off the FP and at various altitudes and never got a single instruction again after the initial clearance. Or never got one that said I was off the FP.

 

Flew my first flight the other night with PF3 and somehow missed a waypoint. PF3 hounded me the rest of the flight that I was X number of miles off the airway. My guess is had I requested a direct to the next waypoint it would have stopped. Usually, when flying a SID with PF3 as you reach the end of the SID ATC will tell you continue own navigation and then a few seconds later it will give you your next altitude to climb to.

I just wanted to add a couple more comments on the ill-named but powerful "FAF" feature in PF3:

 

1 - It only applies if you opt to receive vectors... it should have no effect for those that fly a STAR directly into an approach.

2 - It appears to be an AGL altitude (PF3 will automatically add the destination field elevation) - so it is basically set and forget.  I have mine set to 9 miles and 2000 which seems to work very well.

 

MD

I just wanted to add a couple more comments on the ill-named but powerful "FAF" feature in PF3:

 

1 - It only applies if you opt to receive vectors... it should have no effect for those that fly a STAR directly into an approach.

2 - It appears to be an AGL altitude (PF3 will automatically add the destination field elevation) - so it is basically set and forget.  I have mine set to 9 miles and 2000 which seems to work very well.

 

MD

In PFE you usually setup the start of the STAR approach at the waypoint prior to the published STAR (Usually the transition) at which point PFE would allow you to fly the STAR without complaint (at least laterally) down to the FAF which the furthest you could set it to was 20nm from the airport at which point only then you were assigned your approach and landing runway with vectors. At this point, you could either accept the vectors, or request cleared to final. Is this the same way it works in PF3? If so have they increased the distance the FAF could be set, so you know the landing runway earlier? Also one of the biggest problems I had PFE was the constant vectoring of AI at cruise, this also occurs with default ATC. Have they've done anything to address this? This is one of the things I like most about PROATC-X  Vectoring at cruise for AI is completely eliminated, leaving them to fly their own flightplans (at least seemingly) , same as you are expected to do. One problem that happens in both PFE and PROATC-X is it only handles pilot to controller radio hand offs. You don't hear controller to pilot frequency change instructions for AI. ATC in both PATC-x and PFE though for the user aircraft, handles this correctly. Have they fixed this in PF3?

To be honest ProATC is in my opinion only of any use if you let the copilot handle the comms, it has a very nasty bug if you choose to use hardware radios which remains unfixed for many months now.

 

 

Hmm. I handle all my own comms, no copilot doing anything at all, and haven't found a single problem with that except if you miss acknowledging you have to use Say Again for it to accept it subsequently. And after the first couple of times that happened I've been sure not to let it happen again in any case, and the fix is imminent I think.

 

I'll be trying PF3 for sure when I can make some time, but I will sorely miss the SID/STAR handling in ProATC/X. Certainly the idea of getting a sample of the 119 voices instead of the current two or three with ProATC/X is very appealing.  But I also wouldn't want ProATC/X to rush additional voices with the current phraseology which does have many inaccuracies. The recording volunteers need a proper correct script to follow (as happened with RC4).

 

Pete

Surely that would depend on the airport. You can't use a rule like that for all airports around the world. Minor airfields seems okay but at any major airport "Line up and Wait" has got to be mandatory. If PF3 issues the take-off clearance whilst I'm holding short to 27L at Heathrow that would be a show-stopper for me I'm afraid.

 

Surely is would be dependent upon traffic, not on the airport necessarily. When circumstances allow a "cleared for takeoff" as the aircraft is virtually at the hold point would seem to be more expeditious than creating extra runway occupancy with an intervening "line up and wait".

 

I'd like to hear something like "expedite" added when things are busy too, but maybe that isn't in the book for takeoffs.

 

As you know, I use both UT2 and MT6 for AI, with both set pretty high (around 200+ aircraft at Heathrow on the ground and loads overhead), and waiting on the runway can very easily cause AI go-arounds.

 

Pete

Those aforesaid a/c certainly would not be allowed to sit on the threshold at LIMF (Torino) it's too busy.

"Line-up and wait" on the other hand means there is a short delay almost always due to separation, wake turbulence etc. It's not mandatory. At Heathrow they would never get all the a/c away on time if every time they had to say "line-up and wait" for each and every departing a/c.

 

Exactly my opinion, though I've no real life experience of Heathrow ATC.

