Jump to content

glenmornan

members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About glenmornan

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Groundwork
  1. OK. If anybody contemplates this one, this is the best workaround I could find, in absence of any inside knowledge of real world stuff. Try selecting DARKI C STAR (if approaching from Lima) as it uses a wider 180 degree left turn before the final approach. Once you are well into the turn you should be at an altitude of 16500 feet, and you then need to select 12700 on the MCP as per the altitude at the Z0556 marker. As you begin to descend you'll see the runway at about 1 o'clock and in an ideal world your first officer would presumably be checking your descent and adjusting the FPA. However, you're playing solitaire and you haven't got time for anything else but to kill the autopilot and get on with the task of landing. Experienced simmers will probably use their own judgement, but I decided to disconnect as soon as I had reached 12700 feet. Hopefully you'll be able to descend that final 1900 feet without too much of an increase in airspeed, but be prepared to land at about 160 knots if you are a bit impatient with that descent, like I am. If you are very lucky or very clever you may have reached a sufficiently low ground speed to turn off the runway before you reach the main terminal building. The description in my previous post with the 200 plus knot landing was straight out of a fiction novel, and the fact that I have returned to the hobby after a very long lay-off should be taken into consideration. I appreciate that no real world pilot would have even attempted such a landing, even if he/she had crash detection disabled! I felt a bit short-changed that Aerosoft don't model the High Altitude Landing Lights (situated in the lower left section of the overhead panel in aircraft which have them fitted), so I'm off to my old stomping grounds of swampy Finland, where things are a bit more sensible. Mega Airport Helsinki is a frame buster, although my system handles it (on FSX) at highest resolution without going into single figures. Can't wait for the snowploughs to start working on those runways, and I'm growing my white beard for the kids on Christmas trips to Rovaniemi!
  2. Well, I managed it, although the final approach speed was horrific, and there was one hell of a heavy landing. Keeping your speed low at that altitude is a tall order, and I'm amazed that the sim/aircraft model recreates that phenomenon (or does it?). The videos I saw of A320s landing had full flaps selected with about 5000 feet still to descend, and they reckon those beefed up tyres are only good for 195 knots. I was just over 200 knots when I touched down, and could have done with arrestor cables on that runway which hasn't been modelled at the correct incline. Think I'll need to get better South American scenery and the Aerosoft version of Cuzco before I have a nervous breakdown with the scenery I'm using!
  3. HI, I did find the Aerosoft version of the airport and read the info that relates to high altitude operations. I think I bought the wrong version, as I could do with the upward incline on that runway. I also read that Airbus China have apparently undertaken some modifications of the pressurisation system to the A319 for high altitude work there. Apparently the operators also fit special tyres made to cope with the higher landing speeds. However, I'm not too worried about that, as I doubt whether anybody will bother to develop the relevant mods for the default Aerosoft package, unless it will be featured in the 2018 version? Here it is if anybody is interested:- http://www.caac.gov.cn/ZTZL/RDZT/XJSYY/201511/P020151126413567294102.pdf I managed to watch a few You Tube videos and now believe I know what I was doing wrong. Speedbrake on all but the A318 equipped for Steep Approach apparently should not be used with anything greater than Flaps 2, and some operators have equipment fitted to specifically prevent deployment of the speedbrake at flap settings greater than 2. All of the final approaches I viewed were with full flaps, and speed brake not extended. Turns out I was taking too direct a course towards the runway instead of losing height by making a right turn after clearing the mountain in the initial part of the approach. The autopilot must be disconnected at that same time, which was confirmed by the videos I saw. There is actually plenty of time to lose the necessary altitude, although you consequently need to make a fairly sharp left turn to line up with the runway. The default FSX scenery is not very good at that location and there are no decent landmarks to guide you on the descent path. At least with Samos you have a pier, a mountain village, and a large white roofed agricultural shed to help, but I couldn't find much of assistance at Cuzco. Definitely one to be tried again later when there are no grandchildren, kittens, (or wife!) distracting me.
  4. Sorry, missed that bit altogether. I'd better get the manual out and find the relevant info. I'll also see if I can find anything on You Tube. I have played around at Cuzco with the default Cessna and found climbing was a bit pedestrian, although taking off and landing weren't a problem. Bet you get fed up with old guys like me from the steam age who just want to go for it instead of doing the homework first! Thanks for the advice. I'll let you know how I get on.
