If may respond to a few of the issuses raised here.In my experience (27 years F/E) I've generally found that the instruction to climb/ descend to the next level is normally given just as you have set the power levers to establish the correct speed at the present level.:-)the "line up and wait" instruction should be read back as "Line up and wait, "Flt number"", not "Lining up and wait""I need you level at 30 NM or less" is maybe american>style, but no one would say that here. Would it be possible to>say something like "cross (XX miles inbound/outbound) Waypoint>at FL... : ?In Europe the correct instruction would be " to be at flight levelXXX 30miles before (or after) XXX(station or XXXXX waypoint) and would usually be prefixed by "Descend at pilots discression to be etc."As my copy only arrived yesterday I haven't had a chance to try it yetbut am looking forward to it.Merry Christmas to all the team and the users, and god bless Air Traffic Controllers eveywhere.Espescially at Brussels and Heathrow this afternoon. Steve Keating

Hi Mike,1. If you have your final wp as a navaid at or near the airport you'll get the first type of clearance.2. RC determines it's tod according to the direct distance left to the airport not the distance left on the flightplan. What you describe might be due to your flight plan taking a somewhat roundabout route into the airport.Happy Christmas,John

Steve,>the "line up and wait" instruction should be read back as>"Line up and wait, "Flt number"", not "Lining up and wait"Uh, Ok, thanks for the correction. >> the instruction to climb/ descend to the next level is normally given just as you have set the power levers to establish the correct speed at the present level.:-)interesting how different the experiences are. I had asked the LH pilot about that subject and he said "happens, but rarely". I have spend probably weeks on jumpseats and I remember only one flight where it happened three times in a row. And right away causing some unfriendly comments by the Captain, which I should not repeat here :-)>In Europe the correct instruction would be " to be at flight>levelXXX 30miles before (or after) XXX(station or XXXXX>waypoint) and would usually be prefixed by "Descend at pilots>discression to be etc."Hmmm, strange, never heard that one during my flights. And at my many ATC recordings I hear only "cross XXX at FLxxx" or "descend FLxxx to be level XXX".Merry Christmas to all !Mike

>>- cross xx miles from XXX at altitude ... - descend xxx, start down now, I need you down at 30 miles or less<< >>I only get the second, but the first would be more common here. Can I influence that?<>2. How do you decide the top of descent? ... Not at all meant as complaint. But can you inform about any >factors involved in that, or it is just a random variation?<

