QNH to STD PRESSURE

[Ray Proudfoot 8,927]

The controllers use their discretion. Obviously safety comes first but where possible controllers will expedite aircraft out of their airspace as soon as practicable. Helps both ATC and the airline.

[indyrocks 2]

To get some answers from people who have some real-world experience, I posted the following in the ATC Issues forum at PPRuNe:

I've noticed that the SIDs out of most of the London airports restrict departing aircraft to a relatively low altitude and a low airspeed for quite some time/distance. For example, all of the EGLL SIDs top out at 5000 ft or 6000 ft despite the fact that they cover up to 60 or 70 miles of lateral distance. I know there must be airspace limits to allow the traffic from all these airports to mix safely, but it seems a bit excessive to keep an airliner departing EGLL or EGKK to still be flying at 6000 ft/250 KIAS as they pass over the DVR VOR. Are these SIDs usually flown in their entirety, or is it common for ATC to approve an early release to enroute altitudes and speeds?

 

Here are some of the responses so far...

• "Heathrow Director may come along and explain it better, but all departures are designed so traffic procedurally ie non radar remains below arriving traffic. On a DVR departure for instance, traffic crosses below arrivals routing to OCK VOR which normally descends to FL70 depending on the altimeter setting. The 250 kt speed limit is normally cancelled by the departures controller as early as possible and the aircraft is climbed above the SID altitude as soon as it is clear of the arrival pattern.
  It's even more complicated with Heathrow landing on 09L as BCN departures are vectored parallel to arrivals from OCK and BIG and climbed above the arrivals by the Heathrow Director so you get two tracks of aircraft parallel, one descending and the other climbing." ... posted by chevron (6th Aug 2014, 20:45)
  
   
• "I've never seen a LL or KK departure still at the SID levels overhead Dover. They are usually above FL240 by this point and being transferred to Maastricht for higher.
  
  The worst affected SIDS are SS departures via Dover as they get stuck underneath the LL arrivals from the east and then are usually climbed underneath LL and KK departures routeing the same way. So are frequently still at FL80 passing Detling. However, this is all set to change when LAMP comes in supposedly late next year (I think)." ... posted by Juggler25 (27th Aug 2014, 02:03)
  
   
• "I fly out of London City and stop altitude is 3000'. We normally do stop at 3000' on the BPK departures but soon get climbed and would expect to be at 6000' at BPK where the SID ends.
  
  On DVR and LYD departures we soon get to 6000' and might still be there at DET, but would expect to be about FL200 by DVR or LYD.
  
  When we fly the ALKIN3F arrival, we have to be FL100 at WAFFU, about 100nm track miles from touchdown....(It is very busy airspace)" ... posted by renard (27th Aug 2014, 05:24)
  
   
• "I was a Heathrow controller for most of my life and never saw an outbound from Heathrow cross DVR at 6000ft!! The TMA controllers do their utmost to climb outbounds ASAP and they do a remarkable job in very congested airspace." ... posted by HEATHROW DIRECTOR (28th Aug 2014, 05:15)
  
   
• "It is all worst case senario, and also for RTF failure procedures to ensure the departing aircraft are well clear of the stacks/inbound flows before commencing climb as per the failure procedure. As mentioned above, LAMP will begin to be introduced (3 or 4 stage implementation) to improve this. At present, all aircraft have to fuel up for the worst case senario, a heavy going longhaul on a DVR SID burns ridiculous amounts of fuel during the departure - carrying extra fuel just to be able to carry the worst case senario fuel. I've seen the figures but cannot remember exactly so not going to guess, but it will be millions saved in fuel cost PER ROUTE each year (based on a full B747 to Singapore departing on the DVR SID every day off 27L/R). Stage 1a of LAMP introduces point merge approaches to Gatwick and London City & will improve departure routes from London City, Southend, Biggin Hill, Standsted & Luton. The knock on effect is more possibility for earlier climb departing Heathrow & Gatwick. I believe the SIDs off LL & KK will be shortened to end at DET too so the fuel carry will be slightly improved. It's a long & gradual process but eventually (2019??) all the changes will have been made & the much better profiles introduced." ... posted by zonoma (28th Aug 2014, 05:27)

 

It's refreshing to read through the PPRuNe forums in which questions can be asked and answered/discussed without suffering the inane comments of people who don't have anything substantial to add to the discussion.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

I would respect that opinion if I thought it was informed. So, tell me Kyle - have you used Radar Contact?
I've been using it for eight years and, in spite of its faults (and nothing is perfect) it is a massive improvement on the FSX default ATC.

 

So, is my opinion that jumping off of a bridge is dangerous invalid because I haven't done it?

 

I think not...

 

Based on my real world experience in flying, consultation in air traffic control and traffic management. and knowing a good number of controllers, I know based on the number of difficulties people post here - all related to RC - that the program really isn't made for the realism you'd get from other add ons.

 

I can't really fault the developer (any of them, really).  There's a reason we still have air traffic controllers: it's impossible to create a program to do what they do.  Moreover, it's impossible to code a program to adjust for all of the different practices and procedures in the United States, much less world wide.  On top of that, add that the flight data changes regularly and you have quite the mess on your hands.

 

That said, if you're looking for realism, particularly realism that will allow you to fly the PMDG aircraft realistically, RC is rubbish.

 

If you're looking for a replacement for the default ATC, and you're not expecting realism, then it's great.

 

If you're expecting that a realistic plane will behave realistically when being asked to do unrealistic things by an unrealistic add-on, then you're gonna have a bad time.

 

 

It's refreshing to read through the PPRuNe forums in which questions can be asked and answered/discussed without suffering the inane comments of people who don't have anything substantial to add to the discussion.

 

Yes and no.  Aviation forums - regardless of the site - are usually pretty caustic.  It just depends on the topic and the original question.  If you ask something intelligent, the caustic people usually stay out of it.  If you ask something stupid or even harmless yet hot button, you're going to get the cross hairs.

 

I'm not saying it's right, but even PPRuNe has a bunch of threads where people ask about getting into aviation only to have their dreams defecated on by a bunch of people who just want to complain how hard they have it (not that they don't - regional life is hard).

[iainsmith 9]

 

 

So, is my opinion that jumping off of a bridge is dangerous invalid because I haven't done it?

 

No, of course not! But then it is obvious that it is dangerous - you don't have to do it to realise that! Really Kyle, I'm surprised - you can do so much better than that! :rolleyes:

 

Thank you for the rest of your reply, which was informative.

 

Iain Smith

[indyrocks 2]

This thread has wandered so far off topic that the OP has started another thread in his search for a solution. Normally I wouldn't recommend that, but in this case it's perfectly understandable.

[agutz 13]

May I suggest to go back to the OP's question?

I did a flight with PMDG 747X (not even using RadarContact) with FSX weather's initial QNH set to 989 (no add-on weather program). At TA I pressed STD, nothing happened, the FSUIPC readout (for particulars look at the thread "Not at assigned altitude" in RadarContact forum) was still 15821. Manually adjusting the altimeter to 1013 gave the correct 16208. Pressing STD then, it remained at that value. The standby altimeter you have to set manually anyway.

Actually I never noticed that behaviour. Maybe it has to do with the initial low pressure, and hopefully it will be fixed in PMDG's version 2.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,927]

Based on my real world experience in flying, consultation in air traffic control and traffic management. and knowing a good number of controllers, I know based on the number of difficulties people post here - all related to RC - that the program really isn't made for the realism you'd get from other add ons.

 

I can't really fault the developer (any of them, really). There's a reason we still have air traffic controllers: it's impossible to create a program to do what they do. Moreover, it's impossible to code a program to adjust for all of the different practices and procedures in the United States, much less world wide. On top of that, add that the flight data changes regularly and you have quite the mess on your hands.

 

That said, if you're looking for realism, particularly realism that will allow you to fly the PMDG aircraft realistically, RC is rubbish.

