CYUL STARS....

[Guest ielchitz]

Now that I finally got myself a set of charts for Montreal I will be taking a look at the CYUL set with Approach transitions.It looks as if someone has already done up a nice set that were available on the old seaartcc.org site - many thanks to whoever got them started.Now a question......With all of these new procedures.. do we need to create runway transitions for NON-RNAV arrivals? I ask this because I personally think that the approaches should contaion transitions from RNAV arrivals and published IAF's only... but not from a standard arrival.. since generally the pilot's job would be to navigate from the end of the arrival to the start of the approach.On second thought that would generally be ATC's job .I just think that sometimes people place too much emphasis on using their FMC for every aspect and phase of their flights. Comments?Ian.p.s. - I just landed at CYUL (NHL charter from Raleigh-Durham) and the 06L localiser appeared to give me the LOC only and no G/S or DME. Has anyone else encountered this problem?

[Guest ilh]

I think you are right. If the STAR ends in vectors, you might as well have ATC vector you (or vector yourself with HDG SEL) to the basic approach. If an approach plate does have an IAF or two, it can't hurt to have those too. I think the basic approaches should go out 10-12nm and anything beyond that is part of an approach transition.Just my US$0.02.Lee Hetherington (KBOS)

[Guest KB]

To me it sounds like that would make for a very confused situation. To have the RNAV arrivals as approach transitions, isn't that just a workaround for the FMC's inability to save runway-specific STAR transitions? I figure that if you for example select the SKEBR1 arrival to KLAS along with a landing runway in the real FMC, you get only the points for say runway 25L. Since our FMC can't do this someone came up with the workaround - using the approach transitions we get the same result as the real drivers, we only have to press a few more buttons.However...By "making up" transitions from ordinary STARs the charts wouldn't match what's seen on the ND and unless the pilot understands what's happening we have a potentially confusing situation. That's just my opinion. I do fly all my flights on VATSIM so I might be a little biased here.Regards,Karl

[Guest ilh]

I landed recently at CYUL 06L in the Dreamfleet 734 and I had glideslope and DME for 109.30.Lee Hetherington (KBOS)

[Guest ielchitz]

Lee...I'm sorry - it was 6R I was approaching.My "other" left.Ian.

[Guest ielchitz]

The STARS with Approach Transitions are done and have been uploaded to the PIC site at seaartcc.org.Again - thanks to whomever did the original coding of the approaches.Please report any problems to me.Have Fun,Ian Elchitz

[Guest ilh]

Yeah ILS 06R appears to be localizer only in FS2002. Is it supposed to be that way? Both DF and PIC show the same missing glideslope and no DME.Lee Hetherington (KBOS)

[Guest ielchitz]

Ahhh - now we are getting somewhere...According to the charts....ILS/DME RWY 06RLocaliser 110.50 (IOA)DME 110.50 (IOA)So - safe to assume that there is a problem somewhere.Like I said above - the LOC seemed to work perfect - but no DME or G/S ever showed up - let's see if we can confirm this problem with a few others before we try and get it fixed (probably via a BGL fix).I asked the ATC there if it has happened in the past and he said never. I wonder now if he has enough experience to know if it has happened often or not (much like the old ILS26L problem at CYVR).Sorry to say Lee - I am glad to hear you had this problem as well .Ian.