Jump to content


- - - - -

SID's/STAR's Guide!


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Tim.

Tim.

    Aviation Hotshot Dec-Feb

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,542 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 05 June 2005 - 01:40 PM

Hi guys!

I've just finished typeing up a guide on how to fly SID's and STAR's.

I've uploaded it, and hopefully it will be in the download section shortly.

It use's Adobe Acrobat reader which you can get here.

Hope you like it.

#2 Tim.

Tim.

    Aviation Hotshot Dec-Feb

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,542 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 05 June 2005 - 02:39 PM

The link is here...

http://www.fs2004.co...nloads/?dlid=89

#3 midstarflyer

midstarflyer

    Student Pilot

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 04:00 PM

correct me if i'm wrong, but shouldn't there be another zero on the minimum flight levels on page 5?  3,500 feet sounds better than 350 feet.

#4 Tim.

Tim.

    Aviation Hotshot Dec-Feb

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,542 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 22 June 2005 - 02:01 AM

Nope, well Manchester isn't that high. I'm sure it works of the same principle of flightlevels.

#5 midstarflyer

midstarflyer

    Student Pilot

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 22 June 2005 - 08:20 AM

definition of MSA - MINIMUM SECTOR ALTITUDE [ICAO]- The lowest altitude which may be used under emergency conditions which will provide a minimum clearance of 300 m (1,000 feet) above all obstacles located in an area contained within a sector of a circle of 46 km (25 NM) radius centered on a radio aid to navigation.

According to the definition, MSA has to clear ALL obstacles by 300m or 1000 feet for the 25 nautical miles surrounding the radio aid.  Therefore a MSA of 35 can not be 350 feet as that is less than 1,000.  A number in the MSA sector circle has to be multiplied by 100.  35 would be 3,500.

Using your example, a minimum approach altitude from the NE and NW would be 3,500.  A minimum approach from the SE would be 3,100, and an minimum approach from the SW would be 2,600.

#6 Tim.

Tim.

    Aviation Hotshot Dec-Feb

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,542 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 22 June 2005 - 10:34 AM

Ah, thanks for correcting me! I will try to change it later on. :D

#7 C172pilot

C172pilot

    Airline Transport Pilot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,988 posts

Posted 03 July 2005 - 10:24 PM

you also need to know that STAR is Standad Terminal Arrival Route.

and on page 8 you have  Star's (Standard Instrument Departure.) I don't think so! :-p

on page 10 you say the trick is to look past the text? Uhm, I don't know about you, but that text is what tells the pilots what TO DO. Doing a SID/STAR is more than following a path of waypoints, you have restrictions, requirements at points, certain proecdures for certain type of aircraft. different catagory aircraft must fly the same route, just slightly bigger on the same SID, asa a result gets a different name.

I really hope you did your research before making this.

But I must say this is very well done. I learnt a thing or too :-P

#8 CSHoffie

CSHoffie

    Private Pilot - VFR

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 459 posts
  • Location:Jacksonville, FL

Posted 03 October 2005 - 08:06 PM

Good tut, but I still don't understand which STAR or SID we should pick! I fly the PMDG 737 mostly, but how do I know which STAR to pick on arrival?? ATC won't tell us in FS04 like they do in RL...

#9 Hurock

Hurock

    formerly ExTrA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,047 posts
  • Location:St-Luc,QC; CYJN

Posted 03 October 2005 - 08:31 PM

Don't use FS ATC or go on VATSIM....

#10 CSHoffie

CSHoffie

    Private Pilot - VFR

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 459 posts
  • Location:Jacksonville, FL

Posted 03 October 2005 - 11:07 PM

ExTrA, on Oct 3 2005, 06:31 PM, said:

Don't use FS ATC or go on VATSIM....
Don't use FS ATC? Dang, that'll really cut back on the realistic factor, but then again, I guess FS ATC isn't that realistic in the first place.

Thanks for the tip.

Isn't someone making a new ATC program to overwrite FS's?

Edited by CSHoffie, 03 October 2005 - 11:10 PM.


#11 andrew_c

andrew_c

    Airline Transport Pilot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,180 posts
  • Location:London, Ontario, Can

Posted 14 October 2005 - 02:09 PM

CSHoffie, on Oct 4 2005, 12:07 AM, said:

ExTrA, on Oct 3 2005, 06:31 PM, said:

Don't use FS ATC or go on VATSIM....
Don't use FS ATC? Dang, that'll really cut back on the realistic factor, but then again, I guess FS ATC isn't that realistic in the first place.

Thanks for the tip.

Isn't someone making a new ATC program to overwrite FS's?
Yup, found

HERE

and to be used

HERE


:D  :D

#12 Guest_DJ Prem_*

Guest_DJ Prem_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 October 2005 - 02:16 AM

New updated guide coming soon.

#13 Tim.

Tim.

    Aviation Hotshot Dec-Feb

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,542 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 17 October 2005 - 10:10 AM

DJ Prem, on Oct 17 2005, 07:16 AM, said:

New updated guide coming soon.
With new added spelling! :D

#14 Guest_DJ Prem_*

Guest_DJ Prem_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 October 2005 - 02:27 PM

Tim., on Oct 17 2005, 03:10 PM, said:

DJ Prem, on Oct 17 2005, 07:16 AM, said:

New updated guide coming soon.
With new added spelling! :D
Yeap, well once you agree with the new guide and if there are no further changes and it's going

#15 Guest_DJ Prem_*

Guest_DJ Prem_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 October 2005 - 01:55 AM

Tim. did you get my PM and e-mail with the new guide as I've not got any feedback from you on is OK or you need any further changes

:D

#16 Evan.

Evan.

    Airline Transport Pilot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,868 posts
  • Location:LIT / LAF

Posted 20 October 2005 - 02:08 AM

andrew_c, on Oct 14 2005, 02:09 PM, said:

Yup, found

HERE

and to be used

HERE
  :D  :D

#17 Guest_DJ Prem_*

Guest_DJ Prem_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 October 2005 - 02:15 PM

New guide avaliable at http://www.danilprem...ails.php?file=5

Enjoy and please leave feeback and comment on comment section.