KSLC Rwy 34R ILS

I have tried every which way I can think of to account for the SERIOUS drop in altitude that is required to make the approach at KSLC 34R (or L for that matter) when coming from the west (KOAK). As soon as you pass over the mountains to the west of the facility (at 12K ft.) you have a really short base and final to drop down to the assigned altitude of 6,100 ft at the FAF. It can't be done in my opinion....at least not on FSX. Only time I did it successfully was by the seat of my pants (glideslope? what glideslope?) when I slammed into the runway at about 180 kts. like I was hitting the deck of a carrier. Flying a GS-550 but I have tried it in the CRJ-700 & 737 to no avail. Even when you go missed ATC just routes you back the same way.

Any real-life pilots that can solve this puzzle for me? How do they route you in the real world? I would greatly appreciate it. :confused:

Looking at the chart, you need to come from the south (Fairfield VOR IAF).

https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1806/pdf/00365IL34R.PDF

You may want to cancel FSX ATC, and do your own thing.

Wim

Option one: fly over runway while descending. Fly right base descending further to 2000AGL. Fly right downwind, while slowing way down. Right base (keeping mountain to your left, don't crash into it please.). Turn to final and intercept Glideslope from below.

Option two. To try straight in approach. Fly a slow prop. And extend flaps while still over the mountain. Slow already while over mountain to 60kt or so.

Why? For every vertical speed it goes that the lower the horizontal speed, the steeper your descent-angle will be. (I'LL add an image later.).

Image:

(beta is much steeper then angle alpha. Both flown at same vertical speed. (900 feet per minute) but at different horizontal speeds (respectively 170 and 60 Nautical miles per hour).

Third option. Change the weather (opposite wind direction) so a different runway is active. Or divert to an alternate airport.

These situations occur in real world airports too. One way in, one way out.

Option 4. Use ADE to close those runways off for landings from that end. Seems sometimes that is not fully possible though.

Option5. Use ADE to edit the airport so all runways are always active. Then you can land from any direction you want.

Thanks to both of you and a special thanks to il88tp for the very detailed explanation.

This issue points out one of the inherent problems with FSX's ATC program. It just doesn't account for the limitations of pilots and aircraft when it comes to asking the impossible.

I think next time I'll just ask for a different runway. :)

Despite looking at the gauge and the name "vertical speed" many don't realize that it is simply a speed. Just as airspeed is.

60 knots

is 60 Nautical Mile per hour

(means you travel 60 Nautical miles in one hour)

is 60 times 1852 meters in one hour

is 60 times 1852 meter in 60 minutes

(3.2 feet to a meter)

(one NM, 1852 meters, times 3.2 = 5926 feet)

is 60 times 5926 feet in 60 minutes

is 60 times (5926/60) feet per minute

is 60 times 100 ft/min

is 6000 ft per minute

So 60 knots equals 6000 feet per minute.

(and 900 feet per minute is the same as 9 Knots.)

Now back to the situation.

lets say 60 knots groundspeed and VS is 800 ft/min

We now know that means VS is 9 Kt

So angle beta can be calculated now.

Using horizontal and vertical distances.

In one hour, the plane would:

descend 9 NM, and move forward 60NM

tangent of Beta is: 9/60

(this is 0.15)

Beta is inverse tangent of 0.15

is an angle of 8.5 degrees.

(or 9.47%)

should be plenty steep, and, in a beech baron or Cessna you can do that without speed increasing in

the descent. Even if it does increase, flaring is much easier in those aircraft and you can float longer.

I calculated the angle by dividing "distances traveled if speeds were continued for one hour"

But that is not needed really.

As long as the speeds are converted to the same units, for example both in "Knots", you can just divide vertical speed by groundspeed. And take the inverse angle to get the descent angle.

(Use the "Grad" setting on your calculator to calculate the angle in %

use the 'Deg' setting to calculate the angle in degrees.)

Now lets see what a Boeing 747 would need to do to get that same angle.

At a speed of 180 knots...

VS/GS=0.15

(we get the 0.15 from before, but you can also get it by setting the calculator to 'Grad" and typing 'tangent 9.47')

So...

