Wishes to get RC4 much closer to the real european espe...

[Guest tomtor]

Wishes to get RC4 much closer to the real european especially german ATC.First of all Thank you very much for his wonderful AddOnWe have tested your RC4 and here is our list of wishes:1. Do not use the word "AIRPORT" in clearance.So it's "cleared to Frankfurt as filed". Not "cleared to the Frankfurt Airport as filed". A more authentic clearance procedure would have the controller first ask "callsign, ready to copy ?" and the pilot respond with "ground, go ahead".2.. The instruction "line up and wait" should be readback with "lining up and wait". Not with "roger" ! 3. Descent instructions are occasionally incorrectly readback. E.g. "descend FL120" got readback with "maintain FL120" instead of 'descending FL120"4. Your manual mentions two types of crossing restrictions :- cross xx miles from XXX at altitude- descend and maintain altitude. Start down now. I need you level at 30 NM or less The first one would be quite OK for Europe. But I made around a dozen flights now and never heard the first one in RC4. I hear only the second "I need you ..", which would nobody say here in Europe.5. About that 'will give him a call' has already been discussed in your forum .... It would be great if you could readback a handover just with : "CONTACT ..... ON xxx.xx, CALLSIGN"6. Sounds like bean counting, but here we must say "tree niner" for "3 9", not "three nine". Surprisingly, just one of your controller voices really says it. It would be a nice touch, if it could be said consistently like that in European Airspace.7. For even more refining, try to avoid "ROGER" as much as possible. If someone says "ROGER" here, he could very well also say "I have no idea what you said". It's a sign for an inexperienced pilot. 8. It would be great if more airport names could be spoken. Many big airports in Europe are missing, e.g. Munich or Dusseldorf or Zurich.Some names are already spoken as controls, e.g. Munich control or Malmo control or Bremen control. Couldn't you extract these names from the wav file and use them as airport names ? Then we would have already gained some more airport names without the need of more recordings ?This list should give you hints to get the optimum.Best regardsTom tor

[jd 57]

>Wishes to get RC4 much closer to the real european especially>german ATC.v4 we had a big push for better phraseology in non faa controlled areas. we're not done>First of all Thank you very much for his wonderful AddOn>We have tested your RC4 and here is our list of wishes:>>1. Do not use the word "AIRPORT" in clearance.already done>>So it's "cleared to Frankfurt as filed". Not "cleared to the>Frankfurt Airport as filed". >>A more authentic clearance procedure would have the controller>first ask "callsign, ready to copy ?" and the pilot respond>with "ground, go ahead".that happens at random>>2.. The instruction "line up and wait" should be readback with>"lining up and wait". Not with "roger" ! at the time we didn't have lining up and wait recorded, and when we discovered it was missing it was too late to have everyone record it. it's in the 4.1 script>>3. Descent instructions are occasionally incorrectly readback.>E.g. "descend FL120" got readback with "maintain FL120" >instead of 'descending FL120"noted>>4. Your manual mentions two types of crossing restrictions :>>- cross xx miles from XXX at altitude>- descend and maintain altitude. Start down now. I need you>level at 30 NM or less >>The first one would be quite OK for Europe. But I made around>a dozen flights now and never heard the first one in RC4. I>hear only the second "I need you ..", which would nobody say>here in Europe.the first one is given when you have a vor near the arrival airport. if you don't have one, then the second one is played. put a vor near the arrival airport, and re-fly. you'll hear it.>>5. About that 'will give him a call' has already been>discussed in your forum .... It would be great if you could>readback a handover just with : "CONTACT ..... ON xxx.xx,>CALLSIGN"done>>6. Sounds like bean counting, but here we must say "tree>niner" for "3 9", not "three nine". Surprisingly, just one of>your controller voices really says it. It would be a nice>touch, if it could be said consistently like that in European>Airspace.in reference to what? there are different rules for different ways of treating nine/niner depending on the situation>>7. For even more refining, try to avoid "ROGER" as much as>possible. If someone says "ROGER" here, he could very well>also say >"I have no idea what you said". It's a sign for an>inexperienced pilot. no more "rogers". already done.>>8. It would be great if more airport names could be spoken.>Many big airports in Europe are missing, e.g. Munich or>Dusseldorf or Zurich.>Some names are already spoken as controls, e.g. Munich control>or Malmo control or Bremen control. Couldn't you extract these>names from the wav file and use them as airport names ? Then>we would have already gained some more airport names without>the need of more recordings ?we'll see what we can do there.>This list should give you hints to get the optimum.>Best regards>Tom tor>

