"Descend and maintain 7,900"

[mtr75 653]

1 minute ago, Ilari Kousa said:

The hemispheric rules only apply to cruising levels. ATC can full well assign an altitude -- at least in theory -- that isn't in agreement with one of them.

Absolutely. What they would not do, however, is assign 6,600 or 7,700 or 8,800.

[RobotRock 118]

Just now, mtr75 said:

Absolutely. What they would not do, however, is assign 6,600 or 7,700 or 8,800.

Such a game-breaker

[Dave_YVR 997]

1 hour ago, mtr75 said:

They would never give you 7,800.

Not true at all. It all depends on the minimum IFR altitude applicable for where the aircraft is. MRVA's for instance are rarely at even altitudes as are most other Min IFR alts.

Edited August 13, 2020 by Dave_YVR

[sd_flyer 6,087]

1 hour ago, mtr75 said:

Yep. Level thousands for IFR (7,000, 8,000, etc.) and +500 for VFR (7,500, 8,500, etc.). They would never give you 7,800.

You are so wrong! They can and they will give any altitude that fits their needs. What they will not do it is to put your below minimum  altitude for given sector.

[jarhead565 30]

1 hour ago, mtr75 said:

Never in the history of aviation has an aircraft been asked to climb to or descend to some random altitude like 7,800. Never. An approach clearance, a la "Descend and maintain 3,600 until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 33 approach", sure. But just randomly? Nope. Absolutely bizarre. 

Well I must have been doing my job wrong for the past 5 years as an FAA enroute controller. 

I can and do assign altitudes like 3,200' whenever I need to or if it is requested and I can accomodate it. Is it common, no.

An IFR aircraft has an emergency and needs the lowest altitude? It could be 2,900' in that area. That's what I'll assign. It is legal in the US? Absolutely.

In your video, L35 airport is about 6,800' AGL. Maybe it is coded that you are given an altitude 2,000' AGL for the visual approach.

 

[dave2013 1,149]

You are right to criticize the MSFS ATC flaws and shortcomings.

Many of us have been clamoring for accurate ATC for many years now, and MSFS developers have had a lot of time to work on it so there's really no excuse for it to be just as bad as the previous versions' ATC.

To be fair, they did give us SID and STAR capability and ground crew interaction, which is great, but if it still has inherent flaws relating to the instructions and procedures then this needs to be fixed.

I don't personally know if MSFS ATC has issues, just basing my comments on what I've read from some posters about their experience.

There's nothing wrong with complaining about something that's not working as it should.

Dave

 

Edited August 13, 2020 by dave2013

[Will Fly For Cheese 1,710]

MSA.

A thousand feet above and if that's 6800 feet then. . .

(Image below for flight simulation only)

But check out the Alts for At/ Above. It's not rounded up to tens it's subjected to MSA. This is probably - in a very simplistic and algorithmic way what the fatally flawed MSFS ATC is doing.

The Takeaway? - Bring your own charts to the your flight!

"Plan your Flight, then Fly your Plan."; Captain Rikard Stenchrist, Lufthansa 777 Cargo Captain.

And if ATC don't get it - switch the radios off.

 

 

Edited August 13, 2020 by Will Fly For Cheese

[LHookins 3,113]

1 hour ago, jarhead565 said:

Well I must have been doing my job wrong for the past 5 years as an FAA enroute controller. 

I can and do assign altitudes like 3,200' whenever I need to or if it is requested and I can acomodate it. Is it common, no.

<snip>

In your video, L35 airport is about 6,800' AGL. Maybe it is coded that you are given an altitude 2,000' AGL for the visual approach.

FINALLY!!  Thank you, Sir.
 

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

There's nothing wrong with complaining about something that's not working as it should.

As long as it's actually NOT working as it should.  And even then belaboring the point to death is still wrong. 

You'd think this was non-unulating runways or oversized trees or something.

