teamfirstly, i hope i have chosen the appropriate forum & secondly that I explain enough to ask the following.at many of the bigger / busier airports, the transition from STAR to FAF (for NPA or ILS) is by ATC vectoring - eg the LENDY STAR @ KJFK.now for this, ATC has a range of "normal but flexible" profiles - depending on the runway/s in use & traffic sequencing, nearby airports - it uses that allow the aircraft to be postioned / track & descend to the FAF within its capabilities (a 3 degree FPA).so my question. can anyone point me to notes / charts that tells me what in the real world a pilot can expect his vectoring pattern to be (for example) to transition from LGA to TRUSTE and a R22L RNAV at KJFK.for now, hoping for a comment !!

teamfound some departure / arrival flow guides for kjfk ... now looking for others !!

teamfound some departure / arrival flow guides for kjfk ... now looking for others !!

Hi John,Welcome to the forum. Where did you find them? Not something I'm likely to use very often (mostly small GA driver...) but it would be good to have a link.Cheers,D

teamfirstly, i hope i have chosen the appropriate forum & secondly that I explain enough to ask the following.at many of the bigger / busier airports, the transition from STAR to FAF (for NPA or ILS) is by ATC vectoring - eg the LENDY STAR @ KJFK.now for this, ATC has a range of "normal but flexible" profiles - depending on the runway/s in use & traffic sequencing, nearby airports - it uses that allow the aircraft to be postioned / track & descend to the FAF within its capabilities (a 3 degree FPA).so my question. can anyone point me to notes / charts that tells me what in the real world a pilot can expect his vectoring pattern to be (for example) to transition from LGA to TRUSTE and a R22L RNAV at KJFK.for now, hoping for a comment !!

Look at flightaware.com , there are charts for all arrivals for US airports.

I suggest you check out the SOPs for the appropriate VATSIM ARTCC. They are based on reality, and are rather accurate. http://www.nyartcc.org/sopshttp://www.laartcc.org/vectoring.php

joseph / tom / davethanks for all your notes.it was joseph's reference that i had found for KJFK & thank him for the LAX reference.essentially i was / am trying to have a "real" understanding of how many STARS transition to FAF.dave, if it interests, there are many flows as to how GA arrives / departs the likes of KFRG in & amongst the heavies spiralling into KJFK / KLGA etc (in the SOPS for JFK) .......... sure makes arriving YSSY gentle.

At busy airports there isn't really a "standard" radar-vectored apporoach to the final approach. Controllers stretch or shrink the approaches in order to achieve the required separation on final approach.The figure shows the tracks at Heathrow when flying westerlies. Red are arrival tracks and green are departure tracks.

At busy airports there isn't really a "standard" radar-vectored apporoach to the final approach. Controllers stretch or shrink the approaches in order to achieve the required separation on final approach.The figure shows the tracks at Heathrow when flying westerlies. Red are arrival tracks and green are departure tracks.

No, controllers do have standard procedures to vector aircraft onto final approach. Especially at busy airports. The picture of Heathrow you posted shows the thickest reds and greens where the standard procedures practiced by the controllers take the planes. The links posted by ExNusquam show what headings, altitudes, speeds, handoff points, taxi routes, etc., that controllers at a given airport use as part of their SOPs.

No, controllers do have standard procedures to vector aircraft onto final approach. Especially at busy airports. The picture of Heathrow you posted shows the thickest reds and greens where the standard procedures practiced by the controllers take the planes. The links posted by ExNusquam show what headings, altitudes, speeds, handoff points, taxi routes, etc., that controllers at a given airport use as part of their SOPs.

I didn't say there aren't standard procedures: I said there are not standard approaches. the figure clealy shows that aircraft don't follow standard approach routes through, for example, specific waypoints once they've been pulled off the holds.

I didn't say there aren't standard procedures: I said there are not standard approaches. the figure clealy shows that aircraft don't follow standard approach routes through, for example, specific waypoints once they've been pulled off the holds.

That makes no sense. What is a 'standard approach' or a 'standard "radar-vectored" approach to the final approach' even? And if they aren't at busy airports, is there such an animal as a standard radar-vectored approach to the final approach?

Then perhaps you can tell me what is wrong with my original statement?

At busy airports there isn't really a "standard" radar-vectored apporoach to the final approach. Controllers stretch or shrink the approaches in order to achieve the required separation on final approach.

gentsit is more than interesting reading your posts given my original (which was trying to find how the real world tracks from FL160 at LGA to the various finals to KJFK given the proximity of other airport's airspace such as KLGA).that aside, i think we are confusing ourselves / each other with different understandings (& terminology) of the "normal" at different airports.at EGLL, those tracks / profiles are of 3 part published non-vectored procedures - STAR / IAP / Final. The variance of path on the IAP's is to me much about flying curved tracks in different aircraft using VOR/DME's & without overfling specific RNAV waypoint fixes.at KJFK, the tracks are also 3 part but where the 2nd intermediate / initial approach is radar vectored & altitude controlled by ATC. This vectoring is through / via specific 3D blocks of airspace & gates depending on runway use seen as a flow guide in the ATC's SOP.again, thanks for your interest. this simming can be addictive & more so when one wants to do it with a bit of real world finesse away from your local & with aircraft such as the wilco a320 - a great but demanding sim given its poor VNAV.

at EGLL, those tracks / profiles are of 3 part published non-vectored procedures - STAR / IAP / Final. The variance of path on the IAP's is to me much about flying curved tracks in different aircraft using VOR/DME's & without overfling specific RNAV waypoint fixes.

No. They are the variances caused by ATC routing aircraft from different holds onto Final Approach and achieving minimum separation. The published Initial Approach Procedures to EGLHR RWY 27L/R when radar-vectoring isn't available are here:http://www.ead.euroc..._2010-03-11.pdfhttp://www.ead.euroc..._2011-06-02.pdfhttp://www.ead.euroc..._2010-03-11.pdfhttp://www.ead.euroc..._2010-03-11.pdfThey are precisely defined. Aircraft do not wander about tightly controlled airspace.

The figure shows the tracks at Heathrow when flying westerlies. Red are arrival tracks and green are departure tracks.

That's a fascinating picture.I suppose the broad range of tracks on the turn to final is caused, as you say, by the controller's choice of instruction as the holds all appear to be flown with much greater focus, except possibly the teardrop insertion onto the Ockham hold (bottom left). Even that is interesting though-- how do pilots know where to point the 'plane to reach the 'opposite corner'? Is it just experience?What's the handful of tracks inbound almost directly south from the Chiltern hold (top left) that appear then to turn eastward?Where did the pic come from? It is a bloody good illustration and it's a shame attachments disappear after a while.Kind regards,D

I'm not certain but the handful of tracks may be aircraft being transferred from one hold to another in periods of congestion. The charts describe STARs that are used for this purpose only and are not to be used for flight planning. For example BNN 1E is used by ATC to transfer aircraft on a STAR to LAM (NE) to BNN (NW). The source is a BAA booklethttp://www.baa.com/a...2005Booklet.pdf