[PeteP 2]

I'll leave the RC stuff to jd but I must take issue with you (as a professional air traffic controller and not as a member of the Radar Contact beta team) over your incorrect statements about the word "roger" and your misunderstanding of its proper use."Roger" is defined by ICAO as having the specific meaning I have received all of your last transmission.- nothing more, nothing less. There are a number of occasions when the understanding of a transmission is required to be confirmed by a full read-back but there are many other times when this is not required and "roger" is the correct response. Properly used, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the word "roger" and it is used routinely (and correctly) by controllers and pilots the world over.Pete

[SAS263 1]

Swedish pilot here, I agree with Pete. "Roger", is well defined and most definitely does not indicate that I have missed or have trouble understanding an instruction given to me. I

[jgoggi 65]

Two more things that, in my opinion, are useless:1."Descend/Climb to ALTITUDE xxxx feet": I never hear the word "altitude" on real ATC, no need for it, just "Descend/Climb to xxxx feet".2."Turn left/right heading xxx DEGREES": no need for the word "degrees", just "Turn left/right heading xxx".Thanks for the wonderful RC4!James

[Guest mikealpha]

I remember I brought this "roger" subject up in a German forum, if I read the list it originates from that forum.What was meant was just a standard readback should not be replaced with "Roger".Speaking about wishes, here's some more :1. Would it be possible to add a selection "request startup" additionally to "request push and start". At some airports you just start at positions requiring no pushback.2. I made around two dozen flights now and never got any holding. Not a surprise, since the weather conditions did not require. To add some variety, would it be possible to add a random holding selection ? First of all it would add a surprising element and it would somewhat reflect a holding due to traffic situation.3. Again to add some variety, it is possible to come up with an occasional "proceed direct ..." ?Mike

[PeteP 2]

>Two more things that, in my opinion, are useless:You're entitled to your opinion, James but, even though you may not have heard them, both those phraseologies are used by real-world ATC for good safety reasons and are in RC for equally, imho, good reasons.Let me explain the background. One of the biggest difficulties in "internationalising" Radar Contact has been the fact that there is no single standard for things like RT, procedures or altimetry or a single controlling authority like there is in the US with the FAA. Although ICAO produces Standards an Recommended Practices upon which the majority of countries base their ATC systems, they are not mandatory and individual states are free to file "differences" and to go their own way. So, wherever possible, I have used standard ICAO phrases but on 3 occasions - you've picked-up on 2 of them - I decided to use other phrases for reasons of "best practice".The word "altitude" is mandatory for UK controllers when giving vertical clearances based on QNH - they're also required to use the word "height" with clearances based on QFE. This practice was introduced as a safety measure to help combat a number of incidents caused by confusion over altimeter settings. As I'd seen many posts from users over the years showing a lot of confusion in this area - a confusion shared by the majority of the RC beta team incidentally - it seemed logical to include it in RC to give users every possible help in understanding what type of vertical clearance they'd been given.If you listen carefully, you'll hear that RC does not say degrees after every heading but only after headings ending in "zero". This is another safety-related practice introduced by the UK to help combat possible confusion between headings and flight levels. There have been a number of incidents caused by pilots transposing headings that end in "zero" with flight levels and ending up steering their cleared level or climbing to their heading!How to overcome this has been discussed by real-world aviation safety authorities for a number of years with numerous solutions being trialled such as insisting that controllers didn't use headings ending in zero at all - so, instead of 270, controllers would use 269 or 271! However, the UK's solution seemed the most practical to include in RC4 so that's why it's there - after all, if well trained and experienced real-world pilots can make basic errors like this when they're busy, why wouldn't RC users?I hope this has made the reasons for their inclusion in RC4 a little clearer.All the bestPetehttp://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannerbeta.jpg

