I do notice that ATC has serious problems when the route requires you to overfly the airport. When that happens, altitude assignments are all over the place.

2 minutes ago, Johan217 said:

I do notice that ATC has serious problems when the route requires you to overfly the airport. When that happens, altitude assignments are all over the place.

Heh. I was on the RNAV approach to NZQN last night and the ATC went totally nuts with altitude assignments in the mountains. It was a constant 5 minutes of descend and maintain 3500, 4700, 6000, 3200 and on and on... They really need to fix this.  

I was on the manual leg between the STAR and the ILS approach at 2200' and got an instruction to climb to FL190 right as the localizer started to move.

Needless to say, I continued the approach. I don't have FS2Crew yet, so there's no FSDO guy waiting to chew me out.😎

28 minutes ago, RandallR said:

I do most of my planning in Simbrief, then import it (which will include SIDS, STARs and runways) into Navigraph.  In Navigraph I select the approaches and transitions I want to use, then verify the STAR/Direct assignments are still there from Simbrief after I import the Navigraph FP into the flight-planning screen.

Most of the time the flight-planning screen will now be identical to my original flight plan, but I always check as it will mess up from time to time.  The most common errors it makes are:

• Adding a STAR where the original FP called for the departure or arrival to be Direct
• Using the wrong STAR
• Replacing my approach with the wrong one
• Not even having the appropriate STAR in its inventory.  I find this surprising as my Navigraph subscription, I thought, was supposed to add the missing SIDS/STARS/ IAPs?

I correct approaches/transitions in the aircraft before TO rather than in the flight planner.  I don't know if all of this has an affect on the ATC timing for the TOD call-out, but it's been a little early on average for about a year.

If you’re not getting an approach assigned on arrival by ATC, that’s maybe why you’re not having issues with ToD. The more realistic way to simulate it is to leave the runway and approach out of your flight plan, and to have ATC assign it to you on arrival into the airspace, then add it into the FMC, and fly it. 

I suppose - I base my runway choice and approach on the reported conditions at my destination and preload them, as that is probably going to be the proper approach anyway and it saves time.  However, when conditions change (especially strength and direction of wind) I request a new runway and approach and load them in.

I would note that ATC hardly ever gets the runway assignment correct.  This is the major failing of the built-in ATC, usually assigning the exact opposite runway for the prevailing surface winds.

2 hours ago, RandallR said:

I suppose - I base my runway choice and approach on the reported conditions at my destination and preload them, as that is probably going to be the proper approach anyway and it saves time.  However, when conditions change (especially strength and direction of wind) I request a new runway and approach and load them in.

I would note that ATC hardly ever gets the runway assignment correct.  This is the major failing of the built-in ATC, usually assigning the exact opposite runway for the prevailing surface winds.

Agreed... default ATC can be frustrating so you really have to pick your poison with them.  In the past, I've opted to have them assign me the runway and approach even if it's incorrect just so I'm familiar with the real-world cockpit procedures (and not so much about if it lines up with the actual weather).  I'm currently looking at alternatives though so I don't need to compromise.

9 hours ago, Virtual-Chris said:

If you’re not getting an approach assigned on arrival by ATC, that’s maybe why you’re not having issues with ToD. The more realistic way to simulate it is to leave the runway and approach out of your flight plan, and to have ATC assign it to you on arrival into the airspace, then add it into the FMC, and fly it. 

Most of my flights are mirroring a current real world flight. I get the flight info within an hour of the real flight departing, and Simbrief usually has the same full flight plan in the route as shown in Flightaware. 

My point is that the most likely runway and STAR based on the current weather are loaded into the FMC during preflight. At some point during the flight, ATC may assign you a different runway or STAR, and you simply make the changes on the arrival page if and when that happens. The TOD will probably not be too different since ATC will usually only have a one or two STARs leading in from any given direction. 

Edited August 30, 20223 yr by MDFlier

16 minutes ago, MDFlier said:

Most of my flights are mirroring a current real world flight. I get the flight info within an hour of the real flight departing, and Simbrief usually has the same full flight plan in the route as shown in Flightaware. 

My point is that the most likely runway and STAR based on the current weather are loaded into the FMC during preflight. At some point during the flight, ATC may assign you a different runway or STAR, and you simply make the changes on the arrival page if and when that happens. The TOD will probably not be too different since ATC will usually only have a one or two STARs leading in from any given direction. 

Yeah nothing wrong with that. But my understanding is those real world flights you’re simulating don’t have a runway or approach in the flight plan when departing. That gets added enroute after ATC gives you the info. The pilots then add the runway, approach, and transition to the FMC and fly it. So i guess it ultimately depends on what you want to simulate. 

9 hours ago, Virtual-Chris said:

Yeah nothing wrong with that. But my understanding is those real world flights you’re simulating don’t have a runway or approach in the flight plan when departing. That gets added enroute after ATC gives you the info. The pilots then add the runway, approach, and transition to the FMC and fly it. So i guess it ultimately depends on what you want to simulate. 

