Extending range for final approach

[Guest alexmi6rider]

I'll try my best to word this query as best as I possibly can!You know if you want to land at an airport, but you're coming in from the opposite side of the runway - where you'll then have to make a tight turn to enter the airport - well, is there a way to configure extending the range on the final approach? I'm sure that probably didn't make sense, so I've just sketched an image showing a random approach plan on how this normally takes shape on FSX (please note the blue parts don't appear on the ND! :( )Basically, I would like it if you could stretch the final approach, from that star, more downwards so you could prepare for a smoother approach through the glideslope. I'm asking this because when I was flying the PMDG from Schiphol to Barcelona, you have to make a tight turn to the left when you prepare the final approach and by the time this is done, you've gone past the glideslope and I'm not sure if this is what real 747's do (otherwise, please correct me here).If that star could perhaps be stretched downwards more (thence increasing the space between the plane and the runway), I could use the extra time to descend smoothly. I hope that sort of makes sense lol? :( By the way, I've also managed to successfully carry out ILS approach and autolandings. I figured out that it's all about speed and time and all the decisions need to be made in good time. In my VFR landings before I began to use ILS just months ago, my landing speeds were around 175 - 180 knots!!! Precisely why I had to get use to the reality of a 154 knots approach speed of the 747 which I first found unbelievable!Again, I'd be grateful if there's any advice here!! :( Thanks again! Mohammed.

[basa 0]

Hi Mohammed,If you open the DEP/ARR page of the FMC for your destination airport and you select a landing runway, in the lower right side of the FMC screen you will see:RWY EXT (runway extension)---.---In that place you can enter a distance (in Nm) from the runway threshold to create that displaced waypoint you are looking for.

[downscc 1,327]

Also, you want to fly the published approach beginning at a IAF (Initial Approach Fix). The 'star' you are referring to is probably the FAF (Final Approach Fix), and the only time you normally start a procedure there is when you are vectored by ATC, who normally puts you on the final course a couple of miles before the FAF, or when the FAF is also an IAF and there is usually a procedure turn involved.The basic idea is you should be established on the final course at a safe altitude before crossing the FAF, and your question is basically 'how do I do that?' Start at a IAF is the solution.When you select an approach, the transitions are listed below it and each of these is a IAF (an approach may have none or several transitions). Having a chart really helps.

[Guest alexmi6rider]

Also, you want to fly the published approach beginning at a IAF (Initial Approach Fix). The 'star' you are referring to is probably the FAF (Final Approach Fix), and the only time you normally start a procedure there is when you are vectored by ATC, who normally puts you on the final course a couple of miles before the FAF, or when the FAF is also an IAF and there is usually a procedure turn involved.The basic idea is you should be established on the final course at a safe altitude before crossing the FAF, and your question is basically 'how do I do that?' Start at a IAF is the solution.When you select an approach, the transitions are listed below it and each of these is a IAF (an approach may have none or several transitions). Having a chart really helps.

Hello downsccThanks for replying.Actually, ATC advise to maintain 3,000 ft in this area until we're established on the localiser. But, because I'm coming down from the northeast to runway 7L, we have to make a tight turn leftwards and by that time, I've missed the glideslope.I know ATC's really erratic and silly in FSX.I performed a test flight from Madrid to Barcelona since the flight path basically leads you to runway 7L and the approach was just superb and smooth - everything went without any problems. But as far as coming in from the opposite direction is concerned, I'll see if I can do that final approach extension Jose kindly advised.Thank you for your advice. :( Mohammed.

[Guest alexmi6rider]

Hi Mohammed,If you open the DEP/ARR page of the FMC for your destination airport and you select a landing runway, in the lower right side of the FMC screen you will see:RWY EXT (runway extension)---.---In that place you can enter a distance (in Nm) from the runway threshold to create that displaced waypoint you are looking for.

