Too High Approach Descent Issue

[Tim Capps 29]

If I let lvl chg manage the descent I am always too high with canned ATC and have to go missed. I think this is because the airplane does not descend at a rapid enough rate (12-1700 fm now) due to the engines being spun up too high on descent. I don't want to make the whole descent using vertical speed. I hope this will be addressed in SP1.

[Andy B. 40]

Slow your descent SPD then you will have more time to descend.

[ertan 31]

Slow your descent SPD then you will have more time to descend.

he´s talking about managed decent so he also means managed speed...and he´s right

[Tim Capps 29]

Speed during descent is supposed to be 250 according to the DES page. I wind up at 300 every time.

[cbd80 258]

The MCDU appears to default at 250kts whatever. As it isn't an exact MCDU representation I'd take little notice.

As for the managed descent rate that is quite debatable. Why should it correspond to the default rate expected by FSX ATC? I use VoxATC and it's perfect. No doubt someone on Vatsim would have a different experience.

In reality an airline pilot has to respond to the request of the ATCO not the computer generates optimal profile in the aircraft. So using V Speed in these cases is quite realistic.

Chris

[ertan 31]

The MCDU appears to default at 250kts whatever. As it isn't an exact MCDU representation I'd take little notice.

As for the managed descent rate that is quite debatable. Why should it correspond to the default rate expected by FSX ATC? I use VoxATC and it's perfect. No doubt someone on Vatsim would have a different experience.

In reality an airline pilot has to respond to the request of the ATCO not the computer generates optimal profile in the aircraft. So using V Speed in these cases is quite realistic.

Chris

lol in reality an aircraft got a much better mcdu and overall performance ... bad argue ...please find a better excuse maybe?

[alehead 126]

Hold on there, ATC requires you to be at a particular point in space at a particular altitude. That is not possible in the AirbusX without having to get into the maths of descent... ground speed, head/tailwind component, Distance to go and so on and so forth...

Now, we know that constraints are not modelled... so flying the AirbusX in a controlled environment with active ATC just got a little harder in this simplified Bus than in any one modelling constraints... or you come with "negative, no can do, need to maintain managed descent to MDA..." every flight. IVAO/VATSIM controllers are going to love you even more than the Wilcobus descent profilees.

Of course, there are many here that won't see it this way... your opinion everyone, to which you are also entitled...

Let me get my hat...

Andrew

[ertan 31]

Hold on there, ATC requires you to be at a particular point in space at a particular altitude. That is not possible in the AirbusX without having to get into the maths of descent... ground speed, head/tailwind component, Distance to go and so on and so forth...

Now, we know that constraints are not modelled... so flying the AirbusX in a controlled environment with active ATC just got a little harder in this simplified Bus than in any one modelling constraints... or you come with "negative, no can do, need to maintain managed descent to MDA..." every flight. IVAO/VATSIM controllers are going to love you even more than the Wilcobus descent profilees.

Of course, there are many here that won't see it this way... your opinion everyone, to which you are also entitled...

Let me get my hat...

Andrew

+1

+

this airbus was designed for perfect online flying and for the not advanced user, that´s why they don´t put any system depth into it. but if they just need an argue they turn it the other way round like: in reality the pilots use v/s descent. or a real pilot is able to know or to calculate the ToD. this is so much less advanced too calculate such things... it´s really funny here. at the moment, the so hard to develop function of the A/P is to hold speed (not really because on decents it sucks holding speeds), hold altiude and fly to a VOR or waypoint and nothing more. but hey, this the default cessna can do as well. and if someone complains of a more functional mcdu or descent or what ever, aerosoft says: in a real plane the pilot does this by hand. that´s why we did not implement this. the plane is addressed for the basic simmer and focused on the left seat. ergo: everyone who can fly the default cessna can get an airbus pilot...sounds cool to me....

at the moment, everyone who can manage to fly this airbus online and land it manually is a more advanced hardcore simmer then aerosoft ever expected to be the target group of.

[Nyxx 92]

Hi Tim,

So the Bus has pulled you away from CS

Anyway....your right, I wait to about 80 miles out and ask for a FL of 9000, at 11000 set speed to 248 and pull to set, the bus does not slow down to well but a bit of spoilers and it's all OK. When at 9000 and 30 miles out again set speed to clean speed +10 until at approach alt, then drop to green speed. Once on localizer set speed to Vapp.

Thats how i work Decent ATM until SP1

[Tim Capps 29]

Hi Tim,

So the Bus has pulled you away from CS

Anyway....your right, I wait to about 80 miles out and ask for a FL of 9000, at 11000 set speed to 248 and pull to set, the bus does not slow down to well but a bit of spoilers and it's all OK. When at 9000 and 30 miles out again set speed to clean speed +10 until at approach alt, then drop to green speed. Once on localizer set speed to Vapp.

