A320 weight change in flight through FMGC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: THE QUACKERY
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A320 weight change in flight through FMGC
We have a new procedure, on the A320, that has been introduced, from airbus.
It involves the changing of the aircrafts weight through the FMGC in flight........ It is as follows:
Select MCDU, DATA, then AIDS, then PARAM, then PARAM ALPHA label, and then input GWFK
into any of the empty line. Read the aircraft weight from the FAC and then update the weight on the Fuel Prediction page.
Does anyone else follow this procedure on the A320??????
It involves the changing of the aircrafts weight through the FMGC in flight........ It is as follows:
Select MCDU, DATA, then AIDS, then PARAM, then PARAM ALPHA label, and then input GWFK
into any of the empty line. Read the aircraft weight from the FAC and then update the weight on the Fuel Prediction page.
Does anyone else follow this procedure on the A320??????
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: hongkong
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very Interesting! When did this come about?
We have had the Vls and Vapp less than 5 knots apart on approach on our 321s for some time. Up to now this has not materialised on the 320s, but just recently this too has been happening.
Some of our guys think it's to do with incorrect FMGS weight due to overweight pax! Thus the FAC providing the Vls is giving the speed aerodynamically but the FMGS is giving the Vapp from the inserted weight. By doing your procedure you will fix this problem I think.
Do you have a reference from Airbus for this?
We have had the Vls and Vapp less than 5 knots apart on approach on our 321s for some time. Up to now this has not materialised on the 320s, but just recently this too has been happening.
Some of our guys think it's to do with incorrect FMGS weight due to overweight pax! Thus the FAC providing the Vls is giving the speed aerodynamically but the FMGS is giving the Vapp from the inserted weight. By doing your procedure you will fix this problem I think.
Do you have a reference from Airbus for this?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting!
We don't have this procedure yet, but as you say that it's coming directly from airbus, that might change.
The sometimes occuring difference of less than 5 kts between the FAC-calculated Vls and the FMGC calculated Vapp is a well known 'problem'.
During approach we simply check, wether the Vapp is 5 kts higher than Vls. If it is not, than we overwrite the Vapp on the MCDU PERF APPR Page.
So long,
DBate
We don't have this procedure yet, but as you say that it's coming directly from airbus, that might change.
The sometimes occuring difference of less than 5 kts between the FAC-calculated Vls and the FMGC calculated Vapp is a well known 'problem'.
During approach we simply check, wether the Vapp is 5 kts higher than Vls. If it is not, than we overwrite the Vapp on the MCDU PERF APPR Page.
So long,
DBate
Last edited by DBate; 6th Apr 2005 at 18:14.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds a bit complex! I'd certainly agree with the problem of Vls and Vapp <5kts being due to overweight passengers. I once carried a very large sports team and on final approach discovered Vls was actually above Vapp! Still its not exactly a major problem, just change the Vapp in the MCDU or select Vls+5 manually.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UNNB-UNNT-OIMM-RJFR-RJBB-WXWX??
Age: 59
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By selecting speed manually you go to SELECTED mode. This precludes GSmini to work besides adds additional problem in case of GA. So I guess adding several knots to Vapp in MCDU is enough
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This precludes G/S mini to work...
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At my company we don't have such a procedure, we are lucky enough to have accurate load sheets, having such a SOP on the books seems to miss the real problem
Dream Land
Dream Land
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sunrise Senior Living
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mmmmmmm................. Although the assumption must be that if this procedure comes from Airbus, then they must have tested it, I would urge caution here. Have a good read of FCOM Bulletin 819/1 on the CD ROM or 46/2 in the paper manuals titled ''Characteristic and protection Speeds'' - especially re the accuracy required from the 3 AOA sources.
Cheers all,
mcdhu
Cheers all,
mcdhu
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dream Land says
I'm sorry but you must be really naive to believe that any load sheet is that accurate! I for one weigh considerably more than the "average" allowed by my regulatory authorities so what makes your load sheet more accurate? (Or are you living in a "Dream Land?")
At my company we don't have such a procedure, we are lucky enough to have accurate load sheets, having such a SOP on the books seems to miss the real problem