Jump to content

Oddvar Tveito 1389576

Members
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. I think I should stop here. I have already started to repeat myself . I just wanted to say thanks once more to all of you who has helped clarifying these matters to me – and hopefully some others. Just to sum up to see if I got it right: • Expect vectoring – always – at busy European airports. Want to fly the STARs to the last fix? Go to smaller not so busy airports. Or ask specifically and get a yes if traffic permits. • In the US, flying the STAR to the last fix is the common way. They also vector you from time to time, but not so often. • Want to do old fashioned VOR/DME navigation?
  2. I guess ATC and pilots have a rather different perspective on what is important in virtual flying. ATC is about sequencing and traffic flow. Pilots wants to practice navigating their planes and reading, understanding and following charts. For me, it’s a little sad to hear that your training says you should “offer shortcuts whenever possible”. Shortcuts makes me a “lame duck”. No more thinking, just turn heading and altitude knobs when told. I think you should use the STAR to the last fix more often. Aren’t STARs made for that purpose? To get good traffic flow and ease the pressure on ATC. Th
  3. I should post and read here more often. I learn a lot. Thanks again to all of you for writing such knowledgeable posts. I hope this will be discussed among ATC people. My impression is that ATC is more strict about pilots following their vectoring than you guys here suggests. I have asked a few times to be allowed to fly my posted (and accepted by ATC ) VOR - Flight Plan, or to fly the STAR “to the end”, but the answer has allways been NO. In the end, it’s about the need for new challenges. First you practice offline. Then you go online and appreciate the interactions of vectoring. But aft
  4. Yes, Norway is rather boring when it comes to VOR-flying . And your last comment is very true.
  5. Yes, Norway is quite boring when it comes to VOR flying . Not many VORs and no VOR app in the south. I think your last remark is very true and important.
  6. Exactly! This is why VOR navigation is so fun in the US. I have also found airways in Europe that I can fly, especially since I have two receivers and can find intersections between two radials. But the problem is that ATC starts vectoring me early in the flight anyway. Or they say Direct , which also takes away most of the fun if I still have 3 left. When it comes to final approach vectoring again takes away the possibility to practice VOR approaches, although VOR apps are often available at European airports.
  7. Thanks a lot, to all above for very useful reading. I learned a lot! A few comments: 1. I'm not at all focused on saving fuel/time/maintenance cost. For me it’s mastering the plane. So an extra 15min of challenging flying, a few tons extra burned fuel doesn’t matter. 2. I think the key word here is variation. In the beginning, vectoring was a great challenge. But not so much the threehundredandfourtysixth time. 3. For me this became particularly obvious when I bought an old B3733-200 with only VOR+DME and started posting VOR only flightplans. To get new challenges. The plans where acce
  8. I have been flying several hundred VATSIM flights and it’s been great fun. I really appreciate the job done by ATC! But I have I wish. After a while I also started to fly VATSIM in the US. The fun thing about ATC in US is that they use STARS much more. European also clear you for STARs. But you hardly get into them before they start vectoring you. In the beginning vectoring was challenging and fun, but I have found it would be a great new challenge if ATC could let us fly the STARS to the end sometimes. Isn’t that how they are used in real life too? Then we would have to make sure we follow
  9. Thanks a lot @Robert Shearman! Your text is such a great help. I learn a lot, things become clear. It makes me much more confident when filing VOR-based flightplans to VATSIMA ATC. And when I checked my XSquawkBox after this flight, the equipment code was set to /L. And I believe ATC cannot change that in my client software. This indicates that the confusion about navigational capability was my fault, that I forgot to change from default /L to /A before posting. At the same time I wrote no SID and VOR only, so rather confusing from my side. So the ATC should not be blamed .
  10. First, thanks to @Bradley Grafelman. I learn a lot from your comments. Thanks for your time! And sorry for long answer I think you have already answered my two original questions: Yes, I must expect that ATC adds extra fixes (I called them non-VOR waypoints in my previous post) in between the VORs I posted as long as it is possible to navigate to them using the two VOR/DME receivers. And yes, /A means you are able to fly ILS approaches. It was not obvious to me that having a VOR receiver mean you also have an ILS receiver, since ILS also includes vertical information. What I still
  11. To get some variation I wanted to practice flying using only VORs for navigation, including landing. I read somewhere that I should then select Equipment Suffix /A when posting my flightplan. Then I have 2 questions which I was not able to clarify by searching the web: Can ATC still add non-VOR waypoints in between the VORs? Or should I expect to be flying directly from VOR to VOR, which is easier for a start? I understand that waypoints in between is possible to handle by using DME to measure distance and then change course at the waypoints in between VORs. If I post /A, can they st
  12. Very good idea! Haven't thought about that as possible - to ask for RNAV if ILS is available. I allways just fly what I am told.
  13. Thanks to all of you for great answers. Think I've got it now (maybe not all the details ). I will stop using the plane to understand concepts,and rather read VATSIM articles only. Next time ATC clears me with an RNAV approach, I will know what it means. Thanks again! Great help!
  14. Yes, both the Pilot Resource docomeent (thanks for the link Andreas) and the charts indicate LOC and RNAV as different things. LOC is about the two navigation aids, the Localizer at the runway and the VOR at POGGI. The RNAV chart, on the other hand, has nothing about the localizer, but it has a nice path of waypoints to follow using the planes' GPS. So far so good. But I try to learn these things by flying. And when I look into the FMCs, it gets all mixed up. I have checked three of my planes that I trust the most. All of them include a LOC frequency also when I select an RNAV approach for K
  15. I need to learn the difference between LOC rw27 and RNAV (Y/Z) rw27 approaches. I have been practicing LOC27. That gives me a localizer beam to guide me laterally. Today I was cleared a RNAV Z rw27 app. It seemed RNAV was allmost the same approach but without a localizer. Is that correct? Any other differences? In my FMC I have both LOC27 and several RNAV 27, but what is the difference? I guess I should know that before arriving at KSANagain . I tried to read the docomeentation, but could not find anything.
×
×
  • Create New...