Flying on vatsim approach to KLAS I inadvertently punched in the wrong Star and then tried to correct it but ended up with a route that looked like a plate of spaghetti 

 

And it was busy and controller becoming inpatient   uggghh..

 

What is the correct procedure for clearing wrong data from the fmc?

I normally delete the waypoints manually,but I don't have an incosiderate controller at my back

 

 

What is the correct procedure for clearing wrong data from the fmc?

 

Lowering the level of the automation is the best approach in such approach.

Disable V/L NAV, engage other roll command (Hdg Sel, VORLOC) and other pitch mode (FLCH, V/S, SPD) and follow the plate. Eventually, You can catch the airport by hand, but only in VMC.

Im yet to learn how to follow the plate. I guess one way would be to line select the runway to L1 and then re enter the star?that should clear the waypoints

When you select a new SID/STAR it clears any other you've selected.

Just select new app and old one will vanish. You should learn how to read plates as every sid/star you select in FMS should be compared with plate to assure it's correct. If situation goes utterly wrong, it's always better to select lower level of automation than to spend too much time fixing FMS issues.

Just select new app and old one will vanish. You should learn how to read plates as every sid/star you select in FMS should be compared with plate to assure it's correct. If situation goes utterly wrong, it's always better to select lower level of automation than to spend too much time fixing FMS issues.

Have just mastered VOR for GA.

Plates next

any tutorial recommendations anyone ?

 

Just select new app and old one will vanish. You should learn how to read plates as every sid/star you select in FMS should be compared with plate to assure it's correct. If situation goes utterly wrong, it's always better to select lower level of automation than to spend too much time fixing FMS issues.

 

Have just mastered VOR for GA.

Plates next

any tutorial recommendations anyone ?

 

Sorry, still learning, what do you mean when you say plates?

I like this jeppesen manual for their app charts:

http://www.heliline.gr/index.php/aviation-books?download=32%3Ajeppesen-handbook

 

Symbology is pretty much the same for their sid/star charts.

 

By your nick I suppose you are somewhere from region, so if you need some help PM me.

thanks for the link. Will Pm you if I get stuck

First, I have to say that one of the main reasons STARs exist is to cut down on radio transmissions, and to increase predictability.  There's always been a long, ongoing complaint by controllers (particularly on VATSIM, but RW as well), that if you file it, you must be able to fly it.  If you can't fly it, don't file it.  That also includes being able to handle your aircraft properly when the automation doesn't do the right thing.

 

If you don't understand SIDs and STARs, don't file them, and add in the remarks "NO SID / STAR."  This is used in the real world as well.  While it is not ideal, and should be avoided, it's good for while you're still trying to figure out how to navigate, which is your case.  Furthermore, if your FMC dies, or something gets messed up, on VATSIM, you're a single pilot operation.  You don't have time to look down and try to figure out the FMC (that you should read up on, understand, and be able to work with effectively prior to the flight) when getting close to your destination.  If something happens with the FMC that you can't easily fix that close in, ask for vectors.

 

STARs are used by ATC to keep radio transmissions to a minimum, and to add predictability.  If you're trying to fix a STAR while on a STAR, you're probably going to be carving all sorts of paths through the sky that are not predictable, and the controller is probably giving you all kinds of instructions because you're not flying the STAR as expected.  If that's the case, the whole point of the STAR has been defeated anyway, so you might as well avoid frustrating both of you from the start by asking for vectors.

 

Since you seem to be flying in that area anyway, you should check these out:

http://pilotcerts.laartcc.org/page/ratings.html

 

These are very detailed tutorials taking you from the basics to where you want to be.  Even if you don't do the ratings, they're worth checking out and trying out.

 

If you want to learn a bit more about SIDs/STARs/vectors and their purpose, here's a post I made a while back, describing why they're used:

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 is 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:

"If you don't understand SIDs and STARs, don't file them, and add in the remarks "NO SID / STAR"

 

Kyle thats a bit harsh. I understand the concept and I certainly dont have a problem controlling my aircraft , I have 300+ real world.

 

Are you suggesting to avoid Vatsim until I can fly a plate if the FMC packs it in? I was under the impression that I could ask for vectors which worked out just fine.

Flying on vatsim approach to KLAS I inadvertently punched in the wrong Star and then tried to correct it but ended up with a route that looked like a plate of spaghetti 

 

And it was busy and controller becoming inpatient   uggghh..

 

What is the correct procedure for clearing wrong data from the fmc?

A lot of times this can be caused by duplications in the route. A fix may be listed twice in the legs page. You can usually correct this by taking the second fix FIXXX and placing it under the first FIXXX.

 

If the route looks like spaghetti, don't EXECute it. Clean it up first, and then  you can execute it.

 

 

"If you don't understand SIDs and STARs, don't file them, and add in the remarks "NO SID / STAR"
 
Kyle thats a bit harsh. I understand the concept and I certainly dont have a problem controlling my aircraft , I have 300+ real world.

 

I don't know why that would be harsh in the least.  Read the very next sentence in my original post: "This is used in the real world as well."  That was my way of pointing out that there's no shame in it.

 

I will say this, and this will come across harshly:

Don't hit people with how many hours you have unless it's requested.  Hours, while an indicator of flying experience, really don't prove much else.  This is a prime example.  You indicated in post 4 that you have yet to understand how to follow plates.  This means that at 300 hours of flying experience, you don't have the knowledge your average 75-100 hour instrument rating student would.  You later go on to say you have just mastered VORs for GA, which is something you would learn in the first 20 hours of being a student pilot.  Harsh, sure, but that is precisely the reason I hate it when people drop hours into the conversation in an effort to prove they know something.

 

 

 

Are you suggesting to avoid Vatsim until I can fly a plate if the FMC packs it in? I was under the impression that I could ask for vectors which worked out just fine.

 

Did I say that?  No.  I most certainly did not.

 

The gist of my post was that you shouldn't file SIDs/STARs until you fully understand them (on paper, not just letting the FMC do the magic).  If the FMC packs it in - for reasons of user or automation error - ask for vectors.  If you have time, then by all means, go fix it.

I don't know why that would be harsh in the least.  Read the very next sentence in my original post: "This is used in the real world as well."  That was my way of pointing out that there's no shame in it.

 

I will say this, and this will come across harshly:

Don't hit people with how many hours you have unless it's requested.  Hours, while an indicator of flying experience, really don't prove much else.  This is a prime example.  You indicated in post 4 that you have yet to understand how to follow plates.  This means that at 300 hours of flying experience, you don't have the knowledge your average 75-100 hour instrument rating student would.  You later go on to say you have just mastered VORs for GA, which is something you would learn in the first 20 hours of being a student pilot.  Harsh, sure, but that is precisely the reason I hate it when people drop hours into the conversation in an effort to prove they know something.

 

 

 

 

Did I say that?  No.  I most certainly did not.

 

The gist of my post was that you shouldn't file SIDs/STARs until you fully understand them (on paper, not just letting the FMC do the magic).  If the FMC packs it in - for reasons of user or automation error - ask for vectors.  If you have time, then by all means, go fix it.

"This means that at 300 hours of flying experience, you don't have the knowledge your average 75-100 hour instrument rating student would.  You later go on to say you have just mastered VORs for GA, which is something you would learn in the first 20 hours of being a student pilot"

 

Kyle your an arrogant ######  insinuating that Im dishonest. I haven't flow in 20 years and have had to re learn everything including Vor.

 

I tell you what how about I scan you a high res. Pdf of my qualifications. 

It will require you to make an apology here for the disrespect you have shown to me.

deal??