Jump to content

Autoland update 184


Camille MOUCHEL

Recommended Posts

Camille MOUCHEL

Hi guys,

As you may know, i have concerns regarding the current flare mode of the bus, so I decided to check the Autoland and I think that there is a flaw too.

Indeed, the bus barely flared and smashed the runway at approx -500fts/min, normally the autoland flaring on the bus is quite efficient enough to make a good making or even kiss landing with minimal to no floating at all. So I've checked the Flight Ctrl page during the flare and I didn't see any elevator deflection at all, how can the bus flare with no elevator inputs ?

Is this the normal behavior ?

Video will be provided this evening

Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

  • Like 3
Link to post
  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Camille MOUCHEL

    19

  • Kevin Hall

    16

  • B_r_u_n_o-R_o_l_o

    15

  • Andrew Wilson

    13

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That's not correct, however. The limitation on autopilot engagement in the FCOM is MDA for a non-precision approach, or 1

Hi guys, As you may know, i have concerns regarding the current flare mode of the bus, so I decided to check the Autoland and I think that there is a flaw too. Indeed, the bus barely flared and smas

So my test was for what? For you to say i am wrong. Thats me out of this convo.

Riccardo_Parachini

First of all 285fpm is absolutely not hard landing, it's a positive landing. And remember that also on overweight landing it's acceptable up to 360fpm, so absolutely safe. Never had such a touchdown at 500fpm in autoland, the FMA was reading correctly?


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to post
Camille MOUCHEL
First of all 285fpm is absolutely not hard landing, it's a positive landing. And remember that also on overweight landing it's acceptable up to 360fpm, so absolutely safe. Never had such a touchdown at 500fpm in autoland, the FMA was reading correctly?


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk


I'll check the video again


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
Link to post
Camille MOUCHEL


Auto lands are firm on the real plane, the object is to get the plane down in the touchdown zone.  Anything less than -700 FPM would be ok





Really? Each Autoland video I watched, it was all kisslanding with no exception, maybe I was lucky.

You mean more than -700fts/ mon, No ?

Because -800fts/min is less than -700 fts/min but I think it's not good


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
Link to post
Marko Bosnjak
23 hours ago, mike10 said:

Auto lands are firm on the real plane, the object is to get the plane down in the touchdown zone.  Anything less than -700 FPM would be ok

Sorry, but I don't agree with you. Usually your rate of descent would be around 800-700 fpm. I personally would tolerate autoland touchdown up to 300-350 fpm or less, anything greater than that and I would be seriously worried. I don't believe that an autoland touchdown of -500 fpm is normal nor safe.

Link to post
John Barnes

Guys, if any of you are real pilots then i apologize but lets just ask them that are instead of trying to "be the winner".

Real world Pilots ,,,,,,,,,,,

What in your experience is considered a normal Autoland rate of touch down?

(Waits patiently for answer)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Camille MOUCHEL



Guys, if any of you are real pilots then i apologize but lets just ask them that are instead of trying to "be the winner".








Real world Pilots ,,,,,,,,,,,








What in your experience is considered a normal Autoland rate of touch down?








(Waits patiently for answer)




Tape a320 pfd autoland on YT


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
Link to post
Camille MOUCHEL
1 hour ago, John Barnes said:

Guys, if any of you are real pilots then i apologize but lets just ask them that are instead of trying to "be the winner".

Real world Pilots ,,,,,,,,,,,

What in your experience is considered a normal Autoland rate of touch down?

(Waits patiently for answer)

 

the worst one I see was -200fts/min

  • Like 1
Link to post
Norman S Bowman

I seem to recall reading in a major airline magazine doing an article on landing gear that the ideal landing rate figures mentioned being between 200 -500 ft/min.This rate ensures that all of the components act in the way that they were designed.

Lets see what the RW pilots have to say.

Link to post

Ideal landing is one thing, but that doesn't change the fact that the autopilot is broken. In real life the autoland never exceeds 250 ft/min. The FSL A320 is landing anywhere between 350 and 450. Here's a vid for comparison.

 

Link to post
Camille MOUCHEL
1 minute ago, joseabreu said:

Ideal landing is one thing, but that doesn't change the fact that the autopilot is broken. In real life the autoland never exceeds 250 ft/min. The FSL A320 is landing anywhere between 350 and 450. Here's a vid for comparison.

