51 minutes ago, Farlis said:

6 hours ago, SAS443 said:

You don't think there are airports out there which lacks both ATIS and D-ATIS, and instead you are given QNH by approach controller.

Well in that case readback is logical. But as long as ATIS is available it is not.

As discussed before, the QNH on the ATIS can be misheard in the same way as when it is given by a controller.

52 minutes ago, Farlis said:

I thought we were talking about take-off and not landing.

I'm not aware of a country that gives QNH (or requires it to be read back) as part of the initial climb clearance (indeed, many countries include the initial climb clearance on the SID chart so that the controller does not even state it explicitly).

Readback of the QNH is not necessary on departure because the crew can and should cross-check their altimeter indication against the field elevation when setting QNH. In contrast, no such crosscheck is possible on the arrival, hence the requirement to read back the QNH.

Another (almost fatal) case illustrating how important readbacks and double or triple checking is with something as important as QNH:
https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/647745-airbus-within-6ft-ground-nearly-1-mile-short-runway.html

An A320 landing at LFPG escaped a CFIT by as little as 6 feet (that's less than my body size!) because of a wrong/misunderstood/confirmation-biased QNH (1011 instead of 1001). While this would not be a big problem on an ILS approach, this was an RNP approach and therefore the glidepath was depending exclusively on the barometric altimeter in the aircraft. So if this is fed with a wrong QNH... you better hope your GPWS is working! (It was working, but didn't give a warning, because the aircraft was too close to the runway and in this situation the GPWS warnings are inhibited in order to not yell at the pilots who are just trying to get the aircraft onto the runway)

14 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

Another (almost fatal) case illustrating how important readbacks and double or triple checking is with something as important as QNH:
https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/647745-airbus-within-6ft-ground-nearly-1-mile-short-runway.html

This is the incident I pointed out yesterday in the previous page, with the BEA report and graphic.

Took my 3^rd flight with Beyond ATC United Airlines Flight 655 LAS-IAH.

Flight was almost perfect with the ATC we had the ATIS, Clearance Delivery, Ground, Tower, Departure, Center (Multiple LA Center, Albuquerque Center, Ft Worth Center, and Houston Center), Houston Tower, Houston Ground.

ATC still does not understand when I call for gate DXX @ Las Vegas yet if I select that gate to park it reads it back correctly Delta xx.

I did realize during my flight I had “Controller Voice Model” voices set to default “Premium voices” so that ate up a majority of my Premium Characters for my 3 flights. I have since changed them to Basic (No Cost).

I do not follow Beyond ATC on Discord, so I am not sure what the status is on the following items below, but they are greatly needed,

-Slow the speed of clearance once we request it (sorry I had listed ATIS)

-Ability to request a different runway for takeoff and or landing

-Ability to request a visual approach or an ILS approach

-Winter ops request to head to the Deicing Pad.

-Request to park at the Penalty Box or Holding area if our gate is not available or we need to finish up paperwork.

Edited May 29, 20242 yr by 01pewterz28

28 minutes ago, 01pewterz28 said:

Slow the ATIS speed speech
You‘re the first to complain about it. So I wouldn‘t expect it to change. I think it‘s rather realistic and I mean it‘s a loop, you can hear it as often as you want (doesn‘t even cost premium characters in the loop)

-Ability to request a different runway for takeoff and or landing
Is being worked on. No ETA (has to work with planned AI traffic, so it has to be laid out well)

-Ability to request a visual approach or an ILS approach
It has been requested a couple times, although not as often as runway requests. I think it will come, but later than the runway requests. But this is just a guess of mine.

-Winter ops request to head to the Deicing Pad.
First I hear about it, actually a good suggestion. Shouldn‘t be hard to implement, BUT this will be hindered by the scenery data in MSFS: There‘s no deicing area in the data. So even if devs wanted to implement it, they cannot (except for visually of course, but how is an ATC tool supposed to „see“ that?). Maybe 2024 changes that.

-Request to park at the Penalty Box or Holding area if our gate is not available or we need to finish up paperwork.
Also first request I see in that regards. Same problem as above - sceneries cannot give such a data at the moment.

 

51 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Slow the ATIS speed speech
You‘re the first to complain about it. So I wouldn‘t expect it to change.

I haven't complained about it, but I've also noticed that it  ishard to keep up with. In real life, I almost always manage to copy down the all of ATIS the first time through the "loop". In BeyondATC, I usually require a second pass to copy down stuff that I missed the first time.

56 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

I think it‘s rather realistic and I mean it‘s a loop

Here are real-world ATIS recordings from several different countries:

JFK

Düsseldorf

Heathrow

Note how the rate of speech in all three cases is relatively sedate.

