STAR charts often have expected altitudes. For example:
This is, of course, different from mandatory crossing altitudes, and it seems a STAR with only expected altitudes would be insufficient for ATC to issue a descend via clearance, though I could be wrong about the second part.
Some charts say "VERTICAL NAVIGATION PLANNING INFORMATION" before the expected altitude, so my assumption is that these altitudes are strictly for planning purposes and allow a top of descent to be calculated.
My questions are:
Someone else will have to comment on whether the STAR in the FMS includes the altitudes as well.
You are right, "expected" altitudes are suggestions so that pilots know about when they will need to begin their descent. Instructions from ATC are the final word, so they would either say "descend via" or specify the altitude if they were using the "expected" altitudes.
ATC instruction to "cross [fix] at [altitude]" will depend on the traffic situation. Along busy approaches, it is fairly common. It's not mandatory because it's not always necessary. It is up to ATC to decide what altitude the pilots should be at, and it may not always be the "expect" altitude.
The “expect” altitudes/speeds are published so that pilots may have the information for planning purposes. These altitudes/speeds must not be used in the event of lost communications unless ATC has specifically advised the pilot to expect these altitudes/speeds as part of a further clearance.
My questions are:
1) When you enter the STAR in the the FMS, will it pre-populate the expected altitude, and does this show up in the FMS exactly the same as a mandatory crossing altitude?
This depends on the model of FMS. Some of them don't even have Vertical Navigation (VNAV), and it really depends on the exact model. I will say that three of the most common FMS's that I have personally used (Universal, Collins, and Honeywell) all pre-populate the expected altitude and it shows up exactly the same as a mandatory altitude.
In any case, the FMS is advisory only. Unless the pilot dials in the actual assigned altitude and selects a vertical mode on the autopilot, it isn't going to descend on its own. So if ATC doesn't assign the crossing restriction, you may see your VNAV pointer come alive and watch as you fly through the vertical profile without capturing it and it would be perfectly normal. If I am getting close to the point where I would like to descend to make a crossing restriction and haven't been given lower, I will sometimes ask the controller: "Do you need me to make the crossing restriction at RUGBB today?". This gives me an idea of what's to come or prompts them to give me the descent clearance.
2) Are expected altitudes treated as suggestions by pilots or controllers? For example, in the above chart, if you were at JHAWK 15,000ft landing south, and Kansas City Center or Approach told you to "descend at your discretion, maintain 8000", would you (or the FMS) make any attempt to cross RUGBB at 12,000 even though it's not required?
An "expect" altitude is just that. It is an altitude to expect, but it is not always actually assigned. If it isn't, then you don't have to make it and since your example is at pilots discretion, you could descend at whatever rate you want. You could cross RUGBB higher or lower than 12,000 ft and nobody would care.
In actual practice, they usually only do this in a few situations:
In this last case, I would get down to 13,000 ft. in time to make the crossing restriction if they gave it to me, but it wouldn't be required.
3) How common is it for ATC to actually issue a "cross [fix] at [altitude]" where the fix and altitude are as expected on the chart? And, if it is common, why wouldn't it simply be mandatory?
Again, this depends on the procedure but it is quite common. That's why they put them there so that you can plan on what is typically done. There may be operational reasons (like two different procedures that intersect) which prevent them from issuing it every time, so they can't just make it mandatory.
4) Are expected altitudes part of lost communications procedures?
Surprisingly, no. Not unless the controller has specifically cleared you to expect or cross it or "descend via" a procedure.
5) Am I missing anything with regards to the purpose of expected altitudes?
Not on this one! In some cases, there is a speed restriction which is listed on a separate line from an expect altitude. In these instances, the speed is required whether or not the speed or altitude was verbally assigned, just by being cleared via the arrival. For example, on the SFO HADLY2 arrival, you are required cross EUGEN at 250 knots, whereas 11,000ft is only required if assigned by ATC.