 

what do you mean ?? in my video above, it proves that the autoland can make a greaser

 

Link to post
40 minutes ago, Cmbaviator said:

what do you mean ?? in my video above, it proves that the autoland can make a greaser

 

Sorry if my post isn't clear. I do agree with you that the autopilot does indeed make a greaser, and that the FSL A320 is not auto landing properly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
John Barnes

So last night, courtesy of @Cmbaviator I spent my time doing nothing but autolands in various conditions. After 15 landings, the average was 178 ft per minute. The lowest was 116ft and the highest being 281ft. Having been patient and speaking to my RW source (like i said i would in my previous post) I can confirm that as a ball park figure, normal average rates would be between 100 to 200 fpm. Mine falls within those figures. Although, he also stated that that is an average and there are many reports within his company of firm to hard landings carried out by the autoland system. I think unless somebody is smacking in at 500 EVERY time, there is no issue. We also have to note that my VA does not reference the TD rate recorded by FSUIPC as this in itself is inconsistent.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Camille MOUCHEL


So last night, courtesy of @Cmbaviator I spent my time doing nothing but autolands in various conditions. After 15 landings, the average was 178 ft per minute. The lowest was 116ft and the highest being 281ft. Having been patient and speaking to my RW source (like i said i would in my previous post) I can confirm that as a ball park figure, normal average rates would be between 100 to 200 fpm. Mine falls within those figures. Although, he also stated that that is an average and there are many reports within his company of firm to hard landings carried out by the autoland system. I think unless somebody is smacking in at 500 EVERY time, there is no issue. We also have to note that my VA does not reference the TD rate recorded by FSUIPC as this in itself is inconsistent.




Thank you for you input but it would be nice if you have recorded those with the flight control SD page popped up.

I have yet been able to achieve -200 fts/min.

I dont use any third part program for the touch down rate but what the PFD gives me.

https://youtu.be/H-DUkRP0K0I

You can clearly see that the A320 is smashing the runway at approx -500.


The bus barely flared but the most interesting part is that it did pitch up slightly but the elevator didn't even move a iota, so I am wondering how can the aircraft pitched up without any input on the elevator. It is surely not due to ground effect as GE will apply a negative torque to the bus when entering in the GE range.

So I can affirm that something is wrong.


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
Link to post
Camille MOUCHEL


So my test was for what? For you to say i am wrong. Thats me out of this convo.




Im saying that there is at least something wrong in my video,

How can you explain no elevator input during flare ?


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
Link to post
Andrew Wilson
2 hours ago, Cmbaviator said:

Im saying that there is at least something wrong in my video,

 

Yes it doesn't look right - I've never seen Autoland do that here. 

Link to post
Dave Woycek
On 12/21/2016 at 0:50 PM, joseabreu said:

Hello, I just tested the Autoland feature. While mines did flare, it still landed hard (285 ft/min). Hopefully the developers can look into this.

300fpm is a decent landing, certainly not hard.

Why is everybody so much into greasers? That's what you can go for on a sunny, dry summer day with a long runway.

Autoland will have to accommodate a variety of conditions, and I certainly wouldn't want it to float on a rainy/snowy day on a short runway with slush.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Marcel Semelka

Did one too at EDDT RWY26R:

VS was -693 fpm according to projectFLY and it looked like there is no flare at all...

Probably not connected to this issue, but I also got a strange ECAM warning (CAB PR OFV NOT OPEN) after landing (looked like the Cabin V/S was increasing rapidly... who knows why :D)

The message disappeared after a few seconds...

Link to post
4 hours ago, John Barnes said:

So my test was for what? For you to say i am wrong. Thats me out of this convo.

Nobody is saying that you're wrong. What we are saying is that for us, the autoland is slamming the plane into the ground, and we want FSL to take a look into it. The fact that all of us are doing tests , helps us all in locating this bug, and fixing it sooner.

Link to post
Camille MOUCHEL


For all of you guys Looking at the V/S, Just keep in mind that in Ground Effect/Quick Movements the indication is Delayed(Atleast in real life).





Sure thing but I think it's delayed in the Fslabs as it simulates what the real thing does. But I think we should see a rate between -250 to -50 even if it's delayed


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
  • Like 1
Link to post
A_ndré_F_olkers
9 hours ago, Cmbaviator said:

 

 


Sure thing but I think it's delayed in the Fslabs as it simulates what the real thing does. But I think we should see a rate between -250 to -50 even if it's delayed


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

Well I did three different CAT IIIB landings at SPL 18R and it was between 100 and 200 ft per min, so local here ok :-)

What I notice is that when you remove all files and a new install of a new version of the bus, the Joystick settings has to be redone in the MCDU.

