I've tried this approach twice now using a Grove STAR.Apart from the fact that it puts an unnecessary divertion to left to ENOBY and GROVE reoprting points (which I delete) I'm stillleft with a stange dogleg on final approach around the two fixes FF and CF. I've tried deleting them but then I lost my FAF and messed up my descent.Any idea why it does this please ?

As I read the Jeppesen SimCHART for GROVE arrivals to EGBB (there are in fact four of them), the STAR chart puts you into a hold at GROVE, via EBONY; and states explicitly that you must not proceed beyond GROVE without ATC clearance. Unless ATC has intervened beforehand, you are therefore expected to enter the hold at GROVE via EBONY, where you should wait until cleared for onward progress. In reality, I imagine, you are likely to receive ATC clearance to intercept the localizer BEFORE you reach the HON VOR; but if you are following the STAR, you should not treat the EBONY and GROVE waypoints either as "unnecessary" or as a "diversion".Tim

Further to my earlier reply, you might want to have a look here:http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index...&Itemid=79.htmlThis is the current aerodrome information for EGBB published by the UK's national authorities, including the chart for GROVE arrivals. The "official" version of the GROVE chart includes a text explanation which confirms my interpretation of the Jeppesen chart - but it might have been helpful for Jeppesen to include it: "GROVE 1A Arrival via L10 (FL70 and below) to BUZAD continue on DTY VOR R127 (307

Tim,thanks but I think you need to iput the STAR and the approach into the FMC to see what I mean. I suspect one of the fixes on finals has been input as a 'fly by' rather than a fly over or something as it shows up as two right angled turns just at the FAF.

I have just programmed a flight from EGLL to EGBB via BIG then straight to a GROV1A arrival with a GROVE transition for an ILS33 approach. It works as expected on my setup under FS9 and the latest Navigraph data, in that the magenta line follows pretty exactly the course predicted by the STAR chart and by the Approach plate for a transition from GROVE. I haven't tried it with FSX but since the Navigraph dataset is the same for both versions I imagine the result will be the same.The "dogleg" you describe might well be the result of deleting the EBONY and GROVE fixes, because the GROVE transition to the ILS33 approach is not straightforward (as shown in the Approach plate I mentioned in my last post). Perhaps if you've only left the FMC knowing about the transition, it ends up in a muddle (trying to intercept a radial from the wrong position, perhaps?)What happens if you try the published STAR without attempting any modifications?Tim