Is Simbrief sufficient to Plan ILS SIDS & STARS

[Jazz 1,047]

1 minute ago, Bobsk8 said:

You select the approach,once you determine the runway,and then all the VIA's  are show in a list for that approach. You click on one, and on the moving map it shows where that Via connects from where you are to the approach,if you don't  like that one, click on the next one etc. etc. Takes me about 15 seconds to figure out the entire approach, and everything connects perfectly, and I don't have to screw around juggling charts. Same goes for SIDs, once you find active runway at the airport you are leaving. 

Yeah, that's how I remember it. Navigraph just does it better. It takes 15 seconds for people who know what they are doing like you or I. But it bamboozles newcomers and people trying to understand how it works.

Navigraph just does it for you and it doesn't even take 15 seconds.

[Johnny Wyatt 152]

I use Pilot2ATC (that can import Simbrief) so I don't have to plan SIDs and STARs and approaches, I fly what the ATC tells me to! There's even an option to check so that it gives you varied approaches rather than always the ILS.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Johnny Wyatt

[Tom_L 558]

45 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

I suppose my initial question is what is a VIA?

Basically the VIA is the part from the IAF (Initial Approach FIX) to the FAF (Final Approach Fix). That depends on how the approach is layed out. In the example below there are two possible IAFs: NVO VOR and COL VOR. The FAF is RARIX.

The MCDU would give you three options for the ILS 32R:

• No VIA
• NVO
• COL

It depends on your flightplan, which VIA makes sense: if your flightplan and/or the STAR ends at COL or NVO, you would enter those as your VIA. If you expect vectors from the end of your enroute segment, or you are cleared for a STAR that ends at RARIX, you would choose NO VIA. So in many cases you would need to have access to the charts (STAR and APPROACH) to make the right choice.

 

[jarmstro 2,406]

12 minutes ago, Tom_L said:

Basically the VIA is the part from the IAF (Initial Approach FIX) to the FAF (Final Approach Fix). That depends on how the approach is layed out. In the example below there are two possible IAFs: NVO VOR and COL VOR. The FAF is RARIX.

The MCDU would give you three options for the ILS 32R:

• No VIA
• NVO
• COL

It depends on your flightplan, which VIA makes sense: if your flightplan and/or the STAR ends at COL or NVO, you would enter those as your VIA. If you expect vectors from the end of your enroute segment, or you are cleared for a STAR that ends at RARIX, you would choose NO VIA. So in many cases you would need to have access to the charts (STAR and APPROACH) to make the right choice.

 

Thanks so much for your reply and I apologise for banging on about it. I am determined to understand. The trouble I have is that none of the via waypoints very often do not appear on the approach chart?

And, for instance, on approach to EGGD I always have the option in the FMC to choose either BR1 or BR2 as the via? But how can I know what the difference is? And why on earth I can't just do a direct approach rather than going over the BR VOR and backtrack defies logic? And what's the difference between BR1 and BR2? I've looked and looked.

Edited February 8, 2023 by jarmstro

[Tom_L 558]

24 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

either BR1 or BR2 as the via?

I have to check in the aircraft which is which, but it depends on your aircraft category, as light aircraft (A&B) have to use an outbound track of 097°, heavier ones like a 737 or A320 (C&D) have to fly an outbound track of 103° until commencing the procedure turn at 8.0 DME. The VIAs BR1 and BR2 describe these two different tracks from BRI NDB to the FAF, which is D5.8 IBTS.

 

Edit: I just checked, in case of the ILS27, BR1 is the one for Cat C&D aircraft with outbound track of 103°

Edited February 8, 2023 by Tom_L

[Jazz 1,047]

8 minutes ago, Tom_L said:

I have to check in the aircraft which is which, but it depends on your aircraft category, as light aircraft (A&B) have to use an outbound track of 097°, heavier ones like a 737 or A320 (C&D) have to fly an outbound track of 103° until commencing the procedure turn at 8.0 DME. The VIAs BR1 and BR2 describe these two different tracks from BRI NDB to the FAF, which is D5.8 IBTS.

In my experience this is usually the difference.

[Tom_L 558]

26 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

And why on earth I can't just do a direct approach rather than going over the BR VOR

The approach has been layed out by the authorities that way. I don't know how ATC in EGGD handles the traffic, but usually somewhere during initial approach I would expect to get vectors to the final and not flying the procedure. The same goes for many STARs or transitions in Europe, normally you'll be vectored onto the final.

