LZaman

and also small update. After landing, without resetting FSX, the problem solved itself?

Hi guys, First off a big cudos to you! A real treat this aircraft simulation. Have to say from the early NG up to now the evolution in making it possible to fly a complex a/c in the confines of FS single pilot operation is super. Secondly, en route to TNCM now and I encountered a little issue. At a certain point, don't ask me when because I only noticed it a few minutes ago, I noticed the MSG light was on on FMC/CDU 1, I looked it up in the FCOM and it's supposed to only light up when there is a scratchpad message for me to read. So went into the FMC 1 system on my CDU1 though no message to be found and strangely enough, no longer able to enter data in the scratchpad (both via keyboard entry or via the mouse) attached a small view of the problem though it is self explanatory. I can however still use CDU2 for data entry (and the Central CDU works too) Maybe I missed something so if this is the case please enlighten me, after all I am an airbus driver so maybe I got some things mixed up here! Best regards Lenny

i think in real life 99% of the approaches flown will be ILS approaches, or ILS assisted visual approaches... VOR/NDB is very uncommon, visual should be the second biggest heap. RNAV is gradually being phased in more and more.but for sure, ILS, more than 90% approaches... (for commercial jet airliners)

And to add to this discussion, more and more european airports are adopting a DA for non precision approaches. Back in the day non precision approaches used to be 'step down' approaches, where you would pas a boundary there after descend to the next lower altitude until finally reaching the 'MDA' where you would stay, look out for the runway and at the MAPt go around. Nowadays with modern technology (FMS, GPS...) we are able to fly these non precisions the same way in lateral field but thanks to technology we have better means of constructing a self assessed glide path to the runway (usually 3°) . This implies that if this guidance can be accepted as accurate, you can consider flying a continuous descent final approach (CDFA). However the definition of the MDA is not coherent with this technique, therefore decisions were made by the airlines themselves to either add 50' to the MDA and fly the approach CDFA instead of the older less stabilized step-down approach. Now, more and more authorities are updating their procedures to have a DA instead of a MDA, because the redesign usually implies the procedure to be flown CDFA. (of course this is not alway possible) Also, regarding the 'authority'. The only thing an authority will define for an approach, is an OCA (obstacle clearance altitude)/OCH(obstacle clearance height). The regulations say the MDA/DA >= OCA and MDH/DH>=OCH . that's it. there is nothing saying you have to fly an NPA with a MDA/H.

Etienne, you are right in stating this. However with the release of the R1A update software for both Thales Topflight and Honeywell Pegasus FMGCs, the 'MDA' and 'DH' has been changed to read 'BARO' and 'RADIO'. This to avoid the confusion you talk about. It's not really an airbus design flaw. Cheerz

my 2 cents...I do fly (big) airplanes for a living, not boeing though but that beats the point!and sure, there is a technique described in every flight manual of every type of airplane simply because well you have to explain how to land the thing... it's like the manual for your oven explaining how to turn the power on...Landing an airplane is not a matter of 'pitching up x degrees at yy feet', no, it's a matter of judgement. If you feel your technique is not getting you the right result, change it. Flare a little later, earlier whatever but make sure you are getting what you want and don't start blaming the book for not matching the airplane or vice versa ... it simply does not work that way. Every airplane is different, and i still have to meet 'that' pilot who aces every landing... (because he/she does not exist!) And even if they took the flight data from the unreliable speed data... who cares... you're flying an airplane, not numbers!(seriously we do have reference numbers but far to often have i noticed that trying to chase those numbers caused me to scr*w up my approach... so i don't go by the numbers anymore, sometimes you need more, sometimes you need less....) get experience and learn from it. CheerzLenny

sweet video! your system looks rock solid! :)love the song too ;) summeriisshh ;)

not to start an airbus vs boeing thing here but your comment is rather... ehm...anyhow, in the airbus whenever you move the levers out of CLB detent forward you put the auto thrust into ARMED mode and command thrust to that TLA setting. (so slamming the levers to TOGA will ALWAYS give you max available power ... kinda the same, right? ;) )(if you move them below CLB detent with auto thrust active what you do is limiting the maximum thrust you allow the auto thrust to use, so imagine max climb thrust is 88%N1 and you reduce the TLA a bit below the CLB detent, you are restricting auto thrust to say 84%N1, auto thrust will then obey this limitation, however this is an uncommon procedure and will cause caution messages to pop up on the ECAM...) cheerzPS: NO pun intended!!!