for ATC to issue a descend via clearance, though I could be wrong about the second part. Some charts say "VERTICAL NAVIGATION PLANNING INFORMATION" before the expected altitude, so my assumption is that these altitudes are strictly for planning purposes and allow a top of descent to be calculated. My questions are: When you enter the STAR in the the FMS, will it pre-populate the expected altitude... though it's not required? How common is it for ATC to actually issue a "cross [fix] at [altitude]" where the fix and altitude are as expected on the chart? And, if it is common, why wouldn't it simply
Are airspace violations (e.g. entry to class B without clearance) based on primary radar and/or Mode C transponder, or something else? I read that Mode C altitude is based on pressure altitude, i.e., set to 29.92" ... but presumably that's adjusted at the ATC facility based on the current pressure before being used for altitude enforcement. This begs the question, what would stop one (hypothetically), just winding back the altimeter pressure reading to appear to be at a lower altitude? So to summarize: How are airspace violations detected: What data input is used? If Mode C reading
These are calculations which I use to know when to descend and the Rate: Multiply the ALT of feet to lose by 3 and $Groundspeed\div2\times10$ will give you your required rate of descent for a 3° glide slope. For example: FL350 to FL100 => 25,000 ft down $25\times3=75$, so start at 75 nm GS = 320 kts => $320\div2\times10=1,600$ => -1,600 fpm is your desired rate of descent. How do I calculate without using tangents for degrees, other than 3: 2,5; 4; 5 ...? In my last question I got it wrong, even though through math the answer was correct.
I have a question regarding this Missed Approach Procedure Im in my final approach segment and reach DME 1.1 and the runway is not in sight so I start my Missed approach, how should it be executed? Since I have to hold I'd start a tear drop entry turning to heading 125° and then left turn intercepting 275° course inbound. This option sounds viable to me I first do a right 360° as charted (???) and going to the VOR and then starting probably a parallel entry into the hold. This doesn't sound viable to me Textual description is also clear about that 360° If it 1.) why would they chart
If ATC gives me a clearance to cross a fix at a specific altitude or a descent at pilot's discretion and I read back the clearance, is my readback considered the report specified in the AIM, or do I have to inform them when I actually start down? AIM 5-3-3. Additional Reports a. The following reports should be made to ATC or FSS facilities without a specific ATC request: 1. At all... 100 NM from Wilmington VOR and gets the following clearance: ATC: N1234, cross Wilmington VOR at flight level 240 Pilot: Cross Wilmington VOR at flight level 240, N1234 or ATC: N1234
I was looking through my virtual radar logs one of the days and found this "glitchy" ADS-B behavior. I am almost 100% sure that this is not due to my antenna or setup since two independent different radars confirmed this weird behavior from FlightRadar24. Also A/C before and after this one did not exhibit this behavior. Does anybody have any thoughts as to what may be happening??? Why... of occurrence is approximately: 3/16/2014 6:09pm CST I have also verified FlightAware is ALSO showing the same weird glitch. See below "yellow" highlighted airplane: Same A/C from FlightRadar24
I hope this is a relevant place for me to ask a math question regarding aircraft design. I am trying to understand how one would implement a controller to control the pitch angle of an airplane for a small exercise. I understand the control part and its implementation. What I do not grasp is how one acquires the longitudinal equations of motions (which are then used for the control part) which... to linearize the equations and then apply control theory to it. For example, how are the left and right hand sides of eq. 4.70 from pp. 164 of the following book book is derived? I will appreciate
On this approach plate, the holding pattern shown is depicted for a missed approach: However, in the notes, it says to Descend to 6000 in holding pattern. even though you should only climb to 4700 feet, according to the missed approach procedure: Climb to 3000 via 166° bearing then climbing left turn to 4700 direct DUT NDB/DME and hold. What does the note actually mean (especially since it seems to be implying you would be higher than 6000 on the missed approach procedure)?
In a full motion Level C or D simulator like those used by the airlines and for jet type ratings: How should a pilot log the simulator time in their logbook? I.e. Can you log: Total Time Instrument Time Time in Type Cross Country Time Night Time Landings (including night landings) Dual given/received Anything else?
If it were a beautiful sunny VFR day and you were cleared for a circling approach, can you begin the circle prior to the final approach fix/circling DH in order to maneuver visually to land? Here are two examples of situations where it would be very useful, and both are real life clearances that I have gotten multiple times: Example 1 - KASE Clearance: N1234, Cleared for the VOR/DME-C..., and yet I have never seen anyone do a 360 or a similar maneuver while on final here (and who would want to do that in the valley anyway??). Example 2 - KTEB Clearance: N1234, Cleared for the ILS