Airbus descent guidance?

[Virgin_A340 0]

Hi,On Boeing aircraft there is a green arch to help with descent guidance, is there anything similar on Airbus aircraft? If say you need to descend a certain amount by a certain point, eg 5000ft in 10nm, how to you do it in an Airbus? In a Boeing I would use a V/S that placed the green arch on the correct point on the ND and adjust V/S accordingly.CheersAndy S

[Guest vrandar]

Normally the ATC instruction would be something like cross xxxx (a waypoint) at FLxx (or x000 feet). You would put this into the MCDU as a PBD fix and assign the flight level constraint to it. I would also make sure that on my EFIS the CSTR button was pressed so the constraints showed up on the ND. There isn't an equivalent of the Boeing arch in the Airbus.If you are not asure about how to enter PBD fixes or assign altitude constraints, as you are a BAV pilot have a look at the Training forum on the BAV website and look for tutorial I put there a few days ago, the thread is called STARs and SIDs and the tutorial is on page 2.Rob Elliott, EGPE InvernessPSS Airbus Support andAirbus Fleet Training Captain, British Airways Virtual airbus@speedbirdonline.co.ukhttp://www.speedbirdonline.co.uk/airbus.htmlhttp://www.bavirtual.co.uk

[Virgin_A340 0]

Thanks Rob. I had a look at your tutorial and I think it will help a lot. All I have to do is find time to try it out!CheersAndy S

[Guest CS-THV]

Actually, there is the equivalent of the Boeing "arch" (often called "the Banana") in the Airbus series. If you watch the Intereuropean A320 cockpit movie you will see it clearly. I flew in the cockpit of a SATA Internacional A320 recently (it is one of those brand new LCD-equipped A320s, just beautifull :D)! ) and saw it too.I really don't know why PSS didn't simulate this. Anyway, the PSS Airbus Series are very incomplete, system simulationwise, so I can understand that this feature isn't present.

[scoob 18]

remember ... A32X was designed for FS8. at the time there was nothing better. in my opinion, as of the writing of this post, there is still not one commercial A32X that works as well as PSS's.you can use the 'rule of three' to figure decent distances (i find this easily done 'in my head.' i actually was asked by a VATSIM controller on jan. 2 '06, to decend to an altitude that couldn't be done over the distance requested; i just said, "unable to comply, how about that altitude by XX distance."--

[Guest CS-THV]

If you wish to discuss the merits of other aircraft please do so on their forum. :- MOD So... well, anyway, I hope that the new PSS A330/340 upgrade for FSX will follow the current standards.

[Guest vrandar]

>Actually, there is the equivalent of the Boeing "arch" (often>called "the Banana") in the Airbus series. Yes I meant that we didn't have one in the PSS Airbus.Personally speaking I disagree with the "very incomplete" statement, no-one else has got close with the Airbus (even the A320PIC) and PSS did a very good job at the time and modelled far more than others have been able to do.Rob Elliott, EGPE InvernessPSS Airbus Support andAirbus Fleet Training Captain, British Airways Virtual airbus@speedbirdonline.co.ukhttp://www.speedbirdonline.co.uk/airbus.htmlhttp://www.bavirtual.co.uk

[scoob 18]

i agree that PIC767 for FS7 (and patched to FS8) was an amazing product and set standards that few can reach (the team that took over the PIC code hasn't really pushed the envolope the way the original group did). i own the original 767 and learned FMC programming, 'real' simulated engine starts (APU on, packs off, N2 at 23%, fuel flow on etc.), and managed climbs and decents with the PIC767.over my years of 'FSing' i have found i prefer the short to med. range jets (ie., 727/737/757/A32X/MD80/DC9/EJet70&90, ERJ/CRJ) and commuter props (EMB120 & B1900D) as one can make time for a full flight. the long hall metal (A330/340 (the A330/340 was a gift and if my only 'long range metal'), 747, 767 and 777) with designed flight of 6+ hours is difficult to 'fit in'; i dislike 'pause' (ties up the computer); and time excelleration (nocks realism way down). with this in mind i've not purchased the FS9 PIC767.--

[Guest coolfront55]

Wait till Wilco's airbus comes out.George

[kevinh 409]

A320PIC definitely had the edge systems wise. For example A320PIC had:More complete FMC (e.g. secondary flight plan, etc).Very much better FBW implementation.Holds pitch and roll correctly when flown manually.ADIRS simulated.Throttle input used rather than +/- keys.Correct logic for S and F speeds on speed tape after takeoff (never corrected by PSS despite repeated requests).Extensive failure simulation. A320PIC's 3D model was not as good and it had no 2D panel which made it a pain to use. Also no A319 or A321 models. Sadly Wilco no longer support it (but then neither do PSS in any meaningful way). I preferred the PSS A320 overall because it was more user friendly. Hand flying wasn't an issue for me until I got my hands on a real A320 flight simulator, then I realised how bad the PSS version was!As for descent guidance, I wouldn't recommend V/S mode for prolonged descents anyway (limited speed protection). If you are not going to program the FMC to do it, better to go for OPEN DES mode and adjust selected speed. Also, I think you'll find those Boeing "arches" are in fact "arcs".Kevin

[Guest vrandar]

Sadly Wilco no longer support it (but then neither do PSS in>any meaningful way). Care to explain that? Am I wasting my time here?I agree the systems modelled on the A320PIC were more comprehensive than on the PSS but frame rates were so horrible I personally found it practically useless on a fairly high-end system and it was impossible to use for serious on-line flying.

[Guest CS-THV]

Yeah, I agree that A320PIC was horrible, unflyable, because of the performance issues. It was an amazing product, in terms of simulation of systems, but that is not enough.

[kevinh 409]

>>Sadly Wilco no longer support it (but then neither do PSS in>>any meaningful way). >>Care to explain that? Am I wasting my time here?I didn't mean there isn't good user support on this forum, but PSS have repeatedly stated they will not make any more code changes to fix bugs with any of the Airbus series (e.g. the S/F speed tape issue). Nor did they do much to improve the flight dynamics. That's what I meant by "meaningful" support from PSS. Obviously Wilco support is even less (i.e. none at all). No offence intended.As for bad frame rates, try it again now, especially if you've upgraded your PC in the last year or so. On my current PC (upgraded nearly two years ago) A320PIC flies very smoothly, in contrast to when I first tried it on my old set up when it struggled to exceed single figure framerates.Kevin