it threw a message up telling me that the runway at Bristol was not long enough even though the details are correct on the aircraft options page.

 

Why would an ATC program do that?  Seems like that's a dispatcher's job.

Why would an ATC program do that?  Seems like that's a dispatcher's job.

 

Sure, but it did. This was an issue with V1.2 I understand it has been corrected in v1.2.1. I got the message with LXGB, EGGD and LFMN! So to return to a question, or irritation if some of us may think of it as a better description... I left EGGD with alt restrictions of 6000' at the SID transition point, but even a long way beforehand I was instructed by ATC to climb to 10,000' This is something that I reported a couple of weeks ago, prior to v1.2 and v1.2.1 and the issue still remains. Being told to climb to a higher altitude before hitting a specific WP seems wrong, surely?

Being told to climb to a higher altitude before hitting a specific WP seems wrong, surely?

I think most pilots would be pleased with this. It would get you to a higher altitude faster. Away from the weather, less time burning fuel at the lower altitudes and you can release the cabin crew sooner.

I think most pilots would be pleased with this. It would get you to a higher altitude faster. Away from the weather, less time burning fuel at the lower altitudes and you can release the cabin crew sooner.

 

Sure, but alt restrictions are there for a purpose, not to be disregarded. Or am I wrong?

but alt restrictions are there for a purpose, not to be disregarded.

I think this is quite nicely explained here:

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/380183-sid-has-altitude-limits-atc-instructs-climbing-what-to-do/

 

"a restatement of an assigned altitude OR an assignment of a new altitude DOES cancel any other altitude restrictions on the SID"

 

EDIT: I have to take that back. The answer is: it depends on where you are flying. To give you an example:

 

http://www.nbaa.org/ops/intl/nam/canada-sid-star/

 

"On February 9, 2012, NAV CANADA, implemented a major change in Canadian ATC procedures that will require aircraft to comply with published SID/STAR altitude restrictions unless they are explicitly cancelled by ATC."

Edited March 27, 201313 yr by jpuustinen

Hello!

 

I have yet to purchase the Pro ATC X, but was planning to do so over the coming holidays. I currently have VoxATC and RC4 and some of the posts got my attention and would like to ask (and comment) about a few:I read about a similar situation on the official forum. The clearance delivery (sort of) "gives" you an expected runway. The problem is that (at the moment) the CD doesn't do so verbally. The expected runway will be "color coded on the map" (IIRC).To be honest, I wish my current ATC programs would do this. Here's why:

 

I mostly fly JS41 and E135 (manual throttle, manual trim). I hate it when I start to level of (at the first assigned altitude) only to get assigned a higher altitude after 5 seconds of level flight. 

 The TOD part got my interest. If we think of some of the things that effect the calculated TOD point you see in your aircraft:

 

- Descent cost index you have entered

- The predicted winds you have entered into the box

 

On top of that, In Europe, the ATC assigns you the STAR. This means that the initial TOD point is calculated based on direct route from your last way point to your destination (until you know which STAR to fly). STARs are always longer that direct route, so the initial TOD calculated by the aircraft is "invalid".

 

When you consider these things, it would be very lucky coincidence if the ATC's TOD would match you aircraft's TOD.

 

The arrival part is also the thing that I would like to ask a question about. Does Pro ATC give you the STAR "clearence" in which form:

 

A) cleared via <STAR name> (you fly the altitudes that ATC gives you, basically only LNAV) or

B) descent via <STAR name> (it is your job to follow the altitude restrictions without ATC help, LNAV + VNAV)?

 

I have yet to find an ATC program that would allow for option B. This is why I'm interested.

 

Thanks!

 

Hi!

When I wrote the T/D was "spot on", I didn´t mean compared to the T/D calculated in the FMC.

The T/D was really way off in previous versions for me, leading to things like being at FAF altitude 40 nm before the airport, getting commands to descent to Altitude XXX, just to start a climb again to a much higher altitude to meet the constraints in a STAR, etc.

