Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
camaflight

v5 and STAR

Recommended Posts

Hi, and happy new Year to all of you !Until recently it has just so happened that all options I've got for STARs to which ever runway heading being the active had it's starting point which was reached after being assigned final runway by approach ( I have been coming in either from the "absolute" far side or near side). Then after reqiuiring an ILS approach RC has let me in quiet when flying the STAR. Now, however, having followed some routes heading at straight angles and allmost into the midle of the runway length the choice of STARs had a common starting point that were reached before (further out than 40 nm) being assigned runway by approach. Knowing by getting the weather about 70 nm before the airport which runway to expect for landing I have adjusted the FMC to match this with the suitable STAR. For the specific circumstances explained here the STARs have no common path from the starting point (intersection) and futher on towards the airport.As you allready know this leads to a mismatch with the FS flight plan that RC relies on.So my question will be; how will v5 deal with this ? Will an option be available in order to tell RC beforehand that the intention is to follow a STAR adequate for the runway assigned by approach thus avoiding RC "yelling" about not finding oneself on the airway ?Just to mention, I didn't find any post about this issue.Regards,Carl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi, and happy new Year to all of you !Until recently it has just so happened that all options I've got for STARs to which ever runway heading being the active had it's starting point which was reached after being assigned final runway by approach ( I have been coming in either from the "absolute" far side or near side). Then after reqiuiring an ILS approach RC has let me in quiet when flying the STAR. Now, however, having followed some routes heading at straight angles and allmost into the midle of the runway length the choice of STARs had a common starting point that were reached before (further out than 40 nm) being assigned runway by approach. Knowing by getting the weather about 70 nm before the airport which runway to expect for landing I have adjusted the FMC to match this with the suitable STAR. For the specific circumstances explained here the STARs have no common path from the starting point (intersection) and futher on towards the airport.As you allready know this leads to a mismatch with the FS flight plan that RC relies on.So my question will be; how will v5 deal with this ? Will an option be available in order to tell RC beforehand that the intention is to follow a STAR adequate for the runway assigned by approach thus avoiding RC "yelling" about not finding oneself on the airway ?Just to mention, I didn't find any post about this issue.Regards,Carl
can you give me an example of "STAR adequate for the runway assigned by approach "?by the time you are handed off to approach, any star you may have loaded is over.since you don't know what runway you are going to get, and the flight plan isn't going to know what runway you are going to get, only rc knows about 70 miles out what runway "might" be in use, and only when rc is in approach code, does rc know what runway you are going to get, i'm not sure how i can handle this.butthat part of the v5 code isn't written yet.and if you want to include a star for a runway you think you might get, rc will adhere to it.but that has always been the case. if you include the points, rc expects you to fly them.so explain more what you are seeing, not liking, and how it is handled in the real world?jd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As allways, thanks for your prompte responce. Sorry then that it took me so long time to come back.

