Simviation Forums

Yet another question.  I recently gave the airbus a try, and since it flies pretty similar to the 737, I like it.   Just an odd occurance happens that might be caused by that fly by wire thing, but to be sure.   The plane itself is pretty smooth and sluggish (good) in the air and decent.   When I'm about 300ish feet above the ground, the plane gets incredibly responsive compared to the slow controls elsewise.   Is this supposed to be so, or is it just some odd factor?

And also, are there cabin lights on this craft?  I couldn't find anything to turn them on.

Any help is appreciated  ;)

Hmm...I can tell you the real deal does not function like that. .
The airspeed has nothing to do with how sensitive your inputs should be. (that is the beauty with the airbus)

The only thing that happens when you are close to landing is when you pass 50ft radio altitude
At this point you enter the "Flare Mode", the airbus automaticly lowers the nose, forcing the pilot to commence a pull back command to initiate a traditional flare.

Now I posted a theory before, but it was far off so I decided to delete it  ;D

When the A320 was first introduced the FBW computers took everything away from the pilot and consequently there were serious problems in the transition from normal flight to landing configuration. The pilots allegedly had control but in reality the a/c was fighting them all the way down to the ground. This caused a number of accidents and since then the FBW programming has been extensively modified.

Your panel or AP should give you a warning that "you have control" Actually the a/c still has control but allows you a much larger percentage of override input.

So what you describe as increased response is a mirror of FBW giving you a little more of that pilot stuff.

BUT, nothing absolutely nothing beats the early days of autoland. I did 2 rides in the no.2 of a VC10 on autoland approach to Heathrow when it was closed to "all other" traffic!!! The Captain set up the glideslope and on the first approach and landing the crew got out their sandwiches and on the second the Captain decided to try out a few clues with us from "The Times" crossword.  On both occasions the only indication that the landing was successful was the undercarriage connecting with the rwy "Dead centre" I may add!!!  Gone are the days when pilot training included how to eat sandwiches during a zero visibility landing  Aaaaahhhhhhh !!!
Vololiberista

BUT, nothing absolutely nothing beats the early days of autoland...

Volo, I really don't know how can you trust so blindly an automatic system to land for you. Sometimes it might be necessary, but... well, I (and I speak for meself alone) cannot trust it on the sim, much less I feel I could trust in real life. I'd be a lot more tranquil in a CAT III landing if I knew the PIC was bringing down the bird using the HUD, rather than pressing a series of buttons.

Of course I recognize your right to like what I don't, as I hope you'll recognize my right to don't like what you do. We're only "talking about it", here.

"Your panel or AP should give you a warning that "you have control" Actually the a/c still has control but allows you a much larger percentage of override input.

So what you describe as increased response is a mirror of FBW giving you a little more of that pilot stuff."

Might be another aircraft you are talking about, but it certainly isn't an Airbus.

Volo, I really don't know how can you trust so blindly an automatic system to land for you. Sometimes it might be necessary, but... well, I (and I speak for meself alone) cannot trust it on the sim, much less I feel I could trust in real life. I'd be a lot more tranquil in a CAT III landing if I knew the PIC was bringing down the bird using the HUD, rather than pressing a series of buttons.

Of course I recognize your right to like what I don't, as I hope you'll recognize my right to don't like what you do. We're only "talking about it", here.

Most a/c now can do autoland. Back in those days it was very new and nobody trusted it except the designers who tested it to destruction (no a/c involved lol) so when it was installed on the VC10 Which had 2 autpilots that crosschecked each other (unheard of in those days!!!) it was known to work and already calibrated.  At that time it was only the British fleet that could land in fog for many a year. In the examples i quoted we were fortunate to have a real "pea souper" and it was a demonstration to other  pilots who like you had misgivings!!!!!!!!!!
It was FUN!!!!!  ;D  ;D
Vololiberista
PS just try to imagine a cockpit full of sandwich munching mouths with nothing to see until "after" touchdown!!!!

Well strange, with all the clashing theories, I'm still in the dark.   But is this just an occurance with me? Or is anyone else getting this at all?  ???

Look, the FS X airbus behaves nothing like the real aircraft.

It is a flaw in the software.
I've talked to an airbus A320 captain about it and he basicly said "the thing is messed up".

