Recently we have seen a lot of codes used to unlock our products being offered for discounted prices. Almost all of them are bought using stolen credit cards. These codes will all be blocked by our systems and you will have to try to get your money back from the seller, we are unable to assist in these matters. Do be very careful when you see a deal that is almost too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.

Jump to content
Scotflieger

SID Altitude Constraint not enforced

Recommended Posts

When flying a SID (EGPH GOSAM1C or D) the 6000ft height constraints are not being enforced if a higher altitude is dialled in and the ALT knob pushed (Managed Mode). The altitude constraint should only be overridden in Set (pulled, manual) mode. 

Share this post


Link to post

I have noticed this too. The aircraft climbs away ignoring restrictions in managed mode. secondly, when the aircraft is put into open climb below 10,000ft it totally ignores accelerating to the climb speed above 10k and instead will fly all the way up to cruise at 210-250kts. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Scotflieger said:

When flying a SID (EGPH GOSAM1C or D) the 6000ft height constraints are not being enforced if a higher altitude is dialled in and the ALT knob pushed (Managed Mode). The altitude constraint should only be overridden in Set (pulled, manual) mode. 

 

Is there any altitude restriction entered for CUMBO on the GOSAM1D?
Looking at the chart I can see a 6000ft restriction at 30D GOW and then it says to expect CUMBO above FL100, but then again GOSAM at 6000ft. This could potentially confuse the aircraft as it would have to climb and then descend again.

It would not surprise me if the real one did the same here due to the potantielly conflicting information on this SID.

Share this post


Link to post

The Edinburgh (EGPH) GOSAM1D SID is constrained to 6000ft from GOW D30 to GOSAM and at GOSAM for GOSAM1D (rwy 24) to remain under aircraft descending into Glasgow (EGPF). It is implict that this also applies to CUMBO. If air traffic allows then aircraft will be climbed early as suggested. This would however need to be flown in SET mode not Managed. 

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

No it follows the route just fine, it just doesn't respect the SID altitude constraints when in managed mode. For example, flying the COORZ3 departure out of KDEN, the aircraft totally ignores any of the below 10000' restrictions at LINGR, MUGBE, and BERRS. It does not level off and instead continues climbing even though the constraint is shown on the FPLN page and on the ND.

Share this post


Link to post

I've had the same issue with the CLN5P at EGKK which was part of a manual flightplan and the SHEAD1 at KLAS using a company route. Constraint altitude arent showing in the MCDU F-PLAN screen, it shows a predicted altitude so I dont even know if they are being read. I hope this helps

 

Update: STAR constraints appear to be working normally, it only appears to be SID for me

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, r77s2000 said:

I've had the same issue with the CLN5P at EGKK which was part of a manual flightplan and the SHEAD1 at KLAS using a company route. Constraint altitude arent showing in the MCDU F-PLAN screen, it shows a predicted altitude so I dont even know if they are being read. I hope this helps

 

Update: STAR constraints appear to be working normally, it only appears to be SID for me

 

If the constraint is not even shown in the F-PLN page then it is no surprise the Airbus does not follow it. Make sure it is in the F-PLN page, otherwise it can't be followed.

If it is missing from your AIRAC you have to add it manually.

Share this post


Link to post

So here is the  SHEAD1 SID for KLAS 26R taken from the Lufthansa Data provided with the plane, which is the database I am using: You can see the constraints are there. I also noticed that the Contraints show on the flight plan Map on the ND if the CSTR button is pressed but they do not show up on top of the altitude Ribbon of the PFD when active. I will try to get a picture of that later tonight

Capture.PNG

Share this post


Link to post

Here you can see the constraint listed on the ND for ROPPR at between 6500 and 7000, but on the MCDU it shows a predicted altitude of 9381, also note the altitude at the top of the Ribbon is 21000 instead of 7000 and you can see managed mode is active.

Capture2.PNG

Capture3.PNG

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry! In my earlier screengrabs it occured to me the AP wasnt engaged so here is the departure, AP is engaged in managed mode, Constraints are shown on the ND for ROPPR between 6500 and 7000,  the F-PLAN page shows a predicted altitude at ROPPR of 10872, and the altitude ribbon isnt showing 7000 at the top but is showing clear to 21000. Please understand I am really enjoying the plane Im just trying to help you narrow down if its a glitch or operator error.

Capture 5.PNG

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry for getting back to you so late. What is shown on the VERT REV page of those waypoints?

when he constraint is a between constraint the FPLN page could show you the actual passing level, in that case the VERT REV page should still show you the rightnentried though.

 

regarding the ignoring of the actual level I'll forward that one to the developers. We just have to determine if it is actually an issue with the constraint just not being read or with the known constraint being ignored.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the response Emanuel, no worries you guys are fielding a lot of questions. the constraint is indeed on the VERT REV page. Interestingly enough, before INIT FUEL PREDICTION is completed, the constraint actually shows up on the F-PLAN page correctly, its only after you do the fuel planning that the constraint seems to be overridden. 

Capture 6.PNG

Capture7.PNG

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Alright, I think I know what the issue is here then.
First of all: The Airbus does indeed read the constraint from the navigation database and that is a good thing.

For its predictions however it seems it does not take them into account.
 

Now as you can see on the screenshot after takeoff which you posted there is actually a magenta level off arrow. So it seems the Airbus would indeed level off at the constraint altitude. It would be interesting to see if it actually levells off or just busts the altitude though.

 

One bug here for certain is that the PFD does not reflect the level off altitude and I'll have that one checked by the developer. I think this is what causes the overall issue here.