your reserves should include the following: Reserve fuel = altn fuel + 30' holding fuelWhen you hit the reserve fuel (you should be at destination by that point otherwise you should've legally diverted!) you have little options left.Either the airfield is a good airfield with multiple non-crossing runways, and the weather is above minima (and you expect to start your approach in a reasonable (do-able) timeframe). Note that at this point you are committed to land at your destination. (this option is changing the FP to a flight plan without destination alternate for fuel planning)If not you will be forced to divert immediately to your alternate and be committed to land over there.If weather all around is too bad to land legally, you have done your homework wrong! (at this stage it would be REALLY wise to ask atc about airfields which are open and have decent enough weather minima...) Cost Index is a very mathematical figure. In airbus they say your cost index is a figure all in f.e. CI = 40 = 40kg/minbut again, it's very mathematical/statistical...there no rule but in general CI = 0 = max range ; CI = 25 = long range ; anything above is considered 'economical'(remember flying fixed Cost Index = NOT fixed speed as this will depend on wind / SAT/weight )

yup, but in the bus we ALWAYS have an indication of the TLA (thrus lever angle) ... so to disco auto thrust on the bus we simply first slide the throttles back to the current N1 setting, then disco the auto thrust... et voila easy stuff!

Hi, about those AFS lights on the main panel.For some reason here the thread starter disconnected the autopilot in what is called 'an involuntary' way.This means a way the auto flight system is not expecting.In airplanes there's is a thing called 'soft disconnect'. This is the one and only way of disconnecting the auto flight system without upsetting it.All other ways are actually not used normally, unless the 'primary disconnect' (i.e. soft disconnect) does not function anymore.So go into your keyboard setting, look for A/P disengage switch and A/T disengage switch. NEVER use the disengage BAR, unless the primary means fails...(in reality there are conveniently located buttons for both on the flying controls + throttles)the lights you are seeing flashing is the system telling you 'hey, why is this autopilot off? i didn't get a normal disconnect request'you can usually cancel the lights by pressing them, also, by pressing the respective soft disconnect button a second time.

there are always 3 sources of minima.1. Jeppesen Minima (or whatever charting service you use)2. State minima (published in the AIS of the repective state, these are the absolute minima the state will allow you to use on CAT II/III approaches, f.e. France does not allow DH0 CAT III A/B approaches, it has an absolute minimum of DH203. Company minima, these might be imposed due to operational restrictions => published in company notams. Obviously the higher of the 3 always applies... To know wether a runway is CAT II/III => check chart 10-9 or the airport briefing charts in the section 1.3 Low Visibility OperationsAlso check notams wether the CAT II/III facilities are operationalAnd to perform any low vis aproach: Low Visibility Procedures MUST be in use at the respective airport!!(activation usually notified by ATIS, or respective controller)Cheers

Another interesting on to fly is the ILS 31L/R at LFML Provence (coming from Montelimar of course) Has to be done in full raw data and weather at absolute minimums :) Great combo of navaids and tracking! Really (done it a lot on my previous type of a/c which was pretty basic raw data) CheerzLenny

Jay is right. The only thing a pax will feel is the actual 'angle' at which you are descending as it's similar to putting a chair on a tilting slope... you do feel the way you are sitting. But the actual vertical speed is not really felt at all.I once had a VS over 10000fpm (negative of course) and my cabin crew never even noticed it was a steep descent! (this was in an Avro RJ btw)so sure, there is absolutely NO problem getting high descent rates, just keep your pitch within personal professional limits and you'll be fine...