 

Pete

I just wanted to add a couple more comments on the ill-named but powerful "FAF" feature in PF3:

 

1 - It only applies if you opt to receive vectors... it should have no effect for those that fly a STAR directly into an approach.

2 - It appears to be an AGL altitude (PF3 will automatically add the destination field elevation) - so it is basically set and forget.  I have mine set to 9 miles and 2000 which seems to work very well.

 

MD

 

You are joking right. You set your FAF at 2000 AGL 9 miles from the airport... Try flying into Innsbruck using that, or maybe Salt Lake City. 

Regarding tower-issued "vectors"...it's quite common when an airport has a diverse departure or TERPS-defined diverse departure area for towers to issue takeoff clearances with other than runway heading.  Often a specific departure heading is passed as part of the takeoff release given to the tower controller by the departure/approach controller.  There are formal rules in 7210.3 Section 5 para 10-5-3 for when and how tower controllers can use a certified tower radar display, when equipped, and there are conditions specified there which do indeed allow tower controllers to issue radar vectors to aircraft in their local control area.

 

Line up and wait clearances are used to expedite a future departure when an immediate departure is not possible, for example when waiting for an IFR release or delays for wake turbulence spacing behind a heavy or jumbo category airplane.  Conditional clearances are a big no-no, so you can't issue a clearance like "Rwy 34 American 255 cleared for takeoff as soon as the 747 on rollout is clear."  So to keep things moving, the controller instead issues a line up and wait clearance to get him in position, and as soon as the 747 is clear, he gets a takeoff clearance, and since he's already on or approaching the runway, he gets moving faster.  If there's no specific cause to hold the takeoff, clearance is generally given from the hold short or even while taxiing towards the hold line.  At large busy airports, line up and wait tends to get used a lot more to keep traffic moving as expeditiously as possible.  But in my r/w experience spanning hundreds of airports of all sizes and all around the globe, takeoff clearance from the hold short line is far more common than line up and wait.

 

Regards

Bob,

 

I was talking about a general rule of thumb, mountain valley airport procedures are totally unique and you know it!  Nobody's going to vector anybody in those narrow valleys... so the PF3 "FAF" doesn't really apply.  With that said, if SLC was landing to the south, 6227' (field elevation + 2000) would probably work just fine at 9 DME... would need to vector from the west though :smile:.  I know you've sold your soul to ProATC/X and that's fine... it does a lot of things very well (especially terminal procedures that require no vectoring).  Overall, I'd still give ProATC/X the edge over PF3; but PF3 definitely has it's strengths and it's much easier to use than PFE... at this point, I'm leaning toward giving RC4 a long-overdue retirement.

 

MD

I just wanted to add a couple more comments on the ill-named but powerful "FAF" feature in PF3:

 

1 - It only applies if you opt to receive vectors... it should have no effect for those that fly a STAR directly into an approach.

2 - It appears to be an AGL altitude (PF3 will automatically add the destination field elevation) - so it is basically set and forget.  I have mine set to 9 miles and 2000 which seems to work very well.

 

MD

 

I agree...the misuse of the "FAF" terminology is pretty confusing.  I'd call it something like the "final approach vector intercept point" instead.

 

And yes, there will be airports for which no one-size-fits-all rule can work.  LFMN (Nice), for example,...if any ATC program tries to vector an airplane at any reasonable final approach intercept altitude while it's still maneuvering north of the field, you're gonna see an unhappy attempted penetration of a cumulogranite cloud.  A STAR or full IAP is required in such a case.

 

Regards

In first thanks to the authors for giving us the opportunity to try the program before to buy !

 

After some flights with the demo, reading the user guide and all the post of this long topic I noticed :

 

-It seems that the atc never corrects the failings to follow the flight plan or altitude. Am I missing something or PF3 does not handle such situations ? With VoxAtc during the flight the slightest deviation of a hundred feet or heading deviation from the FP is immediately reported by the controller.

 

Someone ?

 

Regards,

 

Richard Portier

How many times do aircraft encounter turbulence or severe icing at 6000 feet just after takeoff?

 

My point is that if you are flying a published SID that has an altitude limit, ATC departure control is well aware you will want to continue your climb as soon as possible, and will tell you to do so as soon as they are able. If you are at the SID limit of 6000 you would not request a higher altitude, you would wait until ATC can clear you.

