Goshob

member
  • Content count

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

1 Follower

About Goshob

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Solo

Recent Profile Visitors

597 profile views
  1. Hi, After reading tenths of pages concerning a project with (excuse me) unknown completion date, I would like to ask several simple questions, which may put many people back to Earth. 1. What will be the hardware demands of the new bus? We had already seen the minimum requirements for P3D V4: http://www.prepar3d.com/system-requirements/ Hope it is clear to everyone that if "minimal" requirements are mentioned, it doesn't mean that the performance will be good. 2. What will be the the estimated price for the new bus? Hope not close or higher of the price, on which FSL is selling their a320... I hope that asking the above questions, may create serious thoughts in some people if their systems will be suitable for running such beauty. More important will be what will be the total needed budget, including software and hardware modifications. And trust me, this questions are important for the people who are earning their money themselves. I know that SIM is a relatively expensive hobby and many people can say take it or leave it, which is correct and not correct at the same time. Budgeting is an important subject and is advisable to have enough advance information prior to making it. Have a nice day!
  2. Goshob

    Approach to VOBL, IRAC 1803

    Hi, Thank you for the answer! I am using version 1.31 of the bus, which obviously is not the issue. Now it is clear (as Mathijis mentioned in the old post) that this is sort of a bug related to difference in databases. Will take it for granted, no other way obviously... The "strange" drawing was shown before the flight and even during the beginning of STAR ( I was following it till ROMET) where I had no other option than to leave aside the path and use DIR function. I strongly feel that something else went wrong with the SIM also because the runway suddenly disappear when the plane was about 300 ft above the ground and I landed in the field. We can only hope that such "drawings" will be as less as possible in the new version of the bus, which is expected and comment so long in another topic...
  3. Good evening, Just few words, which may need comment during the Weekend. I was planning recently a flight to Bangalore, India (VOBL). It was given to me STAR LUMPU6 and ILS approach on Rwy ILSZ9. I am attaching some pictures from the MCU how the rout was drawn: The plane is AS A321, SFX:SE. Tried to change the flight plan, but no success. The mess remains the same. Would appreciate if some comments can be made.
  4. Goshob

    ILS approach RWY 23R in HECA

    Hi, Thank you for the explanation and nice video! Summarizing all the above, I feel that following can be concluded: 1. There seems to be a bug in AS bus, V1.31, which prevents it drawing / flying some specific or complicated approaches as the discussed one. The bug will be eventually corrected in the future pro version. 2. There is nothing wrong with published charts, but with their interpretation by the FMC. 3. Good way for flying approaches where the drawn on ND is strongly deviated from the chart is better fly it on heading mode as Dave did. 4. Best way for this particular and any other difficult approaches if an ATC is available who can give vectors (I had a chance for such in one of my SIM flights to Cairo and there was no problem). However, I am happy with what we discussed above and strongly feel that it was a good "brain exercise". It answered me some questions, which not being a professional in aviation, were concerning me for some time. Hope it had some value for the others who read all this also.
  5. Goshob

    ILS approach RWY 23R in HECA

    Hi Dave, Thank you for the comments! We obviously are coming step by step to what I was trying to say in all my previous posts and mainly to find the reason for it. I am using NavDataPro (Aerosoft Charts) annual subscription and FMC is planning based on it. It is regularly updated, for which I am absolutely sure. The Nav Display shown in my first post was based on AIRAC 1801 and I am also saying that the points drawn are not matching with the chart. The questions here are WHY and WHAT CAN BE DONE? My current Airbus version is 1.31 and unfortunately I have no access to the Pro version, which Frank also stated that fly the approach much better.
  6. Goshob

