SID and Stars question

For more realism I like to use SID's and STARS taken from real plates in my FSX flying. In the real world does the pilot get a choice which SID or STAR to use, or is it entirely down to ATC ?

It's ATC's call. In the real world, pilots make requests all the time. Some are granted, most are not. But when it comes to SIDS, STARS, and instrument approaches, they're part of the clearance, and they're not optional. Whatever ATC assigns is what you fly.

If you want to use them in FSX, you'll be "rolling your own" clearances. I've never heard "ATC" in FSX refer to any SIDS/STARS.

It's ATC's call. In the real world, pilots make requests all the time. Some are granted, most are not. But when it comes to SIDS, STARS, and instrument approaches, they're part of the clearance, and they're not optional. Whatever ATC assigns is what you fly.

 

If you want to use them in FSX, you'll be "rolling your own" clearances. I've never heard "ATC" in FSX refer to any SIDS/STARS.

That's very interesting. I decide on which SID or STAR I want to try and then copy the wave points etc from the chart using G-Plan which is fun and quite easy to do. I then export to FSX, load the 'flight plan' into the GPS and practice flying it. Many major airports have numerous SID's and STAR's associated with them, so based on your reply it seems to me the pilot must have a bundle of charts on his/her lap waiting for ATC to tell him/her which one to follow ! Some charts are quite complex so it must be quite stressful in real life for a pilot when told to follow a SID or STAR he/she is not familiar with to instantly read and absorb the information and carry out the printed instructions. I assume if ATC state a specific SID or STAR which is too demanding for the pilot for whatever reason the pilot has to abandon and go elsewhere. Are you saying the pilot really has no say in which SID or STAR to use ? If so, my respect for pilots has hit a new high !

It's not really too bad. Let's say you want to fly out of Seattle to the southeast. You look through your book of SIDs (or your iPad nowadays) and find a SID that goes in the direction you want to go and (hopefully) intersects your route and file your flight plan. Chances are that's the SID you are going to get. Once you get your clearance, all the SID info is in an airliner's computer and I think much of it is even now stored in the GPSs of smaller aircraft. In the flight sim world, your 'mileage' may vary, depending on the addon you are using.

Problems to watch for include that one SID can cover several runways and the procedures for each runway can be quite different. Also, you have to compare your printed page with what your FMC or GPS is displaying, especially altitude restrictions. I don't use ATC in FSX so I'm of no help to you there.

One way to approach it is to see how it is done in the real world by starting here- http://flightaware.com/statistics/ifr-route/

This is what I found for a recent flight...

At the top of the list you can see the most popular routes and in the lower part you can look for routes flown by a particular plane type.

Armed with that info you can go to http://www.airnav.com/airports/ and search for your airports and get the current charts.

Note that this works well for the USA, not so much for other parts of the world.

As stated, when you look at the route as a whole it really limits the amount of SIDs/STARs that are appropriate.

Even using the aged data in FS9 I have found that if you shy away from the RNAV SIDs/STARs you can usually find the waypoints in the default flight planner.

If you know the weather you can then plan a complete flight with SIDs and STARs, and even the approachs.

Of course the default ATC will not respect all of this so I usually fly without it for this type of flying.

I would rather listen to some Bach or some good jazz instead.

peace,

the Bean

Interesting questions. Living near the site of The Kentucky Derby, I have an interesting question and answer that may be of interest for all of us.

When jets fly in for the Kentucky Derby whose privately owned jet is the one most respected. Is it one of the 747s from Dubai, the 727s from California, the Airbuses from England or almost everywhere in Europe, or the tons of Citations and Lear Jets?

No, the correct answer has nothing to do with what you flew in or what that plane cost. The plane most respected is the one, regardless of size or cost of the airplane, which gets the earliest IFR departure from Standford Field. (KSDF) After the Derby is over.

And yes, during Derby week, which includes today and several days earlier, three are so many multi-million dollar planes parked helter-skelter that pretty much no-one has a clue where they came from or where they are planning to go next! Is that scary to you? It scares the ---- out of me every year since 911!!

Just a quick comment, if I may.

Bear in mind that, at least in the real world (where IS that place, anyway??), the PIC of an aircraft, be it a J3 Cub or a 747 from the UAE, is the final authority of what that aircraft does and where it goes, as well as the safety of the plane and all those, even if only one, aboard it (souls aboard, as they say).

