Back to Board Index
Back to Board Index
Forum help
| STARs and SIDs | |
Christian Smith   19th Apr 2010 18:22:16 | Hi Guys, Controlling last night I found it a bit odd that I was asked to allocate a STAR, this has happened a few times now, as far as I'm aware this is the pilots job. Once youve recived the active runway through weather information, then you should add this to your flight plan to ensure you follow the entire STAR, and not begin one half way through. In most cases for virtual control, (through as a pilot and controller) I've noticed that most ATCOs will infact vector aircraft when appropiate to themselves, or at the final hold point, if you are on a STAR to an incorrect runway the controller will issue a new VOR/Vector to direct. Perhaps some further clarity is needed on this. I'm sure Richard will come and clarify procedures. In terms of SIDs im aware it is quite standard to request a SID as this is meets current radar traffic needs- but when you initially recieve clearance from ground this is checked anyway, to ensure radar are happy to accept it.
ATCOs Thoughts? |
| Christian Smith 19th Apr 2010 19:00:47 | or pilots thoughts for that matter? Am I talking rubbish? |
| Christian Smith 19th Apr 2010 19:16:50 | And one more thing whilst I'm talking about SIDs,JUST AS AN ADVISORY really I keep giving clearances for SIDs requested by pilots, Lets say a LAM2S Departure (Lambourne 2 Sierra) and as soon as the aircraft takes off it does not follow the actual Fixes and instead directs straight to a VOR, in this case LAM, if pilots wish to do this then rather than request a SID Just put it in you Flight plan: "EGSS LAM A123 DTY...ETC" rather than request "EGSS LAM2S LAM A123 DTY...ETC".
If you do want to fly a SID remember you should fly a SID to where your flight plan begins (In the example above you can see this is Lambourne) The designator in the name (2S, 3S) varies depending on the runway, for example the DVR5F uses runway 27R at EGLL, whilst DVR6K uses runway 09L EGLL. It's unlikely you'll know what runway you'll be using until you've received the ATIS, so you won't be able to input the SID until that point. If you need to know which runway SIDs fly from you MUST refer to the charts! STARs are little more tricky. You pick the STAR based on where your flightplan ends, but STARs are NOT named based on where they begin, they are named after where they terminate. For example, a STAR that ends at LAM (Lambourne VOR) is named as the LAM STAR chart, even though it begins at LOGAN! Please remember this guys!! Most STAR charts typically have several routes on them, just like SIDs, and each route will have a different designator and start from a different point, but all routes on a single STAR chart will finish at the same place. The routes from Edinburgh to Heathrow terminate at NUGRA, so we'll use that as an example. So we know where we need to join our STAR at NUGRA, and if we go through the various STAR charts for Heathrow we find NUGRA on the BNN VOR STAR chart. The arrival route which begins at NUGRA is designated as the BNN1B, which you can find out from the routing table at the bottom of the chart or by looking at the labels on the legs. Of course, any route on the BNN STAR chart will terminate at Bovingdon VOR and this is where you will be instructed to HOLD and should expect vectors from - this is not where the STAR begins. Sorry to get into a rant there, but I hope it helps pilots and ATCs alike Christian |
| Christian Smith 19th Apr 2010 19:49:14 | Oh and just to make things more complicated, regarding STARs, within the UK STARS are names at there final point as already mentioned, outside of the UK, STARS are prefixed with the first navigational point so can be used like a SID in the way you pick which one to use for example if a flight plan heading into Dublin states "...A123 VATRY EIDW" (Vatry VOR) you can choose a VATRY3N arrival- this pretty much goes for anywhere outside of the UK! See: http://www.vateir.com/Charts/EIDW/EI_AD_2_EIDW_24-17_en.pdf for info on this STAR.
