falcon71

Turn on the APU master switch and press the start button. Then turn the APU master switch off again, while the ACCEL light is shown. The APU now keeps its current RPM and consumes fuel for hours: It resumes the start process where it left off when the master switch is turned on again and start is pressed. Instead, I would have expected the APU to turn off when the master switch is set to off.

Hello, I just started flying the A300 again and in my last two flights, the INIT B page got filled with some nonsensical values: I'm not using the acars function anymore and this screenshot was taken after the INIT A page was filled an nothing else. Where do these values come from and what can I do to prevent the init B page from getting filled?

Hello, I made some landing calculations for EKCH. This is flaps 40: And this is flaps 20, otherwise with the same parameters: I Is it correct that flaps 20 requires less landing distance than flaps 40, despite the approach speed being about 10 knots faster?

Have you considered using the CO Route field to load the route? It would be ok, if it would load a locally stored flight plan. It just gets really annoying having to input long routes manually for every single flight.

I always found it weird, that the APU page is not displayed automatically. This is caused by the ECAM door warnings, giving the DOORS page a higher priority. Now, I'm not sure if I'm correct, because this issue should have been noticed by the advising A300 pilots, but the way how I interpret the FCOM, the door warnings should be inhibited until the second engine is started:

I have programmed the SID GMMN/RW35R SADI1D. Scrolling through the waypoints in PLAN mode, I noticed that the CBL VOR on the ND jumps around. In the first screenshot, it is to the north of the runway, in the second screenshot, it is close to the runway threshold and in the third screenshot it is southwest of the runway. It looks like the relative distance to the center of the ND uses a wrong factor.

Back in the old days, requesting Simbrief data from the ACARS page only filled the route. Now it seems that it fills out everything. Is there any way to request the route only?

I think this makes the problem worse. Before you could just ignore the ILS and make a safe visual landing. Now you need to ignore the ILS and the PAPI as well and this makes visual landings even more difficult. Since landings in VMC are much more common, I would prefer if the PAPI is right for that.

I agree. I would also really appreciate, if all gates would be available please.

I flew a holding and then wanted to leave the holding. I pressed IMM EXIT* on the LEGs page. What happend was that the VERT REV page opened and the aircraft continued to fly the holding. I would have expected it to leave the holding. I was able to leave the holding with a direct to the next waypoint.

I added a holding to my STAR. Based on the charts, the inbound course would be 265° magnetic and right on the track of the previous leg. I noticed, that 258° were suggested in the FMC and I changed it to 265°. I then noticed, that the hold was a bit rotated from my previous leg: The hold was then actually flown at about 270° inbound course: Could it be, that the holding was constructed using true course instead of magnetic? The holding was around DGAA with a magnetic variation of 4°W.

I just noticed that the FLT CTL title is missing on the ECAM page: The FCOM shows the page title in the upper left corner: It is also visible in this video at 13:15: https://youtu.be/CSgVmpgHmpQ?si=fHr6X5xSUhpggSB5&t=795

Yes, it was Navigraph AIRAC 2405.

Thanks Crabby for clarification. This is a misunderstanding, my issue description was not clear. Let's try again: I'm well aware that it does not draw curved segments. This is how the procedure is drawn during preflight: This looks absolutely correct to me, just like in the charts with a leftwards turn to final. Once I arrived, the procedure looks different and it became a rightwards turn: I would have expected it to still look like in the first screenshot. Again, I fly these procedures using raw data when this stuff happens, but I assume this may be a bug which iniBuilds may want to fix or at least be aware of.

Well, that's exactly what I did. What are you trying to tell me? Should we not report bugs anymore, because these bugs may or may not exist in the real aircraft?