What is more realistic ATC..?

[Heathrow to Dublin 1]

What is more realistic and more common in real world aviation.  Trying to decide which planner + ATC package to use.

1) Fly most of the STAR and get vectors to ILS near the airport or

2) Fly STAR procedure by the book and approach transition right to the ILS without any vectors?

 

Which of these phraseology on approach is more realistic.

1) Cleared the ILS approach runway XX, report established.

2) Closing localizer from the left/right, report established... descend on the glidepath.

 

Lastly, how common is it not to assign an initial altitude when getting clearance for a SID? 

 

So, Shamrock 222 cleared the Brookmans Park XXX Departure, Squak 222 (no initial altitude assigned).

 

Thank You

 

 

[skelsey 765]

Depends where you are in the world (one of the issues, I find, with ATC software in general -- it often doesn't well represent local differences) but in the UK certainly 1) is pretty well standard. It's also very rare for a pilot to fly the full SID and you will usually be radar vectored once above 4000ft.

1) and 2) can both be correct (in the UK) depending on circumstances (you cannot be 'cleared for the approach' unless you are at the platform altitude on the chart, so if you are vectored on to the ILS at a different altitude to this (say you are descended to 3000ft rather than 2500ft at Heathrow 27L) then different phraseology along the lines of 2) needs to be used.)

Your final example re: clearances is standard CAP413 phraseology, so every single time in the UK.

Note that it is not that an initial altitude has not been assigned: it is that the initial altitude forms part of the SID, therefore there is no need to restate it. It is up to the pilot to read the chart and comply with any stop altitudes specified (and on UK SID charts there will ALWAYS be a 'do not climb above XXXXft without ATC clearance').