I've not been flying all that long, but in FS9 I don't have this problem at all. I've been having a problem with every plane I've tried in that if I'm on AP and the approach button kicks in I'll always be under the glide scope at some point and will have to fly it manually to keep from coming up way short of the runway. I know I should be able to do it manually anyway and I usually do at about 2 or 3 miles out, but it is letting me know way earlier about decent rate and the below GS button lites up too around the outer marker. I am not flying any different than I do in FS9. Appreciate any suggestions for a solution.Captjak

YOu are flying too slow for the weight, or in the wrong configuration. Allcott

Hi and thank you for the reply to my query. Since I am flying the same planes in FS9 and FSx and have no problems with it in FS9 I don't understand the difference between them I guess. When you say the wrong configuration, what do you mean by it? Captjak

>I've not been flying all that long, but in FS9 I don't have>this problem at all. I've been having a problem with every>plane I've tried in that if I'm on AP and the approach button>kicks in I'll always be under the glide scope at some point>and will have to fly it manually to keep from coming up way>short of the runway. I know I should be able to do it manually>anyway and I usually do at about 2 or 3 miles out, but it is>letting me know way earlier about decent rate and the below GS>button lites up too around the outer marker. I am not flying>any different than I do in FS9. Appreciate any suggestions for>a solution.>CaptjakHummm. What do you mean approach button kicks in? Youshould be the one kicking it in.. :/ I haven't had any troublewith that as long as I'm under the glideslope before I hit the approach button. If you are diving in below glideslope, I would think you are not setting an "alt" to hold before it connectswith the glideslope. IE: Say I'm going into Hot Springs on ILS 05. My approach alt will usually be 2300 ft. So I'll be on "alt" hold of 2300, and level at that alt before I connectwith the glidesplope. Course, it will hook up with the localizerfirst, while still at the alt hold of 2300. Once the glideslopeindicator is one notch above , I'll drop the gear and flaps, etc.Once the glideslope hooks up, it should start descending on the glideslope. If I have trouble with the glideslope, it's usually opposite of what you see. I'd fail to hook the glideslope and stay at the "alt hold" setting all the way to the runway. But.. This is usually caused by starting the approach above glideslope.But I've had a few that seemed to ignore it, even if I was belowglideslope to begin.. I've never had the problem you are seeing.MK

Thank you for the info, and I'm sorry I'm not making myself a little clearer. I am doing almost exactly as you say. If I am to be leveled off at say 2700' before I am ready to hook up with the localizer that would be where I'm at, and when I push the APP button, all is well, but another few seconds later I will see the below GS button lite up, usually about 15 miles out and if I look at the GS position the PDF it will be towards the top still. A few seconds later when I contact the glide scope and it starts to descend it begins telling me that the decent rate is wrong and to pull up. If I just let it go I will come up way short of the runway. I even tried to increase the speed well over what's needed to try and help but it doesn't. captjak

>Thank you for the info, and I'm sorry I'm not making myself a>little clearer. I am doing almost exactly as you say. If I am>to be leveled off at say 2700' before I am ready to hook up>with the localizer that would be where I'm at, and when I push>the APP button, all is well, but another few seconds later I>will see the below GS button lite up, usually about 15 miles>out and if I look at the GS position the PDF it will be>towards the top still. A few seconds later when I contact the>glide scope and it starts to descend it begins telling me that>the decent rate is wrong and to pull up. If I just let it go I>will come up way short of the runway. I even tried to increase>the speed well over what's needed to try and help but it>doesn't. >captjakThat's a problem especially with the A321 in FSX.You should crosscheck the GPS (which shows you the glide slope area in green).If you activate APR too far out, the GS will not be intercepted and the plane will dive into the ground.Try to fly with LOC/NAV until you almost reach the marked area, then switch to APR. And make sure you're still below the GS, as intercepting the GS from above is not possible folliwing the documentation.

I really appreciate all the suggestions from all of you but I am doing all that you say to do and still have the problem. I've been flying with FS9 for about a year now and have flown using the ILS feature and have always used the GPS window and have not had any problems at all like I am with FSX. For some reason it always winds up being way to low to make it to the runway,even when I am at the altitude that the ATC wants me at to contact the localizer even if I leave it on AP to the middle marker, If I even make it that far. Have I gotten something setup wrong in the config files that could cause it? Again thanks for any input.Captjak

If I remember right FSX can sometimes simulate ILS approaches that are offset in real life. In other words the GS is offset too high/low/left/right of the runway. This "could" be a possibility, so I would try it at another airport to test it out.

