1 minute ago, LHookins said:

Flying in Alaska keeps looking better and better

😂... ok 2nd laugh came quicker than expected!

5 minutes ago, LHookins said:

Flying in Alaska keeps looking better and better.

I hear the holes at Ketchikan are especially beautiful this season.

29 minutes ago, LHookins said:

Bubble sort, right?  Or had you learned about quicksort by then?

Good question, I can’t actually remember.  It was using C++ though.

I had a job interview in the early nineties where I was informed that the job required light programming in the dBase III language, and did I know that already?  I replied that yes, I generally dash off several database management programs a day in dBase III just as sort of a fun hobby.  (lie). I got the job, and spent the better part of the next 72 hours teaching myself to program from a book.  Did well enough at the job to get promoted to sales, where I didn’t have to do that anymore.  That is the only software development I’ve done, and even that little bit is enough to ensure that I never assume that programming anything is easily done.

3 hours ago, jarhead565 said:

Well I'd bet my pension on the fact that "they" do give cruise altitudes like that if requested and/or if needed by ATC. 

Again, you’re changing the subject. No conflicting traffic, he filed for 9,000, it’s below the IFR altitude for the area (as one of moderate intelligence might deduce from the fact that the altitude brought him straight into the side of two mountains), no emergency, it’s not part of an approach or a STAR or any other type of standard routing. Give me a break. And there were at least 2 other planes in the video cleared to weird altitudes as well. And you’re going to continue to say this is normal? Come on. 

Edited August 15, 20205 yr by mtr75

6 minutes ago, ShawnG said:

I got the job

You probably knew more than the interviewer did!

I wasn't even considered for what I thought would be the best job ever:  Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab working with the Atari microcomputer to help handicapped people, and while I was pretty much expert at the internals of the Apple 2 at the time, I didn't have any experience with Atari.

I should have lied.  By that point in my career I could have figured it out in just a few days.

Hook

1 minute ago, mtr75 said:

And you’re going to continue to say this is normal?

Raise your hand, anyone who cares.

Just fly in MSFS, see what you think.  Report back.

Hook

2 hours ago, ShawnG said:

If it weren’t for the fact that he’s crossing swords with 2 ATC controllers, I would agree.

my point is that it’s akin to slagging off a group of scientists because they haven’t been able to make cold fusion work.  As nobody has ever proven to have done it, it’s a bit much.  Nobody, including me will try to say that the Atc is perfect, or even particularly good, but making ai routines is not easy.

The difference here is, I’m correct. And I will debate any minutiae or nuance you want about this clearance. It was not normal in any way. We are seriously debating if a clearance into the side of a mountain is normal. Think about that for a second. The controllers arguing with me are arguing “if’s”. I’m not arguing “if’s”. This was a standard, routine clearance and it’s just completely not correct. 

Edited August 15, 20205 yr by mtr75

7 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

The difference here is, I’m correct.

You're correct and two real life professional ATC controllers are wrong.

Um... 

Seriously.  Go fly in MSFS.  See if you experience the same thing.

Hook

1 minute ago, LHookins said:

You're correct and two real life professional ATC controllers are wrong.

Um... 

Seriously.  Go fly in MSFS.  See if you experience the same thing.

Hook

Yep. If someone can point out to me a situation in which a controller would give an altitude like 7,900 for absolutely no reason whatsoever, just a straightforward clearance to cruise at that altitude, I’m all ears. There isn’t one. And I’m seriously trying to figure out how to unfollow my own thread at this point. 😉

Edited August 15, 20205 yr by mtr75

11 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

Yep. If someone can point out to me a situation in which a controller would give an altitude like 7,900 for absolutely no reason whatsoever, just a straightforward clearance to cruise at that altitude, I’m all ears. There isn’t one. And I’m seriously trying to figure out how to unfollow my own thread at this point. 😉

Sure. It's right next to the situation where armatures and enthusiasts hop into expensive aircraft and start flying them through mountains at low altitudes. Happens all the time in real life.

