" If I want a full approach {by the plate} I need to actually ask for it."But isn't this how RCv3 works?You have to use the menu and specifically select the full approach, otherwise you will get vectors, not so?Stamatis

Kathy and all,I have to disagree. With 21yrs at ZME, here's what I do under varying conditions.Let me say first, I cannot speak for Larry. How tracons handle this may be mandated, one way or the other. I speak for Center controllers only.You request a non-precision approach. What am I going to do with that. Depends on my workload. Really, that's it :). I am not obligated to offer vectors, and there is no nationwide nor local order saying otherwise. I think it's great to be comfortable with what happens at local airports!, but (speaking to everyone) don't assume "*that's* the way it's done".Enroute controllers cannot (cannot) vector to all approaches. We must have the final approach course depicted on the radar scopes for this to be legal. (thinking...) I'd guess of all approaches available to pilots, at all airports in all Centers, likely less than 20% have the fac depicted.Now, that in itself wouldn't keep me from implementing Center & Apch controllers, vectoring for non-p approaches. With this discussion, I've already got a map in my mind of initial design, but there are problems we'll have to work through. It's far too early to know whether it can be done, realistically.Anyway, if a pilot asks me for say, "...the SDF Rwy 4" approach, my first inclination is to offer vectors. That however, should not be expected, as in policy. As many times, I simply "...maintain (altitude) until (IAF), clr'd XXX". The IAP function in RCv3, is EXACTLY per user requests. It is in fact, the most requested enhancement :). Vectoring for non-p approaches may end up being Vx's most requested enhancement :). We shall see ;).Great discussion!!!

I am not sure there is any disagreement. Unless I misread I didn't see anyone say it was policy-more an affirmation of your statement "Anyway, if a pilot asks me for say, "...the SDF Rwy 4" approach, my first inclination is to offer vectors""I at least have only seen inclinations in my 12 years of ifr flying :-)http://members.telocity.com/~geof43/Geofdog2.gif

"Anyway, if a pilot asks me for say, "...the SDF Rwy 4" approach, my first inclination is to offer vectors"Doug, no disagreement here. This is what I have experienced. I can only assume that a lot of controllers first inclination is to offer vectors. When I used the term "expected" I mean that this seems to be the norm. And, I agree, great discussion. See ya,Kathy.

I've been wanting to ask you, did you build that aircraft you're standing in front of? I thought I read that somewhere. It's a beaut :-ukliam

Doug,I think what I said is that Geof built the FS version of what he's standing in front of. ;-)

Since you asked... :-coolWell I would have been 5 years old when it was built so that would have been a real coup! :-)It's my 1962 Beech Debonair and has achieved a little notoriety by becoming one of the top downloads here at avsim. It has all the instruments made from photos in flight (not hand drawn), lots of custom gauges made by reality xp(including now a poor man's tcad-the monroy traffic alerter) , and a beautiful gmax outside model and vc by James Eden of New Zealand.Anyway-available here at avsim for free if you want to see it close up!The shot in my sig was shot last year-I made my third across the US trip in it from Flint, Mi to San Diego ,up to San Jose back to San Diego and back here- a lot of miles in 5 days. Had to deliver my beautiful dog in the picture to my stepson for a permanent home-broke my heart! ;(8 Weathered in here in Wilcox, Arizona for severe icing..Geofhttp://members.telocity.com/~geof43/Geofdog2.gif

Ah, I see :). I hope the next controller-generation comes to appreciate that their's is a service oriented profession. We're "here to help" (to quote some government employee somewhere) :-lol.John and I take user requests and discussions very seriously. We're not "out there, untouchable". I hope new customers come to know, the RC family is not MS, AT&T, GM etc! As I've said many times, if you want it and it can be done realistically, we'll "List" it ;). It'll stay on "The List" until it's either done, or proven it cannot be done.

Have to agree with you, Stamatis. Am I missing something? ;-)Rob

Try checking "notams" for your destination airport, then request the specific runway. This way you could fly the full approach and still get the vector to intercept the FAC.Best, Rob

Hi,Funny, I see both sides of your issue. I also fly IFR out here in the Ozarks and around. I have had a bit of previous experience prior to flying General Aviation IFR and that experience had me thinking about getting vectors all the time just like you said. Then, I started flying down here low and slow IFR into small town airports with non precision instrument approaches. Was really sort of an eye opener to be released for the approach by a Center controller and told to switch off his frequency. Heck, that was a lonely feeling. Doesn't he care about me? Well, that's the way it is, no vectors, no nothing, go for it kid! I was sure suprised the other night getting the same sort of treatment out of Radar Contact and having that lonely isolated feeling. Want a non precision approach into Nowheresville? OK, cleared, see ya later kid. So, it seems to me that if you're in an area of high traffic with an approach control, you are going to get those vectors and lots of cozy help. Whether for precision approaches or not. They just don't seem to be too thrilled with your little procedure turn dances in the middle of their sandbox. Quite understandbly so. You got to go to Podunksville where nobody else is around to tune up on those full procedures, and there, you usually don't get the vectors unless you have an approach control by your side. It seems Radar Contact has fullfilled most of what is reasonable to do within what's available. It seems to me that trying to accomodate all the non precision approaches would be incredibly complex. Above my computer level understanding to know just how complex, but that's a big ratchet tossed into the works. I too like to use FS2002 for IFR tuning up and regularly will fly my IFR flights on it before taking the real trip. Helps get my mind in gear with the facilities, frequencies and all of that stuff. It doesn't seem to me to be of much consequence to be without vectors to non precision approaches because for that wonderful time when I lose the radios and I'm doing that sucker for real I won't be talking to anyone anyway so I am practicing the thing under the worst conditions possible which are the best conditions for preparing for the real thing. I see your point either way.Happy Holidays to you and your family,Bob, Rogers, Arkansas

