I get that, in hindsight I should’ve just stuck to my flightplan and contact approach later.
More traffic on right base. If controllers wanted he can ask you to do full pattern then ask you to join left downwind and base. Looks to me like he is doing good job whoever that is
2 Likes
Isn’t this about realism? I think sticking for flight plan would work really well on casual or training server. I really don’t understand how patient runs out in good part of the flight plan
1 Like
The people who weren’t controlling can’t tell you why the controller did what he did, nor can they be assured that your setup is even accurate. Just PM the controller and ask, instead of airing your complaint in public.
As Approach, we do things for any number of reasons. It’s not always apparent on the map. Personally, the biggest problem I have with pilots, far and away, is that they wait until the last possible second to descend. (And, for example, don’t even know how far away they are. If you were going by how much distance you had left on your FP, that wouldn’t be accurate. It would be an overestimate because of the twists and turns in it. Plus, the distance from the tower isn’t what we’re worried about.)
Anyway, when someone calls in high, I just stick them in a hold. I’m not going to waste time coaxing them to get down. Perhaps this particular controller sends you on a long route to lose altitude. Perhaps it was something else entirely, we don’t know. Because we weren’t the contoller.
PM him
9 Likes
@Kamil_Chmielewski Was the approach controller at the time, so you can drop him a PM and talk to him. IFATC controllers always have a reason as to why their doing something, and you generally have to trust them. You can always take a note of the controllers name and PM them on the forum after if you have any issues.
1 Like
The best way to resolve this would be to tell the controller your callsign and display name via PM or send them your replay file. It looks like one runway was in use (intersecting runways), it’s apparent from your screenshot that approach is putting you in a line of some kind. You have to remember that the other aircraft inbound also had to be put in the same line, we have a sequence and sneak people in when we can. Nice job of calling in at 14,000ft, 40-50nms out, and below 260knts IAS. :)
2 Likes
That’s taken off simbrief using the FLP to IF tool. A real flight plan, not everyone just uses a straight line between airports 🤣
3 Likes
I would love to see the replay of this. That’s a lot of aircraft on that screen. Was there an active ATIS? Your FPL shown inbound for RWY 29 everyone else is set up for RWY 33.
Why was that flagged? I didn’t even violate any guidelines.😂😂this people in this community forum are so ridiculous. No wonder everyone in the VA tells me to stay away from the IFC
3 Likes
I don’t use a straight line. I get the actual STARS/SIDS and waypoints from flight aware. I have never seen such a sharp turn and sqaure flight plan. The A/P in IF doesn’t turn that sharp
Exactly, the plane will start the turn before the waypoint to smooth out the transition. The turns look sharp because that’s how the map renders it, it’s a crude map, what would you expect? IF really need to upgrade the map, but I guess they’re working on this.
1 Like
I have no objection to being put in a hold within, say, a 20NM radius of the field and left there until I’m at a satisfactory altitude to be slotted into the traffic pattern - common at airports like EGLL of course. It’s when they send you off in a straight line and forget about you, which is unnecessary and, of course, unrealistic. This has happened to me on a few occasions with approach controllers on expert; not naming any individuals - just thought I’d bring it up.
You could fly into a non-controlled airport, and hold where you like, or fly into a controlled airport and respect the controller will have a plan, perhaps not obvious from the pilots perspective. In the unlikely but possible event, you have been forgotten about, accept were all human and do make mistakes.
It was necessary for a number of reasons clearly visible in your screen shot such as. Amount of aircraft. Spacing, speed ect. It’s a tactic commonly used by approach controllers. I see you survived your experience.
Which would of caused you further delays or resulted in you being ghosted. So yea that wouldn’t have been the correct choice.
Never had that problem. But you do you
I have indeed seen and flown plans like this.
No it doesn’t… But there’s some tricks for that.
It would appear the OP is on the NEPOX 4V STAR planning on a RWY 29 arrival and his filed flight plan is the real world star. These legs aren’t that bad.
For OMDB on the other hand, the IF autopilot would likely have a bit more of an issue with however I find that activating a leg a touch early and/or maintaining a speed below 200kt will generally assist in those charted RNAV base leg turns. (See OMDB arrival below$
Many of the European procedures (see EDDF RNAV transition below) are charted like this and put aircraft right onto final while the procedures in the US are a bit more free form allowing for vectors off the tail end of a STAR-as a matter of fact, JFK, EWR and LGA all still rely on “vectored” STAR’s as opposed to RNAV.
4 Likes
@danielsun36 I see you had the NEPOX 4V STAR for 29 plugged in and ATC was using 33-I keep the waypoints for all available transitions handy from the beginning of the STAR in case ATC is using a different active than I’ve got plugged in. It seems you needed the NEPOX 4U for your arrival with ATC. Hopefully someday in the future we’ll be able to swap procedures on the fly more seamlessly!
Roger. I have never had problems like that. And I use the documents and apps you use above. SIDS/ Stars, Real routes, procedures, etc., Etc
This may be a helpful resource for those reading this thread
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.