Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

Okay.. KLAX LOOP4.DAG.KEPEC1 KLAS at FL290?

Yes.

I'll actually give an objective tutorial on this, as it's in the
sector I'm affiliated with and do most of my time in.

OK. I often take my routes directly from FlightAware, so that I'm
flying the same routes people fly in real life. If I'm staying within
SoCal, I also use TEC routes.

Look CLOSELY at those charts, and I mean closely.

Which charts? I have VFR sectionals and TACs, plus SIDs, STARs, and
instrument approach plates, but no IFR charts.

I suggest looking at the KEPEC1 first before the LOOP4. Yes,
it's the arrival and you haven't even departed yet, but you are in the
flight planning stage at this moment, and there is something important
that needs to be learned. The KEPEC1 arrival is an RNAV procedure,
requiring RNAV-capable equipment. Aircraft that are /E, /F, /G, and /R
are RNAV capable. If said aircraft is RVSM capable, then the following
suffixes apply: /J, /K, /L, /Q (FAAO 7110.65, 2-3-7). If your aircraft
is not one of then your flight plan will be rejected because you can
not use the KEPEC1 arrival.

The aircraft is RNAV-capable, but I will grant that I didn't notice
that it was RNAV. I just look at the fixes and so on most of the
time, knowing that ATC will probably tell me to do something
different, anyway.

LOOP4. If your aircraft is not capable of climbing at 500ft per
nautical mile to 10000, you're using the wrong SID. LOOP4 requires it.

The aircraft is capable of this.

I'm going to assume that you a) have RNAV and RVSM capable
equipment onboard and your aircraft is able to meet the climbing
requirement, and that you are familiar with ATC in the terminal area.

Yes, it's a BBJ2 or 737-800, and I know ATC a little in the area, as I
fly around there a lot.

You've received your clearance, and will be cruising at FL290. Great.
ATC clears you to takeoff on 24L.

Yes. More specifically, I was told to climb and maintain 5000.
Departure told me to climb and maintain 15000 (IIRC) and to proceed
direct LAX, which I did.

You best look at the LOOP4 chart again, as you have 2 crossing
restrictions you must meet. You must cross the SMO R-160 at or
below 3000ft.

I believe the FMC knew that, although I wasn't watching to see. ATC
had already told me to climb and maintain 5000, which I assumed
overrode all other instructions.

From there, you should get vectors back to LAX
with something being told to you like:

"Turn left direct Los Angeles, resume the LOOP4 departure,
comply with all restrictions, climb and maintain 15000".

I was told proceed direct LAX, climb and maintain 15000. No mention
of restrictions, though. Had ATC said that, I probably would have
looked back at the plate to see (although the restrictions are mostly
coded into the FMC's database).

In reality, all I really did was dial 15000 into the MCP, letting the
FMC continue its climb, and I plugged LAX into the FMC as the current
leg, forcing it to proceed to LAX directly (LAX was the next leg,
anyway).

You do exactly that. Your restrictions are to cross LAX at or
above 10000, KEGGS at or above 13000, and COOPP at or above 15000.
Sometime at that point you'll be handed to the Center controller who
will climb you to your cruise altitude. That ends the use of LOOP4
unless you end up NORDO for some reason.

I was handed to Center, which then told me to climb and maintain
FL290.

Now, you're en route, and you're ready for the arrival. You're
still at FL290. Staying that high until your FMS starts to descend is
really going to increase your descent rate, as well as try its hardest
to maintain a slow speed for your descent. Not good.

I recall stepping through the legs looking for anything that seemed
like a steep descent and possibly tweaking some legs, although I don't
remember the details.

What I do remember is that I reached the top of my descent and the FMC
started down, then ATC called me and asked why I was low. So I reset
the MCP to FL290 and went back up. Seconds later, Center told me to
cross something at something (I don't remember what now). My guess
was that he forgot that I'd be starting my descent and remembered when
he saw me descending, so he called me on it and then cleared me down.

Also, the DAG/HEC corridor is one of the busiest streams in US Airspace.

It's extremely busy even in the virtual US airspace. The difference
in the simulated world is that pilots look for heavy traffic, whereas
I presume they aren't so thrilled about it in real life.

Just about every arrival into the LA Basin passes in that corridor, and all
northeastbound flights leave the basin through that corridor. You may
have a flight which ATC has positively separated you from, laterally
and vertically. It is best to let them control your descent instead of
asking.

