3 hours ago, FDEdev said:

Interesting, but this apparently only applies to US airlines within US airspace.

Canada too

I'll add my thoughts to this.

1) When creating an IFR flight in the flight planner, there is a drop down box for picking a DP and STAR after the airports are selected of all available procedures allowing DP and STARs. ATC will then use that info for the flight.

2) When creating a VFR flight, and the pilot request flight following, the user is handed off from approach to Tower when landing since ATC knows where they are going.

3) Helos can request takeoff from tower without calling ground.

4) This is a big one. The current code of FSX has ATC assigning an approach as soon as ATIS comes in range. An improved version is to allow ATIS to be heard miles away before ATC assigns an approach.

5) The user can get the option to request Class B enter from ATC once within the 30nm veil. As it is now, that option only comes up when the plane enters Class B. It would be nice to have that option well outside the Class B airspace so that they can be cleared into it before entering it. Same goes Class C.

6) Line of sight radio as Pilot Edge does as seen here in this demo video

7) Holds are used.

8 ) Unicom is available to call up refueling, marshals, follow me trucks and parking services. Can also be selected in the air. If Comm1 is on Tower for the field and Comm2 is on Unicom, then ATC would know what airport you are calling on unicom and you could get the options for their services on the ground or in the air when within range.

9) The transponder doesnt automatically switch to the IFR code when getting your clearance. The pilot has to set it or have the option to manually set it. If not set then ATC will say squawk mode C or something like that.

10) The user can select different speeds for which ATC talk. Beginner is like what we have now, Advanced is faster, Pro is even faster and realistic has a mix of slow and fast depending on the airport/traffic.

5 hours ago, FDEdev said:

Interesting, but this apparently only applies to US airlines within US airspace.

It's not just airlines. It's call signs in general over here. We used CAP "twenty two sixty" for example, with the last two digits being specific to the aircraft and pronounced that way.

 

Edited August 26, 20196 yr by bonchie

1 minute ago, bonchie said:

It's not just airlines. It's call signs in general.

 

Not in the US. N1593T isn’t suppose to be referred to as “fifteen ninety three tango”. To be 100% by the book it would be “one fife niner tree tango” (although I’m personally lax about my fifes and trees) 🙂

An N-number isn't a "callsign" in this context.

ETA callsign list: 

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1036028

Edited August 26, 20196 yr by Noodle

5 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

Not in the US. N1593T isn’t suppose to be referred to as “fifteen ninety three tango”. To be 100% by the book it would be “one fife niner tree tango” (although I’m personally lax about my fifes and trees) 🙂

Callsigns are different.

2 minutes ago, bonchie said:

Callsigns are different.

Ah, I’m following now. Like military for instance? Like “viper fifteen”?

FAA JO 7110.65Y pages 3-4-8 to 3-4-10 will answer all your questions.

1 hour ago, Noodle said:

FAA JO 7110.65Y pages 3-4-8 to 3-4-10 will answer all your questions.

So yeah...not me of course, but just in case someone else was having trouble locating those exact pages....maybe you could summarize. Asking for a friend...

Edited August 26, 20196 yr by snglecoil

12 hours ago, FDEdev said:

They don't use QFE in 99% of Europe even if some non-European pilots say so. 

QFE is used extensively by the Royal Air Force, in UK airspace design, is very common at GA uncontrolled airfields in the UK for circuit height, and is reported on every ATIS, usually for the threshold elevation of the landing runway. It's also used extensively in Russia. 

12 hours ago, FDEdev said:

And that's why I haven't met a single professional pilot who complains about or is frustrated with another countries ATC.

You must not have met many then. Ask a European airline Pilot about Spanish ATC and they will have a book-full of stories. In fact, have a little search on AvHerald for 'AENA', 'Barcelona' and 'Spain airprox'.  I have been shafted by them myself on a number of occasions, many resulting in having to file ASRs and one particular day out ending up with us effectively self-positioning and climbing to MSA without clearance on a diversion with ATC ignoring our calls, but fortunately, so far, nothing as bad as colleagues who have enjoyed lovely little adventures like controller inflicted TCAS RAs on base leg and controller meltdown in the TMA due wx resulting in no reply to radio calls to anyone and IFR aircraft effectively having to self-separate on the approach.

Italy, Greece, and Turkey will crop up as well to a lesser extent. The US too for the informal phraseology and conventions wildly different from everywhere else. 

Edited August 26, 20196 yr by 3d102

46 minutes ago, 3d102 said:

QFE is used extensively by the Royal Air Force, in UK airspace design, is very common at GA uncontrolled airfields in the UK for circuit height, and is reported on every ATIS, usually for the threshold elevation of the landing runway.

It's also used extensively in Russia. 

You must not have met many then. Ask a European airline Pilot about Spanish ATC and they will have a book-full of stories. 

In many parts of the world GA pilots are using QFE when they are only staying within the airfield boundaries and they are only doing patterns. But those are usually small uncontrolled airfields without actual MET station. 

77% of the Russian Federation is in Asia 😉

I've flown e.g. to Spain at least every few weeks and again, it's not too much different from anywhere else. In fact a few of the the worst ATC f.....s I've experienced at JFK and ORD. That can happen anywhere on this planet.

Edited August 26, 20196 yr by FDEdev

Haha

And that's about the worst ATC I've ever heard.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=equVF3ULVw8

 

17 hours ago, Noodle said:

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!

@Noodle I was actually sad to see your post go, because it contained a couple of important points.

You described perfectly well the nature of SARPS (ie. not mandatory) and the fact that the FAA over the past couple of decades have made great strides in aligning its procedures with the SARPS. I'm sure we can agree that the closer we all are to the SARPS, the better it is for global safety and interoperability - and that goes for all states.

As has been said a number of times already (but is worth repeating), we definitely need to be able to use SI units in ATC. Barometric pressure, in particular, should default to hectopascals as there are only 3 countries in the world that officially use inches of mercury (United States, Canada and Japan).