Hi John,>> 1. If you have your final wp as a navaid at or near the airport you'll get the first type of clearance.No joy with that one. I have put a VOR as a last waypoint before the airport in my flight plan (17 NM from airport, see BAK in screenshot below), still I get the "I need you down at .. or less">> 2. RC determines it's tod according to the direct distance left to the airport not the distance left on the flightplan. >> What you describe might be due to your flight plan taking a somewhat roundabout route into the airport.Let me answer this with a description of a small flight, which nicely represents my RC4 experience so far. You might check if it's as intended. It is an MD83 Maddog flight from Dusseldorf to Gothenburg, or in RC4 words, from echo-delta-delta-lima to echo-sierra-golf-golf :( :-)Everything went almost flawless. Reached my cruising altitude FL330 after seven step altitudes (now I have adapted to handle them). In total I get 13 handovers, among them 2 Dusseldorf Control, 3 Bremen Control and 4 Copenhagen Control. Nothing special to notice so far, now to the descent :My FMC shows 165 NM to go to ESGG, 50 NM to go until TOD, when RC4 instructs me to descend. I measured the direct distance to ESGG at this stage, it's 140 NM.I know, the old rule 3 NM for every 1000 ft is not applicable for ATC (would lead to 90NM), but still the 140 NM seem a bit pessimistic.Countering with a higher altitude request makes no sense, the Controller confirms, but comes back right away with the altitude he wanted initially. I counter with a very shallow descent :-)In total I get four steps to descend to FL110, then RC4 lets me fly for 40 NM at FL 110 until 20 NM to the FAF. ATIS has said QNH 1012 and Runway 03 in use. OK, I'm getting nervous already that close to the FAF, but then approach comes with FL70 and a second later with 4000 ft(as described already). Within the next 1.5 minutes I also get 3000 ft and then 2500 ft (that's the MSA, just by the way). Phew, whopping descend while getting the speed down simultaneously. FAF at ESGG/03 is 8.4. DME from the Landvetter VOR at the Airport. I'm getting the final turn to 30 deg LOC intercept approx. 20 NM from Landvetter VOR. A bit far, but better more than less, I'm still descending. Finally a safe landing as always.I initially said 'almost flawless', here's why: I already reported Approach tells wrong QNH. That's reproducible in every flight. Also for that flight : ATIS said 1012, Approach gave me 1015. If I hit the "B" key at the 'altimeter check", it correctly sets 1012. I checked ASV, it has set 1012, nowhere 1013 to see. ASV is configured to suppress weather updates within 100 NM of destination.I have already got differences of 10 between the value Approach told and the correct one. Approach gives always higher value, but I don't have the slightest idea where it comes from. I must admit, RC4 really grows on me. The times of boring VNAV flights are gone, no one can say RC4 doesn't keep him busy :-). I'm sure with that maybe extra bit of European procs and phrases in 4.1. it will be perfect for my taste. I make a lot of flights with RC4, but don't know if you appreciate that kind of feedback. If I should nerve, then just tell me to shut up :-).EDIT : Re 1.) Just saw Dougs other post, the final waypoint must be 5NM or less to the airport (so an Airport VOR or NDB). OK !Mikehttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/136706.jpg

Steve,>>...I've generally found that the instruction to climb/ descend to the next level is normally given just as you have set the power levers to establish the correct speed at the present level...<<(blushing ) - Sooorry . That's not by design, though I know it's true .>>the "line up and wait" instruction should be read back as"Line up and wait, "Flt number"", not "Lining up and wait"<>In Europe the correct instruction would be " to be at flightlevelXXX 30miles before (or after) XXX(station or XXXXX waypoint) and would usually be prefixed by "Descend at pilots discression to be etc."<>Merry Christmas to all the team and the users, and god bless Air Traffic Controllers eveywhere. Espescially at Brussels and Heathrow this afternoon.<

Mike wrote>In total I get 13 handovers, among them 2 Dusseldorf>Control, 3 Bremen Control and 4 Copenhagen Control. Nothing>special to notice so far, now to the descent :It's been a few months since I did this but we had regular route Arlanda(ESSA)-Cologne(EDDK)-Arlanda and Arlanda-Frankfurt(EDDF)-Arlanda and I don't recall being handed off to Bremen,I think the correct Hi-Level center is Masstricht and then Malmo. Obviuosly we would be going past Malmo but I think that it would be Masstricht that would either give initial descent or pass you over to Copenhagen for descent.As I still haven't had a chance to play with RC V4 yet is Masstricht (Eurocontrol) included?Steve KeatingP.S. Coming into Heathrow yesterday (IRL) was the first time I have ever heard london ask "Which runway would you Like?" :-)

Doug,> your flight >plan must have the last fix as a VOR, and that VOR must be within 5m of the arrival airport. Great, worked fine, especially since it must be in the FS flight plan, but not in the FMC flight plan.> Not realistic in Euro (I've heard that several times)? I'll bet it is, or something to that affect. Not all aircraft are GPS equiped, in the States and Euro Haven't heard that yet during any of the Airliner jumpseat flights, maybe it's a more common instruction for GA Aircraft ? Of course I understand why it must be in. Although in FS down to the Vimy everything is GPS equipped :D>> The "3PD" feature was added in v4 to accomodate those using FMCs and TODs. You'll see this option appear when you're first told toD&M. Good you say that, since I remember having read that in the manual, but have never noticed it appearing in the menu. I have just completed a flight and looked for it when I got the first descend instruction from FL330 to FL290. But I couldn't find it in any of the menus. Does in depend on any configuration setting ?Mike

