14 minutes ago, BruceA320 said:

After take-off, it was trying to vector me to the first waypoint on the IFR flight plan. 

Ouch! No real-world AT Control would issue those instructions. You fly the SID unless otherwise instructed.

The only instructions from ATC should be to issue higher climb altitudes and near ToD issue descent instructions.

6 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Ouch! No real-world AT Control would issue those instructions. You fly the SID unless otherwise instructed.

The only instructions from ATC should be to issue higher climb altitudes and near ToD issue descent instructions.

Well, I’m my experience they actually do. Not every time, but due to contested airspace you may get vector and consequently receive “proceed as filed”

4 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Well, I’m my experience they actually do. Not every time, but due to contested airspace you may get vector and consequently receive “proceed as filed”

At busy airports vectoring is possible. But not to the extent described in Bruce’s post. It would be a single heading change (probably for traffic) then resume own navigation or direct to the next waypoint.

I was part of the Radar Contact team who used the knowledge of real-world AT Controllers. I don’t know if BATC author has access to similar knowledge.

15 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Ouch! No real-world AT Control would issue those instructions. You fly the SID unless otherwise instructed.

The only instructions from ATC should be to issue higher climb altitudes and near ToD issue descent instructions.

Ray not sure why you constantly comment in the MSFS forums, as you have told us over and over you are still only in P3D and happy.

But also this comment is so wrong... Some large US airports do not have published SIDs and all aircraft are basically given vectors to their first waypoint.  KORD being the first main example that jumps in my head.  Would they issue multiple incremental vector changes like in the example? No but they definitely issue an initial vector with TO clearance, and then sometimes 1 subsequent one after departure before giving a DTO.

1 minute ago, nrunning24 said:

Ray not sure why you constantly comment in the MSFS forums, as you have told us over and over you are still only in P3D and happy.

I don’t “constantly comment” as you suggest. Realistic ATC programs are few and far between and as I use one of the best around for many years feel entitled to comment irrespective of whether I use MSFS or not.

Bruce never mentioned which airport he departed from.

Correct he didn't, but my issue is that you made a blanket statement about what real world ATC does on departure that just isn't true..... You said "No real-world AT Control would issue those instructions. You fly the SID unless otherwise instructed."  backpedal all you want.  Major US airports do not have SIDs and all departures are vectored to their first waypoint.  I get you were a beta tester on RC4 all those years ago, you constantly tell us that as well.  I just don't understand how someone who was working on a software program with some real ATC people 10 years ago, and doesn't even use MSFS, is on these forums commenting like some expert when they make obviously wrong statements.

BTW I now get one of the issues that many people have described here.

The "requesting descend" and ATC only answering which runway to expect and not giving any descend clearances.

This happens on GA flights in the U.S. that do not follow a STAR. Something I usually don't fly. But currently do, and came across that issue the first time. Outside the U.S. and when you have STAR filed you very much get a flightevel to descend to.

So this is some kind of bug, I assume, because U.S. stars often have automatic descend clearances through constraints and BATC often says "Descend via STAR". But if there is none it doesn't say anything at all.

Edited April 30Apr 30 by Farlis

@nrunning24, your comments are disrespectful so I won’t be saying any more. There is a world outside the US where SIDs are used. 

49 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

At busy airports vectoring is possible. But not to the extent described in Bruce’s post. It would be a single heading change (probably for traffic) then resume own navigation or direct to the next waypoint.

I was part of the Radar Contact team who used the knowledge of real-world AT Controllers. I don’t know if BATC author has access to similar knowledge.

Yes Ron, I've been flying for 25+ years half of that time as flight instructor. So my experience of ATC is from the pilot's side. World ATC is mysterious as well as local procedure. It was not uncommon for me to call TARCON supervisor to ask what to expect for particular route I was no familiar with. More than often I got heads about part of my file route will be amended and vectors will expected. So I think what true some place can be opposite in another. Flying in Southern California skies are always busy so vectors are expected as well as modified approaches (last one I hate so much)    

Phrases that BATC haven't learn yet. "Stay outside my airspace call in 30 minutes", "modified/short/directly to the number approach", "give me 360", " stop at hold, left/right turns",  "report <prominent landmark> (usually preceed some visual approaches) Finally infamous "possible pilot deviation, advice when ready to copy phone number"

Also pilot can always say "unable" and "standby" and it totally legal sometimes to stick back to ATC.

