Query re: Flight Plans - SIDS and STARS in VATSIM, FS and RW

[GabethePilot 1]

Can anyone help me understand the difference between RW, Radar Contact and VATSIM provedures when it comes to filing flight plans with or witohut SIDS and STARS.

I've been having a heated discussion elsewhere about the necessity to file a STAR with a FP.

Now, it's always nice to create a full plan in something like Flight Sim Commander, complete with SIDS, STARS, and Transitions, and match it up exactly with your FMC plan, and then file that with ATC.

However, contrary to what happens in the RW, I often find with RC - and certainly in tutorials I have read about FMC programming - that often, you will not actually get to fly your "intended" flightplan, particularly when it comes to STARS, so it may be wise to leave them out.

Some STARs I know, are runway dependent - and this may change or be unknown at time of departure.

As for FMC programming, some allow you to add them later, or add them but not activate them until you know you'll be flying it. Some however, like my ATR 72-500, has a wierd FMC that only allows you a one-chance choice for the STAR, and if you want to change in enroute - tough.

So, what I'm asking I guess, is: are there any hard and fast rules about filing FPs, and do RC, RW and VATSIM 'procedures' differ in any significant way?

Also, I think I may be getting confused between STARs, 'Approaches' and Transitions. In my ATR FMC, I firstly input the Runway I "intend" to land at, then I am offered avaialalble STARs, and then sometimes - a Transition. So where does the term "Approach" fit in to this?

I have thus far regarded a STAR as the general approach to the IAF for a localiser approach; but that multiple STARS may terminate at a 'common' Transition point, where you are often required to hold. From there you would either receive Vectors, or fly the 'Transition' to the FAF at the start of the Approach - ie. lined up with the localiser as depicted by the Approach plate.

Is this a reasonable understanding ?

Thnx.

:001_th_smiles48:

[allardjd 1,853]

Gabe,

Standard Disclaimer: I have no experience with VATSIM and only a little with RW, but use RC a lot. I have never so much as pushed the power button on a FMC. Keep that in mind as you read what’s below. If anyone with better knowledge of this can add to it or correct it where it’s wrong, have at it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The RW value of STARS for ATC is that it gets everyone lined up in a uniform manner, following the same routes with the same vertical profiles and has them arriving at a common “sorting point” where ATC can begin giving them vectors to whichever airport in the area they are going to. All this happens without ATC having to tell them every move to make; they can concentrate on the tail end of the arrival and make smooth handoffs to the tower(s).

The wheels kind of fall off that in FS because, regardless of you doing it right, that’s not how the FS traffic engine manages all those AI AC out there. They will not get in line and follow the STAR you’re following. Nonetheless, you want to do it right.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I think you have the wrong idea about transitions. With respect to STARs, transitions are entry point options for a STAR. Many STARs have multiple points at which you may “join” or “enter” the route – each of those is called a transition. The flight plan shorthand for that is “PKE.LYNDI2”, where PKE is the VOR that marks the entry point for that particular transition into the STAR LYNDI Two.

I think maybe IAPs use the transition term to sort out a procedure with multiple IAFs but I don’t believe that’s what you’re asking about.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Once in a STAR, you have no remaining options – you fly the route as published until ATC vectors you out of it – and they will. As you reach some point in the STAR that is appropriate for your destination airport and the runway in use, ATC will vector you to the airport you’ve filed for, eventually merging you into the localizer or the extended centerline of the active runway. You can ask for a different runway and in RC you will always get it. In the RW, you may get it, but it won’t make you popular with ATC. I think in RC that option goes away once you begin talking to the approach controller, but don’t remember for sure.

Once you enter the STAR, the next time ATC talks to you, abandon any further thoughts about your STAR – he has you by the short hairs from that point and your only choice is to follow. Forget the STAR, forget what you filed, forget the approach plate (except that part from the Outer Marker to the runway – that still applies).