 

Your posts have criticised PF3 for lack of realism and I am simply pointing out that your method with Pro ATC is also unrealistic. No ATC program at the moment is able to create the absolute realism that many of us would like.

More often than you think. Icing and turbulence can happen at any altitude. In fact, I usually hit the most turbulence when I am lower rather than in the upper flight levels (usually lower than 6000 feet though).  Icing on the other hand can and will happen whenever the conditions for it exist, and that can be at ANY altitude.

Having not used the other programs, can you tell me how they deal with the examples of the SID in the LIMF BOGNA 1M SID or the EGLL SIDS where the airac will contain the 6000 feet restriction all the way to the end of the SID, but in practice one would expect to be cleared to a higher FL earlier ?

I just flew a flight from Gatwick to Manchester, as a comparison to Mike's flight below, and I gave it a rather aggressive cruise  altitude (FL260) for it's distance. In fact the FMC warned it was achievable. If you watch at  about 56:40 of my video below, you will see PROATC-X cleared me to bust the restricted altitude of 6000 at LAM to allow me to make it.

 

PF3 ATC Demo Test EGKK to EGCC. This is my first use of this program, I thought it was excellant and have now bought it. I am also using FS2Crew Reboot, GSX, UT2 and Aivlasoft EFB (created and saved FP). Full Fliight with registered version later today.

For those that are interested here's a comparison video on how PROATC-X handled this flight. It would be interesting to see ones from RC4, VOXATC and maybe also the new version of Pilot2ATC as well!

 

In PFE you usually setup the start of the STAR approach at the waypoint prior to the published STAR (Usually the transition) at which point PFE would allow you to fly the STAR without complaint (at least laterally) down to the FAF which the furthest you could set it to was 20nm from the airport at which point only then you were assigned your approach and landing runway with vectors. At this point, you could either accept the vectors, or request cleared to final. Is this the same way it works in PF3? If so have they increased the distance the FAF could be set, so you know the landing runway earlier? Also one of the biggest problems I had PFE was the constant vectoring of AI at cruise, this also occurs with default ATC. Have they've done anything to address this? This is one of the things I like most about PROATC-X  Vectoring at cruise for AI is completely eliminated, leaving them to fly their own flightplans (at least seemingly) , same as you are expected to do. One problem that happens in both PFE and PROATC-X is it only handles pilot to controller radio hand offs. You don't hear controller to pilot frequency change instructions for AI. ATC in both PATC-x and PFE though for the user aircraft, handles this correctly. Have they fixed this in PF3?

 

Tom,

 

I believe that PF3 does things a little differently (for the better).  Unfortunately, the SID/STAR configuration involves 2 separate pages.

 

The first thing to do is go to the SIDs/STARs page (bottom left button from the main menu) because after you exit this page, PF3 will drop your flightplan for some odd reason.  At the bottom left of this page are two checkboxes - one for SIDs (DPs) Active and one for STARS Active.  Basically these checkboxes determine whether you want vectors.  For a STAR, if you tick the STARs Active box, PF3 will let you do your own thing on the STAR and will tell you to join the final and clear you after you pass the last waypoint in your flightplan.  If you don't tick the box, PF3 will initiate vectors after the last waypoint in the flightplan.  (Incidently you can still provide a custom name for the SID/STAR even if you want vectors, you just need to tick the box, rename the procedure, then untick the box... PF3 will remember it.  Exit this window.

 

Next, select a flightplan as usual.

 

Last, open the Adjust Altitudes, SIDs, STARs, and Holds for Selected Flight Plan window (one of the long buttons in the middle).  There you can enter the SID end point, the STAR starting point, and any crossing restrictions you want (just like PFE, if memory serves).  I'm still working on the most efficient way to do this without entering a gazillion altitudes, because PFE still has a tendency to leave you high if left to its own devices. Save your changes and connect to the sim.

 

The most important change is that PF3 will do nothing regarding the approach until you pass the last fix in your flightplan.  If you want early vectors (or an approach clearance), create the last flightplan waypoint further from the airport; for a late vector or clearance, make the last waypoint closer to the intercept.  Like I said earlier, the "FAF" only seems to impact the intercept point when using vectors and nothing else.

 

Enroute controllers still vector the AI and I haven't noticed any frequency changes for them either.  It doesn't bother me that much because center controllers do occasionally vector around traffic, weather, airspace, etc....  but I agree that it's way overdone.  Hope that answers your questions.