    ILS approach RWY 23R in HECA

    Hello Gentlemen, Thank you very much for the answers and the support. Appreciated! Let me make some notes also. I actually posted all this because I was very curious how such approach can be flown, if left on the autopilot only. Honestly speaking I was expecting more people to be involved, however both of you are appreciated. Biggest part of my curiosity was based on what presumptions the FMS calculates the position of INTCPT point? This is obviously an artificial, computer generated point, which is not part of the chart and in the particular case determines the type of approach, i.e. at an angle or whatsoever. Quoting the chart, we have to admit that it was made in such a way to assure straight approach to the runway. In case the FMS was following strictly the chart all of my questions and doubts could never be raised. Most important of those doubts was how the computer is actually interpreting the charts? What will the real FMS show on the ND in this particular case? Here is the time to say, that I fully agree with Dave, whom I always consider as my mentor, that FMS is impossible to always give an exact interpretation of the chart. However current chart is straight forward and only the position of one point, generated by the computer anyhow, can completely change the entire situation. The speed is also a factor, which definitely has its impact, but I said that it was not so important in my previous post simply because I flew the approach after INTCPT with F2 and speed of 160 knots and could not establish on the glide slope. Hope my thoughts in the previous post were clear enough. Fact is that my flight to Cairo with the VA was under VATSIM and the ATC gave me straight path to the runway and there was enough time for accepting the localizer and glide slope. I decided to open this topic after seeing the path drown on the ND and asking myself how could I fly it without ATC. Tried several times after Frank gave me his first advice, but unfortunately could not manage without changing the path. Anyhow and if someone from AS considers that all these talks are with no use or belong to a different section of the forum, I am ready to accept the Administrators either to delete or move the topic. Alternatively we can continue going deeper into the technicalities of similar situations, which are existing. It would be very interesting also if Frank receives necessary permission for sharing the clip, which he mentioned and concerning the new pro version of the bus. Thank you!
  7. Goshob

    Cruise Throttle problem

    Hi, Are you sure that you are not in TOGA LK mode or Alpha Floor how the professionals are calling it. Check your FMA top left corner. This mode is switched on automatically in certain conditions and creates lots of inconveniences, if not deactivated on time. I was facing it several times when started using A320 and there were cases when the plane wanted to go in the stratosphere and even higher All was sorted thanks to Emi and famous Step-by-step of course. Cheers!
  8. Hi, Why don't you leave everything to the AP? Simply press Speed and Altitude buttons and let the plane do the work for you. The most important is to clearly understand the FBW logic of the plane because it will act very "strange" otherwise, especially if you are used to Boeing.
  9. Goshob

    Checklist

    Hi, Did you try changing your new cruise altitude in the Init page of left MCDU? I think the computer makes a complete recalculation of the route in this case and assigns new TOD.
  10. Goshob

