GS mini versus VFE
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: USA
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GS mini versus VFE
HI,
after viewing the managed speed target heading dangerously to VFE conf Full, I wonder if any kind of limitation is applied to the GS Mini.
I looked up FCOM, FCTM, Google and PPrune but didn’t find anything.
Any idea or reference ?
Thanks.
after viewing the managed speed target heading dangerously to VFE conf Full, I wonder if any kind of limitation is applied to the GS Mini.
I looked up FCOM, FCTM, Google and PPrune but didn’t find anything.
Any idea or reference ?
Thanks.
Hi bin31,
Odd that no one has taken up your enquiry. I'm way out of date, having flown the A320 from 1988 - 2001, but remember the scenario you describe only too well.
GS-MINI is a great tool but, as far as I know, there was/is no VFE protection. I'd be delighted to describe the technique we used on windy days to deal with the problem, if you haven't already found one.
Odd that no one has taken up your enquiry. I'm way out of date, having flown the A320 from 1988 - 2001, but remember the scenario you describe only too well.
GS-MINI is a great tool but, as far as I know, there was/is no VFE protection. I'd be delighted to describe the technique we used on windy days to deal with the problem, if you haven't already found one.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The IAS targets have 2 limits:
‐ VAPP, as the minimum value
‐ VFE -5 kt in CONF FULL, or VFE of the next configuration in CONF 1, 2 or 3 as the maximum
value.
‐ VAPP, as the minimum value
‐ VFE -5 kt in CONF FULL, or VFE of the next configuration in CONF 1, 2 or 3 as the maximum
value.
Only half a speed-brake
Another buffer is that the first 10kt of windspeed difference actual VS. tower-reported are ignored. GSmini adjusts the Vapp target only if higher than that.
May have changed from Chris Scott's time (happy to see you here, sir ). What was that method? So far SPD SEL 160(max) worked for me, and push for managed below 500 ft or so.
May have changed from Chris Scott's time (happy to see you here, sir ). What was that method? So far SPD SEL 160(max) worked for me, and push for managed below 500 ft or so.
Last edited by FlightDetent; 18th Dec 2019 at 20:35.
Thanks vilas!
I wonder if that represents a memory failure on my part, or if that protection has been added since 2001. I'll have to dig out my old FCOM...
A 5 kt buffer is a fairly small margin on a gusty day, however.
Hi FlightDetent,
Am a little confused by the other "buffer" you describe. Perhaps you could re-transmit?
The method I had in mind involves, as in yours, using selected speed until the latter part of the approach. (That's often demanded by ATC, anyway.) The trick, of course, is knowing the right moment to switch back to managed speed, thereby reintroducing the GS-mini protection, without (1) risking a temporary VFE-exceedance and/or (2) provoking a sudden and large change of thrust.
Let's take a simple case of sea-level/ISA (so IAS = TAS), Flaps Full, Vapp = 140, Rwy W/C M20. Therefore minimum GS = 120.
From memory, VFE (flaps full) is 177 on an A320. Let's fly at a selected IAS of 170. At 4 nm finals, the W/C is M60, giving a GS of 110 kt. As we continue and the headwind gradually diminishes, we can watch the GS gradually rising. When it reaches 120, we push the SPD knob to select managed IAS, which at that point will be about 170. Thus no significant change in the speed target or thrust.
I wonder if that represents a memory failure on my part, or if that protection has been added since 2001. I'll have to dig out my old FCOM...
A 5 kt buffer is a fairly small margin on a gusty day, however.
Hi FlightDetent,
Am a little confused by the other "buffer" you describe. Perhaps you could re-transmit?
The method I had in mind involves, as in yours, using selected speed until the latter part of the approach. (That's often demanded by ATC, anyway.) The trick, of course, is knowing the right moment to switch back to managed speed, thereby reintroducing the GS-mini protection, without (1) risking a temporary VFE-exceedance and/or (2) provoking a sudden and large change of thrust.
Let's take a simple case of sea-level/ISA (so IAS = TAS), Flaps Full, Vapp = 140, Rwy W/C M20. Therefore minimum GS = 120.
