how real is the IFR act experience in fsx?

[sargentx 4]

First of all, I'm definitely not one of these guys who flies published approaches with VOXatc in my 10 monitor garage setup. So yes, I understand that fsx can be much much more real in terms of ATC than it is. I've read a fair amount of real and fsx atc phrasology and have a general idea as to what the real world is sort of like. That said, my question is this: When you create an IFR flight in fsx and you use the default atc, it more or less tells you what to do. "Climb to.....descend to.....expect vectors for....yadda yadda. It's very procedural and if you know how to fly an ILS approach you're pretty much set. Is that what it would be like for a small airplane/private pilot type person in real life? When do yo use all those STAR approaches and published approaches etc? I can't seem to get a straight-for-idiots explanation for any of that stuff. Anyway,

The question is: If I use the ATC for a little vfr flight in a small aiplane; is that a somewhat real process? And...when do real world small aircraft pilots use approach charts of any kind? Why would you need them when the ATC simply tells you what to do every step of the way. This is totally Noobish I realize. Just curious.

[steenmillinder 0]

in vfr a chart can be used if there are cumpulsory reporting point inbound or ristricted areas to avoid, atc cleares you butz usually dosent say that much unless it's busy..

[Mickel 42]

Busy airports (busy GA/flight schools) have visual approach procedures. That means ATC doesn't have to give specific detailed instructions because it's all written down, just the clearance to fly that approach - something like 'track via ZZZ lake to XXX village, maintain 1,500. Report at XXX.' At a quiet towered airport you'll probably get joining instructions from the tower upon contacting them. They might ask you to provide a position report on the way in (report crossing YY River). Might not too, in which case you just fly all the way in and join the circuit as instructed.

 

Same goes for leaving. Somewhere busy will have an out bound procedure (at the example above it would most likely say to maintain 1,000' so there is less chance of a conflict with inbound above), and a quiet place will give you an altitude without much else unless they want to separate you from other inbound.

 

The visual procedures are not SIDs or STARs.

 

Hope that helps a bit.

 

Mike

[coma 6]

There are two different questions you're asking:

Is that what it would be like for a small airplane/private pilot type person in real life?

 

Yes, a small, private plane on an IFR flight is going to be given an IFR clearance (the complexity of which varies greatly based on where you're flying, it might be 'direct', or it might be a SID, a series of airways, then a STAR at the destination), then a series of climbs, and possibly vectors before getting onto the originally cleared route. At the destination, weather permitting, you'll be given a visual approach, otherwise, you can expect to fly an published instrument approach (ILS, LOC, VOR, RNAV (GPS), etc).

 

If I use the ATC for a little vfr flight in a small aiplane; is that a somewhat real process?

 

Not sure, haven't used the stock ATC before, but the ATC associated with a VFR flight is miles apart from the ATC associated with an IFR flight (that's why I answered these separately). You can have as much or as little ATC on a VFR flight as you want in real life, ranging from ZERO to full radar service where ATC knows where you're going and will, workload-permitting, provide traffic and safety alerts (ie, mind that plane, and mind that hill).

 

Regarding STARs, yes, small planes can absolutely be assigned a STAR. Here's a video of my flight into ATL Hartsfield in a single engine piston on an IFR flight plan in visual conditions. It brings together all the points above:

 

And here's the departure, including IFR clearance, taxi, takeoff, vectored departure, etc:

[Anthony1968 19]

@coma....nice videos.

[sargentx 4]

Cool, thanks for that! So i guess fsx is incredibly watered down. Almost like a cartoon of reality.

[zmak 331]

Cool, thanks for that! So i guess fsx is incredibly watered down. Almost like a cartoon of reality.

 

A good idea would be to fly a fully staffed vatsim Flight for example Klax to Klas. It can get very busy at times and its your best bet if you want realism

[Geofa 108]

Got my ga ifr in 1991. Have exclusively flown ga ifr since then that I can count on 1 to 2 hands in that time had to do a Sid or star-and never had to complete or even start one-usually before the first waypoint vectors happen.Have never had a hold-ever-which is what my instructor told to expect in 1991.ATC for ga is not watered down other than the continual vector thing.

 

Now unforeseen icing on an approach with horrible crosswinds and a night resulting in a hotel waiting for bad stuff to move on-yep. FSX des not model this.

 

I do have logged ifr landings in every Continental US State. Only Sid/star airport I recall was Long Beach,ca-and they ended up giving me vectors.

 

Now-can fs recreate an ifr flight where preflight told you the whole flight is cake- you start the approach in which FSS told you at 6000 ftbwould be 70f -and instead ATC is asking if you have icing... You look at the wing and already have a 1/4 inch of ice and are cycling the boots, break out at 700 with ice still on the wings and a 20 xwind-well maybe not. Do you sweat the same on the sim as you do rw with your family on board and do the beers on the ground realizing you cheated death again taste as nice?

[brant 12]

coma,

 

 

i see i'm not the only one that uses 'slew' mode on the taxiways. :lol: