How should the ATC work?

[FDEdev 955]

34 minutes ago, BIGSKY said:

Request deviation for weather, pronounce "American twelve sixty four, instead of "American one two six four.

'twelve sixty four' is not standard phraseology and transmitting call signs that way isn't appreciated in most parts of the world.

[Deleted 250]

34 minutes ago, Flamingpie said:

Er... isn't it the pilot's job to follow the route and ATC's job to only give instructions when you are going wrong...? And to keep traffic seperated and safe? I mean, ATC shouldn't act like some sort of TomTom navigation aid, should it? What you are asking for seems like the opposite of what's realistic?

Anyway, I would be quite happy already if we get similar ATC as we have in FSX/P3D but:
- with support for SIDs/STARs
- without the constant vectoring all over the bloody place
- with more local or at least more varied voices

Expecting something like ProATC out of the box in MSFS might be a bit too much too ask.

You do not seem to be a pilot. As a rule, the pilot has to follow his route, except the ATC gives instruction to heading. Headings are very common in the approach. 

Edited August 23, 2019 by Pitbull2504

[rocketlaunch 614]

It would be just great if I and the aircraft around me were not told to go around 50% of the time.

[ual763 361]

Honestly, I haven’t even used default ATC since FS9.  I give myself my own vectors if flying offline.  Otherwise, I do all my flying online.  Maybe, it is because the default ATC was crappy all along.  

Anyways, I think it is important for MSFS to support the online networks such as VATSIM, IVAO, PilotEdge, and probably most importantly - POSCON.  

However, if the default ATC were to be of a high caliber, I would gladly use this when online coverage isn’t available.

As others have said, important aspects are:

-Support of VHF/UHF/HF radios/frequencies

-Accurate wavelength simulation and ground interference.

-More realistic voices in general

-Use standard phraseology (7110.65 handbook is good)

-Proper sequencing between the user and AI.  Also, the ability to space arrivals for departing traffic.  (Nothing is more frustrating than watching AI sit at the end of the runway for 10 minutes without being able to takeoff and then to just disappear.)

Edited August 23, 2019 by ual763

[SamYeager 244]

If I'm flying in the UK then I really want to hear an accent from the UK rather an American voice. Ideally a mixture of Welsh, English, Irish or Scottish accents but at a minimum an English accent. If for whatever reason it's possible to do this then at least allow a method by which users can achieve this comparatively easily through the SDK.

It would obviously be nice, although unlikely, to hear ATC in other countries speaking accented English as well.

The UK, and I'm sure other countries as well, has a different transition altitude than the US and it would be nice to see that reflected in the sim.

One for the wishlist would be to hear differing accents for the various planes at international airports.

Edited August 23, 2019 by SamYeager
Rewording

[cgbart 7]

As a general rule, MS should concentrate on the main engine and provide simple ATC and AI for users to start with. The SDKs should provide for third parties to let the program shine for those that wish to have more accurate traffic and ATC. They (MS) probably can't do everything in the time frame provided. With that said, some of the better third party applications can then expand upon the controller concept.

Win win situation for all involved!

[Noooch 1,084]

Azure has a text to speech functionality, with many english accents from all around the world. Take a look!

[bonchie 2,305]

They aren't going to be able to model the intricacies and nuances of every ATC system in the world. 

I'd expect it to center on US procedures. Trying to model all the different transition altitudes throughout the world would be a big task and is unlikely.

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. 

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 in the US still have fairly standardized visual approaches (I used to hear airlines getting "fly the river" all the time when I was flying in DC). Basically, what I'm saying is that not everything about ATC is your PMDG 777 flying a STAR into O'Hare. 

If they can get standard ATC operations right + add SID/STAR support (with the option to deny at least) and clean up how approaches are done, that'll be impressive and enough for launch IMO. 

I highly doubt they are bothering with modeling ground interference and such nor do I think they should bother. 

Edited August 23, 2019 by bonchie

[overspeed3 410]

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...  

 

[ual763 361]

 Simple, put “SSNO” in the flightplan remarks.  Could just be done via a checkbox in the sim settings.  And in real life, if you don’t put this in the remarks section, you most definitely can get assigned a SID/STAR in real life, regardless of your type of acft.

