Jump to content

A320 suddenly fell to the ground, uncontrollable


Tomáš Pokorný

Recommended Posts

Tomáš Pokorný

Hello everyone,

I just had a very weird experience with the FSL A320 CFM. I was descending to LSZH, I was flying the STAR with autopilot on, and suddenly the nose dropped significantly (say 20 degrees). I immediately pulled the stick back, but the plane got up only few degrees, just to drop even more after that. The autopilot master warn was on, so I disconnected the AP completely. Still I was not able to control the plane, it made a few nose drops, to the point when it was basically 90 ° down. And as I was at FL100, it didn't take much time to hit the ground.

This has never happened to me and it was my second flight after installing the last P3D v4.5 update (yes, I updated the A320 to the latest version). I have been following plane accidents and I remember one when the elevators got stuck in the down position, causing the plane to fall down. Is this failure simulated in the A320? Why could this have happened? Unfortunately, I don't have a footage of the flight. Are flight data logged somewhere to look at?

Thank you for all the inputs.

Tomas

Link to post
Koen Meier

are your weather settings set according to the recommended settings for active sky in the introduction guide? especially if the area is surrounded by CB's.

also, check for icing on the icing probe as it could well be that the airflow got disconnected from the wing.

Link to post
Askin Erdogandan

like koen sad it happend to me also during bad weather you may check that you set  your active sky settings according the fsl guide ! 

Happy flights 

Link to post
Tomáš Pokorný

I will check the guide, maybe AS settings changed after the 4.5 update. But I don't recall any severe weather conditions. It was rather calm above Zurich. Definitely not a kind of stuff that would send a plane down like that.

Link to post
Tomáš Pokorný
13 minutes ago, koen meier said:

If your weather settings are oke then the second thing could be ice formation on the wings.

Meaning that I should have turned the anti ice on? But shouldn't there be an ECAS message regarding icing on the wings?

Link to post
Koen Meier

Not if the airline doesn’t use ice detectors. This depends on if you are using an airline pack from fslabs which have accurate airframe options or if the livery painter include the real options.

Then you need to look for visual clues this is the iceprobe between the captain and fo windshield or by looking at the leading edge of the wings.

Edited by koen meier
Link to post
Norman Blackburn
4 hours ago, Tomáš Pokorný said:

So turns out that I had everything in compliance with the manual... Weird :(

Including having downdrafts (I think thats what its termed) turned off?

Link to post
Tomáš Pokorný
51 minutes ago, Norman Blackburn said:

Including having downdrafts (I think thats what its termed) turned off?

Eh, nope. Is that in the A320 manual? My settings are as follows:

Maximum downdraft rate: 1500 fpm
Maximum updraft/thermal rate: 1500 fpm
Realistic thunderstorm up and downdraft rate: Enabled

I suppose this is AS's default settings. Should I change that?

Link to post
Tomáš Pokorný
Just now, Norman Blackburn said:

That last one should be disabled.  It’s anything but realistic.

Thank you Norman, the draft values are OK though?

Tomas

Link to post
Norman Blackburn

Im away on business tonight so using only an iPad.  If those are what we have in the manual then they should be good.

Link to post
Chris Frasure
On 5/12/2019 at 4:05 PM, Tomáš Pokorný said:

Eh, nope. Is that in the A320 manual? My settings are as follows:

Maximum downdraft rate: 1500 fpm
Maximum updraft/thermal rate: 1500 fpm
Realistic thunderstorm up and downdraft rate: Enabled

I suppose this is AS's default settings. Should I change that?

Yep.  Gotta turn of the Thunderstorm downdrafts.  IF you don't you will turn into a lawn dart.

Link to post
Markus Burkhard

Default values of 1500fpm for up- and downdraft are OK, those are not going to crash the aircraft.

However the "realistic thunderstorm up and downdraft" should be disabled. As Norman has said, those unfortunately are not realistic, since they can occur outside of actual cells within the simulator. 

Link to post
Chris Kreuzbichler

I had the same with the difference that tha AP was enabled, no turbulences whatsoever and the plane just went to the ground without me being able to do some kind of response

Link to post
Cedric Lejarre
2 hours ago, Chris Kreuzbichler said:

I had the same with the difference that tha AP was enabled, no turbulences whatsoever and the plane just went to the ground without me being able to do some kind of response

For working directly in the Buisness , i can say than A320 and particularly FMGC are very very complex. We've spent hundred of thousand of hours to validate every cornercase (and they are numerous) to avoid such problems. We can't ask a simulation to reach a10-9 safety objective !

Link to post
Tomáš Pokorný
On 5/16/2019 at 8:11 PM, cedricl31 said:

For working directly in the Buisness , i can say than A320 and particularly FMGC are very very complex. We've spent hundred of thousand of hours to validate every cornercase (and they are numerous) to avoid such problems. We can't ask a simulation to reach a10-9 safety objective !

So in other words, it is an FsLabs bug, not a problem with Active Sky, correct?

Link to post
Norman Blackburn
3 minutes ago, Tomáš Pokorný said:

So in other words, it is an FsLabs bug, not a problem with Active Sky, correct?

Incorrect.  Why would a force that is designed to rip the wings off of a plane exist nowhere near the cell?

@cedricl31 please update your forum name to be your real name thanks!

Link to post
Tomáš Pokorný
Just now, Norman Blackburn said:

Incorrect.  Why would a force that is designed to rip the wings off of a plane exist nowhere near the cell?

