Hi all,

Since I'm a big fan of the small islands called Malta (LMML) (in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea), often my flights with the NGX end up there. Now I've got a few questions on the approach, specifically runway 32, as I doubt the charts I use are right, or the pilots of the planes I flew with didn't use the charts.

First of all, 2012 charts: http://va-transaero.ru/files/charts/LMML.pdf

 

As you can see on page 6, the ILS arrival chart for runway 32, the approach uses the MLA ndb, after which you need to fly heading 135, and after 9nM make a 180 degree turn for the final leg.

Question 1:
On my real-life flights to Malta, the route never went via the MLT ndb, but the plane was flying north of the island (where you could then see the island to your right), and made 2 turns of about 90 degrees to get to final. Now, why is this not on the charts, and second, why are there no waypoints that allow me to enter this into the FMC? (see Skyvector.com).

Question 2:

When I want to program the route in the FMC as shown on the chart, what should I do after MLT? Is that a matter of disconnect the VNAC and LNAV, and use HDG and ALT instead? That is what I do now, but is there a possibility to program the FMC so that it can fly the last bit in LNAV and VNAV as well?

 

Thanks in advance

As far as your question #2 is concerned:

 

You can enter user-defined waypoints into the CDU, in the form of Place/Bearing/Distance (P/B/D), and assign speed and altitude restrictions to them.

 

Q1 may be simply vectors issued by ATC, or clearance for a visual approach, but I'm just guessing here.

Does the NDB approach show up in the arrivals page of the FMC?

 

Often is the case in real life that you will get vectored by ATC, rather than fly the whole chart.In case of radio failure, you'd follow the chart (or the reccomendations on the chart what to do in case of radio failure)

 

You could manually enter the waypionts :

 

 

MLT

MLT135/9 < makes a waypiont on the 135 radial, 9 miles away, add your speed and ALT opposite.

MLT135/6
MLT135/3, ect ect.

Thanks for the quick reply guys, this was definitely something I dit not know (MLT135/9).

Now I understand that I could tell the FMC to route to that artifical waypoint, but I won't be able to tell it to fly on heading 90 from that point for x amount of time before turning 180 degrees to the right?

^{You can't define the amount of time - but the distance (and the place defined by that distance) should be more precise under any circumstances, right? It's not just about speed, but also about winds ...}

Is the approach listed in the approach page or not?..if it is, selecting it will give you the procedure turn required in this approach without manualy entering multiple waypionts.

 

or fly manual ( heading select ) from MLT135/9, do the turn and intercept ILS.

The approach is not listed. I only can select a route for when I have to do a go-around.

I do agree that the distance is better than time, so that's fine too, but I believe it's not possible to do so (looking at the post of Luke). I'll add the waypoint MLT135/9 and from there fly manual untill I intercept the ILS.

Mind the difference between radial and bearing!   ^_^

Uhm well, the difference between those I still need to look up.

Anyway, I just thought of something that might be possible as well. Can I use the intersection point of two routes as an aritifical waypoint for navigation?

 

For example here: http://skyvector.com/?ll=35.728677048957685,14.776245110271274&chart=302&zoom=3&plan=A.GC.GCTS:V.GC.TFS:F.GC.GANTA:V.GC.TFN:F.GC.KASAS:F.GC.BIMBO

 

Would it be possible to get the intersection point of route UM600 and M622 to be used as a waypoint? Maybe I'm just trying to achieve weird things here, but I'm just curious ;-)

You can look up the NGX manuals to learn all possible user-defined waypoints at once ...  

 

EDIT: Or use the PMDG knowledge base: http://support.precisionmanuals.com/KB/a59/fmc-custom-waypoint-entry-notes.aspx

 

 

P/B/D - here you need the bearing ("heading"). The radial is the reciprocal of the bearing which would lead your NGX into the wrong direction here, if entered.

 

An "intersection" works to. You can enter a RW waypoint directly (in case that exists in that location you have in mind). Or you could, for example define a P/B-P/B waypoint yourself (that's the intersection of two lines, drawn through two different spots in RW - VORs or waypoints).

