Jump to content

Approach plates


Recommended Posts

I was flying a short freight trip in AH yesterday from my new base KORS as supplied by ORBX...very nice it is too... destination was CAR3...small strip on side of mountain in a valley near to a river.. I habe Johns charts so I new the layout of this small airfield..

Problem was ATC...I was on IFR and came down through cloud and all was clear however ATC was like turn left descend from 11000 to 3300 airpot 2 miles ahead...

So question is should I look for Airport charts or is there a better atc that would route me through this area...

I dont mind paying a fee for subscription to approach charts but I only know of one done by I think Dauntless....

Side note this is a great area and KORS is a great addon...may look for another one within 150nm but must be FSX and P3D v2 compatible....

Thanks for any pointers and recomendations

Wayne

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wayne,

 

You are experiencing one of the inherent problems in the limitations of FSX ATC.

 

Unfortunately, with small airports, such as CAR3 and so many others in the mountainous regions of the Pacific Northwest, they may not even have official Aerodrome Diagrams, let alone approach / terminal charts.  What is available ranges from being free in electronic format (normally PDF) up to paying for official products (which may have limited use in FSX).  For the US go here.  For Canada go here.  There is normally a wealth of free data available from such web sites, such as airport diagrams.  It's just a matter of searching for exactly what you want.

 

Other than that, do a google search for airport approach charts or terminal procedures.  Add the country name to the search to refine it further.  Such searches will produce returns such as this web site, IVAO Canada, which has a range of aerodrome and procedures charts.

 

Oh, and go and have a look at this.  Scroll in to the blue area and it shows all the Orbx airport products available for the Pacific Northwest region.  Other regions are displayed within the other coloured boundaries.

 

Cheers

Andrew

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wain, in the specific case you describe, the best course at that point, given you are no longer in IMC and have the field in sight, is to cancel IFR and make a visual approach to the airport.  It's entirely legal and it's what would be done in the real world except by air transport pilots who are usually required to always fly IFR.  It's also permissible to remain under IFR controls but report the field in sight and perform a visual approach.

 

One problem with any real-world charts is that there are often differences between them and FSX.  Discrepancies in waypoints, navaids and even airport physical features are becoming ever more common as the real-world changes and FSX does not.  I don't have an answer for that dilemma, but it's one of the reasons I make airport diagrams that are based on FSX instead of using real-world charts.  Also, as Andrew points out, real world charts for small and even medium-sized airports are pretty difficult to come by.

 

Maybe I ought to start making approach plates too.  

 

John

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I take your point John, I did cancel Ifr and go around the airfield to lose altitude. I think maybe just planning ahead more and being more aware of where I am inrelation to the airfield, my altitude and the distance to travel.

 

I use your charts all the time, my essentials are a flight plan generated and printed from Plan-G and a chart of yours for my destination.

 

I am guessing that even if I was using VOXATC, MCE or RADAR CONTACT I would have been in the same position.

 

So as in the RW I guess its just more planning and like you say cancel IFR and go in on a route I have planned. The only flaw there is if the weather is bad (I use ASN) then I wont get in and would have to divert which is no good in AH unless I have plenty of time.

 

Is this why we are hooked on this because we love the challenge. I suppose if I was running out of time in AH I could just open the wether tab and change to clear sky.... :D

Wayne

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak for the others but RC would not have left you that high, that close in.  

 

For a small field with no published approaches, the best you can do is have ATC take you as close and as low as their procedures allow.  If you can't get a visual on the field, your only legal choice is to divert to a place with better WX or with a published approach that you are qualified and equipped to use.  I'm not sure if you can even file an IFR flight plan to a field that has no published approaches.  There must be a way to do that by filing for another nearby airport with the intention of cancelling if you can find VMC in the area, just not sure what the real world guys do in that situation.

 

That's one of the reasons IFR flight plans require an alternate airport and enough fuel to fly to your destination, fly to your alternate and enough for another 45 minutes.  Sometimes Mother Nature is a bitch, making fools of pilots, air traffic controllers and weather forecasters.

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are probably right, an IFR plan wouldnt be allowed to such an airfield.

 

Just been looking at PLAN-G and I can plan a VFR flight to a waypoint IKBAK then turn left and follow the road / valley / river straight in to CAR3 and that would put me lower and ready for an easier landing.

