Standard Terminal Arrival

[Andreas Fuchs]

Don't cry 😄

[Robert Shearman Jr]

It's been an entertaining ride, but I'm hopping off here, gents.

[Jonas Helkey]

Also don't think it's worth crying over, but this thread hurts my brain at this point.

[Jim Rish]

40 minutes ago, Jonas Helkey said:

Also don't think it's worth crying over, but this thread hurts my brain at this point.

 Looking at an airbus 380, let alone flying the thing, would hurt my brain at any point, dude. 😝

[Jonas Helkey]

1 minute ago, Jim Rish said:

 Looking at an airbus 380, let alone flying the thing, would hurt my brain at any point, dude. 😝

That's cool. Not sure what it matters, but I'm a Dash-8 guy actually. Doesn't do much to stave off the impression that we're watching a thought process unravel in this thread.

[Jim Rish]

20 hours ago, Brad Littlejohn said:

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.

 

OK, BL.  My Concorde goes 240 kts., and less by the time I reach that point, BL. And I'll outmaneuver you or any buddy you have in the process as well. That is, of course, unless you're flying the highly responsive Dassault Rafale. Not that the highly responsive Dassault Rafale would be the right aircraft for you. Or your buddies. 🙃  It is for me though. You, and anybody else, can count on that fact. 😉

[Andreas Fuchs]

What was this entire thread about? Right, a STAR that actually was not a STAR, but just an edge in an outdated, invalid flightplan route.

Jim, have you processed the information that we have delivered to you?

[Jonas Helkey]

28 minutes ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

What was this entire thread about? Right, a STAR that actually was not a STAR, but just an edge in an outdated, invalid flightplan route.

Jim, have you processed the information that we have delivered to you?

I don't think he's very concerned with that, it seems to me he mainly wants to swing his Concorde around a little if you get my meaning. Not sure what that's accomplishing since there wouldn't be much incentive for anyone to measure their abilities against those of a complete, rambling stranger, but I think we've all read way too much into this whole thread initially.

[Mats Edvin Aaro]

This was an... interesting read. Though the more I read, the less I understood what this post is about. A STAR is just that, a standard. There will always be exceptions, and the Concorde is as much of an exception as you can get. Controllers will facilitate you, but I'm not really sure what rant you're going on here...

[Brad Littlejohn]

1 hour ago, Jim Rish said:

OK, BL.  My Concorde goes 240 kts., and less by the time I reach that point, BL. And I'll outmaneuver you or any buddy you have in the process as well. That is, of course, unless you're flying the highly responsive Dassault Rafale. Not that the highly responsive Dassault Rafale would be the right aircraft for you. Or your buddies. 🙃  It is for me though. You, and anybody else, can count on that fact. 😉

 

So with this, do you realize you just contradicted yourself, let alone this entire thread and topic that you've brought up? You claim you couldn't fly a STAR (a STAR in which you still haven't produced, by the way) because your aircraft "flies too fast to make a turn", yet here just indicated that your aircraft can fly the speeds that everyone does, allowing you to adhere to any STAR you need to fly.

Sorry to say, but you just shown that the problem here is poor piloting rather than poor ATC or route generation/depiction of any STAR.

Additionally, since I fly the PC-12NG, B752, A220, E-Jets (E170/175/190/195), B788, and sometimes the A380 (which, as you say, would hurt your brain) and have no problem with flying any STARs with any of those aircraft, I'm pretty sure and confident that my maneuverability skills are more than adequate to handle most to all problems coming my way.. That would include the adherence to STARs, which some here might need a refresher.

And granted that also as a controller, we would be more worried about  "outmaneuvering" skills disrupting our traffic flow and having to pull someone out of sequence because of they are having more problems with flightplanning and adherence to SOPs of not only their aircraft, but the airspace they are flying in.

But then again, this would give our controllers a good primer on what to do with such a problem. The sad part here would be that one would be singled out for such a thing, and that reflects poorly on the pilot. But keep your head up; this is a network for learning.

BL.

 

[David Bromage]

Concorde doesn't need to fly a STAR. It is perfectly acceptable for the pilot of an aircraft that is not RNAV capable (727, 737-200, DC-3, etc) to request vectors to final. Even if you are RNAV capable and can't meet an altitude or speed requirement, you inform ATC as soon as possible. This is not rocket science. This comes down to poor pilot skills. Nothing whatsoever to do with VATSIM or whichever authority designed a STAR 17 years after Concorde was retired.

[Brad Littlejohn]

57 minutes ago, David Bromage said:

Concorde doesn't need to fly a STAR. It is perfectly acceptable for the pilot of an aircraft that is not RNAV capable (727, 737-200, DC-3, etc) to request vectors to final. Even if you are RNAV capable and can't meet an altitude or speed requirement, you inform ATC as soon as possible. This is not rocket science. This comes down to poor pilot skills. Nothing whatsoever to do with VATSIM or whichever authority designed a STAR 17 years after Concorde was retired.

