> But even in my simulated experience I can't imagine how this can happen. I have seen the charts for the airport and it's beyond me how you can mistake the 26 for the 22.I've wondered the same thing with similar accidents. How could a pilot take off from the wrong runway?(I'm not offering a premature conclusion about what happened here... but there have been a number of accidents in the past where pilots took off from the wrong runway... some at day in VMC... and the question is: how on earth could something like that happen?)My personal explanation for this is: it's actually a very, very rare occurrence. I don't have any numbers on this, but let's assume that the rate of takeoffs from wrong runways in commercial aviation is one in a million takeoffs (my hunch is that, in reality, takeoffs from wrong runways occur even more rarely than that). Now, there are a lot of things that I could hardly imagine myself make a mistake doing. But when it gets to the point where I would have to do something _a million times_ and be allowed to make only one mistake -- and bet my life on it -- well, there are few things that come to mind where I would be sure that I could accomplish this feat.Do a million takeoffs, and there may be one time when all of the holes in the cheese line up -- and you takeoff from the wrong runway. Of course, this is not to say that no efforts should be made to try and prevent even such rare mistakes...Martin

>> But even in my simulated experience I can't imagine how>this can happen. I have seen the charts for the airport and>it's beyond me how you can mistake the 26 for the 22.>>I've wondered the same thing with similar accidents. How could>a pilot take off from the wrong runway?>>(I'm not offering a premature conclusion about what happened>here... but there have been a number of accidents in the past>where pilots took off from the wrong runway... some at day in>VMC... and the question is: how on earth could something like>that happen?)>>My personal explanation for this is: it's actually a very,>very rare occurrence. I don't have any numbers on this, but>let's assume that the rate of takeoffs from wrong runways in>commercial aviation is one in a million takeoffs (my hunch is>that, in reality, takeoffs from wrong runways occur even more>rarely than that). Now, there are a lot of things that I could>hardly imagine myself make a mistake doing. But when it gets>to the point where I would have to do something _a million>times_ and be allowed to make only one mistake -- and bet my>life on it -- well, there are few things that come to mind>where I would be sure that I could accomplish this feat.>>Do a million takeoffs, and there may be one time when all of>the holes in the cheese line up -- and you takeoff from the>wrong runway. Of course, this is not to say that no efforts>should be made to try and prevent even such rare mistakes...>>MartinThis is terribly off-topic for the thread, however, to follow-up, I heard an "aviation expert" interviewed on the radio this morning claiming that it was actually more common than you would expect for a plane to taxi to the wrong runway, however, it gets caught either by ground or tower or the pilots themselves, or if they do take off, they are able to maintain the climb. In this case, from what I have heard or read on the news, the tragedy was that the mistake put them on a runway far too short for their aircraft.

>I think one thing is that online flying through FSX will be>much more intimate, with the smaller sessions.>>Although I'm sure there will be 30 programs created that you>have to run to connect to a larger service like VATSIM, the>out of the box online experience will be what many of the>non-enthusiast crowd end up going through.This is avaliable in FS9 too yet there is no explosion of private flying groups. The weakness is that it is good for GA only. You will never be able to generate realistic airliner traffic in group of 15 people.

OMG, its incredible to think that could happen. It highlights the fact that most airliner accidents are due to pilot error ("controlled flight into terrain") and not equipment failure.

