ATC and FMC

[Arthur Melton]

When I programme the FMC in my aircraft with star approach and runway details ,what more will ATC require, Thanks, Art

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

not exactly sure what the question is about but its also expected youll have charts for whats filed or [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned, and being able to understand and follow whats on the chart

[Arthur Melton]

You mean obtain paper charts. Does a pilot have to inform the controller of all SID and STAR charts he is using , can he use the ones out of FS Commander for instance.

[Robert Shearman Jr]

I feel like this belongs in Pilot Talk, not Controller Talk...

 

When you say you must obtain paper charts, those charts don't necessarily have to be on actual paper. I do my flying with charts pulled up in PDF or other online form on a second monitor.

 

As far as informing Air Traffic Control -- when you file a route that includes an IFR departure procedure and an IFR arrival procedure, and you are cleared on that route, that is how you have informed ATC what charts you will be using.

[Arthur Melton]

Thanks for that.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hi Art,

 

one important detail: while your FMC may contain the correct routing for a given SID, it may not contain the initial climb clearances for these procedures. Even if it shows you step climb profiles, you better consult digital or paper charts to check for this. There are quite a few airports with departure procedures that ask you to climb to a certain altitude or flightlevel only. If you cannot find charts for your airport of departure or arrival, your first stop should always be the website of the vACC that the airport is part of. For example when flying to or from an airport in Germany your best guess will be to look for charts at http://www.vatsim-germany.org .

[Erik Wachters]

Hello,

 

An important thing I want to add is: when you can't fly it, don't accept it.

A lot of pilots read back a clearance correctly but don't/can't fly the cleared route/SID/STAR.

If you can't do it, just tell the controller. He/She will help you out without disturbing other traffic.

 

https://www.belgocontrol.be/html/belgocontrol_static/eaip/eAIP_Main/html/index-en-GB.html

 

Erik

[Robert Shearman Jr]

An important thing I want to add is: when you can't fly it, don't accept it.

Even moreso, don't file it in the first place. If you include a procedure as part of your filed route, it should mean not only that it's in your FMC, but that you've looked at it & know what pilot-managed steps are included in its proper execution.

 

Erik's point is well-taken though in cases where a controller requests to amend your route -- they will always phrase that as "Can you accept {xxxxx}" and "unable" is an acceptable response if applicable. It is also critical knowledge in Europe & other places where the arrival (STAR) is not part of the initial filed & cleared route but instead is [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned by the Approach controller.

[Bradley Grafelman]

they will always phrase that as "Can you accept {xxxxx}"

Not always - especially not if we're talking about changing a SID/STAR and you already filed one. If it's slow and/or the controller is bored and wants to have a friendly chat, then sure. Otherwise, it's not impossible that they'd skip straight to issuing a clearance/amendment to cut out a couple of unnecessary transmissions. (Even then, though, you're right - it's not only acceptable but advisable to say you're unable to accept the new clearance if you believe that's the case.)

[Brad Littlejohn]

they will always phrase that as "Can you accept {xxxxx}"

Not always - especially not if we're talking about changing a SID/STAR and you already filed one. If it's slow and/or the controller is bored and wants to have a friendly chat, then sure. Otherwise, it's not impossible that they'd skip straight to issuing a clearance/amendment to cut out a couple of unnecessary transmissions. (Even then, though, you're right - it's not only acceptable but advisable to say you're unable to accept the new clearance if you believe that's the case.)

 

Agreed. Pilots and ATC need to remember that a clearance is an agreement between the pilot and controller. This does not mean that whatever the pilot has filed (including spending all of the time it took to program their FMC) will be accepted by the controller and issued as their clearance.

 

There are other possible things to consider for the pilots clearance, and whether what they filed will be issued:

• weather-related runway configuration.
  
• noise abatement.
  
• "self-inflicted" runway configuration. For example, runway closure, taxiway closure, runway shortening, etc.