Hello JoseThanks for giving me that advice.I tested this out on a Palma to Barcelona flight just now and thankfully it worked, and I was very impressed with the turnout.When the plane went into the air, actually, there arose a few problems which I then managed to resolve through common sense. I realised that the flight path I had chosen after using the VFR extension facility on the DEP/ARR page, was such that the flight path did not intersect this point. So I had to go onto another page where there's a list of all the points which will be intersected on the path and I managed to "twiddle" with them a little and managed to get the flight path corrected! The "arrival" part of the navigation display is very useful for this bit.And then the ILS frequency for runway 7L was not appearing on NAV RADS and then when I reset the MCP altitude, thankfully it appeared.I'm full of praise for this beautiful plane and how PMDG managed to integrate such complex facilities into it I'll probably never know but this plane really is a beautiful treasure on FSX and whoever doesn't have this on their simulator is missing out on the best FSX add-on. Just controlling it makes it seem so easy and the way the plane reacts is far better than even the default planes on FSX: one would probably assume the default 747 to be easier to control, but PMDG contradicts it with praiseworthy success.The only part I could suggest an improvement would probably be the gear animation. The autolanding function is so smooth as silk, it'd be good if the gears would reflect this suitably. Maybe that's an area for improvement perhaps?Thanks again for your help anyways :( Mohammed.

[Guest alexmi6rider]

Hello again,Actually, I'd like to re-open this discussion please.I'm trying to do a test flight using the runway extension on the route Palma to Heathrow @ Runway 9L via ILS for autolanding.At Palma when I'm keying in the Route plan, when I apply the runway extension to about 20 NM, the flight plan won't load up and I'm confused how I need alter the points on LEGS or PROG where the plane will need to intersect consecutively. Just to confirm - even though I did this successfully on my first route - because it quotes "VFR", it can still do ILS approach can't it?The reason why I am doing a 20 NM extension is for a very good reason ... FSX ATC is a real pest. The inanimate witch told me to maintain 16,000 when I was about 10 miles from Heathrow. And then, when I'm suddenly in the 10 mile range, she tells me to descend to 2,500 feet and maintain altitude until established on the localiser. Please correct me here if I'm wrong, but I'm sure commercial passenger airliners don't do this in reality. You'd have to drop something like 3000-3500 at vertical speed to get to that step! Seriously, the ATC is really off-putting in FSX when you're flying something like PMDG because it ruins everything. I only chose IFR on this sort of situation because I chose overcast sky conditions. So yes, if I leave about 20NM of space between the plane and the runway, this way it'll make a more stabilised approach making the correct decisions in good time into Heathrow - the defaulted point at which it needs to make a tight right turn into RW9L means you have to maintain at least 1,000 feet, but isn't it odd to make that kind of turn at that sort of altitude (forgetting Kai Tak checkerboard).I did this successfully on the Palma to Barcelona route, which is shorter and a suitable route to just test out something as this complex. I then thought giving a longer route a go in case I do a really long route like New York to London purely using the FMC.And ... I really want to review this product on Amazon.co.uk! I've been flying PMDG since 2006 and I've been taking one thing at a time with it. I think I've managed to grasp the main parts of the aircraft, but there's just one or two things I'm missing. A few months ago, I began ILS tutorials on FSX and I've managed to understand it's mechanics. I can't believe I did the runway extension part successfully on Palma to Barcelona, but how hard it is doing it on a longer route. It's not just that, its the stuff you have to do in the LEGS or PROG page of FMC. I don't know whether it was luck or whatever how I managed to do it in about 3 clicks - I should have recorded what I was doing then :( !I'd greatly appreciate any help here please if anyone has experience of this "issue".Thank you :(

[Airbrakes 0]

IMO, you're better off going with the published charted approach. The extention point on the FMC is used when there are no available approach procedures. The purpose of the approach plate is to establish a VDP, IAF, FAF, etc to execute it as a CDAP. It almost seems like you're flying the ILS as a NPA. Flying the charted approach for the ILS will save you confusion in the long-run. :(

[ExternalUse 0]

What I sometimes do on very short finals is to "tweak" the outer marker. Look for the runway heading, eg. 152

