I was just thinking while I was reading a post on another thread about diversions.Would it be possible to incorporate a random generator that would cause the destination airfield to close and require a diversion to the alternate? Such incidents could be on the runway (gear up landing, etc) or security threat in the terminal, thunderstorm, low visibility, etc? It should be a low probability (less than 1%) or a user configurable probability (0-100%) to have the ability to have it selected on or off (for those who fly for VAs).Just an idea. Something like the hold probability generator already in v4.

I was just thinking while I was reading a post on another thread about diversions.Would it be possible to incorporate a random generator that would cause the destination airfield to close and require a diversion to the alternate? Such incidents could be on the runway (gear up landing, etc) or security threat in the terminal, thunderstorm, low visibility, etc? It should be a low probability (less than 1%) or a user configurable probability (0-100%) to have the ability to have it selected on or off (for those who fly for VAs).Just an idea. Something like the hold probability generator already in v4.

you can do that due to weather, or you can declare an emergency, or you can request an alternate. i don't have to do anything to make you do that. the problem with doing something like this, even if it 1%, if you have a population of 50k users, half of which may not want to divert (lack of time, inexperience, etc), i'd ###### off 2500 people on any given flight.i forget what the other scenario someone wanted me to put in. which is fine, except for those with a limited amount of time to fly, and want to get it in, they don't want to wait for ground holds (that's what it was). basically if you want something like this, just pretend, and use the available options at your disposal, and you can accomplish the same end result. (or you could wait until you were 100 miles out, roll five dice, and if you get a yahtzee, divert :-))jd

Hi,I've been using RC for a few months and getting the hang of things.The volcanic ash thread had made me wonder if there were any METAR-reported phenomena that would cause an RC controller to not allow a takeoff or landing?I was thinking of conditions such as volcanic ash, funnel clouds, sustained winds > 30-40 kts, or a runway state that's truly awful. (All runways - frozen ruts or ridges, contamination 51% to 100%, deposits of 40 cm or more deep, poor braking action, etc.)But after reading this, I assume that it's not in the cards. If this were a general option though, I'd certainly not only use it, I think I'd enjoy the challenge. (I'm going for my instrument rating later this year.)

Hi,I've been using RC for a few months and getting the hang of things.The volcanic ash thread had made me wonder if there were any METAR-reported phenomena that would cause an RC controller to not allow a takeoff or landing?I was thinking of conditions such as volcanic ash, funnel clouds, sustained winds > 30-40 kts, or a runway state that's truly awful. (All runways - frozen ruts or ridges, contamination 51% to 100%, deposits of 40 cm or more deep, poor braking action, etc.)But after reading this, I assume that it's not in the cards. If this were a general option though, I'd certainly not only use it, I think I'd enjoy the challenge. (I'm going for my instrument rating later this year.)

but think about the other guy, who has 2 hours before bed, needs to get a VA flight in, and rc won't let him take off.i know i could make it an option, but you can read the metar, know you can't take off, and go to bed, if you want to take the realism in that direction.jd

but think about the other guy, who has 2 hours before bed, needs to get a VA flight in, and rc won't let him take off.i know i could make it an option, but you can read the metar, know you can't take off, and go to bed, if you want to take the realism in that direction.jd

Ah but it was the other direction that I was mostly wondering about - landing. (After a 4 hour flight, landing abeam of a 50kt squall line, etc.)I get it that I can "know better" than an FSX or RC controller that I shouldn't land under certain conditions, but as a fairly new RC user I was wondering if any request to land would be denied, and force me to use an alternate. Preparing to execute a plan for the unexpected, and all that - predictability was something I grew tired of with MS ATC.I fly with real-world weather and with weather holds on, and am waiting for my first "unexpected" call there too. (Reading someone's post here about being stacked in an holding pattern helped sell me on purchasing RC.)

Ah but it was the other direction that I was mostly wondering about - landing. (After a 4 hour flight, landing abeam of a 50kt squall line, etc.)I get it that I can "know better" than an FSX or RC controller that I shouldn't land under certain conditions, but as a fairly new RC user I was wondering if any request to land would be denied, and force me to use an alternate. Preparing to execute a plan for the unexpected, and all that - predictability was something I grew tired of with MS ATC.I fly with real-world weather and with weather holds on, and am waiting for my first "unexpected" call there too. (Reading someone's post here about being stacked in an holding pattern helped sell me on purchasing RC.)

the same holds true for the backend as the frontend. i'm not going to close an airport on some guy, maybe it's only 45 minutes flight time, when all he wants to do is land, shutdown and go to bed.but i have an idea about this, so let me flesh it out, and get back to you.jd

Hi jd,I think I know a way to have this feature implemented to everyone's satisfaction* As soon as RC can read arrival's weather, it should do so. Preferably it should happen before TOD, so about 200 nm out* If visibility at the airport is below a specified value (this may or may not be configurable), RC informs the captain about the current visibility, and presents a choice to proceed with the planned arrival, or divert to one of the alternates* In a perfect world, it should also be possible to check weather for each alternate before making the decision, but I don't know if it's possible* If visibility is below a specified value, visual approach option should not be available (or visual approach requests should be denied)This scenario would allow those who want to approach on ILS and auto-land to do so regardless of weather, and those who want to approach visually not to spend time trying to do so when it's impossible. As far as I know, it's also close enough to real-world procedures (although I'm not an expert here)As for declining take-off requests, I don't think it would be reasonable to have them: if a user started FS and loaded RC, he would be very frustrated not to get a take-off clearance. This might also be included as an information, provided by clearance delivery or ground, about airport visibility, and a suggestion not to take-off. But in any case, the user should make this decisionI think it would be nice to have this feature implemented, if possibleThanksYuri

I think these ideas are great (random low percentage forced divert, ground hold etc) but totally only as a option you must select, I would use it most the time but I understand others wouldn't and I wouldn't want it firced on them.

the same holds true for the backend as the frontend. i'm not going to close an airport on some guy, maybe it's only 45 minutes flight time, when all he wants to do is land, shutdown and go to bed.but i have an idea about this, so let me flesh it out, and get back to you.jd

Thanks for considering this as a new general option jd, I'm sure you'll come up with something clever and useful -- low ceiling & visibility, high winds, lingering ash, bad runways, raining fish, etc. (The latter being a joke.)IIRRC there are plans for version 5 to be aware of the bgl-listed instrument approaches per runway, am I right?

I have another suggestion for v5 which I hope hasnt been discussed to death elsewhere.After completing a flight, instead of having to quit RC and start all over again, allow for the immediate insertion of a new plan, thereby allowing return flights, legs, etc.

Allowing a reverse flight for many airports would involve new SIDs and STARs. Best to restart RC and file your new plan as is done in real life. There are also settings in RC that you might wish to change that can't be done in flight.

I have another suggestion for v5 which I hope hasnt been discussed to death elsewhere.After completing a flight, instead of having to quit RC and start all over again, allow for the immediate insertion of a new plan, thereby allowing return flights, legs, etc.