b737.org.uk/thai737news.htmCheers,

Well, the big one for that type of incident was TWA800. A short in wiring in the center fuel tank ignited the fuel-air mixture in the tank. Killed over 300 people.

Marcelo, you are absolutley right..... I jumped to conclusion not keeping the whole video in mind , but got stuck on the time frame i mentioned. I accept my fault no the video and like all you guys i am waiting (im)patiently for the fablous product to release.Rgds.Ganesh

Hi Ganesh,If I understand your first post correct, you are a 737 pilot in real world.Can you please explain to me how flightplans are inserted in the FMC in real life.If I make a flightplan, (in Fsbuilt) it is given a name. Let's say EHAMEGKKI was told that in real life pilots use corporateroutes. Do these routes have these names too? The combination of two airportnames? Or are the corporate routes already installed in the FMC.How does it work in a real aircraft?Thanks for respondingEric

Hey Eric. Our company's routing system might be different but when we were entering like that they were cyvrcyyz10 for example. We used to get the flight plans sent to us via acars but i believe there was a technical problem with it. I was just informed we are going back to it again this month. In this case the flight plan is inputed automatically and you just verify it. Once verified you just accept it.JackColwill

Hey Eric. Our company's routing system might be different but when we were entering like that they were cyvrcyyz10 for example. We used to get the flight plans sent to us via acars but i believe there was a technical problem with it. I was just informed we are going back to it again this month. In this case the flight plan is inputed automatically and you just verify it. Once verified you just accept it.JackColwill

Jack,Thanks for the very fast answer.That is clear.May I ask if the PMDG NGX procedures to setup the FMC is exactly the same as you do in the real world? (Except how you insert the flightplans ofcourse?)I watched many flightvideos, but setting up the FMC is obviously never an issue Eric