NGX - FMC = ?

[Chock 17,769]

I vaguely recollect seeing a reference somewhere to needing to intercept the glide slope from below, but I could be wrong.

 

Technically, you can capture a glideslope from above, but there are basically two reasons why you would be better doing it from below..

 

First, the signal beacon for the glideslope can bounce off terrain and emit false signals, which would be above the real one, so locking one of those would put you on a steeper descent, although in all probability, if that happened, you would then fly through the real signal beam and that'd sort itself out. The issue of false ILS glideslope signals is not common, and generally speaking the terrain would have to be a certain profile in order to make it happen, but coming at the beam from below prevents it from being an issue.

 

Second - and this is the real reason it is recommended - capturing a glideslope signal from above would require you to descend into a signal which was already itself descending down a slope of 3.5 degrees, so you would have to descend at greater than 3.5 degrees to fly into the signal and then considerably reduce your vertical speed to stay in the beam once you had captured the glideslope, which is more effort than simply commencing a descent as you fly level into the signal beam from under it. So it is a bit like the same issue you'd get if trying to land on a slope downhill. This, unlike the rare phenomenon of false ILS signals, is the actual reason why capturing a glideslope from below is the best way to do it.

 

Al

[Tabs 2,790]

But a couple times i've sat with a simfriend who is an avid Vatsim user and i wasn't too impressed with the performance of the controllers on these particular occasions. Happend not only once that HE had to inform them about the correct procedures to follow... ( he is a RW pilot ).

 

You should listen in on one of the big flyin events at one of the heavily staffed ARTCCs like ZLA or ZNY - there's multiple real world controllers usually involved in those, all positions/frequencies are manned just as they are in real life etc. Everyone knows what they're doing at one of those and from the ATC side it's pretty much indistinguishable from listening to the real life frequencies. You can look at the controller's rank too to get an idea of whether it's a student, full rated controller, instructor etc.

[Guest dlrk]

I'll also vouch for the high quality of VATSIM ATC. For the most part controllers are held to a far higher standard they need to be. There is some variation depending on facility. In VATSIM(USA division) training is conducted by the ARTCC, and they do vary a lot. ZMP, ZLA, ZOA, ZNY, ZDC are all great. ZOB(which is where I fly the most, since I live in metro Detroit) is not so good, but improving.

[Glynn 405]

If only they'd make it sound more like coming from a radio/headphone

 

Hello

You can, all you need is the Meatwater voice pack available here on avsim.

Far better than the default ATC, you may also like to take a look at PFE, very nice voices.

[japascoe 98]

Not required. There's a basic IFR written test out there that would lead you to believe the wings will fall of if you do this, but it's just not the case. There's a slim chance you could get a false glideslope, but I've seen one in 25 years of flying and it was obvious right away. That's why you do cross checks with DME or OM or V/S or V/B or fix or radar etc.

Technically, you can capture a glideslope from above, but there are basically two reasons why you would be better doing it from below..

 

First, the signal beacon for the glideslope can bounce off terrain and emit false signals, which would be above the real one, so locking one of those would put you on a steeper descent, although in all probability, if that happened, you would then fly through the real signal beam and that'd sort itself out. The issue of false ILS glideslope signals is not common, and generally speaking the terrain would have to be a certain profile in order to make it happen, but coming at the beam from below prevents it from being an issue.

 

Second - and this is the real reason it is recommended - capturing a glideslope signal from above would require you to descend into a signal which was already itself descending down a slope of 3.5 degrees, so you would have to descend at greater than 3.5 degrees to fly into the signal and then considerably reduce your vertical speed to stay in the beam once you had captured the glideslope, which is more effort than simply commencing a descent as you fly level into the signal beam from under it. So it is a bit like the same issue you'd get if trying to land on a slope downhill. This, unlike the rare phenomenon of false ILS signals, is the actual reason why capturing a glideslope from below is the best way to do it.

 

Al

 

Thanks for the answers guys, good stuff from both of you. I remembered reading somewhere that intercepting from below was actually necessary for the APP mode to trigger, but I must have misremembered.