From memory, VFE (flaps full) is 177 on an A320. Let's fly at a selected IAS of 170. At 4 nm finals, the W/C is M60, giving a GS of 110 kt. As we continue and the headwind gradually diminishes, we can watch the GS gradually rising. When it reaches 120, we push the SPD knob to select managed IAS, which at that point will be about 170. Thus no significant change in the speed target or thrust.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another buffer is that the first 10kt of windspeed difference actual VS. tower-reported are ignored. GSmini adjusts the Vapp target only if higher than that.
Only half a speed-brake
Hi. My reference is from 2008, FCOM 3 Blue Bulletin 820/1.A. 4 notes first:
a) my recollection of the feature in own post #5 above is not what the Bulletin actually says;
b) The present-day FCOM reference FCOM DSC-22_30-90 "I": SPEED MODE IN APPROACH PHASE - Managed Speed Target Computation contains no description of any such logic;
c) I think it is fair to assume that the GS mini logic may have evolved over time, while almost certainly the description available from the pilot's books is lagging both in time and details of varied importance.
d) The Bulletin 820/1.A (2008) says there is no upper limit for adjusted Vapp target, however present-day FCOM shows a hard restriction at Vfe-5.
------
The bulletin explains that delta(Vapp) = hwc.act - max(10 kt; hwc.rwy); negative results are disregarded.
If the calculation was still the same today,
Chris Scott's example is not affected as it assumes hwc.rwy = 20 kt. By coincidence, this very figure is used in the Bulletin itself. Case 2) in the following table where an increment of +30kt is commanded.
Whereas in vilas's situation, the result would be different than proposed. Assuming airborne HWC 10 kt and runway HWC 0 kt, there would be no increase on the calculated Vapp = Vref 135 + 5 = 140. And then as well:
- For airborne HWC = 20 and runway HWC = 0: only +10 is added as the calculation assumes always at least 10 kt rwy.hwc.
- For airborne HWC = 20 and runway HWC = 10: yes, +10 is added
So the 10kt correction is not a buffer which would reduce the GS mini additive by default, rather it is a cut-off at the low end of the calculation.
With access to the updated FSTDs, this won't be hard to simulate too much, would it?
a) my recollection of the feature in own post #5 above is not what the Bulletin actually says;
b) The present-day FCOM reference FCOM DSC-22_30-90 "I": SPEED MODE IN APPROACH PHASE - Managed Speed Target Computation contains no description of any such logic;
c) I think it is fair to assume that the GS mini logic may have evolved over time, while almost certainly the description available from the pilot's books is lagging both in time and details of varied importance.
d) The Bulletin 820/1.A (2008) says there is no upper limit for adjusted Vapp target, however present-day FCOM shows a hard restriction at Vfe-5.
------
The bulletin explains that delta(Vapp) = hwc.act - max(10 kt; hwc.rwy); negative results are disregarded.
If the calculation was still the same today,
Chris Scott's example is not affected as it assumes hwc.rwy = 20 kt. By coincidence, this very figure is used in the Bulletin itself. Case 2) in the following table where an increment of +30kt is commanded.
Whereas in vilas's situation, the result would be different than proposed. Assuming airborne HWC 10 kt and runway HWC 0 kt, there would be no increase on the calculated Vapp = Vref 135 + 5 = 140. And then as well:
- For airborne HWC = 20 and runway HWC = 0: only +10 is added as the calculation assumes always at least 10 kt rwy.hwc.
- For airborne HWC = 20 and runway HWC = 10: yes, +10 is added
So the 10kt correction is not a buffer which would reduce the GS mini additive by default, rather it is a cut-off at the low end of the calculation.
With access to the updated FSTDs, this won't be hard to simulate too much, would it?
Last edited by FlightDetent; 19th Dec 2019 at 09:51.
Hi vilas,
Am surprised that, as time approaches the 32nd anniversary of my first go in an A320 sim (an early, highly-unreliable Thomson-CSF model at Blagnac), yours is incapable of simulating the conditions of an everyday, windy approach!
