Where do you control Scott?Look, I'm not saying what rc does now is wrong. I'm stating the optimal situation which is more prevailing in the less congested areas where separation is not constantly an issue. You must agree there is very little sense in the controller having to figure out the optimum descent point, that's the pilot's job.What I forgot to add to the original post, is that obviously in areas of more traffic, like most of the US major airports, usually the controller will get to initiate the descent process due to the all the traffic he needs to handle.So my suggestion for RC is still:Small airport / little traffic - pilot requests descentBig airport / a lot of traffic - ATC initiates descent before pilot (separation)

rc is about realism. to coin a phrase, as real as it gets. i forget who said that.you've got my partner, retired 20 year controller at ZME that says it's not up to pilots to request the descent, and you have scott, active 20+ years controller that says pilot's don't request initial descent clearance. when i hear from the uk and oz controllers, i'll have the definitive answer. believe me, controllers don't sit around and calculate when descents should occur. they live this every day. it is second nature, its what they do. there are no calculators. if a ZME controller has an inbound flight at FL220, arriving KMEM, he saw that flight yesterday, and the day before, and a week ago, and a month ago. he knows that he better be descending him near PXV, on his way to WILDR.think of controllers like chefs. they could measure out their ingredients, leveling off the measuring cups, and measuring the cup of milk. but they can eyeball a palm full of salt, or they just splash in enough milk. it's second nature to them, as well. i think the chefs would get a kick out of the patron coming back to the kitchen and telling him when it's enough milk.unless there is a difference in the uk/europe or in australia, descent clearances will be given by the controllers, and the pilots will be able to request a discretionary descent if they like.jd

>>...I've understood that the RC controller always first gives you clearance to descend immediately, and you then have to separately ask for the own discretion descent as a reply to that. This is not the most realistic action<<Actually, it is. Speaking for the States only of course.>>In reality the controller always expects the pilot to initiate contact regarding own discretion descent...<<Not true.>>...the pilots want to descend optimally and they tell the controller when they are ready...<<Sure, that's what the pilot wants but that's not the way it is.>>It's a simple thing but sometimes hard to explain<<So true, one of the pitfalls of email and forum.>>The vector would be an added nice touch!<<You won't be disappointed.Appreciate the observations!Doug

rc is about realism. to coin a phrase, as real as it gets. i forget who said that.

Yes :) That's a fantastic goal. Hopefully it can be realistic in as many market areas as possible - which is sort of the point of my suggestions. What I'm trying to convey is a way of doing just that, instead of limiting RC5's realism to the US or major airports.

you've got my partner, retired 20 year controller at ZME that says it's not up to pilots to request the descent, and you have scott, active 20+ years controller that says pilot's don't request initial descent clearance. when i hear from the uk and oz controllers, i'll have the definitive answer.

I know that especially using this media it's hard for me to convince you otherwise. I can't say I have 20+ years under my belt having just done my CPL and ME/IR ratings, but I've done my share of flying in northern and southern Europe and been an enthusiast aviator long before that. So I can safely say I have some idea of what's going on in those areas.And in this case if a such a controller makes a general statement that "pilots don't request descent clearance" , I have no hesitation to say "Sorry friend, I'd love to agree with ya, but you're wrong."Just google up "request descent atc", plenty of good reading on pilot initiated descents.

believe me, controllers don't sit around and calculate when descents should occur. they live this every day. it is second nature, its what they do. there are no calculators. if a ZME controller has an inbound flight at FL220, arriving KMEM, he saw that flight yesterday, and the day before, and a week ago, and a month ago. he knows that he better be descending him near PXV, on his way to WILDR.

This is exactly what Doug said about the difficulties of conveying a message through this media. I did not mean literally calculate each time. Of course they CAN, they're smart guys most of them anyway, but not as smart at calculating optimum performance as the onboard computers known as the FMS. Safety confirmed, no one can deny that fuel economy in this day and age isn't the next big goal that even controllers have to think about.

unless there is a difference in the uk/europe or in australia, descent clearances will be given by the controllers, and the pilots will be able to request a discretionary descent if they like.

