FlyTampa Montreal - RC4 approach problem [SOLVED]

[Ray Proudfoot 8,926]

P3D v5.3HF2 with FlyTampa Montreal installed. Running Radar Contact v4.3.

Those of you who use RC4 will know it provides vectors for the approach. This includes the 30 degree intercept heading for the approach and landing. I've used this program for decades but for some unknown reason it's issuing the intercept heading instruction way past the correct position.

Look at this map. The black X marks the position where I would expect to be given a heading by RC4 to intercept the localiser for 06R. The red X is the position given by RC4 for the intercept. Very wrong as I'm sure you'll agree. The program seems to think the runway is in a very different position to where it actually is.

But why the discrepancy at this one airport? I've run MakeRunwys and have copied the files across to RC using the "Update Database" feature. I'm at a loss as to why this is happening at this one airport. I'd ask on the RC Forum but I'd have to answer my own question! 🤣 I know some of you still use RC4. Do you have the FlyTampa Montreal and if so do you have the same problem?

Here's the runway info for CYUL taken from r4.csv. 06R is bolded.

CYUL,0061,45.461071,-73.764999,118,27.570,11020,109.30BDG,213,15.000,45.472202,-73.750420,0,CT,
CYUL,0062,45.457706,-73.741280,118,27.610,9526,110.50BDG,213,15.000,45.467323,-73.728668,0,,CL
CYUL,0241,45.476940,-73.716057,118,207.610,9526,110.50BG,213,15.000,45.467323,-73.728668,0,,CL
CYUL,0242,45.483334,-73.735840,118,207.570,11020,111.90BG,213,15.000,45.472202,-73.750420,0,CT,

And the airport lat / lon as shown in the AFCAD is N45 28.2 W 073 44.5. It all seems fine.

[Bob Scott 7,715]

My guess is that it's vectoring you over to the SE side for an intercept from the right due to the parallel runways.  Have you tried getting vectors to 06L to see if it does the same?

[Ray Proudfoot 8,926]

27 minutes ago, Bob Scott said:

My guess is that it's vectoring you over to the SE side for an intercept from the right due to the parallel runways.  Have you tried getting vectors to 06L to see if it does the same?

That's a possibility. I'm flying a short hop from CYTR to check. I'll select 06L and report back. Thanks!

[Ray Proudfoot 8,926]

Flying from CYTR now. If it behaves for a 06L approach I'll move this to the RC forum. I posted here in case others had a problem with FT Montreal.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,926]

I'm due south of CYUL on a heading of 105 and RC has just given me a heading of 060 to intercept the localiser for 06L.

But the approach heading is 058 so I'm never going to intercept. Could someone else try this please if you have FT Montreal?

Approach from the SW for a 06L or 06R landing. Thanks.

I'll leave it here for now as it may be an AFCAD problem in FT Montreal.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,926]

I vectored myself to a 06L landing. RC knew when I had vacated the runway so those positions seem fine. It's just the vectoring from the south that's way out.

I'll have a look at the AFCAD tomorrow and see if anything seems different. Then I'll deactivate the 3rd party airport and try the default after having run MakeRwys and updated RC's database.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,926]

I disabled the FT Montreal entry and ran MakeRwys for RC to update the relevant csv files. Same flight as yesterday with northerly runways in use at CYUL.

RC correctly vectored me this time for a 06R landing. I have no idea why the FT scenery would cause this problem. Any AFCAD experts out there?

[vadriver 247]

ray

guessing a lot ..... but does your FT afcad have a transition to O6R & hence you get a vector to the IAF, not the IF.

Edited June 2, 2022 by vadriver

[Ray Proudfoot 8,926]

3 minutes ago, vadriver said:

ray

guessing a lot ..... but does your FT afcad have a transition to O6R & hence you get a vector to the IAF, not the IF.

Sorry John, could you clarify that question please? Running it through Fault Finder in ADE finds nothing serious.

[pgde 571]

Why isn't this in the Radar Contact forum?

[Ray Proudfoot 8,926]

56 minutes ago, pgde said:

Why isn't this in the Radar Contact forum?

Because by flying the route with default CYUL and getting correct vectors the problem lies with the Fly Tampa Montreal AFCAD. Radar Contact is the victim, not the cause.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,926]

Attached is a link to the FlyTampa Montreal AFCAD which appears to be responsible for incorrect vectoring by RC.

If anyone could examine it for inconsistencies I'd be grateful. I've been using RC for 16 years and this is the first time I've not been correctly vectored to an ILS approach.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/aw38ckrpq81np8z/CYUL_ADEP4_GSX.bgl?dl=0

[rmeier 473]

Ray,

Back in the day, I was using Pro-ATC/X. There was an error in the default FT AFCAD for CYUL while lining up on the runway...it would not trigger the departure clearance due to compass being set-up in the default AFCAD to "tru" rather than "magnetic". I'm wondering if you are encountering the same issue with RC.

Many years ago, I picked up a "corrected" AFCAD for FT CYUL that corrected the magnetic variation and no further issues. I don't recall whether I picked up the AFCAD on the P-ATC/X or FT forum...I suspect it was the latter.

Rob

[Bob Scott 7,715]

One thing that strikes me as a bit odd is the designation of the higher-numbered rwy (24L) as the primary runway and 06R as secondary in the ADE.  That said, the data in the r4 file looks OK.

Also, the "Enable Back Course" flag is set for both rwys, despite CYUL having no published back course localizer approaches--and the localizers for both runways are on the same freq (110.5).  If RC4 uses localizer-derived position data when vectoring, there might be ambiguity between the localizer front course on 06R and the back course on 24L, given that both are on the same freq.

Last, 06R and 24L are both configured closed for landing in the AFCAD.

Might be worth a try to disable the back course approach flags, and maybe also set the runways as available for landing.

 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,926]

@rmeier and @Bob Scott, thank you both for your posts.

Fly Tampa is generally excellent with scenery and I have several of their airports. No problems at any of the others.

I’ll check the FT forum for an alternative AFCAD.

Bob, I’ll disable the back course as a starter and take it from there. I have changed many runways for take-off and landing only so that would be the least suspicious.