Hi FlightDetent,
Thanks for providing that PDF of the FCOM Bulletin 820/1, dated June 2004. Is it still current, I wonder? it could have been better written, I think, some of it even liable to cause confusion.
It seems the expression "MAX" has been used when "the greater of" would have been more appropriate.
For example, in the table near the bottom of Page 3 dealing with VAPP computation for "A320 with Mod 25225 / A319 / A321" the text should - I think - continue more like this:
"VAPP = VLS + the greater of [5] and [1/3 of the Tower headwind-component]"
And the statement in the middle of Page 4 should read more like this:
"IAS target = the greater of [VAPP] and [GS-mini + current wind-component]"
The biggest change to the speed computations since my days, as previously mentioned, is the reduction of GS-mini to VAPP -10 when the headwind component of the W/V pre-inserted in the PERF page is 10 kt or less, or there's a tailwind. It does seem a bit arbitrary, considering that a VAPP of 130, for example, will translate to a GS-mini of 120 whether the pre-inserted W/V amounts to a 10 kt headwind-component or none at all. Taking the classic nocturnal windsheer case, a headwind of 10 kt at, say, 50 ft agl would produce a speed target of 130: equal to VAPP, or VLS +5. If the wind on the runway is a slight tailwind, the IAS could drop below VLS as the flare is initiated.
This slight change of policy on GS-mini may in part have been in response to something i saw all-too-often on windy days. As the target IAS rapidly reduced in the latter stages of the approach, the A/THR seemed unable to keep up, resulting in the IAS at 50 ft agl being significantly above target. This could be potentially compromising on a short runway when the surface wind was calm.
Am surprised that, as time approaches the 32nd anniversary of my first go in an A320 sim (an early, highly-unreliable Thomson-CSF model at Blagnac), yours is incapable of simulating the conditions of an everyday, windy approach!
Hi FlightDetent,
Thanks for providing that PDF of the FCOM Bulletin 820/1, dated June 2004. Is it still current, I wonder? it could have been better written, I think, some of it even liable to cause confusion.
It seems the expression "MAX" has been used when "the greater of" would have been more appropriate.
For example, in the table near the bottom of Page 3 dealing with VAPP computation for "A320 with Mod 25225 / A319 / A321" the text should - I think - continue more like this:
"VAPP = VLS + the greater of [5] and [1/3 of the Tower headwind-component]"
And the statement in the middle of Page 4 should read more like this:
"IAS target = the greater of [VAPP] and [GS-mini + current wind-component]"
The biggest change to the speed computations since my days, as previously mentioned, is the reduction of GS-mini to VAPP -10 when the headwind component of the W/V pre-inserted in the PERF page is 10 kt or less, or there's a tailwind. It does seem a bit arbitrary, considering that a VAPP of 130, for example, will translate to a GS-mini of 120 whether the pre-inserted W/V amounts to a 10 kt headwind-component or none at all. Taking the classic nocturnal windsheer case, a headwind of 10 kt at, say, 50 ft agl would produce a speed target of 130: equal to VAPP, or VLS +5. If the wind on the runway is a slight tailwind, the IAS could drop below VLS as the flare is initiated.
This slight change of policy on GS-mini may in part have been in response to something i saw all-too-often on windy days. As the target IAS rapidly reduced in the latter stages of the approach, the A/THR seemed unable to keep up, resulting in the IAS at 50 ft agl being significantly above target. This could be potentially compromising on a short runway when the surface wind was calm.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi vilas,
Am surprised that, as time approaches the 32nd anniversary of my first go in an A320 sim (an early, highly-unreliable Thomson-CSF model at Blagnac), yours is incapable of simulating the conditions of an everyday, windy approach!
Am surprised that, as time approaches the 32nd anniversary of my first go in an A320 sim (an early, highly-unreliable Thomson-CSF model at Blagnac), yours is incapable of simulating the conditions of an everyday, windy approach!
