Sign in to follow this  
787WannabePilot

Flying into Saint Martin (TNCM), star question

Recommended Posts

Flying into Runway 10 (via RNAV) through the STAR ULUBA.

Unlike other airports where the STAR gets you in position for an approach, ULUBA setup to take you right to the airport (last fix in the STAR setup is PJM). 

Is this the way it is supposed to be?  Other airports just put you in the area to catch the approach in. I almost got caught with the bad approach, but corrected it while descenting.   

I thought PJM was just the last fix prior to the airport, not at the airport itself. :-\

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I invite you to have a look at the PARCH2 arrival into JFK, where the final waypoint on there is JFK. I think typically, ATC would vector you before you reached that waypoint, but if you're not using ATC, then you'd have to just vector yourself around.

Share this post


Link to post

As the chart states, the ULUBA 1 arrival continues with vectors to perform the VOR Z RWY 10 approach and landing proc, with ULUBA as IAF.

Best regards

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, JESUS_LOSPI said:

As the chart states, the ULUBA 1 arrival continues with vectors to perform the VOR Z RWY 10 approach and landing proc, with ULUBA as IAF.

Best regards

Why throw the PJM in as a fix? 

Btw, VOR Z RWY is different than RNAV. RNAV doesn't list a VECTOR on its approach. 

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Captain Kevin said:

I invite you to have a look at the PARCH2 arrival into JFK, where the final waypoint on there is JFK. I think typically, ATC would vector you before you reached that waypoint, but if you're not using ATC, then you'd have to just vector yourself around.

Ah, I haven't flown into KJFK. I tend to keep to KEWR. 

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, 787WannabePilot said:

Why throw the PJM in as a fix? 

Btw, VOR Z RWY is different than RNAV. RNAV doesn't list a VECTOR on its approach. 

If you look at the chart, PJM isn't a fix on the STAR. PJM is shown as the VOR on the airport.

ULUBA is the IAF.

http://uvairlines.com/admin/resources/charts/TNCM.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, GHarrall said:

If you look at the chart, PJM isn't a fix on the STAR. PJM is shown as the VOR on the airport.

ULUBA is the IAF.

http://uvairlines.com/admin/resources/charts/TNCM.pdf

 

Yeah, but when I add it as a STAR in PMDG it shows up as the last waypoint. I have never seen the last waypoint in a STAR as a VOR. Generally I connect the approach method (in this case, the RNAV 10) to the STAR and go from there. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Captain Kevin said:

I invite you to have a look at the PARCH2 arrival into JFK, where the final waypoint on there is JFK. I think typically, ATC would vector you before you reached that waypoint, but if you're not using ATC, then you'd have to just vector yourself around.

 

They do, well before. Usually you'll get a crossing clearance depending on the configuration/how busy at 10,000 or 12,000ft and 250kts which matches up with a "3:1" profile that keeps jets comfortable. 

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, 787WannabePilot said:

Yeah, but when I add it as a STAR in PMDG it shows up as the last waypoint. I have never seen the last waypoint in a STAR as a VOR. Generally I connect the approach method (in this case, the RNAV 10) to the STAR and go from there. 

Well, PJM isn't a fix in the star on the chart. Do you not cross check?

clearly there is an error in the navdata for the FMC

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, GHarrall said:

Well, PJM isn't a fix in the star on the chart. Do you not cross check?

clearly there is an error in the navdata for the FMC

 

Just surprised no one has run into this before.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, 787WannabePilot said:

Just surprised no one has run into this before.

Probably because most check the STAR with an actual chart before punching it into the FMC. In fact, I'm not sure how you pick STARs at all if you aren't referencing charts as well? Its a guessing game otherwise.

If I saw the PJM point in the STAR I would just delete that fix before joining it to the actual approach from ULUBA.

You can report the error to Navigraph / Navdata Pro though. I'm sure they would fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, GHarrall said:

Probably because most check the STAR with an actual chart before punching it into the FMC. In fact, I'm not sure how you pick STARs at all if you aren't referencing charts as well? Its a guessing game otherwise.

If I saw the PJM point in the STAR I would just delete that fix before joining it to the actual approach from ULUBA.

You can report the error to Navigraph / Navdata Pro though. I'm sure they would fix it.

I use EFB's STAR overview. Pick the STAR that is close to my route and go from there.

I then choose the approach and just connect one to the other. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 19/9/2017 at 2:39 PM, 787WannabePilot said:

Why throw the PJM in as a fix? 

Btw, VOR Z RWY is different than RNAV. RNAV doesn't list a VECTOR on its approach. 

I use navigraph charts. At the bottom of the ULUBA ONE ARRIVAL CHART is where you can find a section named: "LANDING" (not in the RNAV proc. and app.chart). In the ULUBA ONE Arr. chart, landing section, you'll find the following instructions: "EXPECT vectors to execute the VOR Z RWY 10 app straight-in". In the chart for this app you can find that the ULUBA fix is a valid IF/IAF. On the other hand,m the RNAV procedure has no need to an app: you have the complete route until the IAF and the final app procedure in just one chart.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this