16 minutes ago, flyingscampi said:

Not a pilot, but as a sailor I plan a trip on Admiralty charts, then check the chartplotter matches. No vertical navigation, but you still need to be wary of the ground on the East coast 🙂

Yes Sir, so many recent incidents when ships ended up where they shouldn't have been.

1 hour ago, BrammyH said:

In this case, there is an assumption the VNAV and BATC are accurate. Even RW pilots don't fully trust the VNAV and monitor the constraints on the way down.

The charts are basically the map of where you are going. Now, Navigraph is using a GPS to plot your point. But even using something like chart fox is helpful.

But here's the thing with BATC, and AI apps. You say you come in fast and high. This is because BATC and its ilk are famous for just vectoring you right onto the FAF. At the least, the approach charts tell you the routes, altitudes and speeds you should be at. Now, granted, some of those are for traffic considerations. But sometimes it's terrain. Which as people have noted BATC does a horrid job of its awareness.

  I've noticed sometimes what VNAV thinks the constraints should be, and what they actually are can be two different things.

Well, you've pretty much summed up why I probably won't go there.  If I were or ever would be a RW pilot then for sure I would be deeply into understanding how to use charts to insure our digitized routing is where it needs to be at a minimum.   To be completely honest in decades of flying biz jets on up to the heavies never had an issues just following routes coming out of SB or even out of MSFS and FSX, P3D before so double-checking against a chart is a little over the top for my use.  And, nothing's really on the line of course--I would not notice an improved outcome ultimately because the digital routing is almost always fine.   TBH it's only been the addition of BATC that brought in some confusion and poorer outcomes.  And...when BATC does things like tell me to turn 90 degrees into a base leg to capture an approach intersect even though I"m 12K over the runway I just ignore and follow the rest of the input route.

2 hours ago, Noel said:

And...when BATC does things like tell me to turn 90 degrees into a base leg to capture an approach intersect even though I"m 12K over the runway I just ignore and follow the rest of the input route.

Yeah, in these cases I'll vector myself. I'll take a long downwind to get to a good height. I think the biggest challenge with all the ATC programs is instructions for pilots when they are in a suboptimal situation.

In terms of the approach plates, even with BATC I find them helpful. For example, going into Boston, on the ROBUC3 Arrival I'll look for the |6000| and know I need to cross GOSHI at 6000. So I'll dial in 6000. The next one I care about is the altitude to grab the glide slope and I find that one to be more useful. 

This can save time in the cases where BATC instead of telling you to "descend via the ROBUC3 arrival", it steps you down to each restriction. In those cases, I'll put 6k in since I know the end altitude. That said, a lot of times AI ATC will just LOL at the charts anyway. I fly out of Boston a lot on Vatsim. The top alt on all the SIDS is 5k. It will often tell me, 6, 10, 14 or so.

I'm not trying to change your mind, but having the charts lets you get ahead of the plane a little bit and maybe we see where BATC is bringing you in high.

21 minutes ago, BrammyH said:

I'm not trying to change your mind, but having the charts lets you get ahead of the plane a little bit and maybe we see where BATC is bringing you in high.

I'm not following why that is the case over just using the FMC at least in systems that display constraints.  Right now I'm getting ready to TO at KSEA in the I-Fly 737 MAX 8.  BATC says, "HAROB6 departure, w/ FEPOT transition, then as filed."  The FMC shows at HAROB 10,000ft, FEPOT 26500ft and all waypoints before and after.  Maybe it's for example knowing what's happening between HAROB6 and FEPOT?

I'm curious as well about what altitude to set when BATC just tells you to "climb via STAR".   In some cases, the final waypoint on the STAR has an altitude present but in others, there is nothing.    In those cases, what do I set my altitude at? 

1 hour ago, Noel said:

I'm not following why that is the case over just using the FMC at least in systems that display constraints.  Right now I'm getting ready to TO at KSEA in the I-Fly 737 MAX 8.  BATC says, "HAROB6 departure, w/ FEPOT transition, then as filed."  The FMC shows at HAROB 10,000ft, FEPOT 26500ft and all waypoints before and after.  Maybe it's for example knowing what's happening between HAROB6 and FEPOT?

In general, even with the sainted Fenix I just don't trust the FMC constraints. It is rare, but I have had times where the Fenix (which I keep up to date with Navigraph) gets the constraints wrong. And when it does, it is higher. This is going to mess up a lot of things since I'll be hitting a waypoint a couple thousand feet higher than I should be. So, yeah, I'll check the constraints on every approach.

Now, as much as I want to verify everything in the FMC with the AI ATC, you bet I am checking what they tell me against a chart. Because if the constraints are there for terrain, I do not for one second think AI ATC is going to be aware of terrain. Especially in a place like Paro or Juneau, or really, any RNAV approach that has obstacles.

But the main thing with the approach charts is seeing what you will expect on approach. For example, this is the approach chart for Runway 08 in Juneau (PAJN).  Like I said, it's the map.

I've had AI ATC  bring me right over the terrain at the end of the runway.

Even in a sim, staying ahead of the plane is good. You mentioned "BATC will bring you in too high" and I would bet a lot of that would be resolved looking at the charts. I find the last little bit of an arrival is where the AI ATC programs are the biggest disappointment.

