Things I've noticed with the NGX

[Dave71k 0]

Sorry to start up an old post. But I just had this whole gear down to kill speed issue on VATSIM just now.

 

I was told to descend to FL200 and be level by a way point. So I did all in line with the STAR etc mostly in VNAV I jumped in to FLC a couple of times just so I could get her exactly where I wanted her. I then get handed off to another controller who says....I want to send you straight in can you increase you rate of descent and cross at FL090. So now I have to loose 11,000ft in virutally no space at all with a 40knot tail wind. I've got speed brakes out, engines idle, descending in FLC at 250knot and I'm no where close I don't like to come in to fast but I decided to try 270knots in the descent but still wasn't even close. Only option drop the anchors.

Gear down set speed to 250knots and I sail on down...Well more drop like a brick.

 

Speed holds nicely at 250knots and I smoothly arrive at my target alitude for the approach and then on to the ILS. Safe to say I wouldn't of been able to do this with out lowering the gear.

 

So my thoughts on the whole matter are....you shouldn't need to do it in everyday operations but from time to time something will happen whether it be weather or a request from ATC that will require you to drop a lot of altitude very quickly so then you use every tool you have in the box. And why not as long as you don't over stress anything.

[ESzczesniak 128]

It's personal opinion, but if I had to drop the landing gear at FL200 to make a descent, I would reply "unable".

[Spin737 102]

It's personal opinion, but if I had to drop the landing gear at FL200 to make a descent, I would reply "unable".

Absolutely. I'd try, but I'm not going to attempt heroic measures cover their mistakes.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Absolutely. I'd try, but I'm not going to attempt heroic measures cover their mistakes.

 

Just to be a little bit of an ATC advocate here, it's not always mistakes that cause these types of situations.  This one in particular almost sounds like a runway change.  That one always jacks up the flows for a bit.

[Spin737 102]

[scandinavian13 5,192]

True. But I'm not going to dangle the Dunlops at 20,000ft.

 

Besides, I bet you enjoy the untangling.

 

Absolutely.  I was actually going to make a comment that I would've said "unable."

 

Some days, the untangling isn't bad.  It being limited to VATSIM (for now?) makes it a bit difficult, since the pilot quality leaves a lot to be desired there on occasion.  The challenge can definitely be fun, though.

[pcubine 143]

This one in particular almost sounds like a runway change.

I hope they use some sensible judgment and don't change runways based only on wind direction like FSX does.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

I hope they use some sensible judgment and don't change runways based only on wind direction like FSX does.

 

haha - definitely not.  That's one of the advantages of having people doing the job.

 

Wind very rarely switches by a complete 180 degrees, so it's not like you're going from a complete headwind to a complete tailwind.  It's usually a crosswind transitioning from less of a quartering headwind to more of a quartering tailwind.  With that, you can usually get by without changing the runway immediately, even if it wasn't a forecast change (where you usually plan and coordinate ahead of time with the various facilities: tower, TRACON, and occasionally en route - depending on SOP).  If it's not forecast, then the tower will advise the TRACON that they will be switching ops.  If possible, a cutoff aircraft/flight will be chosen (usually where there's a gap in traffic, if possible).  Everything prior to that gets the current ops; everything after gets (one of) the new runway(s).

 

All of the actual procedure varies facility to facility, but there's definitely more logic to the decision than the wind went from 089 to 091 - better use Runway 18 now!  Most facilities also run a "standard" op.  DCA uses Runway 19 as a standard op, where it's used any time the wind between calm to 5 knots, or when the wind is from the south and greater than five (they give actual degrees in the SOP, but I'm drawing a blank at the moment).

 

More than you ever wanted to know...right?  Haha.  Typical...

[pcubine 143]

More than you ever wanted to know...right?

Not really. I find it interesting how different the real world is from FSX runway selections.

[JoeDiamond 67]

Absolutely. I'd try, but I'm not going to attempt heroic measures cover their mistakes.

 

Roger that.  Reminds me of the tale of the conversation between a controller and pilot that went something like this:

 

Controller: "Can't you descend any faster?  Doesn't  that thing have speed brakes?"