Link to post
Camille MOUCHEL







Well I did three different CAT IIIA landings at SPL 18R and it was between 100 and 200 ft per min, so local here ok :-)








What I notice is that when you remove all files and a new install of new version of the bus, the Joystick settings has to be redone in the MCDU.






I'll have a look but I'm not trying to be rude but how can those joystick setting affect the autoland flare ? As AP 1+2 is on


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
Link to post
Alexander Luzajic
21 hours ago, joseabreu said:

Sorry if my post isn't clear. I do agree with you that the autopilot does indeed make a greaser, and that the FSL A320 is not auto landing properly

Not sure what I am doing right (something at least :) ), But my Autoland with this bird was always perfect....much better than other add-ons. Yes I do have ASN with LIVE weather though, but many times I had cross winds as well etc...... Just found this topic and find it strange that you guys experiencing this. I have to admit, last 5-6 flights or after latest update I haven't performed Autoland, just trying to stay away from that completely.

 In other words, in real life if CAT III or CAT II is available and plane capable and WX permitting why is not used more I don't understand (BTW I read limitations but never real explanation), but watching million YouTube videos I see that AP gets disconnected as high as 3000Ft.  Perhaps this is a question for real Capt.

Link to post
Arto E.P. Karhu
55 minutes ago, alexanderluzajic said:

I have to admit, last 5-6 flights or after latest update I haven't performed Autoland, just trying to stay away from that completely.

 In other words, in real life if CAT III or CAT II is available and plane capable and WX permitting why is not used more I don't understand (BTW I read limitations but never real explanation), but watching million YouTube videos I see that AP gets disconnected as high as 3000Ft.  Perhaps this is a question for real Capt.

I don't know but perhaps in an attempt to actually fly at least some insignificant fraction of their total logged flight hours they claim to be payed for. :D

Interestingly, the autoland feature is unproportionally often popping up in simulator discussions; actually the only times I recall it being discussed about by any operational staff in any more consideration have been cases where the capability was known to be degraded by some technical dispatch limitation. I'm rather sure that many from the flying guys have never done an autoland except for educational purposes, treating it like that curious extra feature in some automobile. Parking assistant or something. Not surprisingly, the folks I know from the cockpit sitting business are generally encouraged to hand-fly whenever convenient. :)

-Esa

Link to post
Alexander Luzajic
19 minutes ago, AKar said:

Parking assistant or something

You got that right....it is almost like they don't trust instruments....or feeling or something.

Link to post
Kevin Hall
1 hour ago, AKar said:

I'm rather sure that many from the flying guys have never done an autoland except for educational purposes, treating it like that curious extra feature in some automobile.

I doubt that. Pilots have to do an autoland every so often for recency purposes. So they know what it should do. The reason it's such a common subject to discuss is that many simmers are obsessed by autolands. Very low touchdown rates are the target at many VAs and an autoland greaser is an easy way to look good in the PIREP data. If the autoland doesn't grease it on then that is seen as a bad thing.

Link to post
Simon Kelsey
I haven't performed Autoland, just trying to stay away from that completely.

 In other words, in real life if CAT III or CAT II is available and plane capable and WX permitting why is not used more I don't understand

The main issue is that when the weather is good the ILS signal is not protected to the same standard as required for CAT II and III operations. Unlike during normal CAT I ops where only the ILS critical areas need be protected, for CAT II and III ops the much larger localizer/GP sensitive areas have to be protected. This is, amongst other things, what LVPs (Low Visibility Procedures) are designed for, and essentially it means that departing aircraft have to be held further away from the runway when holding short and landing aircraft need to be completely clear of the localizer sensitive area before the next aircraft can pass a particular point (usually the FAF). As you can imagine, this means big gaps between arriving aircraft, and even bigger gaps if you need to depart aircraft in between arrivals, which is why the landing rate goes down the pan when the visibility drops.

