Jump to content

Standard Terminal Arrival


Jim Rish
 Share

Recommended Posts

 Your basic arrival procedures might be good for you in your Boeing and airbus air frames. It's NOT good for me flying the Concorde. I'm flying faster than you are, and the turns required for your basic arrival, are drastic, for me, and I have to bleed off quite a bit of speed. Departure isn't really an issue because of the work I have to do in order to get to cruise alt.  Eastern Russia, or starting at UKBB @ Kiev, and heading east, is the best area for what I fly. Otherwise, I would beat you, in the Euro sector via transocean routes, or to going to JFK & Miami from Heathrow and LFPG.

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 3

rocksalot.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was this supposed to be somewhere else? In some air-race thread?

Why would Boeing and Airbus pilots be at all interested in your arrival procedures? I guess ATC will take care of spacing. And if you are approaching unattended airport, I would assume that you would communicate your intentions clearly on UNICOM, so that you would have a nice empty final. Btw, neither are we Bobussers flying via STARs all the time.

ACH2118.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jim Rish said:

 Your basic arrival procedures might be good for you in your Boeing and airbus air frames. It's NOT good for me flying the Concorde. I'm flying faster than you are, and the turns required for your basic arrival, are drastic, for me, and I have to bleed off quite a bit of speed. Departure isn't really an issue because of the work I have to do in order to get to cruise alt.  Eastern Russia, or starting at UKBB @ Kiev, and heading east, is the best area for what I fly. Otherwise, I would beat you, in the Euro sector via transocean routes, or to going to JFK & Miami from Heathrow and LFPG.

 

I am confused by this as well. Regardless of airspace (while I can speak for the FAA, I'm pretty sure this is exactly the same in the UK, Eurocontrol, Oceania, Asia, etc.), the golden rule is that unless overridden by an administrator (someone in the administrative fashion),  all aircraft would have to maintain 250kts or less under 10,000ft. Every STAR I have ever flown across all 6 continents where STARs are used all have those crossing restrictions that a pilot will have to meet. The type of aircraft makes no difference. 

This would then make me wonder if you are adhering to the crossing restrictions on the STAR, which puts the problem squarely on the pilot, not the other pilots around you because of the aircraft you are choosing to fly.

BL.

 

Brad Littlejohn

ZLA Senior Controller

27

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Brad Littlejohn said:


I am confused by this as well.

 

Confused by what? Let me iron out the confusion for you. I have posted the VEDU8 arrival. What genius came up with this right turn at BOMBI? Anything goIng or ANY route to EGLL is far better than this. If I was flying my other favorite aircraft, besides the Concorde, which is de Havilland's DASH 8B, I simply wouldn't care.  In contrast, I have posted a much better arrival which simply makes, umm.., more sense. It's that simple. Later, I will post a picture of an arrival to, probably the only arrival to, one of my favorite airports in the world, Kyiv_UKBB. And why that one does make sense.   

vedu8.png

arrivalgood.png

rocksalot.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2020 at 2:30 PM, Jim Rish said:

 Your basic arrival procedures might be good for you in your Boeing and airbus air frames. It's NOT good for me flying the Concorde. I'm flying faster than you are, and the turns required for your basic arrival, are drastic, for me, and I have to bleed off quite a bit of speed. Departure isn't really an issue because of the work I have to do in order to get to cruise alt.  Eastern Russia, or starting at UKBB @ Kiev, and heading east, is the best area for what I fly. Otherwise, I would beat you, in the Euro sector via transocean routes, or to going to JFK & Miami from Heathrow and LFPG.

Who exactly are you yelling at? Eurocontrol, for publishing procedures that are challenging to fly in an aircraft type that last flew 17 years ago, and that was a special snowflake even back then?

VATSIM for using official real-life procedures?

People who fly normal airliners for being insufficiently compassionate about your self-inflicted problems?

I don't understand what your problem is, what you want changed, and who you expect to make those changes.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
23.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just looked up his flight history. He is talking about a flight from UNKL to LFPG:

 
Quote

BASE1D BASEL B938 SURIP T631 NJC G716 SORLI R813 NETLU A834 OGROM/K0880F340 A834 VESUR R902 AGBON DCT SPB B141 RANVA/N0482F340 P863 KOTAM/N0478F360 L990 MARIP N850 BAGOS/N0430F240 N850 LBV/N0423F230 N850 WRB/N0476F360 DCT BOMBI UL984 NOSPA UN857 TOLVU/N0478F370 UN857 RAPOR/N0392F190 Z157 VEDUS VEDU8E

First of all: this routing not valid anymore. Simbrief gave you ample warnings in the Route Analysis: "Error: Airway "P863" uses invalid endpoints. Error: Fix or airway "UL984" not found."

You needed to create a new route in any case! As you could see on the route preview in Simbrief, your routing would have taken you right overhead St. Petersburg (ULLI). I just searched Simbrief for a route from ULLI to LFPG and to my surprise there is one:

Quote

TURAL B141 RANVA KOTAM L990 MARIP GOBOT GASTU LERVO UY131 MOPIL

A quick an dirty method would have been to connect those two routes:

BASE1D BASEL B938 SURIP T631 NJC G716 SORLI R813 NETLU A834 OGROM/K0880F340 A834 VESUR R902 AGBON DCT SPB B141 RANVA and RANVA KOTAM L990 MARIP GOBOT GASTU LERVO UY131 MOPIL

Conclusion: there was no reason for you to rant. At all. Ever. Your flightplan was wrong, not VATSIM.