In other words, you may not fly all the way to the end of the STAR – it’s quite possible and normal to begin receiving ATC vectors that take you out of the published route early. That happens in RC and in the RW. Normally, in RC and in the RW, you will get vectors to the final approach course, usually the localizer, if there is one. When he’s got the airport under your nose, he’ll hand you off to the tower.

Most of the time you don’t get the opportunity to fly the full approach. If the area is busy enough to have a STAR, ATC isn’t going to want you breaking out of the well-ordered queue of arrivals to start screwing around with outbound legs, procedure turns, DME arcs or any of that other stuff. They want you to stay in line and fly the vectors given, which will bring you into the extended runway centerline, usually with a 45 degree turn or less to join the localizer, where he’ll hand you off to the tower.

In the RW, if you’re coming into Atlanta and ask to fly the full procedure, you’ll probably get a long silence, followed by a negative response. The long silence is so he can call you rude names before keying his mike.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I’ve always considered it a waste of time to put the approach details into a flight plan if flying IFR. RC/ATC will take the final 30 miles away from you anyway and putting a lot of detailed, in-close waypoints into your plan at the destination is a waste of time and electrons. ATC will line you up with the active runway. My last flight plan waypoint is normally the last fix in the STAR or the last enroute fix, often over 30 NM out. My flight plan reflects flying directly to the airport from that fix. I harbor no illusions about it actually going down like that, but that’s what I file. You can put in thirty detailed waypoints in the last 30 miles if you like, but I guarantee you won’t get to visit most of them.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Some STARs I know, are runway dependent - and this may change or be unknown at time of departure.

Some STARs only work for certain runways, and that’s usually covered in the text part of the document. If the wind shifts and the runway changes, a different STAR or set of STARs comes into play. I don’t know how ATC manages that on the fly, with inbound AC expecting one STAR and runway and having to go to another. I suppose at some point it just comes down to vectors from ATC until things sort out and eventually arriving AC will have the correct arrival route in their flight plan – until the wind shifts yet again.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I use FS Navigator to make my flight plans, exporting them to FS. RC loads the FS plan and makes its own version from that. The problem with most flight planners that don’t recognize a STAR is that they won’t let you enter the altitude step changes that are built into the STAR. I put in the STAR waypoints but the flight plan altitude is, of necessity, my cruise altitude.

Doing it that way, my flight plan contains all the STAR waypoints as enroute waypoints and I’m dependant on ATC for the vertical – only descending when they tell me (though there is an option in RC to ask for lower – until you get handed off to the Approach Controller). On the plus side, RC is pretty good about getting you down, though some times it’s a little abrupt if they lay one of those “crossing restrictions” on you. “Start down now, please. I need you level in 30 miles or less.” AARRRGGG! In a Skylane at 9,000 feet, it’s no problem. If you’re in something big and fast and flying high, it can be a real challenge.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In FS, I don’t think it matters whether you file with a STAR or not. In the RW, you don’t always get what you filed for. If you file an IFR flight plan into a STAR-served area and don’t specify a STAR, chances are when you call Clearance Delivery for your clearance, it won’t look like what you filed. That never happens in FS or FS with RC (maybe version 5 will have that). You always get exactly what you filed. In the RW, you get the route they want you to fly.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

However, contrary to what happens in the RW, I often find with RC - and certainly in tutorials I have read about FMC programming - that often, you will not actually get to fly your "intended" flightplan, particularly when it comes to STARS, so it may be wise to leave them out.

I think you may have an incorrect impression of the RW procedures. ATC vectors trump the filed flight plan and I believe it’s a common, even a normal thing in the RW, to have the final part of your flight “hijacked” by ATC.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So, what I'm asking I guess, is: are there any hard and fast rules about filing FPs, and do RC, RW and VATSIM 'procedures' differ in any significant way?