REMEMBER THIS IS FOR OUTSIDE OF THE UK :) |
| Christian Smith 19th Apr 2010 19:54:14 | ..and to complicate things further... I noticed the use of an SRD, these do extend in to Irish airspace, SRDs in virtual controlling effectively mean the control will issue clearance to your first port of call, but it likes to be over complicated.
check out this wonderfully exciting document for info on this on all UK and IRE airports http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/srd/SRDDOC.pdf |
| Christian Smith 19th Apr 2010 21:46:31 | The only other point which may be of interest is a VRP, these are generally used by low flying VFR traffic, primarily helicopters, as they are easy to see in real world. In a virtual environment VRPs may be requested by a pilot as a exit point or navigation point. Example
"Stansted Tower, Helimed 7, Request VFR departure to the north via Puckeridge VRP" "Helimed 7, Clear for north departure via Puckeridge VRP- Report when passing, Sqwawk 0021, Contact when ready for takeoff" "Stansted Tower, Helimed 7, Departure to the north approved, will report when passing Puckeridge VRP, Sqwawking 0021, and will contact you when ready for takeoff" Example: "Helimed 7, Stansted Radar, Direct Barkway VOR, via Puckeridge VRP" -This second example is rare to hear in virtual ATC |
Richard Stuchfield  20th Apr 2010 10:34:39 | I'm really not so sure about who is responsible for issuing STARs. My thought was that it should be the controller not the pilot. The pilot may request a STAR but the whole point of STARs is for safe arrival to the holding pattern of an airfield - as such, this is the controllers responsibility to maintain separation and I would think they should allocate the STAR that best suits the current traffic conditions. I guess it's OK for a pilot to request this in their flightplan but the only issue is that we aren't professionals and a lot of the time, incorrect information is requested which only confuses the situation. It is true that most of the time, aircraft will be vectored off any STAR routing for approach as (previously mentioned) the point of the STAR is to get the aircraft to a holding point which given the level of traffic in FSOpen, virtually never happens so STARs are mostly irrelevant.
SIDs on the other hand should never be requested in their flight plan, they will be allocated by ATC depending upon your first point in the flight plan. Wait until you have your clearance from ATC before programming your FMC otherwise you're likely to have to change your SID. Christian's point about pilots not flying SIDs when they've been issued (and especially when they've been requested) is a bit annoying, if you can't fly a SID, then please tell the controller when they give you the clearance and they will give you an amended one. The whole point of SIDs (and STARs) is to maintain seperation from other IFR traffic by taking the burden off the controller so they don't have to give you vector information all the time. Controllers; if you see a pilot with a lower rank (ie. not indicating that they know about SIDs) then ask them if they can accept a SID departure before giving one in the clearance. Hope this helps. Richard |
| Richard Stuchfield 20th Apr 2010 10:37:57 | just to add...
if you don't know about SIDs and STARs and want to learn, there are plenty of people who should be able to teach you - either by walking you through a SID/STAR chart or by sharing your cockpit and flying one with you while giving you instruction. I know I've done this in the past and there have been a couple of requests for this information on the forum recently. Post a request on the forum or ask someone in teamspeak |
| Christian Smith 20th Apr 2010 18:53:39 | Just to mention Richard, obviously when an aircraft enters on a STAR approach then it is cleared to begin its descent and often only needs final clearance to descend into and itercept the ILS, following reaching its final fix, which means unless it enters a hold it should never have to maintain an altitude as it is constantly slowly descending- my point of this is that it makes simulation alot more realistic regardless of whether the aircraft will be asked to 'hold' by a controller. In terms of who decides what, I think pilots should recieve the ATIS and go from there really; it can always be amended by the controller; In real world there is alot more communication between controllers and therefore, as an example, London Control may contact Stansted Radar to allocate a STAR- but personally I think this doesnt really work virtually as we just dont have the time to start cross-references peoples flight plans with charts, or the ability to flick the radar off and begin looking- and as you say were not professional controllers and theres defintely only one of us in each position.