 

A lot of these may require a different SID/STAR to be used altogether, because the SID/STAR the pilot spent their time on programming their FMC may not be used for that particular runway. So if a pilot files the STAAV7 departure out of KLAS, and either runways 1L/1R or 7L is being used for departures, their clearance ATC is going to give them will be different, throwing that time they programmed out of the window.

 

My point: pilots should not depend only on what they have spent their time programming into their FMC only for that flight. They should have multiple plans programmed, and locked and loaded in case their primary one will not be used.

 

BL.

[Andreas Fuchs]

The bottom line is: we are supposed to work as a team here. It does not matter WHO made a mistake or WHO is not able to follow an instruction/clearance. It is imperative that such problems get solved in a factual way. No ATC should be annoyed with a pilot reporting "unable SID/Departure Procedure", but rather be happy that the pilot was honest and needs to receive alternative instructions. Honesty is one of the most important things in aviation, otherwise ATC and pilots are not on the same page. There's nothing wrong about not being able to follow a procedure as long as your counterpart knows about it.

 

Both sides need to have situational awareness and for this honest information is vital. Rather report "say again" or "unable" than readback something that you are not sure about. Work together, we are a team.

[Robert Shearman Jr]

they will always phrase that as "Can you accept {xxxxx}"

If it's slow and/or the controller is bored and wants to have a friendly chat, then sure.

Agreed. Pilots and ATC need to remember that a clearance is an agreement between the pilot and controller. This does not mean that whatever the pilot has filed (including spending all of the time it took to program their FMC) will be accepted by the controller and issued as their clearance.

The bottom line is: we are supposed to work as a team here. It does not matter WHO made a mistake or WHO is not able to follow an instruction/clearance.

Geeze, guys. I didn't mean to spark so much controversy over the simple observation that when amending a pilot's route, ATC will generally -- and I initially said "always" but will amend that to "generally" if it makes you all feel better -- make sure it's something the pilot is able to accept before forcing it down his throat. This ain't the real world, we ain't all pros, and we ain't all flying PMDGs -- and in the six or so years I've been flying here I've nearly always heard ATC ask the pilot if they were able to accept the amendment.

[Arthur Melton]

What's so different with PMDG's or iFly's

[Robert Shearman Jr]

There are many pilots online who fly with the default MSFS aircraft. While these have GPS units simulated, there's no method for editing the route once the sim is started from the options screen. That makes it difficult to switch procedures after they are filed & the route imported.

 

Ultimately it's best if such pilots acquire add-on tools which allow them to fly more realistically -- but while they're in the learning stages, ATC has to work with them as best they can to find a solution that works for both. So it's not always reasonable for the controller to simply [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign a new departure or arrival and [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume the pilot can accept it. That's why they typically ask. I'm not sure why my stating that fact stirred up so many p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ionate responses, but, it's true in my experience here, and it's a good thing -- it fosters the cooperative learning environment and acceptance of users of all skill & knowledge levels the network seems to strive for.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hi Rob,

 

as you know in respect of aviation I do come from the real world, but especially in our hobby I am patient and tolerant towards non-real world pilots/controllers, everybody needs some time to get up to speed. The only that I am trying to tell everyone here is that it does not matter who made a mistake, the most important thing is that mistakes get corrected and that nobody needs to feel ashamed for having made a mistake, as long as they are honest about it. We need to operate based on facts, we need to be solution-minded, not blame-minded. And I see people who like to blame others, "because they have no clue".

 

So, let's work as a team, that was the bottom-line.

[Greg Barber]

This does not mean that whatever the pilot has filed (including spending all of the time it took to program their FMC) will be accepted by the controller and issued as their clearance.

 

"agreement between"

 

Likewise it does not mean that because the controller has a particular routing or clearance they want to use, that the pilot will be prepared to use it. The pilot may have spent significant time preparing a legal and perfectly valid route, prepared all the docomeents, checked all the airspace and have a clear picture of what they are about to fly. To have that changed into something completely different is not likely to be something that are going to "agree to".

