Flying NON-RNAV (INS) aircraft on CTP (2022)

[Brian Fernandez]

I’ve received the email that I can book my slot from a certain date (1415z 23/03/2022).

Before, I was originally planning on doing EGKK-TBPB/TFFF with the Felis 747-200 with INS navigation as TBPB/TFFF (or any other Caribbean airports) have NON-RNAV STARs (INS is NON-RNAV).

Apprently I found out that it is not possible to fly from EGKK to TBPB/TFFF, only to airports in NA. Additionally, most (or all) of the NA Airports have RNAV only STARs and obviously I can’t fly them with an INS due to: 1. INS drifting 2. Can only hold 9 way points at a time 3. Runways may have their own STARs.

At this point, I almost can’t be bothered to tell ATC ‘/W Unable RNAV’ as there’s too much traffic which vast majority of RNAV capable, and it may put additional workload on ATC when it’s already high.

My options therefore are: 1. Fly a different, RNAV capable aircraft 2. Fly the 742 with an FMC (I’m still going ahead of departing out of EGKK as I’m a UK based user (95% of my flights are always to/from the UK and I like to keep it that way))

Obviously with CTP, oceanic clearance is done via the Nattrak website and posreps been replaced by ADS-B/C but with the 742 it’ll been done the old fashioned way.

I’ll later reply to this post with what Slot I got.

Thx

 

[Magnus Meese]

You can't fly RNAV STARs because they are required to be loaded from an ARINC 424 based databse straight into a FMS or equivalent, building them point by point is not compliant. In other words, /W and /I is can only use enroute RNAV. While your two points are good reasons why it shouldn't be done anyway, you could concievably use DME/DME updating to have a navigational performance within limits (except it's not approved for it) and with cartridges you'd be able to load the STAR in bits as you progress as long as the legs are long enough.

In short, you're right, the only two choices for /I & /W is conventional navigation STARs or vectoring onto the approach.

As for flying such an aircraft at CTP, it's doable, but should you? CTP is a cluster..something of an event, where a lot of the controllers involved will be at or beyond capactiy a lot of the time. Historical flying is great, but I personally don't think it's appropriate to show up to an event like CTP with aircraft not equipped to fly the procedures that everyone else will be on. There's 363 other days in the year for that. That's just a guy's opinion though, you can disagree and do what you want within the rules of the event (which I don't know what are).

Lastly, there's nothing stopping you from flying to the Caribbean or any other non-event airport on the event day, you simply may be restricted to a relatively low cruise level or partially rerouted while you share airspace with event traffic.

3 hours ago, Brian Fernandez said:

Obviously with CTP, oceanic clearance is done via the Nattrak website and posreps been replaced by ADS-B/C but with the 742 it’ll been done the old fashioned way.

It's not just CTP, ADS-B based surveillance is the standard now for all equipped aircraft in Shanwick&Gander on the network as it is IRL (bunch of caveats to that IRL bit, but that's neither here nor there). Any historic/uneqipped aircraft will be separated procedurally. If your plan is to do that on CTP, bring plenty of extra fuel, as you may well be confined to a very inefficient level to keep you from obstructing everyone. Stepclimbs and optimum levels is not a right. Fuel consuming reroutings might be necessary. Again, maybe your first listed option is the better choice for everyone involved?

3 hours ago, Brian Fernandez said:

(95% of my flights are always to/from the UK and I like to keep it that way)

You do you, mate. Thanks for keeping us informed, I guess.

[David Bromage]

TBPB doesn't have any STARs. Adams Radar will be giving vectors whatever you fly. So go for it with the 742 if that's where you want to fly.

[Brian Fernandez]

13 hours ago, Magnus Meese said:

 you could concievably use DME/DME updating to have a navigational performance within limits (except it's not approved for it)

I am aware (and familar) of doing DME updating but it's also a case of:

1. Where/How far away the DME station is (needs to be less than 200nm away and (somewhat) equal distance on the left/right side of the aircraft rather than infront/behind)

2. If it is just single or duel-DME updating (Duel DME updating is more accurate which I'll only DME update if there's two VOR/DME stations nearby rather than one)

3. If it's actually a 'VOR/DME' station (INS won't DME update if it's just a 'VOR' or 'DME' only station)

[Brian Fernandez]

10 hours ago, David Bromage said:

TBPB doesn't have any STARs. Adams Radar will be giving vectors whatever you fly. So go for it with the 742 if that's where you want to fly.

I am unable to do TBPB as there are no slots (at all) between EGKK and TBPB. And I'm still sticking to EGKK as my departure (see the first post as to why).