And by real life I mean a piece of $60 simulation software.

2 hours ago, jarhead565 said:

There seems to be a few points that he is trying to make.

1. 8,800' would never be and has not been assigned by ATC other than on approach, ever in the history of aviation.

2. The new ATC implementation is bugged and should be better for a brand new game. 

Hey Jarhead,

I’m trying to become a reformed jerk instead of a regular jerk, and I’m clearly not doing a very good job. I was obviously hyperbolic at the beginning of this thread. I have such respect for the tremendous job you and your colleagues do day in and day out. I remember during the shutdown getting awesome, professional ATC services from men and women who hadn’t been paid in a month. You guys are true professionals, and the least I can do is show you a bit of respect. Because you truly have my respect. 

Let me try this another way: absent an emergency, a request by the pilot, any crossing concerns like an MCA, or performance issues, like a 172 flying, say, eastbound on a route with an MEA of 12,300 and he really doesn’t want to climb that extra 700 feet, or an aircraft on approach - absent any extenuating circumstances, can you remember assigning an altitude like we’re discussing here (8,800, etc.)? Honest question. 

From what I’ve heard so far, clearly I think they could have done better. I’ll find out more on Tuesday. But when I saw the IFR promo they did I thought, great, they took ATC seriously! And I’ll be pretty disappointed if it turns out to be buggy. 

Curious for your answer and thoughts.

58 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

Again, you’re changing the subject. No conflicting traffic, he filed for 9,000, it’s below the IFR altitude for the area (as one of moderate intelligence might deduce from the fact that the altitude brought him straight into the side of two mountains), no emergency, it’s not part of an approach or a STAR or any other type of standard routing. Give me a break. And there were at least 2 other planes in the video cleared to weird altitudes as well. And you’re going to continue to say this is normal? Come on. 

 

55 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

The difference here is, I’m correct. And I will debate any minutiae or nuance you want about this clearance. It was not normal in any way. We are seriously debating if a clearance into the side of a mountain is normal. Think about that for a second. The controllers arguing with me are arguing “if’s”. I’m not arguing “if’s”. This was a standard, routine clearance and it’s just completely not correct. 

 

21 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

Hey Jarhead,

I’m trying to become a reformed jerk instead of a regular jerk, and I’m clearly not doing a very good job. I was obviously hyperbolic at the beginning of this thread. I have such respect for the tremendous job you and your colleagues do day in and day out. I remember during the shutdown getting awesome, professional ATC services from men and women who hadn’t been paid in a month. You guys are true professionals, and the least I can do is show you a bit of respect. Because you truly have my respect. 

Let me try this another way: absent an emergency, a request by the pilot, any crossing concerns like an MCA, or performance issues, like a 172 flying, say, eastbound on a route with an MEA of 12,300 and he really doesn’t want to climb that extra 700 feet, or an aircraft on approach - absent any extenuating circumstances, can you remember assigning an altitude like we’re discussing here (8,800, etc.)? Honest question. 

From what I’ve heard so far, clearly I think they could have done better. I’ll find out more on Tuesday. But when I saw the IFR promo they did I thought, great, they took ATC seriously! And I’ll be pretty disappointed if it turns out to be buggy. 

Curious for your answer and thoughts.

My point this whole thread has been that assigning an altitude like 8,800' is done in the U.S. Again, you have constantly said that this has never been done, other than on an approach.

What I haven't argued about is that 8,800' was wrong in the video because it sent the aircraft into terrain. I think everyone can agree that that altitude was wrong and needed to be higher. 

You are trying to join your argument regarding being flown into a mountain with the same argument that 8,800' cannot be assigned. Can 8,800 be assigned by ATC? Yes. Was it wrong in the video due to the terrain? Yes. Is this a bug in MSFS? Yes.

You wanted examples...