I don't know :). Look, I'm not implying that a simulation is supposed to be perfect (never is), but I am just trying to see what is the cause there, so I know better next time it happens. Apparently isn't Active Sky.

Link to post
Norman Blackburn
Just now, Tomáš Pokorný said:

I don't know :). Look, I'm not implying that a simulation is supposed to be perfect (never is), but I am just trying to see what is the cause there, so I know better next time it happens. Apparently isn't Active Sky.

So  if it isn't Active Sky who is placing this huge force outside of the cell?

 

Link to post
Tomáš Pokorný
Just now, Norman Blackburn said:

So  if it isn't Active Sky who is placing this huge force outside of the cell?

 

How do we know that it's an outside force?

Link to post
Norman Blackburn

Fly with the option on.  Nowhere near a cell.  problem.

Turn off the option.  Not have to avoid the cell by an amount far in excess than real life.  No problem.

Link to post
Tomáš Pokorný
5 minutes ago, Norman Blackburn said:

Fly with the option on.  Nowhere near a cell.  problem.

Turn off the option.  Not have to avoid the cell by an amount far in excess than real life.  No problem. 

I'm sorry but I think that we have established that my AS settings are correct and as Chris has mentioned, it happened to him as well with "no turbulence what so ever"...

Link to post
Alexandre K
10 minutes ago, Tomáš Pokorný said:

I'm sorry but I think that we have established that my AS settings are correct and as Chris has mentioned, it happened to him as well with "no turbulence what so ever"...

Why not try to turn the option off and see if it ever happens again ? :)

Link to post
Tomáš Pokorný
Just now, Alexandre Kubatko said:

Why not try to turn the option off and see if it ever happens again ? :)

That's not easy to do because my settings have been the same for years and it only happened once :-)

Link to post
Alexandre K

Just tick it off, as simple as that.
If it never happens again you can assume it was that. If it happens again, you can say it wasn't the cause of it ;)

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Tomáš Pokorný

Oh, it is a new one? Did not know that! In that case, you are probably right :). Just to be clear, we are talking about the option: realistic thunderstorm up and downdraft, correct?

Link to post
Norman Blackburn

Its called something like that.  An option not part of the turbulence settings.

Link to post
Markus Burkhard
45 minutes ago, Tomáš Pokorný said:

Oh, it is a new one? Did not know that! In that case, you are probably right :). Just to be clear, we are talking about the option: realistic thunderstorm up and downdraft, correct?

Correct, its name is "Realistic thunderstorm up and downdraft rate". This is the option that is causing deadly up- and downdrafts outside of the actual cells.

Link to post
  • 1 year later...
Erkal SAMLI

Dear FsLabs Managers ;

Why am I using the real weather app if I'm going to close every options of realism?  I don't have the same problem with other planes.

 I kindly ask you to prove that there is no realistic turbulence and that the aircraft will not exhibit abnormal movements in this situation.

 Did I pay money this plane to turn off the setting of Activesky and fly? Is the realistic solution and escape route? is that so simple? Even my grandfather flies the plane when there is no clouds, wind and rain. You are the creator of this plane and you are find a bug with an application that creates realistic weathers.

Does this fit for business ethics?

Best Regards

Link to post
Norman Blackburn

Dear Erkal,

Our own pilots and indeed the authors of Active Sky, will tell you that some of the Active Sky settings are anything but real.   

We do not ask you to turn things off - and indeed to suggest so would be ridiculous.  But then so is going into an area where the strength of the injected turbulence is anything but realistic.  What we do suggest is to use more realistic (there is that word again) settings. 

Whilst I appreciate you don't agree thats perfectly fine.  

 

Link to post
Erkal SAMLI

Hi, Mr Norman.

Your Message says:  1) ''That last one should be disabled.  It’s anything but realistic.  ( 12 MAY 2019 )

                                    resim.png.a760a4c7d01076d976d712d04a067629.png

resim.png.618a19a838cae34c908ee9f39c0018ec.png

                                   

                                      2) We do not ask you to turn things off    ( 21 JAN 2021 )

                                      resim.png.e0f4d4973433970b62578d603a108ba9.png

                In these two sentences is yours , which of them shall I believe?

            '' I feel ripped off ''

                Best Regards

 

  • Confused 3
Link to post
Robert Sutherland

You should really read the FSLabs manual to understand what you need to change in ActiveSky. I can assure you that it doesn't impact on other planes; turbulence is depicted accurately in PMDG's 747 and 737, as well as the Maddog MD83, when you use these settings. 

Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...
John Mead
On 1/21/2021 at 11:54 AM, Erkal SAMLI said:

Hi, Mr Norman.

Your Message says:  1) ''That last one should be disabled.  It’s anything but realistic.  ( 12 MAY 2019 )

                                    resim.png.a760a4c7d01076d976d712d04a067629.png

resim.png.618a19a838cae34c908ee9f39c0018ec.png

                                   

                                      2) We do not ask you to turn things off    ( 21 JAN 2021 )

                                      resim.png.e0f4d4973433970b62578d603a108ba9.png

                In these two sentences is yours , which of them shall I believe?

            '' I feel ripped off ''

                Best Regards

 

 

I fly the A320/A321 for a major US carrier and I have flown many other types of commercial aircraft.  Many of the settings in AS are nowhere near real life, what Norman has suggested is absolutely how you should set up AS for it to be as close to real life.  If you crank up those settings, your only ripping yourself off from a better and more true to life experience.  

Even the multi million dollar full motion simulators can not completely emulate real world weather. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...