I think what may be best is that pilots have two STARs avaiable from the same fix/VOR, but to different ends on the runway- and then they request Control to advise them on which is active and thus choose there STAR- as this is going to be the only way to recieve up to date weather info (for the active). However this means that an aircraft is no longer tracking a assigned vector and will begin descent so a way of stopping getting controllers confused might be: (In fact I've kind of typed lots without realising again and put down the whole comms of what a STAR arrival using the method above may sound like) "London Control, World 123, Request current active runway at London Stansted Airport" "World 123, London Control, Stansted information Alpha current, expect runway 5" "London Control, World 123, Many thanks, Stansted Information alpha expecting runway 5 for arrival and now active on a LAM1A Arrival" "World 123, London Control, have you active on a Lambourne 1 alpha arrival, Chatham Regional QNH 1016" "Regional QNH 1016, World 123" "World 123, London Control, Contact Stansted Approach 120.62, Bye bye" "World 123 Contacting approach 120.62, bye bye" "Stansted Radar, World 123 is a Boeing 738 in reciept of information Alpha, currently with you at 7, 500ft descending to 3, 000ft on a Lambourne 1 Alpha arrival expecting runway 5" "World 123, Stansted Radar, Hello, Continue on the Lambourne 1 Alhpha, expect no hold, exit lambourne tracking 350 degrees, maintain 3, 000ft and report fully established Runway 5" "Radar, World 123, Cleared Lambourne 1 Alhpa arrival, expecting no hold today, exit Lambourne tracking 350 degrees, do not descend further than 3, 000ft, will contact when fully established runway 5" |
| Christian Smith 20th Apr 2010 18:58:18 | Does this look like some information we could put up to pilots about how to fly a STAR on FSOPEN? |
| Christian Smith 20th Apr 2010 18:58:49 | And then just introduce some consistency in the way that they are currently handled by controllers too?
Christian |
| Christian Smith 20th Apr 2010 19:15:52 | Also, In terms if the SIDs, pilots not selfallocating a route makes sense but do you not think this can be put in to the first call??? Then us controllers have the absolute luxury of just going to fix on ATCA, clicking down, and selecting the point? Obviosuly it all changes depending on there flight plan... and if controllers are unable to accept a SID for whatever reason (maybe theyve began using a VOR as a hold stack) then its going to mean bug changes to there entire flight plan
For example "Standsted Ground, World 123, is a boeing 737-800, with you stand 10, requesting IFR clearance to Newcastle, via a Lambourne SID" "World 123, Stansted Ground, you are cleared to Newcastle on a LAM2S Departure, current active is runway 5, Sqwawk 5475, Report when fully ready for push back and start" Rather than going through the pain of: Standsted Ground, World 123, with you stand 10, requesting IFR clearance to Newcastle Airport" "World 123, Stansted Ground, Can you accept a SID Departure?" Newbie: Both confused and pausing.. "Whats that?" Hope this also makes sense and can be used for the sanity of ATCOs? :) Christian |
| Christian Smith 20th Apr 2010 19:18:45 | And... if they cant take that VOR because of Stack etc...
"World 123, Stansted Ground, We are currently unable to accept your flight plan, please modify so that your first navigational point is Barkway and expect a BKY2S Departure" |
| Christian Smith 20th Apr 2010 19:28:10 | wish effectively brings us back to the should pilots just put a SID they want in, and then it can be modified diucussion? :D I do love SIDs and STARs |
| Mick McG 21st Apr 2010 08:21:18 | Hi Christian, just to add my two pen'orth; I think it's going to be difficult to get all controllers and pilots singing from the same hymn sheet regarding SIDs and STARS in FSOpen simply because of the widely varying levels of experience. I like your thinking to try and standardise the procedures but it would be a challenge to say the least. Where do you start? Standard phraseology is as good as anywhere, but even in your STAR example above there are a number places where your interpretation differs significantly from the standard (ie non-virtual) procedures. Whose interpretation would we use?