The Comair tragedy is a pretty stong example of why the ACES team has been talking about favoring online ATC. What's missing from the AI is the simple possibility of mistakes or changes. One thing I found that differed a lot between FS and the real world is that real people make real mistakes, controllers included, and FS really has no way of simulating that. Listen to some real-world radio traffic sometime, and hear some of the errors that inevitably occur when human beings communicate. FS can't build that in at any time in the forseeable future, but it's an important part of flying. I've always felt that the big advantage of Flight Simulator is that you can walk away from your mistakes and find out why it happened, and how to prevent it in the future. Real world...well, a flight crew who just woke up, trying to get off the ground in early morning, and one little mistake ends up in a tragic mishap. Ask the NTSB how often it occurs.But I understand the problems with flying online as well...you may get the human experience, but it's pretty sparsely populated. I just feel that we're really trying a bit too hard to replicate reality, and it really isn't necessary. Air Traffic Control, and the systems we use today are an outgrowth of the massive volume of air operations worldwide...not the other way around. I really doubt that we will ever be able to fill, or even require, such a robust ATC system online. I just think that we need to start thinking about abandoning "real-world" procedures, and put together some "virtual-world" procedures that are more oriented to the traffic that actually exists in online FS. We might not need all the ARTCC controllers, and most of the time, one controller may be able to handle tower operations of an entire state (at least West Virginia :( ). We have the advantage of not being limited by distance...we don't have to drive from tower to tower to look at the field. We can switch from one to the other with a mouse click. All we need is the capability.The other difficulty with the online experience, at least now, is that the people who take their valuable time to volunteer to control traffic in the Flight Simulator world are very particular about flying per regulations. While I understand the drive towards maintaining realism, our little FS universe shouldn't need to be as hidebound as the real world. After all, crashing in FS simply applies a valuable lesson, and it doesn't end anyone's life. We can afford to give a bit more leeway to people online, simply because the traffic volume is that much less...within reason. The key thing to remember is that everyone online is there to have fun, and controllers should still have to control things. But in FS, controllers should be most concerned with ensuring that everyone is able to enjoy their online session to the best of their abilities.Really, I don't think that Paul really meant that FS was dropping the AI ATC support in the next version of Flight Simulator. I think that he was hoping that it wouldn't be neccesary, though...not because he didn't want to support it, but because he hoped that the online community would make it obsolete. Personally, I think that may be a bit farther down the road than we can see, but I wouldn't mind that as a final destination either. Unless computers advance to truly become artificial intellegences, there will never be any way that an AI ATC equals what a human being sitting at a tower screen can do. There are simply too many possibilites and uncertainties in the system. The desire to see people take over the roles of ATC isn't a cop-out, as some have thought, but more of a fond vision of what ACES hopes to see someday.-Ivan

>>I think one thing is that online flying through FSX will be>>much more intimate, with the smaller sessions.>>>>Although I'm sure there will be 30 programs created that you>>have to run to connect to a larger service like VATSIM, the>>out of the box online experience will be what many of the>>non-enthusiast crowd end up going through.>>This is avaliable in FS9 too yet there is no explosion of>private flying groups. The weakness is that it is good for GA>only. You will never be able to generate realistic airliner>traffic in group of 15 people.I personally think there are two major reasons for that...A) (And this a big one) I think the base multiplayer interface for the game was a little clunky, especially people more used to the server browser styled setups like gamespy provides.:( They are appearently (and wisely, I think) targeting a wider market, who are going to have a stronger desire to just get out there and fly around with some other people. I fully agree that 15 people can not create realistic airliner traffic over a wide area or even at a busier airport. But I know that VATSIM is there if I want that (which I probably won't, but that's just me).I'm just trying to show that there is a third (Or maybe fourth?) side to this issue. It's not just VATSIM or offline AI ATC. The debate seems to center around either you fly online with tons of people on VATSIM and take the issues present there (lack of coverage, learning curve, whatever) or you fly offline with tons of AI and use the ATC with its shortcomings (realism, procedures, flexibility, whatever). Of course, there is the option just not to use the ATC, which I think some people have suggested they do.I'm saying that there will be yet another option for those of us who like online play or interaction, without having to do all the pomp and circumstance of a VATSIM type setup. I don't expect the FSX mp to replace wholesale the airliner ATC simulation, but it provides a way for those of use who might want to play on a smaller or more relaxed level to still get in on the goods.I think that's what I find most ridiculous about what I read around here. Everyone seems awfully upset that ACES hasn't made the game 100% perfect for their particular needs, but I see it as an expansion of the foundation as to give a little something to everyone who may be interested in flight simulation. Everything I've seen in the previews and blogs seems to suggest that they are spreading our hobby from an enthusiast hardcore pursuit to something that anyone can be a part of, and get something out of, while preserving the things that have drawn those of us to it before. I personally can't find any fault in that.

<>That seems like a stretch. The Comair accident was tragic. I'd prefer if you didn't use it as basis for a debate involving us. Thanks.

-Ivan,You seem to speak on behalf of ACES.... lots of assumption and mind reading there.Hmmmm...