Well, I've said plenty on the subject. If you want fix RC5 realism to a certain part of the world and type of airport, you're the boss and that's ok. Hey, Microsoft did their default ATC that way!Also, it may be that you've already coded it in one way and are hesitant to change it.About the discretionary clearances and asking for it in a reply to the original clearance, here's a link to a Canadian controller's blog post on the subject: http://avcan.blogspot.com/2005/05/descent-...discretion.htmlQuote from that blog:

Pilot: "Moncton, ACA123 request descent."ATC: "ACA123, descend to one zero thousand, altimeter two niner eight seven."Pilot: "Cleared to one zero thousand, ACA123. Confirm that's at our discretion?"This makes me wonder. First off, when a pilot calls for descent, I assume he's ready for descent, either now or in the next minute or so. And when the same pilot above starts descent from FL350 a mere 100 NM from destination, does he really intend to level off somewhere in the interim? Additionally, why would he ask to confirm that descent is at his discretion, when there was no mention of the term in the clearance issued following his request?

>>...I've understood that the RC controller always first gives you clearance to descend immediately, and you then have to separately ask for the own discretion descent as a reply to that. This is not the most realistic action<<Actually, it is. Speaking for the States only of course.

Hi DougSee my link above to the Canadian controller's blog

>>In reality the controller always expects the pilot to initiate contact regarding own discretion descent...<<Not true.

In hindsight and looking at that sentence, I admit having put it that way it is not ALWAYS true in every country and ATC environment, but when you think about it, surely you can't deny it isn't the best course of action, traffic permitting.Just trying to convey ideas to make RC realistic more areas in the world.

I'm not a pilot but a retired RAF Air Movements Officer with a few hundred hours on VC-10, Herc and Tristar jump seats. I've certainly been present when the captain has requested a descent, but having done so, has then acted on the instruction immediately. Why would he ask to descend and then ask to delay it once clearance was given?One thing that I wish RC did model was the 'Be level by.....' instruction which is very common in Europe and the practically everywhere else (except the US from my memory of flights into KIAD and KSEA). Having to descend and level off by an en-route waypoint is another level of complexity for the pilot and adds to the interest and workload during this busy time. Andy

I'm not a pilot but a retired RAF Air Movements Officer with a few hundred hours on VC-10, Herc and Tristar jump seats. I've certainly been present when the captain has requested a descent, but having done so, has then acted on the instruction immediately. Why would he ask to descend and then ask to delay it once clearance was given?

Argh, yes.. my brain fart! Obviously getting an own discretion clearance in response to a pilot's request to descent (which means they are ready immediately or in less than a minute) does not make sense.I'll try to make some sense and recap what I'd like RC to do : :( - ATC initiates: Two options - can give clearance to start descent immediately (common) or "own discretion", "when ready" if separation ahead is not an issue -> may be random or based on AI traffic density/destination airport size, whatever variables are available -> "when ready" is be the optimum, most economic method- Pilot initiates: when nearing the desired TOD point but not yet recieved ATC clearance, the pilot can request descent "ready for descent", "request descent" -> in response ATC either clears for descent or delays it " due to traffic expect in FL150 in five" NOTE: not the same as requesting a lower level, different phraseology- Ending up too high due to late descent clearance or pilot messes up descent calculations: option to ask for vectoring for more miles or hold at present positionI think that would cover simulating most situations.Delay vectors, crossing restrictions.. all the better and icing on the cake.. makes things even more challenging and interesting.By the way jd, will RC5 simulate non-radar environments? Meaning approaches without radar vectoring and flying the full instrument procedure.

Argh, yes.. my brain fart! Obviously getting an own discretion clearance in response to a pilot's request to descent (which means they are ready immediately or in less than a minute) does not make sense.I'll try to make some sense and recap what I'd like RC to do : :( - ATC initiates: Two options - can give clearance to start descent immediately (common) or "own discretion", "when ready" if separation ahead is not an issue-> may be random or based on AI traffic density/destination airport size, whatever variables are available-> "when ready" is be the optimum, most economic method- Pilot initiates: when nearing the desired TOD point but not yet recieved ATC clearance, the pilot can request descent "ready for descent", "request descent"-> in response ATC either clears for descent or delays it " due to traffic expect in FL150 in five"NOTE: not the same as requesting a lower level, different phraseology- Ending up too high due to late descent clearance or pilot messes up descent calculations: option to ask for vectoring for more miles or hold at present positionI think that would cover simulating most situations.Delay vectors, crossing restrictions.. all the better and icing on the cake.. makes things even more challenging and interesting.By the way jd, will RC5 simulate non-radar environments? Meaning approaches without radar vectoring and flying the full instrument procedure.

