Sign in to follow this  
downscc

SIDSTARS Cycle 0705

Recommended Posts

PMDG SIDSTARS Cycle 0705 (10May-07Jun) Procedures based on FAA Digital Aeronautical Information CDROM and/or Terry Yingling. This collection includes 54 locations (+ indicates added since last cycle; * indicates major rework): KABQ KATL KAUS KBNA KBOS KBWI KCLT KCMH +KCVG KDAL KDCA KDEN KDFW KDTW KEWR KFLL KGEG KHOU KIAD KIAH KJFK KLAS KLGA KLAX KMCI *KMCO KMDW KMEM KMIA KMSP KMSY KOAK KONT KORD KPDX *KPHL *KPHX KPIT KRDU KRNO KSAN KSAT KSEA KSFO KSJC KSLC KSMF KSNA KSTL KTPA KTUS PANC PHNL TJSJ. Of the many changes, KATL has 9 new RNP approaches and KTPA has 4 new RNAV STARs. Only 11 of the above 54 did not have at least one minor change, which are all listed in the enclosed "Cycle 0705 Revisions.htm" document.AVSIM library look for "cycle_0705_sidstars.zip" These will also be uploaded to the navdata site by the end of the weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Dan,We've talked about this before, but is there any chance, *pretty please* that you can do a version of these without any holds in them other than missed approach ones? (like what Terry does now with his database) I've verified with several pilots that most airlines do not have those types of holds in their FMC databases because they're only used in nordo situations or by ATC request.I'm talking about stuff like the hold in the LIPTE transition for the ILS 11L at KTUS and anything else that's similar. Basically any hold that isn't in the MA phase.

Share this post


Link to post

Please let me think about it. I would love to pull them, and your point that the airlines do not have them is very good justification. I hesitate because I believe they are a required element of the approach unless 1)ATC provides radar vectors to intercept the course, or 2)A course is flown from an IAF that eliminates the need for a hold or turn pattern.KTUS ILS11L LIPTE only requires a hold pattern entry if you are "self navigating" to that fix and use it as the IAF. If you are arriving on the DINGO5 STAR then the route from DINGO fix to TACUB is flown as charted, and there is not hold required. If I were shooting that approach (and I may be there a couple of times later this month in the C-414 to/from KCRP) I would either start the approach at TACUB or (more likely) request radar vectors to intercept the final course. I'm sure this approach is designed with terrain and Davis-Montham AFB in mind. So much for real world, but what about simming? Here I believe it is very easy to delete the hold from the LEGS page and just fly it as you wish.The point that you made about the airline's FMC programs is going to change my mind if this is true. I assume that if the FMC data does not have the hold patterns, then they must insert a hold at the fix when necessary (no radar as well as no radio would be such cases). Are you able to verify that this is true?

Share this post


Link to post

We had a discussion about this a while back on our beta list and several active 744 drivers stated that yes, you must manually insert such holds if you want to use them.They're technically part of the procedure, yes, but they're used so infrequently that it would become a major chore for the flight crew to sit there and remove them every single time they loaded a STAR or approach. Since using them is the exception to the rule, they aren't part of most airlines' database from what I gather. The pilots do have the actual chart right there with them too so if something comes up and they need to do the hold, it's not hard to insert it.

Share this post


Link to post

My understanding is that Europe might be a bit different. As an example, the EGLL arrivals state that clearance is required to proceed beyound a specific hold.In those instances, haveing the STAR holds in the system seems to make sense.Jim Harnes

Share this post


Link to post

Okay... I'm on board. Changes will be in the next cycle due out 7Jun. Thanks for the feedback.. and I sincerely mean that.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi All,Interesting conversation. I thought you might like to know what I've found out about leaving the holds out. In the last two cycles 24% of my procedures downloads were for the no holds option. And so far for this cycle it is at 23%. It would seem that 76% of the flyers out there prefer the holds in, for whatever reason. Perhaps it's the difference between those that fly off-line v/s those that fly on-line. Each segment has different experiences and goals when flying. Just an interesting observation for what it's worth.LaterTerry

Share this post


Link to post

Some IAPs also have mandatory holds (if that's the correct term here) used for descent purposes. LEZL (Seville, Spain) RWY 27 ILS has the race track anchored at the SPP NDB for descent from 2,000 to 1,400 for some aircraft classes. Terrain considerations it appears.I have the NDB as a FIX with a hold applied using LNAV but intializing descent via the MCP on the intial turn to outbound capturing the GS arming APP usually on the second inbound.Maybe for some IAPs that racetrack with the capture altitude could be included (right LSK on applied IAP). Make sense?

Share this post


Link to post

Seems to me that it's easier to delete a hold that's already in the list then to add one that's not. So I think I would lean towards leaving the holds in. But this is just an initial reaction, I'll have to think about it a bit more.

Share this post


Link to post

>Okay... I'm on board. Changes will be in the next cycle due>out 7Jun. Thanks for the feedback.. and I sincerely mean>that.It's a catch 22 Dan. If you remove the holds then the 76% that want them will not be happy. I'd recommend you consider putting out two versions. One with and one without the holds. That way you cover both houses and they can download what they want. You can also develop your own stats to see which is more popular. Just my two cents.RegardsTerry

Share this post


Link to post

>>Okay... I'm on board. Changes will be in the next cycle due>>out 7Jun. Thanks for the feedback.. and I sincerely mean>>that.>>It's a catch 22 Dan. If you remove the holds then the 76% that>want them will not be happy. I'd recommend you consider>putting out two versions. One with and one without the holds.>That way you cover both houses and they can download what they>want. You can also develop your own stats to see which is more>popular. Just my two cents.>>Regards>TerryThat sounds like a good solution to me too...

Share this post


Link to post

I've just uploaded procedures for KTPA Tampa Intl to www.navdata.at with both hold and no-hold transitions. I've been working on this one for four days doing a major re-write to include NOATC departures and routes between arrivals and approaches when this issue came up.There are several approaches with holds in the transitions. The transitions are provided as-charted, and in a no-hold variant. The no-hold variant has a NHLD suffix in the transition name; e.g., ILS18R transition from LAGOO is also available as transition LAGOO.NHLDLet's see how this works for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this