martinboehme

OK, I couldn't resist cleaning up the metre. I present to you a collaboration by machine and human (in that order): The skies are my canvas, the world my stage With MSFS, my journey's engaged. I sit in the cockpit, I take control Touring cities, mountains, and coastal shoals. How real it all looks takes my breath away So detailed and gorgeous I'm here to stay. I fly over landmarks I know so well And seek out new places where I can dwell. The tech is amazing, it's hard to believe I can fly anywhere that I can conceive. This sim allows me to go anywhere While never leaving my comfortable chair The clouds are my playground, the wind my guide As I soar through the skies, my heart feels alive. With MSFS my mind takes flight What a beautiful world both by day and by night.

It does OK on the rhymes, but it's clearly never heard about metre. 😉 In fairness, not even a problem it was designed to solve, so it's pretty impressive what it comes up with.

@holland786 Thanks for the detailed explanation -- I for one found it fascinating. I did some hacking around a long time ago trying to come up with these sorts of algorithms, probably just for fun, or maybe I wanted to create my own FMS -- I don't really remember. It never went anywhere, but I worked on it enough to get an appreciation for all of the different cases that can occur (and at the time, I wasn't even aware of all of the different ARINC 424 leg types). Ah! Now I think I understand what's going on. Thanks again for lifting the curtain!

(Edit: See below for an update now that I realize you mean the arrow on the MCDU F-PLN page.) I don't see an arrow there? What I see at EBOMA are the constraints in magenta (-FL120 and 250KT) and a white circle indicating that the altitude constraint isn't applicable (because you're still in the climb). See here for a guide to the symbology. Or do you mean the green leg that goes from EBOMA to the northwest without an apparent waypoint that it connects to (though that waypoint may be off screen)? It looks as if all of the STARS in question should have MOLBA as the next waypoint, which lies between EBOMA and LFPO, so it should be visible on the screen, but it's not. Maybe this is the issue that @holland786 refers to? @holland786, can you elaborate? Note the waypoint is called CI25 (with a letter "I", not a number "1"). What are you doing to try to link these? If would be helpful to see a screenshot of the F-PLN page on your MCDU. Generally, you should be able to clear unwanted legs or discontinuities in your flight plan by pressing the CLR button and then the line select key next to the line you want to remove. Edit: I see now that you do have the MCDU included in the screenshot. Sorry for not noticing earlier. The green arrow next to EBOMA means that EBOMA is a flyover waypoint, rather than a flyby waypoint, and that after flying over EBOMA, the aircraft should turn to the left. Maybe the problem that @holland786 mentioned is related to flyover waypoints? I do see that you don't have any discontinuities or other waypoints between EBOMA and CI25. I'm confused because on the STAR in question (ARDOL 9W), EBOMA should be followed by MOLBA. Did you delete MOLBA from the flight plan? In any case, I imagine the problem may be caused by the fact that the FMS thinks it should turn left after EBOMA, but CI25 requires a turn to the right. As a workaround, I would suggest using DIR TO or heading select after EBOMA.

Genuinely curious: What areas take more work for you in the A320 than in the 737?

Yes, DA is Decision Altitude. What does "baro" have to do with this? An altimeter is really just a barometer (a device for measuring air pressure) with a funny scale. This is why the Airbus labels the field in which it wants you to input altitudes as "BARO". This can be either the Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) for non-precision approaches or Decision Altitude (DA) for precision approaches. The other option is "RA" which, as you've correctly deduced, stands for Radar Altimeter. This is where you would enter a Decision Height if it applies to your situation. Note that only CAT II and III minima use a Decision Height. Unless the visibility or ceilings are very low, you'd more typically use CAT I minima on an ILS. These use a Decision Altitude, not a Decision Height. Typically, the Decision Altitude is 200 feet above the touchdown zone elevation, but whatever it is, it should be entered into the BARO field -- you shouldn't simply enter 200 feet into the RA field. This is because the terrain ahead of the runway may not be flat. In the extreme case, if the runway sits on a plateau, then you may be well below 200 feet above the runway yet still have more than 200 feet above the ground directly below you (as measured by the radar altimeter). CAT II and III minima, in contrast, need to use a Decision Height, measured by a radar altimeter, because a barometric altimeter simply isn't accurate enough to measure such small distances to the ground. And the concern that the terrain may not be flat doesn't apply here because at the point where you reach the Decision Height, you're already very close to the runway, and a runway with CAT II/III minima needs to guarantee that the terrain ahead of it is essentially flat for a sufficient distance.

Yes, this information comes from the approach chart. If the approach has a Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) or Decision Altitude (DA), you would enter that in the BARO field. If it has a Decision Height (DH), you would enter that in the RA field. If you don't have the charts, a good guess for a CAT I ILS is a DA of 200 feet above the touchdown zone elevation. You might ask: If the navigation data contains all the other details of the approach and sets these automatically, why doesn't it also contain the correct value to put in the BARO or RA fields? The answer is that a single approach can have multiple different minima, and only you as the pilot know which one applies in your situation. For example, an ILS could have all three: A DH for CAT II and CAT III minima, a DA for CAT I minima, and an MDA for a circle-to-land.

Nah, I viewed an FBW A320NX tutorial and it was very well done, but that piece was missed obviously by the Aussie who recorded it. I suspect the person who produced the video used a chart for an A320ceo (instead of A320neo). The CG in the video is 24.5%, which would correspond to about 1 unit of up trim on the A320ceo.

Not sure what we're over-complicating? My whole point was how easy it is to set takeoff trim in the A320 because there's a CG scale right on the trim indicator. Set the trim to the takeoff CG on that scale -- done!

