Help Flying the Airbus

[XWRed5 0]

>Ian,>> I want to thank you along with the rest of the folks that>have responded to this thread.My pleasure.> I guess my biggest problem is trying to learn the>"Switchology" for this simulated aircraft. I press either the>"Z" key on the keyboard and or the AP button on the panel and>think the autopilot is now disconnected. Then the Auto>throttle button comes on. If I get both the AP and>Autothrottle buttons turned off, then I cannot get the FD>(flight director) to turn off. It seems as though this jet>will not let me fly (hand fly) as I can in the Boeing, Lear,>CRJ700, Beechcraft, Cessna, etc. In FSX you may well be right, I only flew it a few times and I wasn't overly impressed. In the real aircraft you can turn these things off and on at will, there's no magic to it. In fact, just this evening I knocked out all the automatics (and FD) to hand fly an approach into Vienna, it flew like a charm despite the 40 knot crosswind (and air traffic thinking we were a Stuka).>I understand the fly by wire systems and how they are designed>to keep bundles of wires and hydraulic lines from running>through large areas in the jet. I also understand that>computers can an do a "Much" better job in most cases>controling the jet and getting it to a pre-determined>destination. It is for those times when the "Technology" is>not needed and or not working correctly that the "Human">factor comes into play and the pilot needs the knowledge and>skills to safely fly the aircraft.Indeed and hand flying the airbus is no different. The FBW system will help you when hand flying, it won't hand fly it for you, it has a couple of degraded modes of operation which really only come into play after numerous serious failures (the combination of which becomes seriously improbable ... but not impossible). You have to manually trim in one of these but generally it's not required.Don't think that hand flying the airbus requires any less skill than hand flying any other jet, it's just as hard but requires slightly less concentration and attention. It allows the pilot to concentrate more on airmanship and "the big picture" while still flying an accurate manual approach.> I guess my bottom line questions are how do I turn off the>autopilot/autothrottle and trim the aircraft when ithey are>turned off.You don't need to trim the aircraft when they are turned off, that's the beauty of the FBW system. That's the way the airbus was designed (along with most modern fighter jets as well), what you're asking me is equivalent to asking how to press the clutch on an automatic car (not a great analogy as the airbus does have a trim wheel and you can use it in direct law).Bottom line is when you turn off the autopilot/autothrottle just fly it like a normal aircraft, it flies just fine, it only gets strange if you try and fly it differently.I'm worried we're talking at cross purposes here, I'm talking about the real airbus, the FSX one is a typical default aircraft, nice but not particularly accurate or realistic, both flight characteristics and systems.Have fun,Ian

[Guest WSTS]

Ian,I believe you are correct about real world verses FSX.For nearly 12 years I worked on Air Force flight simulators and flew them every day at work. The biggest complaint with our crews was that they would say it is too sensitive and does not feel like the real aircraft. I was lucky enough to get some stick time in a "Real" F-4C (sims were F-4Es) and they were absolutely right. The real jet is 10 times easier to fly than the sim. At least that was with the 70s technology we had back then on our Singer built flight sims.Hopefully todays real world siulators can do a better job.Terry

[Chock 17,769]

