Again with the polarity...

 

Sometimes I swear people around here disagree simply for the purpose of disagreement.

 

He didn't say none of them have vectored approaches, he said that you see less of it, which is entirely accurate. When comparing US and EU procedures, there are a lot more instances the route goes from runway to runway in the EU. There's a lot less vectoring by default.

Thanks for the answers, guys!

I just went smoothly from MCO to ATL...what I saw was a 'TRANS' and then a 'OSTRR' on FMC below when I selected 08L @ ATL. This took me perfectly to 08L feather. I just tried MIA-TPA: WINCO1 WINCO J43 LBV DEAKK3...thinking the same thing. There was a 'TRANS' below runway 01 at TPA called LAGOO (or something similar), but that took me in kind of a loop-de-loop route. I hate the stupid vector(s)!!!!! (Don't take offense)

fpuagolf: you should check out the charts of your destination airport. this should help you and if you read the correct pages, you will know why it suddenly stops and doesnt continue

Well, I guess the real question I should have asked is: If I don't get vectored by an ATC I don't use, how do I get to final?

Well, I guess the real question I should have asked is: If I don't get vectored by an ATC I don't use, how do I get to final?

 

However you choose. You could connect discontinuities (it's fast, easy, however not entirely realistic), or you could just vector yourself.

 

When you reach the last waypoint on the STAR, simply go "Heading Select", and vector yourself onto a proper path to intercept the localizer/glideslope.

 

Remember, you're flying the plane, not the other way around. If the AP reaches a discontinuity, it (obviously) won't just stop in the sky. Always think ahead and have a plan to follow.

 

When I come across a discontinuity, I usually leave it in place. Then. I'll vector myself onto final approach. Unfortunately, I don't have the money for RC4, and (to be honest) I'm slightly afraid to try something online as I don't know the proper way to speak "on the spot". So for me, creating my own vectors is a nice in between.

 

Possibly more information than what was required, but I thought I'd present all options, as well as what I do.

Well, I guess the real question I should have asked is: If I don't get vectored by an ATC I don't use, how do I get to final?

 

My suggestion, for what it's worth, is to "know your surroundings". If you see that you're nearing the end of a STAR, and you know which runway you want to use, vector yourself. I used to control at KATL on Vatsim. On the HONIE approach, we would usually vector the planes at FOGOG, making sure they were heading 090. This is, of course, following the published RNAV, but we'd give them vectors anyway. If ATC isnt online, you can give yourself those same vectors to linde up with the desired runway.

 

 

Note that few STARs end at the Final approach, most of them include vectors at some point. If they do there is no straight-forward way to get a continuous route to the final approach, simply because the system isn't designed to let you do that. You're supposed to get vectors.

 

KLAX is one airport that comes to mind. RNAVs right down to the end.

Edited October 4, 201213 yr by RPRIEVER

Well, I guess the real question I should have asked is: If I don't get vectored by an ATC I don't use, how do I get to final?

 

Kerlix has a extremely good point. You are the pilot, fly the plane.

 

Understand that SIDs and STARS are constructed to make it easier for ATC to control the (large) flow of traffic into and out of airports (separation and noise abatement). If you don't use ATC, you basically have no need to follow departure or arrival procedures either.

 

Certainly, the best environment to practice SIDs and STARS is on VATSIM or IVAO where you and other guys are under live ATC control. IMHO, computer generated ATC and AI just doesn't give you the same feedback.

 

Don't hesitate to ask more questions as they come to you ^_^

Well, I guess the real question I should have asked is: If I don't get vectored by an ATC I don't use, how do I get to final?

 

You need to find the charts & instructions for the "radio failure" procedure. These should tell you how to get the aeroplane on the ground from your last cleared point when you can't contact ATC - which is basically your situation.

 

Tim

I hate the stupid vector(s)!!!!! (Don't take offense)

 

Not sure I am fully understanding what you don't like about 'vectoring'. This basically just means you (or the ATC) choose your heading by yourself and stop letting the plane following the predefined FMC route (or approach or departure) using VNAV/LNAV. Do you actually like flying an airplane?? (just kidding mate)

 

As already stated before, SID/STAR's are created to help the ATC in the first place. If there is no other traffic around and no ATC online (unlikely in most real world situations) you can basically depart or approach and land any way you want. European (ILS) STAR's generally will take you all the way down to the touch down zone but in the US most of the time you will have a discontinuity before the final approach section. That's the way it is and I don't think there's any problem with that.

[...] I'm slightly afraid to try something online as I don't know the proper way to speak "on the spot". So for me, creating my own vectors is a nice in between.

 

http://www.vatsim.net/pilots/ptd/

Vatsim has pilot training now, if you're intrested that would help you get going, just thought I'd recommend it since you sounded like you want to but don't really know how to.

Just to clarify a bit, here's some info about SIDs/STARs and vectoring:

I'll use Dulles (IAD) as an example, because as you all know, it's what I always use. Local knowledge helps.