Thats how i work Decent ATM until SP1

Ha, for awhile anyway, although I've shelved it until SP1. I can get down right if I want to, but it just doesn't seem very "bus-y" to me to be unable to rely on a reasonable descent profiile provided automatically. In other words, I don't want to change speed or use vs, I just want the airplane to descend at less than 300 knots on its own. I would like it to start the descent automatically, too, which I know it can do because I've seen it a couple of times, but I can't seem to repeat reliably.

I am perfectly happy with a lite product that does what it does well. I am not so happy at the present, but I'm not giving up on it until I've seen SP1.

[cbd80 258]

lol in reality an aircraft got a much better mcdu and overall performance ... bad argue ...please find a better excuse maybe?

Not a bad argue at all nor an excuse

Sure in reality on most modern aircraft upon receiving a request from the ATCO the pilot can input at point X I need to be at atlitude Y therefore I need a descent rate of Z and confirm if he can comply or not.

But the default FSX ATCO doesn't consider this, VoxATC expects you to do some maths, and I can't speak for Vatsim as I haven't tried it.

It is known that Airbus X doesn't have this functionality; so a pilot what do you do?

1. Complain that it doesn't descent at the correct rate for the ATC program you are using?

2. Work out how to do it?

Whatever mode a real life pilot uses he/she is expected to be able to do the maths. I certainly expect the simmer to do the maths. I am a maths graduate and the simple calcualtions involved I would expect a 12yr+ old person to do without the aid of a calculator.

Back in the days of FS2002 and before you had no option but to calculate your TOD and descent rate.

This is in some aspects a basic aircraft, but some basic maths isn't out of the question in respect to operating it.

A real life pilot has 2 options; either program the new flight profile in the MCDU or do the calculations and use V/S.

Unfortunately, Airbus X limits you to V/S (in some cases), but surely that provides you with more involvement in the operation of the aircraft and the opportunity to flex your brain muscles and ensue compliance with ATC constraints.

Chris

[ertan 31]

I would expect a 12yr+ old person to do without the aid of a calculator.

Back in the days of FS2002 and before you had no option but to calculate your TOD and descent rate.

This is in some aspects a basic aircraft, but some basic maths isn't out of the question in respect to operating it.

A real life pilot has 2 options; either program the new flight profile in the MCDU or do the calculations and use V/S.

Unfortunately, Airbus X limits you to V/S (in some cases), but surely that provides you with more involvement in the operation of the aircraft and the opportunity to flex your brain muscles and ensue compliance with ATC constraints.

Chris

i would expect a company like aerosoft to built an aircraft that can descent if a ToD is shown on the screen without any input from the pilot correctly or better said i would expect an aircraft that is called airbus to have more functions to help the basic simmer fly it then the default cessna. you can turn it as many times as you want for your own advantage it still remains the same. at the moment it´s more an airbug x then an airbus x.

welcome to 2010. it´s possible to create aircrafts that can manage to be at a special altitude and speed on a special waypoint like from ghost hand. this is called fmc or autopilot. other planes developed by other companys can do that. so they don´t need to tell the people: use v/s for descending. the answer use v/s for descent is ridiculus on an aircraft called airbus

[joka 0]

+1

using v/s for airbus is as noted above ridiculous (no airlines use it in reality from CRZ prohibited except in final stages of descent) may as well fly default FSX airbus for all the realism Airbus X has. However it does look good shame the flight characteristics don't match the rest of the modelling.

[Paul Golding 159]

Although it's true that in it's current state the flight model is having some trouble slowing the engines down during descent, I'm wondering how many users are actually using the speedbrakes to help with this. I'm certain that every flight I've been on in an Airbus has involved the use of speedbakes in descent.

Also, whilst some may think Chris is making excuses by suggesting you as the pilot get involved and do some of the work, I personally can't imagine doing anything else. Watching an Airbus do all the work from gear up to approach is so boring

Seriously, using the second beta of SP1 last night, I actually fell asleep for half an hour!!! Anyway, point of the post is; are you using speedbrakes?

[ertan 31]

Although it's true that in it's current state the flight model is having some trouble slowing the engines down during descent, I'm wondering how many users are actually using the speedbrakes to help with this. I'm certain that every flight I've been on in an Airbus has involved the use of speedbakes in descent.