Pilot:  "It does, but they are for my screw ups, not yours!"

[pcubine 143]

More than you ever wanted to know...right?

This information is from a NTSB Accident Report on a Continental 737-500 that ran off the runway at KDEN on Dec 20, 2008. The wind was 290/24 gusting to 32. KDEN has 9 possible runway configurations to use. At that time they were using a "Landing North/West". The takeoffs were on 34L, 34R, and 25 with the landings on 35L, 35R, 34R, and 26. I am certain FSX and any other ATC add-on would have departures and landings on 25 and 26. What about Vatsim?

 

I don't think a $10 million add-on would have come up with what KDEN was using. Imagine how many different combinations are available in FSX with 15000-16000 airports. Maybe $10,000,000 is to cheap.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

I don't think a $10 million add-on would have come up with what KDEN was using. Imagine how many different combinations are available in FSX with 15000-16000 airports. Maybe $10,000,000 is to cheap.

 

Most SOPs break it down to pretty simple terms, so the ability to do at least that would be nice.  As an example, for BGL editors (or "AFCAD programs"), the ability to say:

Wind 101 clockwise to 280 - South Ops - Runways 19 (Primary), and 15 (Regional Jets only - at least a filter by size)

Wind 281 clockwise to 100 - North Ops - Runways 1 (Primary), 4 (Turboprops only) and 33 (Regionals only)

Wind calm (less than 5 knots) - South Ops

 

At that point, you'd have it about 90% accurate.  From there, you'd have to teach it more conditionals, like Runway 4 would be for turboprops to east and southeast fixes only, and only on departure headings that would be 060 clockwise to about 090.  And to cap it all off, you'd have to get that last percentage point by teaching it to be able to "buck the system" with an operational call:

Wind is 010 at 6 (at IAD).

You have a Cessna at the north end of Runway 1C (Landmark ramp).

SOP states that, for south departures in a north config, a Runway 30 departure is assigned.

Traffic is very light at this moment.

 

**Presses Intercom button for IADFW**

LC2 (Tower position controlling 1C/19C): "Final West, Local."

IADFW (Potomac TRACON position for 1L/19R, 1C/19C finals): "Go ahead Local."

LC2: "APPREQ, Cessna 172 departing opposite direction, 19C."

IADFW: "Approved.  Departure heading 240, at or below 2500. [Operating initials]."

LC2: "[Operating initials]."

**Intercom terminates**

 

Of course, the dialog wouldn't be required by the sim, because even now, pilots don't hear that (though they hear the "say again, I was on the land line" result of it), but it goes to show how coordination can take that a step further.  Just about every facility SOP has an "escape clause" in it, just like FAR 91.3 for pilots (PIC authority, if 91.3 doesn't ring a bell).  It usually says something to the effect of "if operationally advantageous, deviations from these procedures may be coordinated on an individual basis."  That's where you pick up all kinds of efficiencies.

 

Try flying a route up to NY from DC.  I remember when I tried it years ago (I haven't used FSX ATC in about a decade), it gave me weird handoffs to and from ZDC and ZNY (Washington and NY Centers) because I was right on the border of both of them (I was flying an FSX route, not a real one - didn't have the net at home, and FlightAware wasn't around).  In the real world, ARTCC boundaries are usually adjusted to avoid situations like that, but if similar happened in the real world, a controller would probably hit the other facility with a pointout (a radar-generated visual cue on a target to highlight it on screen), and then call the position to say "Pointout - [callsign].  Route straddles our boundary.  Control from present position through [future fix on route where the route turns fully into one or the other facilities]."  If the other controller approves, the one who sent the pointout could just keep the aircraft - even if it crossed into the other controller's airspace - until the coordinated fix.  That would allow the flight to stay with the one controller, and not have to change frequencies every few miles.

 

As a more common coordination point:

The "direct."

A controller cannot approve a "direct" to a fix outside his or her airspace.  If one is requested, he or she needs to call any position that it would affect and coordinate (unless there's pre-arranged coordination - which can and does happen via SOP, LOA, and in the case of massive re-routes for weather, as directed and coordinated with the Command Center).

