Hi Sid,I believe that "Klucznik" wants an option that if activated, will have RC instead of handing over an arriving aircraft to APP at around 40 miles out, doing it at the last filed waypoint, the one before the destination airport itself.So, if the option is OFF, hand off to Approach is at 40 miles out, as normal, while if the option is ON, hand off is whenever the aircraft crosses the last waypoint of its flight plan, and at that time ATC does not interfere with altitude assignments and "accepts" whatever altitude the pilot flies at to be the "assigned" altitude.This is what I understand by reading his messages. Whether this is do-able is not my field of expertise :-)Personally, I prefer the hand-off as it is currently implemented, because it is realistic in 99% of the situations.He also complains about being vectored into mountains, but that's because he refuses to accept that RC cannot read ground elevation.Which brings us to:"It's my understanding that MS has not provided a way for programs like RC to read FS terrain elevations...at least not a way that they've told us about. I wish they would, then RC could be even better. Perhaps your time would be better spent asking MS why they release so little information to third party developers, and why it takes them so long to release what little they do."We don't need MS for that info? Surely one can get the data from available information, used by all the designers who design Mesh scenery for FS2002 (which is nothing but ground elevation points)?After all, it is not Bill G who shaped this planet? :-) (Or is it?)Stamatis

Thanks for all of the info. Since I am still stuck in small GA aircraft I don

Hi Sydney, Your first answer just duplicates what I had stated that NO MS add-on CAN program ALL SIDS and STARS at every airport. By a table of vectore I simply mean to say that an option for the user to limit the range of compass directions ATC could use in their vectoring decisions for any approach or simply allow the user to enter their own vectors which RC, as a sub-module, would integrate into the particular ATC directives given to the pilot. There was a program, named "Approach Control", from a number of years back, which did just that. I think the source code for this program was released to the Public Domain and might still be available. Now, to have that option in setting up the flight terminator and then have RCATC verbally direct you would be, in my opinion, a great plus. Now Sydney you know better than to ask me, or anyone for that matter, to try to obtain info from Billy Boy.Best Regards

Hi Larry, I have absolutely NO problem charting either vectors and minimum altitudes if I look at the official charts of the STARS and IAPS at KSLC, or any other airport with published data. I have never had any problem especially at night and/or under poor visibily conditions. This, in essence, is the fundamental basis upon which my complaint, if one wants to call it that, is centered on. I have, for a number of years now , used CoPilot and official publications to chart and fly many, many flights without any problem at all thus I ask why not with RC? To use CoPilot for navigation and RC just for voice makes no sense what-so-ever. I'm suggesting combining both capabilities and to do it safely. That simple.(Read my note to Sydney)Best Regards

Hi Stamatis, >So, if the option is OFF, hand off to Approach is at 40 >miles out, as normal, while if the option is ON, hand off is >whenever the aircraft crosses the last waypoint of its >flight plan, and at that time ATC does not interfere with >altitude assignments and "accepts" whatever altitude the >pilot flies at to be the "assigned" altitude. Not a bad idea. You can simulate this now by a) requesting an iap when handed off to approach, :( flying STAR to last waypoint, and then c) aborting iap and requesting vectors. The atc/pilot dialogue would be different, but the effect should be the same. >Personally, I prefer the hand-off as it is currently >implemented, because it is realistic in 99% of the >situations. Gee, Stamatis, I don't know how credible your opinions are in these matters. After all, you're just a commercial airline pilot with years of experience. You probably don't know as much as someone who, say, listens to atc on his scanner. Sorry. :)>We don't need MS for that info? Surely one can get >the data from available information, used by all the >designers who design Mesh scenery for FS2002 (which is >nothing but ground elevation points)? You would think so, but I have no idea. Obviously the elevation points are used by the scenery engine. Whether or not they can be easily utilized by something like RC is a mystery to me. Pete would probably know, if anyone would.>After all, it is not Bill G who shaped this planet? :-) >(Or is it?) "In the beginning, there was CPM, and Bill said Let There Be DOS...."Sidney Schwartz [KPDX]Horizon Pilot--flight plans and scenery for FS2002http://sidneyschwartz.homestead.com/index.htmlhttp://jdtllc.com/images/RCsupporter.jpg

Hello Stamatis, I never stated that the STAR should be flown to the last fix. Here, at KPVD, they are often picked off previous to either LAFAY or MINNK, the latter fix being the end of the TEDY2 STAR. How far down the line the STAR should be flown has never been an issue with me. My issue is the vectoring after one is picked off the STAR, no matter what point.RegardsBlais

Hello, I've got to run an errand, my wife is tugging at my sleeve, but I couldn't help expressing a thought that can into my mind when I read this paragraph:"Gee, Stamatis, I don't know how credible your opinions are in these matters. After all, you're just a commercial airline pilot with years of experience. You probably don't know as much as someone who, say, listens to atc on his scanner. Sorry." It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool then to open it and remove all doubt.Regards

