IFR

[Russo11 0]

Okay so I want to fly and IFR flight plan and I go the way points and set them in my GPS. But ATC gives me headings instead of allowing me to fly my route. Are the headings I get corresponding with my flight plan? Should I just use the headings or just use my flight plan? Help!!!

[Great Ozzie 101]

Hi Russo,

 

Normally ATC will give you heading / altitude (possibly speed) assignments in the Terminal Area. Depends on the size of the airport you are departing... whether or not it has an operating control tower...

 

Typical instructions take you somewhere near your first filed point, then "proceed on course" (as filed). Once you get close to the airport, Approach Control will vector you to a fix or to the final approach course.

 

Two instances I am thinking of where the flight plan would be followed "exactly" as filed would be:

• Radio Failure
  
• Your flightplan matches to a "T" what ATC wants you to fly.
  

 

Maybe you could trying taking Heading / Altitude assignments until your First waypoint or so... then fly your GPS plan... when getting close to the airport (25nm out or so) go back to following Heading / Altitude assignments (This from a GA - General Aviation - perspective... not the Heavy stuff).

 

-Rob

[jagabom 22]

If you don't use their headings ATC will tell you to get back on course. Are you using Radar Contact. If not, get it. FS9 ATC is :LMAO:

 

Jim

CYWG

[MadDog 353]

Although it has its shortcomings, default ATC is actually pretty realistic and much better than some on these forums will lead you believe. Once you switch to departure, ATC issues a vector to join the course calculated by the GPS to the first fix in your flightplan (make sure that the first fix is NOT right on top of the departure airport to eliminate problems). Once you intercept the GPS course (or cross the first fix), ATC issues another vector and tells you to "resume own navigation" or "proceed on course"... at this point you fly your flightplan. ATC will no longer issue enroute vectors unless you stray off-course. When you enter the approach airspace (usually around 50 miles out), ATC will assign an approach and begin issuing vectors to the final approach course for that approach (taking you off your flightplannned route). This is totally the way it's done in the real world... I'm always amused by people complaining about default ATC vectoring them off STARS. Admittedly, FS tends to issue vectors a bit early; but in real life, unless there is absolutely no traffic, you never fly the whole STAR into the airport.

 

To answer the original question...you use the headings AND the flightplan.

[Russo11 0]

Thanks guys so heres an example.

 

 

KJFK to KBOS

 

I fly this route...

KJFK

CCC

KBOS

 

ATC headings would lead me to CCC? Should I just fly to CCC and see what ATC says...still kinda confused! btw Boeing 737-800

[Tim_Sims 0]

If that's the plan you've created and selected in Flight Planner then ATC should give you vectors on departure from JFK to intersect the direct track from there to CCC no more than a few miles out from JFK. When you get within (I think) 2nm or so of the direct track, ATC will say "turn left/right heading xxx, proceed on course". If you stay on course ATC shouldn't then bother you at all with turn instructions until giving you approach vectors into KBOS.

 

The aircraft you're using should make no difference at all.

[vololiberista 205]

Although it has its shortcomings, default ATC is actually pretty realistic and much better than some on these forums will lead you believe.

Yoiu are joking of course!! It is totally unrealistic and not even close to reality!

[Russo11 0]

Well if its un-realistic than im open to a software to make it better.

[MadDog 353]

>>Yoiu are joking of course!! It is totally unrealistic and not even close to reality!<<

 

I'm open to a debate... it's certainly not perfect but "totally unrealistic" and "not even close to reality"? I'm curious how you've arrived at these conclusions?

[vololiberista 205]

Well if its un-realistic than im open to a software to make it better.

>>Yoiu are joking of course!! It is totally unrealistic and not even close to reality!<<

 

I'm open to a debate... it's certainly not perfect but "totally unrealistic" and "not even close to reality"? I'm curious how you've arrived at these conclusions?

 

Vatsim is good but only if there are enough people on duty for you to do the flightplan of your choice otherwise choose between RC4 and PFE. Even they are not perfect but much much closer to reality than the default ATC. Being a pilot for more than thirty years means that it is indeed not difficult to arrive at these conclusions!!!