[raa57 0]

what about adding a new waypoint using the fix key? call the fix say the icao identifier for your destination EGLL,VHHX or wherever etc then enter a bearing and distance from the runway you want the waypoint to be.ie EGLL 27L approach would be require a fix called "EGLL 090/15" which is a waypoint 15 miles out from egll on a heading of 090 degrees.which should be lined up nicely for 27Land then enter that waypoint by selecting it and placing it in your legs page before your final fix for approach.which would give you a wider turnsorry if terminology is wrong!terry macaskill

[realpilotsimpilot 11]

Hello again,Actually, I'd like to re-open this discussion please.I'm trying to do a test flight using the runway extension on the route Palma to Heathrow @ Runway 9L via ILS for autolanding.At Palma when I'm keying in the Route plan, when I apply the runway extension to about 20 NM, the flight plan won't load up and I'm confused how I need alter the points on LEGS or PROG where the plane will need to intersect consecutively. Just to confirm - even though I did this successfully on my first route - because it quotes "VFR", it can still do ILS approach can't it?The reason why I am doing a 20 NM extension is for a very good reason ... FSX ATC is a real pest. The inanimate witch told me to maintain 16,000 when I was about 10 miles from Heathrow. And then, when I'm suddenly in the 10 mile range, she tells me to descend to 2,500 feet and maintain altitude until established on the localiser. Please correct me here if I'm wrong, but I'm sure commercial passenger airliners don't do this in reality. You'd have to drop something like 3000-3500 at vertical speed to get to that step! Seriously, the ATC is really off-putting in FSX when you're flying something like PMDG because it ruins everything. I only chose IFR on this sort of situation because I chose overcast sky conditions. So yes, if I leave about 20NM of space between the plane and the runway, this way it'll make a more stabilised approach making the correct decisions in good time into Heathrow - the defaulted point at which it needs to make a tight right turn into RW9L means you have to maintain at least 1,000 feet, but isn't it odd to make that kind of turn at that sort of altitude (forgetting Kai Tak checkerboard).

Regarding your ATC question (and based solely on my IFR experience in the U.S., so maybe a Brit can talk about the UK), it is rare in real life to get told to go way down at the last minute, but it happens (the "slam dunk"), although not so much to airliners. But, WRT to the PMDG 744, I've found that the default ATC is almost always late on descents. I'm assuming its the speed in cruise, or some other compatibility problem, but I would routinely get told to descend in hurry. Needless to say, I wasn't a big fan of that either. I've actually stopped using the FSX default ATC, except for landing clearance, since the vectors to final they use are often pretty unrealistic and annoyingly wide, even for visual approaches.If you're going in and out of heathrow, I might suggest you look at the non-radar initial approach charts they have there. They usually have specific waypoints from the end of the STARs to the IAF. Technically, I think they are for non-radar times, but they provide a good transition, including Altitude expectations. So, for example, say you are at BNN. There is a waypoint 5 nm on rad181, and an expected altitude of 10K. There's other waypoints abeam the IAF where you are at 6K, and so forth down to like 2.5 for the intercept. Try plugging them in and see how that works for you instead of letting the ATC do it.

[downscc 1,327]

I wouldn't expect anyone with flying hours logged would be happy with the default ATC. It is pretty bad.

[Orlaam 306]

Regarding your ATC question (and based solely on my IFR experience in the U.S., so maybe a Brit can talk about the UK), it is rare in real life to get told to go way down at the last minute, but it happens (the "slam dunk"), although not so much to airliners. But, WRT to the PMDG 744, I've found that the default ATC is almost always late on descents. I'm assuming its the speed in cruise, or some other compatibility problem, but I would routinely get told to descend in hurry. Needless to say, I wasn't a big fan of that either. I've actually stopped using the FSX default ATC, except for landing clearance, since the vectors to final they use are often pretty unrealistic and annoyingly wide, even for visual approaches.If you're going in and out of heathrow, I might suggest you look at the non-radar initial approach charts they have there. They usually have specific waypoints from the end of the STARs to the IAF. Technically, I think they are for non-radar times, but they provide a good transition, including Altitude expectations. So, for example, say you are at BNN. There is a waypoint 5 nm on rad181, and an expected altitude of 10K. There's other waypoints abeam the IAF where you are at 6K, and so forth down to like 2.5 for the intercept. Try plugging them in and see how that works for you instead of letting the ATC do it.

