Originally Posted by
BUSSPilot
I have to agree with both your observations on this. My belief is that it is more to do with winds entered on the descent profile not matching with the actual encountered winds during descent. Hence, the calculations at time can be slightly off at times. Have you guys tried to back track the STAR and add pseudo constraints onto the profile (while ensuring those contracts are complaint with the published constraints) ? I have noticed when this is done a better descent profile is flown by the FMGC. However, I truly believe the DPO update is better than its predecessor.
Hi, I agree with you regarding DPO (possibly with also CDA) does definitely a better job than the previous one. Some colleagues that flew 737-300 say that this is what the 737-300 did 20yrs ago. I don’t know as never flew boeing.
yeah, I see modifying a bit the constraints helps, as gives a better profile.
In some airports also inserting (or modifying as we get auto uplink) the winds at around 5000 gives better profile. For instance in Milan many times I see tailwind on approach is far more than forecasted winds, thus adding an extra 10knts TW instead of say a 10knts xwind gives an idle and good profile…