[martinboehme 583]

Maybe it's worth revisiting what the purpose of the initial approach segment is: It gets you from a fix on an airway, or from the endpoint of a STAR, to the final approach fix in a way that a) aligns you with the final approach course, and b) guarantees terrain and obstruction clearance. Simply going direct to the final approach fix would not necessarily achieve either of these objectives, and of course there are still aircraft that aren't RNAV capable and are therefore simply unable to go directly to the final approach fix.

In practice, as others have pointed out, ATC will often give you vectors that get you onto the final approach more expeditiously. But the "full procedure" still needs to be available, at the very least, for the case of lost comms, when you obviously won't be able to get vectors.

If you're flying without online or offline ATC, you can "self-vector" yourself onto the final approach using what you see on the ND, but unless you stay above the MSA, you can't really know that you're giving yourself terrain and obstruction clearance.

Another thing that's pertinent in this context is that there are different "styles" in which approaches can be constructed. The approach at EGGD that we've been discussing is very "classical" in that it can be flown without RNAV -- it provides a "teardrop" course reversal that commences at a navaid located at the airport. Nowadays, many approaches define initial approach segments that can only be flown using RNAV. Often, these are in fact intended to be flown day-to-day, as the idea is to provide a way for ATC to get you onto the approach without needing to issue any vectors, thus reducing ATC workload.

[jarmstro 2,406]

17 minutes ago, martinboehme said:

Maybe it's worth revisiting what the purpose of the initial approach segment is: It gets you from a fix on an airway, or from the endpoint of a STAR, to the final approach fix in a way that a) aligns you with the final approach course, and b) guarantees terrain and obstruction clearance. Simply going direct to the final approach fix would not necessarily achieve either of these objectives, and of course there are still aircraft that aren't RNAV capable and are therefore simply unable to go directly to the final approach fix.

In practice, as others have pointed out, ATC will often give you vectors that get you onto the final approach more expeditiously. But the "full procedure" still needs to be available, at the very least, for the case of lost comms, when you obviously won't be able to get vectors.

If you're flying without online or offline ATC, you can "self-vector" yourself onto the final approach using what you see on the ND, but unless you stay above the MSA, you can't really know that you're giving yourself terrain and obstruction clearance.

Another thing that's pertinent in this context is that there are different "styles" in which approaches can be constructed. The approach at EGGD that we've been discussing is very "classical" in that it can be flown without RNAV -- it provides a "teardrop" course reversal that commences at a navaid located at the airport. Nowadays, many approaches define initial approach segments that can only be flown using RNAV. Often, these are in fact intended to be flown day-to-day, as the idea is to provide a way for ATC to get you onto the approach without needing to issue any vectors, thus reducing ATC workload.

Out of interest. Why is it considered safe to fly a plane directly over a busy airport such as Bristol in this teardrop loop as part of the approach procedure? Wouldn't it be better for planes to stay clear and enter the ILS from as far away from the airport as possible?

[martinboehme 583]

25 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Out of interest. Why is it considered safe to fly a plane directly over a busy airport such as Bristol in this teardrop loop as part of the approach procedure? Wouldn't it be better for planes to stay clear and enter the ILS from as far away from the airport as possible?

It's safe because ATC will only clear you for the approach if they can guarantee separation from other traffic.

Nowadays, this is typically done with radar. In the old days, before radar was widely available, this was done by only ever clearing a single aircraft for the approach at a time. Any other aircraft would be kept in the hold, above the approach, until the first aircraft had completed the approach. In some regions, this is still done today. Obviously, though, this doesn't allow very high arrival rates.

Ultimately, all aircraft will be converging on the airport anyway -- so the only way to keep things safe is to have ATC enforce separation.

Edit: It's certainly true though that an aircraft flying the teardrop will make ATC's job harder -- which is why, it it's busy, ATC will often be reluctant to clear you for the full procedure.

Edited February 8, 2023 by martinboehme

[bigifooti 156]

2 hours ago, jarmstro said:

Thanks so much for your reply and I apologise for banging on about it. I am determined to understand. The trouble I have is that none of the via waypoints very often do not appear on the approach chart?

And, for instance, on approach to EGGD I always have the option in the FMC to choose either BR1 or BR2 as the via? But how can I know what the difference is? And why on earth I can't just do a direct approach rather than going over the BR VOR and backtrack defies logic? And what's the difference between BR1 and BR2? I've looked and looked.