 

...but gooooooooooooooooooood luck programming all of that!

 

This is why I always say that ATC add-ons are complete rubbish at simulating ATC.  Granted, they have a very, very tough job to tackle, and they do a decent job at about 50% of it, but the other 50% is just so terribly off (not that it's possible for a program to do much better - as I always say, there's a reason we have people doing it, and not computers) that I just can't handle it.  As a virtual ATCer, past ATC/TM contractor, and current ATC hopeful (class date tentative somewhere around January - April, if I take it), I just can't handle it.  I'll control myself, but that's only because I know at least a little about ATC to do it.

 

[/NOVEL]

[E6BAV8R 88]

It's personal opinion, but if I had to drop the landing gear at FL200 to make a descent, I would reply "unable".

 

This.  I have yet to be asked to increase my descent rate to something that I couldn't accomplish without extending the gear, but ATC would definitely get an "unable" if my only other option was to extend the gear at 20,000 feet to achieve my descent target.  Then again, I'm practically always above Vlo while descending through 20,000 feet anyway.

 

Jets typically don't 'go down and slow down' at the same time very well at all.

[WestAir 2,522]

..It being limited to VATSIM (for now?) makes it a bit difficult, since the pilot quality leaves a lot to be desired there on occasion.  The challenge can definitely be fun, though.

 

I assure you, the pilot quality isn't always "great" in the real world either. Today I was number 2 for landing. The guy who was number one got a clearance that went like: "Cessna 12345H, join base for runway 35L, cleared to land - other traffic on final will come in behind you."

 

Guy read it back then made a 45 to downwind instead.

 

Now that I think about it, the same can be said for controllers. I've been asked to fly headings right into Mount Charleston here in Las Vegas from those Nellis AFB Controllers. My point is that VATSIM isn't lagging too far behind the real world. In my experience you have more people "learning" and "training" than experts, and it keeps you attentive. You're not missing out.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

My point is that VATSIM isn't lagging too far behind the real world. In my experience you have more people "learning" and "training" than experts, and it keeps you attentive. You're not missing out.

 

As a pilot myself, and someone who's spent a lot of time in control facilities, I really disagree.  Sure, the weekend warriors can be complete trash, but you don't often get too many of those flying into a busy airport as in the case I was referencing in my example (IAD and DCA, depending on the post).

 

VATSIM and the real world are two entirely different levels of experience and skill.  Sure, everywhere has its crowd of unskilled and/or stupid people, but to say VATSIM isn't lagging too far behind is somewhat of an insult to anyone with a license (though, from what I've experienced, those with RW Pilot in their VATSIM remarks tend to be some of the worst, but my bet is that they're just posturing PPL students).  If half of the stuff I deal with as a controller on VATSIM happened in real life, we wouldn't have too many pilots around from their certs being pulled.

 

When was the last time you heard anyone on frequency (real world) ask for the ILS approach because he or she needed it to land the plane?

 

 

 

Now that I think about it, the same can be said for controllers. I've been asked to fly headings right into Mount Charleston here in Las Vegas from those Nellis AFB Controllers.

 

Based on your signature, I'm assuming you haven't gotten further into your instrument rating stuff, so your comment is somewhat understandable here.  If you've been asked to fly a heading, I'm guessing you're in the Class B.  If that's the case, you should brush up on your VFR in Class B info.

 

I'm sure there's some reference to this in the AIM, but the 7110.65 (the controller's rulebook, or their version of the AIM) notes:

"Pilots operating in accordance with VFR are expected to advise ATC if compliance with assigned altitudes, headings, or routes will cause violation of any part of the CFR."

(7110.65V 7-9-3a Note)

 

It would follow that, beyond issues with the CFR, issues with obstacles and terrain should also be advised.  Now, I'm not saying it's smart for them to put people on a heading toward mountains, but depending on the circumstance, it's reasonable, particularly in that area.  Unless you've seen an MTM or an MVA map, it's tough to see how much visibility controllers have with where terrain is.  It's not as much that you were put on a heading toward it; it's more of an issue of how close you got.