P.S. Gotta repeat this old joke:

ATC: Citation  9BV say altitude

Citation: altitude

ATC: Citation 9BV say speed

Citation: speed

ATC: Citation 9BV say cancel IFR

Citation: 6000 ft, 230 kts

30 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

There is a world outside the US where SIDs are used.

There is also the U.S. where SID's often are an initial heading followed by vectors. I'd thought you flying transantlantic with Concorde where aware of that. 
And you claimed ATC would never vector you on departure. That's demonstrably false.

20 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Yes Ron, I've been flying for 25+ years half of that time as flight instructor. So my experience of ATC is from the pilot's side.

It’s Ray, not Ron. The problem of an ATC program it has to cater for the whole world, not just one area. RC team had both a US and a British controller to get the phraseology correct. If BATC does that too then well done.

Not the first time I’ve heard that story. 😁

@Farlis,  My Concorde flights rarely include the North Atlantic. I prefer shorter ones like Manchester to Lisbon. SIDs and STARs at both airports.

And that really is my last comment on this topic.

29 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

It’s Ray, not Ron. The problem of an ATC program it has to cater for the whole world, not just one area. RC team had both a US and a British controller to get the phraseology correct. If BATC does that too then well done.

Not the first time I’ve heard that story. 😁

@Farlis,  My Concorde flights rarely include the North Atlantic. I prefer shorter ones like Manchester to Lisbon. SIDs and STARs at both airports.

And that really is my last comment on this topic.

My apologies I guess I dyslectic! LOL I stand corrected Ray! 

I will gladly trade with you Ray "no vectors" after take off for all British airport that have SID; in exchange, all IFR plans in US ends up as visual approach if weather VFR  (according to BATC) which is my opinion is WRONG! IFR is IFR rain or shine! I shoot tons of IFR approaches in VFR and never they been converted to visuals!

Edited April 30Apr 30 by sd_flyer

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

all IFR plans in US ends up as visual approach if weather VFR  (according to BATC) which is my opinion is WRONG!

Is it? Then why do I keep hearing that on VASAviation so often at the U.S. airports covered? I was under the impression that if weather permits ATC will always prefer to give the inbound aircraft a visual approach, so that the sepperation is out of their hands.

 

There was even a case not so long a ago where a Lufthansa pilot refused a visual approach into SFO because their company does not allow them at night.

Just now, Farlis said:

Is it? Then why do I keep hearing that on VASAviation so often at the U.S. airports covered? I was under the impression that if weather permits ATC will always prefer to give the inbound aircraft a visual approach, so that the sepperation is out of their hands.

 

There was even a case not so long a ago where a Lufthansa pilot refused a visual approach into SFO because their company does not allow them at night.

Yes it is. I don't know about Lufthansa incident. What I know that visual approach is requested by pilot. Visual approach apply limitations such is no miss approach procedure, and no obstacle clearance, or traffic separation. In my 25+years of my flying I have filed thousands IFR plans! In the beginning ATC  always inquired how approach will terminate and always pick approach that I would like to shoot ILS, LPV, LAD ,VOR, LOC you name it. And always got what I wanted unless some nav equipment inop and ATC unable to accommodate that particular approach. Yes with approach requested often ATC vectors me instead let go trough IAF as briefed, but they ever converted my instrument approach to visual "NO". The only time I can remember landing in KSAN in IFR I got offered short approach to squeeze me between airliners and so I took it. 

If plan to do multiple approaches to the same airport for currency or training, in this case first approach is granted IFR. The rest however are converted to visual, squawking VFR no separation services provide just advisories. Technically you shoot requested approach they just  flexible to traffic. For example ATC may ask to missed earlier and give vectors to unpublished missed approach procedures.

In I experience, the only time I hear on the radio someone ask for visual are corporates jets, because they more flexible  saves  time and money because they operate either Part 91 or 135. All airliner shoot approaches rain or shine.  

5 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Ouch! No real-world AT Control would issue those instructions. You fly the SID unless otherwise instructed.

The only instructions from ATC should be to issue higher climb altitudes and near ToD issue descent instructions.

Every single time I've departed JFK in a jet over the last 30 years, it's been a series of turns - not just one, but a series - and typically intermediate level offs, before finally being cleared on course and to altitude.  That's just one example.  ORD is another.  

I guess they didn't get the "Ray Proudfoot Avsim" memo.  😁