That all caused no problems and worked flawlessly yesterday, so I hope the next flights will be just as nice.

after 1.201 version i have no problems anymore,it all work like it should so im happy

So it's still not worth buying then? I want to buy it but reading all this neg press makes me wonder! I might wait till its right.

 

A few weeks ago I would have said 'I can't recommend it without giving some warnings but I like it: however only get it if you are prepared to beta test'. But as it is now I would say 'Don't get it. It costs a LOT and still doesn't offer what it really should for that money'. The 'big' update was a disappointment for me. I still use the previous version because I like it more then default FSX ATC but things aren't progressing as (fast as) I would like to see. The focus should be on ATC and not on updating the interface or adding new planes while the old ones still don't work well for a lot of people. 

 

Something that also made me go '????' was a remark from the developer that he didn't intend to add all the advanced stuff we are wishing for and which he is trying to implement... He started out with the idea to create a basic ATC add-on... which made me wonder why the **** he'd called it PRO and asked a PRO-price for it too... So it remains to be seen if he can deliver the goods.

 

Yes, I moved to the negative camp.  ^_^

He started out with the idea to create a basic ATC add-on

 

I kind a wish they would have sticked to that idea. Just to let you know what I mean: We already have good flight planners and we have good FO software available.

 

What we do not have is a great ATC addon in active development.

 

I would be perfectly happy if Pro ATC UI had only one input field, where you would copy/paste you flight plan IF (and this is a big if) the ATC part would be as good as can be. YMMV.

I kind a wish they would have sticked to that idea.

 

Agreed. Although his basic idea was VERY basic... so no contender for RC4 or any other ATC addon. So I do appreciate he is trying to add more PRO stuff, but it's taking too much time imho and there is too much focus on stuff we don't need or want like indeed planners...

150% agreed. If it was just a thorough, excellent ATC program without any of the other stuff, which most of us have anyway, life would be a lot better for everyone.

Version 1.2 and 1.2.1 really made me aware of how you must feel, Howard. ^_^ It is giving me all the crap you've been talking about all the time. Just did a testflight only to see how far off ATC is with assigning altitudes. My cruise alt (for a short flight) was 230K. The first waypoint of the STAR had an alt restriction of 10.000 ft. It wasn't until I was 17 nm out that ATC told me to descent to 190K...! So when I arrived at that 10.000 ft waypoint I was only at 190K and the fun part is ATC had lowered the assigned altitude only to 130K while it should already been assigning me to the next restriction, which was 6000 ft. When I got near the NEXT restriction of 4000 feet I was still at 130...! So I flew a hold pattern, just to lose altitude (ignoring ATC who told me to fly another heading). But even after that I had to lower the gear, use the speedbrake and go to flaps 5 way too soon ONLY in order to slow down and descent fast enough to intercept the ILS... which I was told to intercept while I had already past the interception (but that was due to a very odd last waypoint in the STAR).

 

In short: crap.

 

My luck is that the previous version worked okay for me... but that isn't everyone's luck.

 

BTW I noticed even the repeated TOWER TOWER when you contact approach hasn't been fixed yet... Who needs sorting of the flightplans when ATC itself is far from working as it should...? Sigh...

Remember you wont necessarily get approach control that early in RW as you do in proatc or at least supposed too. Center would likely give you the expected runway and arrival STAR. 

 

But one thing is very clear. ProAtc logic is very differently read from Europe compared to N.America.  It acts very differently for some reason. Its very linear and if it doesnt follow its own instructions it will screw up. Not like a live ATC controller who can adapt to the situation and make instructions dynamically. 

 

Clearly the way proatc sees STAR entries is very different from place to place. And all this is dependant on how it reads the AIRAC data. 

As of this latest version, I have to say I am very disappointed. I'll still use it as I can import a flight plan from EFB. ProATC still works as far as clearance, takeoff and climb out are concerned, but approach is busted and unusable. I really hope they can sort this. Oh and Jerone, I completely agree with you vis a vi WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER FLIGHT PLANNER!!

Interesting Jeroen thanks.