Afaik it's not uncommon to put an expected STAR into the filed flightplan and to even enter it in the systems. ATC will indeed actually assign a STAR later on but quite often this will be the same as the expected one and if not it can easily be changed. I think adding a STAR before departure is a wise thing to do because they can make a difference to the amount of fuel you might need or the altitude you might need to fly. I know it is fun to let yourself be surprised by ATC and to change things on the spot but I doubt if real world pilots are that fond of surprises. 😉 The more they can plan ahead, the better. So your desire to only use ATC addons that ONLY tell you the STAR and approach during cruise might be not as realistic as you think. Would be nice if a real world airline pilot would chime in here. 😉

11 hours ago, Virtual-Chris said:

Yeah nothing wrong with that. But my understanding is those real world flights you’re simulating don’t have a runway or approach in the flight plan when departing. That gets added enroute after ATC gives you the info. The pilots then add the runway, approach, and transition to the FMC and fly it. So i guess it ultimately depends on what you want to simulate. 

Asked about this on the Fenix A320 Discord and in the US STARs are part of the flight plan and entered into the system on the ground already because over there STARs are the same for all runways and only depend on the direction you are coming from (which usually won't change during a flight 😉 ). In Europe STARs often are different for every runway but "you can happily pre-load the most likely runway and star and change as required. At some stage ATC will confirm." The latter is a quote from a real world A320 pilot.

5 hours ago, tup61 said:

Afaik it's not uncommon to put an expected STAR into the filed flightplan and to even enter it in the systems. ATC will indeed actually assign a STAR later on but quite often this will be the same as the expected one and if not it can easily be changed. I think adding a STAR before departure is a wise thing to do because they can make a difference to the amount of fuel you might need or the altitude you might need to fly. I know it is fun to let yourself be surprised by ATC and to change things on the spot but I doubt if real world pilots are that fond of surprises. 😉 The more they can plan ahead, the better. So your desire to only use ATC addons that ONLY tell you the STAR and approach during cruise might be not as realistic as you think. Would be nice if a real world airline pilot would chime in here. 😉

Yeah, but I explicitly mentioned an approach, runway and transition would be assigned… not STAR. 

45 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

Yeah, but I explicitly mentioned an approach, runway and transition would be assigned… not STAR. 

Yep, but what I said also applies to those things.

2 hours ago, tup61 said:

Yep, but what I said also applies to those things.

I suspect we agree and are just discussing nuances here.

Of course, you can pre-program the FMC with a likely runway and approach, and it’s possible that sone commercial airlines dispatch or flight planning teams preload these and the pilots then change them on arrival if necessary.

For a destination like Vancouver, you will certainly be landing on either 26R or 8L but it really depends on which way the wind is blowing so programming an approach is a coin-toss as the wind direction can change based on time of day and other weather.

The problem is, pre-programming with most ATC add-ons, particularly default ATC, will ensure that pre-programmed approach is used even if it’s not correct for the weather. The best way to simulate getting an approach assigned by ATC is to leave the approach out of the flight plan. Of course, with default ATC, your assigned approach will be random and not based on weather (from what I’ve seen) so it’s not truly realistic, but at least you’re simulating the procedure. 

It’s important to me to have ATC assign an approach and not just use the one I programmed. Ideally it would give me one based on traffic procedures and weather and if that matched what I had programmed, grest, but if not, it would overrule me and I would have to change my flight plan. As long as I’m using default ATC I won’t program an approach to ensure this. 

But the VNAV TOD for example inside the G1000 for the approach are correct?

For example LXGB with VNAV (RNAV approach) i had sinkrates of 800-900 feet per minute. Actually ATC game me the decend instruction around the same time as the VNAV kicking in

Edited August 30, 20223 yr by wiggum

What I do in MSFS flightplanner, I don't insert any STAR on it (even if I'm planning my flight with a specific STAR). For the MSFS planner I choose a waypoint which is about 30NM to 50NM outbound of the destination airport as last waypoint of the flightplan. I keep all arrival procedures on "automatic". 

With this kind of planning, ATC will give you an early enough TOD (most of the times).

Then I do my flight with some STAR, Trans and RWY programmed in the FMS. Coming close to the last waypoint given in the planner, ATC will give me arrival instructions. If I like them (according to my plans and actual wind situation on the airport) I follow it. If I don't like it, I request another rwy and/or TRANS by ATC (or a direct to > via own navigation). ATC is pretty generous regarding the routing to your rwy. So you can fly a suitable STAR if you like, even if ATC gave you a direct to.

The STAR gives you more time to descent - whereas ATC calculates with a direct-to from your last waypoint directly to the airport and lets you descent a bit earlier. If you program a STAR in the MSFS planner, ATC calculates with the last waypoint of the star and let you begin your descent way later.