  5. Just wondering if anybody had tried this out and succeeded without crashing. I'm not very good at the proper sim speak but hopefully I'll be able to tell you what went wrong. I have the Latin VFR airport scenery installed for Cuzco and the 1st try was in a 318 from Lima SPJC (stlll referred to by its old ICAO code as SPIM in FSX) airport with "DARKI A" STAR to Cuzco. I am using the latest Nav Data Pro Charts from Aerosoft, and now realise there are two approach charts to Cuzco. The final approach chart indicates minimum altitude of 13400 at marker Z0560, descending to 12700 at Z0556. I stupidly forgot to check the altitude restrictions in the Initial Approach chart, which requires a minimum altitude of 16500 at Z0612, and with my altitude set at 13400 the inevitable happened, and the 'bus collided with the mountain. On the second go I corrected the altitude for the initial approach, but found as the aircraft completed the 180 turn prior to the final approach, I had insufficient time to deploy the flaps, lower the gear, disconnect the autopilot etc, I had to initiate a go-around, and just ended the flight there before I went mountaineering again. Third time I upped my game to a 320 but decided to use the "DARKI B" STAR. Everything went well and I decided to deploy the flaps and lower the gear before entering the final 180, degree turn, which ended up being on a wider vector than my first two attempts. With runway in sight I disconnected the autopilot, but couldn't bleed the speed off quick enough due to the steep descent rate. I had changed to manual speed mode before the landing with a setting of 138 knots, but with the runway approaching fast my speed was well over 220 knots and rising. I tried to land at that speed but overshot the runway by a mile or two! You basically need to lose 5000 feet in a very short time to land successfully at Cuzco, and I'm wondering if I'd be better leaving the speedbrake out, the same as you would on a 318 using the "Steep Approach" procedure? Or better still, can any body tell me how it is done in the real world? The island of Samos in Greece is also pretty scary, but there is a more or less standard means of approaching the runway in VFR mode by using local landmarks as guides on the way down.
  6. Remember to delete the old version of the plane using your computer Control Panel before you try to install the latest update, which must be downloaded as a complete new file. The update installer usually fails because it cannot cope with what appears to be the Digital Aviation back up Nav Data files/folder, which seems to be left on your computer after the original plane was uninstalled. You should get an "access denied" error message and the installer simply cancels leaving you with no installed plane at all. Although there have been reports of Internet security programmes possibly interfering with software installation, I have never found this to be the case with any of the anti-virus software I've used over the last 30 years or so. However, Aerosoft say disable it, so you might want to do that as well for the install. The way I got round it was to run a freeware file unlocker on the FSX folder, as has been suggested elsewhere in the forum. Then simply run the installer again and it should be good to go. I'm using FSX Steam edition on Windows 10, 64 bit, and it worked for me.
  7. Thanks for that Dave, I suppose there are a lot of us attracted to flight simulation by what we perceive as the "arcade" element of it, just like the guy who only wants to take off and land. I should have said that I'm not really a stranger to the more advanced elements of flight simming, having used Level D 767 and suchlike in the past. One of the reasons I put it to bed for a while was the laptop I once had just wasn't up to the task, and decided I wasn't "into" flight sims enough to justify a laptop upgrade. Now, I know a laptop is far from ideal for flight simming, but I discovered the current one I have with a mediocre dedicated graphics card is well up to the task of running all the fancy add-ons to FSX. A while ago I bought the PMDG 777 and was surprised that the software included an in-house time compression feature linked to the FMC. It did a fantastic job until I was asked to do a step climb from FL380 to FL400 while the sim was running at x8 speed. I stupidly attempted the step climb at x8 speed and surprise surprise it never worked. However, the FMC flipped out of "CRZ", and I was unable to use the FMC to speed the sim back up again, as you need to be in cruise mode for it to work. No problem, I'll just use the default FSX version to run at x8. Then, when I was about 30 miles away from landing at Dubai the sim starts alternating between x4 and