Edited by Andreas Fuchs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How was any of this ever anybody else's problem? I can't cross the ocean in like one and a half hours, do you see me bitching about that at you?

 

Also, I really don't know, but does the Concorde have a minimum clean speed of 450Kts or what? If you can't take those turns at your speeds, can't you go, like, slower? I thought the Concorde was such a superb airframe, surely it can do 220 or something?

Edited by Jonas Helkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Jonas Helkey said:

How was any of this ever anybody else's problem? I can't cross the ocean in like one and a half hours, do you see me bitching about that at you?

 

Also, I really don't know, but does the Concorde have a minimum clean speed of 450Kts or what? If you can't take those turns at your speeds, can't you go, like, slower? I thought the Concorde was such a superb airframe, surely it can do 220 or something?

The part you got right, probably the only part you got right, is that the Concorde "was", and is, such a superb air frame  indeed. The Concorde is an aerodynamic work of art. Period. Otherwise, funny you should mention 220 kts.(- +5) Because that's pretty much EXACTLY my velocity, in the Concorde, when flying this standard approach turn/s, again, to my favorite Concorde home base at Kyiv. In fact, I like this approach alot. It's fun to do. The drastic turns aren't 150 miles away from the destination airport either. So, thanks for bringing that up.  I appreciate it. 

kyivarrival.png

rocksalot.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jim Rish said:

Confused by what? Let me iron out the confusion for you. I have posted the VEDU8 arrival. What genius came up with this right turn at BOMBI? Anything goIng or ANY route to EGLL is far better than this. If I was flying my other favorite aircraft, besides the Concorde, which is de Havilland's DASH 8B, I simply wouldn't care.  In contrast, I have posted a much better arrival which simply makes, umm.., more sense. It's that simple. Later, I will post a picture of an arrival to, probably the only arrival to, one of my favorite airports in the world, Kyiv_UKBB. And why that one does make sense.   

vedu8.png

arrivalgood.png

 

I'll iron out the resolution for you. From Eurocontrol:

 

https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/2019-11/change-5-eurocontrol-specificatitions-oat-ifr-rules-version_0.pdf
 

Quote

 

2.3.4 Speed Limitations

2.3.4.1 Below FL 100 the pilot-in-command shall ensure that the aircraft is not operated at speeds in excess of 250 KIAS unless one or more of the below applies:

i Technical specifications of the aircraft require a higher airspeed for its safe operation;

ii Military operational or training requirements necessitate a higher airspeed;

iii A higher airspeed is allowed by the respective airspace class;

iv A respective ATC unit mandates a higher airspeed.

v Specific permission has been granted by an appropriate national authority for a specific flight.

 

 

The problem you have is that if you are below FL100, you should be operating at 250KIAS or less, as directed by ATC. If you are on a STAR, there would be crossing restrictions on that STAR, that would not only mention altitude restrictions, but SPEED RESTRICTIONS as well. That goes for regardless of aircraft.

The problem you would have is not complying with the altitude - and most importantly - the speed restrictions of the STAR. That again is the problem of the pilot, not the network, nor ATC.

You posted a map of your route. You have not posted the STAR. How about posting the STAR, as well as the depiction of the STAR, and we'll see where you are addressing this, as well as your flight, wrong.

 

BL.

Brad Littlejohn

ZLA Senior Controller

27

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tobias Dammers said:

Who exactly are you yelling at? Eurocontrol, for publishing procedures that are challenging to fly in an aircraft type that last flew 17 years ago, and that was a special snowflake even back then?

 

Special snowflake, umm, huh  (?), even back umm, when, dude? The beautiful Concorde is special alright. It's one-of-a-kind beautiful. Period. Speaking of special, though, how about that now defunct airbus' A380? LoL. Actually, not funny though. Without doubt, the biggest financial blunder. An absolutely hideous concept, right pout of the proverbial starting gate.. The biggest disaster of a concoction, and design,  in aviation history.  

Edited by Jim Rish

rocksalot.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Jim Rish said:

Special snowflake, umm, huh  (?), even back umm, when, dude? The beautiful Concorde is special alright. It's one-of-a-kind beautiful. Period. Speaking of special, though, how about that now defunct airbus' A380? LoL. Actually, not funny though. Without doubt, the biggest financial blunder. An absolutely hideous concept, right pout of the proverbial starting gate.. The biggest disaster of a concoction, and design,  in aviation history.  

 

This makes no sense. Now you are down to debating about which aircraft is better, which does absolutely nothing regarding the fact that the problem here is a failure to pilot the aircraft properly. For whatever STAR you need, you have to adhere to the crossing and speed restrictions of the STAR, as well as the 250kts or lower under FL100/10000ft.