 

Pilot and controller need to be mindful of each others objectives and capabilities when coming to an agreement of what the clearance should be (if indeed it is not simply what the pilot filed). If the controller amends the clearance to something that the pilot is unable to fly, the pilot should simply say so and work with the controller to come up with another solution to the problem. Likewise, if the pilot has filed something that the controller is unable to grant, the pilot should work with the controller to solve the problem.

 

Getting back to the original question...

 

When I programme the FMC in my aircraft with star approach and runway details ,what more will ATC require, Thanks, Art

 

ATC expects that once the pilot has programmed and checked the FMC data, the aircraft will fly according to that procedure.

 

Art, a good technique is to find the chart for your planned or [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned procedure and double check what has come up in your FMC. Check tracks, distances, speeds and altitudes for each waypoint in the procedure. This helps to ensure that the aircraft (on autopilot or not) is flying the procedure that ATC expects it to.

 

Also have a Plan B in mind. If you expect based on communications you can hear from aircraft ahead of you that you may be vectored off the procedure, have a plan for where you expect you'll be rejoining. Also consider how high you should be and how fast you should be to make a stable approach.

 

At the end of the day, if you don't understand something or find it confusing, ask (much as you have done here).

[Arthur Melton]

Having read all this would it be better to fly non FMC aircraft?

[Johan Grauers]

Having read all this would it be better to fly non FMC aircraft?

 

Not nessecarily, but the FMC is a tool like everything else and if you can't use it efficently then yes it might be better to learn to do without it.

 

I don't fly much these days but when I did I would try and fly procedures on raw data now and again just to remind me. When I started on vatsim though I spent years with very basic aircraft and tended to fly everything on raw data, because of that I've now got a pretty good idea of what I need to do even without my FMC (hwo well I execute is a different story ).

 

But in my opinion, reprograming a new terminal procedure isn't that difficult. What takes time is the briefing and understanding of it, however it shouldn't take more than five minutes or so unless the procedure is really complex. As a pilot I have no real issue with changes to the plan, as long as I'm given a bit of time to prepare when requested I will figure it out with or without my FMC.

[Robert Shearman Jr]

Having read all this would it be better to fly non FMC aircraft?

It depends what you mean by "better." In the real world, ATC may need to amend your filed route (sometimes in-flight), and in many places the arrival procedure isn't [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned until reaching the terminal control area. If you can't accept those changes the controllers will need to provide vectors or some other means of working you into their traffic flow.

 

So flying something which can accommodate in-flight route changes is most realistic, and offers you the ability to cooperate most easily with ATC. But you have to know how to operate it & fly the procedure properly. If the controller [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igns a route but then must constantly correct you when you deviate from it, then you haven't saved them any work. So more primitive and less realistic is "better" if it means you can more accurately follow the instructions you're given by ATC.

[Arthur Melton]

So maybe I shall stay primitive and so be realistic depending on the age I am flying in ,Warbirds and suchlike.

[Don Desfosse]

It's a bit clunky, especially until you've done it a few times, but you can change routes, add/change arrivals, etc. with the updated default GPS and vRoute. To do so:

 

1. Download your new route/arrival from vRoute

2. Take your autopilot off of GPS navigation

3. Load the new flight plan into your simulator

4. Select the navigation leg you want to use

5. Enable GPS navigation on your autopilot again (or if the course line from your PPos differs too much from the DTK line for the leg selected in your GPS, either use HDG mode or manual control to get to your next waypoint/fix and then re-enable GPS navigation).

[Robert Shearman Jr]

So maybe I shall stay primitive and so be realistic depending on the age I am flying in ,Warbirds and suchlike.

I very frequently fly VFR and IFR using only VOR/DME and NDB navigation (/A). It's how I originally learned in the 1990s and I still find it very rewarding. But I also enjoy medium-haul tubeliner flights as well. It's quite a different kind of aviation.