In the non-virtual environment, the STAR is based on the RW in use at the destination airport and the route/direction of the inbound aircraft. Procedures vary considerably from place to place but generally what happens in the UK is London or Scottish Control will coordinate a point or level where control of the inbound aircraft is transferred to the receiving aerodrome’s Approach/Radar controller. The Approach/Radar Controller will then CLEAR the aircraft for the appropriate STAR, inform the pilot what type of approach he can expect, pass the current ATIS code (if not confirmed copied on the pilot's initial call), and then pass instructions to establish/confirm radar identity. A typical initial exchange would be something like: BAW23T - "Longtown Radar, Speedbird 2-3 Tango with you, Flight Level 9-0 with ATIS delta" Longtown Radar - "Speedbird 2-3 Tango, Longtown Radar, cleared for the SUGDEN 1 Alpha Arrival. Expect vectoring for ILS approach to Runway 2-8. ATIS delta correct. Squawk IDENT" Once BAW23T is passed the agreed release point, Longtown Radar would position him as required for the approach. That may mean letting the Speedy run to the beacon at SUGDEN to join the hold or it might be that he can be peeled off early to be vectored around the instrument pattern for the ILS or SRA etc - all depending on the controllers capacity/workload at the time. There are a whole load of other scenarios – too many to mention here – where this varies from the norm and therein lies the rub in FSX. How can anyone be expected to know the all procedures employed at a particular airport that they are “controlling” in FSX? We are fortunate enough in FSOpen to have some fantastic controllers who provide a great service and we have some first rate pilots who demonstrate excellent flying skills and discipline. We also have some duffers like me who just want to bimble around in our props and practice our circuits and bumps and others who want to improve their ATCO skills without getting bogged down in the quagmire of IFR departures and arrivals. The ATCO mentoring scheme introduced recently is probably the only way to implement your plan with any sort of consistency but even then it will be a slow old process I think. It’ll be interesting to see what everyone else thinks though - if they’re still awake?! (lol) Clear skies and apologies for blathering on a bit, :-) M |
Andy Halliday  21st Apr 2010 10:02:46 | Nicely explained Mick very interesting reading ;) |
| Richard Stuchfield 21st Apr 2010 10:31:10 | Thanks for the explanation Mick. I'll have a think about how we can incorporate this info into our training program. Then I'll make a post to explain to pilots and controllers what our 'best practise' is.
Richard |
| Christian Smith 21st Apr 2010 15:55:48 | Hi Mick, its all intresting- I managed to stay awake dont worry! I've blabbered far too much on this post.
Somewhere in the mass of stuff towards the top I acknowledge how real world ATCO and pilots co-ordinate STARs, and I think the key thing from that was that we (as single people controlling a position) didnt really have the ability to communicate with one another, or choose STARs for pilots, as were too busy (on occassion) watching the radar. As you say it really it is a slow process, and I dont doubt it will be, as how to implement, my only suggestion would be a kind of 'info' tab on the website, and incorportated in ATC training for ATCOs. I just want to mention your point about the levels of expereince, as you know ranking is currently used, and its accuracey does seem to vary, (for both controllers and pilots), I think a the minute people are getting pretty hung up on it all (for whatever reason), and perhaps people how never ever want to fly SIDs and STARs (some kind of natural dislike) can remain at a certain rank. At the minute people decide if they want to be able to do them and then ask someone to sshow them and thats pretty much it I think. I'm intrested to hear what you mean by "but even in your STAR example above there are a number places where your interpretation differs significantly from the standard (ie non-virtual) procedures. Whose interpretation would we use?" I'm aware that these comms are obviously nothing to real world, however I was trying to think about how other virutal communities do it, and it always seems to be a little bit blurry, some standardisation would be good I think. What would your thoughts be? I'm intrested to see what Richard is going to come up with on this one, its not the pleasant of things to figure out! Good luck!! Christian :) |
| Christian Smith 22nd Apr 2010 16:25:39 | RIchard if you pick this up, Im just wondering why (as in why we bother) on the pilots section it states
Continue taxi to the gate. At the gate, set your parking brake, and request permission to shut down your engines. PILOT: “ BAW286, ON STAND REQUESTING ENGINE SHUTDOWN” ATC: “ BAW286, SHUTDOWN APPROVED” |
| Richard Stuchfield 22nd Apr 2010 16:48:21 | No idea.