The main thing about FS/RC is that you’ll get what you file. In the RW that may not happen. In either case, the last 30 miles or so of it may not end up being flown as shown in the plan. Bear in mind that some STARs start over a hundred miles out, so they aren’t useless, but at some point you’ll probably deviate from the STAR at ATC’s direction.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Also, I think I may be getting confused between STARs, 'Approaches' and Transitions. In my ATR FMC, I firstly input the Runway I "intend" to land at, then I am offered avaialalble STARs, and then sometimes - a Transition. So where does the term "Approach" fit in to this?

They come in this order, a) Transition (entry point to STAR), b) STAR, c) Approach.

Technically, a STAR should set you up to easily navigate to at least one of the IAFs on the airport approach plates. Theoretically, you could enter the IAP (approach) and follow it to the airport with no help from ATC. In the RW, traffic flow considerations require ATC vectors to the final approach course rather than flying a “full procedure”. It’s just more efficient for everyone concerned and permits a much higher throughput. Flying the full approach procedure is reserved for training at non-busy airports, or flying into fields where there’s no tower and spotty radar coverage by the approach controller. If you ask for the full approach, he has to keep everyone else flying IFR out of the protected airspace you need to fly to one of the IAFs and then execute the whole, convoluted approach. At busy airports, vectors to the final approach course are the standard routine.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I have thus far regarded a STAR as the general approach to the IAF for a localiser approach; but that multiple STARS may terminate at a 'common' Transition point, where you are often required to hold. From there you would either receive Vectors, or fly the 'Transition' to the FAF at the start of the Approach - ie. lined up with the localiser as depicted by the Approach plate.

Is this a reasonable understanding ?

It’s close, but not exact. A STAR is a general approach to busy area which may contain more than one airport. I don’t think the “common” point is referred to as a transition, but there may very well be a built-in place for ATC to make a holding stack if they need a buffer. It is unlikely that you’ll be allowed to fly the full approach or visit the IAF of a published approach. If you do, it will be by accident and you are not “in the procedure” at that point. You’ll be vectored to the final approach course for the airport you filed for and will be handed off to the tower. At that point you are “in the procedure” and must adhere to what’s on the approach plate, but it will only be the last part of most IAPs that you’re actually flying.

John

[Tim_A 996]

I don't think that's quite right (based on the fact that default FS has transitions but not STARs). Here's how I understand it.

The purpose of a STAR is to get you out of the airways system and onto an approach. The STAR starts in the airway, and finishes at a holding point. The Transition then gets you from the holding point to the IAF, and from there you have the approach.

Example. here is one of the STAR charts for Manchester (EGCC). It shows several STARs, each ending at the holding point ROSUN (ROSUN 1A and ROSUN 1B bothe start from Pole Hill, but route slightly differently. ROSUN 3C starts at TILNY). As you progress the STAR, you'll manage your descent, from FL200 at the start to FL70 in the hold. Now, these three route are, I think, what John called Transitions. But as far as I am aware, they are three separate STARs, designated 1A, 1B, 1C and 3C. I've never seen them referred to otherwise.

Now let's look at the approach chart for the ILS/DME approach to runway 23R. It starts at the MCT VOR, flies outbound at 3500ft for 12nm, followed by a procedure turn onto the ILS. The IAF for the approach is MCT, and the FAF is at D10, when you intercept the glideslope.

The Transition (for which there isn't actually a chart in this instance) is the portion between the hold at ROSUN and the IAF at MCT. If you look in the FS GPS, you'll find a ROSUN transition for this approach, which starts at ROSUN at 7000ft (ie FL70 in RW terms), descends to MCT at 3000 (slightly different altitude to the current plate) and enters the approach.

Now, the prerequisite for using a STAR is that you are coming off an airway. If you are not using the airways system (say for example you're flying IFR in a Baron at 8000ft), then you won't use a STAR, and you'd typically plan to start your approach at the IAF.

