A Point to Point IFR GA flight with BATC.  PTP meaning no sids/stars just a few random waypoints in the middle.

KMBL FEPEX YEKZU KMCD - 117 miles filed for 13000 ft in simbrief using TBM 850 profile.  For descents I'll stick to the ludicrous 2000 fpm descent rate (not sure what bozo entered that in).

This is a followup to my post in the main forums - basically this flight has supported my view that BATC struggles greatly during IFR point to point fights (flights without sids/stars) and flights into uncontrolled airports.  This is very frustrating because this style of flying is done by the majority of general aviation IFR flights in the USA at least.

Here are my notes, again my real world ATC experience is quite deep in this area.  I've worked at a tower or tracon (approach departure) for almost 14 years.  I've now recently certified at a center (enroute FIR/ARTCC) and my area of specialty is high altitude sequencing for major airports such as MSP, DTW, CYYZ and ORD along with sequencing multiple GA aircraft/airliners/corporate jets into uncontrolled (and several controlled) airports.  I frequently clear aircraft for instrument approaches along with visual approaches to numerous airports.  This all aside, I tailor my expectations for the sim, especially as BATC doesn't have terrain awareness (which means it doesnt know minimum IFR Altitudes - which imo is a major issue - it needs to be addressed).  It does know most frequencies though which is pretty cool.  It does have an approach data base as well.  I do not think it knows airspace boundaries either.

This flight is flown in real time and I never paused the simulation.

 

Right off the bat BATC is calling me an Airbus lol...  ok fine I can overlook that.  Not sure why though.  At any rate I'm on the ramp at MBL (uncontrolled / non-towered).  I get my clearance through the CD frequency (which is accurate to this area so that's a win).  The clearance sounds reasonable and realistic. 

 

I read it all back and they give me a hold for release (totally fine and realistic) - I taxi out to the runway - report at the runway and they release me (again sounds realistic and normal)

There is a discrepancy though right after I depart (and kind of with that initial IFR clearance) - they issue me radar vectors to FEPEX - but in the release clearance they don't say anything like "enter controlled airspace heading 360."  So I'm now expecting radar vectors per the initial clearance but do I takeoff and fly direct FEPEX?  Yes this is what I would do irl.  (Actually I'd query ATC for clarification irl because its unclear).  "Center do you want N852PS to fly a heading on departure or turn direct FEPEX?" Let's see what BATC does anyway.  IMO these oddities are still acceptable for a software program so I'm just pointing them out but not really caring too much about them.

I takeoff turn to FEPEX and climb to 5k.  They identify me on radar "radar contact or radar identified if flying in europe etc" and climb me to 10k.  Sounds all normal.  And they vector me (heading 040).  Ok....  fine.... but why?  Why not just assign direct FEPEX in the initial clearance and be done with it.  There's no need to vector to an initial fix if there's no traffic conflicts.  Let's see how long they leave me on this heading.

They also tell me expect radar vectors runway 8.  OKKKK.... is that a visual approach or an instrument approach?  I'd assume a visual I guess.  Fine.

Here's the part that kills me - more than 90 miles from my destination, BATC descends me to 2000 ft.....  heavy sigh - ok I'll comply and descend.  This is for all simming and real world purposes, EXTREMELY excessive.  I'm trying hard to ignore the fact that it's also WELL BELOW the MIA.  (Remember that BATC apparently doesnt know terrain and altitudes, but it needs to have a bare minimum concept of elevation - so they need to work on that really badly).  This area is prettttty flat... this isn't mountainous or anything lol.  KMCD sits at an elevation of 600ish ft.  Anyway BATC is doing to drive me down to about 1400 ft AGL more than 90 miles out...  This is wrong and why I hate BATC.  And btw, I'm still on heading 040 lol.

And who the heck coded a 2000 fpm descent rate in the TBM???  No that's way off.  1000 fpm would be more realistic unless ATC really needed a expedited descent.  500 is what I'd probably do irl because that's all that is required.

Here's some nice clouds though

Northern MI is lovely this time of year

Low and Fast LOL!  Does this look low to you while flying IFR?  Because it should.  I get they don't account for obstructions (some would almost be at my altitude) but at least they need an elevation base map or something.  Not to mention I'm still 47 miles away from MCD hehe (and we're still on that 040 heading)

We get another freq change - all good there it's a real world freq cool - and BATC points out the field, good phraseology there pretty realistic

Another annoyance (if this was month 1 or 3 or 6 I'd say fine) but this app has been around for quite some time now and it doesn't know how to take an IFR cancellation?  Or doesn't have a way to simulate cancelling on the ground?   All I get is a "have a good one" LOL

I'll leave you with a nice sight of the Mackinaw Bridge as we land (apparently we canceled IFR???  lol not sure)  BATC just needs some simple logic here.   "Airbus (lol) 2PS report IFR cancellation this frequency in the air or on the ground, change to advisory frequency approved"  Even if the freq doesnt work on ground irl it would be realistic way to finish out the flight.  Because irl if you don't cancel we will look for you by all means necessary.  Sometimes planes crash too and this is how we find out.  In real life other ways to get cancellations would be through a relay with a pilot in the area or a pilot holding at an IAF waiting for you to cancel.  Some airports have cell coverage and we would take IFR through a phone call via flight data, or even through FSS/radio.  BATC doesn't simulate any of that which is silly imo.

I guess even though it never let me fly my filed route it did vector me to MCD and it did ask me to report the field in sight.  Laterally it got me to the field.  Next flight I will try in poor weather to hopefully force an Instrument Approach Procedure.  But vertically it failed miserably imo.  A reasonable descent from 13000 ft should take place 30-60 miles away from destination airport.  And this is why I hardly use BATC for MY style of flying.  

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

Right off the bat BATC is calling me an Airbus lol...  ok fine I can overlook that.  Not sure why though.

I noticed this when I used to use A Pilot's Life, where it would export to Simbrief, but would alter the call sign in some way so that it differed from the entered flight number.  So if the flight number was SWA1034, it would for example show SW1034 in Simbrief's call sign field.  Then BATC would always refer to me as Airbus.  So learned to edit the call sign field is all.  Now, that doesn't happen as I'm not using APL.

What if you wanted an ILS or RNAV approach into your destination?  It just /assumes/ Rwy8 visual?

When I use BATC, I find this all the time, that it automatically assumes you're doing a visual, when in fact, you might want to do something else.  And when I ask for an RNAV for example, it says unable even though the airport has an RNAV on that runway.

Thanks Ryan for your expert report on proper ATC, hope they read this and bring about improvements.

It has been on EA quite a while already.

Thanks

 

1 hour ago, Mace said:

What if you wanted an ILS or RNAV approach into your destination?  It just /assumes/ Rwy8 visual?

When I use BATC, I find this all the time, that it automatically assumes you're doing a visual, when in fact, you might want to do something else.  And when I ask for an RNAV for example, it says unable even though the airport has an RNAV on that runway.

I think there is an option to select a new approach.  I will try next time.