There is NO requirement for aircraft in the UK to request engine shutdown. Shutdown is at your own discretion once you reach the gate Richard |
| Mick McG 23rd Apr 2010 20:27:13 | H’o again fella’s,
I’ve been thinking about the STAR procedures some more but the more I do the harder I think it will be to incorporate them with the consistency Christian is looking for. However, although the problems are numerous they’re not insurmountable and there may be a way that we can build things up gradually. I think the issue is that the procedures are not particularly well understood and they are so numerous. As an example, EGBB (Birmingham, UK) alone has 3 pages of STARs covering 11 routes (not including the ones when HON VOR is off). EGSS has 5 pages (not including the ones when BPK is off), EGCC 4 pages etc etc. Way too many for us learn that’s for sure. Richard, maybe for trg we could designate one airport that has relatively simple STARs to interpret and use that to standardise our procedures in FSOpen. EGFF (Cardiff) springs to mind as it has Class D, single RW ops for simplicity and a strip also long enough to take the big stuff. We could devise some “standard” phraseology for it and maybe promulgate the procedures in simple form on a dedicated page on the web site. Using that as the model, we could base our ATC trg there and bring people up to speed at one airport rather than the choice of 5 or 6 much more complicated locations like we do just now? That way, the mentors would be teaching the same procedures to guys wishing to progress up the ATC ranks and we could have one airport that pilots could rely on getting a “bona fide” IFR service from should they wish to make use of it. That’s not to say we wouldn’t have anywhere else open, just that EGFF (or wherever it’s decided) would be exclusively for Pro ATC and pilot IFR trg. It’s food for thought anyway. Speaking of food, I’m off to get some as I’ve waffled on for long enough again. We must be in line for the award of longest posts in a single thread, surely? Oh, and when flying IFR remember - It’s good to squawk! Clear skies, M |
| Richard Stuchfield 24th Apr 2010 12:11:26 | Thanks for that Mick. Sounds like a good idea. Been a bit busy the last few days so haven't really done anything around this yet. I think the idea of training at one airfield is a good one.
Hopefully this weekend, I'll have a chance to put something down onto paper and try some stuff out. Will keep you all posted Richard |
Adrian OLeary  26th Apr 2010 21:45:44 | Hi all,
I have been working on a DRAFT Standard Operating Procedure over the last couple of days. Enclosed is a Link to my web page. http://www.mstc.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ Follow the FSOpen link on the left and Look at the DRAFT Birmingham SOP. This is only draft and I'll bet there is a load I have missed off but it might be a starter for 10. Section Headings are as follows. Aerodrome Data ATC Comms Runways Gates to Spawn At General Procedures Voice Procedures IFR Departures IFR Arrivals IFR Circuits HOLDS Speed Procedures Missed Approach Procedures VFR Procedures I have simplified the SIDs to a table including basic instructions to follows and the Stars to 1 diagram. Comments welcome.. Richard I have emailled it to you as well Regards Adrian |
| Adrian OLeary 26th Apr 2010 21:49:32 | THIS IS FOR DISCUSSION ONLY |
| Jamie Owens 26th Apr 2010 22:04:11 | Brilliant ^ |
| Christian Smith 30th Apr 2010 00:13:44 | Ok, Realise I havent actually checked this post in a while:
So heres my thoughts. Mich your logic is sound for training purposes. However, if pilots want to fly STARS then they should do so using a FMC and the relevant chart. This therefore means no STAR is harder to fly then any other surely? If people are trying to manually fly STARS then they are both a) MAD and B) not realising FMCs exist. My opinion on the airport, again, sound in logic, but if you read the current post on FSOpen thumbs up ad downs, the same airports become repetetive to pilots. As an ATC providing a service to pilots I like to pick my airports and have developed a few favourites along the way (namely Gatwick, Stansted, and Heathrow). Perhaps during training somewhere like Cardiff or Bristol could be used but the mentor will use it purely for the fact that its singled runway and not, as mentioned before, because STARS are easier. If I had to control at Cardiff rather than Heathrow or Gatick, I'd probably just wait untill someone else jumped into Cardiff, then just picked the one I wanted, sounds pretty crap, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who would do exactly the same. Again 'training' I really dont understand what training goes into teaching pilots SIDs and STARs becuase unless they do wish to fly it manually then effort is mininum, all pilots need to understand is how to read the chart and how to select the right route? I think whats needed is the intervention of standardisation (training is all ready in place) and the rest should follow. Adrian- I'm a big fan of your flight strips and already use a similar system myself. Your taxi system- certainly intresting and youve clear put the effort in, the only thing I'd say is, its about knowing your airport and maybe some documentation is needed on this? For example when I control at Gatwick I put all Heavys on gates 63-56, Light Aircraft on 1-10, Anyother GA Traffic on 130-150, and all others on 11-28, Simple as that. In terms of taxi way instructions- THESE CHANGE ALL THE TIME. The route I gave one aircraft might be completely different to the next, I may need some aircraft to hold during thier taxi to give way to traffic, and rather than beging on my toes, these are given during taxi clearance, for example some aircraft might get taxi J, hold J1, and others could recieve, J, Hold J8, Hold J6, Hold J1 for 08R. So I think its odd that we can have a list ready and waiting for instructions. Airline stand allocation is an