I have thus far regarded a STAR as the general approach to the IAF for a localiser approach; but that multiple STARS may terminate at a 'common' Transition point, where you are often required to hold. From there you would either receive Vectors, or fly the 'Transition' to the FAF at the start of the Approach - ie. lined up with the localiser as depicted by the Approach plate.

Pretty much, at least in an "ideal" world. And that's what you'd be expected to do on VATSIM if there was no controller online. But where there is a controller, you can expect that to change, and most likely you'll be vectored to the FAF at some point (although in my experience, VATSIM controllers are normally quite accomodating if you ask for the full procedure. At least if they don't have a lot of other traffic -- don't expect it if you arrive in the middle of an 'overload' style fly-in!). Can't speak for Radar Contact, as I've never used it. But I have flown extensively on VATSIM. RW I have exactly two vectored ILSs under my belt, neither of which went anywhere near the procedure. And, as for an FMC, I'm afraid I wouldn't even know which way up it goes! Which is to say, my explanation may be as much hogwash as anything else...

[allardjd 1,853]

It may be that terminology is a little different here. Below is a typical US-published STAR. I've marked it up to show the three Transitions (entry points) and the block of text where the document uses the "Transition" term to describe them.

I don't think there's any hard and fast requirement to join STAR from an Airway segment, though that's certainly the most likely way one would do so. The point is, if your destination is to a STAR-Served airport and your route of flight brings you anywhere near one of the STAR transition points, ATC is going to want you in the queue, not flying direct to your IAF. For vectored approaches, aircraft may not even get near the IAF for the full procedure. In the final analysis, once the approach controller begins to give you vectors, the details of the STAR and the IAP are pretty much moot until you are on the final approach course, then that segment of the IAP applies again if you're in IMC.

John

EDIT:

I've searched through on-line PDF versions of the FAA Instrument Procedures Handbook, Airman's Information Manual and other FAA pubs and this is the only relevant thing I can come up with on the term "Transition".

FAA definition: TRANSITION - "...or a published procedure (STAR

Transition) used to connect one of several en route

airways/jet routes to the basic STAR."

NOTE: There is a definition similar to the one above for Departure Procedures, but the term is not formally defined anywhere that I can find with respect to IAPs.

I find myself wondering if there's a significant difference in the terminology in international usage. All my reading on this so far is from US sources only.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Looking at the FS Garmin GPS, it does use the term "Transition" to refer to entry points to IAPs. I can't find a formal use of that term anywhere except as noted above, defined for DPs, STARs and SIDs, but not for IAPs. I'm beginning to think that the use of the term in the Garmin GPS that is modeled in FS is a bastardization or at least an informal use of the term that doesn't really conform to RW ATC terminology.

To be sure, the FAA manuals are full of the word "transition" to describe all kinds of things, but the word "Transition", capitalized and formally defined, seems to be only related to STARS, DPs and SIDs, I can't find any place where it's formally used with respect to IAPs except in the FS GPS.

Looking at an example approach in the FS GPS and comparing it to the RW approach plate, I find that the GPS offers four "transitions". These correspond to logical entry points to the procedure and consist of the two IAFs defined on the IAP, "Vectors", and a fourth, which is a VOR located on the field. That VOR is not defined as an IAF by the IAP.

When individually loaded into the GPS, two of the "transitions", including the one beginning over the on-field, non-IAF VOR, correctly reflect an outbound leg followed by a procedure turn, then returning inbound on the final approach course. The other two, "Vectors" and one that originates at a distant VOR (one of the defined IAFs) do not require a procedure turn. All that seems plausible but there are two oddities. First, Garmin has added a way into the procedure via the on-field VOR that isn't designated as an IAF on the plate. That doesn’t look like a problem because beginning there and flying the outbound leg, you will cross one of the defined IAFs 5.7 DME up the road anyway. The second odd thing is that the IAP does not reflect any procedure turn, but rather a one-minute hold. The GPS shows both the hold and a procedure turn. I looked at a 5-1/2 year old hard-copy of the same IAP and there’s no PT on that one either.