This also means that airports are generally reluctant to implement LVPs unless they have to (because the reduced flow rate causes chaos). If LVPs are not in force, the ILS sensitive areas will not be protected and therefore an aircraft on approach may experience undesirable signal fluctuations. This is why autolanding off a CAT I approach without LVPs in force should be done with extreme caution -- there's fairly dramatic video on Youtube of a Singapore B777 going grass-cutting at Munich as a result of a CAT I autoland -- an aircraft departing ahead overflew the localizer array and distorted the beam, resulting in the landing and rollout going very wrong.

To maintain CAT III certification, the ILS itself has to be flight checked regularly and there has to be a redundant "no break" power supply for both the ILS and the approach lighting to ensure that there is no interruption in case of power failure at the airport (again, the backup gens may not necessarily be running if LVPs are not in force).

Plus of course the aircraft has to be certified (it has to log a successful autoland every now and then) and so do the crew (through initial and recurrent theoretical and sim training, and if necessary the occasional 'real' autoland for currency as well).

There's a lot to it!

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to post
Kevin Hall

I've been trying autoland in the A320X as a result of this thread. It worked fine for me, flaring correctly and touching down smoothly. Looking at the video posted above by Airbus Flyer, I noticed they had set MDA. Normally for an autoland you would set DH. When I set MDA I got the no flare experience (although FLARE was annunciated). This is consistent on my set up. Setting MDA seems to inhibit flare, setting DH does not.

I don't think setting MDA should prevent flare, especially as the PFD shows FLARE green. Maybe it's an Airbus "gotcha". Perhaps FSL can look into the logic. In the meantime, for anyone having problems try setting DH instead of MDA.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Andrea Buono

"I've been trying autoland in the A320X as a result of this thread. It worked fine for me, flaring correctly and touching down smoothly."

Hi to all,

I agree with Kevin,

I had a similar experience: two days ago I had an autoland (LSZH rwy14 CATII visibility- weather) and it worked very fine..correct flare..easy and smooth...

Best

Andrea Buono 

Link to post
Camille MOUCHEL

Can you guys upload a video of your autoland with the flight Carlos se page pooped up, that would be nice


Envoyé de mon iPad en utilisant Tapatalk

Link to post
Riccardo_Parachini

Just to take this possibility out, are you well stabilized by at least 1000'. Normal procedure: 2000ft flap2 etc gives quite a great ballooning effect (perfectly in line with the real world), when I expext a autoland I plan to be VAPP, steady v/s by about 1500'. Are you stable by those heights, or the autopilot is chasing the glide slope on the last 500fts


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Link to post
Kevin Hall
6 minutes ago, Rikypara said:

Just to take this possibility out, are you well stabilized by at least 1000'. Normal procedure: 2000ft flap2 etc gives quite a great ballooning effect (perfectly in line with the real world), when I expext a autoland I plan to be VAPP, steady v/s by about 1500'. Are you stable by those heights, or the autopilot is chasing the glide slope on the last 500fts


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Not relevant. The PFD in the video annunciates FLARE as expected but the sim does not flare, hence the heavy landing. Also it's clearly stable well before 1000ft.

Link to post
Kevin Hall
24 minutes ago, Cmbaviator said:

Can you guys upload a video of your autoland with the flight Carlos se page pooped up, that would be nice


Envoyé de mon iPad en utilisant Tapatalk

As I said in my post earlier, try setting DH, not MDA. Works for me.

Link to post
Camille MOUCHEL
1 hour ago, kevinh said:

As I said in my post earlier, try setting DH, not MDA. Works for me.

normly you shouldn't set any MHD or DH for an autoland as the value is 0, no ?

Link to post
Simon Kelsey
Just now, Cmbaviator said:

normly you shouldn't set any MHD or DH for an autoland as the value is 0, no ?

Only for a CAT IIIb approach (and even then some companies and/or countries do not permit no DH ops -- France for one certainly always used to require a nominal DH, though this may have changed).

CAT IIIa approaches have a minimum DH of 50ft, and CAT II approaches have a minimum DH of 100ft. An autoland is SOP off of all three, however (at least at BA, and I don't imagine other companies would be significantly different). Even for no DH, I would probably still enter 0 in the minimums field.

Always radio minimums for CAT II/III ops as the law (SERA) requires it (do check the approach plate as the exact radio DH will naturally depend on the terrain along the approach path and at the relevant MAPt). CAT I approaches, however, are always baro minima (in this particular version of the FMGS, using the MDA box).

  • Like 1
Link to post

×
×
  • Create New...