Slot times and Stars in Darwin
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Request track miles to run" would be the appropriate request in this situation, however the controller should give you this info or other info that helps you control your descent profile. ie: "vectors for a 5 mile base".
Thread Starter
G'day NIMFLT,
as I said below its a known distance we can stick in the box. To do that we need tracking details not random vectors.
Its another scenario where we are making it easier for the controller, when I thought the idea was for controllers to provide us with logical and safe tracking so we can concentrate on whats really important, flying the aircraft.
A simple turn left hdg 210 when established in the circling area make VSA or some thing similar would have been alot easier for both of us I suggest. Even track for a 5 mile final, its just alot easier if we know where we are going and can track there ourselves.
We can fly around without V NAV, how ever its there for a reason and should be used where possible. There were 2 aircraft initially then 1.
The controller was increasing the workload for both of us unnecessarily.
As I said my main reason for posting was to get the reference that NFR so kindly provided.
as I said below its a known distance we can stick in the box. To do that we need tracking details not random vectors.
Its another scenario where we are making it easier for the controller, when I thought the idea was for controllers to provide us with logical and safe tracking so we can concentrate on whats really important, flying the aircraft.
A simple turn left hdg 210 when established in the circling area make VSA or some thing similar would have been alot easier for both of us I suggest. Even track for a 5 mile final, its just alot easier if we know where we are going and can track there ourselves.
Unless we have a known track, i.e. known track miles and can stick it in the box then we don't have access to a V Nav profile.
The controller was increasing the workload for both of us unnecessarily.
As I said my main reason for posting was to get the reference that NFR so kindly provided.
Last edited by RENURPP; 12th Oct 2006 at 08:00.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Renurpp,
The controller's responsibility is to provide track miles to run and position information.
Vectors via a circuit pattern are not random. It's a common and valid control technique.
Vectors via a circuit pattern are both safe and logical.
This is the reason for STARS. They offer predicted tracking and decent profile. A request to be taken off a STAR will greatly increase the chances of vectors.
I hope some of this helps but perhaps a little kudo's to the controller for trying to help you fly an approach to the non duty runway is in order. The next time you hear "not available" don't be surprised.
PS. New SIDs and STARs out soon which are more efficient. See AIP Sups.
The controller's responsibility is to provide track miles to run and position information.
To do that we need tracking details not random vectors.
Its another scenario where we are making it easier for the controller, when I thought the idea was for controllers to provide us with logical and safe tracking so we can concentrate on whats really important, flying the aircraft.
Even track for a 5 mile final, its just alot easier if we know where we are going and can track there ourselves.
I hope some of this helps but perhaps a little kudo's to the controller for trying to help you fly an approach to the non duty runway is in order. The next time you hear "not available" don't be surprised.
PS. New SIDs and STARs out soon which are more efficient. See AIP Sups.