While it is interesting to compare real world operations on aircraft to the FSX models, at the moment there is very little point in trying to fly the FSX Airbus as you would the real thing, as (quite apart from the poor implementation of several aspects of the aircraft in its FSX incarnation) it is very basic in comparison to the systems on board the real aircraft.In fact, I showed the FSX Airbus to one of my friends, who is a designer for Airbus Industrie (he's currently working on the A400 BTW) and he #### near fell off the chair laughing at the climb rate which the FSX Airbus was capable of!That aside, when it comes to emulating real-world operations, it's also important to note that airlines choose to operate their aircraft in very different ways from one another, and what is deemed acceptable for one, might not be allowed by another. What generally happens is that an airline will produce its own Standard Operating Procedures (S.O.P.) manuals - which are usually abridged versions based on the aircraft manufacturer's ones - but with company policy preferred operational procedures listed in them in cases where one or two different modes of operation are equally viable.This can be for a number of reasons: sometimes technical - i.e. what engines are fitted - as the engine type fitted to the aircraft can have a bearing on what the correct readings on the ECAM should be, for instance. Some procedures are based on other factors, often geared towards more economical operation.There is usually a lot of useful technical information in these airline-specific manuals too, so if you can get hold of one you'll find it interesting, although that might be tricky, as airline S.O.P.'s very often contain information related to security issues too, and needless to say airlines don't just hand these out to anyone who wants one - they invariably have to be issued and signed for.Nevertheless if you can get hold of one, they make interesting reading. For example, I have the A320 S.O.P. for a large European airline in front of me right now, and (randomly opening a page and finding something listed) the descent preparation page, which it fell open on, informs me that the descent profile will be altered (descent angle reduced) by having engine anti-ice protection on, because the FADEC control which handles the continuous ignition protection against a flame out sets a higher idle speed for the engines; so you'll come down slower at zero throttle settings with engine anti-ice switched on. Incidentally, it recommends either increasing the descent rate on the autopilot, or using up to half speed brakes in that situation.This is the sort of detailed real-world stuff, for which you'll have to wait if you want to emulate it, at least until such time as a decent third-party add-on Airbus for FSX comes along. In much the same way as you will have to wait to get a reasonably authentic Boeing too. These generally come with a PDF manual which is fairly close to the real aircraft's actual manual, so 'doing it like it's done in real life' is usually quite feasible if you are prepared to read it all.Finally, with regard to the comments on 'bad press' that Airbus aircraft have received, one has to view this in the correct context: Much of it has stemmed from several well-publicised accidents involving Airbus aircraft, and it is fair to say that generally speaking these have been caused by aircrews being unfamiliar with the complexity of the systems on board the aircraft when such complex systems were very new (bear in mind that the following examples, while fresh in our minds, were in fact, 18 and 14 years ago respectively).So to take two well-known examples of Aibus accidents:First, (1988) Air France A320-111, F-GFKC, which clipped the trees on the airfield perimeter and crashed into woodland while performing a low pass along one of the runways at Habsheim. This accident was a combination of several factors: The crew not carrying out a detailed briefing of a proposed routine for the display; a lack of familiarity with the runway layouts at the airport, resulting in an impromptu unbriefed routine; getting too low and slow; a lack of understanding of systems such as the alpha floor function on the aircraft, and several other minor factors too. The aircraft in question was carrying out a charter flight for the Mulhouse Flying Club, and to carry out such manoeuvers in those circumstances was at best inadvisable, and at worst questionable from a legal standpoint. The conclusion of the accident investigation was (understandably): Pilot Error.Example two (1992) is the equally well-known crash of Air Inter A320-111 F-WWDP, which impacted a steep wooded hillside while on approach to Strasbourg. In this accident, the aircrew inadvertently selected a 3,300 FPM (feet per minute) descent rate on the autopilot, thinking they were selecting 3.3 degress FPA (flight path angle). While this is in fact a crew error, it was found that the mode control panel's displays were somewhat confusingly designed, and this is regarded as partly to blame for the crash. Needless to say, the M.C.P. was redesigned as a result of the accident investigation's findings.If I am honest, I prefer Boeing's approach to cockpit design and instrument layout, but this is a personal preference (many prefer the Airbus touch), and as with most things in aviation, development often comes at the expense of hindsight from accidents. So when we consider the accidents that have occurred with Airbus aircraft, it is only fair to point out that, quite apart from Airbus Industie's innovative overtures, a much greater emphasis is placed on cockpit resource management (C.R.M.) these days, making such tragedies far less likely. There is nothing wrong with Airbus Industrie's cockpit and aircraft design as long as the crews are familiar with their equipment and its functions, as evidenced by Boeing's willingness to mimic the cockpit commonality for which Airbus are so famous. Although if you sit in a few Airbus aircraft with 'common' cockpits, you do find that they are not quite so identical as you might imagine, nevertheless, it's interesting to note that the approach briefings for most Airbus aircraft include mentioning the aircraft type, just to remind the pilot that he needs to remember which one he's in so that he can flare it at the right angle and avoid a tail strike!By the way, if you want to know anything specific with regard to how to fly the A320, I'll be more than happy to scan the relevant page(s) from a real manual and stick them on this thread, as long as you don't want me to scan them all! But bear in mind that they may well make mention of stuff that simply isn't replicated on the FSX Airbus.

