CRJ latest patch v. 1-0-0-6 , ILS Capture issues

Have done as you suggested

This is my approach checklist that works for me:

So at 200 kts or less at the initial approach fix (IAF), and then slowing down to Vref at the final approach fix (FAF), which is normally roughly 6 nm final.

2 Likes

Don’t confuse the FAF with the IF/IAF. What VATSIM does is irrelevant. We are talking piloting technique here and the vast majority of VATSIM controllers have never flown an airplane in their lives. By your own checklist, the last item says “Keep Vref from 6nm”. On the average ILS approach the OM, when present, is the FAF and it is located approximately 6 nm from the approach end of the runway. In the case of the ILS 26R approach at KLAS, which was the example given by the OP, the FAF happens to be 7.6 miles out. Once ATC clears you for the approach you are cleared to descend to each altitude specified in the profile view of the approach chart. Back to the KLAS 26R approach, that means after BJORG you should descend to 3800 and slow to Vref ready to capture the GS at CONDY.

2 Likes

What Vatsim does is simulating ATC, and there isn’t a lot of ATC that’ll let you be that slow on approach at any airport with any semblance of traffic.

So no. It’s far from irrelevant. ATC is very relevant. They decide your approach speed, not the chart.

Read my whole post. I’m not talking about Vref 20 miles out. I’m talking about Vref after the FAF.

Good point!

Don’t agree with your VATSIM statement though, but I was indeed mixing them up. At FAF, Vref is indeed the way to go. I will modify my comment to clear the confusion it might create.

I’ve read it, and implying that what ATC tells you is irrelevant because “piloting technique” is a pretty farfetched statement.

Reminds me of a certain British Airways pilot that got in an argument over this very topic with ATC because “I pilot a 747” and got sent into the hold to sulk on his own. :joy:

1 Like

IRL or sim? I was unaware of these data and would appreciate learning of the source.

Just to be clear FAA 7110.65 (the ATC handbook) forbids ATC from issuing airspeed adjustments inside the FAF or within five miles of the approach end of the runway, whichever is less. If speed restrictions are in force when the approach clearance is made, ATC needs to restate them, otherwise they are canceled.

BTW, I have had random adventures with the CRJ not intercepting/tracking the GS, but I haven’t tried the latest version.

ATC’s job it to provide for a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic. They are not responsible for the safe operation of your aircraft. That is the PIC’s job. If ATC asks you to do something that you feel is unsafe either for your aircraft, the conditions or your capabilities it is your responsibility to say so. “Unable” is a powerful word when dealing with ATC. If you were flying a C-172 and ATC told you to “Climb and maintain FL320” would you do it? If you can’t safely comply with an ATC instruction, and have relayed that information to them, then ATC’s only option is to either modify their instruction or to resequence you for the approach. I’m not saying that pilots can do whatever they want and claim safety concerns without repercussions. You may find yourself in a face to face meeting with an FAA official justifying your actions and trying to keep from losing your certificate.

I totally agree, they generally blame user error and when you provide actual evidence they ignore you and blame you anyway hahah

1 Like

You can say “Unable” as much as you like, but that just means you can’t follow their instructions, not that you can ignore them or that they’re “irrelevant.” ATC has no obligation to clear you to land on your own conditions.

If you refuse their instructions and it doesn’t work for them, back to the hold you go, unless you declare an emergency.

Stuff like “VATSIM controllers have never flown an airplane in their lives” is quite irrelevant, because exactly the same applies to most real ATC. Their instructions are still very relevant regardless of that point.

Which is pretty much what I said in the last two sentences of my post.

EDIT: None of which has anything to do with how to properly fly an ILS approach.

And conflicts with the idea that “What VATSIM does is irrelevant”

The version that was current before SU5 released will definitely not track the glideslope in SU5. The new version 1.0.6 will.

Thanks for pointing that out. My experiences were with earlier versions of MSFS, not SU5. I really like the challenge of flying the CRJ, but it’s not clear to me that the FD/AP responds correctly under all reasonable circumstances. But honestly, I’ve never wrangled anything IRL more complex than a C172, so it’s very possible that it’s user error on my part.

I don’t think so. Since the patch I have found the ILS on the CRJ to be unreliable. I do know how to fly it…before I get loads of advice on how it ‘should’ be done.

Thread locked! As we feel this topic has been solved… Me …What the hell… lol

3 Likes

oh yeah, that’s how they do!

So what’s the solution?

I am not sure there is one at the moment. It seems for some it works for others it does not. I was in the middle of trying again yesterday, looking the advice from the kind people who have replied when this

happened So I never got finish the flight! Read it however… The Market place needs to be sorted out.

Will try again today.