 

Not all STARs require RNAV. Cases in point, at KLAS:

 

LUXOR2

KADDY3

FUZZY8

CLARR3

None of those require RNAV capabilities to be flown. RADAR and DME, yes. But RNAV, no. In fact, for most major airports with STARs requiring RNAV, there more than likely is a non-RNAV equivalent STAR that can be filed for non-RNAV-equipped aircraft.

BL.

Edited December 4, 2020 at 05:59 AM by Brad Littlejohn

[Tobias Dammers]

22 hours ago, Jim Rish said:

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.

And none of this is relevant.

Again, this isn't about which aircraft is "better", and the only one trying to insult people on purpose here (and failing, in case you hadn't noticed) is you. I don't care what your opinion is on any aircraft type, I'm just trying to explain to you why the STARs used on VATSIM in 2020 may not be suitable for Concorde. Well-meant advice; take it or leave it.

On a side note: it's not "my" A380, and I have absolutely no opinion on its economic merits, its significance for the history of aviation, or how cool or uncool it is to pilot that thing. (Well, actually I do, but none of them matter in this discussion, so I'll keep them to myself).

And with that, I'll resort to eating popcorn as this thread keeps unraveling.

[Brad Littlejohn]

On 12/3/2020 at 9:38 AM, Jim Rish said:

 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. 😬

 

All of this here is pure deflection: completely and totally irrelevant to the topic, which is the lack of ability to properly fly your aircraft in adherence to standards set for YEARS regarding yours and everyone else's aircraft.

1. You still have not provided the STAR in question you are claiming you can't fly, and are blaming ATC and their governing bodies for that lack.
2. You still have totally contradicted yourself by saying that you can fly the Concorde at indicated speeds that everyone else in any other aircraft can do, but complain that you can't make the same turns that everyone else can at those same speeds.
3. You then - in another attempted deflection - try to play "my piloting skills are better than yours" by saying that you can outmaneuver other aircrafts, yet still have not produced anything to substantiate your original claim.

If anything here, you've provided a great learning lesson to new pilots joining our network: KNOW and LEARN your aircraft prior to flying it. We can help you with what you can do while in the air, but learn how to fly your aircraft before you fly it. Unfortunately for you, you're in the highlights package for the wrong reason: you've given everyone the lesson of what not to do.

If you'd like to learn it, we'll help you, otherwise, as Edward R. Murrow always said when he ended his news program: Good Night, and Good Luck.

BL.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Maybe he wants to join Arthur who gets so annoyed when ATC shows up and asks him to make contact 😄

[Jim Rish]

5 hours ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

Maybe he wants to join Arthur who gets so annoyed when ATC shows up and asks him to make contact 😄

Doesn't bother me at all. I enjoy making contact. That is, unless you contact me at this point. When I'm making my arrangements to my home port here, for rwy. 36R, what is ATC doing jumping on at the last second to begin with? Call me in order to prevent me from landing? Whatever. UKBB must have some last second event going on that coinicentally happens to be during my arrival, then.      

[Jim Rish]

6 hours ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

Maybe he wants to join Arthur who gets so annoyed when ATC shows up and asks him to make contact 😄

Which leads to my next question. At what point does ATC finally decide to jump on to get Arthur to contact them? The situation/s, where he actually is at the time, can make a HUGE difference. That, and just end up going around. Not that that bothers me, actually.  F.y.i. 🧑‍🏫

[Jim Rish]

7 hours ago, Brad Littlejohn said:

 

All of this here is pure deflection: completely and totally irrelevant to the topic, which is the lack of ability to properly fly your aircraft in adherence to standards set for YEARS regarding yours and everyone else's aircraft.

1. You still have not provided the STAR in question you are claiming you can't fly, and are blaming ATC and their governing bodies for that lack.
2. You still have totally contradicted yourself by saying that you can fly the Concorde at indicated speeds that everyone else in any other aircraft can do, but complain that you can't make the same turns that everyone else can at those same speeds.
3. You then - in another attempted deflection - try to play "my piloting skills are better than yours" by saying that you can outmaneuver other aircrafts, yet still have not produced anything to substantiate your original claim.

If anything here, you've provided a great learning lesson to new pilots joining our network: KNOW and LEARN your aircraft prior to flying it. We can help you with what you can do while in the air, but learn how to fly your aircraft before you fly it. Unfortunately for you, you're in the highlights package for the wrong reason: you've given everyone the lesson of what not to do.

If you'd like to learn it, we'll help you, otherwise, as Edward R. Murrow always said when he ended his news program: Good Night, and Good Luck.

BL.

 Here is the actual information that you have given, that I actually do appreciate. Since I never have liked Las Vegas,  I've never done these procedures before. Now that I'm in the highly agile Concorde, which I probably can fly  better than anyone, with my ability for more, shall we say, sharp AOA descent capabilities, I will probably do this. ALL of them just for practice. So far, just with this one post, you've managed, by hook or by crook, or whatever, to give out valuable information right here. Therefore, thanks for doing it :🧑‍💼.   

  https://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KHND/STAR/all/pdf  

[Jim Rish]

8 hours ago, Brad Littlejohn said:

 KNOW and LEARN your aircraft prior to flying it.