[MadDog 353]

I've tried them all over the years and will concede that the add-ons provide some enhanced features over the default ATC. With that said, I've never been happy with any of them. VATSIM is just too hit and miss (both in numbers and quality of controllers) to even be considered. RC certainly has strong points procedurally; but the learning curve is pretty steep for average simmers, the interface can be clunky, and it requires an IFR flightplan (no VFR)... not to mention it's pretty pricy and, for me personally, the voices grate on my last nerve. I loved PF when it came out for FS98, it was the ONLY ATC around!!! When PFE was announced, I followed it closely; but decided to pass on it because of the heartache of getting it set up (create FP, convert FP, create "adventure", etc. etc.)... it's also pretty pricy.

 

But that's not really what I volunteered to discuss. The add-ons are pretty good at what they do and their strengths/weaknesses have been endlessly debated on these forums for years. So again... How is the default ATC so totally unrealistic? Is there some phase of ATC that's missing (aside from the fact that no ATC program, even the add-ons, actually separates/sequences aircraft appropriately)? For someone like me (been a controller for 20 years) that just wants to file a flightplan (or not) and fly, the default ATC remains a simple, if a bit inelegant, solution to get from point A to B using more or less correct procedures.

[rightseat 277]

Default shortcomings aside, I really prefer the voice emulation from the default ATC. I tried Radar Contact, and it certainly is more realistic, but the robot voice ATC just kills it for me. The default system is "good enough" most of the time for me.

 

Has the RC improved in the area of voice emulation lately?

 

And I am an instrument rated pilot, just in case anyone needs to see my papers before I field an opinion.

[kiwiflyer45 123]

I agree with MadDog and Rightseat... None of the solutions are totally "realistic" but the default ATC is simple, always available, and has realistic voices and is adequate most of the time, especially when it is "tweaked."

 

None of the choices are "wrong" or "right" - it's all a matter of choice and involves compromise. (And the "willing suspension of disbelief!!!") Realistic procedures accessed by an onscreen menu and with robotic voices is not "realistic" any more than the rather unreal "procedures" but human voices of the default ATC. Arguing that one is right and the other is wrong seems a waste of time that could be better used flying in the sim...

 

IMHO

Ian

ps. I'm not into flashing my "papers" around but am ATR, CFI and a bunch of other initials and a stack of logbooks that includes most forms of aviation from ultralights to 737

[HoratioWondersocks 4]

I've tried them all over the years and will concede that the add-ons provide some enhanced features over the default ATC. With that said, I've never been happy with any of them. VATSIM is just too hit and miss (both in numbers and quality of controllers) to even be considered. RC certainly has strong points procedurally; but the learning curve is pretty steep for average simmers, the interface can be clunky, and it requires an IFR flightplan (no VFR)... not to mention it's pretty pricy and, for me personally, the voices grate on my last nerve. I loved PF when it came out for FS98, it was the ONLY ATC around!!! When PFE was announced, I followed it closely; but decided to pass on it because of the heartache of getting it set up (create FP, convert FP, create "adventure", etc. etc.)... it's also pretty pricy.

 

But that's not really what I volunteered to discuss. The add-ons are pretty good at what they do and their strengths/weaknesses have been endlessly debated on these forums for years. So again... How is the default ATC so totally unrealistic? Is there some phase of ATC that's missing (aside from the fact that no ATC program, even the add-ons, actually separates/sequences aircraft appropriately)? For someone like me (been a controller for 20 years) that just wants to file a flightplan (or not) and fly, the default ATC remains a simple, if a bit inelegant, solution to get from point A to B using more or less correct procedures.

 

 

This is an excellent example of to different views (vololiberista and Mdog) being aired without the need for abuse or rage.

GOOD stuff.

 

PS I don't use ANY atc either default or addon.

FSNav is all I need.

I can concentrate on landing, that is for me the still the most important part of my flights and one that is still (after all these years) by no means a certainty.

Cheers A.

[vololiberista 205]

I have to say that the robotic voices of RC4 is for me more off-putting than using the default ATC. PFE does a much much better job with realistic regional voices that are much more acceptable.

 

Sometimes I don't use ATC either. If I want to run a full FP end to end then of course yes. But if for example I'm testing a new element of the panel e.g. oxygen delivery system, then I'll just juncket around the sky without ATC or weather. That's the beauty of the sim. One can either follow the rules to the letter (if the model permits) or discard them altogether.