[Andreas Fuchs]

13 hours ago, Magnus Meese said:

building them point by point is not compliant

....although in VATSIM we can ignore this realworld rule. Better program the points manually than not be able to follow any of the RNP STARs/SIDs.

[Brian Fernandez]

6 minutes ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

....although in VATSIM we can ignore this realworld rule. Better program the points manually than not be able to follow any of the RNP STARs/SIDs.

The problem with this is, if there's a runway change it may be a different STAR altogether (ie EDDF's RNAV transition routing for 07L/R is different for 25L/R or CYUL/CYWG/CYVR where each runways have their own STARs) and if I was to programe the points manually, I'll be frantically trying to find the coordinates of each points and it'll not help if the STAR contains more than 9 waypoints.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Yes, I am aware of this. I would not program all of those points, of course, but only the most important ones. The better solution for a busy event would be - as you probably guessed - using a proper FMS.

[Tobias Dammers]

As a general rule of thumb: CTP is not the time to be special.

(Says the man who flew an Embraer 190 the past 2 editions...)

[Magnus Meese]

On 3/23/2022 at 1:34 PM, Brian Fernandez said:

I am aware (and familar) of doing DME updating but it's also a case of:

Sure, but it was also just a thought expriment. Don't fly RNAV STARs with it.

 

On 3/23/2022 at 1:38 PM, Andreas Fuchs said:

....although in VATSIM we can ignore this realworld rule. Better program the points manually than not be able to follow any of the RNP STARs/SIDs.

You can, but I definitely prefer sticking someone on a conventional procedure or vectoring them rather than having them flying the one STAR they maybe programmed right. In my opinion, if you're doing historic flying, stick to conventional nav. An INS equipped aircraft flying point merge or other swanky RNAV stuff is just silly.

[Andreas Fuchs]

My intention was to keep the workload of ATCOs as low as possible and if you happen to fly to airports with primitive RNP STARs//Transitions/SIDs, it would be a consideration. And if there's a conventional procedure, then request and use it, of course. Point-merge....we used to call that "DME-arc" 😄

[Magnus Meese]

I've only had a handfull people fly self-programmed RNAVs over the years, and every single one of them had something wrong in them or had the wrong runway programmed and ended up on vectors. It was just vectoring with extra steps, not reducing my workload at all.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Candidates with INS or with full FMS units?

[Magnus Meese]

INS. It's just not a good idea to ram an RNAV STAR down the throat of a Carousel, and I'm not sure why you think it is. Stick them on a heading, sixty percent of the the time it works every time (This is an Anchorman quote, not a statistic)!

[Alistair Thomson]

1 hour ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

Point-merge....we used to call that "DME-arc"

Yep. Maybe it still is, outside FAA land? Probably not: Magnus is European...

[Magnus Meese]

It's not the same thing, my nationality or.. continentuality?.. has nothing to do with it. The point merge system is a sequencing tool for ATC, trying to be the new big thing in terminal airspace. DME arcs are of another era and while they are fun to execute on a six pack and has its uses, it's scope is not the same. The DME arc is just one of many ways to design a conventional procedure, point merge is a complete airspace revamp. I'm not advocating for it, I don't mind it but personally prefer vectoring both on VATSIM and IRL, it's simply more enjoyable to me.

What PMS is and how it works at OSL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC_X6t_Rbq4
Before and after example from PMS at CDG: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W-LECKDhtw

 

[Andreas Fuchs]

I follow those procedures myself in the real world into various airports around Europe... point-merge procedures have taken over from DME-arcs and effectively they do achieve almost the same thing, but they look a bit different in many places. In others they look like a DME-arc.

1 hour ago, Magnus Meese said:

It's just not a good idea to ram an RNAV STAR down the throat of a Carousel, and I'm not sure why you think it is.

Because we are playing a simulation-game. Indeed, if we were serious about it, non-RNAV aircraft wouldn't be allowed to operate anymore, but since we are tolerant on this, we can also tolerate people trying to insert a few waypoints in their INS. If it is just 3 or 4 points, why not? Programming more than that in an INS will be a pain in the butt, of course. Yes, request vectors for arrival and approach if you don't want to insert 3 or 4 points, otherwise give it a shot. Nothing else did I write: "it would be a consideration". Nuff' said.

[Magnus Meese]

1 hour ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

point-merge procedures have taken over from DME-arcs and effectively they do achieve almost the same thing

How many major airports are there with arcs on the STAR, aprox 15nm or more from the IAF, and the terrain/airspace allows on-profile descend when turning direct IAF from the arc at any point? Serious question, I don't know of any from the top of my head. Yes they LOOK the same, and for the individual pilot there's not much difference at all if the arc is based on DME or P-RNAV, but unless these arcs you speak of are big lumbering sequence machines, they are not the same thing. Any approach plate arc will likely not qualify at all. Did you watch the videos for context?