Fine with me. I just wasn't sure about whether I was supposed to
start on my own or wait to be cleared down.

ATC should tell you something like the following:

"Cross MISEN at and maintain FL240".

I recall something like that, but I don't remember the fix or
altitude.

If you look at KEPEC1, you have a segment there where you have
a crossing restriction at MISEN of FL240 or higher. The closer you are
to that, the easier your descent will be for your next crossing
restriction, which is CLARR. ATC will tell you this:

"Cross CLARR at and maintain 13000 and 250kts. Las Vegas
altimeter xx.xx".

Yes, I recall getting that.

From here, you'll be descending and reducing speed for the
arrival, and must hit CLARR at that altitude and speed.

I recall some trouble hitting the descent, but I tweaked it and
arrived at the right altitude and speed. I think starting the descent
late messed it up.

From there, the arrival tells you everything you need to do.
Should ATC have you execute the full arrival, they will tell
you something like:

"Descend via the KEPEC1 arrival".

Unfortunately, they vectored me around, and then told me to follow
some traffic going the opposite way (towards the airport, whereas I
was still headed east). I messed up so much fiddling with the FMC and
autopilot that I couldn't follow the other guy in, so I had to go
around. Then it was more vectors, and following someone else in. I
gave up on the AP and flew by hand towards the other aircraft, then
intercepted the localizer and configured everything for a nice
autoland.

That's it. From there, you're crossing KEPEC below 13000 and
above 12000, IPUMY below 12000 and above 1000, NIPZO above 9000 and
below 1000, SUNST at 8000 and 210kts, KIMME at 210kts, CHIPZ at 170kts.

Yeah, if ATC doesn't send me hither and yon instead.

Look now at the ILS 25L chart. You'll notice that the altitude
you're at by the time you hit PRINO is the same altitude you should be
at for executing the ILS approach from PRINO. So ATC should only have
to tell you:

"After PRINO, cleared ILS 25L approach".

I think ATC was looking to have more fun. In simulation, ATC, like
pilots, tends to look for challenges rather than seeing traffic and
complexity as undesirable.

No PTAC is needed, as the RNAV arrival drops you off directly
on the IAF for the approach. From there, follow the chart down. 8000 or
above at PRINO, 6500 or above at LARRE, 4900 or above at SHAND, 3800 or
above at RELIN.

I wish.

In short, like everyone else has mentioned, just because your
FMS thinks it's okay to descend, doesn't mean that it's kosher with ATC
for you to descend. They may have other things impending your descent.
When in doubt, ask. The worst you'll get back is 'no', and a reason for
why you can't at that time.

OK. I will ask next time. I have yet to do an approach (in the
presence of ATC) that followed the plates, though. Somebody always
wants me to do something different.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Mxsmanic wrote:
A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

Look CLOSELY at those charts, and I mean closely.

Which charts? I have VFR sectionals and TACs, plus SIDs, STARs, and
instrument approach plates, but no IFR charts.

I just told you. LOOP4, KEPEC1, ILS 25L at KLAS. Those are also
charts.

The aircraft is RNAV-capable, but I will grant that I didn't notice
that it was RNAV. I just look at the fixes and so on most of the
time, knowing that ATC will probably tell me to do something
different, anyway.

You should look at those, because if you choose the wrong
chart, and your equipment can't support the chart you're filing, you'll
be given another SID/STAR to use.

Yes, it's a BBJ2 or 737-800, and I know ATC a little in the area, as I
fly around there a lot.

You best look at the LOOP4 chart again, as you have 2 crossing
restrictions you must meet. You must cross the SMO R-160 at or
below 3000ft.

I believe the FMC knew that, although I wasn't watching to see. ATC
had already told me to climb and maintain 5000, which I assumed
overrode all other instructions.

If you lost your FMC, what would you do? You just can't let
your instruments do everything for you the moment you rotate. I'd
fathom to see what would happen if you were a /A and didn't have an
FMC.

Now, you're en route, and you're ready for the arrival. You're
still at FL290. Staying that high until your FMS starts to descend is
really going to increase your descent rate, as well as try its hardest
to maintain a slow speed for your descent. Not good.

I recall stepping through the legs looking for anything that seemed
like a steep descent and possibly tweaking some legs, although I don't
remember the details.

What I do remember is that I reached the top of my descent and the FMC
started down, then ATC called me and asked why I was low. So I reset
the MCP to FL290 and went back up. Seconds later, Center told me to
cross something at something (I don't remember what now). My guess
was that he forgot that I'd be starting my descent and remembered when
he saw me descending, so he called me on it and then cleared me down.