Not sure if this is an actual SOP, rather a GOP (Good operating practice)with the introduction of RVSM airspaces the space between 2 airplanes flying a similar routing was halved. In such a situation often when climbing at high rate of climb, the TCAS thinks you are going to hit each other because TCAS doesn't take into account the FCU/MCP selected level off altitude... so what we usually do, is keep an eye on the altitude ... 1000' to go is a standard crosscheck which tempts us to check if there might be a need to reduce the vertical speed to lesser values such as 1000fpm. Otherwise, if no traffic there is no real reason to do so as the ALT CAP mode will take care of that anyhow.

There is no magic formula but it has to be noted that in general airplanes with highly efficient wings (such as the 737, A320, A330, actually all thin airfoiled wings) don't like to 'descend + decelerate', it's either 'descend' or 'decelerate' but never really combined. I used to fly an airplane which was able to do both but then again the name 'brick with wings' was a used nickname for it... ;) This entire debate is about 'energy management' btw. you need to consider your potential and kinetic energy level, being altitude(potential) and speed (kinetic) and combined they give you your 'energy level'... the trick is playing around with that... trading speed for altitude or opposite ...f.e. when hitting a turbulent layer of air... often we are climbing at an ECON speed around 310kias... but it never hurts to 'zoom up' through the turbulent layer by trading in your kinetic energy (310kias) for potential energy (higher altitude) (respecting minimum speeds of course, it should be noted that climbing at green dot speed gives you the best rate of climb but it will not be the most economical way of climbing as you will need a lot of time and power to regain your 'optimum cruise speed' after leveling off... so really it's a mix of a lot of factors but as Jack says, experience will bring most of the answers... try it out, if you miss it... so be it you learn from it. cheerz

speed brakes are devices which cause vibrations through the airframe. the higher the speed, the higher the vibration.speed brakes also change the aerodynamic properties of the wing, leading to a higher stall speed in general.I myself fly an airbus, and there is a continuously calculated Vls (lowest selectable speed) which takes into account a number of things but basically provides solid protections in turns and up to 2.5g or 2g with flaps. When you pull out the speed brake, you notice that Vls (yellow bar) shooting up like a rocket. Also, there is a personal prestige in getting an approach 'continuous descent' without using the speed brake... but then again that might just be ego talking! ;) so is there any 'real' reason not to use the speed brake? no... just take into consideration the effects it will have on your stall speed... CheerzLenny

No problems either! :D

comfort for a pax is not defined by your actual V/S. Rather by your PITCH and the suddenness of your actions...I remember one day 'plunging' into LSGG (for real :() going for about 8000fpm (avro rj, full airbrake)Afterwards I asked the cabin if they noticed, they said they just noticed the airplane handing 'forward' a bit more than usual but nothing more... great video... looks terrific!

Seriously, coffee makers DO cause fires... nothing funny about a catastrophic coffee maker failure you see :( ;)

In the EU:dispatcher files your flightplan.Basically there's a thing called flow control.What happens is, you as either pilot or dispatcher file the routing you want to use (having taken due care and attention to NOTAMS that might prohibit the use of airspaces/airways)This is first sent to the CFMU to be validated and checked (and coordinated to all affected TMZs). It can then either be accepted and filed (by CFMU) or be rejected.concerning the SID STAR issue. Really it's up to you to decide which one you use, obviously taking into account the restrictions imposed on some SIDs/STARsAlso, obviously an airline will always want to keep the routing distance minimal and hope for the shortest arrival. (not in fuel planning though!)If the problem arises that you expect runway XX with STAR A, and wind changes into runway YY with STAR B (which has a different initial fix) usually the plan will remain the same routing, but somewhere along the final part of the routing they will give you a direct to the initial fix for STAR B, or they vector you all the way in.It's really up to ATC, remember flying off route is not prohibited unless explicitly mentioned (f.e. turkish airspace => only allowed on the airways) The only main consideration flying off route is military airspaces, PRD zones, TMA's and minimum off route altitudes (grid MORA's)Though in general we tend to prefer using the airways as they have usually been established for a good reason and assure good traffic flow.What I usually do is prepare for both of the arrivals. Once you get within range for ATIS reception (usually 160nm) you'll know what to expect. If not: ASK! ;)

