falcon71
-
Posts
40 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by falcon71
-
-
1 hour ago, Crabby said:
Pilots had to fly to SER, then outbound on 129 radial using NAV (not RNAV), then at or before 17 dme they would initiate a left turn to intercept using HDG. Ahh, the days of pilots doing pilot crap.
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?
-
I flew to ZMCK with the ILS Y 29 approach via SER 1. It has an outbound leg to the right at 129° with a left turn towards final. During preflight, the drawing on the ND looked correct for the procedure. However, when flying, the INTC waypoint moved to the left instead of right:
I am using Navigraph AIRAC 2405.
-
That stuff is copyrighted, we shouldn't share those here. But search for the A310, you will find a manual with the same FMC as the ini A300.
-
With packs on, TO thrust and FLEX TO thrust is 104.4%:
Turning the packs off increases TO thrust to 105.1%, this is correct. However, I would have expected FLEX TO thrust to increase as well, but it remained at 104.4%:
Turning the FLEX TO TEMP up and down via the dial refreshes it to 105.1% as well:
-
During cruise, lower the MCP altitude. Go to the F-PLN page. LSK 1R will display IMM DESC, this is correct. However, an immediate descend is also initiated, when any of the other right LSKs is pressed for any other waypoints. I would have expected, that the vertical revision page is displayed for any other waypoint.
-
Thank you very much for you explanation. I ran a few more tests and I think I understand it now.
This example is the same as the headwind example, but with the runway length reduced to 3000 meters.
What put me off was that, if for flaps 15/0, flex 58° a rotation at a 3000 meter runway was possible at 158 knots, then it should surely be possible at the same speed for a 4000 meter runway as well. I assume the iniBuilds takeoff calculator uses up as much runway as possible to gain as much speed as possible, which then results in a higher climb gradient?
If this is the case, then it would very well explain why a head- and tailwind have such large effects that I'm seeing, as this is not much different than changing the runway length.
-
I'm still trying to make sense of the takeoff performance figures. Let's take it step by step and only look at the effect of wind for now.
This image assumes a tailwind of 5 knots:
And this image is under the same conditions, but with a headwind of 5 knots:
I would expect engine thrust to have an effect on V2, but not the wind? Why does the wind have such an effect on V2 while the thrust and flaps stay the same?
Since the flaps, the weight and the thrust settings are the same, I'm curious why the wind affects VR? I would have expected VR to stay the same in these conditions.
It does make absolute sense, the V1 is very much influenced by the wind, since it changes the GS. It also make sense that it is higher with a headwind. However, since VR was already possible at 157 knots in a tailwind, I would have assumed that V1 would also remain at 157 knots, since it must be less than VR. Is there a bug, that the higher V1 pushes VR instead?
-
Load the aircraft empty:
Next, enter an incorrect ZFW of 130 tons on the INIT B page. The aircraft calculates a GW of 184 tons as expected:
Start an engine and go to the fuel prediction page. It will now show the actual GW of 143.5 tons:
Since the aircraft cannot know the actual ZFW, I would expect it to display 184 tons.
-
I recently flew to GOBD via SAKL3D ILS Z 01. I noticed, that the outgoing radial was off. I tried the approach again today with raw data:
It still shows the VOR capturing mode, but that is another bug that is already reported and logged. The VOR was tracked well and I confirmed this with third party mapping tools. As you can see, the outgoing leg was drawn to the left of the actual VOR radial. The navdata was from Navigraph, AIRAC 2402. The airport scenery is from FSDG.
The A310 already had issues at airports with large magnetic variation:
I suspect, that this issue is still not fixed in the A300 either.
-
When pulling the VS knob on the FCU while it is blank, it currently sets the target speed to 0 fpm, effectively causing a level off upon VS mode engagement.
According to the FCOM, I would expect the autopilot to synchronize with the current actual vertical speed and continue with this speed:
-
To get back on topic: I flew to nearby DNMM today (arrival was BUDS1N). They have a speed limit of 230 knots below FL100:
The aircraft still decelerated only to 250 knots, busting the speed limit. It appears to me, that the 250 knots are hardcoded in the iniBuilds version, not taking the value from the VERT REV page into account at all.