can you give me an example of "STAR adequate for the runway assigned by approach "?
No I cant, because this is mistaken expression by me, what I meant is; the runway one could expect being assigned by approach.Sorry for that, but actually this doesn't change the issue I rise - I think.
by the time you are handed off to approach, any star you may have loaded is over.
Please see my example as that STAR ends much nearer to the airport than 40 nm which is about the distance from the airport RC hands you over to approach.
and if you want to include a star for a runway you think you might get, rc will adhere to it.
Yes I know and sometimes I do this, but you can never be sure which runway will be the active upon arrival. However, as stated in my initial post, by pure coincidence I have until now had my arrivals through routes where the actual STARs had common leg points until handed over to approach. Hence I have incorporated those common leg points into the FS flightplan.
but that has always been the case. if you include the points, rc expects you to fly them.
Yes naturally, but then again, even if RC is very real, this is MSFS and even RC cant provide more than "as real as it gets".Hence my question if there would be a good point by adding an option of telling RC that the pilot has the intention of following a certain pattern into whichever will be the active runway. This pattern is to my understanig what in many cases will be a STAR provided by the AIRAC and thus will be incertable into the FMC.
so explain more what you are seeing, not liking, and how it is handled in the real world?
To describe an example I have attach the arrival at ENBR (Bergen, Flesland, Norway) on my route from east.As I read the two optional STARs - SOPA( R) 2N for RWY 17 and SOPA( R) 2P for RWY 35 - both have their starting point at intersection SOPAR. The SOPA( R) 2N has it's ending point at intersection INTEL and the SOPA( R) 2P has it's ending point at intersection OKITO with no common leg points in between.The weather report is receieved just before reaching the starting point for both STARs, but in time for the pilot to insert into the FMC the STAR adequate for the runway that one can expect being assigned by approach.The pilot will be handed over to approach when about half way through any of the two STARs. During this time RC will state that the pilot don't find himself at the airway.Hope this clearifies the basis for my enquiry.Regards,Carl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again JD,maybe my input wasn't up to a standard you would prefer. However, it would be nice to know if my thinking is relevant and worth looking at or if you think I'm way off.For me personal it would be sufficient just to have RC accept that I'm making a SID or a STAR thus following the coherent way points and thereat be let off with RC ATC comments about being off the airway. RC is so good otherwise that I don't mind that this part of a flight is doomed by the basic MSFS AI coding. All as long I don't have to be interupted by hearing I'm off the track that I initially had told RC I was going to fly.If this issue is something of your concern then I'm sure you have already made a lot of thinking about it and any suggestion from me or other would perhaps be kind of annoying.However , commomly it's a good thing not only complaining but also contribute with a suggestion. But the only things I can think of is either code RC to accept deviation from the FS flightplan loaded into RC starting at 70 nm to arrival airport until handed over to approach at about 40 nm to the airport.Or; providing RC with more options which would include let's say two SIDs and two STARs by loading more flight plans where the main ("middle") route will be common but differ by waypoints as for the SIDs and STARs. This would of course mean that one had to load 4 flight plans into RC per flight.If I'm way off please tell and I will keep quiet. :( Carl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi again JD,maybe my input wasn't up to a standard you would prefer. However, it would be nice to know if my thinking is relevant and worth looking at or if you think I'm way off.For me personal it would be sufficient just to have RC accept that I'm making a SID or a STAR thus following the coherent way points and thereat be let off with RC ATC comments about being off the airway. RC is so good otherwise that I don't mind that this part of a flight is doomed by the basic MSFS AI coding. All as long I don't have to be interupted by hearing I'm off the track that I initially had told RC I was going to fly.If this issue is something of your concern then I'm sure you have already made a lot of thinking about it and any suggestion from me or other would perhaps be kind of annoying.However , commomly it's a good thing not only complaining but also contribute with a suggestion. But the only things I can think of is either code RC to accept deviation from the FS flightplan loaded into RC starting at 70 nm to arrival airport until handed over to approach at about 40 nm to the airport.Or; providing RC with more options which would include let's say two SIDs and two STARs by loading more flight plans where the main ("middle") route will be common but differ by waypoints as for the SIDs and STARs. This would of course mean that one had to load 4 flight plans into RC per flight.If I'm way off please tell and I will keep quiet. :( Carl
it's a lot to digest, and before i get into the nuts and bolts of it, i want to make sure i have the time to digest what you've presented.jd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it's a lot to digest, and before i get into the nuts and bolts of it, i want to make sure i have the time to digest what you've presented.jd
Surely by all means, I never suspected RC not to be a really complex FS addon. My enquiry is only a hopeful wish that possibly only a small adjustment to the coding would be necessary to preserve this 30 nm distance between 70 nm and 40 nm to the arrival airport from getting busted for good pilot intentions. If you have the time to look into it and should find that business wise it could be achieveable to incorporate some SIDs and STARs options into RC, that would of course look very much like a long lasting dream of mine...and a lot of others I assume. However, even without it RC would remain standing tall I think.JD, thanks for listening to the community and your customers !Carl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi CarlI haven't personally used RC yet, but this seemingly complex issue just tickles my curiosity. I'm saying "seemingly" as it may just be a matter of communication difficulty.What I'm thinking is RC only nags at you if you're off the flightplan you've loaded into it. What kind of a flightplan do you have when you fly into Bergen? Does it end at SOPAR? SOPAR is according to your chart roughly 30NM from the airport.


sig.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey JD,Instead of looking at the direction of AI traffic for which runway is in use from only 70nm out, why don't you assertain the destination winds, either from Activesky, FSX Internal weather, or othewise, and deduce which way the AI will be landing, from much further out? You could even periodically update the 'expected' arrival every 20 minutes or so while we fly along the filed flight-plan and make changes to the expected arrival accordingly. This would be more realistic anyway. I already have a good idea which runway is going to be in use far before RC v4 tells me simply by looking at the destination winds and comparing that with the most approprite runway direction and length. I usually do this 80nm or so before my expected Top of Descent (T/D) so I can plan the end of my STAR (40nm) to be at the expected 12K or 11K crossing.Other programs such as FS Flight Keeper and FSBuild already parse the text weather file generated by ActiveSky, so why can't you? I think this is really the way v5 should progress; not limited to 70nm of information.Using the destination winds is the key to this long-standing limiitaion.My two cents - regards,


