Control just too impatient!

[northridge 2]

I am large, heavy, and climbing very very slowly. I have just announced to a Control that I am at "x" level less than 2000 short of my filed of 330, and some smart-alec chimes in saying "Watch your altitude, your assigned is 330".Yes, I know, Im getting there, but I cant climb any faster!Whats the point of that kind of intervention from RC? Is it realistic that I would be told, in effect, to hurry up?And whilst Im here, heres the question that you dont want to hear and even less likely want to answer: can we expect RC5 any time this year?

[Ray Proudfoot 9,038]

I am large, heavy, and climbing very very slowly. I have just announced to a Control that I am at "x" level less than 2000 short of my filed of 330, and some smart-alec chimes in saying "Watch your altitude, your assigned is 330". Yes, I know, Im getting there, but I cant climb any faster! Whats the point of that kind of intervention from RC? Is it realistic that I would be told, in effect, to hurry up?

That would be your aircraft hopefully, not you! Providing your climb rate is 100-200fpm you should not be nagged. Was it less than that?

And whilst Im here, heres the question that you dont want to hear and even less likely want to answer: can we expect RC5 any time this year?

I'll have to leave that one for JD although he did give an answer in another thread so you may wish to read that one.

[northridge 2]

Climb (crawl) was more than that, but perhaps they just expected me to be up where Id wanted a bit sooner.RC: "Do you need any special assistance?" Pilot: "Yes, you can get out of your comfy chair and give us a push".Thanks.

[Ray Proudfoot 9,038]

Okay so you satisfied the minimum climb rate. JD may be able to add more info.I don't remember hearing that when flying Concorde in cruise/climb mode when climb rate was perhaps only 100fpm and that was FL450+. Odd.

[ronzie 21]

If you know you can't meet RC's minimum climb performance in your FP file a lower enroute altitude and then request altitude changes to get to your desired one. In other words you are controlling your step climb. In addition, if the A330 meets qualification, in the RC options where you set your aircraft type you can select heavy jet.In operation of large aircraft you can trade speed for climb rate so more power is invested in climbing as you slow and increase pitch for more lift. You can use V/S here at least on Boeings. I also noted in the FMC selection of the CI (Customer Index) which is an efficiency request affects performance.Finally, if turbulence is jerking you around in altitude in the RC options set your desired altitude deviations limits up a bit.If you need more time to manipulate the Airbus to adjust or start climbing just delay the ack until you have made your adjustments. You can't delay an ack when you get close to a checkpoint or you will not get RC credit for crossing it so be careful how you use this. If this occurs and RC starts vectoring back go to the extended menu and select direct-to and then select the next checkpoint after that to skip one.

[northridge 2]

"If you know you can't meet RC's minimum climb performance in your FP........." Well I didnt know. I am not a RW pilot and was driving a plane that is still pretty much new to me: I was surprised at the sluggishness.New Rule of Thumb for me: when learning a new aircraft dont use RC or it will annoy the hell out of you.Airbus? I didnt mention Airbus.Which brings me to: "He had to go to the Hospital" "Hospital? What is it?" "Its a place where sick people go, but thats not important right now".

[Ray Proudfoot 9,038]

Which brings me to: "He had to go to the Hospital" "Hospital? What is it?" "Its a place where sick people go, but thats not important right now".

Surely you can't be serious? I am serious and don't call me Shirley. Did you set this aircraft to Heavy in RC? Concorde is heavy so it might make a difference.

[northridge 2]

Concorde? I never mentioned Concorde. I guess when I mentioned "330" it was misunderstood (my stupid unmarried sister) as the A330. Twas in fact the PMDG 747 which I have flown very little and and whose behaviour is still new to me, but I know I was "Heavy".I suspect that I was slower than I thought/expected - its quite likely that I had slowed my climbrate when I saw her struggling, and it didnt occur to me straight away to ask for a lower initial cruise, so I fully accept that this was pilot malfunction and not anything RC did "wrong".

[ubersu 78]

Concorde? I never mentioned Concorde. I guess when I mentioned "330" it was misunderstood (my stupid unmarried sister) as the A330. Twas in fact the PMDG 747 which I have flown very little and and whose behaviour is still new to me, but I know I was "Heavy".I suspect that I was slower than I thought/expected - its quite likely that I had slowed my climbrate when I saw her struggling, and it didnt occur to me straight away to ask for a lower initial cruise, so I fully accept that this was pilot malfunction and not anything RC did "wrong".

