Hmm...I can tell you the real deal does not function like that. .
The airspeed has nothing to do with how sensitive your inputs should be. (that is the beauty with the airbus)

The only thing that happens when you are close to landing is when you pass 50ft radio altitude
At this point you enter the "Flare Mode", the airbus automaticly lowers the nose, forcing the pilot to commence a pull back command to initiate a traditional flare.

Now I posted a theory before, but it was far off so I decided to delete it 

Quote:


Volo, I really don't know how can you trust so blindly an automatic system to land for you. Sometimes it might be necessary, but... well, I (and I speak for meself alone) cannot trust it on the sim, much less I feel I could trust in real life. I'd be a lot more tranquil in a CAT III landing if I knew the PIC was bringing down the bird using the HUD, rather than pressing a series of buttons.

Of course I recognize your right to like what I don't, as I hope you'll recognize my right to don't like what you do. We're only "talking about it", here.

Quote:


Most a/c now can do autoland. Back in those days it was very new and nobody trusted it except the designers who tested it to destruction (no a/c involved lol) so when it was installed on the VC10 Which had 2 autpilots that crosschecked each other (unheard of in those days!!!) it was known to work and already calibrated.  At that time it was only the British fleet that could land in fog for many a year. In the examples i quoted we were fortunate to have a real "pea souper" and it was a demonstration to other  pilots who like you had misgivings!!!!!!!!!!
It was FUN!!!!!   
Vololiberista
PS just try to imagine a cockpit full of sandwich munching mouths with nothing to see until "after" touchdown!!!!

Look, the FS X airbus behaves nothing like the real aircraft.

It is a flaw in the software.
I've talked to an airbus A320 captain about it and he basicly said "the thing is messed up".

Regardless of airspeed, you should still get the same roll rate of any given sidestick deflection.

There are no clashing theories here, it's just MS who did not get it right (but it is understandable since an Airbus is so darned advanced and dificult to get right in FS)

Quote:


Volo, Volo, Volo... I have no misgivings about the ability of a plane to land itself. On a polar opposite, I'm amazed at it and for some times I even went in a autolanding spree on the panels of my simulated planes, adding, changing, editing them so I could have that function.

Then there the fact that to my knowledge no plane has ever crashed while attempting an autoland, so having misgivings is ungranted. The problem I have you see is the excessive dependance on the autoland.

An autoland happens for different factors working CORRECTLY together, not only the plane being able to autoland. The real life ILS is a radio signal, and as such is not interferences proof.

For an example, there's a story I read of a 767 landing on a airport (I don't remember where nor when) which pilots were attempting a single channel ILS landing (not an autolanding) and because they kept the first NAV radio on the ILS and the second NAV radio on the airport VOR, they were able to recognize that the ILS was out of whack, the glide signal they were receiving was a fake one and the DME of the ILS suffered of cannabis overdose. It all was about to make them land some kilometer away from the runway. They went around and then shot a successful VOR-DME landing.

Had they been attempting an autoland, that usually requires both NAV radios on the ILS frequency, I would be writing of a air disaster here.

The autolanding is not only a matter of capability of the plane, but is a together of different technologies, some of which MAY be not working correctly.

I trust the planes, but I'm a lot less trusty of Murphy's law, especially when radio interferences and human stupidity are concerned. I simply prefer that the one landing the bird be the pilot, even if to do such a thing has to use a last generation hud. The pilot (at least for the moment) deserves a lot more trust than a two computers on a intranet.

Well, the landing I cited (of which sadly enough can't remember anything beside that it was a 767) was surely on a lesser ILS than the ones you in England can be proud of (seem to remember somewhere in USA, but could be incredibly wrong). Still, the fact remains that not all the ILS all around the world can allow a blind landing. You can have a perfectly working plane flown by a crew of supermen, but if the ILS doesn't help you, better not even try.

Trust your instruments you say, and you're right, but remember that sh*t happens and always keep available a second point of view, a redundancy, and if something doesn't seem right, use your brain and go around, no plane has ever collided with the sky (other planes are a different matter, and with todays anti-collision radars, fortunately, less a liability than some time ago), though some did remain with no fuel, but then, that's the reason in a flight plan is always present an alternate.