> It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a >fool then to open it and remove all doubt. Here's another: Advice works best if you take it yourself before giving it. At least mine is original. :)Seriously, Blais, please continue to educate and instruct the pilots, controllers and other experienced professionals on this forum. It's quite entertaining. :)Sidney Schwartz [KPDX]Horizon Pilot--flight plans and scenery for FS2002http://sidneyschwartz.homestead.com/index.htmlhttp://jdtllc.com/images/RCsupporter.jpg

Blais,"I never stated that the STAR should be flown to the last fix"Then I must have been reading messages from your alias all along.Please read excerpts from your own messages, posted under the thread:"Need more help on RC vs Arrival Notams""(1) Can I assume that if I set FSNav so that the complete STAR is adjusted for manual conditions can I assume tha RCATC will allow me to fly THAT STAR from the first waypoint set manually and not receive a lecture from them?""Thus, using this STAR as an example, it is not clear to me when RCATC allows complete pilot discretion to fly the STAR exactly as filed in the flightplan."and then you complain:"For instance, Center tells me to contact Approach before I am finished with the MADWIN THREE ARRIVAL."I am sorry Blais, but I am through with you. No need to reply to your messages, when you yourslf are not aware of what you have been saying days ago...Happy flying,Stamatis

Blais,Please bear in mind these facts...1. RC3 is a $44 program supporting a $60 flight simulation program.2. It's just about impossible to gather and store all altitudes for all waypoints for every SID and STAR in the world unless you're willing to pay hundreds or maybe thousands of dollars for the privilege. I have a sneaking feeling you're not.When you take these two facts into account then in my very humble opinion you are getting a superb program for your money.Please keep a sense of perspective in your posts. If you want total reality visit your local airport and hand over several hundred dollars for an hour on a professional simulator. Then, if you're not allowed to fly every waypoint in your STAR, you can justifiably complain to the relevant authority.I've been testing RC3 for the past 4 months and in my personal opinion there's no finer product currently available to emulate ATC. In comparison to Microsoft's first attempt with FS2002 it leaves the latter definitely in second place.Regards,

Sidney, I think, maybe in a mood of getting even, you may have missed the simple point of my original statement a week or two ago. In any case I just received V3 in the mail this afternoon and will install it as soon as I clean up v2.2 and a few other associated housekeeping chores. Thus the subject of v2.2 becomes mute. My best wishes to you for I have no animosity for any comments directed toward me. I am not, and have never, questioned the integrity of purpose of the folks involved in composing or testing this program.Best Regards

or do i have to use my omnipotent powers of locking this thread?this horse is quite dead. 3 different controllers and 3 pilots agree there is nothing wrong with the way this works. it isn't optimum, but it's not wrong.

Hello Stamatis, Let me see if I can get this reply in order??? To quote your message just posted:----------------------------------------------------"""I never stated that the STAR should be flown to the last fix"Then I must have been reading messages from your alias all along.Please read excerpts from your own messages, posted under the thread:"Need more help on RC vs Arrival Notams" """---------------------------------------------------- My original statement in that note, if I have the right note, was:----------------------------------------------------""(1) Can I assume that if I set FSNav so that the complete STAR is adjusted for manual conditions can I assume tha RCATC will allow me to fly THAT STAR from the first waypoint set manually and not receive a lecture from them?""---------------------------------------------------- Now, from the coversation I have had with two UAL pilots they stated that they fly the MADN3.FMG STAR to SUNOL, the last fix on the published STAR when they are going to touchdown on R29 at KOAK. Now I don't fly the aircraft and certainly am not privy to sitting in the cockpit but I have no reason to distrust their statements. This in no way is the same as saying that ALL STARS should be flown to the last fix for I am very aware that this does not hold true even for our local TEDY2 STAR here into KPVD. Yet, in order to execute the MADN3.FMG per RW practice I would have to fly to SUNOL. That is why I raised the question for RC doesn't seem to allow it unless one chooses Arrival NOTAMS which I felt, in this particular situation, was not in accordance with RW practices (I did listen to KOAK direct the aircraft on these, and a few other, KOAK flights into R29 and ATC's vector callout was exactly as specified in the DOT/FAA procedure. I do regret our human limitation in expressing exactly what we mean as well as the reader's limitation in interpreting what is written without asking himself whether or not the statements, as written, could have more than one possible meaning.Regards

Hello Ray, I quote your statement:-----------------------------------------------------1. RC3 is a $44 program supporting a $60 flight simulation program.2. It's just about impossible to gather and store all altitudes for all waypoints for every SID and STAR in the world unless you're willing to pay hundreds or maybe thousands of dollars for the privilege. I have a sneaking feeling you're not.------------------------------------------------------ I have clearly stated this a number of times Ray. Again:------------------------------------------------------Please keep a sense of perspective in your posts.------------------------------------------------------ Very well stated Ray and I do read between the lines. I am just disappointed that some of us find it so difficult to accept constructive criticism.Best wishes

this may be the first thread i ever had to lock. and it started out so good...