ok: everybody... being a pilot sucks big time, everybody REFRAIN from training to be a pilot. This way, maybe the market will become less saturated and the companies will be forced to pay us what we deserve!REALLLY!!!!!! :((though some part of me really like the idea of being payed correctly...)in reality to become a pilot one must be passionate about it. otherwise you won't make the sacrifices, nor keep the motivation to keep doing it. And don't forget, it's teamwork... it's always great to have a completely disillusioned colleague next to you...So really, if you wanna be a pilot ,make sure it's the only thing you really want!

Sorry just need to reply hereFirst, as to who is responsible.Very simple answer. ATC might claim that they have many responsabilities, and this is true, aircraft separation like this is essentially ALWAYS a pilot's responsability.On the ground, the rules are clear. You are in charge of your airplane, must know it's dimensions and what it can or can not pass. The rest is plain BS and usually there are more 'rules' but they are merely for insurance purpose.So it's quite clear, the Air France did not properly judge the position of the CRJ's tail, which makes them 100% to blame for this. It's the same in your car, if you pass a green light, you still have to make sure the cross roads are clear for you to pass!Secondly: concerning the speed.I can only agree to the 20kt calculation. measuring the time between the tip of the nose passing and the mid of the a/c passing is a valid way of determining this. Also, i don't understand where you guys get that 'depth' aspect? the length of the A380 is a very absolute figure, if you reference it to a fixed point there is not 'depth' aspect at all.Thirdly: airbus vs boeingGrow up people, they both make great airplanes and considering the enormous amount of time they have been in the air they ALL have a pretty damn good safety record. To not fly one of them show's ignorance imho(hey it's my opinion ;) )Fourth: A320 HAbsheim crashThere are many things to be said here but for me it's quite obvious:The aircrew made some VERY poor judgement calls, BUT if the technology had done what it should've done they would NOT have hit the trees.It is part of an enormous coverup by Airbus because the airplane was just released brand new, one of it's first flights too.There is very convincing evidence that shows the FDR/CVR have been replaced between the crash scene and the initial detainment at the official's office. There are a lot more troubling items such as an OEB wich was to be release days later concerning a glitch in the ATHR vs FADEC communication and many more (google it and brush up your french ;) )don't get me wrong, not against airbus here at all (heck i fly the real thing every day)food for thought.and mr. 'if it aint boeing i am not going'... really? :( if your mother was dying in a city far far away and you'd only be able to take an AIRBUS flight there you'd let her die alone? :( :( ;) (not the smilies please)Lenny

tricky part about it is, it's a slow turn. takes some time, as you bank into the turn, the wind is playing with you, as well as your speed decreasing due to the increase pitch you need in your turn. the turning in is the easy part,however when rolling out level you need to make a very precise combination of steering inputs to roll wings level, pitch your nose down and decrease your power setting again. This all on the very last part of the approach. hey it's not without reason most companies expect their aircraft to be established in final config/speed/power setting latest 1000ft AGL. This also combines to us pilots no being used to it...Cheers

Honestly, My job has me flying over the alps almost every day, we never use this kind of chart. The thing is, in essence, you can suffer engine failure, and drift down but by the time you have drifted down, you'll 1) be across the alps, and 2) still be above the 'Minimum Grid Altitude' (highest of which is 18500ft over the alps)Different story when you lose all power source, or your aircraft has lower drift down levels. In those cases it is important to consider your strategy....But basically, engine failure flying south to north you have Milano, Venice, Turin, Geneva, Zurich, Lyon and some others around you which with 1 engine left, you'll make no problem.It's a nice chart though, well thought out, and could be usefull, but just so you guys know, it's not really very relevant or widely used. They have these charts for the himalaya's becuase, there you have a problem with MGA's being above your drift down level, and the nearest suiteable airport for landing usually is quite a long way to go.But Still, nice find!And thanks for sharing it, wasn't even aware this was around!Lenny Zaman