 

Departing IAD, you'll normally get the CAP8 departure (though recently, they've started using two new ones: BUNZZ and RNLDI for west departures). As an example, if you were going to JFK, you'd get something similar to PALEO V44 DONIL V229 PANZE V44 CAMRN, and as part of the clearance you'd be assigned the CAP8, which is a vectored departure.

 

This type of procedure is mainly there to kill some phraseology in the clearances. As clearance consists of the clearance limit, route, altitude, departure frequency and a squawk code, by placing some of that information on the SID, you can omit it from the spoken clearance.

 

"Acey 5715, cleared to the Kennedy Airport via fly runway heading, vectors to PALEO, as filed. Maintain 3000. Departure frequency 125.05. Squawk 5642."

 

Becomes:

"Acey 5715, cleared to the Kennedy Airport via the Capital 8 departure, as filed. Squawk 5642."

(Captial 8 departure indicates the runway heading or as assigned initial heading, the 3000' initial altitude, and graphically depicts the departure frequency)

 

By issuing the CAP8, the frequency use is more efficient. Granted, you'll see slight variations by controller and facility (dictated by facility SOP). As an example, the PRYME and STOIC departures (the STOIC being the latest one that just got removed in the last cycle) were created to eliminate the need to vector aircraft around the north end of the field, but neither of them were ever used outside of FAA test flights because the control facilities preferred not to use them. So, local acceptance of the procedure by controllers does come into play. You can see this very clearly in that LAX uses them (pilot nav departures) extensively, along with ATL, but PCT (Potomac TRACON - IAD, DCA, BWI, RIC, and CHO) and N90 (NY TRACON - EWR, JFK, LGA) don't make much use of them.

 

Anything that is not a vectored procedure is essentially there to shed both frequency time and part of controller workload. When on vectors, the controller is essentially responsible for that aircraft's navigation. This significantly adds to the workload if several aircraft are on vectors. By creating a procedure for the pilot to follow, the workload is shifted from the one controller to the multiple pilots (that's oversimplifying it, but getting into sectorization would only cloud the image that's already cloudy).

 

STARs that have expected altitudes (ROYIL2) are there mainly to cut down on vectoring, which cuts down on frequency congestion by itself. In order to help pilots plan ahead, you'll see the "DOCCS: Expect 11,000/250." The reason is that controllers will issue that command 90% of the time, so you can plan ahead by expecting that. This still leaves a decent amount of communication back and forth for the rest of the altitude assignments.

 

Profile STARs that list altitudes (and do not have the word "expect" around them at all, like the GIBBZ1) are meant to do all of the above, but also cut down on frequency congestion even more. Lateral and vertical navigation are taken care of by the procedure. The only thing the controller needs to take care of are speeds, and other contingencies (holding, weather avoidance, pilot requests, etc).

 

The balancing act, however, is that when the aircraft is on the procedure, the controller has less work, but also less control. When the aircraft is on vectors, the controller has more control, but also more work. Issues like different approach speeds with different aircraft, different weight categories (which require different following distances), among others make it difficult to merge several streams down into one arrival, and just magenta line it from the STAR to the runway (create procedures without any vector legs) at busy airports with complex airspace.* Because of this, a lot of the arrivals at busy airports have vector sections at the very end to allow controllers to control spacing through vectoring.

 

So, vectors, though frustrating from a simmer perspective because you're on your own when you don't have ATC, are actually somewhat nice from an approach controller's point of view (at least when you're controlling the finals). As for departures, some controllers like the vectored SIDs. I, personally, didn't see the issue with the STOIC/PRYME, but I imagine it just took too much control out of the controllers' hands, which they didn't see as a desirable tradeoff.

 

 

 

Hopefully that helps to clear the issue up a little, too. Like I said earlier, don't try to attack too much at once. If you try to do so without understanding them you may come to resent them, as I detect is already the case with the VECTORS entries in the various procedures. Hopefully the understanding allows you to hate them slightly less.

 

...just think of them like a freestyle section. Ha!

 

 

 

 

* If you doubt me "because Europe clearly does it," go find me a spot in Europe with the traffic levels of PCT or N90, with the technicality of the airspace (multiple airports with similar traffic levels in close proximity), and then we'll talk :wink:

I can't thank you guys enough for all of this! My view has completely changed on the whole process. I now use the "LOST COMMUNICATIONS" procedures as my vectors. Again, a huge thanks!!!! I'm sure I'll be back with more Q's later on.....

P.S.- I take back what I said about vectors

I now use the "LOST COMMUNICATIONS" procedures as my vectors.

 

Very good choice. That's what I use on the occasion I don't know what the local ATC procedure is. I just used it the other day flying into MCO, actually.

 

Glad it's all helping!

Nice answer Kyle. Had to +1 it!

Nice answer Kyle. Had to +1 it!

 

Thanks!