"Resume own navigation"

[northridge 2]

Just supposing for a moment that I haven't RTM.Upon hearing "Resume own navigation" from the controller I would revert to my filed plan, but when I do that I get a smack from the controller 'cos I've strayed from the heading he assigned.So what IS "own navigation" if it isn't going where I wanted, via where I wanted, according to where I'd planned and filed?On a recent flight RC4 totally ignored my flightplan, sending me in a straight line that knocked nearly an hour from my route. The only time I touched the FMC was to update the waypoints in case I ever got near enough to my planned course to use it. Which didn't happen.I know 'ATC Rules' (see, I have RTM) but is it normal that it doesn't take a flightplan into account at all?

[jd 57]

this is fixed in an upcoming build. you will now be cleared direct a checkpoint, and then as filed. so you don't get to pick how you get to the checkpoint. you have to fly direct to that checkpointjd

[neilbradley1 2]

Yesterday while flying from FVGB to FAPI (East Central Africa)on a filed flight plan, I kept getting; 'I show you off the airway, turn right heading 050 and advise when able to proceed on flight plan). This heading was the reciprocal of my track. So I ignored it and put up with the incessant ATC instructions. Finally i thought, what if I do a 180. I did and it worked. I am new to RC and so far my experience has been good, but is there a 'Request direct to ...' phrase in there somewhere?I will await the fix JD.Keep up the good work.NB

[jd 57]

no fix necessary. you missed a checkpoint, and the controller was asking you to go back and cross the missed checkpoint. that "penalty" will be fixed in version 5.in the mean time, don't miss your checkpointsand request direct checkpoint is on the "center" menu's, you may have to go to page 2 or 3. requesting direct checkpoint is covered in a couple of the tutorials

[ronzie 21]

:)What he means is using from the main menu option 9 which will bring you to the extended menus and you can work your way from there with nested menus to skip a waypoint and request direct.The top line of the ATC window shows the next waypoint and heading RC expects and if you miss it you get the prompts you describe. When you go through the request direct procedure you'll see that line change.Reading the basic part of the manual will save you a lot of grief. While there are flexible options in RC it is like a real world ATC and strictly enforces ATC procedures.

[neilbradley1 2]

JD,Thank you. I am finding my way around the menus. In this case the 'missed' checkpoint was the departure airport which seems unreasonable as after takeoff I turned to intercept the departure trach and was back on course within 10 miles.where is the 'Cancel IFR' phrase?Neil B

[neilbradley1 2]

Ron,Thank you. (I was a real world ATC).Is there a link between RC-4 and PMDG's B737 NG FMC's? Also on the flight mentioned in my first query I decided to change my destination from FARS (Robertson, South Africa) to FACT (Cape Town). RC-4 did all the right stuff, as far as I could tell, but although I added FACT to the 'LEGS' page of the FMC, I couldn't find where to change the destination. Thus I couldn't select the arrival runway at FACT and of course there was no runway information on the 'INRF' page.Another thing occured also that is probably RC-4 related. I was vectored, vary wide, long and high - 10/15 miles parallel on downwind, out to thirty miles and at 7000'just like MSFS - and then I get traffic on a B737 on a merging vector from the right 2 o'clock 2 miles same level, again just like MSFS and not therefore very impressive. As I new that I was in for a go-around if I contined I did a left hand orbit at 10 miles before proceeding. Should I have implemented 'AI Smooth'?Neil B

[ronzie 21]

AI Smooth does help especially in giving room to merge into a string of pearls. I have it set up for 70 sec. seperation, no ATC comm, and to NOT seperate AI from me. If you have interact with AI checked on the RC options page RC should provide protection for you by controlling AI in various ways. Make sure you have a recent version of FSUIPC. See the pinned topics about this.

[ronzie 21]

It sounds as if you may not have been properly cleared for take-off and somehow your take-off was not recognized. Perhaps in your flight plan there was a waypoint close to the runway end that was missed.Were you being vectored? If so, you would not on your own turn onto the indicated ND departure track but stay on the ATC indicated course. Once cleared for own nav on the FMC double LSK the top waypoint if that is next for a direct path (LEGS page) or LSK the next waypoint RC expects you to use (it shows on the top of the RC box) and then LSK it to the first position on LEGS page one, then EXE. The path on you ND will then update and you can engage LNAV if you wish.