 

Thank you for your detailled reports, I'll have those checked out by the developer now.

Share this post


Link to post

Just flew the SHEAD1 out of LAS, seeing the same exact things as noted above; aircraft just blows through the restraints 

Share this post


Link to post

Please provide a screenshot of the flight plan in the MCDU. Also, what navigation data provider are you using in what AIRAC cycle? 

Share this post


Link to post

I am seeing the exact items as the screenshots above on my flight plan in MCDU (showing constraints on the page as well as showing them in plan view).  Utilizing Navigraph latest AIRAC 1808.   It shows the constraint as if the system is properly detecting it but then once fuel/loading is completed it doesn't show the proper altitude listed on the F-PLAN page and just continues climb.   I will take screenshots next time I am in the sim if needed - just concurring with above user that I am seeing same thing - appreciate all your time and work into the project; really great stuff

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post

Just a small update;

 

I just got a new computer (was running Windows 7 / GTX 950 so it was struggling) - the new computer I upgraded to is Windows 10 based with GTX 1080 and running like a champ.  I was hoping the issue was something Windows 7 based but on the new computer I load up the same flight plan and still same issue; I have experienced this as well out of LAX because I was wondering if it was a LAS SID thing.   

 

Am I the only one where SID restraints are not being followed?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post

Hi, no you're not the only one. I get the same behaviour too, tested on various SIDs out of EGKK. The constraints are present but get ignored right after the fuel quantity is entered in INIT 2. If I clear the fuel value they reappear in the flight plan again.

 

Phil

 

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Mathijs,

 

Actually, to be more precise, it's when the INIT FUEL PREDICTION is calculated that it loses the constraints in the flight plan. So it's when both the ZFW/ZFWCG *and* the BLOCK values have been filled in.

 

Also note that the constraints still show correctly in the VERT REV page for the fix, and the magenta asterix still shows in the flightplan, but the calculated altitude ignores them.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Phil

 

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Mathijs,

 

Another quick observation. It appears that the last constraint in the SID is *almost* correctly followed, as the flightplan doesn't pass that altitude until after the last SID fix. However it appears to be adding 100ft onto the constraint value, with the flightplan showing FL061 for a 6000ft constraint (all preceding fixes show 6000).

 

I wonder if this is an issue for SIDs with step climbs in the SID profile? I was using LAM2X at EGKK which has various constraints along it's route.

 

Cheers

 

Phil

Share this post


Link to post

I've been experiencing this on at least 3 flights over the past couple of weeks as well.  I ran two flights yesterday, the first involved the OSUS1R SID out of SKBO (Bogota) and the second involved the MONAA3 arrival into KMEM (Memphis).  In both cases, there were instances of the altitude constraints being ignored.  I have some pictures from the second.

 

I've also been experiencing a problem whereby sometime during the initial climb (usually right after takeoff) where I'll get the Mode Degradation chirp and notice that the FCU altitude ball has disappeared.  I'm not sure if this is related but it seems it might be; every time that has happened has been on a takeoff into a SID with altitude restrictions that were then ignored even after restoring the ball.

 

Let me know if you need more info from me regarding these issues.

 

For my last flight:  Flight Plan:  KSDF/17L CRRGO3 CRRGO OSINE BWG ZOKER MONAA3 KMEM/18C

 

Airbus Pro version 1.1.0.0; Navigraph AIRAC 1809

 

The CRRGO3 SID doesn't have any altitude restrictions (and I didn't get the mode degradation chirp either); but I did manually add a few restrictions prior to takeoff, which the autopilot ignored.  For some reason it also seemed like the MCDU had trouble "remembering" the restriction as it would sometimes flash between what I had entered and its own computed altitude.  This climb out also experienced the runway V/S issue that has been reported.  It seems to happen when you engage open climb and the aircraft accelerates faster than the autopilot will raise the nose, and then it's playing catch-up with far too much speed.

 

001.thumb.jpg.d1c8e446fa3ac25e8e7d448a5a23b62f.jpg

 

002.thumb.jpg.a761c3a09acc7f2efb930fdc902aa383.jpg

 

003.thumb.jpg.1e64c9399fde312ce3c46dcb060b00b9.jpg

 

Then on approach, it ignored the initial altitude restriction at ZOKER.  It did honor the restriction at TYMMY, however, except it treated the FL230 restriction as a minimum and not a maximum:

 

847833724_Screenshot2018-08-2422_48_34.thumb.png.8ecf3b5d8016c964afaf37c7eab1de62.png

 

004.thumb.jpg.73dcc52afc92a5e7e0e892d3348a9ca0.jpg

 

005.thumb.jpg.dc19a364c296e27de91d8b8437a495b9.jpg

 

006.thumb.jpg.0b2b5821d5be4d1502076165c9928dc9.jpg

 

007.thumb.jpg.adc170d87402f661aad499ee0d627e61.jpg

 

008.thumb.jpg.ca3248377b9b3f6a2694bd945f8bf400.jpg

 

009.thumb.jpg.260b9e17c42174b700fdd74f1c6ecf3c.jpg

 

010.thumb.jpg.1cd0a935c088f91f80ff704eaf08ce38.jpg

 

It did correctly honor the restrictions after TYMMY.  One other commonality I've seemed to notice is that altitudes with (-) restrictions (and SID/STARs that contain them) seem to be causing problems.

 

Also note that it seems to be adding 100 feet to the STAR restriction for LOHNI, similar to this related topic:

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...