That is really the biggest problem with the default ATC IMO. It has many shortcomings, but the poor descent handling is the overall worst. The thing is, you can select an RNAV, GPS, VOR and NDB approaches for a myriad of airports that have charted approaches and this usually gives you the opportunity to pick a transition, especially with the RNAV/GPS IAPs that you can use with an ILS as a coupled approach. Yes, they change, so the charts are always the same, but you can make it work or even alter the transitions for airports you care about using ADE9x. It's pretty easy. They work well about 50% of the time. For some reason, certain situations don't play out as well and I've never figured out why. What does seem consistent is that these GPS/RNAV IAPs, you will get clearance to descend in plenty of time if you are at or below 200 knots in a GA type of aircraft. However, flying in a jet? You have no guarantee you'll get down in time, so it's a crapshoot. There are workarounds, but they all kinda suck. If the Wx is IMC, then the tower will deny your request to land, so it makes cancelling your IFR flight plan only seem semi-realistic in VMC conditions.Unfortunately, Radar Contact, which is heavily touted by some, is just as bad. RC will give you poor vectors or leave you too high way too often. RC also makes a transistion from a STAR to an IAP impossible because it will vector you off course and only allow you request the IAP within a certain distance. This usually results in you being too high and needing to turn back the opposite direction to intercept the IAF at the correct altitude and have time to slow down. Many threads have been posted about it, but of course the suggestions are always needless workarounds and early slowing. For all the ATC out there, I've tried RC4 and PFE. I'm back to using MS default ATC and making it work. The others are not any better, sorry.

[Guest alexmi6rider]

Regarding your ATC question (and based solely on my IFR experience in the U.S., so maybe a Brit can talk about the UK), it is rare in real life to get told to go way down at the last minute, but it happens (the "slam dunk"), although not so much to airliners. But, WRT to the PMDG 744, I've found that the default ATC is almost always late on descents. I'm assuming its the speed in cruise, or some other compatibility problem, but I would routinely get told to descend in hurry. Needless to say, I wasn't a big fan of that either. I've actually stopped using the FSX default ATC, except for landing clearance, since the vectors to final they use are often pretty unrealistic and annoyingly wide, even for visual approaches.If you're going in and out of heathrow, I might suggest you look at the non-radar initial approach charts they have there. They usually have specific waypoints from the end of the STARs to the IAF. Technically, I think they are for non-radar times, but they provide a good transition, including Altitude expectations. So, for example, say you are at BNN. There is a waypoint 5 nm on rad181, and an expected altitude of 10K. There's other waypoints abeam the IAF where you are at 6K, and so forth down to like 2.5 for the intercept. Try plugging them in and see how that works for you instead of letting the ATC do it.

Hello realpilotsimpilotThanks for replying back.Yes this is the case - the ATC in FSX give late instructions especially on descents with extremely sharp descent altitude targets to be met in likewise extremely short time. They also make you travel in a sine or cosine pattern around the route that's been programmed by the FMC. This is why I actually asked if there was a way to extend the point at which the plane will align with the runway purely for this reason so that a more stabilised approach can be executed because I actually don't feel comfortable commanding the plane's nose to drop below horizon-point - I feel this could be discomforting (even though this is purely simulation, it's still a valued measure of perfection to just maintain the nose above horizon point, but please correct me if I am wrong and if it is very common for the 747 to pitch below horizon point on descents).Actually sir, I'm not quite familiar with the nature of airways, SIDS, STARS. Would you know where I can study more about these as I'd like to study these later on - right now, I'd just like to focus on attempting to orchestrate a landing purely by extending the runway. Please do not reccomend the PMDG manuals because I have attempted to acquire understanding of SIDS and STARS from this literature, unfortunately they don't elaborate exactly what they are for and what role they play on approaches and departures - having said this, I am in no way criticising PMDG for not making the literature user-friendly for those without knowledge of the 747's complexed mechanics as this would contradict their approach to developing a very highly acclaimed professional software intended for near-professionals who already have the knowledge that's expected from this aircraft. Could you please also advise if there is there a pattern to how these SIDS and STARS work - for example, do pilots know what they mean without looking at the books or spending hours keying in the right SID or STAR?Also it seems I'm not quite sure with the "clearing discontinuities" part as well which, as Jose kindly suggested may be the solution to the problem why the modified route plan is not appearing on the magenta line properly. I'll post screenshots, later, of how it appears on this particular route (on the FMC) from LEPA to EGLL since I think this is the best way to illustrate what's going on.Thanks friend,Mohammed.