intresting one, but as you know in realworld only some airlines fly into airports, we could be controlling in Biggin Hill and get a BA 747 land, im sure that wont be on the airline list :p Interms of your other document, I also use a similar thing, but just page 1, I too call it standard operating procedures, and it basically contains runway info, go around procedure, and nearest airfields. I cant think why I need all the other info when I have a radar infront of me. What also worries me is ATC and pilots taking this as gospel, At the minute I have no problems stacking aircraft and bringing several approaches in much far less comms. Once theyre in the airspace vectoring begins immediately and they often get approved for independent turns on the ILS as in real world. We dont have to have all instructions to a tee. Sorry if this seems like a dig... one of the reasons I'm so passionate is when I became a bristol tower controller on VATSIM I recieved a 20 page procedure document, I still dont think I've ever used it (apart from go arounds, and noise abatement procedures)- doesnt make my any worse of a controller as I managed to pass my exams! VFR procedures, they'll all pretty standard and all pilots confrom, if you want an extended downwind on an aircraft, theres nothing in the document to explain this might happen and im consious that some pilots will start dictating what we need to do. I really like the stuff down on VFR Transits, Missed approach procedures, but again should be basic to pilots, and lets face it. no pilots are going to know a go around procedure unless we say "Implement go around, Climb 3, 000, right 180" And this also goes for the holds, if pilots have an FMC then the hold will be maintained properly, BUT we still need to advise an altitude, if you already have an aircraft at FL70, then we need to issue "hold ockham FL50" we dont want to run the risk of pilots reading the operating procedures and entering the hold at FL70 anyway "because thats what it says on the sheet" Let me just say, I think its great that youre this organised and undoubtedly helps you provde some great ATC, but my main concerns again are: 1) Pilots will take this as gospel 2) Traffic needs may contridict any "Standard procedure" 3) SIDS and Holds, cannot not be expected to a high standard from pilots without FMCs (of course one of the greats about flying on fsopen) 4) Stand allocation just wouldnt work virtaully for airlines, and taxi instructions are just to different, When I fly online, differennt ground instructions are given for the same stand to runway route but they all get me to the right place. I LOVE this step forward, and its defintely good, but is it good for FSopen? This is my concern. VATSIM is the place for procedure. This is obviously all my own opinion on it, ffel free to grab me on teamspeak and we'll have a further chat. Maybe you could put some of your view forward on a standardisation for SIDS and STAR Comms. Clear Skies, Christian |
| Christian Smith 30th Apr 2010 00:16:09 | Oh and reading the pressure thing, I had a pilot start arguing with me for not giving him QNH following dpearture because he was at 100ft and the pressure had changed, this is obviously not procedure, and the pilot clearly DIDNT have a clue, and I dont want pilots being that way because of information overload, Id rather they just had a flight, had fun, talked to me with great comms, and leave the vectoring and routing to me :) |
Paul Gallagher  30th Apr 2010 00:40:13 | so why not just make nats charts the main chart for fsopen if the pilot wants to do a star then he should only req it in his flight plan as it is atc job in real life for the controller to give the pilot a sid or star for depends on how heavy air traffic. pilot with no fmc or cdu then you have to measure you miles from the air port wich will be say mct find the frq and wach in your hud display when the chart tells you to turn say 9.6 dme from mct from rwy heading or it may clear you to say 4000ft so far along your sid it may ask you to then put the freq say for tnt it will be on the sheet of your chart it will then gide you then 20 dme to tnt with the correct hight and corse heading |
| Christian Smith 30th Apr 2010 00:50:48 | Hmmmm intresting Paul, this is discussed somewhere ^up there with the masses, and interms of STARS, I dont hae any probs with finding the active out and then selecting a STAR, but this can cause problems because of traffic developments. In terms of SIDs, if pilots cant do SIDs its probably easier that they dont try, easier for ATC to control too that way, rather than trying to correct mistakes afterwards :p Too, SID AND STARS charts just dont give you that amount of info to be able to fly them manually
Christian |
| Christian Smith 30th Apr 2010 00:59:57 | Had a further chin wag with Goffa, and it seems my thoughts are fairly in line with FSOpen, which of course is good to hear, and that Admins are going to be looking at this post to get some thoughts
RICHARD IS ALSO WORKING ON SOME DOCUMENTATION BASED ON THIS POST SO PILOTS FEEL FREE TO SKIM THE ABOVE AND PUT DOWN YOUR VIEWS. I'd advise anyone who really wants to fly SIDs and STARs all the time to check out VATSIM. The community vibe, in my opinion, isnt half as good, but it does offer many airfields offering 'full' ATC Services, unlike how FSOpen depends upon the pilots AND ATCs skills. SHOVE YOUR VIEWS DOWN GUYS Christian |
| James Monckton 30th Apr 2010 01:19:11 | In short, no-one will ever be made to do anything, if you want to go ahead and do SID and STARs like some of us you can, if a controller give you one, then call back and ask for a non standard, its not a problem
James |
| Christian Smith 30th Apr 2010 01:30:44 | This is very true, thanks James! :) |
| Richard Stuchfield 30th Apr 2010 11:54:54 | I've had a busy week at work so I still haven't got anything concrete to post regarding best practices in our sessions - I will get around to it soon though.
