She's a delicate aircraft to begin with and I think imposing that sort of performance will cause the sim to crash out.

When I need to complete an NGX flight by a certain time I have used MSFSX acceleration of 4X for as long as 30 minutes with no problem. It's not that delicate.

Good question, I'll look forward to the answers too.

 

 

 

STAR at KIAH:

 

SKNRD4 / GESNR 1 (/ DOOBI 2), They all start at the same points and have quite similar paths.

 

Some of this might be one came out before the other and they just never removed it, but I'm willing to bet that the main reason for the slight variations is due to traffic congestion (note how PLANB joins at different points), and interactions with KHOU's flows.

 

 

 

SID at KJFK:

 

BETTE3 / GREKI3 / HAPIE3 / MERIT3 and JFK1 > The initial departure is exactly the same.

 

These ones will all look the same, and the differences are actually pretty subtle/buried. Note the narrative, about mid-way down the page (and this is one of the primary reasons I usually beat the drum pretty hard when it comes to reading things):

• BETTE3: Fly assigned climb, expect vectors BETTE D ACK (SID USE: North American Routes ONLY, 2200-0700L)
• GREKI3: Fly assigned climb, expect vectors GREKI D JUDDS D MARTN (SID USE: NAR only, 2200-0700L)
• HAPIE3: Fly assigned climb, expect vectors HAPIE D YAHOO (SID USE: NAR only, 2200-0700L)
• KENNEDY1: Fly assigned climb, expect vectors to filed fix (SID USE: All other aircraft, at any time)

Essentially, the BETTE/GREKI/HAPIE are variations on the KENNEDY1 for use at specific times, for specific aircraft, using a somewhat tailored route, mid-way through the procedure. Take off, fly a mini procedure, we'll vector you around a bit to get you in sequence, proceed direct to [bETTE/GREKI/HAPIE], fly the mini procedure, proceed onto your route out to the NARs and thereafter the NATs.

All right, so you made the Kennedy departure very clear (I picked up the example without reading the whole, my fault).

 

But for other cases, I guess that in sim without ATC, we just pick up one by chance as there are not always remarks to help choosing?

Back to the SKNRD4 / GESNR 1 STAR at IAH, I don't see anything that allows to choose one over the other (same requirement for equipment, both for turbojet and turboprop only, no specification regarding routing...).

 

Actually, it is even more complicated than I thought as corresponding RNAV STAR to GESNR1 (which is RNVA itself) is ZEEK1 and corresponding RNAV STAR to SKNRD4 (also RNAV) is DOOBI2...

And the other way round!! 

The STARs are referred one to each other.

 

Such a mess! 

After that, flying to Europe is a piece of cake!  :smile:

 

Thanks for your help as usual, Kyle.  :wink:

 

 

All right, so you made the Kennedy departure very clear (I picked up the example without reading the whole, my fault).

 

Nothing to claim fault on. I only know some of this stuff because of my last contracting position, which dealt a lot with NY TRACON (N90) and Chicago TRACON (C90). It's easy to miss!

 

 

 

But for other cases, I guess that in sim without ATC, we just pick up one by chance as there are not always remarks to help choosing?
Back to the SKNRD4 / GESNR 1 STAR at IAH, I don't see anything that allows to choose one over the other (same requirement for equipment, both for turbojet and turboprop only, no specification regarding routing...).

 

I'd take a look at what the airlines are filing on FlightAware. Chances are, there's some letter of agreement (LOA) between the operator on the TRACON that says "you will file this unless otherwise directed." Operators and the facilities do actually coordinate quite a bit as it's mutually beneficial. If the operator reduced the workload on the facility, then they facility has an easier day, and the operator stays more on schedule (at least when up against potential ATC delays). It looks like the standard for UAL from IAD is the DOOBI2. Controllers would dump them onto a different STAR if necessary.

 

Looking at the altitudes on these charts and comparing them to the same (or similar) positions on other charts, these STARs are definitely related to traffic flows (either IAH departure interaction, or HOU deps/arrs). Note DOOBI on the DOOBI2 is 250/170B150A, while it's 280/220B190A on the SKNRD4.

 

In this case, I'm willing to bet that ATC would assign one over the other when conditions dictated, though you may see it in a comment, here (at the moment, it seems the NAS is behaving today, so that page is pretty boring - wait until Hurricane Season kicks up a bit and it'll get pretty ugly): http://www.fly.faa.gov/ois/

 

 

 

Thanks for your help as usual, Kyle.

 

Welcome!

Thanks again for the explanations. Flightaware is indeed a great website for checking the flight plans of the flight from/to USA. At least it helps picking up correct departures/arrivals.

Actually the real flight AFR636 I'm reproducing in real time has also planned an DOOBI2 arrival. So it may be the one commonly used.

Thanks again for the explanations. Flightaware is indeed a great website for checking the flight plans of the flight from/to USA. At least it helps picking up correct departures/arrivals.

Actually the real flight AFR636 I'm reproducing in real time has also planned an DOOBI2 arrival. So it may be the one commonly used.

 

Yeah. A few years ago, you'd see nearly the exact same STARs in the US, but they were overlays. One would be ANAV and one would be RNAV. "ANAV" is a term we use to cover anything that isn't RNAV (essentially, doesn't have the capability to navigate directly to fixes and is dependent on ground based nav). So, one would be for old aircraft, and one would be for new aircraft. Now it's a bit more complex with tailored STARs. They're usually better about saying "TO BE ASSIGNED BY ATC ONLY" or similar (though it does say that with PLANB on a couple of them, some entire STARs are that way).

 

 

Such a mess!

After that, flying to Europe is a piece of cake!

Romain

With the exception of Germany, Europe is confusing to me. Must have something to do with where you do the most takeoffs and landings.

Well there are some pros and cons but generally speaking, it seems to me that the procedures in Europe give much less room to interpretation and there is much less duplication.

I mean in that I rarely have doubt regarding which SID or STAR to use as there is usually only one or two SIDs leading to your first chosen enroute point and same for the STARs from you last enroute point.

Off course this is a matter of planning a flight and  flying without ATC in sim.

 

Off course it depends where one's used to flying as you say and whether there is ATC available. 

After all my issue with the airports procedures in USA is only the lack of guidance sometimes to chose the procedures in use (not talking about airports with 8 or more runways with no indication of how the runway-in-use is determined on the documents available).

And as it is not for real flight, it doesn't matter much.

The only detriment is the frustration of not reproducing a real flight to highest level of realism!

Actually the real flight AFR636 I'm reproducing in real time has also planned an DOOBI2 arrival. So it may be the one commonly used.

Romain

Out of all the major airports in the United States, Air France 636 would have to land at KIAH. I have run across three airports which have multiple STARS from the same TRANSITIONS and which one is used depends on direction of landing. In addition to KIAH using what I would call a directional STAR, KDFW and KDEN have them also. Such luck you have. DOOBI2 seems right for landing at KIAH. Landings are pretty much in a westerly direction no matter what the wind is doing. If the tailwind component  is more that 10 knots, the landings will be to the east. So you can pretty much count on landing to the west. I base this on a discussion I had on the FSDT Forum when they first released KIAH airport last summer. So I think DOOBI2 is going to be right 98% of the time.