I doubt it. There's two places where the Center controller
could give you the crossing restriction; one at MISEN, the other at
CLARR. If he gave you the one at MISEN (which I know he did), it would
make the CLARR crossing restriction a lot easier to make.

"Cross CLARR at and maintain 13000 and 250kts. Las Vegas
altimeter xx.xx".

Yes, I recall getting that.

"Descend via the KEPEC1 arrival".

Unfortunately, they vectored me around, and then told me to follow
some traffic going the opposite way (towards the airport, whereas I
was still headed east). I messed up so much fiddling with the FMC and
autopilot that I couldn't follow the other guy in, so I had to go
around. Then it was more vectors, and following someone else in. I
gave up on the AP and flew by hand towards the other aircraft, then
intercepted the localizer and configured everything for a nice
autoland.

They had visual approaches in use. Also, it has been said
befo 99.9% of all landings are hand flown, not autolanding, unless
on a Cat III ILS approach. ILS 25L is not CATIII.


OK. I will ask next time. I have yet to do an approach (in the
presence of ATC) that followed the plates, though. Somebody always
wants me to do something different.


It could be because visual approaches may be in use over using
an instrument approach. It provides more flexibility with ATC, plus
puts separation responsibility back on the pilot. If you were following
traffic, and you were coming in too fast and had to go around, that may
not be ATC's fault. There would be some things you could have done to
slow your speed down.

BL.
- - --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFnFyxyBkZmuMZ8L8RAlRPAJ46F/N4zOsSv1e6XGhgEKxPzl4IIQCfciYC
xuJph8+VuIj1wpVcmleP2to=
=LYDq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad ] On Behalf Of A Guy
Called
Tyketto
Posted At: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 7:48 PM
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's
ATC
Subject: Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's
ATC

....
If you lost your FMC, what would you do?
....

He'd reboot - its Windows and Flightsim after all.

Jim Carter wrote:
He'd reboot - its Windows and Flightsim after all.

I just read about a guy who's Garmin mx20 died.

The screen went blank and then blue.

On the bottom of the screen:

"Microsoft Service Pack 2"

ak.

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

I just told you. LOOP4, KEPEC1, ILS 25L at KLAS. Those are also
charts.

I have those.

You should look at those, because if you choose the wrong
chart, and your equipment can't support the chart you're filing, you'll
be given another SID/STAR to use.

On the 737, I have essentially everything. I usually check for
specific instructions or restrictions on the type of aircraft.

If you lost your FMC, what would you do?

I would use the MCP alone. If that fails, I fly the aircraft by hand,
which I can do, although it's rather tedious over long distances.

I do have a problem with transitions between automated systems and
flying by hand. Sometimes it's hard for me to keep track of what the
systems are doing and what I am doing. As a last recort I
occasionally disengage the automation entirely and fly by hand
(particularly for approaches and landings), but that is not the
objective, that's just to get on the ground safely.

You just can't let your instruments do everything for you
the moment you rotate.

You can if they work as designed. And real life comes very close to
that, although I understand most pilots fly the first part of the
departure by hand, and often landings as well.

I'd fathom to see what would happen if you were a /A and didn't have an
FMC.

I don't know what /A is, but if I don't have a FMC, I fly with
autopilot alone. If I don't have that, I fly by hand. However, I
would not want to fly an aircraft without at least an autopilot, if I
were planning anything other than practice in the pattern.

I doubt it. There's two places where the Center controller
could give you the crossing restriction; one at MISEN, the other at
CLARR. If he gave you the one at MISEN (which I know he did), it would
make the CLARR crossing restriction a lot easier to make.

I don't recall MISEN, but I recall the CLARR restriction. He said
cross CLARR at 12000 or whatever, and I was at FL290, and so I assumed
that my descent to CLARR was implied in this--otherwise how could I
follow the instructions. So when the FMC started down, I didn't say
anything, as I recall.

They had visual approaches in use.

Yes. Visual approaches seem to be popular when weather permits. I
still tune the ILS and follow it, if possible.

Also, it has been said befo 99.9% of all landings are hand
flown, not autolanding, unless on a Cat III ILS approach. ILS 25L
is not CATIII.

The aircraft will still autoland on it.

It could be because visual approaches may be in use over using
an instrument approach.

