Originally Posted by
FlightDetent
The older ones actually should be even more intuitive. At FMS inserted MDA -50 ft, the AP should trip off and FDs revert to basic HDG-V/S modes. Mode announciators boxed on FMA, FD bars flashing, and audio triple click.
Thank you. I flew the very earliest delivery A320s (to BAW 1989) and still have the manuals I think so will check what they say when I get home.
Originally Posted by
FlightDetent
In your graph (lot of meticulous work behind it!) do I read it correctly that the vertical axis reference is corrected ALT, thus the corrected profile line is different from the geometrical path green line?
So you know what you are looking at, and please say if you think my methodology is wrong so I can correct it:
Far left GREEN scale is just a measured tape covering the range needed, placed to match threshold elevation.
Next to it is a RED scale which is the green one geometrically stretched to cover the temperature correction, and moved so that field elevation matches correctly. Thanks to Locked Door post#382 for correcting my error on this.
Right hand GREY scale is same gradations as GREEN i.e. true feet but zeroed at touchdown zone elevation.
Green solid "nominal flight path" is from 2000ft msl at the FAF Split Crow to the ideal aiming point and PAPI location.
Yellow solid line is the 3.08 degree VDA from Split Crow, which is slightly below the ideal, but seems to cross the threshold "at about 50ft" - the threshoild being 14ft lower than the TDZ.
Red dashed line is the planned descent path, using the temperature adjusted crossing height at the FAF to the TDZ. The plan was to fly as close as possible to this by setting the FPA to -3.5deg in accordance with AC's table.
Red solid line represents as best I can fit it the aircraft flight path. Descent from FAF was started slightly early. So at for example 4 DME from I-HZ, the aircraft should have been ideally at 1250 ft true alt (green scale). But because of Air Canada cold temp adjustments were in 100ft increments (presumably up), this aircraft should have had an altimeter reading of 1350 ft. (red scale) at this point. However if my analysis is right, the altimeter reading (red scale) would actually have been 1250 ft, the charted value for 4 DME, although the aircraft was actually 60 ft low.
Inset chart shows a blown-up section of the report's FDR readouts.
Originally Posted by
FlightDetent
Secondly, to leech on your research further:
leech away! My objective to stop accidents where pilots are personally blamed for making predictable errors that could easily been prevented, if the airline had made suitable procedural changes and/or provided better training, so any comments that might ensure this stuff is correct are welcome.
Originally Posted by
FlightDetent
Does the report mention anything about the V-DEV indicator (yo-yo / doughnut) and indications displayed on the PFD?
Thanks.
Not that I've seen. It misses lots of information as noted in the critique.