> This is terribly off-topic for the threadApologies by the way for taking the thread so far off topic...> I heard an "aviation expert" interviewed on the radio this morning> claiming that it was actually more common than you would expect for a> plane to taxi to the wrong runway, however, it gets caught either by> ground or tower or the pilots themselves, or if they do take off, they> are able to maintain the climb.Agreed that there are probably quite a few more cases that get caught by the checks and balances -- well, that's why they're there! My original estimate referred to the number of takeoffs from wrong runways that actually take place without being detected until after the fact -- no idea if that number is even in the right ballpark, but I would guess it's pretty small... thanks to all the checks and balances built into the system.Martin

>> This is terribly off-topic for the thread>>Apologies by the way for taking the thread so far off>topic...>I was more trying to excuse my own response to it...>> I heard an "aviation expert" interviewed on the radio this>morning>> claiming that it was actually more common than you would>expect for a>> plane to taxi to the wrong runway, however, it gets caught>either by>> ground or tower or the pilots themselves, or if they do take>off, they>> are able to maintain the climb.>>Agreed that there are probably quite a few more cases that get>caught by the checks and balances -- well, that's why they're>there! My original estimate referred to the number of takeoffs>from wrong runways that actually take place without being>detected until after the fact -- no idea if that number is>even in the right ballpark, but I would guess it's pretty>small... thanks to all the checks and balances built into the>system.>>MartinI'm sure we'll find out more as the investigation proceeds.

>That seems like a stretch. The Comair accident was tragic. I'd>prefer if you didn't use it as basis for a debate involving>us. Thanks.Mike,My apologies if that came across wrong. I was not intending to tie a tragedy like this accident into our debate. I was simply attempting to illustrate one of the shortcomings I felt that AI would never be able to overcome. The accident was a terrible tragedy, and I may have appeared insensitive and callous by referencing it in this way. I won't do so again.Also, I don't speak for ACES or represent them in any way. My opinions are solely my own, and I have no connection to the FS team. I only felt the need to comment based on (what seemed to me) the overreaction to Paul's blog comments. Many people seemed to get the impression that ACES wanted to do away with the AI ATC feature in FS in future installments, and that simply wasn't the way I read it. I felt that most of us weren't considering any other alternatives...that we all assumed that this was where ATC was going in the future. I was attempting (poorly, it appears) to try and add a different perspective to the suggestions Paul had made. This argument over a single feature of FS has gotten pretty overblown and caused a lot of stress...people are drawing lines in the sand on both sides. We really don't have to do that yet, since none of us really knows what can be done over the next few years with the ATC. All this is doing is passing the time, and if we're all going to get upset over all of this, is it really worth it?-Ivan

Really the only thing I'm looking for in the new ATC is/was the ability to request a direct to either my destination or a waypoint down the line.It's a pain to create a new flight plan just because you decide you want to go direct instead of all the waypoints in between.Oh well, there's always Radar Contact or VATSIM :).

Have you looked at this section in the GPS instructions "file:///D:/Program%20Files/Microsoft%20Games/Flight%20Simulator%209/FSweb/LearningCenter/Navigation/UsingTheGPS.htm#Direct-To Navigation"Be sure top replace the D: with the drive letter of where your FS is located.

Hi, Reggie.Thanks. I already looked at that section. Unfortunately FS ATC does not allow you to request that direct waypoint. I've already tried.I chose a waypoint in my flight plan for a direct to and the ATC window had no option to request direct to.

No you cannot request it from the ATC.Buit once you select and activate the direct to, the ATC will tell you to turn on the heading for the direct waypoint.I use it to skip waypoints in a flight plan, or to change my IFR destination all the time. I never have to file a new flight plan.The GPS drives the ATC in FS9 - any waypoint which displays on the GPS as your next waypoint is where the ATC will send you.Try an expirement - plan a flight with several legs, put a 90 degree turn off course and back on course a couple waypoints from your start location - within 20 miles.Start the flight and get in the air.Once you are stable set the autopilot to be controlled by the GPS., click on the FPL button. click the CRSR button, click on the outter ring right arrow and scross down to a waypoint past the two turns.Click Menu. Click ENT to activate the leg. your aircraft will not turn toward that waypoint / leg.After a few minutes and you can see the new course is stable, click the NRST button.Press the CRSR buttonScroll down to an airport about 40 nm away. Press the Direct To button. The airport information should display in the GPS, with the word Activate? in bold in the lower right. Press the ENT key twice to activate the Direct To courseYou will have to cancel IFR to avoid going back to the fight planner screen.If you change you destination to divert to another airport - a new IFR plan will have to be filed.That is something the ACES team needs to fix.