[jd 57]

what is the msa of fact?

[neilbradley1 2]

Ron,No, it was a departure from a non-towered airport in Class G airspace on RWY 28 with a departure track of 239 to the first waypoint 86 nm away, so it was a left turn onto 210 to intercept the departure track from FAHV. I have flown a number of legs with similar departure situations and this is the firat time it has occured.Neil B

[ronzie 21]

Did you contact departure or enroute within the time limits in your clearance? What heading (in the RC window) did it prompt you to take. Were you on the departure track before you contacted ATC in the air? Otherwise I think they still might expect a direct to that next waypoint. I've done a few departures from unserviced airports but do not recall exactly what happened. Either way, that waypoint 86 miles away should have been in the RC window once you made radar contact in the air.Since that waypoint was 86 miles away once you made radar contact you should have received vectors to that first waypoint unless you got a fly as filed response at that time.

[neilbradley1 2]

Ron,Contact was made within limits.No, I took up 30 degree heading to intercept the departure track.The problem may come from the fact that there seems to be an expectation that outside the USA and Europe other countries have similar excellent high and low level radar coverage. Sadly this is not the case, and I would suggest that in the majority of cases on a continent like Africa there is little or no radar coverage below FL290. Possibly only South Africa has good radar coverage. Of the seven countries I have visited in the last three years, Botswana, Lesotho, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Zambia, Malawi and Mozambique, only Botswana and Zimbabwe had a working radar system, and that was only for the capital city terminal area out to the limit of radar coverage. For the rest it was done procedurally. I accept that mapping radar coverage world wide would be difficult. But if RC aspires to be a legitimate and worthy alternative to MSFS ATC, then this aspect needs to be addressed. I would like to raise another issue. On two recent long legs in Africa (1000 nm +) with upper level temperatures being ISA plus 10-15, the climb performance suffers even in a B737NG. When operating in VNAV should the aircraft get below the FMC target climb speed, the autopilot levels the aircraft off until the speed recovers. This may only be for a minute, but you get jumped on by ATC at the time (any competent controller watching the mode C readout would know that the aircraft is struggling), and unfairly dealt with in the post flight de-brief. Neil B

[ronzie 21]

RC expects you to fly direct from wherever radar contact is made. There are a couple of things to do and try:In your options tab, you can increase your heading tolerance.Another is to use notams which gives you flexibility for about 30 nm. When you get on your predicted path see what happens if you go into the extended menu and select direct next waypoint and then see if the "same" next waypoint is in the list. Is so when you select it you will get a new heading in the RC window from your present position. I've always used it to skip some waypoints but never noticed if I could select the same one to update the expected heading.Maybe in version 5+ there can be no radar legs but demand you do mandatory comm position reporting as you cross mandatory reporting points or to keep the waypoint database simple it might have to be all waypoints once outside of departure/arrival or in otherwords the enroute portion. I guess the airports database would have to be marked with a field denoting limited radar or it might have to be set by you in a future controller page. RC does know the waypoint coordinates (it is in the flight plan) and that of your aircraft. When calling in RC would have to note your present position and compare it that waypoint in the plan and if you're out of tolerance you would be notified.As far as failing to report within ETA of a waypoint I have no clue since FS9 format flight plans do not have a waypoint ETA.It is food for thought and a lot to figure out on the programming side.As far as radar coverage in the US there are some vacancies in the departure/approach phase where no local radar coverage exists and enroute or a distant TRACON has the responsibility. At those points it is do your own nav below a certain altitude. The plane crash involving US Senator Wellstone was in such an area (I think it was Ely, MN.) and while Duluth radar saw the aircraft reduce altitude it could not maintain contact because of terrain blockage of low hills and the minimum angle of radar beam elevation. There was no way to recognise the aircraft altitude and track to warn the pilot of course deviation when at low altitudes.I think in the US if not an ICAO rule if due to transponder failure or radar coverage loss you do fly direct to your next waypoint and report time and position at the loss and then at your mandatory reporting waypoints.It sure would keep one busy.

[jd 57]

in 4.2 and 5.0 the "resume own navigation" has been replaced by "direct zzz then as filed" no question what to do. no more confusion of fly direct or get on the magic green line.reporting position for oceanic routes is on the list for v5 (i'm pretty sure), but i wasn't counting on doing it for land routesjd