VS/180=0.15

VS=0.15 times 180

VS=26.97 (thats in Knots, remember)

so that means to get that same angle while flying 180 knots in the 747, you would

need to descend at 26.97 times 100 = 2697 feet per minute

(by the way, doing 180 GS in a Cessna, you would require the same VS to make that angle....2697 feet per minute)

In a Cessna or Beech, that angle can be made. by flying slowly. It's on the limit, but you can pull it off.

In a 747, not so much. You can try to pull of the angle, but converting the descent into level flight you

gain so much speed you can't stop before the end of the runway.

Edit, I see now that the image already made things clear. Nice!:cool:

Happy Flights,

il.

I have tried every which way I can think of to account for the SERIOUS drop in altitude that is required to make the approach at KSLC 34R (or L for that matter) when coming from the west (KOAK). As soon as you pass over the mountains to the west of the facility (at 12K ft.) you have a really short base and final to drop down to the assigned altitude of 6,100 ft at the FAF. It can't be done in my opinion....at least not on FSX. Only time I did it successfully was by the seat of my pants (glideslope? what glideslope?) when I slammed into the runway at about 180 kts. like I was hitting the deck of a carrier. Flying a GS-550 but I have tried it in the CRJ-700 & 737 to no avail. Even when you go missed ATC just routes you back the same way.

 

Any real-life pilots that can solve this puzzle for me? How do they route you in the real world? I would greatly appreciate it. :confused:

https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1806/pdf/00365WAATS.PDF

Try this procedure and if the aircraft you are using does not have the capability of displaying such just insert the way-points into the flight plan that I have shown. It is one way of doing it. And it works.

HAHAHA You should try to land on 17 from the East coming in over the mountains. I do it all the time with FS's crappy ATC, but I know I'll be too high so slow way down by Ogden before my turn onto intercepting the LOC.

To me, flying into 34 is easier. Just reduce your speed and do a bit more of a steep decent when ATC tells you to descend. I figure you typically have to be around 2,000' AGL so plan accordingly.

Chicago for me would have to be the worst. I'm at 9,000 MSL and the damn ATC tells me I'm clear to land. THE HELL I AM! So I cancel ATC and do my own thing. This is the default KORD.

All about experience I guess. And I'm coming in at mach speed form FL500. I just step down the speed at certain altitudes and adjust VS as necessary. Never crashed yet unless I was dicking around at Area-51.

Wow. All of your input is great information and makes total sense to me. Thanks so much, guys. You don't realize how much I appreciate it!

Every time I start to think I'm becoming a hotshot computer pilot something happens to make me realize how much I have yet to learn about flying. :pilot::(

As soon as you pass over the mountains to the west of the facility (at 12K ft.) you have a really short base and final to drop down to the assigned altitude of 6,100 ft at the FAF. It can't be done in my opinion....at least not on FSX.

You've missed an important point, the IAF (Initial Approach Fix), FAIRFIELD VOR at the bottom (south) of the chart. You don't just drop in at the FAF, and that is especially true for this approach (plus many others with high terrain). The IAF may seem out of the way, but that's the way real aircraft have to do it, and that's what's needed to make a decent approach in the sim, as well. And notice the vertical profile which shows that you have 9.1 nautical miles (NM) to descend from 9,000 feet to 6,100 feet, and that is AFTER 5.5 NM to descend from 11,000 feet to 9,000 feet.

So if the approach plate that Wim linked to is followed you'll see that it is not a "SERIOUS drop in altitude that is required to make the approach at KSLC 34R," but rather a much longer distance in order to avoid problems with the terrain. That's why Wim said you need to come in from the south via the IAF.

That's why they publish procedures and that's (part of) why instrument pilots need so much training, so they can read and use the various applicable charts.

Of course in the sim you can avoid all that and do whatever you like, but don't complain about the approach itself (or at least not for the wrong reasons).