You can designate your plane as 'Heavy' in the 'General' options of RC when you set up a flight - the 747 is by definition 'Heavy' and if you're carrying any significant load you'll want to step climb as you burn fuel. The FMC will tell you what the plane wants to do as far as altitudes go so set the flightplan altitudes lower than usual and beg the nice controller for higher...DJ

[ronzie 21]

I highly suggest this printed manual from former UA captain Mike Ray. It doesn't cover systems but goes into flight ops including FMC programming for the Boeing 700 series glass and semi-glass cockpits dedicated to flight simmers. (Don't get for now the checkride series for real pilots as it assumes you know a lot including various acronyms, etc, and doesn't cover basics plusd it is a lot more expensive.) There are many practical hints and is well illustrated. It takes you through three levels of operating the aircraft. I have it and it made for an easier transition into the PMDG 737NG series. It is not PMDG specific but it is included as well as references to the LDG 763.Boeing aircraft covered are the 737-300 through 500, 737NG 600 through 900, 757, 767, 747-400, and 777.You can see sample pages both on his site and Amazon. You can order from either.http://www.amazon.com/Flying-Boeing-700-Flight-Simulators/dp/0936283106/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1309973446&sr=8-1http://www.utem.com/shop/index.php?l=product_detail&p=4In conjunction with PMDG's documentation it will come together for you.On page 179 of the Mike Ray manual is a flow chart for FMC programming. Now this book doen't step you through fuel loading but does talk to you about fuel planning, when the FMC is correct, and conditions for FMC low fuel false warnings.The book takes you the step by step procedures to get the aircraft in the air and down again. Look at the sample table of contents in the links. Learn about the vagaries of using the MCP (Master Control Panel) uch as autobrakes, flap configuration, how to fly a holding pattern using the FMC, and so forth. Learn when to use LNAV and VNAV. Learn how CI affects performance. Learn about coupled approach techniques. I think you get the picture.The B747 is in all cases a heavy jet. When selected in RC43 I think you'll find a menu option for relief from the 250 knot IAS restrictions below 10,000 feet on initial departure.For a step climb initially file for a lower altitude and then request higher altitudes as the fuel burns off. Check the performance manuals installed in probably a folder under the FS9\PMDG folder. As you learn to use the various FMC pages the LEGS display and Performance display will guide you through optimal altitude changes. Be sure to provide winds and temperature aloft information to the FMC. Look at the PROGress and Forecast pages under that.For initial practice turn your AI down to zero and don't use ATC. Start at a parking spot so you can program the FMC before you taxi out. Use the clear weather theme and for convenience choose one of the the closest longest runways. The 747 requires lots of take-off distance.If you do not have it a recommend a flight planner that outputs in both the FS9 and PMDG flight plan formats. Unless you want to toggle a lot of FMC keys it is best to export a flight plan for import into the FMC. I use FSBuild 2.4. When you get above controlling the aircraft basics and are ready for ATC I have a hint sheet I can post here on using FSBuild and similar planners with RC and FMC assisted aircraft.Be patient, get the aircraft ops down, and then go on to controlled flight.

[Ray Proudfoot 9,038]

Concorde? I never mentioned Concorde.

No. I did. When you said you were flying a heavy I wanted to get across that I have also flown a 'heavy' as Concorde is classed. It's just the set of rules that applies in RC for the aircraft type.

I guess when I mentioned "330" it was misunderstood (my stupid unmarried sister) as the A330. Twas in fact the PMDG 747 which I have flown very little and and whose behaviour is still new to me, but I know I was "Heavy".

No, I understood that you filed for FL330. Maybe you set the payload too high on the 747 resulting in poor climb rates.

I suspect that I was slower than I thought/expected - its quite likely that I had slowed my climbrate when I saw her struggling, and it didnt occur to me straight away to ask for a lower initial cruise, so I fully accept that this was pilot malfunction and not anything RC did "wrong".

All part of the learning curve with an unfamiliar aircraft. A few more flights with a smaller payload and fuel load will help.

[Fearless 6]

Just throw out some cargo.. that'll fix it :(

[Dave Morgan 68]

New Rule of Thumb for me: when learning a new aircraft dont use RC or it will annoy the hell out of you.

That's a good rule. Devoting some time purely to getting to know a new plane will always reduce the possibility of disappointment when you come to use it in a 'serious' session. As many different circumstances and payloads as you can create will illustrate very quickly the new addition's capabilities. After all, FS is a simulation. It's worth doing the same with RC and seeing how far you can bend the rules. I think if you approach a session as no more than an experiment you won't be so disappointed when things go wrong.I spend a lot of time with Air Hauler, bought Flight1's C441 about a month ago and still haven't added it to my A H fleet, despite having about 20 hours in it to date, as one mistake will set my cargo company back by months. In any case, it's nice to spend some time just throwing a plane around the sky!Regards,D

[Gabe_62 1]

In principle I agree totally with your assertion that control is too impatient. In fact many aspects bug me to death and I've been moaning about it for years. The best one is when you are handed over to approach and there is no time to request the "Full ILS" before you are given vectors. All it would take is a two or three-second pause, for one to hit the relevant keys to request an ILS. But no... there is simply no time to do it. I have suggest just putting pauses between all comms., but it seems a no go. JD suggest there is no problem - presumably as there are not many peeps complaining: clearly those after a realistic experience, don't actually appreciate what constitutes "reality". Oh the irony ! I know STARS should be included in the next release (?)... but as a decent workaround in the meantime, why not just a time gap, allowing one to request an ILS, before you're given vectors. This could have been coded in from the start... and certainly added later... but no. Sad really as it totally shatters any sense of reality on approach.

[chrispeel 0]

Just accept the vectors.then Ignore them .Then ask for the full ILS.You won't get shouted at. No,it's not realisitic(several things in RC are not) but it works and I agree about the impatience bit but I would guess that programming all the nuances of ATC into RC would be an even more mammoth task than it is in it's present form