I wouldn't expect anyone with flying hours logged would be happy with the default ATC. It is pretty bad.

Absolutely! I'm not a real life pilot and I'm certain real-life ATC controllers aren't as erratic as the FSX controllers! :(

[Guest alexmi6rider]

IMO, you're better off going with the published charted approach. The extention point on the FMC is used when there are no available approach procedures. The purpose of the approach plate is to establish a VDP, IAF, FAF, etc to execute it as a CDAP. It almost seems like you're flying the ILS as a NPA. Flying the charted approach for the ILS will save you confusion in the long-run. :(

Hi KevinThanks for replying.The problem is, I don't have any knowledge of professional or advanced-scale approach plans and I also don't know how to use the charted approach plans. I'm not that acquaint with the complex concepts of the PMDG yet as I know this is going to take some time (i.e. SIDS, STARS etc).The other problem is that I'm struggling on "clearing discontinuities" in the LEGS part of the FMC - I'm doing it the way the manual requires (i.e. moving everything from under the ROUTE DISCONTINUITY header into the line with the boxes - I think this is how you do it, but I'm not sure because I'm trying the method of trial and improvement and doing so many things like trying to delete these parts under that header and move them - I'll post some images showing what's going on later) but I'm not getting it right. I know this is a problem for many PMDG users, but I'd be grateful if anyone could please clarify how to do it from the images I'll post.I did this correctly on a route from LEPA to LEBL successfully (the runway extension) but I didn't record how I did this otherwise, I would have kept a note of it :( ; I think it was sheer luck that did this for me!I'll post the images later on anywayThanks KevinMohammed.

what about adding a new waypoint using the fix key?call the fix say the icao identifier for your destination EGLL,VHHX or wherever etc then enter a bearing and distance from the runway you want the waypoint to be.ie EGLL 27L approach would be require a fix called "EGLL 090/15" which is a waypoint 15 miles out from egll on a heading of 090 degrees.which should be lined up nicely for 27Land then enter that waypoint by selecting it and placing it in your legs page before your final fix for approach.which would give you a wider turnsorry if terminology is wrong!terry macaskill

Hello TerryThanks for replying :( I honestly don't know how to do what you've kindly advised. I was thinking of if there is a way to programme the 747 to provide a smoother turn on the approach rather than making a complete 20degree tight turn to the right at the displeasure of the passengers! But then I knew this might be a little confusing.I also need to try and clear the discontinuities part in the LEGS section of the FMC, which I am trying, but I can't get it right!! Jose kindly suggested this may be a solution to the runway extension bit, but clearing it is harder than I first thought it'd be as I've tried so many ways of trying to remove that entire section from the LEGS bit.I'll post images of what's going on from the FMC and cockpit and see if there's anyway it can be done that way - this might be the best way to show it.Thanks Terry.Mohammed.

[Guest alexmi6rider]

Hello friends,I'll post images here to show what's going on.In pAGE1, this is the appearance before the whole entry of the RTE plan is EXECUTED. You can see the runway extension, not part of the flight plan yet.In PAGE2, this is the appearance after the whole entry of the RTE plan is EXECUTED. You can, again, see that the runway extension, is confirmed not part of the flight plan.In PAGE3, I tried to delete CF09L by replacing it with RX-09L. But, as you can see, the outcome wasn't a very positive one.I'd be grateful if you could advise how to programme this part in "deleting discontinuities".Thanks again friendsMohammed.