Hi,
When I fly EDDK to EDDF I usually select a COL departure and a ROLIS arrival. Transition is most of the time DF426 to land on 25R.
Then the Controller sometimes requests direct MTR which is not a waypoint on my road.
So my question how to handle this? Just add MTR somewhere already before the departure, add it during the flight when requested?
And if added before departure where to add it best?
Thanks!
just direct to it - you will get further instructions (usually vectors) before reaching it. if you haven’t gotten anything 1-2 minutes before reaching it, ask ATC. default shortcut to that area nowadays is DF412 though, which would again be on the STAR.
1 Like
MTR is “Metro VOR”. What aircraft are you using? In the FMS you should be able to insert “direct MTR” for starters to go there. As there are no more approach transitions or STARs that contain MTR VOR, you will have to ask ATC for further instructions, probably it will be radar vectors to final.
wouldn’t a shortcut to MEFTO be more convenient, in such cases?
No, the standard approaches are never used in Frankfurt (like in so many places here, they pretty much only exist to accommodate com failures). You want traffic on that continuous downwind to build an efficient final. If you give DCT MEFTO, you have the same problem as with MTR: aircraft need further instructions on what to do afterwards. DF412, on the other hand, is a waypoint on the STAR, so pilots will continue on the downwind afterwards and since DCT MTR was pretty much only ever given for traffic arriving via sector Taunus, i.e. COP OSPUL, previously ETARU, (occasionally also for traffiv via sector RĂĽdesheim, i.e. COP RAMOB) the track flown to DF412 is usually nearly identical to the track that was previously flown to MTR - so by using DCT DF412 you basically get all of the benefits of DCT MTR without any of the downsides.
1 Like
At least from MEFTO pilots will have “something” to insert into their FMS… If I get sent DCT MTR VOR, I will delete everything in my FMS except for the waypoints on long final.
EDIT: in the context of our aviation gaming environment here, a DCT MTR can be quite a thing for pilots, because it is not to be seen on any STAR or IAC.
2 Likes
Ok so what I understand it is not correct to add MTR as a waypoint in the FMC to fly to it (with B738). Better to take DF412 or MEFTO as a reference.
What’s about to use MTR as a VOR and to usem this frequency to fly towards it? Either just as a reference on the navigation display or by pressing VOR LOC on the MCP? Would B738 pilots do this?
No, that’s not correct. When ATC instructs you to proceed direct to some waypoint, you need to follow this instruction. The only thing that you need to think about is the route continuation after this point, if it is not part of an arrival or approach procedure that you may have been cleared for before.
E.g. you have been cleared for the ROLIS 5A arrival and you subsequently get instructed to fly to MTR VOR, you will need further instructions on how to proceed after MTR VOR as it is not part of ROLIS 5A. If ATC does not tell you what to do after MTR VOR and you are approaching the VOR, ask them!
If, however you get cleared to any point of ROLIS 5A, for example DF409, then you will go DCT DF409 and the follow the already cleared ROLIS 5A arrival.
That should clear it up?
No. You got MTR VOR in your FMS and LNAV will take you there, there is no need to have a VOR NAV overlay. It would be another thing if you execute a VOR approach procedure, then you might have to have the respective VOR/DME active to crosscheck you LNAV performance.
In the case of Frankfurt where you get sent to MTR VOR as part of the initial approach, do not change your NAV radio settings, leave the ILS active.
1 Like
As it is an IAF for several approaches MEFTO is useful, but MTR not so much. It has a published holding (although using it ad-hoc would probably not help ATC at all…) and when it fits traffic-wise “direct MEFTO, cleared ILS/GLS/RNP Y/Z 25R/L” saves you one or two radio calls. For example when you are busy with the other downwind or the final.
I mean rather use MEFTO than MTR as an ATC. Although they refer to the same position, nowadays only MEFTO is part of the approaches and the other is prone to confuse. But I also only learned that now after studying the charts again 
DF409…DF412 on the downwind will fit the local procedures best of course.
