Maybe it's a stupid question but I will take the risk to ask it publicly 🙂

Why sometimes does the ATC assign a non-precision approach to a runway served by ILS? I would always use the ILS when available, it's just more precise and reduces the workload of the pilots (= safer).

Does it happen in real life too, or is it a FS bug? 

Also, Nice (LFMN) approach is still a mess, with the ATC forcing you to fly 12,000 ft over the water and overshooting the runway, but this is another topic (for a thread that I will NOT open again).

Thanks for any insight 🙂

 

 

6 minutes ago, MrFuzzy said:

Maybe it's a stupid question but I will take the risk to ask it publicly 🙂

Why sometimes does the ATC assign a non-precision approach to a runway served by ILS? I would always use the ILS when available, it's just more precise and reduces the workload of the pilots (= safer).

Does it happen in real life too, or is it a FS bug? 

Also, Nice (LFMN) approach is still a mess, with the ATC forcing you to fly 12,000 ft over the water and overshooting the runway, but this is another topic (for a thread that I will NOT open again).

Thanks for any insight 🙂

 

 

ATC uses wind and traffic to assign runway. 

25 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

ATC uses wind and traffic to assign runway. 

Yes but in this case I have been assigned VOR DME approach on runway 9L which has an ILS. Is that a thing in real life? And why?

Thanks

In real life, a non-precision approach to the SAME runway as one having an ILS could be assigned if a component of the ILS system (localizer or glide slope) was out of service for some reason. Sometimes, this alternative might be a VOR approach, but these days it's more likely to be an RNAV approach. Also, there are instances where weather conditions are good enough that it might be more convenient to assign an RNAV approach that has an available initial approach fix (IAF on the charts) that represents the termination of a STAR. This avoids the need for ATC vectors and can easily be programmed into the FMC/MCDU. 

AI-based sim ATC has only a passing resemblance to that in the real world. For more realistic ATC, try one of the online services.

6 minutes ago, MrFuzzy said:

Yes but in this case I have been assigned VOR DME approach on runway 9L which has an ILS. Is that a thing in real life? And why?

Thanks

I have had the same question.  The sadder part is this even happens when conditions are real marginal for a VOR DME approach to the runway in question.  It's just a simple coding oversight I'm sure.

I don't know why it does that (messed up logic?) and I'm guessing that you already know that you can request the ILS approach from ATC if you want to. 'Tis what I do. 😉

...jim

 

3 hours ago, MrFuzzy said:

Does it happen in real life too, or is it a FS bug? 

Yes, it can and does happen in real life also. It is usually about noise abatement or traffic flow. So for LFMN, in your example, the VOR A and also the RNP A approaches for 4L/4R avoid flying over a populated region of the city and instead keep you over water for the entire approach. This is preferred for whatever reason, probably noise, so when conditions permit, these approaches will be assigned by ATC. Since these approaches (VOR A / RNP A) require a sharp turn to align with the runway - these are considered circling approaches and thus have circling minimums. In this case the VOR A has minimums at 2,000' - if the weather is such that the ceiling begins to get lower than maybe 2,500', they would likely start assigning the ILS or RNP Y/Z approaches which are straight-in (and as a result fly over part of the city) but have much lower minimums. On a typical day in Nice where the cloud layer is above 2,000' and visibility is good, you would always expect to get the VOR A or RNP A approaches and would never expect to get a straight-in precision approach. You could request a straight-in precision approach, like the ILS, and they'd probably give it to you, but they'd be annoyed because it will mess with their flow and also perhaps make the neighbors angry.

The above is really only true at airports where traffic flow, noise or some other special consideration prefers a particular approach routing when weather permits.

Hehe in my experience as a radar controller, it's almost always the precision approach being advertised (ILS)...after that it's rnav (gps) and if we absolutely have to run approaches it's vor or ndb if those even exist today.

I have never advertised a non precision approach when a precision one was available.  I'm sure it happens but it would be rare.

Edited August 27, 20214 yr by ryanbatcund

1 hour ago, cwburnett said:

avoid flying over a populated region of the city and instead keep you over water for the entire approach.

So true.

In MSFS you can called it a ‘bug’ or a ‘ sim limitation ‘ not doubt. However IRL as @cwburnett said at some places Is a ‘normal’ procedure, for many reasons including airspace optimization. Another example coming  in to my mind is VOR or GPS RWY 13L/R in KJFK.

4 hours ago, polosim said:

So true.

In MSFS you can called it a ‘bug’ or a ‘ sim limitation ‘ not doubt. However IRL as @cwburnett said at some places Is a ‘normal’ procedure, for many reasons including airspace optimization. Another example coming  in to my mind is VOR or GPS RWY 13L/R in KJFK.

Except for the fact that, in MSFS, 99% of the time, it actually is a 'bug' or 'sim limitation'.  Certainly there are example IRL where alternate approaches are used in place of an ILS for noise abatement or traffic flow.  Let's not pretend, however, that is the reason for the often senseless or random application of assigned approaches from the default MSFS ATC.  It's not as if the sim is programmed to accurately reflect real world procedures and when they are applied.