11 hours ago, Donstim said:

Oops, I meant 3 and 2 for the number of autobrake settings that can be used for landing (and that target a specific deceleration rate). 

Unsure about Airbus, but the 737 does have 4 autobrake settings that can be used for landing and that target a decel rate: 1, 2, 3, and Max.  Max does not give you maximum brake pressure, it's just another decel rate (too much, on a dry runway.). Only RTO gives full available brake pressure, and cannot be used on landing.  If you want the full 3,000psi to all brakes on landing in a 737, you'll stand on the brakes yourself - max manual braking does yeild full brake pressure.

I've heard that autobrakes use is normal in the bus, so I'll add that there is really a 5th normal autobrake setting for landing in the 737: off.  There's no need to use them just for the sake of it, and they're routinely left off if there's no reason to use them (long runway, no contamination, no crosswind.)

19 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Unsure about Airbus, but the 737 does have 4 autobrake settings that can be used for landing and that target a decel rate: 1, 2, 3, and Max.  Max does not give you maximum brake pressure, it's just another decel rate (too much, on a dry runway.). Only RTO gives full available brake pressure, and cannot be used on landing.  If you want the full 3,000psi to all brakes on landing in a 737, you'll stand on the brakes yourself - max manual braking does yeild full brake pressure.

I've heard that autobrakes use is normal in the bus, so I'll add that there is really a 5th normal autobrake setting for landing in the 737: off.  There's no need to use them just for the sake of it, and they're routinely left off if there's no reason to use them (long runway, no contamination, no crosswind.)

McDonald Douglas published an article many years ago called "The High Cost of Hard Braking" where it detailed the cost of each landing with and without autobrakes and where it discussed the lead-footed pilots that cost the company more money by their inappropriate braking technique. It suggested that accurate final approach and touch-down speeds as well as prompt use of reverse thrust often meant that braking use could be minimised. In other words the skill of the pilot in reducing braking to a minimum. The speed at which the brakes were first applied was an important factor in the cost of braking. The higher the speed the more wear and tear. Autobrakes are applied on the instant of touch down (high speed) although they back off to maintain a specific rate of deceleration with use of reverse thrust.

There may be occasions where a turn-off at a specific taxi way is needed operationally but even then judicious combination of reverse and manual braking means braking is at a minimum. Often braking is not needed until below 80 knots where energy requirements, and thus wear and tear, are less. Again, observations in the simulator have shown that pilots addicted to autobraking for whatever reason, when asked to use manual braking, tend to get quite rusty due to lack of basic skill required of manual braking techniques. They overreact by hammering the brakes manually causing jerking and oscillation of the aircraft as they try to maintain the centre-line.

Is this just another example of automation dependency where pilots have lost the skill and finesse of careful considered manual braking? Repeating the FCTM opening advice on autobrake use: "Use of the autobrake system is recommended whenever the runway is limited, when using higher than normal approach speeds, landing on slippery runways, or landing in a crosswind." Are pilots getting lazy or has the accent on braking automation led to pilots being apprehensive of their own ability to use manual braking? I suspect the latter...

I Guys!

 

 My first time here,

I have a issue, Aircraft not showing in sim, i try everything on KB directory,  and opened a ticket but they not responded yet. any idea?

Thanks all.

46 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

McDonald Douglas published an article many years ago called "The High Cost of Hard Braking" where it detailed the cost of each landing with and without autobrakes and where it discussed the lead-footed pilots that cost the company more money by their inappropriate braking technique. It suggested that accurate final approach and touch-down speeds as well as prompt use of reverse thrust often meant that braking use could be minimised. In other words the skill of the pilot in reducing braking to a minimum. The speed at which the brakes were first applied was an important factor in the cost of braking. The higher the speed the more wear and tear. Autobrakes are applied on the instant of touch down (high speed) although they back off to maintain a specific rate of deceleration with use of reverse thrust.