Example 1: I work airspace with many MOA's. If I have a MOA active from 7,000' and above and an aircraft at 7,000' if going directly towards it, I will descend them to 6,500' and move on. 

Example 2: An aircraft at 1,500' calls me for an IFR clearance to airport XXX which is 20 miles away. The minimum IFR altitude I can assign in this case is 3,200 for the route of flight. I can issue 3,200 to the pilot. I can also issue 4,000. Both are correct. 

Example 3: An aircraft is approaching a deck of clouds with icing reported in it. The base of the clouds are at 6,000'. If the pilot wants 5,500' to go under, let's do it!

2 minutes ago, jarhead565 said:

My point this whole thread has been that assigning an altitude like 8,800' is done in the U.S. Again, you have constantly said that this has never been done, other than on an approach.

What I haven't argued about is that 8,800' was wrong in the video because it sent the aircraft into terrain. I think everyone can agree that that altitude was wrong and needed to be higher. 

You are trying to join your argument regarding being flown into a mountain with the same argument that 8,800' cannot be assigned. Can 8,800 be assigned by ATC? Yes. Was it wrong in the video due to the terrain? Yes. Is this a bug in MSFS? Yes.

You wanted examples...

Example 1: I work airspace with many MOA's. If I have a MOA active from 7,000' and above and an aircraft at 7,000' if going directly towards it, I will descend them to 6,500' and move on. 

Example 2: An aircraft at 1,500' calls me for an IFR clearance to airport XXX which is 20 miles away. The minimum IFR altitude I can assign in this case is 3,200 for the route of flight. I can issue 3,200 to the pilot. I can also issue 4,000. Both are correct. 

Example 3: An aircraft is approaching a deck of clouds with icing reported in it. The base of the clouds are at 6,000'. If the pilot wants 5,500' to go under, let's do it!

I copped to being hyperbolic. I appreciate the examples.

I think I've been pretty clear that there are many ways in which an odd (as in strange) number could be given, but they are very specific circumstances. Your example 2 is a perfect one which I hadn't thought of. Examples 1 and 3, your clearance isn't to a standard IFR altitude, but it is "normal", i.e. 5,500, 6,500, etc.

All I'm saying is that absent some specific circumstance, an IFR aircraft wouldn't get cleared to an altitude like 8,800. In this video it happened 3 times in a span of a few minutes, and I didn't even watch the whole video. That strikes me as pretty strange.

But I'll wait for Tuesday.

3 hours ago, mtr75 said:

The difference here is, I’m correct. And I will debate any minutiae or nuance you want about this clearance. It was not normal in any way. We are seriously debating if a clearance into the side of a mountain is normal. Think about that for a second. The controllers arguing with me are arguing “if’s”. I’m not arguing “if’s”. This was a standard, routine clearance and it’s just completely not correct. 

That’s the thing, at no point in this argument have I suggested that you were incorrect.  Vectors into terrain have been an issue with msfs based atc ai for like ever, also it does not use commonly accepted phraseology, and does any number of weird things, including  Your issue with a “wrong” altitude.  Further, I will tell you that pro ATCx  does not have these particular problems (I think it still could do the mountain vector thing, tbh, but I haven’t seen it.  It generally is loath to vary from sids and stars, but it will do on occasion.). However that solution has loads of other issues instead, does not even attempt to provide ATC for VFR flying, and has zero ground control options, and only very occasional control over ai in the air.  Other 3rd party solutions have varying levels of success, but some are nothing more than a canned set of instructions based on a flight plan which is not able to be changed on the fly.

my argument with you is based on your apparent assumption that providing ai based ATC should be easy and already completely figured out at this point, when it definitely has not been.  By anybody.  It’s possible that a programmer could institute a fix that would ensure that only correct enroute altitudes be assigned, but who knows what other problems that might cause in your pc’s fight to provide instantaneous control for 37000 airports.  I don’t know, but I’m not going to assume there aren’t any.