 

My fault really for being lazy and not planning correctly, I must now do the PLAN-G tutorial because this really is a great bit of kit. I think where I have been so busy Ijust wanted to fly and have not really got much experience in this area.

 

Thanks for your input.

 

Wayne

Link to post
Share on other sites

And there's always IFR - I follow roads (railways, take your pick).

 

You have to love it 2 miles to go and 7700 feet to get rid of. I don't think that'd be possible if you were flying a ROCK.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The best you can do is pull the throttle back to idle, put out all the flaps, kick the rudder hard one way and the ailerons the other and point the nose at the dirt (OK, actually point the side of the cowling at the dirt in this case). If you can still see any blue on the AI and you're still below Vfe, you don't have the nose pushed far enough over. You can get down pretty fast that way, but maybe not THAT fast. It is pretty exciting, however.

I guess maybe a spin would do it too, but I'm pretty sure that would be considered bad form for entering the pattern.

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best you can do is pull the throttle back to idle, put out all the flaps, kick the rudder hard one way and the ailerons the other and point the nose at the dirt (OK, actually point the side of the cowling at the dirt in this case). If you can still see any blue on the AI and you're still below Vfe, you don't have the nose pushed far enough over. You can get down pretty fast that way, but maybe not THAT fast. It is pretty exciting, however.

I guess maybe a spin would do it too, but I'm pretty sure that would be considered bad form for entering the pattern.

John

 

I doubt my favorite "full stall" approach technique would work for that rate of drop. I also do the cross controlled "Slip Drop" as described above by John some times...I am notorious for letting Netflix bring me in way to high, so getting down quick is kind of a specialty of mine :D. I fear that it would require a combination of a Slip Drop while making a turn or two to sink that approach.

 

My relationship with ATC is very limited. I ask permission to take off and land, then either ignore them and VFR to destination...or I might request Flight Following while VFR flying just to be appraised of any hazardous nearby traffic while I watch the inflight movie. :) I have let ATC IFR guide me a few times to ILS landings, and had good success with it a couple times, but cancelled the ILS a couple times as I still suck at that...but they get me to the field pretty good. Never tried to IFR to a small strip though. I bet that could get interesting in mountainous terrain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other technique is to declare a missed approach and the subsequent radar vectoring will take you out and about far enough to get down to a reasonable altitude . You won't find ATC services available in mountainous terrain where any more than a 6 degree GS is required to get you safely on the ground (that's pretty old information). The standard is three degrees, so doubling that is a pretty impressive drop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah personally I think I was just being lazy, I like your IFR IFV as long as I dont end up IVF.... I was playing around with plan-g last night and doing VFR wouldve been the best option... I just like to hear lots of radio chatter when in the air, for me it makes it more immersive..FSX ATC sounds good, having tried others they all sound to robotic for me, I did have Live ATC Chatter so I may reinstall that.....

 

I think with all the addons that we have all invested in the ATC thing is the only issue that lets everything else down, we have fantastic looking AC, great weather generators and textures, thanks to ORBX and UTX we have a planet that looks great but for me ATC is pants... on that flight I was told to go from 11000 to 12000, 5 minutes later drop to 11000, 10 minutes later up to 12000, joke really, but what else is there...I dont have lots of time so for me VATSIM etc is not an option... I may just do what Matt does and get pwermission to take off and land however I do like being vectored for ILS.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
on that flight I was told to go from 11000 to 12000, 5 minutes later drop to 11000, 10 minutes later up to 12000, joke really, but what else is there...

 

 

 

Did you file for 11,000?  What you describe can happen if the minimum enroute segment altitude for an area (there's a formal name for that - it escapes me at the moment) you are transiting exceeds your filed altitude.  They'll take you higher where the segment minimum requires it but descend you back to your filed altitude when their segment minimums allow it.

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

filed for 10500 which was suggested at in FP, I just imagined if there was a need to be at 12000 then they would put me there until that need had ended, just seems strange how I was going up and down, reminded me of how FSX ATC sometime has you going left and right for no apparent reason......however I do bow to your greater knowledge of the situation, I will only use IFR infuture if the weather dictates the need, I have now studied PLAN-G  a lot more and really enjoy the sitting down and the planning, it makes it feel more how it should...