There may be occasions where a turn-off at a specific taxi way is needed operationally but even then judicious combination of reverse and manual braking means braking is at a minimum. Often braking is not needed until below 80 knots where energy requirements, and thus wear and tear, are less. Again, observations in the simulator have shown that pilots addicted to autobraking for whatever reason, when asked to use manual braking, tend to get quite rusty due to lack of basic skill required of manual braking techniques. They overreact by hammering the brakes manually causing jerking and oscillation of the aircraft as they try to maintain the centre-line.

Is this just another example of automation dependency where pilots have lost the skill and finesse of careful considered manual braking? Repeating the FCTM opening advice on autobrake use: "Use of the autobrake system is recommended whenever the runway is limited, when using higher than normal approach speeds, landing on slippery runways, or landing in a crosswind." Are pilots getting lazy or has the accent on braking automation led to pilots being apprehensive of their own ability to use manual braking? I suspect the latter...

95 % of all available Airbus cockpit videos by several airlines show Autobrake Low on landing, just sayin.

1 hour ago, Stearmandriver said:

I've heard that autobrakes use is normal in the bus, so I'll add that there is really a 5th normal autobrake setting for landing in the 737: off.  There's no need to use them just for the sake of it, and they're routinely left off if there's no reason to use them (long runway, no contamination, no crosswind.)

That depends on the airline too though. A big one in the US requires autobrakes and initially max reverse thrust on all landings (from their 737 flight manual).

4 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

So at least that means that the fuel consumptions is fixed. Previously you'd have always more landing fuel than the simbrief OFP predicted, as much as 2000-3000 kg too much in the worst case. Now that seems fixed if you had less than OFP calculated. How much less was it? And was that explainable via events on your flight? (runway change with longer SID / STAR etc.)

I just checked on another flight. This time it was okay. During preflight I had an extra of 0.5 for 6 mins (10% contingency) for a predicted landing fuel of 300 lbs above planned. During climb it showed a destination EFOB of 1,000 lbs less than the preflight estimate. At cruise it was pretty much back at the preflight estimate. At T/D I calculated a slightly higher landing weight than planned (+ 300 lbs), so I burned a little less fuel.

I don't know about actual landing fuel because the gusts in Memphis made autothrust go brrrrrt at 30 feet so I ballooned and had to go around... but it must have been a few hundred pounds less than planned (burned some more on initial approach).

It was okay overall, though I still don't get why it showed 1,000 lbs less during climb for destination EFOB. With Block 1, this used to be an on and off issue, and on my first flight with Block 2 it was okay, on my second flight it went completely nuts, while it was okay again now on the third flight. Cruise winds were very close to the planned winds from Simbrief (slightly less headwind). So I'm guessing fuel burn is correct (forgot to check actual indicated fuel burn rate in cruise vs. published A320 data again), but the prediction seems a bit moody.

Edited March 4, 20242 yr by threexgreen

2 hours ago, ha5mvo said:

Are pilots getting lazy or has the accent on braking automation led to pilots being apprehensive of their own ability to use manual braking? I suspect the latter...

Hard to say, and as Threexgreen points out, you'll find different philosophies at different airlines.  As usual, there's room for different philosophies and techniques.  In our case, because most of the shortest runways we operate to are also often at risk of being contaminated as they're in the state of Alaska, we do not want folks to lose the habit pattern of prompt (but smooth) manual braking, for the times the autobrakes don't work (even though that's very rare).  You take no landing data performance credit for autobrakes use; landing data is predicated on rates of decel that correspond to an autobrake setting but it can be manual braking.  So, we like to encourage folks to fly the plane manually when and where appropriate, so the habit patterns are there if they find themselves needing to fly more manually than they'd like in a difficult situation. 

Naturally in difficult conditions with everything working, you're going to use the autobrakes as appropriate assuming they're working.  They're a great tool.  We have a policy that any landing on a runway less than 7,000ft with braking action less than good requires the use of autobrakes max (if available) for instance.  If they aren't available, the ca can reference braking force via the decel carat in the HUD.  

