Just had a rather confusing flight in the Fenix A320, landing at EGPE (Inverness) where the aircraft stopped giving me the expected landing guidance, forcing me to turn it into a visual approach. I've set out what I did below in the hope someone here can tell me where I went wrong.

I set the flight up in Simbrief (Liverpool EGGP - Inverness) without too much thought and took off easily enough. I was specifically looking for a VOR/DME approach without using the ILS so ignored that in planning.

En route I realised the wind had swung around and given me a 9kt tailwind for landing on runway 05 as initially planned. Being about 100nm out I tried to reprogram the box for runway 23, only to find that the route basically vanished in the FMGS after leaving airway N560 at GUSSI, the final en-route waypoint of my flightplan as filed. All that was between GUSSI and the runway were two waypoints that I assume were the IAF and FAF.

Inverness has no STARs so the only charts relevant to what I wanted to do were the VOR DME plates for runways 05 and 23.

I was approaching from the south - the screenshot's come out too small to read the text but you can see that there is no STAR-type layout from the south (like the charted arc at INS 14 DME on the VOR DME Rwy 05) that gets you onto the VOR DME Rwy 23 approach.

So I figured I'd take the VOR DME 05 as originally planned and turn it into a circle-to-land if visual by 1500ft QFE, and I set up the inbound radial with FIX INFO in the FMGC, giving me a blue dashed line to follow. I selected TRK/FPA and turned off the flight directors for the DME arc. But at about 9 DME on the final approach track, I realised I had another option...

Easy enough, I thought, I've already manually tuned the INS VOR/DME anyway so all I need to do is follow the procedure turn onto radial 226 after going overhead the VOR. It was fairly easy to set up radial 021 and a 9 DME arc in FIX INFO.

After passing over the beacon I re selected the approach in the FMGC as VOR 23. Then I carried out the turn and got onto the inbound radial. At this point I realised I could not arm the LOC button on the glareshield. I tried it with and without flight directors and LS, but it wasn't working. The FMS was giving me lateral and vertical guidance but, being visual, I could clearly see the vertical guidance was going to take me into the ground about 1nm short of the airport if I followed the green bricks on the PFD, so I disconnected the autopilot and hand flew the remainder of the approach. I'm aware that VOR approaches are offset a few degrees from the runway heading.

For the last two miles of the approach I was getting DON'T SINK cautions from the GPWS and the radalt callouts appeared to be inhibited until 50ft. I don't recall what mode was on the FMA.

So, experts of AVSIM, what did I get wrong here and why did my Fenix A320 not step into FINAL APP and give me the expected guidance? Why did the GPWS activate even though I had runway 23 in the box at that late stage of the approach?

4 hours ago, lambourne said:

So, experts of AVSIM, what did I get wrong here and why did my Fenix A320 not step into FINAL APP and give me the expected guidance?

Did you ever press "APPR", or only "LOC"? You only explicitly mention the latter, and I'm pretty sure LOC will only engage if flying the approach als FLS, not when flying it as FINAL APP (as selected in the APPR page on the MCDU). And since you say you had green blocks on the PFD, that would indicate you were flying the approach in FINAL APP.

If you did press APPR, then I would guess that the FINAL APP engagement criteria weren't met.

4 hours ago, lambourne said:

Why did the GPWS activate even though I had runway 23 in the box at that late stage of the approach?

A pure guess - maybe you momentarily got into a slight climb on the approach, making the GPWS think you had executed a go around? ("DON'T SINK" warnings, aka GPWS mode 3, are active on the initial climb or a go around.)

More broadly, this illustrates the risk of changing plans so late in the game (i.e. overhead the IAF). Of course, it's just a simulation, so it doesn't matter, but in the real world it would probably have been more prudent to either stick with the original plan or go into a holding to brief the new approach.

Well, to be honest.

Lots of questionable decisions to unpack here.

1) let's start with the approach. did you fly the VOR 23 or VOR-DME 23. I ask because they have slightly different profiles. Their FAF is at 2000 vs 1800 respectively and obviously not on the same distances either. I'm not sure how many different approaches you mentally had gone through at this stage, but perhaps you simply mixed them up?

2) Final App requires you to push "approach" on the FCU.

But in your post you only mentioned you pushed LOC, which has no function in this scenario. It also requires that your active waypoint is the designated FDP (final descent point, this is where the coded FMS profile takes over, which drives the final APP vertical path). You would see APP NAV displayed on the FMA to verify that it is armed. Was it?

3) in conclusion, a rather messy, un-structured way of shooting instrument approaches in general. Did you give yourself sufficient time to review the selected VOR (or VOR DME?) approach. Which AP modes to use , and  when/how to use them, taking notes of altitudes and distance gates,  missed approach etc? 

Edit: sorry @martinboehme, I did not read your insightful reply before I posted my similar response.

Edited August 30, 2025Aug 30 by SAS443

I did the same apporoach in the Fenix.

There seems to be two approaches in the database (both labelled as "VOR23"....)
I choose the one available on page 2, there is also one on the very last page which probably is the conventional VOR 23, w/o DME.