to answer your last question v4, already does thatof your two options, the second will never happen. RC will always have you start down before your FMC thingy tells you it's time.so that leaves us with the first scenario. if it is as straight forward, programming wise, as i think it is, i think it will be doable.jd

Hello this is my first post on this fourm.but i have RC V4.3 and ive whatched the traffic on this fourm i would like to throw my 2cents into the fray of sugestions for RC5a little about me i am working on getting my privet pilot license in a Cessna 172. i will be soloing soon.my suggestions start here.when im doing my real flying, we often fly in areas that are not controled airspace, but we use a CTAF of the area. i fly in the Jacksonville Florida, the practice area is south of the city bettween Jacksonville and ST augisten. when in this area we refer to as Craig Area Traffic. it would be nice to have a area traffic feature in RC5. its useally used by us when we are going to uncontrolled feilds. some examples are feilds around my area. Hilliard area traffic, Folkston area traffic. they are on the same CTAF freq as the associated airport, but it tells others you are in the area, but not nessaceraly close to the airport.also good ground handleing not just the specific taxi instructions mentioned earlier but things like the RAMP controle for bigger airports, or even staying on the tower freq until told to contact groun, useally a aircraft taxing in may have to cross a runway active for Departures or arrivals. its not un commen to be on the tower freq while taxing around. also contacting RAMP controle for push back and after push back they tell you to taxi to a the stand by point and contact ground (standby points being the places you go to to get you clear of the parking areas in the RAMP but are not sapose to talk to groun yet.il use KATL as a Example for this next part.after landing, you stay on tower freq until you are clear of all active ruways, then tower will tll you to contact ground, ground tells you to taxi to the ramp via whatever, as you near the ramp ground tells you to contact ramp controle (or you can request to go to the ramp controle freq) then he says taxi to your parking stand. and also advises of vehical and aircraft traffic pushing back.being able to request to go to another controlers freq would be cool to. since we can specifi what gate to go to, is there a way to get RC to keep AI aircraft out of our assigned gate. and being able to specifi parking areas for smaller GA airports, like in stead of taxi to the ramp, the grould controler says. taxi to FBO, flight school, or whatever we specifi from a drop down list of things controlers can say.helicopter procedurs would be cool, atleast takeoff and landing virticly. that would be neat for VTOL to. maby some militery ATC stuff, if any exist.VFR i know is alreay in RC5 from reading, so id like to see things like FSS and UNICOM in to. but better than just getting a IFR clerance. something like SVFR or opening and closeing a VFR flight plani pictured a idea for RC5 an interactive menue, that was designed like a FAA flight plan. here you can specifi the route and altitude and other things. really its hard to discribe but i thought id say it anyway. ill try my best. i was pictureing something that, since RC can already read the Flight plans, what if it read each waypoint, and you can specifi if the waypoint was part of a SID STAR or Airway, also specifi if its a holding point so RC can tell you hold there if nessacery. also specifing an altitude to cross it. or specifing if its a STAR endpoint. for instance the STAR's in Atlanta have end points depending on what runway you are assigned you end your STAR at a diffrent waypoint (the landing east/west thing) on the CANUK7 STAR in KATL. the fix is the CANUK intersection, it has a crossing restriction of 14000, there are 2 waypoints after it the last of the 2 in ZAMAS it has a speed restriction of 250 also you get Radar vectors after this point only if your landing West, if you are landing east you ither go to the BOJAA intersection (cross it at 12000/210) then FOGOG (cross at 7000) then SOTRE (cross at 4000) then at last HESPI. HESPI is the Star end point if you are landing east on one of the runway at the southen of the airport. i beleave you get a clerance something like this after crossing CANUK "Delta1271, expect landing east on runway 9R, continue with STAR expect Vectors after HESPI"or if you are landing west"Delta1271, expect landing west on runway 27R, expect vectors after ZAMAS"this dose put you in Approach controls airspace while still on a STAR, witch is not uncommen im shureso if we specifi that the waypoint is a STAR endpoint, we should also be able to specifi what runway its for (if we dont specifi on then RC can assum its for any runway). however if you look at a plate for the CANUK7 STAR you can see that After ZAMAS, the route for landing east splits depending on if your landing on a runway at the north or south end of the airport. getting proper clerance to the right route would requier beter flight planning on our part. but we should be able to specifi multiple runways for a endpointAIRAC data, maby, it would be nice. but you know would not brake my heart if its not included.better STAR support. please.when i do a flight, if the Flight Plan has a STAR, i dont even bother useing FS or RC ATC, i just pretend im talking to ATC the whole way. becaues i am tiered of being told to descend 30 miles from my FMC planned T/D. i tried VATSIM but it became a hassle to. id like to be able to specifi a waypoint in my Flightplan that has a crossing restriction. this gose back to the menue idea i said above. being able to cross a certian waypoint at a assigned altitudeif the first waypoint is withen 30nm of departure airport then we automaticly have a SID. that really needs to go. alot of time, most recently departing from KPHL. the first waypoint was withen 30nm, but was not a SID i was sapose to get Radar vectors after takeoff. this can also go back to the menue thing. some SID's do have a crossing restrictionimprove the holding. i have never been told to enter a holding pattern by RC, even if i set it to force a hold/delay, always been given delay vectors. never a hold pattern.adding in NOTAM would be cool, but probly hard to, also things like PIREPS. not shure how it would work thoueive asked for alot i know, and im shure yall are yelling "HOW IN THE HELL ARE WE SAPOSE TO DO THAT" now, so ill end here with one last request.if we can have it where RC dose not requier a flight plan, in stead you can just get flight following or moniterin for VFR flights in a area. like sight seeing, tours. and other things. also traffic pattenrs and touch and gos would be cool