You've missed an important point, the IAF (Initial Approach Fix), FAIRFIELD VOR at the bottom (south) of the chart. You don't just drop in at the FAF, and that is especially true for this approach (plus many others with high terrain). The IAF may seem out of the way, but that's the way real aircraft have to do it, and that's what's needed to make a decent approach in the sim, as well. And notice the vertical profile which shows that you have 9.1 nautical miles (NM) to descend from 9,000 feet to 6,100 feet, and that is AFTER 5.5 NM to descend from 11,000 feet to 9,000 feet.

 

So if the approach plate that Wim linked to is followed you'll see that it is not a "SERIOUS drop in altitude that is required to make the approach at KSLC 34R," but rather a much longer distance in order to avoid problems with the terrain. That's why Wim said you need to come in from the south via the IAF.

 

That's why they publish procedures and that's (part of) why instrument pilots need so much training, so they can read and use the various applicable charts.

 

Of course in the sim you can avoid all that and do whatever you like, but don't complain about the approach itself (or at least not for the wrong reasons).

+1

Of course in the sim you can avoid all that and do whatever you like, but don't complain about the approach itself (or at least not for the wrong reasons).

Thanks for the advice but since when is asking for advice considered a complaint? Just trying to learn, that's why I asked the question.

Thanks for the advice but since when is asking for advice considered a complaint? Just trying to learn, that's why I asked the question.

Asking for advice is not a complaint, and perhaps I misunderstood, but I took "This issue points out one of the inherent problems with FSX's ATC program. It just doesn't account for the limitations of pilots and aircraft when it comes to asking the impossible. " as a complaint. Sorry if I read it wrong.

And certainly, FSX has its problems, but "asking the impossible" isn't one of them.

Asking for advice is not a complaint, and perhaps I misunderstood, but I took "This issue points out one of the inherent problems with FSX's ATC program. It just doesn't account for the limitations of pilots and aircraft when it comes to asking the impossible. " as a complaint. Sorry if I read it wrong.

 

And certainly, FSX has its problems, but "asking the impossible" isn't one of them.

Well, in the situation I found myself with my limited knowledge, it was indeed asking the impossible so I beg to differ. Anyway, it's all good. I learned from it and that's what I was aiming for by making the post so no harm, no foul.

Basically, he's saying the default ATC in the Sim sucks.

That's 100% correct. Thank you.

I think the bottom line is, and this is how I approach (no pun intended) things, is that I make sure I gauge my distance to runway and slow down as necessary and use vs as necessary. I do have the help of a great WAAS gauge in my F-22 cockpit that tells me exactly how far I am to the runway. So I pay attention to that. Absent of that you should always program the approach in the GPS for situational awareness even though you'll use ILS and trust in the ATC to vector you on an intercept. This is how I roll. Sometimes there is no approach in the GPS for the given runway, and this is where real good piloting skills come in at.

I'll have to make this flight into SLC on that runway and see what all the fuss is about. Granted to use ATC I'll have to manually enter the winds from the North.

I flew from Oakland to Salt Lake and I can see now what's going on. ATC had me maintain 13,000 for a very long time up to about 20 miles from the runway. In the video I kept saying 11,000, but it was 13,000. So I knew right away I had to slow down and set my vs to 3,000 FPM. They gave me 9,000 from the 13,000 feet I think it was and that is when I chose 3,000 feet per minute. From 23,000 I chose 5,000 FPM to come down to 13,000. I kept saying feet per second, but I meant feet per minute.

So I was right, you need to reduce speed. I had to use speed brakes and once I got to flap 1 speed and retracted the speed break and started to add flaps accordingly.

I flew from Oakland to Salt Lake and I can see now what's going on. ATC had me maintain 13,000 for a very long time up to about 20 miles from the runway. In the video I kept saying 11,000, but it was 13,000. So I knew right away I had to slow down and set my vs to 3,000 FPM. They gave me 9,000 from the 13,000 feet I think it was and that is when I chose 3,000 feet per minute. From 23,000 I chose 5,000 FPM to come down to 13,000. I kept saying feet per second, but I meant feet per minute.

 

 

So I was right, you need to reduce speed. I had to use speed brakes and once I got to flap 1 speed and retracted the speed break and started to add flaps accordingly.