[Guest stems]

My real question is suppose that I will be hand flying th approach and I need to stay with the glideslope, usually I will fine tune the rate of discent making it easier on the stick. I wonder whether this is possible in the real world.

[XWRed5 0]

It's not necessary in the real world. The aircraft auto trims for you, you set the attitude, it flies it. If you get high, nudge the stick forward slightly, the attitude will change so the descent rate will change. The FBW system will pretty much hold that attitude.I get the impression you are trying to fly the aircraft using the trim, this is generally considered a very bad thing, there is a stick (or yoke) in front of you to fly the plane, the trim is just to keep constant pressures off the yoke. Fly with the stick (yoke), make your life easier with the trim, not the other way around.The real airbus flies very nicely and intuitively by hand, the FSX version less so, they seem to have made the FBW system unrealistically intrusive, it's generally pretty subtle in the real thing.I'm not sure how much I'm helping here, am I answering your questions? If not, I apologise for any confusion, perhaps you could rephrase.Take care,Ian

[Guest WSTS]

Yesterday I made a successful landing at KSEA only after a few tense seconds when I disconnected the autopilot at decision height on 16L. The nose started jumping up and down in a pretty violently. I at first thought I had induced a PIO, (pilot induced oscillation) but think the jet was trying to pitch up and climb as I have written about in the biggining of this thread.My question is do real airbus drivers let the autopilot land the jet and or what is the correct procedure to "Manually" take over and land when you get to minimums? I kind of got a feeling from the above posts that the A321 in this program is "NOT" a very good representation of the real world jet and that might have been done on purpose. With the problems we now have with "Bad Guys" around the world forcing us to take off our shoes before we go flying, maybe companies like MS are forced to make the products without realistic systems/feel so that those bad guys cannot get cheap flight training in products like FSX.Terry

[Chock 17,769]

