OnCourse Software

What's the best way to fly into an airport by flying to a published IAF and flying the full published approach?

Example: KTVL FMG J32 MLD V465 JAC KJAC

I want to fly my filed route to JAC, which is an IAF for the full procedure turn ILS Y Rwy 19, and fly that full approach without a STAR or radar vectors (no STAR and the airport is in a mountain valley with huge mountains on both sides so vectors aren't an option).

How do I get PF3 to clear me for the approach at JAC and let me maneuver per the procedure to the ILS FAF?

Regards

Hi

Best way to do this is :

1 In PF3 SIDS/STARS page select KJAC and change the FAF altitude to the minimum cleared altitude you require at JAC (is it 15200 ?). You might also want to "close" runway 01 , so whatever your sim says is the active runway you will always get RWY19 clearance.

2 Create your FS9/FSX/P3D flightplan with the last waypoint at JAC

3 Open the plan in PF3 and go to the waypoints adjustments page. Select the minimum altitude you want to be cleared to at JAC (15200?). Check the other altitudes on your route and adjust where neccessary.

4 In the SIDS/STARS page tick the checkbox that says "stars active". This will mean that when you reach JAC at your desired altitude you will be "cleared to finals". You will not get vectors but are expected to fly the approach on your own. At some point after these instructions you will be told to contact tower.

You will probably find that PF3 will warn you that JAC is too close to the airport, just ignore that warning.

Thanks for the description of this approach setup. This flexibility is what I like about PF3.

Here's an idea to make the approach (and departure) setup even more intuitive:

How about adding an „approach options“ section (and a „departure options“ section) to the „Adjust altitudes, SIDs, STARs and Holds for selected flightplan“ page?

With 3 checkboxes for

1. Vectors: PF3 gives vectors from the last waypoint to the FAF.

2. STAR: PF3 gives clearance to proceed via the user-defined STAR from the last waypoint resp. the defined STAR entry. The STAR has to be flown.

3. Pilot's discretion: PF3 gives clearance to final at pilot's discretion. Any published procedure or just a free visual approach can be flown. (I know I can do that already with the current STAR option. But it would add to the immersion if there would be a difference between a clearance via STAR and a clearance at pilot's discretion).

Now the user can simply tick the approach option(s) he likes to have on this flight. If several options are ticked PF3 chooses one option randomly, which would add some unpredictability.

The corresponding for the departure.

I hope you're not getting annoyed by these ideas.

Regards

Ralf

RALF9636 wrote:

Thanks for the description of this approach setup. This flexibility is what I like about PF3.

Here's an idea to make the approach (and departure) setup even more intuitive:

How about adding an „approach options“ section (and a „departure options“ section) to the „Adjust altitudes, SIDs, STARs and Holds for selected flightplan“ page?

With 3 checkboxes for

1. Vectors: PF3 gives vectors from the last waypoint to the FAF.

2. STAR: PF3 gives clearance to proceed via the user-defined STAR from the last waypoint resp. the defined STAR entry. The STAR has to be flown.

3. Pilot's discretion: PF3 gives clearance to final at pilot's discretion. Any published procedure or just a free visual approach can be flown. (I know I can do that already with the current STAR option. But it would add to the immersion if there would be a difference between a clearance via STAR and a clearance at pilot's discretion).

Now the user can simply tick the approach option(s) he likes to have on this flight. If several options are ticked PF3 chooses one option randomly, which would add some unpredictability.

The corresponding for the departure.

I hope you're not getting annoyed by these ideas.

Regards

Ralf

Not at all! Dave will have a look at it when he has time. To make it easier to define routes would be a useful enhancement. But PF3 also has to cope with users who know nothing at all of which there are legion. So it'll go on the list I expect.

Much of the issue that has been confusing me with PF3 (I am a retired real-world ATP-rated pilot) is a problem with terminology. When you select "STARs active" in PF3, what you're really doing is selecting the option to fly via nonradar guidance from the last flight plan fix to final. That's not really a STAR, per se. A STAR is a published procedure that takes the aircraft from the enroute structure to the terminal environment--not necessarily to an approach. Some STARs actually do take you right to an IAF for a published approach, while many others end at a fix within the approach control's radar service area, with expectations that the aircraft will be picked up by ATC radar approach control for vectors at some point before reaching the end of the published STAR track.

So here's how I prefer to recharacterize the PF3 options, similar to what RALF has suggested, but more in line with r/w procedures:

1. Vectors: the pilot flies the filed track until PF3 commences vectors to final. This looks to be essentially what you get now without the "STARs active" option checked.
2. Published approach: the pilot flies a route filed to a published approach IAF...once cleared for the approach, he flies to the IAF and flies the full approach as published and is left alone by ATC until he is approaching the FAF inbound and ready for handoff to tower. A STAR which feeds into a published approach would be included, as well as any other route to a valid IAF. This is similar to what is currently mislabelled "STARs active." And "cleared to finals" would be better replaced with "cleared for the approach."