I can handle if the constraints are really there for traffic or noise. Like you said, none of those "matter" in the sim. But I'd prefer not heading into a mountain.

 

3 minutes ago, 11bee said:

I'm curious as well about what altitude to set when BATC just tells you to "climb via STAR".   In some cases, the final waypoint on the STAR has an altitude present but in others, there is nothing.    In those cases, what do I set my altitude at? 

Well, you aren't going to get a "climb via a STAR" it will be a SID. STAR are approaches. 🙂

The charts will tell you the top altitude. Sometimes it will say "assigned by ATC" and if ATC doesn't tell you, I usually just set for 10k AGL.

55 minutes ago, BrammyH said:

Because if the constraints are there for terrain, I do not for one second think AI ATC is going to be aware of terrain....

Indeed that is clear to me!  For a very long time I just flew without ATC--mainly waiting for default ATC to improve more so just got used to it.  I am still doing a word not allowedized version of ATC to make matters murkier:  I don't use BATC's traffic generator, so for me, ATC is mainly ambience enhancement.  I think for now I'll just see how things go when I use the FINAL waypoint in a SID/STAR and see if that solves the basic issue I brought this up about and as a consequence improves the higher than expected arrivals.   It's not always too high by any stretch but again, I've been unclear on what the expectation when you get Descend via really is and would descend lower than I thought I was being instructed to do to cope with this issue.

You've been very helpful framing the reasons for using charts I appreciate your efforts-thanks.  

A few more arguments for using charts... 

1. They look great. Ever since I was a kid, I've admired the aesthetic of navigation charts.

2. It can be fun to build a route yourself. (Fun is in the eye of the simmer, of course.)

3. It's easier to get a sense of the visual extent of a SID, STAR, or approach--where it connects to the upper airspace, which IAF is most efficient for your flight, etc. Of course you can see this by loading one procedure after another in the FMC, but it's faster to just page through the charts.

4. Some navigation items are contained on the charts only. For example, approach waypoints in the 747 can only be entered as speed and altitude pairs. ("Maintain airspeed XXX at altitude YYY.") However, some procedures require a certain airspeed at a waypoint that you might cross at variable altitudes. In these cases, the speed restriction will be on the chart, but it won't be in the FMC--you have to speed intervene and set it manually. Same with things like minimum safe/sector altitudes, runway incursion hotspots, or warnings about the ILS not being on the same heading as the runway.

Like @BrammyH above, I'm also not trying to change your mind--part of the fun of a simulator is that you can do whatever you want with it--but for me the charts have always added a certain richness to the experience. Back in the early 2000's I purchased (on Ebay) a set of paper Jeppesen charts covering every airport and upper airway in the entire United States. If I recall correctly, it cost me about $100 and was a snapshot in time, never updated, and yet at the time it was a prized possession. I never would have thought that now in 2025, I could have the entire world through a Navigraph subscription, updated in real time as procedures get rewritten and adjusted.

 

Edited November 18, 2025Nov 18 by prolixindec

11 hours ago, prolixindec said:

Like @BrammyH above, I'm also not trying to change your mind--part of the fun of a simulator is that you can do whatever you want with it--but for me the charts have always added a certain richness to the experience.

That is part of the fun--the openness of it in terms of doing what you want to do to enrich time spent.  I think one reason I haven't jumped into charts, besides the fact they look like hieroglyphics to me 🤔, is that as an airliner flyer I keep busy enough flying for score using Self Loading Cargo that adding another task w/o a co-pilot to share the load.  In fact it's really flying for score that helps keep me mentally involved.  It adds artificial consequences as there are none in a simulator!  In fact, I'd likely spend far less time flying were it not for SLC's scoring element.  That being said you've all made a good case for my at least looking into using charts.  Yes, I need Ryan's crash course!

On 11/16/2025 at 4:01 PM, G550flyer said:

. I may hear, "cleared the XXX arrival, descend and maintain 13,000". They cleared the arrival, but instructed me to descend to 13,000.

and if they don't get back to you after you reach 13000 and you must really descend to follow the arrival

Edited November 19, 2025Nov 19 by Ron Lefebvre

12 hours ago, Noel said:

That being said you've all made a good case for my at least looking into using charts.

One thing that may demystify the experience for you is that the FAA and the chart designers all have pretty obsessive personalities... there are legends available that explain every single line, figure, or textual component you'll ever see. So it's not like you're expected to hear it once and then rely on your memory. You can have a PDF of the legend open right next to the PDF of your chart. It's even, dare I say, fairly intuitive once you learn the language.

In fact, looking at charts can explain some of the things you experience elsewhere in the environment. For example, your ATC program will give you periodic frequency changes. Well, there are ATC sectors marked on IFR sectionals (green lines), and when your aircraft crosses one of those green lines, you move from one sector to another and you'll be given a new frequency to use to talk to a different controller. Another example: your route might contain a strange sharp turn, and by looking at the chart, you can see that there is restricted airspace you need to avoid. Sure, it could be trivial and of no real consequence in the sim, but it could also add to the "immersion," based on how approach simming.

I ignore some of these calls from batc and follow the charts or calculated TOD. Most of the time its close.

Edited November 21, 2025Nov 21 by Sonosusto