1 Like
So we come back to my original question, should I enter MTR as a waypoint in my FMC when requested by ATC to fly DCT MTR? I understand the question is yes (MTR or MEFTO…) and that I should not enter this point before departing even if I am quiet sure that this will probably be requested, I will only enter it during the flight if it is requested in my FMC and delete all the waypoints until DF411 which will not be usefull anymore.
And I will of course make sure that I get instructions for what route to take after MTR/MEFTO.
Yes.
Also yes.
This is more tricky. ATC might just as well instruct you to return to the STAR well before you reach MTR, which can significantly increase your workload if you had already deleted instructed waypoints. While I’m not too familiar with the 737, I tend to find it easiest to enter a DCT to whatever is the next waypoint after I have established on the localizer and am on green needles after I have gotten vectors to final - that cleans up the flight plan with just 2-3 button presses and doesn’t run the risk of causing problems down the line.
But at the end of the day, this is largely up to personal preference and/or company policy. You just have to make sure that you are able to follow the instructions you end up getting by ATC.
2 Likes
If ATC clears me somewhere that isn’t on my route, I’m going to inform them that it isn’t on my route, so I’ll need to know what to do after that point. They probably are intending to vector me, but in that case the clearance should be “cleared direct MTR, expect vectors runway XX.”. ATC should not be giving a clearance to a point off route without providing at least an “expect” of the further plan. This is required for two reasons: 1. In the case of comms failure, the pilot and controller both know what the pilot will do next; and 2. Providing an off-route clearance with no “expect” leaves the crew scratching their head about exactly the OP’s question - how to insert this in the FMC given they don’t know what they’ll need next. It’s a huge distractor.
Controllers, please don’t give off-route clearances without an “expect”.
Enroute: yes, absolutely.
In a TMA/on approach: maybe, depending on how busy the frequency is. If it’s quite congested, I’ll give ATC a chance to inform me at a later stage and I’ll definitely wait for that question until about 2 minutes before the new clearance limit (that’s how I look at such a new navigational point that was not part of my previously cleared route).
That’s how I handle it both IRL and also here in our beautiful game.
I’ll ask in either environment. If you’re cleared somewhere that isn’t on your route and isn’t part of a procedure you’ve been told to expect, the controller should be telling you what the plan is. If you’ve previously been told to expect a certain star or approach and then you’re cleared to a point on the procedure, then no, because you’ve previously been told what to expect.
But being cleared to a point not on your cleared or told-to-expect route, with no further expect provided, isn’t something a controller is supposed to do in reality. Not saying I’ve never seen it happen, but I’ll call them on it when it does, regardless of freq congestion. That’ll generally reduce the instances of the problem going forward.
It happens to me on a regular basis, but it does not make me feel uneasy. Just use common sense: if the frequency is busy/congested, I do not ask right away, but I wait for an opportunity to keep the frequency as clean as possible. What should happen anyway… That’s what I do IRL and here on VATSIM.
That’s weird because I do not believe it’s ICAO - standard acceptable. Where does that leave you in the event of lost comms, dropped at an arbitrary clearance limit with no “expect”? Sure, you can figure something out. But the idea is that you and the controller will be on the same page as to what you’ll do next, because you’ve been given a procedure to expect. If you haven’t, you aren’t on the same page.
My larger concern about it really is the potential distraction though. It’s one thing for a crew with some local knowledge at that airport, but it’s another thing entirely for a crew that isn’t used to this happening and now has to have a discussion about it.
I’m a fan of folks doing their jobs correctly in aviation, I guess. I know I’m expected to, so I don’t feel bad about holding others to the same standards. It doesn’t burn much bandwidth to ask, “what are we expecting after ABCDE, that’s not on our route?”. And it probably reminds the controller he should be including that info, so it reduces the amount of times this happens to subsequent crews. Just technique, I guess.