Christian. The SIDs and STARs charts definitely do give you the information to fly the procedure manually. That is what they are there for. Pilots take these charts onboard with them for each of the aerodromes (including alternates) so that they can fly the routes should they lose the FMC. I personally, have never flown a SID or STAR with the FMC and ALWAYS fly them manually. STARs lack level information because in the UK, levels are assigned by ATC - there is no 'standard' profile for descent on STARs unlike SIDs where there is a climb profile indicated within the chart. Richard |
| Christian Smith 30th Apr 2010 15:50:30 | Yeah don't know where that came from actually, I used to fly all SIDs and STARS manually on VATSIM, makes life that much easier with an FMC onboard though!
Christian |
| Paul Gallagher 30th Apr 2010 15:52:59 | i dont understand how this is so hard make all the pilots use nats charts caa approved and every time i fly it take me spot on to the vor of the sid correct turn point and alt so no excuses i say the only thing you need to sort out is 1 find out if it going to be pilots job to req a sid or star 2 stop pilot puting in sid and stars on the flight plan if thay cant do it 3 more tranning to the pilot that want to learn them
|
| Christian Smith 30th Apr 2010 16:04:49 | Well this is it Paul. Suppose its all about pilots being able to do it. At the minute people recieve training using NATS Charts, and hopefully all pilots do. Providing pilots can read the charts fine, as you say they should be fine. We're also looking at ways to sort out a STAR arrival, in terms of who allocates it. Pilots or controllers? Which do you think. And then were going to look at some standard comms for these.
What your saying is spot on, providing the pilot can stick on route, manage the altitude too, then they should be able to do a SID/STAR, personally its alot of effort to me, but smaller aircraft do it everyday in realworld flying (which of course are easier to keep on route). In terms of training, mentoring is available to pilots to develop thier skills in all kind of areas, inclding SIDS and STARs. The bit about requiring a STAR is intresting though... how could we know? Do you mean the departure airport should allocate the STAR? Christian |
| Christian Smith 30th Apr 2010 23:35:25 | :O Nearly 500 views thats crazy!! |
| Adrian OLeary 1st May 2010 11:44:52 | Hi IMHO, I don't think that a little bit more standardisation would be too much of a problem for FSOpen.
I left VATSIM because of the overbearing standards, exams(??) and politics of the set up, but I think we can simplify the real world procedures into a set that are easy to understand and follow, and use them to guide how we fly around FSOpen. That was the aim of the 4 page doc for Birmingham. I tried to keep the text to a minimum and include diagrams or tables which are easy to use. As primarily an ATC (Although I pilot as well) I would like to see FSOpen continue much as it is. The SOP would be the guidelines and if pilots want to do something non-standard, great stick it in the flight plan or ask on initial call and I'll see what I can do. From an ATC point of view, I like to see variation so helos, big jets, biz jets and GA, the more the merrier. We are all here to have fun but a little bit of structure can’t be a bad thing.. Regards Adie ;-) |
You need to Log on to post a reply. |
Forum help