 

In response to Al's point number 2, another advantage of intercepting the glidslope from below is that you notice when the A/T pulls the throttles to idle because the pilot monitoring's radar altimeter is indicating -8 feet. [A reference to this accident for those who are interested]

[andysim 0]

dont forget Pro Flight Emulator! Its alot less robotic sounding then RC4 and has a enhancement pack thats almost good enough to pass as Liveatc.net =). Unfortunatly its much more fiddley to set up and you have to know how to set up all the Altitudes for the flight otherwise ATC will keep stopping your climb at to low alt or ask you to decend much to early or late. Its also in 2 parts so you create a flight plan then open it and let the PFE adjust it so it can be used with the old Pro Flight and then open it a 3rd time to load it into PFE.

 

I use them both depending on my mood. RC4 is much more user friendly. I dont think we will ever see RC5 though. the forum is all but dead and the author is nowhere to be seen =(

 

FSX could really use a brand new FSX only ATC program that can handle you gate to gate.

[iainsmith 9]

If only they'd make it sound more like coming from a radio/headphone and not so much like coming from somebody sitting next to you during a casual talk while enjoying a cuppa coffee... It's just too 'uncockpit like' for my taste.. Default ATC atleast got that right.

 

There is a voicepack set, available here on Avsim, that does just that. A lot of users like them, I didn't.

 

Iain Smith

 

Good for you.

 

It sounds good, important to me.

 

Default ATC probably sounds ok if you only fly in USA/Canada. Over here in Europe American accents in ATC are not realistic.

 

Iain Smith

[Javiz 104]

Thanks for all suggestions, guys. Most appreciated.

 

Do i understand correctly that either with RC4, PFE, or Vatsim you cannot, or atleast 'better not' use AI traffic ?...

 

With one of the RC4 demo vids at Youtube AI traffic IS used but now your hear both RC4- AND FSX ATC together ! I don't know if i should laugh or cry about that...

 

I would rather fly without any kind of ATC than give up on AI traffic.

 

That's one big pro for me too in favor of FSX ATC : it works perfectly together with AI traffic.

 

I love to fly the A2A B-17 every now and then. I really get a kick out of hearing ATC say : "KLM375, hold position, caution the Boeing B-17 on the taxiway " and then see the big 767 abruptly putting on the brakes. I could swear i've seen the co-pilot wave at us on atleast one occasion... B)

[Javiz 104]

Default ATC probably sounds ok if you only fly in USA/Canada. Over here in Europe American accents in ATC are not realistic.

 

I am European (dutch) and do most of my airliner flying in Europe. I, for one, have absolutely no problem with the American accent of FSX ATC. Hey, something's got to give, row with the oars available, as we say here in Holland.

 

What i do really hate is that i am told to contact 'Soesterberg Approach' whenever i fly into EHAM... But i've learned to laugh about it and just do as i'm told...

[iainsmith 9]

Hey, something's got to give, row with the oars available, as we say here in Holland.

 

 

Yes, of course, you can do what you like. All I said was that it is not realistic, which I think you'll find is true!

 

Iain Smith

[stweaver321 0]

Thanks for all suggestions, guys. Most appreciated.

 

Do i understand correctly that either with RC4, PFE, or Vatsim you cannot, or atleast 'better not' use AI traffic ?...

 

With one of the RC4 demo vids at Youtube AI traffic IS used but now your hear both RC4- AND FSX ATC together ! I don't know if i should laugh or cry about that...

 

I would rather fly without any kind of ATC than give up on AI traffic.

 

That's one big pro for me too in favor of FSX ATC : it works perfectly together with AI traffic.

 

I love to fly the A2A B-17 every now and then. I really get a kick out of hearing ATC say : "KLM375, hold position, caution the Boeing B-17 on the taxiway " and then see the big 767 abruptly putting on the brakes. I could swear i've seen the co-pilot wave at us on atleast one occasion... B)

 

It's completely normal to use AI with RC4. You just need to "turn off" FSX ATC first. Setup instructions are in the RC4 manual. Flying online with VATSIM I believe you can keep AI enabled, but it would be disruptive as the AI would, obviously, not be under the control of VATSIM ATC. I'm sure AI are used with PFE also althought I've never used it myself.

[maninpilot 0]

i use the fsx flight plan with atc either, just press F10 in game and go to nav log. There it will be the route information, just put all those data on fmc and profit.