4 minutes ago, Noel said:

At TIMBRS3 the altitude is 12K feet on the FMC which is why I asssumed I should descend to that altitude.

Mmm... no the constraint at TIMBRS is to just be above FL120 not be at FL120

5 minutes ago, Noel said:

What was I supposed to do?

Fly the STAR? the only AT constraint for the TIMBR3 via RW10L is to be at 5000 at PUBB. everything else is an above, below or a combination of both.

4 minutes ago, Noel said:

HELP BATC users!  I'm confused, again!

I'm flying into KPDX in the Longitude.  120mi out I tell it I'm ready for descent (to 10L per its instruct).  It tells me to descend via TEMBRS3 arrival.  So I start a so-called 'idle descent'. which puts me at 12K feet 90 miles out.  What was I supposed to do?  In the past, w/o ATC (or with default ATC) I would create a descent my less steep than idle.  What *should* I be doing with that instruct?  At TIMBRS3 the altitude is 12K feet on the FMC which is why I asssumed I should descend to that altitude.

Follow the chart. https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/2503/pdf/00330TMBRS.PDF

https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/2503/pdf/00330TMBRS_C.PDF

https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/2503/pdf/00330TMBRS_C2.PDF

8 minutes ago, Noel said:

HELP BATC users!  I'm confused, again!

I'm flying into KPDX in the Longitude.  120mi out I tell it I'm ready for descent (to 10L per its instruct).  It tells me to descend via TEMBRS3 arrival.  So I start a so-called 'idle descent'. which puts me at 12K feet 90 miles out.  What was I supposed to do?  In the past, w/o ATC (or with default ATC) I would create a descent my less steep than idle.  What *should* I be doing with that instruct?  At TIMBRS3 the altitude is 12K feet on the FMC which is why I asssumed I should descend to that altitude.

Good question! I would descend to 5000ft at the final waypoint of PUBBB and follow the altitude and speed restrictions on the STAR. I don’t think there’s a valid transition between TEMBRS3 and ILS 10L, so I suppose BATC will give vectors to the localizer at some stage.

I’m interested to hear how others interpret this though.

Not sure if people have seen it, but there's currently a poll on the BATC Discord to vote on the next Community feature. You can cast your vote until Sunday.

As it stands it looks like this:

1. GSX Integration - 42%
2. CPDLC - 21%
3. Seamless Turnaround - 19%
4. Divert to Simbrief Alternate - 10%
5. Queued Button Replies - 8%

I struggle a bit with the current ranking but apparently that's what people want. Not sure how much benefit GSX integration is, I mean what is that even supposed to do? Link with the gate I'm assigned by BATC? I'm usually requesting a different one anyway...all this to save me pressing 2 buttons in GSX, great "feature".

I also really don't get seamless turnaround. It's literally going to BATC, pressing ESC and reloading the flight plan. How it's almost tied with CPDLC, which in my opinion would be a proper new cool feature is beyond me.

The 2 I'd be excited about are CPDLC and Diversion, but looks like the community is lazy and prefers whatever GSX integration is, which I find pretty disappointing as a big "community feature". Historic weather is another one I'd love so that I don't get discrepancies when using the 24hrs historic live weather in 2024. I really expected more here...

5 minutes ago, Speedbird 217 said:

Not sure if people have seen it, but there's currently a poll on the BATC Discord to vote on the next Community feature. You can cast your vote until Sunday.

As it stands it looks like this:

1. GSX Integration - 42%
2. CPDLC - 21%
3. Seamless Turnaround - 19%
4. Divert to Simbrief Alternate - 10%
5. Queued Button Replies - 8%

I struggle a bit with the current ranking but apparently that's what people want. Not sure how much benefit GSX integration is, I mean what is that even supposed to do? Link with the gate I'm assigned by BATC? I'm usually requesting a different one anyway...all this to save me pressing 2 buttons in GSX, great "feature".

I also really don't get seamless turnaround. It's literally going to BATC, pressing ESC and reloading the flight plan. How it's almost tied with CPDLC, which in my opinion would be a proper new cool feature is beyond me.

The 2 I'd be excited about are CPDLC and Diversion, but looks like the community is lazy and prefers whatever GSX integration is, which I find pretty disappointing as a big "community feature". Historic weather is another one I'd love so that I don't get discrepancies when using the 24hrs historic live weather in 2024. I really expected more here...

What are Queued Button Replies? That is the only thing I might be interested in. 

1 minute ago, Bobsk8 said:

What are Queued Button Replies? That is the only thing I might be interested in. 