[GabethePilot 1]

Well I'm really confused now. Thnx for the info - makes interesting reading. It is only since using FSC v9 that the term "transitions" has started to bother me.

Anyhow, it seems you are both right as transitions are slightly different in the US and Europe.

Take a look at the STARS and Transitions in FSC v9 to KSEA... here you see that the various transitions appear to be 'a section' of the final part of a STAR.

The STARs actually finish closer to the runway than the transitions, as they go all the way to the IAF. However, the short transitons can be common to more than 1 STAR. So, STAR 1 comes in and joins Transition A, and leaves, going off to another IAF, whilst STAR 2 from a different direction, joins Transition A at the same point, but then can go off on a different route to either the same or a different runway.

The transitions here are very different to how they are in Europe - no doubt.

Looking at the STARS and transitions for LIMC (Milan)... if you look at ILS35L VERCE transition, it takes you the last few miles from the end of the STAR to the NOV (NDB)that marks the IAF. So, 1 or more STARS all terminate... at the start of the transition, rather than the latter being a section of numerous STARS which continue after the transition ends !

So, in Europe, the Transitions end at the IAF, not the STARS, which have already ended at the start of the Transition.

If the STAR and Transition was an Earthworm, in the US, it seems the STAR would be the whole worm, starting at the end of the airway and finshing at the IAF. The transition would be say segment 8 or 9 of the 10-segment worm. Also, more than one "worm" would be sharing the same 8th or 9th segment (ie. transition.)

But, in Europe, the STAR finishes at segment 8, and the transition is the last 1 or 2 segments leading to the IAF. :001_th_smiles89:

So, there we are... they mean different things depending on where you are.

Why the difference... who knows ? !!!

But thanks to you two, I think I've sussed it. It's not so much different terminology, as much as they simply appear in diffferent places in the final stage of the route.

Being able to superimpose the STARS and Transitions in FSC makes things look clearer... unfortunately Photobucket is down, so I couldn't post any images, but may do later.

OMG... just when things couldn't get more complex... lol, lol, lol (said in ironic fashion !)

So, it begs the question as to whether my ATR's FMC knows where he is ? Or, indeed does it matter ? Hehe... don't worry, I'm only being rhetorical! :th_smiles73:

:icon_rockon:

[GabethePilot 1]

Just to complicate the issue... I've just looked at the transitions for miami.... and they're all single WPs... just single waypoints.

I need some more coffee. :001_th_smiles48:

[allardjd 1,853]

Gabe,

There are eight STARs into Miami. Most have multiple transitions (i.e. entry points). All the STARs consist of multiple waypoints.

Note that at any given time there may be several STARs in use simultaneously, handling AC approaching the area from different directions. The all eventually merge at a collection point, where the approach controllers sequence them for the landing queue.

What I do for flight planning works well and is a pretty accurate simulation of the RW.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1) Check the destination airport for applicable STARs that match up with your direction of flight. Select the best one. If it shows multiple entry points (I won't call them Transitions here, but the charts do), select the one you want to use.

2) Build your flight plan as normal but with the relevant STAR at the end. Enter the STAR as a series of waypoints if your flight planning software doesn't allow you to treat it as a single entity.

3) Use the last waypoint in the STAR as your last waypoint. The final flight plan entry is your destination airport, so the flight plan shows the last leg as direct to the airport from the end of the STAR.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

When you fly the plan, I guarantee that by the time you reach the end of the STAR, probably before, MS ATC or RC ATC will be giving you vectors to the localizer or to the final approach course.

You need the plate for the approach, but will only be using the final part of it, and then only if the WX is still IMC. You won't fly to the IAF, make outbound and inbound legs, holds, procedure turns, fly DME arcs or any of that chicanery associated with the full procedure. You'll just be vectored to the extended runway centerline and be turned in toward the airport.

The approach controller will hand you off to the tower as he turns you to the final approach course.