>Hi and thank you for the reply to my query. Since I am flying>the same planes in FS9 and FSx and have no problems with it in>FS9 I don't understand the difference between them I guess.>When you say the wrong configuration, what do you mean by it?>>CaptjakWhy woud you assume that what works for FS9 works for FSX? That's like assuming your take off performance should be the same on a day with no wind and an ambient temoperature in the high twenties as on a day when there's a reasonable headwind and its fifteen degrees just because you are at the same field? It's not logical.By `configuration` I mean combination of power, speed, weight, flaps, weather and gear.Perhaps rather than discuss this in general terms that wont' teach you anything you could post the actual specifics of a flight and the landing you are trying that shows this problem.Aircraft (flap settings, speed, gear)Weight (pax and fuel load)Airport and ILSWeather and day and time of yearAllcott

>If I remember right FSX can sometimes simulate ILS approaches>that are offset in real life. In other words the GS is offset>too high/low/left/right of the runway. This "could" be a>possibility, so I would try it at another airport to test it>out.Which makes it not as real as it gets and therefore a bit disappointing. I too am experiencing the same problem with the Airbus.Its difficult to trust / blame the sim / code or myself :-(

>Why woud you assume that what works for FS9 works for FSX?>That's like assuming your take off performance should be the>same on a day with no wind and an ambient temoperature in the>high twenties as on a day when there's a reasonable headwind>and its fifteen degrees just because you are at the same>field? It's not logical.>AllcottIf we can at least agree that the application treats ILS operations consistently, it *IS* logical. ILS is ILS. Period. I don't know if MS changed the characteristics of the ILS function between V9 and v10 of the app, but the ILS itself has surely not changed. It's been the same for 40 years or more in the real world, and should be treated that way in the sim.

>>Why woud you assume that what works for FS9 works for FSX?>>That's like assuming your take off performance should be the>>same on a day with no wind and an ambient temoperature in>the>>high twenties as on a day when there's a reasonable headwind>>and its fifteen degrees just because you are at the same>>field? It's not logical.>>Allcott>>If we can at least agree that the application treats ILS>operations consistently, it *IS* logical. ILS is ILS. >Period. I don't know if MS changed the characteristics of the>ILS function between V9 and v10 of the app, but the ILS itself>has surely not changed. It's been the same for 40 years or>more in the real world, and should be treated that way in the>sim.And the physics of flight has been a constant for a lot longer than that, I can assure you. Ask any bird. ;)Now the Airbus, lets not forget, is fitted with a FBW system that has various modes according to the phase of flight. These are not properly documented in the learning centre, but the OP was referring to every aircraft, not just the Airbus, pointing to operator error or else we'd all have noticed it. Usual problem with the airliners is they are always loaded to full fuel and full load by default. A very stupid decision by ACES as that is not how these babies are flown, as GTOW is almost always a long way above MLW. Fly a short sector, or a circuit for practice, and with those load factors you are bucking the laws of physics. You might get away with it in a heavy Caravan, but even that will be sluggish trying to maintain the ILS at heavy weights, requiring a correct procedure to land properly. This seems to be one area where FSX surely exceeds the earlier versions - it will PUNISH bad flying, whereas FS9 just shrugged it off, at the hier realism settings. And who knows? Maybe the weather is a factor - he could be trying to land downwind, or in heavy downwash from a nearby mountain? The only fact is, we don't know becasue he hasn't given us nearly enough information to form any real kind of conclusion.Hopefully a useful reply to my post above can enable a proper troubleshoot. Pointing out the historic value of ILS is not only facile its irrelevant. Allcott

>Hopefully a useful reply to my post above can enable a proper>troubleshoot. Pointing out the historic value of ILS is not>only facile its irrelevant.You chose to miss my point. Your reply hasn't been all that useful either, has it?The OP stated he does OK in FS9, and has issues with FSX. I simply posited that IF ILS Ops are treated the same way in both apps, then no difference should be noted in the sims, since there's been no changes to ILSes as they exist in the real world.Your attitude of "You DARE challenge me?" is blatantly apparent.

You misconstrue. My attitude is "What HELP did that inane post provide?". You haven't explained the solution, and in my reply to you I expanded on the reasons WHY the information needs to be provided, as well as why your reply was irrelevant. So what about your reply was even good enough to be SEEN as a `challange` do you think?So I'll leave you to solve his problem as you seem to want the field all to yourself, and there's no need for the rest of us now the `expert` has arrived. It will be interesting to see how you can help him without the information I've already asked for. I'm sure historic information about the longevity of ILS approaches is of no consequence in maintaining the glideslope on approach, but I bow to your superior knowledge and deitific genius.Allcott