How should the ATC work?

[FDEdev 955]

3 hours ago, bonchie said:

I don't fly airliners in the real world, but that's perfectly normal in regular ATC operations in part 91 flying.

From what I understand, airliners are given expected runway, STAR (if one exists and is in use), and approach before they even takeoff from their destination, so they have all that ready to go long before being cleared for the approach. Now that I think of it, I rarely hear center telling people anything about destination details. That usually doesn't come until you go over to approach.

You have to program the FMC with the (expected) arrival route an runway so you've an approximately correct milage. Most of the time you get the actual arrival runway when switching to the approach frequency. 

Changes can of course still occur and if you are e.g. performing a go-around you don't have much time to re-program the FMC and set up the airplane for the next approach 😉

[SierraDelta 1,337]

16 hours ago, kevinfirth said:

ATC should be CAP413 compliant please, no less...

 

16 hours ago, Noodle said:

I prefer FAA 7100.65, but yes. If using TTS, the differences are almost trivial to model.

 

15 hours ago, ual763 said:

...-Use standard phraseology (7110.65 handbook is good)

In fact, the only correct way to do this would be using ICAO Annex 10, Vol 2 and relevant parts of ICAO PANS-ATM (Procedures for Air Navigation Services - Air Traffic Management) Doc.4444 as the baseline for phraseology.

The vast majority of the world's airspace is controlled based on this, with subtle, regional variations.  

[kevinfirth 1,392]

2 hours ago, SierraDelta said:

 

 

In fact, the only correct way to do this would be using ICAO Annex 10, Vol 2 and relevant parts of ICAO PANS-ATM (Procedures for Air Navigation Services - Air Traffic Management) Doc.4444 as the baseline for phraseology.

The vast majority of the world's airspace is controlled based on this, with subtle, regional variations.  

that would not incorporate VFR related UK specific phraseology.  I appreciate it's unlikely to be included in the base sim but we can but ask!

[Deleted 250]

My wish would be that MS has an online mode like IVAO or VATSIM.
Unfortunately, relatively little is going on, because there are too many providers.

If no air traffic controller is online, the standard ATC should work.

That would be my dream, but it will be very hard to do that

[Noodle 626]

You're doing terrific.

[FDEdev 955]

Thank you 🙂

[188AHC 2,138]

I don't know why I have to do this again but here we go:

Quit with the rude comments about how other countries do things. This is a big world and we don't all do things the same.

DO NOT quote part of a post that you feel will get deleted. If you do, then yours will go bye bye too.

Personal, rude comments about another member or a statement they made can and in most cases will result in some time off.

In essence, what I'm saying is Play Nice or take your ball and go home.

10-4?

 

[MikeT707 1,181]

I really want to interact with ATC using voice recognition, especially as I, and many others now and in the future, use a Virtual Reality headset quite a bit. So a Voice Recognition option would be great.

[Bushido5 60]

English with local accent related to the country we flight will be nice and add a touch of realism.

Also some foreign language and not only English in line with the country we fly. As a French private pilot I speak French to the ATC when flying and they do contest me in French as well.

[regis9 4,004]

A lot of what I’d like has already been mentioned so I’ll try to avoid duplicating.

I’d like some randomness, sometimes I get the ride the STAR the whole way in, sometimes I need to be vectored part way through due to traffic or other.

Smarter runway assignment.  IE should be able to configure airports with preferred runways and what the weather limits are for those preferences vs changing to a non preferred configuration.  Bonus points if it can be set by time of day.  Airports that are obviously meant to be used in a cross wind configuration should be able to do so based on weather (ie crosswind should never be a hard on or off).

Wake turbulence advisories... should be possible given the ability to read the size of aircraft involved.

When flying IFR, i want ATC to stop telling me about every aircraft I’m flying near and asking me to acknowledge...to much air time waste.  I think in real life ifr traffic advisories can be done as a courtesy, but ATC is not constantly advising of all nearby aircraft?  Happy to be corrected if I’m wrong.

Different terminology depending on country, even if it’s just a few major ones.  Bonus points for accents.

Add “super” as an option in addition to heavy.

Retain the ability to edit ATC voickpacks, maybe that could be built into an SDK rather than by using an addon.

ability to request short finals, and base legs should be longer or shorter depending on aircraft.  They’re current too long typically.

An ability to have ATC responses automate while on long flights.

A solid ATC SDK so third parties developers can take whatever amazing ATC is included and improve on it 😀

 

Edited August 24, 2019 by regis9

[RioPilot 99]

48 minutes ago, regis9 said:

When flying IFR, i want ATC to stop telling me about every aircraft I’m flying near and asking me to acknowledge...to much air time waste.  I think in real life ifr traffic advisories can be done as a courtesy, but ATC is not constantly advising of all nearby aircraft?  Happy to be corrected if I’m wrong.

