Jump to content

AMJBecker

Members
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About AMJBecker

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Groundwork

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Another EDDH/33 RNAV today worked perfectly. Don't know what went wrong then.
  2. In the meantime I flew a RNAV approach to EDDH/15 and it worked fine. No idea, why the EDDH/33 RNAV doesn't.
  3. Today I performed a different NPA, a NDB approach to EDDH runway 05 with A330 aircraft, which was fine as far as the control of the sink rate is concerned. This means that the issue raised above is RNAV specific, not a general NPA issue.
  4. I had several successful managed RNAV approaches on an A319 to EDDH runway 33. Doing the same with A330 failed. FMS did not control the vertical profile properly. V/DEV is correctly displayed on PFD and MCDU PROG page. I saved the flight before final approach. See attached files. In order to be sure that I haven't made a relevant mistake, I performed the same flight on the A319, which worked fine as expected. The saved flight files are also attached. I'm on Prepar3D 4.5 (4.5.13.32097), the A319 is release 1.3.1.0, the A330 is release 1.0.2.0. Training A319 EDDL 23L EDDH 33 RNAV approach.abx training a319 eddl 23l eddh 33 rnav approach.asc training a319 eddl 23l eddh 33 rnav approach.fms Training A319 EDDL 23L EDDH 33 RNAV approach.fxml Training A319 EDDL 23L EDDH 33 RNAV approach.wx Training A330 EDDL 23L EDDH 33 RNAV approach.abx training a330 eddl 23l eddh 33 rnav approach.asc training a330 eddl 23l eddh 33 rnav approach.fms Training A330 EDDL 23L EDDH 33 RNAV approach.fxml Training A330 EDDL 23L EDDH 33 RNAV approach.wx
  5. I know there is a topic, which looks quite similar to mine: This was closed, because you thought that the reason is an incompatible P3D version. But I am facing a similar issue. The difference: I have the current P3D version installed (4.5.13.32097). Furthermore, loading/resuming a saved flight works fine with the A320 family, but not the one mentioned below for the A330. The flight has been saved with the same SW versions of O/S, P3D, A330. A320 is version 1.3.0.0, A330 is 1.0.0.2. Find attached the "Saved Flights" files for the flight, which shows this error (this is a state just before pushback). I performed the flight successfully and made some saves previously. Training A330 Hamburg 33 Johannesburg 21R ILS before Pushback.wxTraining A330 Hamburg 33 Johannesburg 21R ILS before Pushback.abxtraining a330 hamburg 33 johannesburg 21r ils before pushback.asctraining a330 hamburg 33 johannesburg 21r ils before pushback.fmsTraining A330 Hamburg 33 Johannesburg 21R ILS before Pushback.fxml There is another saved flight for the A330, which surprisingly works (this is a turn around state at a specific position): Hamburg Parking A4 turn around state (A330).abxhamburg parking a4 turn around state (a330).aschamburg parking a4 turn around state (a330).fmsHamburg Parking A4 turn around state (A330).fxmlHamburg Parking A4 turn around state (A330).wx And now a 3rd situation (basically before descent), PROG page does not have CRZ and OPT FL: Training A330 Hamburg 33 Johannesburg 21R ILS before Descent.abxtraining a330 hamburg 33 johannesburg 21r ils before descent.asctraining a330 hamburg 33 johannesburg 21r ils before descent.fmsTraining A330 Hamburg 33 Johannesburg 21R ILS before Descent.fxmlTraining A330 Hamburg 33 Johannesburg 21R ILS before Descent.wx So it seems that the issue is not about a general incompatibility problem, but a specific issue arrising from some saved parameter(s).
  6. Oh, good news! The one for the A330 release, I mean. I'm very excited! I will continue my understanding work with the new Fuel Planner. I'll see. Thanks Dave
  7. Another example, where I cannot find an explanation: looking at the index units for fuel in the Airbus Load and Trim Sheet, they are all negative and for a high fuel amount growing substantially, meaning that the COG is expected to move forward. But the Fuel Planner shows an increasing %MAC for high amounts of fuel. See following screenshot:
  8. I am not yet familiar with the A330. But does the A319 also have such a trim tank?
  9. I am trying to understand, how the Fuel Planner calculates the Center of Gravity. Comparing the COG calculated by the Fuel Planner for an empty aircraft, i.e. ZFW = BOW, which results in %MAC of 27,2%, with the COG for the full amount of passengers, but no cargo and no fuel, resulting in %MAC of 21,9%, I'm getting confused. A lower %MAC means that the more passengers are on board, the more forward is the CG. I would expect the contrary, because there are more seats behind the 25% MAC line than before that line, isn't it? See the following screenshots Other Load and Trim Sheets, as can be found in the Airbus Flight Crew Operation Manual, Part 2, Chapter 1.40, also suggest a shift of the COG towards the back with a growing number of PAX.
  10. Apparently the mapping between the TOWCG values and and the THS settings are not correct in Fuel Planner as well as the Steb-byStep Guide. Chapter 5.4 in Vol 6 (Step-by-Step Guide) shows the mapping for A319, which in fact is that of the A321, and vice versa. The Fuel Planner seems to have taken over the same swap. Selecting e.g. A319, the TOWCG translates in THS settings for the A321, and vice versa. This is the Trim Wheel for the A319, where the TOWCG value of 41 corresponds to DN 3: ... and this is the picture in the Step-by-Step Guide: Here the TOWCG 41 of the A319 is higher than DN 3.
  11. Nice link! Thank you. Question: do the FSX sceneries comply with P3DV4, too? Sometimes it's mentioned explicitly that a scenery is for P3DV4 only. Does this mean that this particular scenery is for P3D only, but the others are for FSX and P3D?
  12. I made an update of the P3D scenery as described above. It's much better now, as the runway names and frequencies and runway courses are corrected in many cases. Thank you. But missing runways are not added, at least the two, which I checked (Almaty 23R/05L and Frankfurt 25R/07L still don't exist). This means that the second recommendation above seems to be the only way to be safe. Thanks mopperle.
  13. Does anyone have a good approach how to overcome inconsistencies between the Aerosoft Navigation database and the P3D scenery? As an example: I performed a flight to Almaty, Kasachstan (UAAA) and selected runway 23R. During final approach I recognized that runway 23R does not exist in P3D and the ILS approach could not capture the tuned ILS. I checked in P3D and realized that the P3D scenery only knows a runway 23 (which seems to be runway 23L in the Aerosoft navigation database). Another example: The final approach to Dusseldorf, Germany (EDDL) towards runway 23R went fine until short before the runway threshold, when the altitude suddenly went up a significant amount so that landing is nearly impossible. Again, comparing the runway characteristics between the Aerosoft navigation database and the P3D scenery shows a difference in the runway elevations, which for me most probably causes the altitude hop. (Runway 23L is fine, by the way.) it is a very bad surprise after a successful flight, when all of a sudden things go wrong. This is why I'd like to know how others handle such effects.
×
×
  • Create New...