Those flex temps and v speeds are expected and realistic for A319, watch this video for details, from a real world pilot of these types:
You won’t get these high values at EGHI as you noted earlier because it has a short runway.
4 Likes
I had the strangest experience last night. KBOS to KEWR. Flight was fine, I made a great landing. However, I noted no altitude or retard call outs. However, once I turned off the runway, “retard, retard, retard” started playing continuously until I arrived at the gate. I felt that my jet was mocking me TBH.
Anyone ever have an issue like this?
Question on RL pilot procedures - if you opt to take a visual approach, do you turn off the flight director? Do you keep the ILS or RNAV approach active so you still have some back up flight path guidance displayed?
Also, from an ATC standpoint, at what part of the flight do you request a visual? At TOD or closer in?
I thought that had been fixed, but a workaround the first time it appeared was to simply switch to an external view and back to the cockpit view.
Maybe worth a try if you get it again, as that constant “abuse” does get old pretty quickly :P.
1 Like
I´m not sure if my Fenix Updater is working properly.
Can anyone confirm if version 2.2.0.313 is the latest one, please?
I’ve had this call outa few times now, but after landing and all the way along the runway until I turned off. It’s a bug I think.
Sounds like the current version to me. It’s also the current version as listed on their website page for the expansion.
https://fenixsim.com/blog/entries/2024-08-19_a319_and_a321_expansion_released/
2 Likes
Thank you for this. The relevant part on the derate starts at 7:55, in case anyone wants to jump to the reasons for higher flex temp and higher vrefs on the IAE A319.
It’s up to you whether or not to keep the underlying approach but, if one exists, it’s generally recommended that you use it.
That’s not to say that you can’t fly with everything on or everything off all the way down to raw data, no AP, no FD, no AT.
In fact, workload permitting, it will often be recommended that you do retain the ability to hand fly a visual…in case you need to.
It can be a handful if you aren’t used to it.
The Airbus particularly has a requirement that, if you aren’t following the FDs, you should turn them off.
That’s because the Bus may try to manage what it can, generally the AT, in the assumption that you are going to fly the FDs. If you don’t it can give you something you don’t want.
As to visuals, there’s no hard and fast rule. One company I worked for didn’t allow us to accept a visual more than 35 NM out.
No one ever tried to give me one that far out.
Generally, if the weather supports a visual, then you can expect one…it substantially increases the arrival rate for ATC. If so, it will also often be noted on ATIS.
But, even if an approach is noted on ATIS, you can always ask for a visual when you want. ATC can’t necessarily make you take a visual, but if they ask you if you can see the airfield, expect the next words out of their mouth to be, “Cleared for the Visual, Runway XX”.
4 Likes
Greetings! I was curious if someone could educate me on something I found today while making a SimBrief flight plan for a flight for the Fenix A321.
I was going to do KLAX > OGG (Maui HI).
When I generated the simbrief flight plan I get a red warning that says “Warning: flight exceeds aircraft range” and then in the flight plan summary section it says “-3,904” under “fuel deficit” in red letters…
I am using the fenix integrated Simbrief profile. It does this if I choose CFM and IAE variants. If I leave the airframe on default and just select A321-200 and generate, all is fine and I get no warning.
I understand this flight is done with the A321N in real life but I was curious if there was a better airframe I should be using? I tested this on KSEA-KMCO which is around same distance and got the same error… this A321 should definitely be able to fly more then 5 hours id think?
Anyone else get this error/ warning when filing a longer flight using the fenix a321 airframe on simbreif? Or is fine to ignore?
Thanks for any help or guidance!
I just tested…if you put in 100 passengers from KLAX to PHOG, it can make it. Not very profitable as a route, but “legal” with the ETOPS requirements.
Same with 200 passengers from KSEA to KMCO, no ETOPS needed for that similar-length route.
Wind is also a factor, and it’s usually a headwind from CA to HI.
IIRC from earlier in this thread (or maybe Baracus’s Top 10 thread), I think the A321 Neo has longer range than the CFM/IAE.
1 Like
I was fiddling around and noticing that (specifically lowering passengers can get me there). I see I will had to some tweaking on the flight ops to get legal if I do it hahaha. Thank you for the response!!
1 Like
I don’t think the Simbrief profile for the Fenix is correct, it’s saying MTOW of 89,000 and fuel capacity of 18,644 whereas it should be 93,500 and 25,482
For the Fenix I would use the default profile for the A321 on Simbrief which looks far more accurate and then come back and let us know if you fell in to the sea.
1 Like
I use both Fenix 320 and PMDG 777 and one thing I noticed is, under the same conditions, it is a lot harder to keep Fenix centered during the takeoff roll - any comments?
Fenix is so sensible to wind in take off. Is good not having a plane that go on rails, but I think Fenix has an exaggerated sensitivity. And not only A320. A319 and A321 are the same with this.
1 Like
In the 320 sim pilot video linked above, he mentions that some airlines (for longer routes) have aux fuel tanks fitted as an option on the A321 (watch from 37:00->37:20 for this snippet). I guess that isn’t a thing in the fenix A321 though.
2 Likes
not yet, but I’m sure I’ve heard that Fenix will be adding more fuel capacity to the A321, as an option, in a future update.
We’ll see I guess.
2 Likes
How long a runway we’ll need to take off with extra fuel and with a full set of passengers using the relatively small wing size is anyone’s guess!
I’m guessing this is it (non neo version). From wiki-
A321LR : longer range 97 t (214,000 lb) maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) variant with three auxiliary fuel tanks, giving it 100 nmi (190 km; 120 mi) more operational range than a Boeing 757-200.
I’d expect that a higher flex thrust or even TO/GA power should allow it to take off on the majority of the runways that the current A321 can use.
I’m sure it was a specific comment direct from Fenix that I’d seen. I’ll check their discord again.
Edit: It looks like it wasn’t discord, it was on the fenixsim website, at Fenix Simulations, the relevant excerpt being:-
“A small note here: the A321 had optional ACTs (additional centre tanks) which some operators could specify for transcon missions - whilst not present in our simulation right now, we’ll be starting work on ACTs soon, and will provide it as an option later on.”
1 Like
That’s really surprising to hear. I assumed the Neo would be the next logical step. It can’t be that difficult to develop, compared to Fenix simply starting on a completely new subject (and at this point, most of the major airliners have already been released, aside from my fav, the A220).
1 Like