I am flying the PMDG 737NGX a lot lately (with FS2Crew) and I am looking at making my approaches a bit more realistic. Today I want to fly to Birmingham. Coming from the south I chose to use the GROV1B STAR:

 

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-254F2678AA3E07C5A9451A18E28F2624/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/Charts/AD/NON_AIRAC/EG_AD_2_EGBB_7-1_en_2012-06-28.pdf

 

I have to fly from HON to EBONY and then to GROVE. But then what...?

 

1. If I choose the GROV1B STAR in the FMC and then the GROVE transitions I get a very odd flightplan which has me flying all over the place...

 

2. If I choose to not use a transition but follow the ILS chart

 

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-254F2678AA3E07C5A9451A18E28F2624/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/Charts/AD/AIRAC/EG_AD_2_EGBB_8-1_en_2012-02-09.pdf

 

I will have to fly straight to the airport and then outbound from the BHX NDB on a heading of 313 and then turn right at a distance of 9 nm to intercept the ILS...?

 

But why fly to HON > EBONY > GROVE if I have to fly straight to the airport anyway in the end? And why fly straight to it and not directly to the point 9 nm out of BHX?

 

I suppose the problem here is that in real life you'd get vectors, right? Is using approach charts in a sim realistic, I wonder...?

 

Flying in England isn't easy too with all those STARs that seem to lead you nowhere...

 

IN SHORT: how would you go about flying to Birmingham, looking at these charts?

You would be vectored after GROVE in RW - see Warning on the arrival chart. Yo do not have to fly straight to the airport after GROVE (FMC only shows it like that as it does not have next waypoint), you would get directions from ATC for appropriate approach.

If you feel like it, find an airport you use the charts for that has liveATC approach freq online and listen to what happens IRL. Potter around in Flight while you listen so you have no other distraction... I spent hours doing that... There's a lovely sounding woman on Dublin Approach...

Yo do not have to fly straight to the airport after GROVE (FMC only shows it like that as it does not have next waypoint), you would get directions from ATC for appropriate approach.

 

Then what's the use of approach charts...? It clearly shows you have to fly over the airport (to BHX) and then do that teardrop like approach. There also are a LOT of procedure turn approaches (tried to do one to Manchester yesterday). Are they never used in real life and do always simply get vectored? That's why the topic title is as it is: I am wondering if you should ever use those approach charts...

 

Anyway, since I don't fly online and FSX ATC is useless, what would be the best thing to do? Use those approach charts anyway? I always have the idea 'serious simmers' use them but I wonder if it's realistic. And if I do decide to use the STAR should I simply vector myself after GROVE to intercept the ILS in anyway I want?

 

When I flew GA flying approaches was easy: no STAR needed and I'd simply fly the published approach to the letter, but with the 737NGX I wonder what's more realistic or appropriate.

Hm, interesting... I noticed the 737NGX FMC also showed a BHX transition and because the approach chart mentions BHX I decided to use the GROV1B STAR but now followed by the BHX transition instead of the GROVE transition. And what I see now on the ND almost completely looks like the approach chart! After GROVE I automatically fly to BHX and then outbound on a heading of 172 (where the charts says 171) and a turn left is started exactly at 7 nm out, just like on the chart! Here it is:

 

 

 

EBONY os on the left but off the ND otherwise I would have to zoom out too much and you wouldn't see the actual approach.

 

I always thought you had to use a transition that uses the same waypoint as the end of the STAR but apparently this is not always true...

Edited December 27, 201213 yr by firehawk44
Image removed. Exceeds 400KB Limit.

IN SHORT: how would you go about flying to Birmingham, looking at these charts?

 

It's quite straighforward. In short, you follow the charts you've already identified. A STAR to its end point and then an Instrument Approach chart to the runway. Trying to mix real-world and default FS proceudures will only cause confusion.

 

UK STARs don't lead you nowhere. They lead you to a hold from which an approach can be made to any runway. At EGLL there are Initial Approach Procedures to achieve this because of the complex airspace there.

 

 

EDIT

 

But why fly to HON > EBONY > GROVE if I have to fly straight to the airport anyway in the end? And why fly straight to it and not directly to the point 9 nm out of BHX?

 

Simply because you are not the only aircraft in the area!

From what I can see from your ND picture it looks like quite a wasteful mess for the sake of using transitions, looks like from the direction you're comeing from you can go for a clean straight in approach and forget all the routing around.

 

A lot of it depends on the country, some vary the transitions depending on runway in use, some as the STAR ends requires vectors and have no useful transitions. For FSX use your best judgement, you could get vectors (like I do sometimes with Radar Contact 4, you could make your own vectors, fly straight in if convenient or use a airport overfly transition if you wish. Do whatever you wish.

STARs and SIDs are traffic management tools to make large quantities of arrivals and departures act in a predictable way. This streamlines workload for ATC and as a result you will often get amended instructions depending on quantity of traffic. Both tools are to be used in conjunction with ATC instruction and aren't necessarily a replacement for ATC handling. A favorite of mine is at KATL when they use the CADIT SID. The instruction given by controllers is often "Delta xxx RNAV to MPASS". This takes outbound flights as far as CADIT at 10000ft where they usually receive a clearance to begin their cruise climb (usually after 10 mins).

 

If you want realism listen to LiveATC and do what they are saying or get on VATSIM. It is realistic to use charts in flightsim, unfortunately it is not realistic to single pilot fly an airliner into a controlled airspace without real ATC saying something. You can always get RC4 if you want to avoid VATSIM.

 

Good Luck

It might not be realistic, but since you said you're flying offline, and vectors are required for that approach, I'd just guess an outbound radial of about 320° from HON until intercepting the 313 outbound from BHX, then continue as explained on the charts. I would not go direct to BHX and continue on the 313, since that would require crossing the departure path, which might be fatal.