And thanks for pointing that out again. The following is from  somebody who is a rank amateur with the Concorde. The Concorde's speed across the now CONSTANTLY traveled transatlantic routes is simply redundant. There really is no point to try and reinvent your already constant and plastered up north atlantic routes. This, after years, should be a given. The Concorde has, and always has  had more  features available for more practical flying than this redundant subject. I could expound on this more, from a technological perspective, in regards to SECAL. There's really no point to it. Even 1800's technology could be used to transmit location, and supposedly predictable location, of the aircraft, on already by now, well worn out routes, that everybody that does this should know by now. What possible twists and turns, at this date in time,  could you possibly have in your already worn north atlantic routes? This guy here is yet another example of somebody who thinks just because he thinks he can fly the Concorde, that makes you some kinda Marco Polo of flying. The Concorde is perfectly capably of going .8, or .5 Mach across anywhere. Yet this guy here thinks he's something special by adding some needless drama to it? Why?   

 

 

[Jim Rish]

7 minutes ago, Jim Rish said:

And thanks for pointing that out again. The following is from  somebody who is a rank amateur with the Concorde. The Concorde's speed across the now CONSTANTLY traveled transatlantic routes is simply redundant. There really is no point to try and reinvent your already constant and plastered up north atlantic routes. This, after years, should be a given. The Concorde has, and always has  had more  features available for more practical flying than this redundant subject. I could expound on this more, from a technological perspective, in regards to SECAL. There's really no point to it. Even 1800's technology could be used to transmit location, and supposedly predictable location, of the aircraft, on already by now, well worn out routes, that everybody that does this should know by now. What possible twists and turns, at this date in time,  could you possibly have in your already worn north atlantic routes? This guy here is yet another example of somebody who thinks just because he thinks he can fly the Concorde, that makes you some kinda Marco Polo of flying. The Concorde is perfectly capably of going .8, or .5 Mach across anywhere. Yet this guy here thinks he's something special by adding some needless drama to it? Why?   

 

 

 OR, if you have to slow to Mach .7 for this group thing, then sobeit. I really don't get the point. 🙃🤷‍♀️

[Jim Rish]

7 hours ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

Maybe he wants to join Arthur who gets so annoyed when ATC shows up and asks him to make contact 😄

And, since you decided to bring that up, that actually did happen to me on my way to UNKL. ATC Centre, probably around the area of Khanty-Mansiysk, decided to come on. I was glad to make contact, not interrupting me on some downwind leg, like I said, where he just waited. Then he simply called me down to FL250/210, whatever, and I'm glad he did. I was lagging too long way up there longer than I thought. Then, he simply waved me on through. That's the kind of EXPERT ATC that I like. Just like the expert ATC at Los Angeles Centre I talked about in my other post. 👩‍💻

[Jim Rish]

On 12/2/2020 at 1:29 PM, Andreas Fuchs said:

Hi Jim,

what are you talking about? What STAR are you talking about? Can you post the entire route that you used?

  I would like to post that hideous simbrief concoction, but since then I've deleted it. Hopefully, I'll never see it again. 🙆‍♀️

[Jim Rish]

On 12/3/2020 at 12:03 AM, Kirk Christie said:

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.

 That's absolutely fascinating. Always something new. I would like to know more about the 747's inability to climb out on SIDney. It reminds me of how I can't make it to the 10K minimum on the famous PORTE3 departure out of KSFO, when I'm flying the Dash 8. It's not meant for that, but I practiced it over and over just for fun.  Using my dual RMI, I can get pretty much on the money @ PORTE int., which I used to memorize like the back of my hand. Memorized all VOR freqs. which I didn't even have to look up anymore, including left turn hdgs., predicted  CDI deflections, in that particular aircraft anyways.  But this is climb out thing is interesting to say the least. Gotta check this out.  Especially in regards to my Concorde. 🤔

Edited December 5, 2020 at 10:02 AM by Jim Rish

[Jim Rish]

On 12/2/2020 at 5:25 PM, Brad Littlejohn said:

 

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
 

Just, wow..  That entire section from 2.3.4.2. , and from 2.4.1, my personal favorite, from then on, is absolutely fascinating. A pleasant surprise! Reading through that alone makes me want to go to England and borrow my other most favorite aircraft of all time, from the RAF. One of the anniversary paints is just beautiful. That would be, of course, the famous T1 Hawk.

[Trevor Hannant]

8 hours ago, Jim Rish said:

what is ATC doing jumping on at the last second to begin with? Call me in order to prevent me from landing? 

Who says they're jumping on just because they've noticed someone on final?   Maybe they've booked ATC from a specific time onwards?   maybe they've just found they have an hour or two free and want to jump on?

As a controller, I never jump on because I see someone on final and I'd imagine that the majority, particularly those on higher ratings, don't either.