x8 before the 180 degree final approach turn, and the flight plan is trashed. I managed to perform the turn using heading mode, then switched off the autopilot and somehow managed to hand fly it into Dubai without breaking anything. The toilets would probably have been full on a real one all the way down despite the seat belt signs were on! Now, that sim actually explains how things work as you go in the tutorial, and I remembered enough from my Level D and Captain Sim days how to wrestle with a big Boeing that's not behaving the way you want it to. If I can ever pluck up the courage to try out the time compression feature again I'll have another go at it. However, at the end of the day it is a case of:- Set it all up, get it airborne, put the time compression into place, do all the fancy bits regarding the ETOPS rules, press all the right buttons to effect the descent, and after maybe 10 hours of "flying" be there to make sure it does what you have told it to. I know some people do get immense satisfaction from that, although I am definitely one of those who prefers to try those "dangerous approach" type scenarios, just for the hell of it. Now believe it or not, I found that 777 "disaster" to be fun, despite the fact that it would be as far removed from the real world as it is possible to get. I'm actually starting to get back into it again, and also use a Kodiak bush plane when I'm feeling like nudging tree branches and slicing off the tops of mountains. Airliners are definitely the more serious side of the hobby, and you can learn a lot from You Tube videos these days. I actually "flew" Airbus 319/320 as a BA Virtual pilot about 20 years ago, but got tired of endless flights on the Glasgow/Manchester/London route. I gave up after a few months of family grief over the time I was putting into it, and still never really learned much about the more technical aspects of FMGC programming during that time. They put a tracking device in your system to make sure you were actually completing the flights you signed up for. I had more fun on A320s withThomas Cook (Belgium) VA, and the A330 with Cathay Pacific, although a lot of the default FS 2004 Asian scenery was pretty dire. I haven't got round to doing a flight with the Airbus co-pilot yet, and if I can stop our two kittens from destroying all my earphones I'll certainly give it a go. Their favourite trick is to jump onto the laptop keyboard, grab the earphone cable in their mouths, then leap off the table with it, yanking the plug out of the side of the laptop. They are coming up for 11 months and I've only lost two cables in the last month, so things are looking up.
  8. Thanks Emanuel, I'm not having many real problems with the latest Aerosoft Airbus. It has much in common with other older Airbus aircraft I have tried, and the virtual co-pilot feature is certainly helpful. Most of the time I end up simming at the kitchen table with the sound switched off, and I know that's not really going to get the best out of the sim. Overall, I'm very impressed with the latest Airbus, and have learned more about the real ones in the last few weeks than I ever did before. I do enjoy learning technical details about aircraft, but my main interest is in the geographical aspect of the sim, especially on those final approaches into exotic or scenic places. I obviously have a lot of reading to do on modern navigation techniques. It wasn't unusual for us to navigate in the old Westland Wessex helicopters by opening the cabin door and reading the chart like you would do with a land survey map! Tall buildings, electricity pylons, rivers, and major trunk roads were the bread and butter of old fashioned helicopter navigation. Landing in the Wessex could be tricky. You knew you were eventually going to land one way or another, and if the pilot was unsure how far the landing spot was underneath him, the aircrewman just leaned out of the cabin door and guesstimated how many feet he still had to go to touchdown via the intercom! They told us it was safe as every system had a backup. However, it only had one gearbox, and if that went then you landed very quickly indeed. I'll get those earplugs in and have a listen to my co-pilot. The Airbus is probably the easiest airliner for people like me to "fly", but its very straightforward approach to things can lead to complacency. I learned how to cope with Alpha Floor and Toga Lock from a RW Airbus pilot, and in fact I learned a whole lot more from him, including the bit about managed speed on approach being dreadfully close to creating Alpha Floor condition in some cases. For what it's worth, I think you guys at Aerosoft have done a better job with the Airbus cockpit than the Swiss company I mentioned.