Regards,
Al Jordan | KCAE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Instead of looking at the direction of AI traffic for which runway is in use from only 70nm out, why don't you assertain the destination winds, either from Activesky, FSX Internal weather, or othewise, and deduce which way the AI will be landing, from much further out? Using the destination winds is the key to this long-standing limiitaion
It's a nice idea but not that simple. Many multi-runway airports use configurations where the active runway is not always the most favourable one looking at the winds. Some runways may be takeoff only, some closed altogether. These configurations are reflected in the AFCAD data, which RC to my understanding does not how to read. The only way to figure out which runways are available for landing is by looking at AI. Right, jd?

sig.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only way to figure out which runways are available for landing is by looking at AI. Right, jd?
I may be wrong but I don't think so. I'm pretty sure Pete Dowson's Make_Runways does all the AFCAD data for JD already. The output of Make_Runways would have to be used differntly though :)

Regards,
Al Jordan | KCAE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a nice idea but not that simple. Many multi-runway airports use configurations where the active runway is not always the most favourable one looking at the winds. Some runways may be takeoff only, some closed altogether. These configurations are reflected in the AFCAD data, which RC to my understanding does not how to read. The only way to figure out which runways are available for landing is by looking at AI. Right, jd?
if it was that simple, it would be simple.yes, i know which runways are available for landing and take off. and i know which way the wind is blowing. and there is some crazy airport files, with crazy fake runways to make ai do different things.but i have seen too many times, ai taking off with the wind, when the same runway could be used into the wind isn't used.jd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi CarlI haven't personally used RC yet, but this seemingly complex issue just tickles my curiosity. I'm saying "seemingly" as it may just be a matter of communication difficulty.What I'm thinking is RC only nags at you if you're off the flightplan you've loaded into it. What kind of a flightplan do you have when you fly into Bergen? Does it end at SOPAR? SOPAR is according to your chart roughly 30NM from the airport.
Yes, at SOPAR. Sometimes I take a chance, after looking at the latest weather report for Bergen Flesland, to incorporate into the flight plan the STAR that fits with expected active RWY. As for the first, one will get busted (of course). As for the latter, this will work perfectly (of course), if however, the plan matches the active RWY at the time of arrival.Carl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, at SOPAR. Sometimes I take a chance, after looking at the latest weather report for Bergen Flesland, to incorporate into the flight plan the STAR that fits with expected active RWY. As for the first, one will get busted (of course). As for the latter, this will work perfectly (of course), if however, the plan matches the active RWY at the time of arrival.
So are you not assigned a runway by RC before you arrive to SOPAR? What route do you follow then?How can RC nag about not being on route after SOPAR if, well.. there is route left as it ended in SOPAR? This is what I'm not understanding.

sig.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but i have seen too many times, ai taking off with the wind, when the same runway could be used into the wind isn't used.
Yeah, I know.. it's a mystery. I have tried countless times to get some multi-runway airports to function realistically with AFCAD, but sometimes AI just started using runways marked closed or with a significant tailwind component, against any logic! I guess that makes it really hard to predict.Do you know if AI behavior is any easier to predict in FSX if the "traffic injection" method via Simconnect is used?

sig.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So are you not assigned a runway by RC before you arrive to SOPAR? What route do you follow then?How can RC nag about not being on route after SOPAR if, well.. there is route left as it ended in SOPAR? This is what I'm not understanding.
1) SOPAR is about 70 nm from the airport.2) I get the weather not far from reaching SOPAR.3) SOPAR is the last waypoint before the airport loaded into the FS flightplan. Why ? Because SOPAR is the first waypoint for adequate STARs into either of the RWYs.4) OK now, as I get the weather just before reaching SOPAR I will have just enough time inserting into the FMC the STAR (starting at SOPAR) that would be adequate for the RWY that one can expect approach to assign.5) From SOPAR on a path that corresponds with the STAR chosen will then be followed. However RC only know about the loaded FS flight plan that says; go direct from SOPAR to the airport. Hence RC ATC will complain about me not following the route.6) I ask about a possible solution by letting RC accept any deviation from the loaded flight plan between 70 nm from the airport (that is about the point at which you can get the weather and knowing which RWY to expect for landing) and 40 nm from the airport (which is the point approach will give you the RWY and you can ask for an ILS approach wherby approach will let you fly the rest of your waypoints according to FMC).7) Now a point has been brought up by JD about seeing a lot of examples where the AI traffic is not landing against the wind. This means that by following my "logic" I would have chosen the wrong STAR leading to the wrong RWY. Just because AI doesn't allways follow the wind direction due to a various reasons.8) I must say that I have rater rearly experienced such behaviour from the AI traffic even if I have made a lot of these "crazy" AFCADs with the so called star-technique and so on. Nevertheless even if this happens my point is that it would still be better to preserve this about 30nm distance, letting us plan and follow a realistic STAR without interuption from RC ATC. That this now and then don't match the finally assigned RWY is something we have to accept due to lack of coding for the MSFS AI traffic.Carl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...