SIDs and STARs

[Ant1981 0]

Can I use SIDs and STARs with RC? I've had a flick through the manual, but can't find where I'd get to choose or be given a SID for departure.

[MrSpeaker 122]

Can I use SIDs and STARs with RC? I've had a flick through the manual, but can't find where I'd get to choose or be given a SID for departure.

RC does not issue SID or STARS, but under "controller info" in the interface there a section that has departure procedures, if your flying a sid make sure the NO Departure Procedure is unchecked, select one of the other 2 options, in your Flight plan my first way point is usually the end point (transition) of the sid, RC will then allow you to fly the depicted sid, if you select no departure procedure then RC will start vectoring you after take off. As for the STAR I just file it and follow it until Approach starts vectoring me.

[Ant1981 0]

I see.That's a shame, I would have liked SID and STAR procedures. Including them in your flight plan is one thing, but it takes away the fun of selecting one in the FMC.

[jd 57]

I see.That's a shame, I would have liked SID and STAR procedures. Including them in your flight plan is one thing, but it takes away the fun of selecting one in the FMC.

that is why we have "flex dp"make sure the first checkpoint in the flight plan is a common end checkpoint of many of your sids. then check the check box for flex dp. then you choose the dp at run time, program your fmc with your chosen dp, and fly it. when you reach that checkpoint, you will be picked up by rc and put on course.jd

[Ant1981 0]

What about the arrival end?

[ronzie 21]

STARs usually start while you are still on center. Include the waypoints in your .pln file up to thirty nm. out. When you contact approach about 40 nm out ack the runway assignment and then request an IAP. You'll then be ignored by RC to do your own nav until you are switched to tower on final.

What about the arrival end?

[Mike... 7]

What about those STARs that end with "expect vector"? An example, "then via SMO R-259 to WAKER INT, expect vector to final approach course for runways 6 and 7.". This is from the KLAX DOWNE FOUR ARRIVAL (HEC.DOWNE4 to be precise, I'm coming from KLAS). It would be nice, if RC would allow me to fly the complete STAR (http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/d_tpp > CA > LAX) and then at WAKER vector me into the ILS. I can request an IAP and fly it all, but then, correct me if I'm wrong, at WAKER, I'm on my own.

[ronzie 21]

It appears from the description that DOWNE FOUR is set up for a downwind entry for runways 6 and 7 at WAKER. I would include the waypoints for DOWNE FOUR into the plan through WAKER. If you have selected the runways 6 or 7 approach I'll bet RC would break you out for vectors between DOWNE and SMO for a downwind pattern entry for those runways anyway.Alternately select an IAP for 6 or 7 and follow the STAR to WAKER using your NAV equipment. Using ILS 6L, (excerpt attached) as an example, on your NAV equipment note that WAKER is the IAF for a base entry to merge with the LLZ. If your NAV coupling to your AP is approach capable it would take you all the way.

What about those STARs that end with "expect vector"? An example, "then via SMO R-259 to WAKER INT, expect vector to final approach course for runways 6 and 7.". This is from the KLAX DOWNE FOUR ARRIVAL (HEC.DOWNE4 to be precise, I'm coming from KLAS). It would be nice, if RC would allow me to fly the complete STAR (http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/d_tpp > CA > LAX) and then at WAKER vector me into the ILS. I can request an IAP and fly it all, but then, correct me if I'm wrong, at WAKER, I'm on my own.

[Mike... 7]

It wasn't really a question, but more of a suggestion. I am aware of current possibilities.I thought it would be interesting if RC5 were changed to work in such a way that if it encountered a "vectors flag" after the last waypoint before the airport, it would expect the user to fly the complete fp as if it a were a user requested IAP, (without the need for the user to actually request it,) while still providing vectors, to be precise, after that last waypoint, to guide the user to an intercept course to the ILS.Take the following:waypoint.13=WAKER, I, N34* 01.53', W118* 50.00', +15000.00, waypoint.14=KLAX, A, N33* 56.33', W118* 24.25', +000000.00,It would look something like thiswaypoint.13=WAKER, I, N34* 01.53', W118* 50.00', +15000.00,VECTORS (commented out if possible as not to confuse FS and other addons)waypoint.14=KLAX, A, N33* 56.33', W118* 24.25', +000000.00,VECTORS (or something to that extent, an internal flag for RC, not a waypoint name) would be RC's cue to expect the user to follow the plan all the way to WAKER and then provide the user vectors to an ILS intercept course. I have used KLAX as an example, but I recently also encountered it at KIAD, HYPER TWO ARRIVAL:

LANDING RWYS 1L/C/R and 30: DepartTICON heading 190

[ronzie 21]

RC5 for departures and arrivals is having a different construct that is really close to many points of your suggestions :) Users will have a choice of how terminal procedures are handled offering more detail than RC4, or they can fly it as now.Ernie (FS Build) has to be careful in providing plan formatted files that won't for applications following the SDK FS9 or FSX formats) add extra fields that could break applications depending on that.Thanks for those suggestions now and in the past.Also, FWIW, Ernie Alston is also the developer of these flight avionics:http://isgsim.com/?page=featuresNotice he provides free AIRAC updates for their terminal procedure databases and it would be easy now to synch FS Build's navaid and procedure database with his nav instrumentation. With his one subscription to his global data source and then his conversion for FSB and ISG databases they should follow nicely. We would not have the problem of syncing FMC's like with PMDG that will not share their procedure database in an FS9 or FSX compatible export format.With the increase of RNAV terminal procedures for aircraft so equipped more and more terminal procedures are becoming runway specific with minimal use of vectoring where possible to offload some of the activity from TRACON controllers. They will intervene only when necessary. The STARS will take you to the IAF of the RNAV approach which will take you right to the threshold.I doub't we'll see all airports have RNAV facilities globally so vectoring will not go away altogether. You'll find this at feeder airports where aircraft break away from STARS and get clearance to carry out an IAP especially where radar coverage is not available due to terrain. ATC provides radar separation only to the IAF clearance limit available such as getting lined up for the IAF, that is the aircraft then owns the airspace from that point until clear of the runway.So much to consider, so much to do.

[Mike... 7]

Ernie (FS Build) has to be careful in providing plan formatted files that won't for applications following the SDK FS9 or FSX formats) add extra fields that could break applications depending on that.

FSBuild supports so many formats, he'd just have to add a RC export option. And the only difference with the files used now, would be a simple flag here and there, so I don't think it'd be a problem.Anyway, I'm looking forward to RC5.

[ilarikousa 0]

Actually, it is quite common for ATC to start vectoring an arrival prior to the end of the STAR at least in the USA, where the STARs at the biggies typically extend to hundreds of nautical miles. For example, the legendary Kennebunk arrival into JFK starts well in Boston airspace. As a point of comparison, at my home airport and one workplace, the RNAV STARS (only ones available) lead straight to localizer intercept and are much shorter than U.S. procedures. With all the different options available, the beta team must have had a headache deciding on how to implement this in v5. Anyway, the most realistic option for STARs that end in vectors, would be to let the user fly it *but* with a certain chance of premature vectors. It shouldn't be just about "the fun of setting it up in the box" if we want it to be realistic...

[ronzie 21]

There is some randomness planned in certain phases to make RC5 more realistic. Hint - RC5 will monitor AI traffic density in those phases.

[ilarikousa 0]

Mister Ginsberg, you just saved my day! (big, wet, naughty kiss -- no I'm not gay...)

[Cras 6]

Oh man.... RC 5 is going to be sweet! :(