Chris you misunderstood what I stated. You can put any surface wind you want there is no problem but for GS mini demo you need to change the wind say every few hundred feet upwards from ground level as given in the explanation which is not possible. You can do it somewhat by changing surface wind again and again but it's not 100% correct.
I was referring to the wind-changes throughout a final approach in gusty weather. The expedient you describe sounds familiar, and perhaps not very realistic, so I'll stick with my comment!
Seasonal greetings,
Chris
.....................This slight change of policy on GS-mini may in part have been in response to something i saw all-too-often on windy days. As the target IAS rapidly reduced in the latter stages of the approach, the A/THR seemed unable to keep up, resulting in the IAS at 50 ft agl being significantly above target. This could be potentially compromising on a short runway when the surface wind was calm.
On the truly challenging days, we seemed to approach the limits of roll authority (and went around) before GS mini became an issue.
I think GS mini can be an ambiguous label and might have been better named: “GS Lock” or similar, since it seems to do that very well, i.e. lock the groundspeed, no matter what the wind change.
* Not the longest LDA, and a steep drop just beyond the end of 26 !
Only half a speed-brake
Chris Scott I am rather certain that MAX(A;B) is the syntax for exactly the same meaning you explain: the greater of A and B.
A proper SIM should be able to replicate real-life wind profile with changing velocities and directions, that was his point. Noted in agreement with you, the surface wind alone / uniform in a column of air does no cut it. Though I believed the SIMs we use have the option to modify winds in different layers independently.
Chris you misunderstood what I stated. You can put any surface wind you want there is no problem but for GS mini demo you need to change the wind say every few hundred feet upwards from ground level as given in the explanation which is not possible. You can do it somewhat by changing surface wind again and again but it's not 100% correct.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sale
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that GS MINI does a great job.
It is however a minimum. As Vapp is the minimum airspeed we have to fly, the ground speed increases above the minimum if there is a tailwind on the approach.
If Vapp is too close to the barbers pole on approach, just use selected speed until closer to the ground and then push for managed speed again.
It is however a minimum. As Vapp is the minimum airspeed we have to fly, the ground speed increases above the minimum if there is a tailwind on the approach.
If Vapp is too close to the barbers pole on approach, just use selected speed until closer to the ground and then push for managed speed again.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FD
I have dealt with latest CAE and True Sim even they don't have options to set winds every few hundred feet on approach nor CAEs earlier five versions had. The oldest I have used I am sure Chris has used, it didn't have Airbus airfield but had Toulose. The wind aloft options are way above platform altitudes. However when you enter surface wind it creates a pattern of winds away from ground which differ in direction and speed that's all. But no way 50kts for 20kts surface winds.
I have dealt with latest CAE and True Sim even they don't have options to set winds every few hundred feet on approach nor CAEs earlier five versions had. The oldest I have used I am sure Chris has used, it didn't have Airbus airfield but had Toulose. The wind aloft options are way above platform altitudes. However when you enter surface wind it creates a pattern of winds away from ground which differ in direction and speed that's all. But no way 50kts for 20kts surface winds.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: France
Age: 47
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you see on your PFD is not the GS mini but the IAS Target . The GS mini will never appear anywhere and is internally calculated and never shown to the pilot .
In the example you mentioned above with HW = 0 , the GS mini value stored in the system will be 130 , the minimum value from which the IAS Target will start to kick in . ( This value will never be shown to the pilot)
Any "Actual Ground Speed" lower than 130 will lead to a higher IAS Target . So in that particular case a 10 Kts HW component will bring the "Actual Ground Speed" being equal to "Intenal GS Mini Previously Stored" therefore no adjustment to IAS Target.
A 15 Kts HW component will make the Actual Ground Speed to be 125 therefore 5 Kts less than the "GS Mini Stored Value" and Vapp will be readjusted to whats called a IAS Target to be at 145 Kts . At 145 Kts IAS Target Speed the "Actual Ground Speed" = "The GS Mini Stored Values" =130 Kts. And 145 Kts is not the ground speed mini.
Last edited by Citation2; 20th Dec 2019 at 20:05.