 

EDIT: Latitude/longitude should work, too, of course ...

Edited May 13, 201313 yr by olli4740

 

 

Question 1:
On my real-life flights to Malta, the route never went via the MLT ndb, but the plane was flying north of the island (where you could then see the island to your right), and made 2 turns of about 90 degrees to get to final. Now, why is this not on the charts, and second, why are there no waypoints that allow me to enter this into the FMC? (see Skyvector.com).

 

You missed one huge thing here, which I've highlighted in red and underlined.  One of the most egregious simisms is that simmers believe that everything is flown to the highest degree of automation.  For some reason, it seems they all believe that where there's an ILS, that ILS is flown, no matter what the weather.

 

This is incorrect.

 

As you noted, you could see the airport.  That means you're getting a visual approach.  The pilot was simply vectored north of the field, and then turned inbound on somewhat of a large traffic pattern (as you described).  The whole reason we created instruments and instrument approaches was for times you did not have visual reference to the ground.  If you have visual reference to the ground, you're getting a visual approach.  Ergo, the reason for the discrepancy was that the pilot wasn't even flying the ILS approach at all - rather, he/she flew the visual.

 

 

 

Question 2:
When I want to program the route in the FMC as shown on the chart, what should I do after MLT? Is that a matter of disconnect the VNAC and LNAV, and use HDG and ALT instead? That is what I do now, but is there a possibility to program the FMC so that it can fly the last bit in LNAV and VNAV as well?

 

I would suggest avoiding over-dependence on automation.  While the real aircraft does have a procedure turn ability (that D at the lower right of the chart), the NGX does not.  Additionally, depending on wind, you will not fly that perfect shape.  It is better to kick LNAV/VNAV off and use HDG and V/S for the outbound leg (MLT to the procedure turn), and then LOC/APP when turning inbound, back to the localizer.

 

Automation is there to reduce workload.  If it is not helping you accomplish that, then let it go and use something else (to include flying the plane on your own).  The FMC does not need to do everything for you.

 

All of the others have provided you a means of achieving what you are looking for, however.

Thanks all, again, for the extensive replies. I'm currently checking the manuals, but they're quite big, so it takes a while to find what I'm looking for.

Kyle, I did not specifically miss it, I just never landed on runway 32 after the pilot flying the procedure indicated on the charts. And I've been landing there in seriously bad weather. Anyway, it still must have been a visual approach somehow. I know I couldn't see enought out of my little side-window.

The reason I also asked this, is because in FSX there will be a time I will have seriously bad weather, and I want to be able to land my plane even when I can't see the airport/runway untill the very last moment. Why not just practice it while at least having a bit of visual indication on where to fly to

I'll have some tries later tonight, I'm sure your input will help me understand everything better.

 

 

For some reason, it seems they all believe that where there's an ILS, that ILS is flown, no matter what the weather.

This is incorrect.

As you noted, you could see the airport. That means you're getting a visual approach.

Maybe. I flew in Asia for a almost 2 year, and didn't fly one visual approach. That might've been more airline culture, but I don't think other countries rely on the visual approach as much as the US and Canada do.

Maybe. I flew in Asia for a almost 2 year, and didn't fly one visual approach. That might've been more airline culture, but I don't think other countries rely on the visual approach as much as the US and Canada do.

 

Crazy.  When it comes to flying, I tend to ignore that area in its entirety.  From the stories, I've heard that it's quite a mess, from procedures, to accurate nav data.

 

...and don't get me started on the pilots that they ship over here for training (250+ hour student pilots - yep).

In germany we have some airports where visual approaches are not even permitted to fly, according to the information in the aerodrome charts.
I guess the reason for this is noise abatement, but I'm not sure.

Here are some examples that I've found by a quick search in my charts:

EDDK
TRAFFIC NOTE
Visual approaches will not be granted to arriving flights

EDDL
VISUAL APCH
NA.

EDDW
TRAFFIC NOTE
Visual APCH are not permitted.