I know, but I have become more relaxed about it over the past 30 years. I have been working in business aviation for the past 20 years and going to strange places at times makes one a bit more relaxed. As you wrote, there will always be a solution found. There is no black and white in aviation.
It’s not about “feeling bad” about asking, but usually there’s a lot of time on our hands until it will become relevant (when it is busy) so I am happy to wait. Sometimes we are happy that the controller speaks some kind of English at all 
And to be clear: “being relaxed about it” does not mean that we are ignoring it. We are just more tolerant to wait for further instructions and, if they are not received, we know what to do, because we talked about it on the flightdeck. It’s like some controllers not issuing STAR clearances. We just follow the most likely one and then try to get confirmation. If ATCO complain about it, I will tell them off for not instructing us correctly, easy.
I do not see a huge risk of distraction. It all depends on the mindset as well: if such small things can distract me, I need to review other things as well. I regularly get to fly to airports that I have never heard of in my life and will probably never see again. But who cares, after all it’s just another runway with some kind of IFR or VFR approach procedure that needs to be followed.
As do we all, and that’s the whole point: it only works when standardized procedures are followed. So if they aren’t, even if I personally know what is most likely, I will call them on it. Because a distracted crew, or one that just guesses wrong, becomes a threat to all of us. My take is, it just isn’t that hard to expect the people around me to do their jobs properly, and hold them to it. A controller can send me anywhere they want to, as long as they do their job properly and tell me what the plan is next.
To be fair, on the ATCO side, the assumption in case of CF very much tends to be “they are not going to follow the published lost comms procedure” because in the rare case that one does occur, pilots often haven’t briefed themselves (especially when there’s nothing mentioned in the airport charts or there are more general procedures beyond that) and controllers will clear a vast area of airspace around you, so you’d usually be fine with just using best judgement.
And I feel - although you two will certainly be the ones with more expertise on this matter as I’m the one without IR here - like “after MTR expect vectors” also wouldn’t be particularly helpful in case of lost comms. But luckily, CF is not something we have to contend with on the network (except for the AFK pilots you get almost every session, but that’s a different matter).
You sound a bit strict to me. Relax, take it easy, enjoy the ride. I don’t think that aviation is rocket science and that, while we always need to think a step ahead, also need to keep our cool and not allow ourselves to get “distracted” by such minor things.
Let’s jump right into this example. Assuming an ATCO gives you the instruction “proceed direct MTR VOR, expect radar vectors”. There you go, you got your instruction, but you still do not know what you are going to do after MTR, right?
I come across this kind of situation on a regular basis and if I do not receive further instructions just before reaching my current clearance limit, I call them up and ask. Otherwise I will probably leave MTR on the current track/heading or enter a hold there. But I never had that, ATCO always came back to us or replied to our request for clarification.
The case “lost comms” is not valid in this day and age anymore as well: we all have multiple VHF radios and SATCOM and thus alternative means to contact ATC. And if you lose communications, because your ship is on fire, you will definitely not care about separation to other traffic, that will be least of your problems.
I will though, because the phraseology will never just be “expect vectors” (at least it should not be if used correctly). It will be “expect vectors [for something]”. “Expect vectors ILS 28R”, for instance, or “expect vectors to re-join STAR at MARNR” etc. Yes, “expect vectors” by itself would be pretty useless but that’s not how it’s used.
I wouldn’t say I’m very strict, but I try my best to be standard. 31 years of flying and counting, plus years as a check airman, have made me appreciate the value of standardization in general, and particular to this point, of standard phraseology. I also tend not to like ambiguity that provides a crew distraction when it can be easily avoided.
I should clarify that my original comment that started this discussion path was aimed at real world flying. If given an ambiguous clearance on Vatsim, I would still ask for clarification as to what happens next because that would be my habit, but obviously I don’t place the same importance on this kind of thing on the network. I didn’t mean to imply that I would somehow hold it against a Vatsim controller - we’re all hobbyists on here with different levels of experience and in the end it’s just for fun.