 

MD

Flew my first flight the other night with PF3 and somehow missed a waypoint. PF3 hounded me the rest of the flight that I was X number of miles off the airway. My guess is had I requested a direct to the next waypoint it would have stopped.

You could use the (unrealistic, but very helpful) warp feature to move your aircraft to the next (or even later or earlier) waypoint at the expected altitude.

Requesting a direct should help in this situation, too, but I haven't tried this.

Alternatively you can use hotkey 7 to request vectors to the waypoint PF3 expects you to fly to.

 

Besides this, PF3 has code to detect a missed waypoint and should switch to the next one when you miss the current, but are heading to the next. If this code does not trigger in your flight, it would be great if you can zip the contents of your PF3/Logs directory, send it to the developer ([email protected]) and open a corresponding thread in the official support forum at http://www.ocs-support.co.uk/forums/viewforum.php?f=8

Also one of the biggest problems I had PFE was the constant vectoring of AI at cruise, this also occurs with default ATC. Have they've done anything to address this? This is one of the things I like most about PROATC-X  Vectoring at cruise for AI is completely eliminated, leaving them to fly their own flightplans (at least seemingly) , same as you are expected to do. One problem that happens in both PFE and PROATC-X is it only handles pilot to controller radio hand offs. You don't hear controller to pilot frequency change instructions for AI. ATC in both PATC-x and PFE though for the user aircraft, handles this correctly. Have they fixed this in PF3?

The vectoring still happens.

Radio hand-offs currently only happen for Clearance->Ground, Ground->Tower, Tower->Departure and after landing Tower->Ground. But sounds like an interesting feature to add them during flight.

Please make a post about this in the official support forum at http://www.ocs-support.co.uk/forums/viewforum.php?f=8 so the developer knows about it.

In first thanks to the authors for giving us the opportunity to try the program before to buy !

 

After some flights with the demo, reading the user guide and all the post of this long topic I noticed :

 

-It seems that the atc never corrects the failings to follow the flight plan or altitude. Am I missing something or PF3 does not handle such situations ? With VoxAtc during the flight the slightest deviation of a hundred feet or heading deviation from the FP is immediately reported by the controller.

 

Someone ?

 

Regards,

 

Richard Portier

 

Richard, PF3 will tell you if you deviate from your flightplan by being x number of miles "off the airway". There is a configurable option that makes this more or less sensitive.

 

You would also get a repeated climb/descent instruction if you fail to comply. Again you can configure this.

 

Head over to the support forum http://www.ocs-support.co.uk/forums/viewforum.php?f=8 if this happens again and the support there can look into your setup.

Bob,

 

I was talking about a general rule of thumb, mountain valley airport procedures are totally unique and you know it!  Nobody's going to vector anybody in those narrow valleys... so the PF3 "FAF" doesn't really apply.  With that said, if SLC was landing to the south, 6227' (field elevation + 2000) would probably work just fine at 9 DME... would need to vector from the west though :smile:.  I know you've sold your soul to ProATC/X and that's fine... it does a lot of things very well (especially terminal procedures that require no vectoring).  Overall, I'd still give ProATC/X the edge over PF3; but PF3 definitely has it's strengths and it's much easier to use than PFE... at this point, I'm leaning toward giving RC4 a long-overdue retirement.

 

MD

 

Hi MD

 

At LOWI for example you should set the FAF in the SIDS/STARS page to 9500 specifically for that airport. This will override the generic figure of 2000 when flying to LOWI.

Surely is would be dependent upon traffic, not on the airport necessarily. When circumstances allow a "cleared for takeoff" as the aircraft is virtually at the hold point would seem to be more expeditious than creating extra runway occupancy with an intervening "line up and wait".

I'd like to hear something like "expedite" added when things are busy too, but maybe that isn't in the book for takeoffs.

 

As you know, I use both UT2 and MT6 for AI, with both set pretty high (around 200+ aircraft at Heathrow on the ground and loads overhead), and waiting on the runway can very easily cause AI go-arounds.

 

If the airport is quiet (EGLL???) then maybe takeoff clearance can be issued earlier. Maybe as the aircraft enters the runway. That way it's not necessary for the aircraft to stop. Anyway, with those 2 packages that's never going to happen to you! :wink:

 

Agreed 'Expedite' would be a step closer to realism.