EDDF-Triangle

[LH-1701]

Hey Jomo (and all the others *G*)

Happy new year!

Good that you found the solution for audio problem.
I realized it first a few weeks ago, but thought first it was a problem on my setup ;(

I dont know if i'll be online today evening but i will be back on weekend.

reguards

tobias

[J Maverick 16]

Happy new year from EDDF!



First commercial flight of 2020 in the new A330. Jomo excellent as usual.
Cheers, Mav

[LH-1701]

Hi everyone,

the last movie is recorded with sound.

reguards,

tobias

[jomo]

SID's did change !?!?!
I just checked our SIDs against our new https://vatsim-germany.org/pilots/aerodromes/EDDF source. On the EDDF SIDs (e.g. rw18, effective 25.April 2019) there are e.g.:
* no DKB/ROTEN/NOMBO SIDs any more
* the till now NAV-point "AKONI" - is changed to now "CINDY" -- from there it continues only to SULUS 9L / 9S

Before I redo now all SIDs for OpenRadar I would like to confirm: Is it correct that there is no South-East SID any more?? (e.g. DKB, ROTEN, NOMBO)
Anybody has more background- infos to that?

[LH-1701]

Hi,

thats strange.

According to https://nav.vatsim-germany.org/files/ed ... DF_AIO.pdf these SID's still exist.

Reguards

Tobias

[jomo]

Thx Tobias
exactly - but check the dates on each single sheet!

Yours is 20.08.2018
the new seems to be 01.06.2019 !!!

Is the SID-difference a printing error? Or do those people really mean the South-East (DKP etc) is canceled?? (Who is living below that route?)

[tdammers]

It could be that the charts provided by vatsim-germany were edited for VATSIM use. It's somewhat common for VATSIM ATC to only use a subset of the real-world SIDs and STARs, especially at large airports, and some local chapters go through the effort to edit AIP accordingly.

[legoboyvdlp]

Jeppessen charts dated 13 Dec 2019 show CINDY 1X and CINDY1Y, ROTEN, NOMBO and DKB SIDS are indeed gone.

It looks like the procedures have been simplified such that one waypoint is used in each direction. - that is, one to the south west (SOBRA), one to the south (ANEKI) and one to the south east (CINDY). There is also a RID departure for non-RNAV aircraft to the south.


Also since a long time STAR aren't used at Frankfurt - RNAV transitions are issued almost all the time instead while STAR are used exceptionally, for non-RNAV capable aircraft.

[jomo]

Jeppessen charts dated 13 Dec 2019 show CINDY 1X and CINDY1Y, ROTEN, NOMBO and DKB SIDS are indeed gone.
Also since a long time STAR aren't used at Frankfurt - RNAV transitions are issued almost all the time instead while STAR are used exceptionally, for non-RNAV capable aircraft.

That may become a greater problem if we consider our medium skills at EDDF-Triangle (between "more playing" and "VATSIM high-skill")! Based on that I surely do not suggest to change to RNAV procedures --> they are a lot more difficult (as well for pilots as also for ATCs (with/without mumble!))! In addition I do not believe that many users will change their SIDs and/or RNAVs every year!

What do other EDDF-Triangle users think?

[LH-1701]

Hi,

i have flewn stars and also rnav procedures.
From my point as "pilot" rnav is not more complicated than a star - both can be realised by using route manager.
Some fixes for rnav are missing in FG, but you always see vectors and distances in the charts so you are able to modell them on your own.

From ATC point of view i think, rnav makes it easier on one Hand - with skilled pilots - because separation of planes is easier also shortening approaches.
And its also more realistic.

With less skilled pilots a simplyfied approach via vectors or a single fix like your standard approaches is easier to handle as ATC.

My suggestion:

why not offering RNAV procedures additionally on pilots request? What do you think?

Reguards

Tobias

[jomo]

Hi,why not offering RNAV procedures additionally on pilots request? What do you think?
Tobias

Well ... do not forget: Getting those routs onto my radar-screen they must be programmed by me (radar is not an FGFS-model! Each little piece must be coded by lines, curves, intersections, etc.).
And sorry:
* Having on screen some planes on RNAV, some on SIDs, and some manual guidance
* --- and pilots may want to use that and others the other
* --- and some rout-versions are only available for a unique type
* -- and ATC trying to explain/discuss with pilots by typing why that and not that and ... and ..
* -- and I am not sure what I still see on the screen if both are shown same time! (the screen is already overcrowded with all SIDs active!)
No - definitely: I do not believe that is possible if several customers are coming same time - already now you see in the movies that I constantly switch the size/area of the screen in order to see what actually is happening!

I would rather stay with the "old SID/STARS" - e.g. keep the old version on our "Film-page" for everybody to download.
But anyhow: thankYou very much for commenting

[LH-1701]

Hi Jomo,

can understand that its complicated for you.

I will simply take what the ATC advises

One hint: i heard from another ATC who is working with transitions (i think it was at eddm) that he has not modelled the whole transitions just the entry waypoint to make the screen more readable.

Reguards and See u next weekend.

Tobias

[jomo]

Regarding the discrepancy with the newest VATSIM SIT/STARS

1) For EDDF I will continue to integrate the https://vatsim-germany.org/pilots/aerodromes/EDDF into our radar background - so you all can continue training following real routs and then watch in the movies how perfect you are!

2) For those routs that are not support any more in VATSIM I will merge the old versions into the EDDF-Radar-Background. So everybody can continue using them.

We do suggest to all of you to use SID/STARS (it is a nice challenge!) +++ mumble (see http://www.emmerich-j.de/mumble/mumble.html)

[tdammers]

Personally, I think using full procedures (SID, STAR, transition) makes your life easier as a pilot, at least when flying an aircraft with a proper FMS and the correct data loaded into it. The procedures allow ATC to clear you for the entire approach at once, and instead of getting a million vectors and twisting that heading knob for each of them, you just punch the right transition into your FMS and let it do its thing.

[LH-1701]

@tdammers: You are right, but you have to fullfill 2 prerequisites:

-You have actual navdata, e.g. navigraph. Original FG navdata misses many fixes.
-You have setup the procedures in a format FMS/Route Manager can read (or you enter the fixes manually every time)

By the way:
Which aircraft have a proper FMS? I tested some and found only the 777 and 747 have a partialy working FMS which allows to change SID/STARS/TRANSITION

I use 777 and (older) navigraph navdata/procedures and under this circumstances i can confirm what you say.
I like to use SID/STAR/TRANS because it is easier for me and its more realistic.

But from ATC point of view, i can also understand its problematic, because the pilots have different skills from total beginner
(which may is able to use headings) to more experienced pilots which are capable to work with fixes/vor/dme or can use complete SID/STAR/TRANSITION.
And the pilots have also nav data in different quality, from old and poor to new and good quality.
(For example: I have good data for europe and north america, but i also miss some procedures and fixes for the rest of the world).
Also the A/C have different capabilities.
So as ATC you are always in the role to clarify what a pilot is willed and capable to use.

reguards,

tobias