Best practice for vectors in SID's / STAR's

[schmeeling 0]

I've set up a flight from CYVR to CYYC: CYVR-HUH-J534-IWACK-J503-YDC-J504-OPALE . Offline, no Radar Contact.Leaving YVR, all of the available SID's end in "Vectors" (which shows up as "MANUAL" in the FMC). Solved easy enough by a direct to HUH.On the approach however, the OPALE7 STAR itself is discontinuous. For example the approach to RWY16 has a turn to the north after MOGOT, followed by "vectors" (controlling the flight north and the 180deg turn back toward RW160). Within the FMC and on the ND this shows up as a gap in the flightplan.Any suggestions on how "best" to handle this?Would also appreciate any feedback on Radar Contact, given I typically simulate about 1.5 hour flights?Thanks,

[Cuddly1956 1]

I was going to suggest a listen on www.liveatc.net at CYYC but CYYC is down at the moment - it would have given you the vectors to fly to the approach and then you'd be able to follow that. Probably the same site for CYVR departures.All I can suggest for now is find a fix on the last heading given, then put that in, followed by another at roughly 90' to that then the approach fix to CYYC. Not the best solution but without a real one.....John Ellison

[Orlaam 306]

I've set up a flight from CYVR to CYYC: CYVR-HUH-J534-IWACK-J503-YDC-J504-OPALE . Offline, no Radar Contact.Leaving YVR, all of the available SID's end in "Vectors" (which shows up as "MANUAL" in the FMC). Solved easy enough by a direct to HUH.On the approach however, the OPALE7 STAR itself is discontinuous. For example the approach to RWY16 has a turn to the north after MOGOT, followed by "vectors" (controlling the flight north and the 180deg turn back toward RW160). Within the FMC and on the ND this shows up as a gap in the flightplan.Any suggestions on how "best" to handle this?Would also appreciate any feedback on Radar Contact, given I typically simulate about 1.5 hour flights?Thanks,

I'd have to look at the charts and IAP, but the best method would be to simply use HDG mode to create your own path between the two waypoints. If you're asking about Radar Contact, the program, they're working on RC version 5. I don't know if version 5 will be a whole lot better, but I stopped using version 4. I feel it has a lot of issues I don't like. You won't always be able to make altitude restrictions using your STAR or IAP. I had trouble being too high on a few occasions, plus the vectors mode often leave you too far from the IAF. The NOTAM method for mountainous regions sucks. RC really needs to give you the option to enter altitude restrictions into each waypoint so you can customize your plan and make a smoother flight, but they won't listen to my suggestions. Also, you won't get support into uncontrolled airports. Kinda sucks.