Believe it or not, ATC's are, actually and in point of fact, human beings, and as such are as prone to mistakes as anyone else (maybe not me, I seem to make a lot more than average). If an ATC gives the pilot an instruction that seems blatantly unsafe, incorrect, or just erroneous, the pilot has every right, nay duty, to not only question such an instruction, but to refuse it outright.

For a pilot to blindly follow an ATC's directions into a mountain, for example, or into a collision with other airplanes is stupid and irresponsible, not to mention downright suicidal.

My father was a United pilot for more years than I can count up to on all my fingers and toes, and I've sat and listened, during various get-togethers with other pilots my folks would have every so often, to uncountable stories of ATC mistakes. Obviously, all these pilots refused to do what they were told in such a situation, so they lived to tell stories about them. I wonder how many accidents we read about in the papers/internet were pilots that didn't question the ATC's as they should have. Then again, most of the stories were from former military pilot types who went to work for the airlines, as so many (including my father) do. Perhaps they tend to be more independant than civilian trained pilots. I don't know.

I am not saying a pilot should call the ATC's on every single instruction, but as I saw in an article in Approach magazine (US Navy publication by and for Nasal Radiators) once: "LISTEN to that little voice in your head! It's usually right."

I realize this doesn't really apply in the Sim World, as it were, since you can ignore the comm radios (and thus, the ATCs) entirely should you choose, without fear of any form of penalty, but for those who like to do the "real as it get's" thing, it's something to consider. For those who use the Sim to help learn or practice real world flying, it's a critical point, in my thinking.

Once again, all just my opinions. And yes, I know the old saying about "opinions".

Pat☺

For more realism I like to use SID's and STARS taken from real plates in my FSX flying. In the real world does the pilot get a choice which SID or STAR to use, or is it entirely down to ATC ?

AFAIK for commercial airliners it is neither. Your company dispatcher decides which route you fly, not you as the PIC. He calculates the route with the best possible fuel consumption figures, factoring in the wind and weather you are likely to encounter on every altitude and leg.

That route includes SID and STAR as favoured by the airline (they have policies like "if we fly into xxx, weather permitting we take STAR A and approach B landing on runway C" - maybe so they get to minimize taxi routes too).

This route is given to/cleared with ATC well in advance so all control regions on the way are notified and clear the flight through, avoiding possible conflicts. If they can't, for example because of traffic congestion, your flight is delayed until the next window is available. You only get to start your engines when the last clearance for your whole route has been received.

I don't think it was a requirement that you had to have each and every plate with you. More likely, if the weather went crazy at your destination and your planned approach didn't work, ATC would vector you in (that you can always request). In the modern times you could always type a new approach into your FMC, but I doubt that this alone is enough. You need to talk the procedure through with your FO, don't know if this works out with just the FMC as reference?

Remember Concorde? Her routes were rigid, a selected few, carefully planned and cleared with the authorities (probably down to the mayors of the villages on the route out over Ireland - because of the noise).

Remember Concorde? Her routes were rigid, a selected few, carefully planned and cleared with the authorities (probably down to the mayors of the villages on the route out over Ireland - because of the noise).

Concorde did not overfly Ireland except on the rare occasion it landed there. It's routes avoided overflying any populated land wherever possible and when it did so it was subsonic. An exception was a short lived Canadian route.

London-New York entailed subsonic flight until the Bristol channel, then transonic climb. It would pass to the south of Ireland by at least 80nm. laying a sonic boom on a population was not permitted.

Just a quick comment, if I may.

Bear in mind that, at least in the real world (where IS that place, anyway??), the PIC of an aircraft, be it a J3 Cub or a 747 from the UAE, is the final authority of what that aircraft does and where it goes, as well as the safety of the plane and all those, even if only one, aboard it (souls aboard, as they say) ...

Incorrect. The UK Rules of the Air, which have the force of law, are clear:

Compliance with air traffic control clearance and notified procedures

 

36 (1) Subject to paragraph (2), the commander of the aircraft shall fly in conformity with:

 

a) the air traffic control clearance issued for the flight, as amended by any further

instructions given by an air traffic control unit; and, unless he is otherwise

authorised by the appropriate air traffic control unit;

 

(b) the instrument departure procedures notified in relation to the aerodrome of

departure; and

 

© the holding and instrument approach procedures notified in relation to the

aerodrome of destination.

 

(2) The commander of the aircraft shall not be required to comply with paragraph (1) if:

 

(a) he is able to fly in uninterrupted Visual Meteorological Conditions for so long as

he remains in controlled airspace; and

 

(b) he has informed the appropriate air traffic control unit of his intention to continue

the flight in compliance with Visual Flight Rules and has requested that unit to

cancel his flight plan.