I'm not sure why this is causing so much confusion. It's the way the real-deal guys fly 99.9% of their arrivals that involve a STAR. The notable exception is holds - those are fairly common in the RW and are not very well supported in FS. RC will do them, but only at the final waypoint and (I think) only if it's within a certain distance of the airport.

John

[GabethePilot 1]

John, i know what STARS are - as you can tell from my analysis f the differences between Euro and US approaches above.

I said that the Miami "transitions" were all 'single' waypoints, not the STARS.

If you use FS9 v9 to show both STARS and Transitions (there is a trick that allows you do that), you can compare for yourself the Euro and US differnces. It is actually quite apparent when you do that.

[allardjd 1,853]

Gabe,

I did a bit more studying on this tonight, most of it at KSEA. The most surprising thing I've seen is that in FSC Version 9 (I have no experience with the earlier ones) it seems that STARs and TRANSITIONs are mutually exclusive. If you add a STAR to your flight plan, the menu bar for TRANSITIONs is greyed out. The reverse is also true - if you select a TRANSITION, you can't get to the FSC STAR menu any more. It seems that you may have one or the other in your flight plan, but not both. That didn't leap out at me from any of the posts above.

If that's the case, what FSC calls TRANSITIONs are nothing more than another kind of arrival route, an alternative to the STARs. Like STARs, they are just a route that gets you from your last enroute waypoint to a point where you may be easily vectored to an approach to a runway or from where you may easily begin a "full procedure" IAP to that runway.

As you found at Miami, I saw that some of the TRANSITIONs at KSEA, when added to the flight plan, inserted only a single waypoint, even when the corresponding IAP showed a string of several. That was particularly true of Transitions to RNAV and VOR procedures, but even some of the Transitions to ILS procedures only gave you a single Transition waypoint in the FSC flight plan.

I also noted that the FSC STARs menu included as separate menu choices, each of what the FAA calls Transitions, i.e. STAR entry points. FSC presents you with each of the three CHINS Six Transitions that are depicted in the FAA STAR publication. In the FSC menu they are shown as...

Rwy RW[Runway Designator] CHINS6.EPH

Rwy RW[Runway Designator] CHINS6.IMB

Rwy RW[Runway Designator] CHINS6.PDT

... and that set of three separate menu choices is repeated for each of the six runways at KSEA.

Taking a broad view of this now, it appears to me that if you are entering the area at a height and from a direction that properly connects up with a STAR, that's the way to go. In any other case, a TRANSITION will get you where you need to be to head for the runway. Absent one or the other, your flight plan will reflect flying directly to the airport from your last enroute fix, which ATC will not permit - you'll be given vectors which will probably coincide with one of the FSC TRANSITIONs.

I understand you have much more FSC experience than I do but we both seem to be struggling a little with STARs and particularly with TRANSITIONs as used in FSC. Hopefully a little of the above adds something to what you already knew.

John

[GabethePilot 1]

Okay, a picture paints a thousand words, so here's 10,000 words' worth !

For the benefit of anyone who has not sussed it out already, to show both Transitions and STARS on the map do this:

Check display Transition, then select the one you want.

..

..

..

Then go straight into STARs and check display and select.

..

..

At that point the transition window will shift to the middle of the screen but still show transitions... Doh !!!

..

..

..

But, click on "Unselect All" and it magically changes into the STARS window. Select and away you go... both STAR and Transition on map. Unfortunately, both cannot be saved to the FP. No-one knows why. "...Quelle surprise..."

..

..

..

..

Okay, moving on, here's my favourite approach in Europe - to Zurich where all my secret wealth is stashed safely (!):

Most if not all a/c approaching from Left of N/S axis, are normally asked to hold at Gipol - even small GAs - and usually given vectors.

As you can see, it takes you from Gipol and lines you up for the ILS 16 approach. The vectors given by ATC, will also follow this path, but in their absence you simply follow a radial to the nearby VOR.