Regardless of airspeed, you should still get the same roll rate of any given sidestick deflection.

There are no clashing theories here, it's just MS who did not get it right (but it is understandable since an Airbus is so darned advanced and dificult to get right in FS)

Look, the FS X airbus behaves nothing like the real aircraft.

It is a flaw in the software.
I've talked to an airbus A320 captain about it and he basicly said "the thing is messed up".

Regardless of airspeed, you should still get the same roll rate of any given sidestick deflection.

There are no clashing theories here, it's just MS who did not get it right (but it is understandable since an Airbus is so darned advanced and dificult to get right in FS)

This is true!! You would need a dedicated computer just to run the FBW software!! But at least it wouldn't have any bugs aka M(qualcosa)s!!!
Vololiberista

...and it was a demonstration to other  pilots who like you had misgivings!!!!!!!!!!

Volo, Volo, Volo... I have no misgivings about the ability of a plane to land itself. On a polar opposite, I'm amazed at it and for some times I even went in a autolanding spree on the panels of my simulated planes, adding, changing, editing them so I could have that function.

Then there the fact that to my knowledge no plane has ever crashed while attempting an autoland, so having misgivings is ungranted. The problem I have you see is the excessive dependance on the autoland.

An autoland happens for different factors working CORRECTLY together, not only the plane being able to autoland. The real life ILS is a radio signal, and as such is not interferences proof.

For an example, there's a story I read of a 767 landing on a airport (I don't remember where nor when) which pilots were attempting a single channel ILS landing (not an autolanding) and because they kept the first NAV radio on the ILS and the second NAV radio on the airport VOR, they were able to recognize that the ILS was out of whack, the glide signal they were receiving was a fake one and the DME of the ILS suffered of cannabis overdose. It all was about to make them land some kilometer away from the runway. They went around and then shot a successful VOR-DME landing.

Had they been attempting an autoland, that usually requires both NAV radios on the ILS frequency, I would be writing of a air disaster here.

The autolanding is not only a matter of capability of the plane, but is a together of different technologies, some of which MAY be not working correctly.

I trust the planes, but I'm a lot less trusty of Murphy's law, especially when radio interferences and human stupidity are concerned. I simply prefer that the one landing the bird be the pilot, even if to do such a thing has to use a last generation hud. The pilot (at least for the moment) deserves a lot more trust than a two computers on a intranet.

If I remember correctly all the Nav aids at and around Heathrow are checked and calibrated two to three times a day. In the instances you quote the airport authorities would be in very serious trouble if the ILS was misaligned or sufferred from interference. The UK airlines at least are severe to the extreme with the use of mobile phones because of the interferrence they cause. There have been many prosecutions.
As you say there haven't  been any accidents using autoland. But, plenty where the pilot has mistrusted his instruments and crashed! Rule no.1 in IMC "trust your instruments" In other words don't mix and match!! If you were to acquire an instrument rating you would be more understanding and more trusting!!!!!!!!!
Vololiberista

Well, the landing I cited (of which sadly enough can't remember anything beside that it was a 767) was surely on a lesser ILS than the ones you in England can be proud of (seem to remember somewhere in USA, but could be incredibly wrong). Still, the fact remains that not all the ILS all around the world can allow a blind landing. You can have a perfectly working plane flown by a crew of supermen, but if the ILS doesn't help you, better not even try.

Trust your instruments you say, and you're right, but remember that sh*t happens and always keep available a second point of view, a redundancy, and if something doesn't seem right, use your brain and go around, no plane has ever collided with the sky (other planes are a different matter, and with todays anti-collision radars, fortunately, less a liability than some time ago), though some did remain with no fuel, but then, that's the reason in a flight plan is always present an alternate.

All those points are valid. If a local airport's ILS isn't up to it it is simply not on the list are a destination or alternate. Too often there is company pressure to make the destination on tie to please the airline and the passengers. How often does  this lead to an accident?? Most ofthe time!!!!!!! It is extremely rare for an instrument failure in itself to cause an accident. Mostly down to the interpretation of!!! There is a well documented crash in the UK where the artificial horizon was faulty and repaired.  After, the crew took off and soon crashed because the instrument failed and the pilot didn't cross check. 1 wrong 2 right!!!
Vololiberista