  9. I'd better start off by saying that I only really dabble in flight simulation, and have done so on and off for many years. From time to time I leave it alone, sometimes for years at a time, and recently I've decided to "fly" again. I am 64 years of age and the only experience I've had of real world aviation was during my time in the UK Royal Navy, when I was an electrical mechanic on helicopters. Flying as a passenger was a part of the job as a sort of "quality control". If you had just spent several hours changing an autopilot component or warning system you would often be "invited" on a test flight. I suppose that's where I got the inclination to take up flight simming, as there is nothing more satisfying than looking down on the world from a few thousand feet up. I also did a spell working on the flightdeck of an aircraft carrier, so the marine aspect of flying is also of interest to me. Having "flown" the PSS offering of the Airbus 319/320 for some years previously, I thought I had most of the bases covered, until I bought the current Airbus packages from Aerosoft. The difference between this offering and the old PSS software I used years ago is like night and day. Whilst I appreciate the flight sim fraternity comprises many different people with differing aims, people like me just want to get into the air in the shortest possible time. I've had no real problems with the new look Airbus, until I had recent issues with glide slope captivation. Basically, we have become all sophisticated of late and it seems that successful autolands can be a bit of a lottery. As a lot of my flights feature small Mediterranean islands and places like The Faroes and Iceland, autolands aren't a big thing, but it's nice to be able to do them just the same. I was having trouble capturing the glideslope for the ILS30 runway at Vagar in the Faroes. I found the answer in a Faroese video that shows the sim pilot entering all the details in the RAD NAV page of the FMGC, and his autoland takes place flawlessly. Very real and impressive looking, except for the fact that Vagar ILS 30 only offers Cat 1 landings. I appreciate that there may be technical difficulties involved, but I would respectively suggest there may be a case for introducing a "learn as you go" approach to coping with new aircraft. This could possibly be achieved by disabling certain features that would require a certain amount of "practical" experience to acquire. The usual ticking of boxes to disable or enable features would suffice, and I'm sure I've owned aircraft in the old days which had a similar facility. There is obviously a case for "light" variations for those who are a bit deficient in the technical aspects of navigation and flight management, but the hobby media ruthlessly condemns these relatively expensive investments as being "inferior", and nobody wants to buy inferior. However, I used to regularly "fly" an old "Bronze age" Dash 8 and got a lot of pleasure out of it. I therefore bought the latest offering by Majestic Software. It has now been majestically mothballed while I summon up the energy to get to grips with everything you need to do just to start the engines successfully. I see they are offering a "First Officer" package at a substantially more expensive price than the original software, which offers to make the task of flying one more possible for the solo pilot. Yes solo pilot. Flight simming airliners requires us to imagine that we have a colleague sitting beside us. If you reckon there actually is somebody sitting beside you then you may need medical help. The developers have obviously taken advantage of recent technology and have put a lot of time and trouble into trying to make everything as real as possible, and whilst that may well be what young simmers who are aspiring to be professional pilots are looking for, the rest of us are left in a difficult position as to whether it would be better to spend a fortune on improved scenery and just customise a default Cessna to make our mark as simmers. Airliners are a bit of a challenge, but Aerosoft's latest Airbus is one of the easiest to assimilate for "dabblers" like myself. If only there was a facility to learn a little bit at a time. I wouldn't even bother with PMDG, as months of learning still wouldn't qualify you to do anything other than fly your little animated model in the sim. Tutorial flights are great, but there is often a lot going on, and it is easy to miss something vital, even in a succession of attempts. Maybe it's just the case that flight simming is something you should either swallow whole or leave well alone. It's great to be able to do what "real" pilots do, but the only way you can manage that is to be up there with them watching and learning. For most of us that will not be an option, and the computer is our limit. Don't even mention other sims. In another life I was a bus driver for 12 years and I tried the OMSI bus simulator. Now that is about as real as igloos in the Sahara, and if you have a lower spec PC you might need to practice landing your bus on the roof of Spandau town hall! Despite the rant I'll probably be back at Vagar today persevering with that glideslope. If I ever take flight simming seriously I'll maybe upgrade from my Xbox 360 USB controller. Don't laugh, it's as good as most other cheap joysticks I've had, once you learn how to be delicate with it. I've only crashed a handful of times and real pilots have 9 lives, haven't they? I don't really know. The point I'm trying to make is you can make it as easy or as difficult as you like, but it will never be the real world. However, we can have great fun pretending. If you really want to pretend better than anybody else a Swiss firm sells an Airbus A320 sim for only $500, with a follow up annual subscription to keep the nav data and aircraft mods up to date. If I was young and keen I might just consider it, but would be worried my Xbox controller might not handle it all.
×
×
  • Create New...