[jgoggi 65]

Thank you, Pete, for your detailed reply. I have heard ATC-pilot communications for many years in some european nations but unfortunately not enough in UK, and I will just have to "get my ear used" to that phraseology ;-)Best regards,James

[cannonplug 126]

Hello all:This is probably a good place for me to note some very minor issues I've come across regarding European airspace:1. I've heard pilots and controllers refer to the Frankfurt airport as Frankfurt main (pronounced mane). The "Main" in this case does not mean that it is the main or principal airport in Frankfurt. It refers to the river that runs along the city and should thus be pronounced as it is in German (in English it would sound like "mine").2. I've also heard Vienna Control referred to as Wien Control (pronounced "ween"). In German, the "w" sounds like a "v", so it should in fact be pronounced "Veen" control.3. I believe what RC calls Switzerland Control is in the real world called Swiss Radar, but I'm not entirely positive about this one.As I said above, very minor items that do not take away any of the enjoyment in using RC4. Just thought I'd mention them for consideration in future updates.Regards,Walter Meier - KPDX

[jd 57]

i thought for non-faa countries we had broken down request push/start into request startup and ready to push. maybe i was smoking crack, but i thought for sure we did that2) if you want a hold, make sure there is a vor near the arrival airport, and choose holding "on" on the general options screen. otherwise, you have to plan your flight into nasty weather, and take your chances. time of day also impacts the chances of being held. this is documented in the manual on the probabilities.3) that has been asked for, and we'll probably do that in 4.1jd

[jd 57]

a lot of volunteers guessed at some pronunciations. at least you weren't to hard on us for the russian centers ;-)jd

[Guest mikealpha]

jd,>> we had broken down request push/start into request startup and ready to pushHmmm, haven't noticed that yet>> this is documented in the manual on the probabilities.yes, I have read that. I have it on setting "weather", but I haven't met the conditions yet in two dozen flights, so no holding as it should be. With setting "ON" I would have it always. The question was, whether it's possible to add a random holding selection. So one would get just an occasional unexpected holding.>> that has been asked for, and we'll probably do that in 4.1Excellent !Mike

[Guest kzuerner]

Hi,in real world flying in Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Hungary, Rumania and Czech I never was handed over to "Control" (eg. Wien Control). In Vienna eg. it has always been Wien (for the lazy ones), "Wien Radar" or "Wien Delivery" (for startup and clearance) or sometimes at Vienna airport "Wien Director" (this is a frequency used when they have heavy traffic between Radar and Tower) besides "Wien Ground" and "Wien Tower".And please don't call it "Veen". Its either Wien or Vienna if you like. I have experienced that a lot of - non german speaking pilots -used "Vienna Radar", also this not absolutely correct.Anyway, for me this seems to me to be a minor issue in this great software-package.Still do not want to miss RC4 anymore!I hope jd has put all suggestions for a smarter usage in Europe into his "basket" for Version 4.1 and we do not want him to do too much changes as he will not be able to release it before 2010 otherwise! Regards

[Guest hlm65]

I totally agree with you regarding the "Control" callsign in Europe, very very seldom used...usually the Control is referred to simply as the location name (eg: "London", "Paris", "Wien", "Milano").

[Guest mikealpha]

jd,>> i thought for non-faa countries we had broken down request push/start into request startup and ready to push. maybe i was smoking crack, but i thought for sure we did thatjust looked at it again and until I find any special trick, I only get push AND start. The AI get 'request startup' though, maybe it was only implemented for them ?>> at least you weren't to hard on us for the russian centers these sound not too bad :). Just some countries could be spoken better. Ukraine shouldn't really be spoken "you crane" :DMike