ground stuff is in v5no one has never said anything about the landing lights. what if the weather is 1/4 mile? i'll have to talk to the controllers about it.ther are over 100 airports that have their names pronounced. we picked the busiest airports according to the flight plans of the major ai packages. there is only so much the volunteers are willing to record. what the co-pilot can and can't do is based on whether the plane has an ms autopilot. without it, the rc co-pilot can't control the plane. i would rather devote my limited time to atc aspects as opposed to things like the co-pilot. after all, this is an atc program, not a co-pilot program. if you have a ms autopilot controlled plane, it would seem you can limit what the co-pilot now to do the basics, or none.consider the rest of what is in v5, you'll forget about the co-pilot.jd

other pilots might advise other pilots about lights but i dont think its commen. plus hard to incorpirate in RC

of your two options, the second will never happen. RC will always have you start down before your FMC thingy tells you it's time.so that leaves us with the first scenario. if it is as straight forward, programming wise, as i think it is, i think it will be doable.

Hmm, you lost me there. Which one will never happen, ATC initiated own discretion clearances or pilots requesting descent? :( I'm also just curious, why does RC always have to start you down before TOD? Programming issue?

Hi!

maby some militery ATC stuff, if any exist.

Military stuff is probably difficult to incorporate realistically.. all countries have differing procedures on those, and besides, they operate their "military stuff" on military channels anyway. What we hear on normal VHF is mostly normal ATC clearances, only the callsigns differ from the traffic mass.

better STAR support. please.when i do a flight, if the Flight Plan has a STAR, i dont even bother useing FS or RC ATC, i just pretend im talking to ATC the whole way. becaues i am tiered of being told to descend 30 miles from my FMC planned T/D. i tried VATSIM but it became a hassle to. id like to be able to specifi a waypoint in my Flightplan that has a crossing restriction. this gose back to the menue idea i said above. being able to cross a certian waypoint at a assigned altitude

That sort of goes with my previous suggestion on the own discretion descents. If you can start descent at your own discretion that takes care of part of the problem. If you do get an early descent clearance though ( can happen in the real world), you just need to slow your rate of descent to compensate.All in all, the matter of handling STARs accurately in a program like this is difficult. In my vision, the only way to make it work to the extent you're suggesting would be to have in RC some sort of a database of airport speficic procedures that the users can freely edit, add to and share with the community. It would be unrealistic for the RC team start building and maintaining such a database.I think as long as there is an option to randomly get vectoring before or during a STAR as in reality, that will be a big improvement. I assume in the flight planning stage we get to uncheck STARs if the arrival airport does not have them?

if the first waypoint is withen 30nm of departure airport then we automaticly have a SID. that really needs to go. alot of time, most recently departing from KPHL. the first waypoint was withen 30nm, but was not a SID i was sapose to get Radar vectors after takeoff. this can also go back to the menue thing. some SID's do have a crossing restriction