This surely was [b]NEVER[/b] a problem for any Concorde flight that flew the ROBER arrival into JFK:

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2012/00610ROBER.PDF

By the time you cross ROBER, which would be [b]at[/b] 9000ft, you're already going to be below 250kts, and probably less. Every Concorde flight has been able to do that. If, once again, you are not able to handle the turns and crossing restrictions at that speed, then the problem is with the pilot not being able to fly the aircraft being used. Perhaps the Concorde isn't the right aircraft for you.

BL.

 

Brad Littlejohn

ZLA Senior Controller

27

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple solutipn for you, if you cant meet the requirements of the STAR or SID, notify ATC who will accommodate you in other ways.

Example, 747s departing Sydney for the USA cant meet the climb requirements of the SID, and are therefore given a radar departure as an alternative.

  • Like 3

Kirk Christie - VATPAC C3

VATPAC Undercover ATC Agent

Worldflight Perth 737-800 Crew Member

956763

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jim Rish said:

Special snowflake, umm, huh  (?), even back umm, when, dude? The beautiful Concorde is special alright. It's one-of-a-kind beautiful. Period. Speaking of special, though, how about that now defunct airbus' A380? LoL. Actually, not funny though. Without doubt, the biggest financial blunder. An absolutely hideous concept, right pout of the proverbial starting gate.. The biggest disaster of a concoction, and design,  in aviation history.  

The A380 is a special snowflake too. Both aircraft require procedures that differ from your standard airliner, though for different reasons (for Concorde, those reasons are noise, fuel burn, and speed; for the A380, it's size, weight, and wake turbulence). The reason the A380 procedures are still available is because the A380 is still flying; Concorde was decommissioned in 2003, and the type-specific procedures were scrapped IRL.

I was making absolutely no comments about the merits of either aircraft - depending who you ask, either type is the best aircraft ever, or a horrible failure; I don't have a strong opinion on this, and it's also completely irrelevant in discussing why current procedures don't meet Concorde operational constraints.

23.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jim Rish said:

my favorite Concorde home base at Kyiv. In fact, I like this approach alot. It's fun to do. The drastic turns aren't 150 miles away from the destination airport either.

Have you read my previous post? Your flightplan route was not correct. And the "drastic turn" that you mention is NOT part of any STAR, it is part of your enroute section. With a smart turn this should be no issue, even at 500 KTAS.

And: Kyiv was never a homebase of the real Concorde.

Finally I fear that you are here to troll us.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jim,

are you the one who insists to fly super-sonic over Central Europe? Our "virtual citizens" don't mind the sonic boom but if you are talking about "reality" etc. maybe also consider that super-sonic is generally only allowed over water and the routes flown by Concorde always had deceleration points defined to allow the aircraft to reduce the speed below M1.0 prior reaching landfall. Other than that it was already written that Concorde can perfectly fine fly with "normal" speeds - it's more a question of fuel consumption why it got priority in it's days as it was nearly always low on fuel.

Cheers
Michael

Edited by Michael Krause
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

And: Kyiv was never a homebase of the real Concorde.

 

I couldn't care less what "home base" never was, or is, for the "real" Concorde. I will tell you, and anybody else on VATSIM, or anywhere else for that matter, that Kyiv is a perfect location for the one-of-a-kind beautiful Concorde. Period. It's excellent approach chart to Rwy. 36R is perfect. So is the taxi follow cart to the ramp. The other obvious dream come true, for the Concord would be, of course, the excellent, and famous, KDFW facility. Period.  

  • Haha 1

rocksalot.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tobias Dammers said:

The A380 is a special snowflake too. Both aircraft require procedures that differ from your standard airliner, though for different reasons (for Concorde, those reasons are noise, fuel burn, and speed; for the A380, it's size, weight, and wake turbulence). The reason the A380 procedures are still available is because the A380 is still flying; Concorde was decommissioned in 2003, and the type-specific procedures were scrapped IRL.

I was making absolutely no comments about the merits of either aircraft - depending who you ask, either type is the best aircraft ever, or a horrible failure; I don't have a strong opinion on this, and it's also completely irrelevant in discussing why current procedures don't meet Concorde operational constraints.

 When I made my jabs and insults at your airbus' 380, I meant it. Don't presume to dance around the subject with your ambiguous caveats. Your airbus' 380 is simply the disaster, not only in design and concept, but in plain economics. I don't see how they can possibly recover from such a monumental blunder.. You people had better do a bunch of hauling to try and make up for that disaster.. As the Tom Berenger character says, in the movie, when playing the Paul Bryant role: "you're gonna work now.."  Airbus' 380 is the absolute epitome of the white elephant of aviation. Period. 😬

Edited by Jim Rish
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

rocksalot.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Michael Krause said:

Hi Jim,

are you the one who insists to fly super-sonic over Central Europe?

 

Well, I don't know about that, but I will tell you, and anybody else this. And thanks ya much for asking. Once I leave my port at UKBB, and head east, that's pretty much a wrap. That's because I ain't comin' back. I will be on a long tour on my way to KJFK, whenever that will be. That is,  after taking vacation in either Sydney or PHNL. Tough decision. 🤔

rocksalot.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...