Also, whilst some may think Chris is making excuses by suggesting you as the pilot get involved and do some of the work, I personally can't imagine doing anything else. Watching an Airbus do all the work from gear up to approach is so boring

Seriously, using the second beta of SP1 last night, I actually fell asleep for half an hour!!! Anyway, point of the post is; are you using speedbrakes?

sure i use them otherwise i would never reach any slower speed either in selcted or managed mode while descending in the mode the autopilot calculated. besides that, if i would follow the FD on approach i would never be able to land this plane. with all this as a conclusion you can say: the autopilot of this airbus x sucks. buy a level-d b767 and you can see how a good addon should behave while flying on autopilot or manually.

[Paul Golding 159]

sure i use them otherwise i would never reach any slower speed either in selcted or managed mode while descending

So you can reach the desired speed using speedbrakes like the real thing does?

with all this as a conclusion you can say: the autopilot of this airbus x sucks.

Seems somewhat harsh when all you're complaining about is the A/THR.

buy a level-d b767 and you can see how a good addon should behave while flying on autopilot or manually.

Whilst this was the add-on that all others had to beat, they did of course have the advantage of building on a basic AP system that MS incorporated i.e. one that is similar to the one that Boeings use.

Anyway, I'm sure you'll be happier with how things are once SP1 is released.

[alehead 126]

There are several points to address here:

1: Any aid in precalculation of descent profiles, given changing winds, ATC constraints, and so on, is a boost. Do not forget that this is IFR simulation, and you are motoring along at around 300 KIAS... We are not in our 4 seater, single-engined GA plane and 120 KIAS here in VFR...

Preflighting the AirbusX to the extent of being able to complete a simulated airline flight with even vague similarity with the degree of realism I get in say the PMDG MD11X takes longer than in said aircraft...

Being able to hand compute a descent profile with wind shifts, constraints, and so on, requires a fair bit of time in most people's books.

2: Needing to use speedbrakes on descent often implies something has changed with the parameters used to calculate the original descent profile, as they should not be needed normally. Busting the descent speed occurs normally as a result of changes in the windspeed and directions, which cannot always be predicted accurately. It happens from time to time in the MD11X as well, though certainly not with every flight. In my opinion, I should not be calculating the use of speedbrakes to keep me at my required V/S to get down... If that is the case, then I will need to start my descent earlier... this is assuming that the FADECs work as they should... then again, the lack of any pitch controlled speed is the problem here, I believe.

3: Talking of descent speed brings me on to another point. Top of descent indication. Now, assuming I actually have the blue down arrow on the ND flight path, as I haven't added more than 5 waypoints to the end of the flightplan... the calculated t/d is for a managed descent of 12-1800fpm? That will have me beginning descent a lot earlier, and the rather flat profile will have me too high at the final approach fix, causing me to go into a hold and descend pattern. So I use V/S, but then have to use guesswork in order to achieve an adequate descent profile, as well as know the distance to the desired level off point... At least I should be able to read that off the MCDU, but only if I have hand programmed the arrival and approach procedure with an adequate number of waypoints to reflect the distance correctly, and fly offline so as to avoid IVAO/VATSIM controllers from vectoring me to closer points, requiring high speed dives to get down to the necessary altitude/FL in time to intercept LOC while still below G/S...

The AirbusX, in this form, is actually more demanding to flightplan and fly than the MD11X...

Andrew

[ertan 31]

So you can reach the desired speed using speedbrakes like the real thing does?

Seems somewhat harsh when all you're complaining about is the A/THR.

Whilst this was the add-on that all others had to beat, they did of course have the advantage of building on a basic AP system that MS incorporated i.e. one that is similar to the one that Boeings use.

Anyway, I'm sure you'll be happier with how things are once SP1 is released.

i don´t care if it´s more difficult to built a boing or airbus. aerosoft decided to do an airbus so it´s not my problem. my problem is that the A/P, A/T and flightdynamics behave bad. even more bad then most other addons i use, that are way out of date. if they solve it with SP1 ok. fine. but things like this have to be sorted out before the release, because this are no small bugs, this is essential.

[alehead 126]

While retaining a slightly more diplomatic tone, I have to agree with Ertan.

The interaction of A/T, AP is essential to the flight dynamics of any aircraft.

Airbus has its own particular concept of fly by wire using load. As I understand it, the aircraft is trimmed out by the autotrim system to command a g load +1.0G within limits (hands off setting). Any changes to that loading, by increasing pitch for example, are then trimmed, so that the aircraft, at its new pitch angle, is trimmed out to +1.0G

For this to work, the autothrust system has to be accurate to maintain the pitch and airspeed, within operating limits of course...

Andrew

[Paul Golding 159]

For this to work, the autothrust system has to be accurate to maintain the pitch and airspeed, within operating limits of course...

Agreed, and trust me, this has been vociferously discussed in the both the pre and post release beta testing.

[alehead 126]

I bet it has...

Thanks for the feedback here.

Andrew