    ILS approach RWY 23R in HECA

    Hi Frank, Thank you for the answer. I made several experiments during the weekend following your advises, but unfortunately all were unsuccessful. I was too busy changing speed, heading, etc. and forgot to take pictures. However I will try to explain in writing. The major stipulation here is that all experiments were made in fair weather conditions, just for a trial. I strongly feel that the speed is not the main issue in the situation. I am always using (trying to be close to) an old rule, which a friend of mine was teaching his students. According to this rule the approach speed (in ideal conditions, or fair weather) depends on the distance from the runway. It is easier to illustrate this with figures: 10 nm - 200 knt, 9 nm - 190 knt, 8 nm - 180 knt, 7 nm - 170 knt and so on. Hope you can follow the logic of the middle digit. I think I had seen something similar in some of the aviation videos also. In the best of my attempts, I was approaching ITT55, which is 5.5 nm from the airport, with 160 knt flying on 2000 ft as per the procedure. What I think and correct me, if I am wrong is that the main reason for missing the approach is how the navigation computer interprets the chart. The plane fly from 004 to INTCPT on a 270 deg ark. Than it goes to ITT55 on heading of 195 deg, at least as per the interpretation of the computer. It doesn't actually cross ITT55, but fly another right turn to heading 225 deg, which is normal. This final ark is enough to miss either the localizer or the glide slope because both of them are coming at the same time. In other words, the plane comes at an angle of app. 30 deg (225 - 195 = 30) to a point where the glide slope should be executed already. This point is actually after ITT55. I do not know why, there should be a valid reason for sure, the computer needs to establish on the localizer first and may or may not follow the glide slope, but it has to be captured after the localizer for sure. This is what exactly happens in this case - the localizer is captured, but the plane is above the glide slope already and only fast manual descend can capture it, which is not so easy. There is always an option for manual landing or go around, but this is not what we are discussing here. Something else comes to my mind while writing this and I will definitely try it. To divert the plane from INTCPT to CAI05 and ITT55 after that. Both of these two points (CAI05 and ITT55) are on one line and there might be time for accepting the localizer first and glide slope after that. The entire idea is that the actual chart is different from the actual computer interpretation and such "trick" may help. Would be curious to know your and some other opinions also. Thank you!
  11. Hi Guys, Here below I will try to start a discussion concerning an ILS approach to Rwy 23R in Cairo, Egypt. The charts of IRAC 1801 will be used and a picture from my ND. Have to mention first that I am using AS A320 in all my flights, same for this one. I would like to express my strong expectation that this will become a really useful discussion, except a simple request for reading the step-by-step manual. I have to state in advance, that such subject is not in it. Let me start with the chart first: .What it says is that the plane should fly on 3500 ft till reaching CAI D1.4, than descend to 2000 ft and turn right on heading 90 deg on D 5 CAI. Fly app. 2.5 nm on that heading keeping altitude of 2000 ft, and turn left heading 270 deg. After app. 1 nm the plane has to turn another left on heading 225 deg and accept the localizer. The glide slope will be available at point P or D5.5 ITTR, which is on 5.3 nm from the runway. Here the final approach and GP has to be started in order to reach the runway safely and as per the applicable procedure. All this is very good to be true, as every theory from similar sort. Why I am saying that will be shown below. Here is how the navigation computer of the bus interprets all the above. I have to state once again that all this is as per the Navigation computer of AS A320. No idea how the real A320 does it: Everything up to CAI 05 is as per the chart. The altitude is 2000, which is OK. There is a right turn on heading 90 deg till point 0004, which is OK also, but up to here. The left turn is to INTCPT, which unfortunately is away (more left) from localizer direction 225 deg. The plane than has to fly to D5.5 ITTR as a mandatory condition of the route. Following such it enters into an angle of app. 30 deg to the glide path, has to change the heading to 225 deg to accept the localizer and unfortunately the GS is missed or big VS corrections have to be made for accepting it. My questions are: Is there something, which can be done for correcting the position of INTCPT if someone flays without ATS, following the FW on the autopilot only? Is this something related to imperfection of the charts, navigation computer or simply a way of interpretation for simplifying the software? Thank you in advance!
  12. Goshob

    Show your desk!

    Hi, What is the pannel with the blue screens in the middle? Is it a VRinsight thing? What about the white machine on the right?
  13. Goshob

    SUGGESTIONS (could be pinned)

    Hope the Navigraph users noticed a very nice tool called Simlink implemented recently for tracing your flight in real time on remote device. It might be a good idea for adding similar in NavDataPro also
  14. Hi, I would like to ask something similar here because it is time to make my mind if I change from Navigraph. I noticed that NavDataPro for FS2004 is offered in 3 separate subscriptions. Is it the same software applicable to the other platforms (FSX, FSX:SE and X-plane)?
  15. Goshob

    Commercial query

    Hello Tom, Thank you for the explanation. The subjects are clear now. You can close the topic with following small remarks: - I am unable to see any option for choosing 4 cycles subscription. There is actually no sense of such when the price is fixed and AIRAC are 13; - It might be a good option if AS is offering various subscription options for NavDataPro in the same way as it was done with the charts; - Hope AS is not planning to change using LIDO charts at least for the next year as what Navigraph did; Thank you!