No doubt, although ATCs in simulation seem to enjoy making more work
for themselves, rather than less (in contrast to the real world).

It provides more flexibility with ATC, plus puts separation
responsibility back on the pilot.

That is probably the main motivation in real life. Simulation ATCs
just like to have more practice, understandably.

If you were following traffic, and you were coming in too fast
and had to go around, that may not be ATC's fault. There would
be some things you could have done to slow your speed down.

When he first called the traffic, it was at 11:00. By the time I saw
it, it was around 8:00 and moving fast opposite to my track. When I
called the traffic in sight, he told me to follow it, which required a
steep 180 to get behind him. As I was still in LNAV and was fooling
with the FMC and MCP trying to figure out why it had refused the
descent path for my approach, I got confused and had trouble turning
to follow the traffic. I was all over the place on the approach and
way too close to the other traffic (which had not yet touched down,
and I was only at 1500 feet or so and nearly abeam the threshold), and
finally I decided to go around--which was an adventure in itself since
I had not previously tried to go around with an FMC and fancy
autopilot in the mix. I disconnected everything and flew by hand to a
few thousand feet, and ATC vectored me around, which was troublesome
because the VOR he wanted was on my MFD but not tuned, so I had to try
to find it on the MFD and steer towards it. I finally stabilized and
there was another aircraft on the way in and I was told to find it and
follow it as before. This time I was much further out, however, and I
was able to line up better. Once I was nearly on the centerline I set
up the MCP for the ILS again, and then I set for autoland just to get
some rest. The landing proceeded uneventfully on 25R, I think.

I don't know if the ATC screwed up; he was a regular controller, not a
student. I certainly made a mess of it, though. It's good that I had
the seat belt sign on. I need to practice more with dealing with the
unexpected while using an FMC and/or autopilot.

This is all much easier when I fly the Baron, as the autopilot isn't
terribly fancy and there's no FMC, so I'm already on top of things
when ATC calls. But I've screwed up in that as well, in one case
trying to land on the wrong runway until I heard Approach telling
other people about a plane that didn't seem to know where it was
going, hint hint.

I haven't had any crashes, though, except in extremely strong winds
(near Denver, once at KVGT in incredibly gusty winds, etc.). I
haven't had a fatal crash in a long time. The last one was when I hit
a hill on the way out of Henderson Executive at night. I still don't
know which hill it was, as I had examined the chart carefully and was
sure that my departure was clear of terrain. But it was dark.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic,

Also, it has been said befo 99.9% of all landings are hand
flown, not autolanding, unless on a Cat III ILS approach. ILS 25L
is not CATIII.

The aircraft will still autoland on it.


But t odo that would be totally unrealistic. You can't have it both
ways: Either you strive for attempting maximum realism, or you fudge.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert writes:

But to do that would be totally unrealistic.

Not at all. The aircraft is perfectly capable of autolanding in real
life. As far as I know, the actual ground equipment is the same for
all ILS categories. The aircraft equipment differs by category (the
higher the category, the fancier the equipment), but the 737-800 is
fully equipped for Cat IIIc autolanding.

I don't know how often autolanding is used in real life. Apparently
many pilots like to fly the landing and perhaps at least part of the
approach by hand. But they can still autoland if they want to.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

The aircraft is perfectly capable of autolanding in real
life. As far as I know, the actual ground equipment is the same for
all ILS categories.

And you'd be *wrong*.

Buck Murdock writes:

And you'd be *wrong*.

OK. What's different about the ground equipment for the different
categories of ILS approach?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic wrote:
Thomas Borchert writes:

But to do that would be totally unrealistic.

Not at all. The aircraft is perfectly capable of autolanding in real
life. As far as I know, the actual ground equipment is the same for
all ILS categories. The aircraft equipment differs by category (the
higher the category, the fancier the equipment), but the 737-800 is
fully equipped for Cat IIIc autolanding.

I don't know how often autolanding is used in real life. Apparently
many pilots like to fly the landing and perhaps at least part of the
approach by hand. But they can still autoland if they want to.


Not often. For the most, visual approaches are used over ILS
approaches. When cleared for the visual approach, you won't be using
autoland, as you won't be on an ILS approach, regardless of if you join
the localizer and track it. You're still on the visual approach.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFnXmXyBkZmuMZ8L8RAhhpAJ92Lh5yirlENcqWYuyvC6 pjGHKUHACgkS55
LIEW8SE3CIIXM6D0XJDlLsc=
=DrqL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----