...BATC directs you to descend to X, let's say 9K feet, and will be vectoring for a visual approach, and yet we're way too high considering how close we are to the airport. This happens to me too often and I'm assuming it's because I'm not following something hidden (to me!) in what ATC directs. The net result is that as it's vectoring me I will be essentially on a downwind leg but need to drop 7K feel to land, and yet it's telling me to turn 90 degrees to intercept an approach vector and we're only 10 nm from the runway. If you can speak to this issue, what I should be listening for to avoid this issue. It's the 'descend and maintain' that leaves me expecting further descent instructions and when I don't hear anything further leaves me puzzled.

Thanks in advance

that's just an issue with BATC's imperfect vectoring,

I just ignore all altitude descent instructions from BATC. I figure my TOD and do the descent anyway. When I get close enough to pick up the ILS I self-vector and fly the approach. I can’t believe after all these years they still get something as simple as descents and vectors ironed out.

Edited August 26Aug 26 by haskell

What's as well quite poor ist, that you can't simple ask Beyond ATC for a lower altitude when it keeps you high on descent by simply "Request further descent". If you try, Beyond ATC replys with "You where broken out, say again the altitude". So it basicly treats the question for further descent like an altitude change during cruise.

I just descend when it is time to descend with or without permission. BATC never seems to say anything about it. Usually at some point during descent, they'll tell me to go lower. Usually I can stay with BATC and follow their vectors. I don't think they've ever scolded me for descending. If anything, they don't seem to notice.

The call is there, it is just usually very late. I think they expect like a 1500 fpm descent. In a GA plane that's not something I'd do.

I always figure out the likely active runway then brief an approach plate for it, and make sure I'm going to be at a reasonable altitude for when they vector me. If the heading vectors seem reasonable, I follow them, if not, I just fly the approach.

On the non visual approaches this got much better in recent updates. If BATC calculates that you are still too high it will give you some extra vectors and send you further downwind when it notices that you will not make the descend to the IAF. It seems they need to figure this out for the visual approaches as well.

As a GA flyer, the AI seems to think we all have one of those fancy Mooney speedbrakes. I almost always get a call to descend, but the rate is too much for most planes, I'd be into the yellow speed running my engine at idle. I think they just need to give us more time/room to descend.

They had a version, the one before the latest big patch to 1.8.18 (I think it was 1.8.14), where the descent path and the managment by the controler was much much better than before.

Right now, with the latest version, they're back to the old word not allowed again. I'm frustrated.

I also stopped communicating with them on their discord. Really toxic there.

Edited August 26Aug 26 by Watsi

Okay thanks I guess I'm not really missing something other than better vectoring! It is remarkable this has not really been addressed better by now.

9 hours ago, haskell said:

I just ignore all altitude descent instructions from BATC. I figure my TOD and do the descent anyway. When I get close enough to pick up the ILS I self-vector and fly the approach. I can’t believe after all these years they still get something as simple as descents and vectors ironed out.

Me too!

I know this is off topic to this particular issue, but the Navigraph Traffic integration based on FR24 is really doing great immersive stuff from time to time.

I just had Tallin Control ask Hainan 490 for a confirmation of aircraft type and Hainan 490 answered "We are a 789"

I thought this was one of the prescripted conversations that BATC does randomly when there is not much traffic around. But then I looked up at FR24 if there is a Hainan 490 currently around.

And lo and behold there it was. It is flying from Berlin to Beijing and is currently over Estonia, so in that exact sector I am in. And it is indeed a 789.

Edited August 26Aug 26 by Farlis

BATC isn't yet great for VFR, but for IFR on a STAR, it's been pretty solid for me - I hadn't even recently needed to tell it I'm ready for descent - was on an approach to LSGG and it gave me descent instructions about 30 seconds before I was going to tell it I was ready to begin the descent. It then gave me vectors with various off-plan speeds and it worked like a champ - intercepted the LOC/GS perfectly.

41 minutes ago, Farlis said:

I know this is off topic to this particular issue, but the Navigraph Traffic integration based on FR24 is really doing great immersive stuff from time to time.

I just had Tallin Controll ask Hainan 490 for a confirmation of aircraft type and Hainan 490 answered "We are a 789"

I thought this was one of the prescripted conversations that BATC does randomly when there is not much traffic around. But then I looked up at FR24 if there is a Hainan 490 currently around.

And lo and behold there it was. It is flying from Berlin to Beijing and is currently over Estonia, so in that exact sector I am in. And it is indeed a 789.

In my case, at one of the airports that I had landed at, KPIT to be exact, I noticed there was a medical flight in one of the adjacent aprons that was doing a taxi. When I checked flight aware, there was indeed a medical flight at the same time and place getting ready for takeoff. So to echo your thoughts, I agree the integration with flight radar is well done.

Now as for the question from @Noel like many of the others I simply disregard the instructions to descend and use my top of descent as my cue to descend. I typically disregard any of the vectoring as well and fix those up in my FMC much like I would a discontinuity and simply go direct to whatever fix points. I need for my arrival.

Edited August 26Aug 26 by FrankR409

1 hour ago, Farlis said:

but the Navigraph Traffic integration based on FR24 is really doing great immersive stuff from time to time.

Agree wholeheartedly, I've actually ditched PSXT/RealTraffic and now using BATC traffic instead.

Edited August 26Aug 26 by SierraDelta

Vectoring is still a work in progress, but it's been the main focal point for a couple of months now. Sometimes it's two steps forward, one step back, but it's constantly being worked on by the main dev in almost every update (the other dev, part time, does all the VFR stuff).