You should find the attached scans at the end of this post (from an Airbus manual) will help you with your landing procedures.Most landings are lined up with the autopilot and then it is disengaged to allow the aircraft to be manually touched down from a few hundred feet above the ground. Full autolands are possible with the Airbus, as with many other airliners, but it's a lot rarer than you might think for a variety of reasons:In the first place, the pilot needs to be able to make the choice to go around very swiftly if there are no visual references in sight by the time the alert height, or decision height is reached. Then there are the crew qualifications, which are required to carry out such category landings. In addition to which, despite the fact that many aircraft could 'technically' perform an autoland on many ILS runways, whether this is actually legal, or indeed safe is another matter entirely.There are lots of requirements that need to be met before a runway can qualify to be Cat II/III enabled by the I.C.A.O. From a purely physical standpoint, to qualify as legal for an autoland, a runway has to adhere to very strict minimum dimensions, as well as very specific placement of all the lights at, and beyond the threshold. When all these stipulations are met, there is still a whole bunch of things that can prevent a Cat II/III autoland from happening. These include: acceptable runway visual range (R.V.R.). R.V.R. is a technical distance, determined by optical equipment placed about 400 feet from the runway centreline and not a meteorological measure of real-world visibility. Then you have restrictions on minimum beam coverage for the ILS signal; limitations on beam bend; availability of power back up systems; maximum switchover times from main to back up power for the ILS trnsmitters and lighting systems; signal space monitoring, etc, etc.Even if all these criteria are met, you still could be prevented from autolanding by the following: If the R.V.R. drops below 600 metres, or the ceiling drops below 200 feet, ATC must separate departing aircraft and aircraft on approach by at least 4 nautical miles, with consecutive landing aircraft spaced 10 miles apart. Then, as if that weren't enough, no vehicles of any kind can go beyond the holding point boards and all vehicles and aircraft must keep away from the localiser antenna!You'd be surprised how easy it is for nearby vehicles to affect the integrity of an ILS signal, and airports will always play safe where this kind of thing is concerned. There are other criteria which have to be met too, which are categorised as downgrades to the integrity of the ILS systems, and if too many of these crop up, an ILS autoland is simply not likely to be allowed, meaning the alternate airport is going to get a visit from you!What all this should tell you, is that full autolands from approach through to roll-out, braking and tracking the centreline until you've come to a complete standstill, are not as common as most people might imagine they are. And despite the widely held belief that the Airbus practically flies itself, it does actually need some skilled pilots up front for the average flight, in spite of all those funky avionics it has. This is one of the reasons why GPS autoland systems are being developed right now, as they would be independent of an airport's facilities. Expect to see those in the future, but it is likely to be a while before they are fully approved for regular use.Back in FSX-land, since all this means you're probably going to be doing at least the last 600 feet of the approach yourself if you want to emulate the real world, you might find that changing your joystick settings will help, if you wish to have the FSX Airbus handle more like the real thing. It is very twitchy in FSX compared to the real A320. In real life for example, the A320 takes about 3 seconds to fully traverse the ailerons even if you push the stick all the way over really quickly. If you do tweek your joystick or yoke, so it's more like the real thing, this has a bearing on being ready to anticipate trends on your flight path when you also consider the fact that your ailerons are markedly less effective at approach speeds. Fortunately, in the sim-world, adverse yaw doesn't seem to occur very much though!I have scanned and attached some of the pages from an A330 manual regarding Cat II/III operations, which you might find either confusing or interesting, depending on how much you want to emulate real life :-)Have fun.http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j105/Ala...ury/airbus1.jpghttp://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j105/Ala...ury/Airbus2.jpghttp://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j105/Ala...ury/Airbus3.jpghttp://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j105/Ala...ury/Airbus4.jpghttp://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j105/Ala...ury/Airbus5.jpg

[XWRed5 0]

>Yesterday I made a successful landing at KSEA only after a few>tense seconds when I disconnected the autopilot at decision>height on 16L. The nose started jumping up and down in a>pretty violently. I at first thought I had induced a PIO,>(pilot induced oscillation) but think the jet was trying to>pitch up and climb as I have written about in the biggining of>this thread.That's an FSX thing, I've never seen or heard of the real thing doing that.>My question is do real airbus drivers let the autopilot land>the jet and or what is the correct procedure to "Manually">take over and land when you get to minimums?Rarely, autolands are stressful, as I said before, the airbus is an airliner like any other airliner, we land it in the same way the Boeing, Embraer, Fokker BAe whatever pilots land their aircraft. Usually an ILS on autopilot, disconnecting when visual (usually around 1000ft) and hand flying it to the gate. >I kind of got a feeling from the above posts that the A321 in>this program is "NOT" a very good representation of the real>world jet and that might have been done on purpose. With the>problems we now have with "Bad Guys" around the world forcing>us to take off our shoes before we go flying, maybe companies>like MS are forced to make the products without realistic>systems/feel so that those bad guys cannot get cheap flight>training in products like FSX.I agree with your first statement but I'm not sure about the rest, I think FSX was a massively complex program as it is without trying to implement the entire systems and flight control logic of an airliner in with it. They made a compromise between complexity and time. We have a simple representation of an airbus, I'm pleased the put in some kind of FBW system at all, even if it doesn't work that realistically.Hope this helps,Ian