I'm extremely confused by the FMC when it comes to changing my approach.

 

I was flying online on VATSIM, but since no controllers were online at the moment, I went ahead and chose the arrival runway while I was at my departure airport using the provided winds.

 

As I approached my arrival airport, ATC came online. Obviously the winds have changed since I departed and so he told me to expect a different runway. (The opposite side). How the hell do I change my arrival runway without making my route overlap with the existing STAR and everything else? I clicked on the runway I had originally planned then clicked on STAR and simply changed the runway to what the ATC gave me. The FMC made the biggest mess after I did that. Everything overlapped and I had to delete each error 1 by one. When you're approaching, this isn't easy.

 

I've googled and found a few people with the same question here on AVSIM, but those responses are now rather old, so I would appreciate some fresh info.

 

Thanks

Create a secondary flightplan before you set off with no STAR/ arrival runway. When you know your runway, add the STAR /runway to the secondary plan and activate it.

Create a secondary flightplan before you set off with no STAR/ arrival runway. When you know your runway, add the STAR /runway to the secondary plan and activate it.

How do you make a secondary flightplan? 

How do you make a secondary flightplan? 

Have a read of the manual. You copy your main flightplan before you add the STAR.

 

 

I was flying online on VATSIM, but since no controllers were online at the moment, I went ahead and chose the arrival runway while I was at my departure airport using the provided winds.

 

Reason number 472 why simmers should really resist adding runways/approaches into their FMC flight plan until on descent.  This is especially the case with aircraft with long legs (777, MD11, etc).  Weather changes with time, and has the potential to change more with more time.

 

There's a reason hurricane path charts are shaped like cones - larger error as time ahead increases:

 

Three things to take away from this:

1. Avoid being so FMC-dependent that it gets you so flustered (sorry, but based on your use of "how the hell," I'm assuming flustered).  The plane still flies brilliantly without the FMC.  You still had the STAR in there, and even if it was instrument conditions, you could've just pulled up the NAV RAD page and tuned the ILS manually.  Otherwise, planes still have yokes for a reason.
2. Avoid adding any sort of approach until it's assigned.  Sure, STARs occasionally do have "sides" (e.g. IAD's GIBBZ has a listing for GIBBZ.01 and GIBBZ.19) but these usually only change a fix or two at the end (which can be manually adjusted quickly), or change altitudes and speeds for the same waypoints (again, these can be manually adjusted quickly).  Choose your best guess, or, for a more "pro" approach, choose the one with lower altitudes - it's easier to shallow a descent than it is to steepen one  For approaches, there's literally no reason, and no excuse to have it pre-set anywhere before T/D, and even less of a reason prior to departure.
3. Learn how to use the toolbox.  The FMC is a wonderful tool, but few people take learning it far enough to effectively use it (particularly since some are so dependent on it).  If you get in a jam, mess around with it and see what you come up with (kinda like you did).  Try different things and see what works best in the end.  With computers (which the FMC is), there's usually more than one way.  The suggested SEC FPLN is one answer.  I'd provide another, but I haven't flown the plane in so long, I don't want to lead you astray.

Reason number 472 why simmers should really resist adding runways/approaches into their FMC flight plan until on descent.  ... Otherwise, planes still have yokes for a reason.

[*]Avoid adding any sort of approach until it's assigned.  ...

[*]Learn how to use the toolbox.  The FMC is a wonderful tool, but few people take learning it far enough to effectively use it (...]

Very cogently spoken my friend…

 

Nothing too add, but I wanted to tell you that I thought that you did very well in understanding the problem, and providing the proper solution(s)....

 

Well done!

 

Chas

 

 

Very cogently spoken my friend…

Nothing too add, but I wanted to tell you that I thought that you did very well in understanding the problem, and providing the proper solution(s)....

 

Thanks Chas!

 

1. Avoid being so FMC-dependent that it gets you so flustered (sorry, but based on your use of "how the hell," I'm assuming flustered).  The plane still flies brilliantly without the FMC.  You still had the STAR in there, and even if it was instrument conditions, you could've just pulled up the NAV RAD page and tuned the ILS manually.  Otherwise, planes still have yokes for a reason.
2. Avoid adding any sort of approach until it's assigned.  Sure, STARs occasionally do have "sides" (e.g. IAD's GIBBZ has a listing for GIBBZ.01 and GIBBZ.19) but these usually only change a fix or two at the end (which can be manually adjusted quickly), or change altitudes and speeds for the same waypoints (again, these can be manually adjusted quickly).  Choose your best guess, or, for a more "pro" approach, choose the one with lower altitudes - it's easier to shallow a descent than it is to steepen one  For approaches, there's literally no reason, and no excuse to have it pre-set anywhere before T/D, and even less of a reason prior to departure.
3. Learn how to use the toolbox.  The FMC is a wonderful tool, but few people take learning it far enough to effectively use it (particularly since some are so dependent on it).  If you get in a jam, mess around with it and see what you come up with (kinda like you did).  Try different things and see what works best in the end.  With computers (which the FMC is), there's usually more than one way.  The suggested SEC FPLN is one answer.  I'd provide another, but I haven't flown the plane in so long, I don't want to lead you astray.

 

Thanks for the info.

 

1. Yes, that's what I ended up doing.

 

2. That's what I tried to do one flight a while ago, but the same problem happened to me with the overlapping routes.

 

3. I'll look into the SEC FPLN too, thanks.

 

 

1. Yes, that's what I ended up doing.

 

Using your resources - good!

 

 

 

2. That's what I tried to do one flight a while ago, but the same problem happened to me with the overlapping routes.

 

The MD approach to route management is definitely unique, but you should re-read this point.  My suggestion in point #2 is to wait to select a STAR/IAP until it's assigned.  If you do this, it is literally impossible to have overlapping routes, because you only select the STAR/IAP once.  You're only changing altitudes along the STAR, or adding a few waypoints at the end, manually, while deleting a couple as well.

The MD approach to route management is definitely unique, but you should re-read this point.  My suggestion in point #2 is to wait to select a STAR/IAP until it's assigned.  If you do this, it is literally impossible to have overlapping routes, because you only select the STAR/IAP once.  You're only changing altitudes along the STAR, or adding a few waypoints at the end, manually, while deleting a couple as well.

That makes sense, thank you. On VATSIM though, you have to file your approach anyways but it makes sense to wait until the ATC has announced a runway which you can expect.

 

Thanks

This has been shown before but is relative to your issue. If you haven't seen it, you'll get a lot out of it. It all about the dangers of automation dependency and the problems it creates, much like you experienced.

It's all about reducing the level of automation to reduce the work load in circumstances such as you came across. Check it out.

 

http://vimeo.com/64502012

 

Cheers,

Brian

 

 

On VATSIM though, you have to file your approach anyways but it makes sense to wait until the ATC has announced a runway which you can expect.

On VATSIM you file the STAR (though not in Europe).  You do not file the approach.  As I mentioned earlier, if you add the STAR, just anticipate the "version" of the STAR with the lower altitudes or shorter distance.  It's always easy to adjust the altitudes higher.  The inverse is not true.

 

Leave the approach off of everything.