 

(3) If any deviation is made from the provisions of paragraph (2) for the purpose of

avoiding immediate danger the commander of the aircraft shall inform the appropriate

air traffic control unit of the deviation as soon as possible.

That's pretty much what I said. Should the pilot need to not comply, for safety of flight (self-preservation, essentially) then they have a duty to do so. Informing the ATC of it. While I may not be familiar with foreign laws, and how much trouble a pilot my get into for not flying into a mountain, I grew up in the industry, and I do know ATC's do make mistakes that could prove fatal if obeyed, and in the US, the PIC is, in fact the final and absolute authority of that aircraft without Weight On Wheels.

Have they changed the laws in the US? Entirely possible, even probable in the current political environs. Would a pilot get into "problems" with various authorities and his company's superiors, more than likely, were he to deviate without a very valid reason from ATC instruction. No question. I agree completely. Especially should he NOT inform the AC of his refusal or deviation.

BUT: Were I an active pilot, I would rather hand an FAA rep my certs and licenses as I deplaned at an airport, than let the FAA rep hand what few personal effects are left after an accident to my next of kin at my funeral. But hey, that's just me. Maybe I'm just a rebel at heart. I even go 1 or 2 miles per hour over the speed limit on occasion.

Pat☺

In the UK an aircraft can only deviate from ATC a clearance sonly for "the purpose of

avoiding immediate danger" - that's a long way from the "final authority of what that aircraft does and where it goes" which excludes "the safety of the plane"

Not really.

If the ATC says, "turn left hdg 100". The pilot has two choices right then and there,

A) Comply and turn or

B) Not comply and not turn.

At no point in the air over the UK, or any place for that fact, can ATC exhibit full complete control over the airplane. The pilot, or anyone at the controls, controls the plane.

While this did not happen in the UK but I will use this example, at no point did ATC have any control of that German airline which flew into the mountain.

With the exception of drones, no flying aircraft are 100% controled from the ground.

Not really.

 

If the ATC says, "turn left hdg 100". The pilot has two choices right then and there,

 

A) Comply and turn or

 

B) Not comply and not turn.

In reality there are 3 options:

A) Turn

B) Request ATC to not change heading

C) Not comply but only for the the purpose of avoiding immediate danger

If you mean Germanwings Flight 9525, then that's completely irrevelant. The whole point is that the pilot ignored ATC instructions, as well as other ones.

The thread is about Air Traffic Control, and not about the urban myth that a pilot can do whatever he wants.

In reality there are 3 options:

 

A) Turn

Complying

B) Request ATC to not change heading

Complying

C) Not comply but only for the the purpose of avoiding immediate danger

Not complying

If you mean Germanwings Flight 9525, then that's completely irrevelant. The whole point is that the pilot ignored ATC instructions, as well as other ones.

Ignoring is not complying.

Two options. The pilot, or the one at the controls, chooses either to comply or not to comply and has the ultimate and final say so on how that plane is flown.

But you said:

Can't you remember what you said?

If the ATC says, "turn left hdg 100". The pilot has two choices right then and there,

and I showed there are three!!

Is it correct for a pilot to ignore an ATC instruction but incorrect not to comply - or I have got the it the wrong way round. That would be important to a pilot who kills some one as a result!

Addressing that third option of requesting a new heading, it is "Not Complying", unlike what I said earlier. I jumped the proverbial gun by thinking the request would be complied once new instructions were given.

But thanks is in order to you for pointing out that by requesting a new heading does show the fact that the pilot does indeed fly the plane as he sees fit despite being requested to do otherwise.

It still boils down to the pilot still has the final say whether instructions are to be followed.

It still boils down to the pilot still has the final say whether instructions are to be followed.

Just as a driver has the final say whether instructions are to be followed when running a red light?

A pilot who caused death by ignoring/not complying with instructions is likely to be jailed on a charge of manslaugher by negligence. Just like employees of Swiss air traffic control were given prison sentences for negligent homicide following a mid-air collision.

So many pilots...so many lawyers...

Just as a driver has the final say whether instructions are to be followed when running a red light?

Exactly. Maybe in your world no one runs a red light on purpose but I've seen it enough it doesn't even phase me.

The worst civilian accident occured in Tenerife when a KLM 747 took off without take-off clearance from ATC and ploughed into another PA 747 on the runway. That omission cost 583 lives.

That's why is there is more to this subject than lawyers!