The difference is often the outbound track; https://www.aurora.nats.co.uk/htmlAIP/Publications/2023-01-26-AIRAC/graphics/229462.pdf

Or sometimes they have slight difference in the go around procedures, or are meant for different class aircraft. 

I encourage everyone to try not to use simbrief at first... just to learn the flight planning bit. Picking your own SID, from where you pick up an Airway. Than figuring out what STAR and approach your is best to use that day.

You will get way better situational awareness that way. It really helps you when the ATC suddenly give you different fixes or holding points or changes runways. 

 

I can basically flightplan (expect the weigths) with https://skyvector.com/ and https://chartfox.org/. Once you've done it a couple of time, Simbrief becomes a short cut on quickly making a flightplans. 

 

 

[MDFlier 2,031]

On 2/7/2023 at 11:27 PM, jarmstro said:

I use SimBrief and Navigraph. But I am not a pilot and even though I have been simming for many years I am still unsure as to how you pick which VIA to use on approach? Where can you see the VIAs and on which chart? Mostly the waypoints are not mentioned on the approach chart?  SimBrief does not seem to tell you this and the FBW seems to need one to prevent the approach going haywire. Thanks for any help.

 

On 2/8/2023 at 12:18 AM, MikeyOnTheFlightDeck said:

I also struggle with vias on approach too and would love to know how I find out what one is used in the real world at the time of my flight 

I try to give myself a couple of extra minutes of pre-flight time whenever I am planning to fly an approach I've never flown before. I use this time to figure out which via to use. When in doubt, I just pick the first one. Once I have everything completely set up for my flight, the last thing I do is turn the ND display mode to PLN, and then go to the legs page on the FMC. I  use Next Page button to quickly get to the arrival portion of the flight plan and look at it on the ND. I can easily tell if the via I selected makes sense for the direction that I am arriving from by the track line. If I see crazy U turns, or big wide sweeps out of your way, then I know that it is the wrong one. I use the FO's FMC to select a different one, and see how it looks on the map. In most cases, I can figure out which one is the correct one in less than a minute or so.

One of the vias is usually waypoint on the centerline of the runway further out than the final approach fix. That one is usually shown on the RNAV or ILS approach plate. Many times, the other via waypoints are shown on the arrival chart, but you need to look at the edges of the chart for an arrow pointing in the direction of that waypoint showing the distance and direction to it since it is positioned off of the chart. There is sometimes a little box with the hold information next to that label as well.

[PDX Flyer 111]

On 2/7/2023 at 9:34 PM, Jeff Nielsen said:

It's best to simulate how it 'would be done' and not how it 'was' just done.  This is where you can learn to stop "gold mining" for flight plans out of flight aware or flight radar...hehe.  Now Simbrief or other planners will likely take a lot of those routes anyways, but it starts forcing your mindset in to thinking about what actually makes sense.  That's when SIDs and STARs will start to make more sense to you.

 

On 2/8/2023 at 2:16 AM, Jazz said:

I actually create my flight plan in Simbrief. I don't let Navigraph generate a plight plan for my Airliner IFR stuff. Simbrief normally does a very good job of creating a flight plan with appropriate SID's and STARS. Well, sometimes I have issue with the flightplans themselves but the SID's and STARS are normally spot-on.

Sorry for the late response, but I want to thank both Jeff and Jazz for taking so much time to respond to this post.  Invaluable information from both of you and all the other posters.  No this is no easy, but I am going to keep trying to learn this.  Happy flying to all.

[Jazz 1,047]

1 hour ago, PDX Flyer said:

 

Sorry for the late response, but I want to thank both Jeff and Jazz for taking so much time to respond to this post.  Invaluable information from both of you and all the other posters.  No this is no easy, but I am going to keep trying to learn this.  Happy flying to all.

Well, you're quite welcome. Happy to be of any help if I can be and if you need help, everyone here is quite happy to help, I'm sure.

[billkirk888 28]

On 2/7/2023 at 5:52 PM, btacon said:

I’m so old I remember when we planned and flew with paper charts and (gasp) pencil and paper! 😎😎😎

Wait.. does that make me old??  lol

I confess, I bit the bullet with Navigraph last year about this time.  It is so worth the money.  I do still use pencil and paper though.