What Ralf describes as "pilot's discretion" would be most procedurally correct as an option to allow the pilot to "Cancel IFR" and fly via his own navigation with just traffic advisories until handed off to tower at ~10NM. So if you're on a STAR or vectors or any other routing and it's clear and a million with the airport in sight, you can cancel and fly a visual on your own...ATC's role is suspended until you contact tower for landing clearance.

Regards

Bob Scott

airforce2 wrote:

Much of the issue that has been confusing me with PF3 (I am a retired real-world ATP-rated pilot) is a problem with terminology. When you select "STARs active" in PF3, what you're really doing is selecting the option to fly via nonradar guidance from the last flight plan fix to final. That's not really a STAR, per se. A STAR is a published procedure that takes the aircraft from the enroute structure to the terminal environment--not necessarily to an approach. Some STARs actually do take you right to an IAF for a published approach, while many others end at a fix within the approach control's radar service area, with expectations that the aircraft will be picked up by ATC radar approach control for vectors at some point before reaching the end of the published STAR track.

So here's how I prefer to recharacterize the PF3 options, similar to what RALF has suggested, but more in line with r/w procedures:

1. Vectors: the pilot flies the filed track until PF3 commences vectors to final. This looks to be essentially what you get now without the "STARs active" option checked.
2. Published approach: the pilot flies a route filed to a published approach IAF...once cleared for the approach, he flies to the IAF and flies the full approach as published and is left alone by ATC until he is approaching the FAF inbound and ready for handoff to tower. A STAR which feeds into a published approach would be included, as well as any other route to a valid IAF. This is similar to what is currently mislabelled "STARs active." And "cleared to finals" would be better replaced with "cleared for the approach."

What Ralf describes as "pilot's discretion" would be most procedurally correct as an option to allow the pilot to "Cancel IFR" and fly via his own navigation with just traffic advisories until handed off to tower at ~10NM. So if you're on a STAR or vectors or any other routing and it's clear and a million with the airport in sight, you can cancel and fly a visual on your own...ATC's role is suspended until you contact tower for landing clearance.

Regards

Bob Scott

Thank you very much for this insight into real world procedures. I agree that the terminology used by PF3 - and me - can be misleading, in particular with regard to those STARs that lead to a fix where ATC-vectors are to be expected.
The good thing is that all these procedural options can already be setup with the current options PF3 offers. To fly a STAR and get vectors at the end of the STAR you include the STAR waypoints in your flightplan and untick the STAR option. A little misleading indeed.

Ralf

RALF9636 wrote:

airforce2 wrote:

Much of the issue that has been confusing me with PF3 (I am a retired real-world ATP-rated pilot) is a problem with terminology. When you select "STARs active" in PF3, what you're really doing is selecting the option to fly via nonradar guidance from the last flight plan fix to final. That's not really a STAR, per se. A STAR is a published procedure that takes the aircraft from the enroute structure to the terminal environment--not necessarily to an approach. Some STARs actually do take you right to an IAF for a published approach, while many others end at a fix within the approach control's radar service area, with expectations that the aircraft will be picked up by ATC radar approach control for vectors at some point before reaching the end of the published STAR track.

So here's how I prefer to recharacterize the PF3 options, similar to what RALF has suggested, but more in line with r/w procedures:

1. Vectors: the pilot flies the filed track until PF3 commences vectors to final. This looks to be essentially what you get now without the "STARs active" option checked.
2. Published approach: the pilot flies a route filed to a published approach IAF...once cleared for the approach, he flies to the IAF and flies the full approach as published and is left alone by ATC until he is approaching the FAF inbound and ready for handoff to tower. A STAR which feeds into a published approach would be included, as well as any other route to a valid IAF. This is similar to what is currently mislabelled "STARs active." And "cleared to finals" would be better replaced with "cleared for the approach."

What Ralf describes as "pilot's discretion" would be most procedurally correct as an option to allow the pilot to "Cancel IFR" and fly via his own navigation with just traffic advisories until handed off to tower at ~10NM. So if you're on a STAR or vectors or any other routing and it's clear and a million with the airport in sight, you can cancel and fly a visual on your own...ATC's role is suspended until you contact tower for landing clearance.

Regards

Bob Scott

Thank you very much for this insight into real world procedures. I agree that the terminology used by PF3 - and me - can be misleading, in particular with regard to those STARs that lead to a fix where ATC-vectors are to be expected.
The good thing is that all these procedural options can already be setup with the current options PF3 offers. To fly a STAR and get vectors at the end of the STAR you include the STAR waypoints in your flightplan and untick the STAR option. A little misleading indeed.

Ralf

Dave is looking into changing this to give you more options.