Whilst listening to controllers is an interesting experience for hobbyists FSX has little or no intelligent ATC so just studying the paths taken by individual aircraft on Flight Radar http://www.flightradar24.com/ in conjuction with your STARS and SIDS might give you an easier 3D picture of what actually happens? Note that if you click on the aircraft you get just about every detail apart from the 1st officers name and the number of children the woman in 23D has. This is also available as an Android App if you're out and about and wonder "what that is, where's it going and come from". The payware App has add-ons of different aircraft type symbols as well as the data you get for free on your PC.

 

It's interesting that many folk who demand PMDG's level of authenticity as far as the aircraft are concerned don't bother to simulate prototypical flights? (well if some screengrabs are anything to go by?) A more intelligent built in ATC would be a big step forward in any new flight sim.

 

As a PPL in the London area my WWII RAF pilot uncle was baffled when I showed him my 1:500000 charts. "What are all these lines? ......and numbers .....and frequencies?" When I told him that most flights I made were below 2500' because of that controlled airspace and that these were flight levels for that and ATC contact frequencies, he considered that "Low Flying" :lol: and pointed out that most basic trainers didn't even have a radio then. Even GA flights in many parts of the world would be more realistic with proper CTA's and a semi intelligent robot ATC?

 

Geoff

I know you said you don't fly online but if you really are looking for a realistic experience in the NGX a combination of the NGX itself, FS2Crew and online flying on VATSIM or IVAO is unbeatable IMHO and I really think you should give it a try.

 

I haven't flew anything but online for many years now first on IVAO and just recently switched to VATSIM for again IMHO an even more realistic experience.

Ok, so in the end... there is no real 'this is how you do it' as long as I fly offline and I might as well forget about everything... ^_^ I don't care too much about STARs but flying approach by the book in my GA was big fun (in which case I would fly over the BHX NDB and fly everything exactly as possible on the chart). So I might as well do that with the 737NGX too: no one there who will start shouting at me. ^_^

 

From what I can see from your ND picture it looks like quite a wasteful mess for the sake of using transitions, looks like from the direction you're comeing from you can go for a clean straight in approach and forget all the routing around.

 

When push comes to shove flying in FSX is a waste of time, period, because I could also transport myself to my destination using the map... :rolleyes: I mean, I just add STARs and approaches to the mix for the FUN of it! That's why I also use flightplans and don't fly straight from A to B. ^_^

 

I will listen to some real world ATC and learn what I can learn from that. And I think, since I simply liked doing this in my GA, I will fly the published approaches to the letter, just for the fun of it. And I might use STARs if they come in handy or don't look odd on the ND.

 

Or I should get a good ATC addon (I really don't like gaming online...) but from what I have read every ATC addon lacks something (and most sound bad).

so just studying the paths taken by individual aircraft on Flight Radar http://www.flightradar24.com/ in conjuction with your STARS and SIDS might give you an easier 3D picture of what actually happens?

 

Tip of the day!!! Thanks! I just gave that a go and boy, that does make a lot of thing clear! ^_^ And it works easier then listening to live ATC! Take a look at this flight: I do think it did arrive using the MIRSI STAR but after that it just flew one giant corner around the airport and landed straight in! No approach chart in sight there! ^_^

 

 

Hm, that would mean that the most realistic thing to do is OR fly online indeed OR get an ATC addon. Flying approaches to the letter might be fun but it's not quite realistic...!

 

EDIT

Followed some more flights to Manchester but none of them even came CLOSE to a STAR, let alone an approach chart... It's all straight in! Maybe using FSX ATC isn't so bad at all: I always hear it sucks also because it can't do SIDs and STARs but who cares if they aren't used in real life that much either...? Does for instance Radar Contact let you follow a STAR and approach to the letter? If so, then it's not a realistic addon...? Hm, I'm quite surprised about all this... Why do people condemn an addon plane if it can't do STARs if you don't need them? Just thinking out loud here. ^_^

Ok, so in the end... there is no real 'this is how you do it' as long as I fly offline and I might as well forget about everything... ^_^ I don't care too much about STARs but flying approach by the book in my GA was big fun (in which case I would fly over the BHX NDB and fly everything exactly as possible on the chart). So I might as well do that with the 737NGX too: no one there who will start shouting at me. ^_^

 

 

 

When push comes to shove flying in FSX is a waste of time, period, because I could also transport myself to my destination using the map... :rolleyes: I mean, I just add STARs and approaches to the mix for the FUN of it! That's why I also use flightplans and don't fly straight from A to B. ^_^

 

I will listen to some real world ATC and learn what I can learn from that. And I think, since I simply liked doing this in my GA, I will fly the published approaches to the letter, just for the fun of it. And I might use STARs if they come in handy or don't look odd on the ND.

 

Or I should get a good ATC addon (I really don't like gaming online...) but from what I have read every ATC addon lacks something (and most sound bad).

 

You can do any approach/STAR you feel like. If you want to zig zag all over the place linking up transitions that is your choice. All I mean in reality ATC wouldn't route you the way you have it on that ND screenshot you added, if you find it fun then go for it by all means but you did ask for more realism. Hell I often do NDB, VOR etc approaches rather than ILS or RNAV just for the fun of it.

 

As for ATC addons, yes they all do lack something but generally default ATC lacks way more. I hate flying IFR without ATC so I went with Radar Contact, with a keen eye of development of other ATC programs.

At CYYZ here they use vectors depending on the traffic volume. When traffic is heavy they tend to stick close to the published STAR and when lite they use vectors.