The other simism that gets me is the person who has absolutely no aviation knowledge or experience, gets FSX or P3D, then immediately jumps head first into planes like PMDG level aircraft without even flying the default Cessna and learning the basics. Even worse is the said simmer, who then after a short time of being able to fly his NGX from point A to B using the AP the entire time, decides now is the time to start doling out their expert aviation advice to others.

 

Definitely. At the same time, the Cessna-first guys can also cause trouble. I'd argue that the worst offenders are your real student pilots and those with a private (without IR, Comm, Multi, etc).

 

Case in point: me back in 2007-2009. If I ran into that version of me at the airport, I'd probably set him up to walk into the back of a Cessna wing and then pour avgas in the cut...yeah, I was that bad.

And if I could add an item: not reading the manuals. This is of course important for aircraft but also for any product you may buy. I tend to gather that flightsim community is predomintantly male and, of course, we don't like to read manuals. But doing so would prevent a lot of repetitive posts and threads asking about issues that are plainly covered in the manual...

 

Definitely. Good point.

Could you please give some people who do this? As someone who is trying to learn how to use the 777 and NGX it would be nice to know which channels to avoid. 

It would be easier to list people who are trustworthy. You could probably search the forums to get a good list of reliable sources. 

 

I think the documentation provided by PMDG is the best starting point for learning the how to's, but Youtube was good to to get a look at what it looks like in the seat instead of reading text. However, I think there's more bad youtubers then good, so crosschecking what they're doing with the manuals is necessary. 

 

My original thought was that I was watching a few "tutorials" on youtube by people who really sounded like they knew what they were talking about, but were really not doing it correctly. There might be some variation from what the manuals say, but you really shouldn't be doing a tutorial unless you really REALLY know what you're talking about. Many (especially young) youtubers are making tutorials cause they are kind flexing their nerd muscles showing that they know how to get through the process without really knowing anything but the process.

 

Those angle of attack youtubes are amazing, unfortunately a tease on the free youtube. If you got the time and money, Id say hands down that whole package will get you to where you want to be. 

 

As far as general aviation rules, I bet nowadays with online college you could get enrolled in a ground school class really cheap and easy (again if you have the time and money).

My original thought was that I was watching a few "tutorials" on youtube by people who really sounded like they knew what they were talking about, but were really not doing it correctly. There might be some variation from what the manuals say, but you really shouldn't be doing a tutorial unless you really REALLY know what you're talking about. Many (especially young) youtubers are making tutorials cause they are kind flexing their nerd muscles showing that they know how to get through the process without really knowing anything but the process.

 

[...]

 

As far as general aviation rules, I bet nowadays with online college you could get enrolled in a ground school class really cheap and easy (again if you have the time and money).

Yeah, it gets me, too, when people make tutorials on YouTube without having at least a half-decent understanding of the content. Someone reciting the text of the tutorial in video form doesn't add much value. When people don't provide the answers of why I'm doing something (particularly when it deviates from the 'norm' - e.g. some kid finds an unverified SOP online and claims it's real, and blindly follows it), it drives me up the wall.

 

[Mini Psych Rant]

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, there's a lot of "look at how much I know" instead of "let me help you learn something" in our community (aviation in general, honestly). I think a lot of it is simply related to the personalities attracted to flying. Flying is an intense activity, and it requires being at least decent across a number of topics - flying a plane, route planning, understanding an array of charts, understanding an array of technology, understanding radio phraseology, understanding flight procedures, being an amateur weather analyst and somewhat of a forecaster, and that doesn't mention the whole requirement of at least some level of logical awareness and mathematical skill. Acquiring skill in that many areas can make someone a little (or very) arrogant, which usually manifests in the sophomoric "look at how much I know" posturing (again - not pointing fingers as much as taking a shot at past versions of myself).

 

To make things worse, the sim crowd can be a little nerdy, which can also mean the person is a little socially challenged in person-to-person communication. The result is that the internet allows them to be a little more social, given its relative anonymity and lack of on-the-spot pressure of talking in person. Repressed frustrations of not being able to gain recognition in person can manifest as a wholly different online persona, struggling for recognition...and what better way to gain recognition than to build oneself up as a pinnacle of knowledge in a niche community where information is somewhat hard to come by?

[/Mini Psych Rant]

 

As far as ground school goes, you're probably better off with a King Schools, or Sporty's course. They're probably priced a little better, particularly if you don't want to go try to find a comm college.

In addition to simisms I've found a lot of Americanisms, no doubt because the majority of the English-speaking FS community is American and the default ATC is based around US procedures. Many seem oblivious to the FAA's jurisdiction and I frequently see FAA rules quoted for operations clearly outside the USA (where ICAO and additional local rules normally apply instead). Things are gradually improving as the FAA and ICAO slowly converge (e.g. RVSM flight levels, "line up and wait").

 

It's perhaps most obvious on the radio when controlling outside the USA (on multiplayer networks); I was often called "centre" or "departure", neither of which are really used in Europe (it's "control" or "radar"). Flight levels seem to be a particular stumbling block, FL120 is still often read back as "one two twelve thousand". TBH it grates a bit when pilots read back what they think you should've said, as if though they know the local procedures better (don't mean to sound arrogant but I went through a lot of reading and training)!

 

Edit: I should add my comments are not aimed at any specific nationality (this afflicts all manner of people). I welcome and encourage all pilots to explore the (virtual) world, especially using multiplayer networks!

