Fenix update is out.

[Cpt_Piett 4,696]

1 hour ago, Fiorentoni said:

The FMA should show "LAND" on final approach if all conditions for an autoland are met. As for the rest, it might just be a Fenix bug, showing CAT1 when you've entered a baro altitude (because they thought that's what triggers it).

I did eventually resolve this: it had nothing to do with baro or radio altitude. I had turned off both FO displays. After turning them on I’m getting CATIII on FMA. If what you’re saying is correct, the bird should be capable of autoland even though FMA doesn’t announce CATII/III.

Edited March 13 by Cpt_Piett

[Max Kraus 339]

The IAE bird hand flies really nice now from 1,000ft in. Definitely can feel the difference in the stick.

[JYW 2,984]

5 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

No, "Flare" has nothing to do with autoland, it shows regularly on manual landings. It just means the automatic nose down mode on the Airbus has been enabled (to simulate a flare).

I'm aware of that.

Still..... the Fenix autolands in Cat 1.

And there you have it.

Edited March 13 by JYW

[Cpt_Piett 4,696]

I'm so close to recording a video to settle this discussion once and for all 😅

[polosim 851]

6 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

"Flare" has nothing to do with autoland,

When an AUTOLAND will be performed at 40 ft you must check and announce FLARE mode is active. If the FMA does not display FLARE, perform a go-around, or a manual landing if visual references are sufficient.

[zachlog 18]

3 hours ago, carlanthony24 said:

Per the real aircraft's if you just up link the wind it gets rid of the trip wind.

 

3 hours ago, carlanthony24 said:

Per the real aircraft's if you just up link the wind it gets rid of the trip wind.

OK, but it did not get rid of it/make the field not editable.  The message implies the syntax of my input is incorrect.

[polosim 851]

33 minutes ago, zachlog said:

The message implies the syntax of my input is incorrect.

The trip wind is defined as a headwind component (HDXX, XXHD or –XX), or as a tailwind (TLXX, XXTL or +XX).

[Cpt_Piett 4,696]

Well as this discussion is still ongoing, I've diverted to Lima, Peru* where I plan to do a (most likely highly unauthorized) CATI auto landing via the ILS T approach to Rwy 16L (which is CATII/III capable). Please do not inform ATC at Jorge Chavez Intl of my intentions. 

Btw in doing this, I intend to purposely turn off both PFD and ND on the FO side, thus rendering CATII/III on the aircraft inop. Happy landings and stay tuned!

*I originally planned to do the exciting RNP approach into Cusco. 

Edited March 14 by Cpt_Piett

[carlanthony24 576]

1 hour ago, zachlog said:

 

OK, but it did not get rid of it/make the field not editable.  The message implies the syntax of my input is incorrect.

Yeah it will

[polosim 851]

28 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

CATI auto landing via the ILS T approach to Rwy 16L (which is CATII/III capable).

I hope you enjoy it. 😅

Adding a little more to the subject, to differentiate the concepts and avoid confusion. CAT I, II, III a, b and c. refer to the weather conditions and the certification of the airport for that type of approach.

On the other hand, Airbus to differentiate names the aircraft capability and divides it into CAT 1, CAT 2 and CAT3 single (Fail-passive) and CAT3 Dual (Fail-Operational) and announces it that way in the FMA.

 

 

[Cpt_Piett 4,696]

41 minutes ago, polosim said:

I hope you enjoy it. 😅

Adding a little more to the subject, to differentiate the concepts and avoid confusion. CAT I, II, III a, b and c. refer to the weather conditions and the certification of the airport for that type of approach.

On the other hand, Airbus to differentiate names the aircraft capability and divides it into CAT 1, CAT 2 and CAT3 single (Fail-passive) and CAT3 Dual (Fail-Operational) and announces it that way in the FMA.

I'm sure I will! Although not as much as I would have enjoyed descending past the Andes mountains into Cusco 🙂

Thanks for elaborating. I've done some reading and the topic seems quite complex. And quite confusing, as a layman, I might add. 

Wait, what you're saying about fail-passive. I just saw this on the ILS approach chart. Before you mentioned it, coincidentally. I was wondering what it meant. 

By the way I just turned off the displays on FO's side and verified CATII INOP in ECAM. Should be all set!

EDIT: And I made it down safely. I was just going to ask my FO if we did indeed auto land, but she's nowhere to be seen (I had some trouble reading the FMA as the displays are way too dim). Well, a video is being uploaded to YT as I'm writing this 🙂 And while I'm waiting for that to happen, I'll do a quick turnaround and head for Cusco!

Edited March 14 by Cpt_Piett

[polosim 851]

14 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

CATII INOP in ECAM.

Here applies CAT 2 INOP concept 😀.

If you enjoy the RNP approach IN SPZO, you should try the approach that was made before the RNP era in airliners (aircraft without RNP capability still perform it), This is the approach VOR DME (Circling) RWY 28, DESCENT CHARLIE or DESCENT DELTA. It starts with a VOR app, transitioning to a visual approach. Outstanding!

[Cpt_Piett 4,696]

11 minutes ago, polosim said:

If you enjoy the RNP approach IN SPZO, you should try the approach that was made before the RNP era in airliners (aircraft without RNP capability still perform it), This is the approach VOR DME (Circling) RWY 28, DESCENT CHARLIE or DESCENT DELTA. It starts with a VOR app, transitioning to a visual approach. Outstanding!

Oh dear, that sounds like a fun challenge! I've done the RNP approach from DARKO several times, but this is something quite different. Just looking at the approach plate right now. It does make sense that "circling not authorized north of the airport" 😅

It seems a bit similar to the RNP approaches into Paro, where you end up at MAP some 3000ft above the airport. The subsequent circling approach was every bit as terrifying every time I tried it! I may (of course) have misinterpreted, but IIRC there's a very decent PDF guide on flightsim.to. 

[polosim 851]

6 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

RNP approaches into Paro

Ah, Paro airport! So unique… nice example.

To give you an idea of what the visual approach in Cusco looks like in real life, you can watch this short video.

https://youtu.be/Nu_TPPBsE8w?si=nmcRuLlJfK7qahul

 

[solito 65]

Why is it that at my C414, the altimeter first digit is a 7, so it shows 70.000 feet at ground, when it should be 00.000  ?