Wayne

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't try the rapid decent methods in ROF. I did in an SE5a and I went down very quickly, but that was mostly due to the fact that I had folded the wings back!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the midst of a 737 flight, or really a number of them, across Canada and back to test the various systems that I might use for IFR flying. Interestingly enough, the wx in Canada has been exemplary of late. I'm filing IFR and setting up for RW wx and it's mostly been VFR the whole way.

 

I've just landed in Fredericton, CYFC tonight from Halifax, CYHZ. Beautiful weather. Heading for Hamilton, CYHM tomorrow (SWMBO permitting). Tonight's leg was a short one using the PMDG 738 and FSX ATC.

 

I've tried the default 738 as well as using the PMDG 738 (in WestJet livery, of course). I've used Radar Contact and the default tower rats. Here's my conclusions:

 

1. I have difficulty using RC with the PMDG aircraft. This is mostly the fault of (covered elsewhere in MH) my being unable to correlate "available" RW approach plates, sids, stars, etc with the 2006 world of FSX. The two just won't match unless you go for the whole enchilada which translates to maxi$$. Or, you spend the next (pick a number) years of your life updating waypoints, runways, navaids, ad nauseum, in the stock FSX to reflect what's going on in today's flying world.

 

2. Using the default 738 with the default ATC works pretty good. In really scruffy weather it's best to cheat a bit and run the default GPS for mapping purposes - or use a third party moving map of some description. Unfortunately, this means you have to fly the default 738 which is a bit "ho-hum".

 

3. I can live with the combination of FSX ATC and the PMDG 738. I'm getting quite good at juggling the FMC at the last second, only resorting to straight autopilot flying when I get too far behind the combination of the FMC and ATC. I've only had to resort to hand-flying, cancelling IFR and going visual, once during the trip so it's not too bad. I can do this by short-cutting the sid/star routine. I input FSX waypoints to the FSX flight planner in such a way as I can get off the ground and connected to my route, then end the route sufficiently far from the airport to get current ATIS info (usually 60 to 80 nm out) that will allow me time to pull the charts and program the arrival segment in such a way as to satisfy the default ATC.

 

It's an interesting process. I'm just happy there's no RW aircraft up there with me.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have this weekend been using mostly vfr as the weather was good and using plan-g I scooted a route around the mountains which using waypints set me up for the runway, I even set up a waypoint on my last flight to set up for capturing the ILS and all went well. I plan in future to use this method as long as the weather is good for vfr, if its bad then for the purpose of getting permission from ATC I will plan IFR and cancel once airborne.

 

As I only fly using AH (unless testing something) it always creates a plan for IFR so I always now do a VFR and save it ready to load either on the ground or in the air.

 

On another subject this has got me learning more of the workings of PLAN-G and I have to say its a fantastic bit of kit.

 

My biggest issue on VFR is trying to work out my point at which I need to start the descent, again that is because I have been lazy and relying on ATC to vector me in.

 

Hope the rest of your adventure across Canada goes well Quickmarch, its the big hold back on some things that FSX is so old, with all the tech we have available we just need a sim to catch up...

Wayne

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ John - Small aircraft don't fly sids and stars. End of 95% of the problem. Chasing the paperwork on approach in a two-person cockpit with a dead co-pilot is a lot of work. How these guys who fly VATSIM do it is beyond me.

 

I've been vlying (I'm going to steal Brian's term here because it is REALLY appropriate) the 738 like a Cessna 310 or a Piper Navajo. Kick the tires and light the fires! You can vly a perfectly good sim flight while letting ATC do the talking. They'll vector you to the IAF, it won't resemble any of the stars, and you can choose to hand-fly the approach, something you might do in the Cessna, or set up the autopilot to do the sticky parts, as I do in the 738. So what if every few minutes the simulated controller forgets that he just sent you on a 3000 foot excursion forty degrees off course and he's putting you back where you were. Lots of cockpit button twiddling associated. Then there's the time when he forgets you're flying a jet and you can't comply with an "expedite to" altitude change while still complying with a "not above 250 kt" order. I actually enjoy ignoring him (her) - on the speed that is, not the altitude.

 

@ Wayne - Sure, I'm filing an IFR flight plan and I'm listening to and complying with requests from the various controllers, but I'm not really flying IFR. You have to try it sometime. I'm not IFR rated, but I've spent no small amount of time in the RH seat in IMC and it's no piece of cake. 