[aleex 551]

It should respect night restrictions... but I think this is more focused on App ATC.... 

[Noodle 626]

The truth is ATC is very complex, and to truly be done right, will require bulldozing the FSX ATC--as great as it was (and it WAS great)--and starting over. The reason is that just like in real life, a virtual facility has a maximum capacity. The capacity depends in part on how the AI behaves, like how long they take to vacate the runway; how quickly they line up and wait, etc.

One the capacity is determined, things like arrival rate can be determined, from which required spacing can be calculated. Only with that information available can ATC do things like control spacing using speed restrictions then vectors.

When VMC, visual approaches using visual separation greatly increase an airport's arrival rate. Conversely, wet runways prevent the use of LAHSO, and IMC requires greater separation resulting in lower arrival rates. This means traffic management is required to prevent airspace saturation. This means flow control programs, miles-in-trail, minutes-in-trail, tactical reroutes, holding, ground delay programs, and ground stops. All complicated stuff, but certainly something Azure can handle. But do simmers REALLY want that kind of realism?

I dont mind, but many will. FSX ATC was actually very good. The problem is people tried to make it handle real world levels of traffic, and it just wasn't capable of that. It also lacked some features like separation, some phraseology, and the ability to handle non-routine situations. Flight Simmers really have a thing for declaring emergencies...

I'd be very happy to see the type of structural improvements that would allow for more realistic behavior at traffic densities approaching real levels. Make it use Azure TTS so we have great regional accents, and use Azure AI to handle the complex (but procedural) decision algorithms.

Everything you ever wanted to know about ATC procedures and phraseology:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/document.current/documentnumber/7110.65

ETA: Everything you ever wanted to k ow about Traffic Flow Management:

http://www.fly.faa.gov/Products/Training/Traffic_Management_for_Pilots/TFM_in_the_NAS_Booklet_ca10.pdf

https://nbaa.org/aircraft-operations/airspace/tfm/tools-used-for-traffic-flow-management/

Edited August 23, 2019 by Noodle

[RioPilot 99]

Implementing a truly realistic ATC system is probably a daunting task. The ATC system introduced with FS2002/2004 was indeed quite rudimentary, but I still found it satisfactory for most normal flights. I think if the new Flight Simulator at the very least builds upon the ATC system introduced in those earlier sims, then the more advanced nuances of ATC could be improved upon by 3rd party developers. I have no idea how oceanic ATC works, but that's one major aspect to consider. Another is the differences between US ATC operations and other international operations (IE: Differences in phraseology between countries, different units of measurements, like with barometric pressure, etc).

That said, the technology exists I think to make a voice recognition ATC system. That is something that would be quite neat to see, though it would not really be a major loss in my mind if it wasn't implemented. At a minimum, it might be nice to see at least a basic implementation of SIDS/STARS with "descend via" instructions and what not. Weather deviations I think should be expected. ATC won't really just let an aircraft fly straight into weather. The controller issues weather advisories and the pilot should have the option to request from ATC the ability to deviate, and navigate to the next fix clear of weather.

If an airport is covered with bad weather, it would make sense to be given holding instructions. If there's an abundance of AI traffic going to a certain airport, it would also make sense to be given in-trail sequencing through the use of s-turn vectors and speed assignments. I'm not really sure how complicated it would be to implement these features. The system would have to detect what kind of aircraft you're flying (like someone previously said) to determine if you can accept a certain SID/STAR, or if you can realistically accept a certain speed assignment for example. In a local tower environment, I believe the controller also has to time takeoff clearances depending on the size of the aircraft that's departing. For example, if you're flying a Skyhawk waiting to take off behind a heavy 747, the controller has to wait a certain amount of time to issue to take off clearance due to wake turbulence. There are a lot of nuances that we probably cannot realistically expect to see out of the box.

Edited August 23, 2019 by RioPilot

[bonchie 2,305]

8 hours ago, 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...  

 

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.

Edited August 24, 2019 by bonchie

[RioPilot 99]

Center may issue the descend via on a STAR and the expected landing direction, but not a specific runway. Though that's not always the case.