Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

A380 Cockpit-Prep polish/adjustment #1019

Open
wants to merge 85 commits into
base: multi-aircraft-restructure
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Steveveepee
Copy link
Contributor

Summary

Fixed a few things that were still referencing 2 engine aircraft. Adjusted the order or a couple of the steps.
Adjusted wording of the checklists to add things like 'selector' and 'pb-sw' to reflect the FCOM nomenclature.

Discord username (if different from GitHub): Shrike

Copy link

vercel bot commented Oct 17, 2024

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
docs ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 1 resolved Oct 17, 2024 2:09am

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Review Required PR Check Label label Oct 17, 2024
Copy link

This PR is being prevented from merging because Review Required. Use the Approved label to run build validation and auto merge the PR.

@Steveveepee
Copy link
Contributor Author

Aligned checks with my current FCOM. Happy to re-edit to align with whatever the target FCOM / Software load is.

@Steveveepee Steveveepee changed the title Multi aircraft restructure A380 Cockpit-Prep polish/adjustment Oct 17, 2024
@@ -57,7 +52,7 @@ After these pre-checks, we can start the aircraft starting with the initial powe

---

## Initial Power Up
## Batteries Check.External Power
Copy link
Member

@Valastiri Valastiri Oct 17, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
## Batteries Check.External Power
## Batteries Check/External Power

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actually that should be
Batteries Check/External Power

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added thanks. I'll have someone look over this before merging appreciate the PR.

` - If the AVAIL light is on:`<br/>
`EXT pb-sw (2, 3, 1, 4) ................................................ ON`<br/>
`ALL IR MODE selectors ....................................... OFF then NAV`<br/>
??? note "ADIRS Alignment"
Copy link
Member

@Valastiri Valastiri Oct 17, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Self note: Do we explain anywhere what (if any) the differences between a full alignment and fast alignment is anywhere? - Investigate.

If not we should quickly outline that on this page possibly.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IRL we do a hybrid align where 1 and 2 are full aligned while 3 remains untouched until 1 and 2 have a rough position, that way the load control connection to the aircraft is maintained (the sat Comms knows roughly where it is in the world) and the refuelling status / trim tank levels / CG etc can be worked out between them.

If a full align in the sim takes 7+ minutes, then people will maybe get confused when maps and PFDs start disappearing from view and not coming back before they're ready to taxi.

Can't check right now, is there a "instant align" button on the iPad?

@frankkopp
Copy link
Member

Most of these deletions should be double checked against the SOP document we have as this was the reference (not the FCOM).
We should have some consistency between this guide and the SOP doc.
https://github.com/flybywiresim/docs/blob/multi-aircraft-restructure/docs/pilots-corner/a380x/assets/sop/FBW_A380X_SOP.pdf

@Steveveepee
Copy link
Contributor Author

What's the source for that SOP? It's quite different to what I have. For instance the poor old FO does almost all the work regardless of who is going to be PF. Is there a way to edit the source for that SOP as there are a few things that could be fixed in there as well?

@frankkopp
Copy link
Member

What's the source for that SOP? It's quite different to what I have. For instance the poor old FO does almost all the work regardless of who is going to be PF. Is there a way to edit the source for that SOP as there are a few things that could be fixed in there as well?

The source is also on the repo:
https://github.com/flybywiresim/docs/tree/multi-aircraft-restructure/src/sop/src%20A380%20Documentation

This has been written a while ago be member who is no longer active. But they had a lot of experience with these things and also wrote the A32NX one. I recommend to only change things that are wrong and need to be fixed. It is not worth to change it completely to match an operator specific version.

Changing too much requires reworking the beginner guide as well.

@Steveveepee
Copy link
Contributor Author

Steveveepee commented Oct 23, 2024

Should we make a SOP document that is designed for single pilot ops and then build the BG around that, with a more standard SOP / checklists etc in the Advanced Guides?

@frankkopp
Copy link
Member

Should we make a SOP document that is designed for single pilot ops and then build the BG around that, with a more standard SOP / checklists etc in the Advanced Guides?

I don't think we should. We never had an artificial SOP for the sim single pilot situation. And user ignore the PF/PM remarks. On top the bg does not even use them.

Let's discuss on Discord if you want.

@flogross89 flogross89 force-pushed the multi-aircraft-restructure branch 2 times, most recently from 104007e to 6794598 Compare October 31, 2024 02:15
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Review Required PR Check Label
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants