FSX-MS FSX ATC does not follow PFPX flight plan

[mgh 89]

'Heavy' is used in FAA airspace but not ICAO. Back when it was flying BA Concorde pilots included 'heavy' when contacting FAA Controllers but not when in British airspace.

 

According to UK's  CAP 413 Radiotelephony Manual Edition 20 in section 1.9 Callsigns for Aircraft:

 

1.9.6 Aircraft in the heavy wake turbulence category shall include the word ‘HEAVY’ immediately after the aircraft callsign in the initial call to each ATSU.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,963]

According to UK's  CAP 413 Radiotelephony Manual Edition 20 in section 1.9 Callsigns for Aircraft:

 

Clearly a change from the rules in 2006/7. RC beta team included real world AT controller so he would have advised accordingly.

[mgh 89]

 

 

Clearly a change from the rules in 2006/7. RC beta team included real world AT controller so he would have advised accordingly.

 

CAP 413 Radiotelephony Manual Fifteenth edition 1 September 2004 still contains that phrase.  There are no amendment marks so it would have been the  1 September 2003 edition, if not earlier. That's at least 12 years ago.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,963]

Re-reading the RC manual it's a user decision as to what aircraft type is flown. I will select 'Heavy' on my next flight and check what is said by both pilot and ICAO ATC.

 

I can also listen in to Manchester ATC but don't recall hearing 'heavy' used by controllers. I'll check.

[mgh 89]

The UK Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 Fifth Edition incorporating amendments to 6 March 2014 also states in Appendix B - Wake Turbulence Categorisation:
 

B8 Aircraft with a MTOM of 136,000 kg or greater are required to be announced as ‘Heavy’ or ‘Super’ in the case of the A380, in the initial call to each ATSU.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,963]

Just to correct my earlier comment... If Heavy is selected then all instances of the call-sign between ATC and the aircraft include that word. It should only be on first contact. A little bug we should have fixed.

[Glynn 405]

Another vote for Radar Contact.

Just works perfectly every flight and has done since I bought it on 20/12/2005

Now that is value for money.

[Capt Speirs 52]

Have you checked out pliot2atc at all gives you a 14  days free trial period

Doesn't support ASN and from what I have seen, speech is robotic. With VOXATC I can add voices like IVONA. I believe Pilot2ATC is not supported by Navigraph. It is also very new and I did say try VOXATC, so I will also give Pilot2ATC a try, thanks.

[Glynn 405]

 

 

Doesn't support ASN and from what I have seen, speech is robotic.

 

VoxATC uses text to speech voices, pretty much the definition of Robotic, you can use the same voices with Pilot2ATC.

 

If you want totally reliable ATC from Departure to Touchdown, ATC that reads the waypoints from your flightplanner, gives you real world correct ATC instructions then will either give you vectors or allow you to fly your Star then RC is the choice.

[gtrbarbarian 1]

I'd like to point out that when I listen to various airports on Live ATC, pilots and atc are both inconsistent with their annunciation.... ?  RC4 is good for what it is...it could be great if the developer took up development again. ProATC at least follows sids and stars, which imho is a huge advancement for offline flying. 

[Capt Speirs 52]

If you want totally reliable ATC from Departure to Touchdown

 

I need it to control AI Traffic, especially ground traffic. No voice recognition without third party.

[Glynn 405]

 

 

I need it to control AI Traffic, especially ground traffic.

 

Good luck with it, been there with VoxATC and deleted it long ago.

 

I need reliability and out of the available ATC programs Radar Contact is the most solid.

Next best would be Proflight Emulator but even after all these years it still occasionally loses me in mid flight.

Never had any issues with Ai ground traffic with RC, it generally keeps them out of my way ok, VoxATC generates its own Ai but I found that once airbourne there was not very much of it.

[qqwertz 782]

 

 

I need it to control AI Traffic, especially ground traffic. No voice recognition without third party.

 

- Pro-ATC handles traffic on the ground and in the air fairly well (but not perfectly) since v 1.4.x and works with external traffic programs like Ultimate Traffic 2. It has no voice recognition (yet). You enter commands through a menu. The co-pilot can (but does not have to) take over many tasks, which can be selected individually, e.g. radios, flaps, auto-pilot, ..

 

- VoxATC takes over AI traffic control on the ground and in the air, so AI traffic control programs can only provide liveries and type of planes at an airport. It is mostly using voice control, but you can get around most of it by entering commands or handing the radios over to your co-pilot.

 

- RC4 uses whatever AI traffic is there and reacts to it. It also manahes ground traffic to some extent, so in that respect it is similar to Pro-ATC. It has no voice recognition. The co-pilot can take over radios and/or fly the plane.

 

Peter

[nam1394 10]

VoxATC generates its own Ai but I found that once airbourne there was not very much of it.

This has changed in latest versions.

[Capt Speirs 52]

This has changed in latest versions.

Yes and they have been very busy lately making things work and listening to customers. I think if every third party ATC Developer would give a 30 day trail or at least 14 day, it would my natural selection force them to better them selves to compete.