Why does ATC instruct "last minute" extreme descends (e.g., descend from 15,000 to 2000 feet at less than 10NM from runway) for some airport approaches?Such instructions are common for the following ILS runway approaches (as examples):- 16R at RJAA- 6 at RCTP- 17L at ZSPD

If you mean when using the default FSX ATC, that's usually as a result of two things, one is that the FS ATC tends to lump aircraft into fairly basic categories, based on the default FSX aircraft groups, so it is not always completely up to speed on the flight characteristics of what you are flying. The other reason is that if you don't use the FS GPS to tell it what kind of an approach you want to make on your flight plan, then it will tend to have a guess and then go a bit awry. And even when you do, sometimes it still goes a bit wacky.That's one of the plus points of using Radar Contact, you have the option to say that you are unable to comply with ATC instructions if you think a descent might be a bit steep or whatever, but then again, that's not something Radar Contact tends to mess up in the first place.The default FS ATC is not as bad as it sometimes is accused of being, so long as you do a fairly reasonable flight plan and assign an approach with the GPS well before it starts vectoring you, but Radar Contact is a definite improvement over it.Al

I have entered the approach into the FS GPS, but ATC still gives out late descend instructions. Moreover, I have seen AI Traffic going into dives on approaches, but they always brake and level in an unrealistic manner :( So, I guess there is no fix for such problems then? Hence, the reason why there are so many FSX addons ...

Although I now use Radar Contact, when I used the default ATC, if I was starting from a higher altitude, at about 250 NM out I would start requesting lower altitudes reaching about FL240 or lower so ATC wouldn't have to "race" me down. Seemed to work, as ATC would assign me reasonable altitudes from there.

Yeah, I have done this at the infamous runways, except afterwards the ATC instructs you to descend to another level. I guess I can request to lower the altitudes again, but sometimes when I get too close to the runway, I get distracted by other things to watch out - e.g., speed, flaps, etc.

In most cases ATC starts my descents about 110-125nm, depending on my initial altitude. On occasion I will get a short descent, but that is usually caused by my flightplan. I use real world FPs from flightaware and some do not take you straight in. For example from KMCO-KSWF, flights often come up the coast to New York, but then will turn Northeast over Long Island, then cross the sound to New Haven Ct.which is around where my top of descent usually is, and then come back in West to Stewart. ATC will start the descent just after turning east near JFK, presumably because I'm much closer in a direct path to my destination airport at that point.

Hi guys,I could wish that this ATC problem was my only peeve with the default ATC. I actually manage to compensate with any late ATC direction given, so no real problem here for me. The two things that really get my goat is: when climbing to the ATC directed flight level, ATC then directs a further climb, giving the pilot only about 300-500 feet notice. Invariably, on autopilot (in a 747), the a/c dips to level off, then rises again to climb to the next level. So what I do, I set the autopilot another 500 feet above ATC's direction, and this gives me time to make a smoother climb. The other matter: sometimes when on finals and in VC mode, I notice another a/c about 100 feet below me overtaking me to the runway. What a mess! So I wait for ATC to frantically call one of us off, but alas, they continue to urge me on towards the runway as if all's well in the air. Of course, I use this opportunity to do a Missed Approach and let the other a/c go through.Still....a wonderful flt sim, to wile away the hours on a Sunday afternoon.Chris David

Hi guys,I could wish that this ATC problem was my only peeve with the default ATC. I actually manage to compensate with any late ATC direction given, so no real problem here for me. The two things that really get my goat is: when climbing to the ATC directed flight level, ATC then directs a further climb, giving the pilot only about 300-500 feet notice. Invariably, on autopilot (in a 747), the a/c dips to level off, then rises again to climb to the next level. So what I do, I set the autopilot another 500 feet above ATC's direction, and this gives me time to make a smoother climb. The other matter: sometimes when on finals and in VC mode, I notice another a/c about 100 feet below me overtaking me to the runway. What a mess! So I wait for ATC to frantically call one of us off, but alas, they continue to urge me on towards the runway as if all's well in the air. Of course, I use this opportunity to do a Missed Approach and let the other a/c go through.Still....a wonderful flt sim, to wile away the hours on a Sunday afternoon.Chris David

When you consider that this ATC system was never designed for the amount of AI we are throwing at it with these 3rd party AI packages, that at minimum generates real world flight schedules, with the help of AISmooth, I find it amazing that it does as good as it does.

If you mean when using the default FSX ATC, that's usually as a result of two things, one is that the FS ATC tends to lump aircraft into fairly basic categories, based on the default FSX aircraft groups, so it is not always completely up to speed on the flight characteristics of what you are flying. The other reason is that if you don't use the FS GPS to tell it what kind of an approach you want to make on your flight plan, then it will tend to have a guess and then go a bit awry. And even when you do, sometimes it still goes a bit wacky.That's one of the plus points of using Radar Contact, you have the option to say that you are unable to comply with ATC instructions if you think a descent might be a bit steep or whatever, but then again, that's not something Radar Contact tends to mess up in the first place.The default FS ATC is not as bad as it sometimes is accused of being, so long as you do a fairly reasonable flight plan and assign an approach with the GPS well before it starts vectoring you, but Radar Contact is a definite improvement over it.Al

Al, I've suffered the same thing when I flew between WIII and LFPG. Shortly after departure, I was instructed to turn left HDG @ 280, then suddenly CGK Departure instructed a further turn into HDG 250. Whenever I turn the plane gently to prevent stalling and altitude loss, the ATC continues to request an expedite of the heading despite going the right way. Whatever happened to him?

To be honest, I only use the default FS ATC when reviewing stuff, since I keep FSX mostly 'stock' to give the product itself a chance on a relatively stable basic install. For my own flying, its Radar Contact for me, the procedures are simply far more realistic, and that makes it a no-brainer choice in my opinion.Al

My favourite ATC instruction was getting told to land on "runway 26 water" at Juneau in a CJ1...... Very shortly after I purchased Radar Contact !!G