In TBM w WT G3000, flying from KDSL to KVGT, with waypoints MAYSA7 RRSTA GUILE NTNDO1 (plan generated in Simbrief, All was well till the approach via RNAV. Plane stayed on course, but ATC lowered my altitude such that if I kept flying I would crash and burn into the side of a mountain. I believe the rway was 21 and I was flying the down wind leg with a mountain looming right in fron of me and according to the map on the MFD I was going to hit the mountain. Anyone else observed this?
1 Like
Yep, mountains and ATC don’t always work well. Flying from Nice to Geneva can be a hair raising experience from time to time. 
4 Likes
Vectoring and altitude awareness need some significant upgrades. One of these days, Asobo will get to work on it. Or least we all hope they will.
3 Likes
In mountainous terrain, I take advantage of the relative terrain view in the NXI 1000. I know this isn’t available in the G3000 but it has been a lifesaver for showing me terrain coming up to meet me.
Red your dead!
That’s quite normal
in mountainous area, always trust the chart.. ignore the ATC 
3 Likes
Do you recall the vectors ATC gave you? There is a mandatory 7,000 ft altitude crossing restriction leaving the STAR. There is only one RNAV(GPS) RWY 12R into KVGT. The minimum altitude entering the approach is 6,700 ft. There are mountains nearby but shouldn’t be close enough to any vectors. There is a tight turn to the final approach and it is possible in a fast aircraft like the TBM to make turns too wide then suddenly there are mountains in your windshield.
It wasn’t the vectors but the altitudes they called, On the downwind leg, at the start they wanted 4,200 feet (Which I did not understand), shortly after that they called 6,700 feet which lined up with the plate. However, 6,700 was not high enough to clear the mountains, and on the terrain map the magenta line went through the mountains. Yesterday, I flew the same plan but then went Direct To FROZE, Which took me east of the field, cancelled IFR and landed manually. I see from other responders that this appears to be common in mountainous areas. It seems as though that ATC assumes that everything is flat near airports. BTW, I had the TBM down to 150 knts on the downwind leg. Upon reflection, I think the problem is that there is only one active runway at at KVGT, rnwy 15. If you look at the available approach plates they only refer to runway 15. If you could land from the southeast there wouldn’t be a problem because all the mountains are west of the field.
1 Like
I duplicated your flight as best as possible and you are correct, ATC gives vectors into a mountain. (IRL ATC would issue a terrain alert which MSFS doesn’t have. However, I think this is more than “ATC flies me into a mountain” problem.
I found a couple of issues with the routing. I wonder how pilots fly this IRL. All of the soUth-exit STARs require radar vectors to the north-entry RNAV approach. Leaving the NTNDO1 STAR at 9,000 ft, ATC gave me vectors to the RNAV approach using the ECAKO transition. Exiting the STAR at 304° the direct vector at 9,000 ft to ECAKO goes directly through a mountain. I didn’t expect to be routed so wide to the west…
Staying on the ATC vector but climbing to 14,000 ft to avoid granite puts the aircraft too high and too fast to reach ECAKO.
I would redo this flight plan not using a published arrival. If using the RNAV approach, I would not use the ECAKO transition. Since the airport is in a valley with high mountains plus being near a very busy airport, I think I would ask cancel IFR and fly VFR to the airport.
This flight plan has been a very good exercise in planning a route to an airport in a mountainous area. Thank you!
1 Like
maybe ATC and mountains are developed by different teams?
1 Like
Spoken like a person with experience in big IT, where the right hand never talks to the left hand.
Musing on this problem, it occurs to me that the external charts I use, like Simbrief or Skyvector, and their flight plans are supposed to be close to real life, I might be inclined to think the topo’s in the sim are misshapen. I would assume that the flight plan from Simbrief, which is the plan I used twice, would know where mountains are located. All I know is that I was going to hit rock, big rock. Another question is why is 15 the only runway for which there is an RNAV approach,? The prevailing wind in North America is from West to East, generally, so why does the only runway for that field go from NW to SE, which is sort of down wind. If there was an RNAV opposite 15 it would be ok. If what we see is like real life, remind me never to actually fly into North Las Vegas at night in low visby.
Thanks for confirming.
1 Like
SkyVector had better be “real life” because IRL pilots can use it to file their IFR flight plans. SimBrief and NaviGraph are labeled “not for navigation”. Basically IFR flying is not concerned with topology (and traffic) because terrain is factored into approach plates, SIDs, and STARs. NOTAMS are filled with obstacles around airports. OTH VFR flying is primarily concerned with topology and obstacles because pilots have to “see and avoid” everything.
Topology isn’t mapped directly into MSFS ATC because safe altitudes are in the IFR charts. The problem w/ATC vectors into KVLG is that the vectors @ 9,000 ft crossed over airways having a 12,000 ft minimum altitude.
KVLG is unique because the STARs have no common transition points with the approaches which means ATC vectors have to be used. A problem with MSFS flight planning is the lack of ATC vectors. Every point HAS to connect to another. No gaps are allowed. In MSFS ATC vectors are replaced by directly connecting the end points in the gap as if they exist on a chart. And topography is ignored for these pseudo-vectors. FWIW, I think ATC vectors would be impossible to program into MSFS because they are random and unpredictable IRL.
A possible workaround is to check flight plans for STAR and approach connecting transitions.
Just put a plan onto the world map, KSDL to KVGT and no matter what arrival you select you go over the mountains N or W of the field. I think the problem here is there is only 1 approach allowed and that is Runway 12. If you could come in from the SE, say Runway 23, the mountains would not be a problem. Look at the topo on the world map, SE is all flat and low.
1 Like
Did some research as to why 12 in the only runway used at KVGT. First, it not THE airport for Las Vegas, and they run flights to the Grand Canyon. 8 Miles SSE is McCarran INT, which is the generally used airport for LV. If you took an approach from the SSE to KVGT you would cross McCarran and its approaches at altitudes that would interfere with it’s operation. If you look at KLAS on Little Navmap you will see how much restricted airspace surrounds it. Plus there is Nellis AFB in the vicinity as well as an executive airport nearby. So, I guess it’s like golf, local knowledge gives you an edge. I still think there is a problem in the sim. You shouldn’t fly into mountains under the direction of ATC.
Sometimes I am such a child, even at age 58. All these very well thought out, well written responses, and all I can think of is “In a crash? Call Shapiro and Shapiro. We got you covered!”
2 Likes
Was Altimeter correct?
Yes it was
1 Like
I suggest you look into alternatives for your ATC. There are many out there. VATSIM, PilotEdge, IVAO, POSCON and Pilot2ATC.
This video is hard to watch, but it appears the approach is from over the mountains.
Wish I could have found a better one, but all the rest start the video from inside the valley already