ATC at KRNO is killing me!

[Guest Joshieca]

Has anyone flown into KRNO (Reno Nevada USA) from the south and have ATC give you the run around?I just flown into this airport and ATC vectored me to 34L, which was fine, but thats when the ATC couldn't make up its mind....First it was descend and maintain 8000, then it was 8200, then a few mins later it was 7000, then a few mins after that it 7400. Finally it was 6200, then it went back to 7400. I didn't even get cleared to contact the tower for landing until I was almost over the numbers!! I said screw it...I landed anyways....Just wondering if anyone else has had this trouble with this airport or if it was just a fluke thing?[br][br][div align=center][br][link:members.cox.net/fstimes/wetimage.html]Click Here For Weather Image of the Day!

[Guest Joshieca]

No one?

[Guest nutmeat]

Yeah! KRNO is my home airport. I've had ATC clear me to 16R (the main ILS default) and has AI aircraft landing on 34L while I'm on final, 'cause that was the real active. Maybe its because 34L is the backcourse to 16R that causes this? In real life, 16R (and 16L for GA aircraft) is the primary active during the day but most often at night, 34L becomes the primary active for VFR, which is most of the time around here.By the way, the real IFR LOC DME backcourse approach has 6 altitude steps to it prior to actual touchdown. Perhaps this is also a reason the AI gets screwed?

[Guest]

That's just the mongrel FS2002 controllers...this happens a lot for me. A very good portion fo the time, I don't get cleared to descend early enough, and the idiots will have me flying a 3000fpm descent on final, which makes autopilot approach functions go bonkers, especially with the default autopilot, which is a real pain when there's a 1000ft ceiling. I'm not saying I can;t fly instrument approaches, in fact, most of the time, I hand fly my approaches, but with aircraft like the PSS Airbus, which are supposed reduce the pilot workload to nearly nil, the ATC is more of a total annoyance that a simulation.

[Guest Joshieca]

Thanks...I just have never had this happen to me before. At least I know that I am not alone. :)

[JimmiG 244]

Try to slow down a bit more. Sometimes when you're flying too fast, ATC can't calculate properly how long it will take for you to descend and how many miles you'll cover when doing it. Don't fly at Mach .82 when you're descending through 12k ft. :) Maintain a reasonable airspeed and use the autiplit to descend at 1800-2500 ft/min.

[Guest Joshieca]

Well my airspeed was below 200 and by the time I was in position to intercept the ILS it was like at 145 so I dont think that the speed was a big problem...but thanks for the info.

[Guest]

The reason for the fluctuations in assigned altitudes is due to close proximity of terrain between the aircraft and airport. In this case if approaching from the south, the ATC probably descended you too soon putting you too close to the mountain which Lake Tahoe is situated in (don't know the name), with the resulting order to climb. I am constantly having this problem when there is elevated terrain close to an approach path. For example, At Honolulu International (PHNL) the off-set ILS glideslope to 26L guides you basically over Diamond Head along Waikiki beach, eventually you disengage and take a left onto the runway. Instead, ATC is constantly forcing me to approach directly from the east over the mountain range, routinely attempting to plant me like a palm tree into the hillside. There is no real solution that I know of, but there are a couple tricks I use to fool ATC in these situations. One method is to descend at a low rate(800-100 FPM)while approaching the terrain in question. Once over the terrain at a comfortable altitude you should be allowed to descend onto final without being told to climb. Of course you will have to familiarize yourself with the airport surroundings to master this, especially at night. This seems to work for the 01 approach at KSFO as well as the south west approach to Alberquerque. Another trick I use is not to contact center/approach right away, but rather wait a bit after being told to switch frequency. (seems to confound 'em !) This allows me to follow a more logical approach path. This practice, along with sometimes eventually requesting a visual approach (daytime) usually gains enough leeway to land properly and stay above the minimum approach altitudes. -Of course, you could also disregard all of this baloney and just land from the other direction !Hope this helps,John Marino