1 hour ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

Because we are playing a simulation-game.

Amazing argument. Of course it is a game, of course we take shortcuts and modify real life procedures to fit into this odd but fun hobby. Still, if you're at the level where you can actually wrap your head around how to use INS and analogue gauges to get from point A to B, instead of the magenta, then why on earth would you want to take that half-assed approach towards STARs when better options exist? If you're at one of the airports in the world with zero conventional approaches and/or arrivals (not even an ILS/LOC/VOR/NDB, only RNP) and don't have the charts and sceneries which will give you a historic approachaid to that airport, you've simply just planned poorly and should have gone for another flight, unless the weather is such that you can bet on the visual.

Quote

Indeed, if we were serious about it, non-RNAV aircraft wouldn't be allowed to operate anymore,

I've read this from VATSIMers before, at least one thread on VATGER following a chat with a pilot where this was stated by several people, and I'm not sure why this is repeated. Sure, it makes life very much harder, but if you can do enroute RNAV (for example with an INS which is at least RNAV10, if not RNAV5), then you can still get around most of Europe, if not all of it, IRL. Airports could restrict such a slot to non-peak hours or night, or maybe even just say no, but that's not on an airspace/ATC/SERA level. I don't know any airports who rejects aircraft without RNAV STAR capabilities, can you name a few?

1 hour ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

If it is just 3 or 4 points, why not?

How does that make any sense? "ABC123, cleared X arrival" "ABC123, okay, I can do the first 4 points of that arrival". The only sensible reply to that is "Uhhhh roger, vectoring ILS Runway Y, fly heading zzz". This 3-4 points technique is on the level of filing and flying DCT GPS. Sure it can be done on VATSIM, but if both pilot and ATC is able to do better, why not do better?

1 hour ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

Nothing else did I write: "it would be a consideration". Nuff' said.

A consideration for whom? Who benefits from this?

Edited March 25, 2022 at 03:41 PM by Magnus Meese

[Andreas Fuchs]

Magnus, please consider thinking more outside the box. I rest my case, we are simply turning in circles, I will not be able to get my point across to you.

PS: if we worked and thought like this in IRL aviation, we'd get nowhere.

Edited March 25, 2022 at 07:46 PM by Andreas Fuchs

[Magnus Meese]

No Andreas, you simply make a few comments which you refuse to expand on or back up with anything. You haven't made any points yet for you to get across, except "IT'S A GAME". That's fine, but then why bother separating or using the radio at all? "Nuff said" and "think outside the box" are not responses which make for a good discussion. You're not the only one with the IRL aviation perspective here, and I can tell you what really ensures nothing is done in our industry is deflecting from any questions in a whishy-washy like you are now, just like in any other industry.

I asked you one question on topic and two off topic in my post above, the latter for my own curiosity rather than to be "right" about anything or convince you of anything. All of which you simply can't be arsed to get to, preferring to reply to me in a rude and dismissive manner. If you don't want to have a discussion on a discussion forum, don't participate in the first place.

1, Why would the partial (or even full) RNAV STAR be programmed in the INS by anyone competent enough to use such an add-on in the first place? What's the benefit, and for whom? Surely tuning a conventional navaid IAF at the end of the route, or flying a heading, is the better option?
2, What airports (currently, or recent-ish historically) uses DME arcs on STARs for sequencing?
3, What makes you say non-RNAV flying is illegal IRL? It is coming, by 2030 it will be PBN only, and by 2024 there will be some hefty restrictions including a FL150 level cap, but what regulations or which countries' notified documents are hindering anyone flying non-RNAV at present time?

[Brian Fernandez]

So at the begining of this post, I said I will post what slot I have which I can now show:

EGKK-CYWG at 1059z

If I were to actually fly the 742 with INS, EGKK should be fine as they have many non-RNAV SIDs to the North/West as well as that my 1059z is not only the first departure to CYWG from EGKK, but also the first slotted departure from EGKK so once airborne, ATC (or at least the lower London sectors) will initally only have me to handle.

As for CYWG it is a completly different story, where all the STARs (even though it doesn't mention about RNAV 1 / RNAV 5) are RNAV only so I'll have to tell ATC (whether it's CZWG control or CYWG Approach/Director), I hope the arrival briefing will mention something about non-RNAV Aircraft.

(At the time of writing this) There is a pilot briefing stream at 1800 UTC for CTP on Vatsim's Twitch/Youtube so hopefully I can get a direct answer from the organizer of CTP about this.