I’ve noticed that the vast majority of flight plans indicate the wrong approach for landing at KCRQ, in fact this path would have the craft landing across the lone runway (6/24). approaching from the northwest directly on a collision course with the tower, almost perpendicular to the runway. In general, all flights at KCRQ (barring Santa Ana conditions or firefighting operations being in the way, I assume) land from the east, travelling and setting down due west-southwest (officially 245.7-degree heading). It is very rare that a bird will land or take off on runway 6, thanks to the direct sea breeze received here into the face of 24. Is there a way for this to be corrected in the flight plans shown in graphic? Most craft will hug the coast coming from the north, and then turn sharply inland to circle round the intersecting valleys and line up, and I think the typical flight plan should show this route as a matter of course. Those traveling from the East generally line up on the correct heading right around the Salton Sea, and it’s a rather simple matter of descent from there. I’ve heard the landing pattern at KCRQ, considering the traffic to the north and south, is one of the easiest of all southern California.
Please forgive me if I’ve posted this in the wrong area, and be so kind as to direct me to the correct place for such requests.
Welcome aboard to FlightAware (FA). Not sure what you are looking at. flightaware.com/resources/airport/KCRQ/summary
is the summary for the airport in question. If you look at the tabs, you will see ‘Map and Diagram’ and ‘IFR Plates’. Check the approaches on IFR plates, they are all for RW 24 except for the VOR-A approach. These documents are maintained by FAA.
Sorry, I mean on the flight tracker, which shows all aircraft’s flight path terminating in the way I described above. Even the west-bound flights are shown bypassing the airport to approach from the Northeast, presumably to launch a kamikaze attack with a sharp left hand diving turn.
I looked at the last couple of arrivals and departures and if you zoom in real close you will see the radar track ends, or begins, several miles from the airport. I would bet that wherever the radar is at it will not reach all the way to the ground. Most of the time what you are seeing as a “wrong direction” landing is actually the radar track ending while the airplane is on base leg several miles out.
The actual aircraft themselves depart from the route and go the correct way. The aircraft themselves aren’t being shown as landing the wrong way. They are, rather, shown to be on a trajectory for one…the dashed line, in other words. The location of the actual aircraft is generally pretty correct, of course just delayed a few minutes. And I know for a fact that it is the actual landing, because I’m watching approach as I track the flight. The radar/gis generally follows them all the way in, with maybe only a 2-5 minute delay.
From the flight you provided, looks like it is the downwind leg. The last position we have is at 1700 ft and it was north of the field. It would make a right and then another right and would be lined up for final to land.
In real-time, it didn’t stop there. I’m not talking about the green line, which is slowly banking right, rather than taking a hard LEFT turn just past the airport heading WEST, as I described. The flight tracker, in real-time, follows the aircraft all the way in to the runway, and I’m right beneath that glide path, long after they have dipped well below 1700’. A few minutes after the bird passes overhead, the blue craft on the flight tracker shows them overflying my location (and I’m not complaining about the delay, by the way). When the flight is actually tracking, it doesn’t stop with them about to turn into the valley prior to approach. I’m not confused about the actual route the aircraft are taking. I’m confused about the “planned route” and how it almost always “plans” for the aircraft to take the wrong approach, even when the aircraft is coming from the direction of the correct approach, and the dashed line has them planning to bypass the airport and turn around to land wrong. It’s not on every flight, but enough for me to notice, and to wonder what is up with that. I’m not sure how much more clear I could have been about that…This isn’t so much shown on completed flights, but rather while the bird is in the air…
A flight plan (dashed line) is a series of departures, fixes, airways, VOR’s and a bunch of other stuff. For the flight for this aircraft from Monterray to Palomar its flight plan was “MRY1 MRY SERFR AVE LAX FODRR1”
So as they approach KCRQ they enter the pattern on the downwind for the runway and make the turn. The dashed line is not “literal” in many cases. There is no additional “fix” needed in the flight plan and not real sure why it’s necessary.
So, in short, no distinction is made between “navigation aids” and “reporting points”, and the route will be shown as though navigation aids are going to be reported to?
OK, then. I guess that explains it. Not sure if that’s appropriate, but at least it explains it.
I’m trying to understand why it’s significant? A flight can change it’s flightplan at any point in time. I flight will also be cleared “direct,” (back in the channel 9 days I heard ORD-ALB flights “cleared direct to ALB” before we hit Buffalo. Flight plans are just that. Plans. Plans change.
If it matched a feasible plan, it wouldn’t bother my compulsive little self. Rather, the flight plan in reality always involves an approach from the east. Just because I’m quirky like that, this little anomaly struck me as weird. We aren’t dealing with any altered flight plans here. Let’s be realistic.
But you already answered my question. The flight tracker doesn’t differentiate between navigation aids and reporting points. Therefore, if a flight plan lists the Oceanside VOR as a navigation aid for instrument landings, the craft is shown on the map as actually planning to fly to it before turning back to KCRQ, and it doesn’t take runway orientation into account. Overall, it’s not a big deal. I thought it was odd. At least now there’s an explanation behind it.
No need to drag it on any further. You answered my question, and I’m appreciative of that. If there’s some other motivation for you to drag it out and make it into something it’s not, I’m not really sure what is behind that. And I’m not interested in engaging in discussion over everything that my original query/suggestion wasn’t. I’m obviously new to this community, and didn’t understand this particular idiosyncrasy. That’s all.
I’ve been gawking at these planes gliding in to land at this airport since I was a kid. Having the added info from the site, such as the craft identification and flight origin, is pretty great, and I appreciate that. I’m just your basic amateur planespotter…not worth getting into a pissing contest with, if you think about it.
In Jim’s example the flight plan ends with the FODDR1 arrival which ends at OCN with a note to expect the LOC or ILS runway 24. In flight plan legalese “expect” is not a clearance. When flight aware gets the flight plan it draws a dashed line from OCN straight to the airport. As the airplane passes Oceanside the dashed line re-draws itself from the airplanes present position direct to the airport. Unfortunately radar contact is lost so you never get to see the actual flight path and the dashed line coincide all the way around the pattern.
Flight plans are funny things, there is one box for departure airport, another box for route and a third box for arrival airport. The route therefore does not include the 2 airports and is supposed to end at what is called an initial approach fix, in this case OCN. That is why the dashed line does not always make sense.
