Was safely taking ILS 02 Approach into KGPI (no wind) in IFR and FSHUD vectored me for a Visual 20 instead. Came out of cloud 8000ft straight into mountain. No chance to avoid. FSHUD had told me to descend to 4000!! Will NOT use this app for visual guidance ever again...

This was probably the most shocked I've ever been in a sim. Virtual CFIT on a plate. Relaxed well planned Connie flight from KWYS to KGPI turned into sudden ending. Was descending at gentle 1000fpm landing lights on, passengers be seated when came out of cloud and 100 yards ahead cliff , no chance to pull up (had Sperry on for descent anyway). Cue A2A Accusim screaming from everyone aboard. 

There was zero wind at KGPI why take an airliner about to intercept ILS to a visual in opposite direction in first place? Only one other plane in sim and that was on the ground.

I SHOULD have ignored it but what's the POINT of ATC if you pick and choose when to obey it? I l know pilot can override ATC but not in IFR surely?

Yes, what a dissapointment. So "FSHUD, realistic ATC...", is not more realistic than default ATC.

I had similar instructions happening on Vatsim, with a human controller. And I wouldn't be surprised if something like this happened in RL as well. At the end, the onus is on the pilot to warrant the safety of a flight. Always remember that "communicate" comes last in "Aviate, navigate, communicate". 

1 hour ago, sloppysmusic said:

Was safely taking ILS 02 Approach into KGPI (no wind) in IFR and FSHUD vectored me for a Visual 20 instead. Came out of cloud 8000ft straight into mountain. No chance to avoid. FSHUD had told me to descend to 4000!! Will NOT use this app for visual guidance ever again...

This was probably the most shocked I've ever been in a sim. Virtual CFIT on a plate. Relaxed well planned Connie flight from KWYS to KGPI turned into sudden ending. Was descending at gentle 1000fpm landing lights on, passengers be seated when came out of cloud and 100 yards ahead cliff , no chance to pull up (had Sperry on for descent anyway). Cue A2A Accusim screaming from everyone aboard. 

There was zero wind at KGPI why take an airliner about to intercept ILS to a visual in opposite direction in first place? Only one other plane in sim and that was on the ground.

I SHOULD have ignored it but what's the POINT of ATC if you pick and choose when to obey it? I l know pilot can override ATC but not in IFR surely?

I understand your frustration, but there are several things I need to clarify:

1. According to aviation - VISUAL APPROACH can't be vectored and at the beginning of approach or very early stages of it, ATC have to say you "Cancel IFR" and you should continue visually by yourself.
Which also means - there can't be "blind vectors" as in IFR where you completely rely on ATC.

2. Currently FSHud doesn't support VFR procedures, so there is some kind of non-realistic procedures when ATC keeps vectoring you instead of saying IFR was canceled, continue visual and stop giving vectros.
Following will be fixed once VFR support will be added. But you can't expect from ATC to vector you between mountains on the low altitude - it doesn't happen in IRL.

Thank you

2 hours ago, blaunarwal said:

Yes, what a dissapointment. So "FSHUD, realistic ATC...", is not more realistic than default ATC.

I've never had default ATC vector me INTO a mountain in FSX or P3D

1 hour ago, qqwertz said:

At the end, the onus is on the pilot to warrant the safety of a flight

Exactly, but in IFR if a controller tells you to skip your planned approach and says he's vectoring you for a visual do you say NOPE not gonna do that I don't trust your competence?

44 minutes ago, FSHud said:

VISUAL APPROACH can't be vectored

But...FSHUD does this ALL the time! At least it does with every airport that does not have an ILS/RNAV approach for a certain runway. Occasionally random too. I file the plan, FSHUD accepts it then often chooses to vector me to a visual approach. If you pick and airport with no procedures it will of course do this all the time.

44 minutes ago, FSHud said:

Currently FSHud doesn't support VFR procedures, so there is some kind of non-realistic procedures when ATC keeps vectoring you instead of saying IFR was canceled, continue visual and stop giving vectros.

Then why does it ever give any? For an IFR filed plan? It should say to the pilot and say you're on your own mate or at least hand off to another airport and controller when airport if current is IFR only and no procedures available. That WOULD be realistic. I had a good ILS approach already filed, why ignore it?

44 minutes ago, FSHud said:

But you can't expect from ATC to vector you between mountains on the low altitude - it doesn't happen in IRL.