..

..

So, this is the transition to R16

..

..

..

..

This shows one of a few STARS (this one being one of 3 or 4 from the SW), terminating at the start of the Gipol transition: not surprisingly, the FP, STARS and Transitions are all the same colour and cannot be changed - well FSC wouldn't be the same without stuff like that...!

..

..

..

..

Here's another STAR (upper red line - ignore lower 'main route')this time from the NW, again terminating at the same Gipol transition.

..

..

..

..

Now, here's another transiton - again from Gipol, but taking us to the other end of the runway (this is for both 34 or 36 I think)... together with the (earlier) STAR from the SW.

..

..

..

As you can see, it effectively stops short of the R16 ILS and enters the downwind leg of a left handed pattern some 5 miles from the airfield.

Now, here's another transition for STARs coming from the eastern side of the airport. Again, it lines you up for the(in this case a R14) approach.

..

..

Now, be assured that again, a number of STARS all terminate at the start of this latter Transition.

So, from what I've seen thus far, in Europe, STARS tend... tend... to terminate some way from the airfield, and transitions will guide you to the runway localiser, presumably, for use where vectors are not normally given, or if the ATC controller is off photcopying his butt for the Xmas magazine.

However, in the US, transitions appear... appear... to be very different. They actually form "part" of a STAR... and never the final part.

STARS seem to go all the way to the airfield, with transitions merely representing a point (or multiple WPs), where different STARS will 'interact' with them.

Here's the longest ( a whole 2 WPs !!!) transition I could see at Miami with the AIRAC I'm currently using (1006). One of those points will be a common point in a number of STARS, which continue to the airfield.

..

..

..

..

This STAR 'interacts' with the FLIPR2 trannie as so:

..

..

Clearly, the STAR from the SE, joins the transition at FLIPR and shoots off to the NW, ending at the actual airfield.

Now, there are numerous examples of this from what I've seen. Clearly, transitions play a different role in the states, and is probably indicative of the way ATC has simply evolved differently around the world.

Also, the names of the STARS in the US, seem to include the 'transition WP' in them, which imo, pretty much makes the transitions unimportant when it comes to flight planning, because a STAR is selected for approaching a particular runway, and will - by definition - incorporate any transition points as required. So, the actual transition point or segment, as far as the flight plan is concerned, isn't really important.

In Europe however, many of the STARS are runway dependent and will be named accordingly, but many are not - sharing instead, a 'common' holding point (eg. Gipol), which often represents the beginning of a transition to a runway. It is at this point, that the 'transitions' become important: the transitions are static and fixed to a runway, so multiple STARS will "share" the one transition depending on the runway you want. Besides, you may well be vectored, in which case the transition is moot.

In conclusion, it seems to me, that transitions are not really that important 'in themselves' in the US, as they are clearly "part" of any STAR, and the name will often reflect that. In Europe, a transition the expected approach to the localiser after the STAR has ended. If vectored, they are irrelevant, but if not, invaluable!

Of course, this is all from the perspective of filing and creating plans using FSC... RW issues may well change all this - but this has little relevance to me. As for VATSIM, every time I look at official FPs provided by VATSIM (see below***), they never include SIDS or STARS. Hmmm ... that opens another can of worms !

*** Postscript:

Yesterday I requested a FP from VATSIM UK fro EGNM to LOWI and I get this:

EGNM POL LISTO STAFA HON28 HON21 HON FINMA SOTED BIG DVR KONAN KOK FERDI RAVMA REMBA SPI PELIX MATUG AMASI UBIDU NONKO RIDSU ABUKA SUNEG TGO AMEMI KPT ALGOI LOWI

No SID, No STAR, No Transition.

Ergo... are transitions important in flight planning using FSC...? And, is it really necessary to be able to put both STARS and transitions on the FSC flightplan ?

Well, seemingly not, if you're flying on VATSIM ! You will be told where to go long before you get close to the airport.