Vectors and crashed against mountains

[pelayogon 0]

Hi all,

 

I tried Voxatc for the first time doing a LEAS LEXJ flight. It gave me vectors for the approach and flight levels so I followed instructions but then,  I crashed the aircraft against a mountain. is this normal?

 

Thank you

 

Pelayo - LEMD

[agutz 13]

Certainly not "normal"!

 

But AFAIK Vox doesn't "look ahead" and FSX just reads the altitude directly under the plane.

That means you are responsible not to do a CFIT (controlled flight into terrain), no matter what ATC tells you to do (like in the real world!).

 

I don't think Vox has such a very useful function like "Notams" in RadarContact4 where you are monitored less striktly and instructions are followed by "if feasible".

[pelayogon 0]

Thank you for the response and sorry for my English! With normal I wanted to mean if the program is nor prepared for giving vectors (or better, flight levels when giving vectors). I see now than it is probably not prepared.

Thanks

Pelayo LEMD

[g_precentralis 191]

 

 

That means you are responsible not to do a CFIT (controlled flight into terrain), no matter what ATC tells you to do (like in the real world!).

I'm sorry, but there is ATC responsibility too, it's unacceptable to vector someone into terrain. 

[tonywob 4,769]

This has pretty much happened to me in every ATC program I've used, the worst being ProATCX which vectored me into the ground. If they follow SIDs and STARs then it's great, but when receiving just plain vectors, I believe most don't know what the current minimum altitudes are in the area you're in.

 

e.g. I was doing a flight from Nice to Alicante, and about 100nm outside of Alicante it told me to descend to about 2000ft. I already knew this wasn't going to end well, but it insisted and I just gave up and for the hell of it did what it said. Surely enough, boom, smashed into a mountain.

[pelayogon 0]

Oh, these are bad news! I was going to try if VOX respect minimum altitudes in the case airports have a ATCSMAC plate published but Alicante has this type or chart (is for Valencia) so it does not work.

Do you know if Navigraph include info from ATCSMAC plates?

[agutz 13]

Of course, ATC is very much responsible but it's the pilot who has the last word.

He can always issue an "unable" if he gets an unreasonable instruction that would cause a CFIT.

 

I don't know a ATC program handling the situation described by pelayogon well.

Vox doesn't have the "unable" function (RC4 has it).

[cbd80 3]

Unfortunately, VoxATC doesn't use any terrain elevation data, so approaching airports surrounded by mountains can lead to trouble.

 

If you look in the VoxATC folder you will find a tool called 'Flight Plan Extras'. With this tool you can select the option 'No Vectors to Approach'.

 

This helps resolve the issue as you'll either be directed to a fix or left to fly the procedure as published in the charts.

[Helge Rasmussen 7]

I just do not accept vectors when there are mountains around the airport.

 

What I do is to say something like 

 

    <callsign> request full ILS runway 22 approach

 

You can find this in the "0" menu, it won't be available until you get your first vector I think.

(you can just say it, you do not need to choose from the menu)

 

When I do this,  ATC acknowledes that I want to execute a procecure approach and asks me to report at some fixpoint.

 

Helge

[deetee 164]

@cbd80 - thanks for bringing up the Flight Plan Extras tool, I'll have a play with that.

[kanadaken 2]

Using VoxAtc for years. Vectoring problematic indeed in mountainous terrain. Need to learn SID/STARS.

If vectored to ILS and in IFR bad weather, with Vox one is blind anyway so must depend on ATC or choose alternate, no?