Anyway, the selected "VOR23" procedure gave me exactly what I expected for the VOR DME 23. But not the course reversal outbound, oddly enough. Thus I flew that manually and choose a lead in radial of 046 (radial In) so I was established on the  approach course of 226 well ahead of the FDP, which is fix "FD23" with a 2.000ft constraint.

I pushed "Approach"
And FINAL APP was available. No issue.

The plane tracked the vertical path almost all the way down to the ground (for experimental sake 🙃). And yes, you will be a bit lower if you check the runway environment and PAPI, but the aircraft was within 10ft when I hit the gate "20VOR" which has an altitude check of 540ft, 2NM from INS VOR.

The "bird "was continously pegged at - 3.0 FPA, as it should.

I rarely fly the Fenix, but for testing purposes, I'd say it passed my rudimentary / non-professional test at least. V/DEV was on point vs the charted values.

Edited August 31, 2025Aug 31 by SAS443

Many thanks for the insightful replies! I freely admit my decision-making here was a total pig's breakfast and I was well behind the aircraft. But that's why I posted: I want to learn where I went wrong so next time it all goes smoothly.

Granted, that also involves learning when to bin it, take up the hold and re brief the new approach properly...

21 hours ago, martinboehme said:

Did you ever press "APPR", or only "LOC"? You only explicitly mention the latter, and I'm pretty sure LOC will only engage if flying the approach als FLS, not when flying it as FINAL APP (as selected in the APPR page on the MCDU). And since you say you had green blocks on the PFD, that would indicate you were flying the approach in FINAL APP.

If you did press APPR, then I would guess that the FINAL APP engagement criteria weren't met.

A pure guess - maybe you momentarily got into a slight climb on the approach, making the GPWS think you had executed a go around? ("DON'T SINK" warnings, aka GPWS mode 3, are active on the initial climb or a go around.)

I think that's what must have happened. The final approach was a bit bumpy and I must have drifted into a climb while struggling to get back to two reds, two whites.

21 hours ago, martinboehme said:

More broadly, this illustrates the risk of changing plans so late in the game (i.e. overhead the IAF). Of course, it's just a simulation, so it doesn't matter, but in the real world it would probably have been more prudent to either stick with the original plan or go into a holding to brief the new approach.

Yup...!

21 hours ago, SAS443 said:

Well, to be honest.

Lots of questionable decisions to unpack here.

1) let's start with the approach. did you fly the VOR 23 or VOR-DME 23. I ask because they have slightly different profiles. Their FAF is at 2000 vs 1800 respectively and obviously not on the same distances either. I'm not sure how many different approaches you mentally had gone through at this stage, but perhaps you simply mixed them up?

I am fairly sure I selected the VOR DME 05, but having abandoned my briefed plan at zero notice to press on with the new approach - silly decision - I can't be sure. Maybe I did select the wrong one, but I was hand flying to cross the FAF at 2,000ft.

21 hours ago, SAS443 said:

2) Final App requires you to push "approach" on the FCU.

But in your post you only mentioned you pushed LOC, which has no function in this scenario. It also requires that your active waypoint is the designated FDP (final descent point, this is where the coded FMS profile takes over, which drives the final APP vertical path). You would see APP NAV displayed on the FMA to verify that it is armed. Was it?

I don't remember for sure but it wasn't FINAL APP which is what I was expecting to see. Quite possible it was APP NAV, which fits the scenario.

Noted on LOC, I'll go back to the FCOM and FCTM to learn afresh when to use it.

21 hours ago, SAS443 said:

3) in conclusion, a rather messy, un-structured way of shooting instrument approaches in general. Did you give yourself sufficient time to review the selected VOR (or VOR DME?) approach. Which AP modes to use , and  when/how to use them, taking notes of altitudes and distance gates,  missed approach etc? 

Edit: sorry @martinboehme, I did not read your insightful reply before I posted my similar response.

Biggest lesson of all - nope. I was flustered by the rwy 05 approach having no STAR or initial approach procedure from my approach direction and became fixated on finding a VOR DME procedure that would give me FMS guidance all the way down. Then, having made a decision to go visual and circle to land, I failed to stick to that plan. And then I failed to give myself adequate time to properly plan and brief my third (!) type of approach, basically winging it visually.

Looking back, I think I should have reviewed the Simbrief flight plan properly and checked the terminal waypoint and approach. At 100nm out I was expecting to just select the approach in the box and follow it down from there. Had I noticed that the filed plan omitted the INS VOR, I could have added it myself (even en route) and used it to hold, breathe and think about what to do next.

1 hour ago, lambourne said:

Many thanks for the insightful replies! I freely admit my decision-making here was a total pig's breakfast and I was well behind the aircraft. But that's why I posted: I want to learn where I went wrong so next time it all goes smoothly.

👍

And so I'd argue, in a way, you did everything right: You did something new, it didn't all go as planned, and as a result, you learned a ton and had a memorable flight - and isn't that really the goal?

Just came here to say that this is a sort of thread I‘d like to see much more often on Avsim. Good job guys!

Edited September 1, 2025Sep 1 by Fiorentoni