 

Chose 720p.

Aaron - Excellent video, you did great! Yes, I did hear "feet per second," but we knew what you meant!

This is a tough ILS approach to landing, for sure. I flew the approach, "Localizer only," 34L is much more difficult to "ride out" than 34R, but either way, you did great!

Some of the guys were talking about the proper way of approaching. 10000' at the IAF Fairfield, reducing altitude to 6100' to FFLAG and then fly your approach! Sounds easy enough, but not flying any of the larger jetliners! I flew the "Localizer only" approach, came in at Jetli 8700' then reducing altitude to ACIPO 8000', reducing altitude down to 6100' by the time I made it to FLLAG. It went okay, not anything pretty or anything to write home about, but your approach, Aaron, definitely impressed me!

I don't care if I ever see Salt Lake City again! If you happen by there again, tell them "Big Rick said hello!"

Rick :cool:

Regardless of what approach I fly, I always make sure the route is in the GPS. As was said above one big key is knowing how far away you are from the airport. So you can plan your approach!

If your aircraft doesn't have a dedicated gauge to tell you the direct to the specified runway distance, the GPS can tell you at least how far you are from the airport. Though it isn't always the specific runway you're directed to.

Michael - On this approach, I would have preferred a Jack Daniels over a dedicated gauge. I don't know how many times I flew it before I felt comfortable with it! It's behind me now, I guess that's why I am only a flight sim jockey! :rolleyes:

Rick :cool:

Thanks Bryan! Awesome vid (and terrific plane....where'd you get that beauty?). See YouTube for other comments.

It's actually the Virtavia F22, but I customized the hell out of it. LOL I tried to keep the gauges as real as possible, but impossible when you add a refuel gauge, a basic TAWS and a GPWS. You can download it here: https://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/files/5570/fsx-f-22a-raptor-update/

Regarding your comment on YT. The mapping software on the second monitor is LittleNavMap. There are others, too. Like PlanG, etc. Try em out and find one that suits you. I'm not sure if PlanG can show traffic from VATSIM though, but LittleNavMap can.

Edit-

I just downloaded it again to see how much I changed and it's pretty significant. In fact, the sound I use is not what this download uses. In this download they aliased the sound to the Lear 45. Hardly realistic. My sound comes from a real-life Mitsubishi something or other and the PFD you see there was yanked out of that very aircraft. Although I painted the artificial horizon green to try and match the real-life F22.

I have noticed that the MDL file in this A/C seems to make buildings disappear sometimes. I thought it was a gauge. But I completely disabled all gauges and still had the same issue. So my guess is something in the MDL. In fact, I have a GPWS installed, but I heard other audio and I think it was buried in the MDL.

I don't care if I ever see Salt Lake City again! If you happen by there again, tell them "Big Rick said hello!"

I used to live in Clearfield for a year and three months to the date when I went to Job Corp. I hated it! But I got my GED and then high school diploma. I was a sophomore high school drop out when I went to work with my dad. But I knew I had to get at least my GED otherwise I'd end up like my dad making a s%%# wage. So a year latter I went to Utah. It's really surprising how accurate the scenery in the Sim is. The mountains are pretty much right and they even have the Mormon temple there in Salt Lake City that you can see form across the way at the airport. There's actually two malls right next to the Mormon temple. They are like large multi-level buildings. I loved getting off campus and going to the city every day and just hanging out at the mall there and watch the nice looking woman. I've never seen so many nice looking woman in all my life. LOL!

I vowed once I left Utah I'd never return, but I do in the Sim. LOL

I loved getting off campus and going to the city every day and just hanging out at the mall there and watch the nice looking woman. I've never seen so many nice looking woman in all my life. LOL!

 

I vowed once I left Utah I'd never return, but I do in the Sim. LOL

Now, see how you are, Aaron? I'm trying to keep this post clean and you are talking about checking out all the nice looking women!

You know, I flew the approach again, 34R and it wasn't near as bad as 34L. You just need to pay attention once you make that turn to the north!

Rick :cool:

LOL