I personally like this philosophy and do believe that, just like over reliance on other forms of automation, it doesn't do a lot of good to make folks over reliant on the automation.

Of course, this is all muddied further by type of brakes.  With carbon brakes, there is a wear and effectiveness advantage to beginning the brake application as soon as possible.  The brakes actually last longer this way.  So, autobrake use is highly encouraged on the portion of our fleet with carbon brakes.  For us that's all the Maxs but other airlines may have them on NGs as well.  So lots of ways to slice it.

How to correctly do a flaps 3 landing? I chose this for 16R at KDEN which is 16,000ft. I had selected CONF3 in the APPR page. However, on final I still got the "flaps full" in blue in the ECAM, instead of "flaps cfg 3".

EDIT: Gavin gave me the answer. I had incorrectly selected "full" on the APPR page, my bad!

 

Edited March 5, 20242 yr by Cpt_Piett

6 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

Unsure about Airbus, but the 737 does have 4 autobrake settings that can be used for landing and that target a decel rate: 1, 2, 3, and Max.  Max does not give you maximum brake pressure, it's just another decel rate (too much, on a dry runway.). Only RTO gives full available brake pressure, and cannot be used on landing.  If you want the full 3,000psi to all brakes on landing in a 737, you'll stand on the brakes yourself - max manual braking does yeild full brake pressure.

Double oops for me. Realized that the A320 has only 2 after I had written the original post, then mistakenly subtracted one from the number of 737 autobrake settings as well. Thanks for noticing and correcting it. Good point about "no autobrake" effectively being a setting as well.

Learn how (not) to land this beautiful bird 🙈.

 

19 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Also, this was a case of some confusion as to what winds to enter on the APPR page as METAR reported variable 2 kt. 

That entry, known as Tower headwind component (THWC) only comes into effect if winds are >10kts. Anything below that will simply mean default VLS+5kt Vapp target as the airplane always assumes that wind velocity is 10kts.

If winds are above that, it will impact Vapp and the airbus actually computes various Vapp targets but only one value is displayed to the crew. (This is a complete chapter of science, btw)

8 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

How to correctly do a flaps 3 landing? I chose this for 16R at KDEN which is 16,000ft. I had selected CONF3 in the APPR page. However, on final I still got the "flaps full" in blue in the ECAM, instead of "flaps cfg 3".

EDIT: Gavin gave me the answer. I had incorrectly selected "full" on the APPR page, my bad!

 

You also need to select LDG FLAP 3 on the GPWS panel (on the overhead). 

15 minutes ago, martinboehme said:

You also need to select LDG FLAP 3 on the GPWS panel (on the overhead). 

Didn’t know that. Gavin didn’t mention it either. That explains why I got full flaps in blue on ECAM on second attempt. 

Edited March 5, 20242 yr by Cpt_Piett

14 hours ago, NERHelm said:

I Guys!

 

 My first time here,

I have a issue, Aircraft not showing in sim, i try everything on KB directory,  and opened a ticket but they not responded yet. any idea?

Thanks all.

welcome first of all. did you get a response from Fenix by now? Any further advice is difficult not knowing your individual setup. like which MSFS version do you use, MS Store, Steam? Also, did you install MSFS in the default location or some individual location like another drive? IIRC the fenix installs into the MSFS/community folder. do you see it there? sorry, away from my PC so no further details

3 hours ago, DAD said:

welcome first of all. did you get a response from Fenix by now? Any further advice is difficult not knowing your individual setup. like which MSFS version do you use, MS Store, Steam? Also, did you install MSFS in the default location or some individual location like another drive? IIRC the fenix installs into the MSFS/community folder. do you see it there? sorry, away from my PC so no further details

Further to the above -

I usually D/L aircraft & updates to an SSD, "D" drive, & install from D.

For the Fenix 320 & latest update, I had to D/L on to the "C" drive & install from there to get it to go into the Community Folder.

It would not install from the "D" drive. Also deleted 'prior' version from Community folder before installing update.

T45