I didn't ASK it too! It got me descending towards my FAF for ILS 02 then said EXPECT VISUAL 02 APR. Then gave the tragic vectors. There needs to be a menu option to refuse instructions (that will likely 'kill' you) . Closing the flight plan itself in the menu is too sim like and a fail. 

Here is my filed simple plan (VOR/LOC only plane):

KWYS.19 DCT DLN DCT MSO DCT KGPI.02 (no transition just final - I expected vectors but didn't need them)

It started me off on runway 01 despite 3 knot tailwind there, then wouldn't let me cruise at 21000 despite ac having 25000 set as limit. 17000 max I could go. That's just minor stuff though.

What FSHUD is GOOD at is all the major routes between busy airports with full SID/AIRWAY/STAR/Precision approaches. But then it's just telling you to do what you already intend to from the actual route. If you could make it actually divert OFF the route successfully that would be perfect.

For simmers who only fly real world routes with current flight plans I would recommend FSHUD. The AI handling is great too, FSTL and AIG in MSFS and AIG in P3d is flawless. Anyone who sims off the beaten track though should steer clear.

Edited August 3, 2025Aug 3 by sloppysmusic

59 minutes ago, sloppysmusic said:

I've never had default ATC vector me INTO a mountain in FSX or P3D

Exactly, but in IFR if a controller tells you to skip your planned approach and says he's vectoring you for a visual do you say NOPE not gonna do that I don't trust your competence?

But...FSHUD does this ALL the time! At least it does with every airport that does not have an ILS/RNAV approach for a certain runway. Occasionally random too. I file the plan, FSHUD accepts it then often chooses to vector me to a visual approach. If you pick and airport with no procedures it will of course do this all the time.

Then why does it ever give any? For an IFR filed plan? It should say to the pilot and say you're on your own mate or at least hand off to another airport and controller when airport if current is IFR only and no procedures available. That WOULD be realistic. I had a good ILS approach already filed, why ignore it?

I didn't ASK it too! It got me descending towards my FAF for ILS 02 then said EXPECT VISUAL 02 APR. Then gave the tragic vectors. There needs to be a menu option to refuse instructions (that will likely 'kill' you) . Closing the flight plan itself in the menu is too sim like and a fail. 

Here is my filed simple plan (VOR/LOC only plane):

KWYS.19 DCT DLN DCT MSO DCT KGPI.02 (no transition just final - I expected vectors but didn't need them)

It started me off on runway 01 despite 3 knot tailwind there, then wouldn't let me cruise at 21000 despite ac having 25000 set as limit. 17000 max I could go. That's just minor stuff though.

What FSHUD is GOOD at is all the major routes between busy airports with full SID/AIRWAY/STAR/Precision approaches. But then it's just telling you to do what you already intend to from the actual route. If you could make it actually divert OFF the route successfully that would be perfect.

For simmers who only fly real world routes with current flight plans I would recommend FSHUD. The AI handling is great too, FSTL and AIG in MSFS and AIG in P3d is flawless. Anyone who sims off the beaten track though should steer clear.

I completley agree with you that there is an issue.
My explanation was around why it happens at all - the situation with VISUAL APPROACH that currently not implemented and it is not intended to rely on FSHud vectors in this case at all.

We will prioritize this issue to be fixed during this week.
Until VFR will be implemented - ATC will instruct you to continue on your own instead of giving vectors.
But in normal case - there should be IFR cancelation procedure which forces pilot to fly visually afterwards - therefore it was implemented in such way (without thinking much about visual approach scenario).

I will inform once this issue will be fixed.

Thank you

2 hours ago, sloppysmusic said:

I've never had default ATC vector me INTO a mountain in FSX or P3D

LOL, I have. Try using default ATC for IFR vectors into SEQM Ecuador.  

1 hour ago, FSHud said:

We will prioritize this issue to be fixed during this week.
Until VFR will be implemented - ATC will instruct you to continue on your own instead of giving vectors.
But in normal case - there should be IFR cancelation procedure which forces pilot to fly visually afterwards - therefore it was implemented in such way (without thinking much about visual approach scenario).

I will inform once this issue will be fixed.

Thank you. It is better that the app does nothing, ignoring you, than gives you incorrect vectors for a function that is not even implemented yet. A realistic way of dropping approach guidance for a problem airport asking pilot to continue own approach then contact ground after leaving runway would be excellent. Taxi guidance to gate is a clean end to the flight even if the landing was self handled. 