That's perfectly fine of course! Just wanted to point out that controlling aileron and rudder from the same axis could cause problems down the road -- but if you're aware of this and it allows you to do what you want to do, then great. (You can always call it the Ercoupe version of the A320...) That's interesting because the tutorial I watched said because CG was 25% it need 1 up trim which is way more than is shown in that screenshot which shows CG would need to be about 22% for that. Thanks!!! Correct. I suspect the tutorial you were looking at may have been for a different variant of the A320? The FBW models an A320neo. For the A320ceo, one unit of up trim corresponds to a CG of about 24% -- closer, but still not quite there. Or maybe the tutorial was for an A319 or A321? (Do you have a link to the tutorial?)

Do I understand correctly that you assigned rudder and aileron to the same joystick axis? That doesn't seem advisable, as you'll never be able to make an aileron input without making a rudder input at the same time. Turns in airliners are flown with the ailerons alone - the yaw damper takes care of keeping the turn coordinated. A "chart" that relates CG and trim setting is on the trim indicator itself. See the first screenshot on this page: https://docs.flybywiresim.com/pilots-corner/a32nx-briefing/flight-deck/pedestal/thrust-pitch-trim/ The CG scale is on the left of the trim indicator, right next to the trim wheel. Simply set the trim so that the triangle marker is aligned with your takeoff CG. In the screenshot, takeoff trim is set for a CG of about 27%. (Yup, no computers involved - on an Airbus!)

I can definitely relate to that. I was an Airbus sceptic for many years - and the MCDU was a big part of it, it just seemed so different from Boeing and, indeed, most other airliners. I mean, it didn't even scroll the right way! When I finally took the plunge and learned the Airbus way, I was surprised that it ended up making a lot of sense to me - it's just very different from Boeing.

Having flown both the 737 and A320 extensively in the sim, I'd say the flows are significantly more "busy" on the 737. Take some of the items from the 737 after start flow (from memory): Put the engine generators on the buses, reconfigure the bleed air, cabin pressurization to flight, engine start switches continuous. All of these things happen automatically on the A320. Don't get me wrong, I like the old-school / hands on cockpit of the 737, but the workload on the A320 is definitely lower.

Definitely the DC-3.

+1 This sounds like a good candidate to explain the weirdness you're seeing. It would also explain why everything's fine as long as the autopilot is still connected (because, I presume, assistance doesn't kick in when the autopilot is on).

Hmm, first I’ve heard about this. So one can’t use something like the pushback software from FSCrew? If not, how do you push back from the gate? Please tell me you don’t have to use slew mode? I believe this issue applies specifically to the tool called Toolbar Pushback. I haven't heard of issues with other pushback tools, but @Aamirwill be able to confirm.

That's definitely an excessive angle. Not sure how the real 737 behaves, but I wouldn't generally expect an autopilot to capture the localizer in this scenario without significant overshoot and one or two subsequent S turns. Others have remarked above that the (real) A320 performs unusually well in this regard. That might explain why the Fenix does so too. In the real world, controllers will typically give a 30 degree intercept. A 90 degree intercept would likely elicit questions or complaints from the crew.

Away from my computer, but I believe there's something on the EFB's settings page that let's you change units from lb to kg.

If that's happening, it's a bug. The transponder always reports pressure altitude (aka flight level), regardless of what the altimeter setting is. As TCAS is based on the altitude reported by the transponder, it should also be unaffected by the other aircraft's altimeter setting.

Yes, pretty sure the OP is talking about the localizer. @SquadronLeaderAt what angle are you intercepting the localizer? Standard intercept angle is 30 degrees. Larger angles can cause some aircraft to overshoot - not sure what would be realistic for the 737.

If this was the only effect in play, then the actual altitude would be _greater_ than the barometric altitude (referenced to the standard altimeter setting). Conversely, low pressure causes the actual altitude to be lower than the barometric altitude, hence the mnemonic "high to low, watch out below". The effect that is causing the actual altitude to be lower than the barometric altitude, despite the high pressure, is the temperatures that are significantly below ISA this time of year. This is also why cold temperature corrections need to be made to the altitudes on approaches to certain airports if the temperature is below a given specified value.

This 100%! A lot of simmers, me included, chase the ambition of making their simulated operations "as real as it gets" - and as long as that's fun, great! But gradually, and often unnoticed, the quest for realism can turn from an adventure of discovery into a burdensome duty. You feel like a flight doesn't "count" unless you're doing every little detail a real pilot would. Simming starts to feel like work. It's happened to me and I suspect many others too. So by all means, continue to chase reality and learn, but check yourself from time to time to make sure you're still having fun. Other thoughts: VATSIM: You'll never feel like you're ready. Just do it. It's the only way to really learn. A lot of Garmin installations do actually have the ability to upload your flight plan wirelessly from your tablet, so don't feel like you need to input it by hand. Turboprops like the Caravan are actually more challenging and rewarding than jets in some ways. You can't simply fly above the weather, and ice protection is usually less capable, so you need to think more about the weather and react en route if necessary. Have fun learning - it's a neverending journey!

Agreed - I'm also happy to see that MSFS gets this right!

@jcomm I think you misunderstood what the OP was saying. The altimeter in the aircraft does indeed indicate 6000 feet (see screenshot in the first post), but the actual (geometric) altitude shown in the debug screen is lower. As @Bob Scott explains, this is due to a temperature deviation from ISA.

Maybe they aren't aware that this option exists? Could be worth notifying their support about this.