"Queued Button Replies is allowing the user to submit requests via button control while the comm is busy with traffic speaking".

I agree that would be a neat feature but again, there just seems to be a big discrepancy here in terms of what the features actually add and how much work they seem to me (fully admitting I'm a layman). I mean take this one here, queued button replies...I'm by no means an expert but all it really seems to be is keeping the button options on screen when someone else is talking, allowing me to press the option I want and it then just queues it and sends it when someone else is done talking on the frequency. Do they really insist that's a "feature"? I can't imagine that's very hard to code at all and should just be done anyway. Same with GSX integration...it already exists with various aircraft, so if all it does is speak via API or whatever and tell GSX what gate BATC has assigned me after landing...that doesn't sound like much of a feature.

CPDLC would be a proper new feature. Or unlocking diverts... those things actually sound like a lot of work.

36 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

Mmm... no the constraint at TIMBRS is to just be above FL120 not be at FL120

Fly the STAR? the only AT constraint for the TIMBR3 via RW10L is to be at 5000 at PUBB. everything else is an above, below or a combination of both.

Thanks for that.  My question was more about the initial descent from 120 miles out and doing an idle descent put me way down to 12K feet 90 miles from destination and that didn't seem right.  I guess I have been fooled by former default ATC which gave steps all the way down often and I got used to following that.   So does the RW pilot just decide the rate of descent required to get to 12K feet (alright, 12,001 ft 😉) over 100 miles and go with that?  I think I read somewhere ATC assumes idle descent but clearly that's not what's happening.

42 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

I don’t think there’s a valid transition between TEMBRS3 and ILS 10L, so I suppose BATC will give vectors to the localizer at some stage.

And it did for sure ;o)

13 minutes ago, Noel said:

Thanks for that.  My question was more about the initial descent from 120 miles out and doing an idle descent put me way down to 12K feet 90 miles from destination and that didn't seem right.  I guess I have been fooled by former default ATC which gave steps all the way down often and I got used to following that.   So does the RW pilot just decide the rate of descent required to get to 12K feet (alright, 12,001 ft 😉) over 100 miles and go with that?  I think I read somewhere ATC assumes idle descent but clearly that's not what's happening.

I posted links to the star, I guess you didn't look at them. ??

8 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I posted links to the star, I guess you didn't look at them. ??

I think it was Machu that the route took me to and it says on the chart 18,000'.  So with that, 120mi out one looks at miles to Machu and creates a descent profile to get to 18,000'?   Once at the STAR I just follow whatever is in the FMC and that works fine it's just the initial descent.  Thanks I will try that next time up.  

Edited April 4, 20251 yr by Noel

1 hour ago, Cpt_Piett said:

so I suppose BATC will give vectors to the localizer at some stage.

The approach chart even tells you exactly that. The tightly packed black arrows (or triangles whatever) means "Radar vectors" after PUBBB.

1 hour ago, Speedbird 217 said:

I also really don't get seamless turnaround. It's literally going to BATC, pressing ESC and reloading the flight plan. How it's almost tied with CPDLC, which in my opinion would be a proper new cool feature is beyond me.

I don't want to reload AI. I want to see them keep doing their thing while I setup for another flight. If they're landing, taking off, etc, they'll just keep going...

3 hours ago, Noel said:

I think I read somewhere ATC assumes idle descent but clearly that's not what's happening.

No… the norm is a 3 degree descent path. I don’t know if the longitude has VNAV or advisory VNAV but you can also use a TOD calculator to determine you’re expected v/s. The idea is to maintain a fixed descent angle to capture your IAF with adherence to your constraints. 
 

Idle descent isn’t a fixed rule, you also don’t account for your actual descent speed on idle descent. What that speed is can greatly affect your descent angle. 

Edited April 4, 20251 yr by Lucky38i
Changed a word

If you are making a political comment or quoting one...don't expect your post to last any longer than a
snowball in the hot zone!

1 hour ago, Lucky38i said:

No… the norm is a 3 degree descent path. I don’t know if the longitude has VNAV or advisory VNAV but you can also use a TOD calculator to determine you’re expected v/s. The idea is to maintain a fixed descent angle to capture your IAF with adherence to your constraints. 
 

Idle descent isn’t a fixed rule, you also don’t account for your actual descent speed on idle descent. What that speed is can greatly affect your descent angle. 

Also how would ATC know what idle descent gives you on different airframes? It's the same with TOD. They don't know when it is, that's the pilot's job.