Hook

[mtr75 653]

2 hours ago, Dave_YVR said:

Not true at all. It all depends on the minimum IFR altitude applicable for where the aircraft is. MRVA's for instance are rarely at even altitudes as are most other Min IFR alts.

Do MVA's normally take you straight into the side of a mountain?

[mtr75 653]

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

You are so wrong! They can and they will give any altitude that fits their needs. What they will not do it is to put your below minimum  altitude for given sector.

You're a pilot. What clearance from mountainous terrain do minimum altitudes provide? I know you know the answer, and it's not 200 feet below the ridgeline directly in front of you.

[mtr75 653]

1 hour ago, jarhead565 said:

Well I must have been doing my job wrong for the past 5 years as an FAA enroute controller. 

I can and do assign altitudes like 3,200' whenever I need to or if it is requested and I can accomodate it. Is it common, no.

An IFR aircraft has an emergency and needs the lowest altitude? It could be 2,900' in that area. That's what I'll assign. It is legal in the US? Absolutely.

In your video, L35 airport is about 6,800' AGL. Maybe it is coded that you are given an altitude 2,000' AGL for the visual approach.

 

He didn't request 8,800 feet and 8,800 is not the minimum anything for his route of flight (I checked the charts). I also understand what you're saying about emergencies. In this case he was given a cruising altitude on an IFR flight plan which put him straight into the side of two successive mountains. Seem like a potential problem? He avoided them both because he was visual; if he had been in IMC he would have hit both mountains.

Your theory is a good one though, as to how it's coded. Seems like maybe they've coded CFIT's into the game.

[mtr75 653]

34 minutes ago, LHookins said:

FINALLY!!  Thank you, Sir.
 

As long as it's actually NOT working as it should.  And even then belaboring the point to death is still wrong. 

You'd think this was non-unulating runways or oversized trees or something.

Hook

Hook, they gave him an IFR clearance straight into the side of a mountain! You don't think that's a problem? Seriously?

Edited August 13, 2020 by mtr75

[mtr75 653]

39 minutes ago, Will Fly For Cheese said:

MSA.

A thousand feet above and if that's 6800 feet then. . .

(Image below for flight simulation only)

But check out the Alts for At/ Above. It's not rounded up to tens it's subjected to MSA.

I ain't talkin' 'bout approaches, my friend. Already covered it, see:

 

[shivers9 1,174]

4 hours ago, sanh said:

Meh another minor bug. Yawn. Going back to sleep until the 18th...

Many years ago there was a minor bug in the Lunar orbiter which lead to a world class dumpster fire for the US space program not to mention some very soiled undies for three very brave Astronuts. That minor bug was so important that it even got Tom Hanks attention. So...in your life getting blown up on the way to the moon by a minor bug may not be a big deal most of us would rather have NASA spend $5.00 for a toggle switch than spend 3 days trying to hold our breath in a flying VW bug.

[LHookins 3,113]

14 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

Hook, they gave him an IFR clearance straight into the side of a mountain! You don't think that's a problem? Seriously?

I had the same thing happen in FSX at El Paso.  Luckily visibility was good and I was able to circle around back of the high ground, while being constantly hounded by ATC to turn to a specific heading (that would put me underground at my current altitude).

Of course I think it's a problem.  We've always had problems with ATC.  Looks like we'll still have problems with ATC.  From what people have posted, there aren't any third party ATC programs they like.

MSFS has additional problems in that it has to vector our traffic to merge with real world traffic, and I have no idea how they can even attempt that at a busy airport short of removing a lot of the real world aircraft.  

I stopped using IFR flight plans many years ago.  If I request landing at an airport only to be refused and told it's IFR, I file a quick plan and request landing again.  Usually I'm at a good point where it's basically, "Land straight in...".  I really prefer to fly places where VFR/IFR doesn't exist, no control towers, no ATC, no radar coverage.  If the weather is bad, assume Special VFR in the absence of radio coverage whether you can see a runway or not.

Hook