 

That aside; I'm not complaining. FSX gets me into the LH seat of some big iron, something completely beyond my pocketbook and my abilities in the RW. If it's a bit too much LH seat, so what! Most times there's too much workload for a single pilot to handle. Don't mess with the cabin pressure and the cabin attendant switches. Concentrate on the important stuff: Aviate, navigate, communicate. For pity's sake leave the failure modules at home. My 738 checklists are somewhat abbreviated from the RW.

 

To sum up: Use the FSX ATC. It is configured to use the internal bits in FSX. Just be careful to comply with normal procedures like east/west north/south altitude restrictions (per JA's suggestion). Stay away from airports like Calgary (CYYC) where mag var has messed with the runway headings and the city fathers have spent a lot of money on a new parallel runway requiring you to spend a lot of money on third party scenery that ATC seems to ignore.

 

As a bonus, I've noticed that I get a lot more AI traffic activity when I'm using FSX ATC. Heck, last night I was #5 for takeoff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
@ John - Small aircraft don't fly sids and stars.

 

 

I didn't make myself clear - I'm talking relatively high performance turboprops - PC-12, P-180, etc.  If IFR in IMC I suspect that they quite often do.  

 

ATC still wants everyone lined up for the active on approach and STARs make that pretty easy for them.  Everyone approaching from more or less the same direction follows more or less the same plan and their interface with individual aircraft is a lot less.  The main thing they have to do is merge the traffic coming from different directions (different transitions or different STARs) into the stream where the various spokes come together.  Parallel runways, where they exist, make even that a lot easier for them.  It's not hard to understand why the ATC guys like the SIDs and STARs.

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest issue on VFR is trying to work out my point at which I need to start the descent, again that is because I have been lazy and relying on ATC to vector me in.

 @ Wayne - there's a rule of thumb that works pretty well:

 

Take off the last three zeroes from your altitude and multiply the result by three. This gives you the distance away from your planned final altitude to start your descent. So an altitude of 10,000 ft (pretty normal for a light aircraft) - 10X3 = 30 minutes. It isn't often that you get to use your altitude unless you're flying a Beaver. Remember to make adjustments for your desired terminal altitude by adding back in the height you want to be above ground. This is usually 1000 feet above airport elevation. So a descent from 10000 to a field at 1500 ft would require that you get down to pattern altitude at 2500 ft. 10000 - 2500 = 7500. Taking off the last (3) zeroes results in 7.5 X 3 = 22-1/2 minutes. A bit like picking fly poop out of the pepper.

 

That's half the solution.

 

Next you need to calculate descent RATE. Rate is a function of height and speed. To calculate this, divide your GROUNDSPEED (important - not airspeed) by 2 and multiply the result by 10. So 100 Kt groundspeed/2 = 50 and 50 X 10 = 500. Your descent rate should be 500 FPM.

 

Always remember to leave yourself a bit of "wiggle room". Descend so that you are at your desired final altitude a few minutes before necessary, giving yourself some time to prepare for the approach.

 

I'm not going to get into how you calculate Groundspeed, if you're flight planning and keeping track you will know this. Alternatively, look at the GPS or (if you're far enough away) use the DME. Careful with the DME when close, because it is displaying (slant) speed to the VOR, not horizontal speed.

 

I found this for you in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(aeronautics)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Quickmarch...I will print that later and keep it for future reference...really enjoying the sim lately even though the RW is far too busy and only get short GA flights of about 130nm....been simming for years but since building a pc 18 months ago I have really been enjoying it and wanting to learn more but did have some bad habits to lose...

Wayne

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@ John - Small aircraft don't fly sids and stars.

 

 

I didn't make myself clear - I'm talking relatively high performance turboprops - PC-12, P-180, etc.  If IFR in IMC I suspect that they quite often do.  

 

 

 

In that case you really need to read "corporate aviation" as they share a similar mission with aircraft like the Citations, Lears, etc. These aircraft are similarly equipped to the big boys and follow all the same rules as the 737's and A320's. My comments about flying the 738 would be accurate for these aircraft.

 

I was thinking along the lines of the Mooney and light twins like the Cessna 310. 200 kt aircraft versus the 250 kt (in the zone) big boys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...