Steve,no, Maastricht is not in. Also there are too much handoffs between the same controls. E.g. you get three times a handover from one Copenhagen control to another Copenhagen control on a different frequency.I remember JD told, it gets extracted from the BGL files and can be corrected. I have flown EDDM-ESSA yesterday and for Munich control and Stockholm control I got only one this time (thanks, JD !!).JD, I had a look to s4.csv, it seems to contain all the control/center with frequencies and Lat/Lon. Would it theoretically be possible to make real European control boundaries by putting the appropriate definitions in that file ?Mike

>>...but have never noticed it appearing in the menu. I have just completed a flight and looked for it when I got the first descend instruction from FL330 to FL290. But I couldn't find it in any of the menus. Does in depend on any configuration setting?<

I find it strange that one(if not the) of the major control agencies in Europe should be missing.I don't know how the areas in RC or MSFS are coded so please don't take this as unconstructive critism if it is a limitation of either.Steve

>Steve,>>no, Maastricht is not in. Also there are too much handoffs>between the same controls. E.g. you get three times a handover>from one Copenhagen control to another Copenhagen control on a>different frequency.>I remember JD told, it gets extracted from the BGL files and>can be corrected. I have flown EDDM-ESSA yesterday and for>Munich control and Stockholm control I got only one this time>(thanks, JD !!).i haven't done anything yet ;-) >>JD, I had a look to s4.csv, it seems to contain all the>control/center with frequencies and Lat/Lon. Would it>theoretically be possible to make real European control>boundaries by putting the appropriate definitions in that file>?theoretically, yes. but i would prefer to smart small, buy updating the frequencies of similar sectors, so you don't have so many handoffs.john burgess (when he isn't trig'ing and answer questions) is the zen master of the sectors and control boundaries.if you embark on this on your own, make a back up of the file, and restore it if things go terribly wrong ;-)if you will send your updates to me ([email protected]) john b and i will review, and make the changes permanent to the data files>>Mike

>I don't know how the areas in RC or MSFS are coded so please don't take this as unconstructive critism if it is a limitation of either.Steve, You're correct, it is a limitation in the method RC currently uses to define control centres - it defines them geographically but not vertically. So, there will always be a problem in RC where you have different control centres working in the same geographical area but with responsibility split vertically. The two most obvious examples which spring to my mind are Maastricht UAC which sits directly above the airspace controlled by the Area Control Centres at Brussels and Amsterdam (as well as the north-west part of Germany) and Manchester ACC which sits underneath London Control's airspace north of Birmingham. I'm sure there must be others - the new CEATS centre in Vienna, for example, which will control traffic above FL245 over 8 central European countries will give RC even more headaches when it comes on-line.Given these restrictions in RC, the decision to leave out Maastricht was a conscious one, knowing that whatever I recommended, it was going to be wrong in some part. The options were to let Maastricht control below FL245 or let Brussels and Amsterdam control above FL245 - both were wrong but in the end I plumped for the national centres on the ground that they would be recognisable to the majority of RC users, many of whom will probably never have heard of Maastricht. It may be that future versions of RC will be able to deal with these vertical centre splits but that's something you'll have to ask John and/or jd about.Pete

jd,>> i haven't done anything yet Ouch, hmmm. Maybe the route was slightly different, initally I got four Munich controls (see my first post in this thread), now only one.I looked in the file s4.csv and found six Munich entries, all with the same frequency. While e.g. Bremen had also six entries, all with different frequencies.I thought I had understood it, but apparently I haven't. I'll send you a mail, before I screw up something.Mike

>> It'll appear as 3PDHmmm. I made a flight again, was at FL330 and got the descend instruction to FL290. No 3PD in the main menu, then I searched for it in all menus, until I already got 'watch your altitude" (I had stayed at FL330). I dont't use the Copilot, so I have the comms. I hope it's that what you mean. Mike