In addition to simisms I've found a lot of Americanisms, no doubt because the majority of the English-speaking FS community is American and the default ATC is based around US procedures. Many seem oblivious to the FAA's jurisdiction and I frequently see FAA rules quoted for operations clearly outside the USA (where ICAO and additional local rules normally apply instead). Things are gradually improving as the FAA and ICAO slowly converge (e.g. RVSM flight levels, "line up and wait").

 

It's perhaps most obvious on the radio when controlling outside the USA (on multiplayer networks); I was often called "centre" or "departure", neither of which are really used in Europe (it's "control" or "radar"). Flight levels seem to be a particular stumbling block, FL120 is still often read back as "one two twelve thousand". TBH it grates a bit when pilots read back what they think you should've said, as if though they know the local procedures better (don't mean to sound arrogant but I went through a lot of reading and training)!

 

"Line up and wait" still makes me think I'm at a grocer...

 

The rest is definitely true. I've definitely had a few words with a pilot who was trying to one up me on frequency. It's interesting to see when people finally see how different the world's procedures truly are. To be honest, though, I usually slip up and call the various positions departure/approach or center out of habit, unless I'm handed off and the controller uses their callsign ("contact Heathrow Director on ___" <- is that even right???).

slip up and call the various positions departure/approach or center out of habit, unless I'm handed off and the controller uses their callsign ("contact Heathrow Director on ___" <- is that even right???).

You're right, it's "contact Heathrow Director 119 decimal 725" but the controller should state the callsign of who they're handing you off to *slaps naughty controller's wrists*  :smile: I think Director is a Heathrow and Manchester thing, it tends to be Radar or Approach elsewhere.

 

In reality I've heard pilots just name the place and omit the service designation, particularly for approach and en-route services (e.g. for Langen Radar they say "Langen, Hello, Speedbird 525"), saves embarrassment!

Is there an ATC for dummies out there for someone who might want to get into VATSIM that clears all this stuff up?

In reality I've heard pilots just name the place and omit the service designation, particularly for approach and en-route services (e.g. for Langen Radar they say "Langen, Hello, Speedbird 525"), saves embarrassment!

 

That's what I do with Potomac, honestly. It keeps things simple and I don't need to do the mental work of who I'm talking to.

 

 

Is there an ATC for dummies out there for someone who might want to get into VATSIM that clears all this stuff up?

 

https://www.vatsim.net/pilot-resource-centre

 

...or my personal fave:

http://pilotcerts.laartcc.org/page/Home

It would be easier to list people who are trustworthy. You could probably search the forums to get a good list of reliable sources. 

You're right, that would probably be more productive. But anyway, I use YouTube tutorials as a way to actually see what I need to do, which is very helpful to me as someone who learns better visually (as you said). Also, You Tube tutorials that don't follow 100% correct procedures are still good for learning how to get the plane from A to B without crashing. This is how I'm trying to learn it, as I feel that I can better apply actual procedures if I'm very familiar with the absolute basics. Finally, you can usually tell if the maker of the tutorial actually bothers to read the manual to try to get it right, or if they're just a 14 year old kid who flew Tutorial #1 once and is suddenly an expert. The one You Tuber I watch the most for this kind of thing is Matt Davies, and while he is not a real world pilot his tutorials and videos provide a good jumping off point for further learning. 

 

But just remember, some people who buy PMDG planes aren't interested in following the real world procedures to a T...

.. get the plane from A to B without crashing...

 

..But just remember, some people who buy PMDG planes aren't interested in following the real world procedures to a T...

You're probably fine doing what youtubers do to get from A to B. And thats fine. Similarly, your last comment, it depends on what you want to get out of it.

 

Me on the other hand, I am fascinated with how its done in the real world. On my next flight (in t weeks to Vegas, I can't wait) I want to be able to sit in that seat and be able to visualize what the pilots are doing and what the plane is doing from start to finish. In fact, I'll probably fly the route a few times, and print off the route and bring it with me to follow it.

 

Say... 15 mins in the plane dipped right a few degrees... hey! it's cause we hit the OBH transition on the SCHEP.8 departure! ... and so on all the way to touchdown.

Me on the other hand, I am fascinated with how its done in the real world. On my next flight (in t weeks to Vegas, I can't wait) I want to be able to sit in that seat and be able to visualize what the pilots are doing and what the plane is doing from start to finish. In fact, I'll probably fly the route a few times, and print off the route and bring it with me to follow it.

When planning a new or infrequent trip in the twin, I've used flight simulation for many years to become familiar with the navaids and fixes enroute and especially the terminal area. Once along my way things are familiar and it's easier to stay ahead of the plane. I was doing this long before i discovered PMDG and flight simulation became a full time hobby.

I think Director is a Heathrow and Manchester thing, it tends to be Radar or Approach elsewhere.

 

CAP413 (Chapter 2 p7 - Callsigns for Aeronautical Stations) is your friend  :smile:

 

"Director" is used for radar-equipped approach control units. Radar-equipped units which provide both approach and departure services are "Radar", whilst non-radar Approach units use "Approach".

When planning a new or infrequent trip in the twin, I've used flight simulation for many years to become familiar with the navaids and fixes enroute and especially the terminal area. Once along my way things are familiar and it's easier to stay ahead of the plane. I was doing this long before i discovered PMDG and flight simulation became a full time hobby.

 

I do the same. As long as you have good mesh, it really does help you pick up helpful cues for the flight down, especially if you're going to be visual the whole way. At the same time, even if you're on instruments, seeing terrain cues closer in to the airport would also help that final segment.

CAP413 (Chapter 2 p7 - Callsigns for Aeronautical Stations) is your friend  :smile:

I am familiar with CAP413 (and CAP493 too) but was too lazy to dig out the official definition, I knew it was something to do with not covering departures!