For comparison, here's an ATIS in BeyondATC. If you alternate between playing this and the real-world ATIS recordings above, it's obvious that BeyondATC is significantly faster. In addition, it often runs the different information groups in the ATIS into each other without a pause; for example, note how there's no pause at all between "wind 250 at 4" and "temperature 18". This is particularly bad if there are multiple cloud layers in the ATIS; those are so rapid-fire that I'm almost never able to copy them down the first time. (I wasn't unfortunately able to find an example of this on YouTube .)

This isn't, obviously, a major problem -- as you say, it's always possible to listen to the loop multiple times. Still, it seems like something that should be an easy fix, and it would be more realistic if the ATIS was slower.

1 hour ago, Fiorentoni said:

 

Sorry not the ATIS too early in the morning I meant the clearance once I request it. 

9 minutes ago, martinboehme said:

I haven't complained about it, but I've also noticed that it  ishard to keep up with. In real life, I almost always manage to copy down the all of ATIS the first time through the "loop". In BeyondATC, I usually require a second pass to copy down stuff that I missed the first time.

Here are real-world ATIS recordings from several different countries:

JFK

Düsseldorf

Heathrow

Note how the rate of speech in all three cases is relatively sedate.

For comparison, here's an ATIS in BeyondATC. If you alternate between playing this and the real-world ATIS recordings above, it's obvious that BeyondATC is significantly faster. In addition, it often runs the different information groups in the ATIS into each other without a pause; for example, note how there's no pause at all between "wind 250 at 4" and "temperature 18". This is particularly bad if there are multiple cloud layers in the ATIS; those are so rapid-fire that I'm almost never able to copy them down the first time. (I wasn't unfortunately able to find an example of this on YouTube .)

This isn't, obviously, a major problem -- as you say, it's always possible to listen to the loop multiple times. Still, it seems like something that should be an easy fix, and it would be more realistic if the ATIS was slower.

Sorry not the ATIS too early in the morning I meant the Clearance once I request it. 

1 hour ago, Fiorentoni said:

 

Some developers like FB have deicing pads at KDEN, and other airports so it should be able to read it from that point. Worst case after push and ready to taxi a request can be made to taxi to the deicing pad. 

 

Same with the penalty Box or Holding area a simple request and we can taxi to that point. 

 

For example at O'Hare if we are parking at the Northport and our gate is not available we are shuffled to the penalty box. 

2 hours ago, 01pewterz28 said:

Ability to request a different runway for takeoff and or landing

Very much this!  It's really odd how we cannot do something so simple like request a runway.  I indicated the runways in SimBrief but I guess it ignores that and strictly relies on wind so you end up with an obscure or too short of a runway that most closely aligns to the wind direction.  I have only done 3 flights with BATC and was given incorrect runways on each flight that would not be used IRL  I was also getting Visual approaches with IFR conditions at the airport.  It seems these ATC programs are not at all ready for prime-time ( I have SI as well which also has many issues). 

2 hours ago, 01pewterz28 said:

Sorry not the ATIS too early in the morning I meant the clearance once I request it. 

Ah yes indeed that's sometimes too fast, I agree. That's because the voices have different speeds by "nature".

As for the deicing pads: No you did not understand. You can mark a parking spot, a gate, a taxiway and a runway in the MSFS SDK. That's what in turn BATC can read from a scenery. There's no "deicing pad" to be created in MSFS-data terms. Therefore no way for BATC to read it.

5 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

As for the deicing pads: No you did not understand. You can mark a parking spot, a gate, a taxiway and a runway in the MSFS SDK. That's what in turn BATC can read from a scenery. There's no "deicing pad" to be created in MSFS-data terms. Therefore no way for BATC to read it.

Yeah, only way they could do that (I think) would be to go down the path of airport profiles like GSX uses.

Edited May 29, 20242 yr by Tuskin38

6 hours ago, Tuskin38 said:

Yeah, only way they could do that (I think) would be to go down the path of airport profiles like GSX uses.

No need to reinvent the wheel: they could just read the existing GSX profiles which took thousands of hours from a large community of creators, and that's what we are discussing right now, we'll try to understand their requirements and make any needed update to GSX to make it easier to read the profile (like knowing which one has been loaded by GSX, etc.).

11 minutes ago, virtuali said:

No need to reinvent the wheel: they could just read the existing GSX profiles which took thousands of hours from a large community of creators, and that's what we are discussing right now, we'll try to understand their requirements and make any needed update to GSX to make it easier to read the profile (like knowing which one has been loaded by GSX, etc.).

And would this work for those who dont have GSX?

11 minutes ago, Vel said:

And would this work for those who dont have GSX?

The point was getting data that missing from MSFS Navdata, like Deicing pads and (more importantly), custom Pushback routes. Clearly, if you don't have the product that allows you Deicing or pre-made custom Pushback routes (GSX), you don't need (or even want) BATC to instruct you to go to a non-usable Deicing pad or follow a non existing custom Pushback route.

Edited May 29, 20242 yr by virtuali