-
I have figured out, I made a mistake here. The correct format appears to be in kg, not tons. In my example above 143100 instead of 143.1 seems to be correct. This gives much more plausible values. May I suggest changing the placeholder? ---.- made be believe, the entry was expected to be in tons. And maybe a plausibility warning if the entered TOW is less than DOW for idiots like me?
-
-
All right Crabby, let's blow your mind. That's what people have to say about Europe:
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/1294/what-is-the-speed-limit-in-european-airspace
Again, that's the theory. In practice you will find regulations, publications, procedures and at the very least ATC that will limit your speed in Europe. I really tried to find anything for Ghana. If you have found anything for Ghana, then please share. But you can't just throw out random claims with no backing sources. Let's keep it factual please.
-
Thank you very much for fixing the reverse thrust binding. I do however still have a small problem:
I use throttle1_cut and throttle2_cut to stow the reversers and reset the thrust levers back to idle. Since a couple of versions, throttle2_cut sets the thrust back to 50% instead of idle. This is how it looks after firing both events:
As you can see, throttle 1 cut works apart from the NaN display bug. Could you please make throttle2_cut set the thrust back to 0%?
Using throttle_cut is a workaround until this issue is fixed, it correctly sets both levers to idle.
-
And I have shown you ICAO Annex 11 before:
We are talking in circles.
-
Please take a look at the following examples:
The first is a rather tight calculation for a 2000 meter runway and the second is a calculation for a long 4000 meter runway. The results differ only in the V speeds.
I would have expected, that the runway length have a much greater factor on the flex temperature, than on the V speeds. Is the calculated flex value displayed correctly? For comparison, TOGA results in exactly the same V speeds and MTOW (PERF), which I find hard to believe:
I also noticed, lifts off unnaturally light on long runways. Are those fast V speeds on long runways correct?
With the above example, it is also possible to perform a calculation for a 1800 Meter runway. In that case the MTOW is 139.2, which is below the entered TOW. I would have expected a warning in this case.
-
The FCOM states the following for the heading select mode:
However, I noticed that the iniBuilds simulation switches direction beyond 180° and turns to the closest direction.
-
You are talking about the CFR:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-91.117
Those apply to the United States only. Have you found any such laws regarding aircraft speed limits for Ghana?
-
I noticed in multiple flights with the most recent version that a fuel imbalance is developing in the left inner tank:
This image was taken during descent. The APU was shut off with the APU master switch shortly after turning on the engines. I initially suspected that the APU was somehow still draining fuel, but the leak increased even when completely isolating the tank. I'm fairly sure, the leak did not occur with 1.0.6.
-
2 hours ago, Crabby said:
As far as Ghana, they are a council member of ICAO. ICAO specifically states that operations at/below 10K are restricted to 250. Ghana's own regulations call out the penalty/suspension for exceeding speed limits in "critical phase of flight". They define critical phase of flight as below 10000. I have seen reference to China not having this limit and they too are council members of ICAO so there is that. Apparently, they never adopted ICAO airspace classification with the exception of Sanya Oceanic space where they use feet and there is the ICAO/FAA restriction.
You refer to ICAO Annex 11. They provide this handy chart:
Now, most countries obviously do have their own regulations in place to enforce speed limits. However, I did not find any such regulations for Ghana or the approach into Accra and since the STAR into DGAA is entirely within class A and B, I have to assume, that there is no speed limit in place.
In Boeing aircraft, you can delete the speed limit in the climb and descend pages. This also applies to the MD-80. In the A320 the speed limit can be modified and cleared on the VERT REF page of the (LIM) waypoint. I do however agree with you that higher speeds below FL100 carry additional risks.
-
I'm sorry. I just noticed, I wrote DNMM in the initial post. The STAR and Approach actually belong to DGAA, but I think you already figured that out.
DGAA does not have any speed limits, this can be verified in the regulations (specifically part 19 and part 24):
https://www.gcaa.com.gh/web/?p=651 -
Well, I think I did. It looks like my screenshot above. Is there anything else I needed to do to change the speed limit?
-
Hi Crabby,
I was not talking about the altitude restrictions, those worked pretty well actually. I was talking about the speed limit (not the speed restriction either!). As you can see, the speed limit was changed to 285/FL100. The aircraft should not have slowed down to 250 knots below FL100.
Incorrect turn at ZMCK
in Systems
Posted
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.