Same as with the STARs, SID's are equally difficult to handle with all their crossing restrictions and such. It would be nice to have a SID assigned though, and then randomly vectoring or DIRECT to the first flight plan waypoint (or other waypoint).

adding in NOTAM would be cool, but probly hard to, also things like PIREPS. not shure how it would work thoue

Hm. That's not really ATC. What would you like to see in the notams?

if we can have it where RC dose not requier a flight plan, in stead you can just get flight following or moniterin for VFR flights in a area. like sight seeing, tours. and other things. also traffic pattenrs and touch and gos would be cool

Agree 100%. Just to be able to kickstart ATC chatter for pattern work or a local flight would be cool.

Hmm, you lost me there. Which one will never happen, ATC initiated own discretion clearances or pilots requesting descent? :( I'm also just curious, why does RC always have to start you down before TOD? Programming issue?

rc does it's own calculations on when to start your descent. it isn't based on fuel costs, engine efficiency, etc. it's based on when i think you should start your descent, and make the crossing restriction. the average joe. the cessna to the 777.after i thought about it some more last night, there is no need to do anything special. if you want to start down before rc tells you start down, you have the ability to request FL120 or 12000 today.bada-bing.so in recap, today, in v4, if you want to start down before rc asks you to, you can do it.if you want to delay your descent after rc asks you to start down, you can do it today.

after i thought about it some more last night, there is no need to do anything special. if you want to start down before rc tells you start down, you have the ability to request FL120 or 12000 today.

I guess you're right, the functionality does not need to change much, but with a new version it would have been nice to see the phraseology smoothened out a bit.Oh well. Can't have it all!

I guess you're right, the functionality does not need to change much, but with a new version it would have been nice to see the phraseology smoothened out a bit.Oh well. Can't have it all!

what needs smoothened out?

Hi!Military stuff is probably difficult to incorporate realistically.. all countries have differing procedures on those, and besides, they operate their "military stuff" on military channels anyway. What we hear on normal VHF is mostly normal ATC clearances, only the callsigns differ from the traffic mass.That sort of goes with my previous suggestion on the own discretion descents. If you can start descent at your own discretion that takes care of part of the problem. If you do get an early descent clearance though ( can happen in the real world), you just need to slow your rate of descent to compensate.All in all, the matter of handling STARs accurately in a program like this is difficult. In my vision, the only way to make it work to the extent you're suggesting would be to have in RC some sort of a database of airport speficic procedures that the users can freely edit, add to and share with the community. It would be unrealistic for the RC team start building and maintaining such a database.I think as long as there is an option to randomly get vectoring before or during a STAR as in reality, that will be a big improvement. I assume in the flight planning stage we get to uncheck STARs if the arrival airport does not have them?Same as with the STARs, SID's are equally difficult to handle with all their crossing restrictions and such. It would be nice to have a SID assigned though, and then randomly vectoring or DIRECT to the first flight plan waypoint (or other waypoint).Hm. That's not really ATC. What would you like to see in the notams?Agree 100%. Just to be able to kickstart ATC chatter for pattern work or a local flight would be cool.

thats where my menue comes in. it wont need a data base of procedures. all it needs is a flight plan,. since RC can allready read the FSX flight plans, it would show them on the menue, and you can set what each waypoint is. what waypoints are part of a SID, airway, STAR. seting what type of way ponit, like STAR end point. i do know what im asking for is alot. but i think its the esaits way to do what im actualy askingas far as NOTAM's. i mean something like a Navaids Out Of Service, lawn morwers on the airport, Aerobatic preformances or Boxes open. things that are normally found in the ATIS. someing we could specifi. agine going back to my menue idea. we could put a chack mark something like[ ] nearby NavAid OOS ( ) in the [] we put a check indicating we want this in the ATIS in the () we select from a drop down list the type of NavAid and then in a text box type the name of the NavAid. drop down list options are VOR NDB ILSays "NOTAM ADVISORY, the ILS for RUNWAY 07 at KJAX is out of service"or specifing in there is construction on the airport something simple like thatas for militery procedurs. something like a checkbox to say its a militery flight. then anytime in the flight we can report a landing on a carrier and request to switch to the carrier controlers freq. or report in flight refuleing.