wow, good thread.Bob, I agree with you, in fact I think all of us are in agreement here. Basically I think RC implements this stuff pretty well.I should have prefaced my real life experience a bit to provide some background for my post. I co-own with a partner a 172XP2 housed in Troutdale Oregon (under KPDX class C). PPL in 88, IFR certs in 91. I fly a fair share of IMC (northwest-go figure). However, we just dont have that many airports out here, in fact because of the Cascade mountain range, radar is very limited east of that range. Also, I should have stated that I too am almost always vectored onto a precision approach, especially in the metro area. However, at the more remote airports, if I ask for the app I usually get it, but the ATC is the same, both cases (reqested and non requested) are a vector to the IAF (on file anyway) then cleared for the approach as published. RC is very reflective of my experiences.Ya know, when I first utilized FSNav several years ago, I actually thought something was very wrong. There simply could not be that solid mass of airports as indicated east of the Mississippi. They must be duplicates. Ah, not true! The way I figure it, if your in that area, you are within 3 miles of an airport :-)So what I see reflected in this thread is both east/west airport desnity issue AND wide variety of pilot ratings and experience.P.S. JD - getting a sense here of just how densely controlled the eastern part of the country is, maybe your 20 mile downwind makes some more sense to me.thanks all :-)

What a wonderful place to live-you are very lucky! I went through Troutdale a few years ago.Actually-the high density out here in the east is why they keep the downwinds in general short for us little guys-they want to squeeze us in and get us out of there as quick as possible so any jet drivers coming by can get in (sometimes it does work the other way and I am sent half way to Canada to make room). It sure would be nice if this distance could be user set somewhere-maybe a future feature?http://members.telocity.com/~geof43/Geofdog2.gif

Mike,What a hoot, all this pilot talk back and forth. I just love it. You've got a point about being East or West of the Mississipi. I never thought about it that way. Folks told me that when I started back into IFR flying in the General Aviation world that not to worry too much about being placed into holding as it rarely ever happened. I was also told that not to think too much about doing NDB approaches as those things were a headache and to plan on doing something else. My first for real little IFR cross country flight after being reincarnated into the world of General Aviation flying I found myself being told to hold as number three in the stack while a guy was already doing an NDB approach and it was understood that that it was right down to minimums for the approach. As each guy landed he radioed back up to me that he was on deck and Center then proceeded to clear the next guy for the NDB approach. The stack got lowered a thousand feet for each commencement and I kept telling Center when theprevious plane had landed. All of this in IMC. What a trip, just to have lunch with a friend of mine in a town of about 10,000 or so people in Kansas. Seemed like it took forever.I'll just never forget that feeling that came over me, when I got cleared for the approach, of feeling "is that all there is"? Doesn't that controller know that I could blow this approach and prang myself into some wheat field? I got a real charge out of following that bouncing ADF needle right down to minimums as advertised and landing only I had to call a Flight Service Station to let Center know I was on deck because the sudden surge of IFR traffic into this little town airport was over with. Never did figure out that there was anything special going on to have this miniature fly-in occur all at the same time. Bet you have a lot of stories also.All the best and Happy Holidays,Bob, Rogers, Arkansas

There are a couple of things I could say about your dissapointment, but it would not be in my place to say. Fellow Simmers, we seem to be missing the point here. We are trying to achieve a common ground through simulation....."REALISM", but what many of us fail to realize, is that, there are some levels of realism that 1. take time to accomplish, or 2. are just not attainable due to software limitations. I am not trying to moderate for JD or Scott, but keep in mind that the word "SIMULATE" means ro replicate within close parameters of of a given product or madel (what it may be).I am yet to come across any software module that is perfect, no matter how software/hardware developers try to please their audience, there will always be an unsatisfied customer mainly due to several reasons 1. rather high expectations, or 2. not enough knowledge on a given product or use of the given product ( I am not labelling anyone here...just to get that straight). Guaranteed, everyone is entitled to their own opinion on any given matter or product. I think that you are also overlooking what other factors could be involved to cause the (what i would consider) MINOR setbacks or limitations of RC V3. I myself have found several flaws with the software, but I have not let that ruin my experience with RC. If I was to give a percentile rating of RC, I think 75 - 80% would be a fair rating. Another interesting point that I think I could interject here is. The multi-million dollar simulator that we do our proficiency checks in, have flaws of their own as well, and guess what, they do not come with ATC addon software.Overall, when you consider paying $75 forr MSFS2002 and another $34 for RC V3 and all the other addons, I think that it is well worth it. I don't see what the big fuss is about, because we can not take the time racked up from FS2002 and apply it to our flying time as simulator time. Instead of bashing the devolper and tester, try and make suggestions as to what you think could help enhance the product for the possibility of a patch. Think and hope positive, the outcome can sometimes be rewarding. Like I said, this is not a stomping response, just some feedback to reminds us all that this is supposed to be a hobby of enjoyment, and creative ideas for possibilities of technological advancement in our simming community.Let's be proud and thankful that mankind has been able to utilize brainpower to get us thus far....in time we will progress even farther.Kroswyndhttp://www.flightsimnetwork.com/dcforum/Us...a9241b6b125.jpg