In real life, I believe ATC is required to make traffic calls for all turbojet aircraft regardless of altitude, and for all aircraft types above 10,000, but only if the aircraft are separated by 1000 feet in altitude and converging.

You're right, the way the traffic calls have been done in FS9/FSX/P3D is not very realistic. In fact, sometimes it can be quite absurd, where the ATC will offer traffic advisories for aircraft at the same altitude and under 1 mile laterally, when they should never be allowed to be that close to begin with. Does the default ATC even effectively separate air traffic properly? A basic component of a new ATC in the new simulator should be to enact heading and altitude changes to maintain safe separation from other aircraft.

[FDEdev 955]

4 hours ago, Bushido5 said:

Also some foreign language and not only English in line with the country we fly. As a French private pilot I speak French to the ATC when flying and they do contest me in French as well.

Not only private pilots are using French. When flying e.g. into CDG or ORY it's impossible to maintain situational awareness if you don't speak French.

But this holds true of course for all six ICAO languages. 

[3d102 60]

On 8/23/2019 at 4:59 PM, overspeed3 said:

The main problem  with ATC that I find with VFR or some IFR landings, esp. in a heavy, is that you are not given runway clearance until about 30 nautical miles out or less sometimes (esp. at O'hare and some other large airports).  Don't know if this is the case in the real world?  But for me, it's not enough time to prep for landing at a specific runway, including entries for an ILS landing...  

 

The landing runway is promulgated on the ATIS. In the real world the initial approach controller (or even en-route sometimes) passes the landing runway. In the real world on an IFR flight you also have a filed flight plan with an expected rwy and if required STAR filed with ATC.

It's common sense too. Wind is 270/20. Do you think it'll be rwy 24 or rwy 06 in use?

[3d102 60]

On 8/23/2019 at 4:25 PM, bonchie said:

 I'd expect it to center on US procedures. 

I strongly hope not, because America does it frustratingly different to everyone else in the world. Non-standard phraseology being my main bug bear along with ridiculous non-SI units like statute miles for vis.

On 8/23/2019 at 4:25 PM, bonchie said:

 Trying to model all the different transition altitudes throughout the world would be a big task and is unlikely.

Why would it? Disagree. That information is easily publically accessible in the AIP of each ICAO member state. All that info is already compiled into databases worldwide that get published as AIRACs. It's probably about 12 megabytes of text data. If I'm flying into Berlin or Cape Verde, my aircraft knows what the TA/TL is supposed to be for the destination airfield and will moan at us accordingly if we haven't converted from std to QNH by the TA.

On 8/23/2019 at 4:25 PM, bonchie said:

SIDs/STARs are nice, but I don't want to be given one when I'm flying a small general aviation plane that I'd never accept a STAR in in real life. There needs to be some way for the ATC to know what you are flying and whether assigning a SID/STAR is appropriate. 

You wouldn't be given one in the real world unless you were on an IFR flight plan with an IR rating and an aircraft with the required equipment. Something as simple as a VFR/IFR checkbox when you load a 'free flight' scenario. 

On 8/23/2019 at 4:25 PM, bonchie said:

In general, most interactions with ATC are going to be CTAF calls/Tower giving taxi and takeoff clearances, approach picking you up after takeoff, sending you to center, warning you of traffic, giving deviations around MOAs/Restricted areas, weather deviations, assigning approaches, possibly vectors during the approach (but not always), and handing you over to tower or CTAF. 

If the weather's good and it's a Class C or smaller, you probably aren't going to be given an instrument approach at all. Heck, some Class B airports...

I really hope it is not just limited to this American-centric functionality, procedures, phraseology and airspace design as it would be inaccurate, non ICAO standard, and useless for the other 95.6% of the worlds population.

 

[Noodle 626]

13 minutes ago, 3d102 said:

I strongly hope not, because America does it frustratingly different to everyone else in the world. Non-standard phraseology being my main bug bear along with ridiculous non-SI units like statute miles for vis.

Why would it? Disagree. That information is easily publically accessible in the AIP of each ICAO member state.

I really hope it is not just limited to this American-centric functionality, procedures, phraseology and airspace design as it would be inaccurate, non ICAO standard, and useless for the other 95.6% of the worlds population.

 

Haha, be careful! I said something similar about 10 posts up, and somebody got their knickers in a twist so the moderator deleted my post.

We're not allowed to acknowledge the differences between CAA/ANSP procedures, and we're definitely not allowed to point out how the differences can be "annoying" if you're used to doing things a different way.

And its heresy to point out that ICAO is not a regulatory body and has no enforcement authority.

Oops! I did it again!