It may not be realistic but I would pay a big price for a hand holding atc taking me from start of session to end when I haven't planned my own route, Ifr or vfr. 

It would be great for training too, learning to use mcp /fcu controls not LNAV /VNAV or hand flying to receive complete vectors gate to gate, parking to parking. 

1) Create flight (from departure airport or enroute) 

2) Ifr or vfr? 

3) Create route /enter route /vor to vor /direct (with terrain avoidance) 

4a) Pause guidance (during flight for training manoeuvres/sight seeing) 

4b) Resume guidance from present position /preferred waypoint 

5) Mayday - declare emergency. High priority routing provided from aircraft position to nearest suitable runway diverting ai traffic , pilot enters minimum landing distance for current aircraft weight. 

6) Mechanical issue /non urgent.. Plane returns to departure airport if weight permits or diverted to nearby. Non emergency but priority, ai not diverted. 

Probably be another app.. But I'd pay big money for all that in an atc app. 

I don't care about fake ai voices, worldwide regional accents, etc. I'd take a text service for experimental features. ACARS already uses this yes? 

Ps. I LOVE that fshud can be left running and detects my sim. I use p3d and msfs. I'd like an option also to NOT leave it running in task bar when closed. 

1 minute ago, Patco Lch said:

LOL, I have. Try using default ATC for IFR vectors into SEQM Ecuador.  

Didn't they move that airport lol? Hmmm. 😉

3 hours ago, sloppysmusic said:

[ the onus is on the pilot to warrant the safety of a flight.]

Exactly, but in IFR if a controller tells you to skip your planned approach and says he's vectoring you for a visual do you say NOPE not gonna do that I don't trust your competence?

Yep, that is exactly what you do if you think the controller's request will jeopardize the flight's safety. You say "unable to comply" and ideally tell them why. In my case on Vatsim, a controller vectored me into the mountains North of CYQB on approach. I told him I can't go below 4000' and he adjusted his request.

20 minutes ago, qqwertz said:

Yep, that is exactly what you do if you think the controller's request will jeopardize the flight's safety. You say "unable to comply" and ideally tell them why. In my case on Vatsim, a controller vectored me into the mountains North of CYQB on approach. I told him I can't go below 4000' and he adjusted his request.

I'd be interested to see IRL examples of this. VATSIM is just the sim I'd expect amateurs and no consequences if failure. Obviously IRL if you KNOW the terrain better than the controller you'd override but isn't the POINT of the controller to KNOW the area better than those they controlling?

I mean we're talking flying opposite traffic here. I was on 24 , he said go 02. I bet you won't find a commercial airline doing that IRL except preceding a disaster....

 

3 hours ago, sloppysmusic said:

I'd be interested to see IRL examples of this. VATSIM is just the sim I'd expect amateurs and no consequences if failure. Obviously IRL if you KNOW the terrain better than the controller you'd override but isn't the POINT of the controller to KNOW the area better than those they controlling?

I mean we're talking flying opposite traffic here. I was on 24 , he said go 02. I bet you won't find a commercial airline doing that IRL except preceding a disaster....

 

In IRL - mountains areas almost not vectored - and performed only by published procedures.
There is a good example is NZQM or LOWI RNP approaches.
You fly ony according to defined path and if anything changes (runway or whatever)  - the first thing you have do (or to be instructed) is to pull up to higher altitude, then vectored accordingly.
Also take into account the fact that mountains can hide transponder signals (contoller isn't able to see you on his radar screen).

From my little IRL PPL experience - even when tower asks you to join final or base leg near mountain area, will ALWAYS validate with you if you can perfom it (due to terrain restrictions).
Just vectoring into mountains without asking is completely not realistic.

7 hours ago, Patco Lch said:

LOL, I have. Try using default ATC for IFR vectors into SEQM Ecuador.  

I’ve Crashed into that small mountain just southwest of the airport so many times…

37 minutes ago, okupton said:

I’ve Crashed into that small mountain just southwest of the airport so many times…

so i take it you didnt see that big mountain coming towards you and decided to see if you could land on top of it 🙂

14 hours ago, sloppysmusic said:

Didn't they move that airport lol? Hmmm. 😉

Yes they did, very nicely modeled by Flight Beam. Still a thrill though.