 

If you're looking for a replacement for the default ATC, and you're not expecting realism, then it's great.

 

If you're expecting that a realistic plane will behave realistically when being asked to do unrealistic things by an unrealistic add-on, then you're gonna have a bad time.

 

I've read this response several times and have held myself back from answering as I was so annoyed with your comments. Having conducted some tests with a default 747 with RC and using the feedback from agutz in the RC Forum I am satisfied that the problem the OP was having was nothing to do with RC being "rubbish" but the failure of the STD button on the PMDG 747 to set standard pressure when pressed.

 

agutz has confirmed that pressing that button has no effect and is the reason that the RC controller complained that the aircraft was not at the altitude commanded.

 

I very much doubt you have tried RC from your comments but if I'm mistaken please feel free to post your views on its shortcomings on the RC forum. As things stand the OP can overcome the problem of incorrectly set altimeter pressure by dialling in standard pressure at the appropriate point in the flight.

 

I'm astonished that such a basic oversight has occurred on a quality product.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

I've read this response several times and have held myself back from answering as I was so annoyed with your comments.

 

While I understand this thread is about the STD button press issue, my comments are valid, regardless of my use of the product, or your apparent annoyance with them.

 

First - I don't need to try a program to know that it doesn't simulate realism.  Just watch what people post in forums about what it does (not their opinion of it, but specifically what the program is doing).  The very fact that RC so often assigns the "be at X altitude by Y distance from the field" goes to show that it doesn't simulate realistic procedures.  Unfortunately, as you seem to have missed, I actually gave the developer an "out" by saying it's not scalable, or even really reasonable to assume a developer is going to look into the intricacies of every ATC facility in the world (much less the United States).  Regardless, it still doesn't simulate realistic ATC.

 

I don't need FSPassengers to know that it doesn't simulate a very realistic view of real life either, as it flags people for "improper procedures" that are often well within legal, and airline SOP boundaries.  I don't need to use the program - all I need to know gets posted here all the time.

 

Second - in order for a program to behave realistically, it must follow the procedures of the real world.  You must be able to use the program and it shall behave as if you were flying in the real world.  That's the very basic definition of "realistic."  If it's not giving me what I should be expecting in the real world, then it's not behaving realistically, and it is therefore, not realistic.  If you are trying to achieve realism and a program cannot do that for you, then it is rubbish.

 

You can get as upset and annoyed by that as you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that the program does not live up to the standard of realism that is required by the realistic aircraft add-ons, or anyone who wants to accurately follow SIDs/STARs.

 

Like I said: if you want an improvement over FSX, then it's better than nothing.  It's definitely an improvement over FSX.  It does not meet the standard of providing realistic ATC when compared to real world operations, however.  Fact.  End.  Not at all debatable.

 

Until I can hear "descend via the X STAR," instead of this "be at X altitude by Y distance," I won't even consider buying it.  Perhaps as a beta team member, you could pass that on (yes, I looked).

[Ray Proudfoot 8,927]

Kyle,

 

So all your criticisms are based on hearsay. That tells me enough to know that you won't accept anything I say in RC's defence.

 

There are 3 other ATC programs available. None to my knowledge work along the lines you want. It would involve too many voice files to be recorded apart from the horrendously complicated programming which was pretty complicated anyway on RC.

 

I wouldn't mind if you have tried it but to describe a program as "rubbish" is pretty ignorant. Thousands have bought it and most are happy with how it works. Yes, I can think of ways it could be improved but that's unlikely to happen.

 

Two real-world air traffic controllers were involved in RCs design so most of the phraseology was correct when it was released. It is simply impractical to add coding for SIDs and STARs. Another product attempted that and has not been universally welcomed due to its shortcomings.

 

Anyway, back to the topic. I see you haven't mentioned the problem of the STD button not working on the 747. If you fly that aircraft has that not been obvious to you? And if you don't fly it and don't use RC why did you bother commenting on a topic that doesn't affect you? Seems to me you just used this thread to rubbish a program you don't even possess. :rolleyes: