Jet airways

[Guest c210_cvs]

Why does RC4 keep moaning to me about not being on the airway when I am according to the PDMG 737-800 FMC with airac0610 data. How do I fix that.While I am in the #### mode. Tonight was doing a 1:30 hour flight in total IMC and undr RC4 control the whole way. So here I am being cleared to land and 2.5nm final when my tcas goes bananas and I get a fly down command. Next moment a A320 zooms overhead and proceed down the glideslope and in the process hitting me and ending my flight.Now AI control is switched on in RC4 and this guy never talked to him ever. Why will this happen?!?!?

[jd 57]

you're either missing checkpoints, or not flying direct to your next checkpoint.the display always tells you where your next checkpoint is, the distance, bearing and frequency. that is what i'm going by.jd

[Guest c210_cvs]

Nope!!I programme the FMC to follow the airway to the end. I don't programme waypoints in between, the FMC does that autmatically for reporting points along the airway. The autpilot is in VNAV and LNAV mode and the ND shows me smack bang on route!!

[ukflight 11]

Bearing in mind that RC4 follows the .pln route and not the FMC route is it possible the two are not identical?

[ronzie 21]

If I understand you correctly, you are programming the waypoints in the PMDG FMC. There is no (I have not found it) way to export directly the PMDG .rte plan to FS .pln format, which is what RC uses. You therefore must be using a third party planner that imports your .rte plan and exports it to FS9.RC does not place waypoints but just interprets the position from the coordinates in the .pln file you created. If your third party planner placed different waypoints then that in your FMC, you have the potential for a non-synchronous route between RC and your FMC.Another false assumption of many FMC users is that ATC must follow your FMC route especially during departure and arrival if you are taking vectors. Not so. During departure RC starts following your plan at over thirty miles out when you get the resume own navigation command if you are taking departure vectors. At that time adjust your FMC to route direct to your next waypoint (as indicated in the RC window) by punching on the LEGS page the next waypoint indicated adjacent LSK (the name will come up in the scratchpad) and then at the top of LEGS page 1 punch the topmost left LSK, then EXE the change and a new route path will be created for your LNAV navigation.For arrival if you are taking vectors forget the FMC and use your MPC controls when you start getting headings and altitudes from ATC. Your other option is when approach contacts you after determining the runway request an IAP approach. Now this is important. Make sure before flying that if you have installed any afcads or scenery changes to run the RC scenery update utility (built in) so RC has the correct frequency and runway information matched to your installed scenery (which has nothing to do with AIRAC updates). That way RC will give you on the IAP choices the ones installed in FS9. Your FMC to the contrary uses approach information from the AIRAC contributed DP (SID) - STAR database. By using the IAP apoproach choice in RC you have the freedom to follow your planned approach indicated on the FMC. Hopefully the runway choices will be the same but outside of the US the FMC frequently does not have as many choices as RC because of the lack of non-US contributions.To keep enroute synched up I generate the plan in the third party planner that exports to PMDG format and FS9 format. That way the routes match. In the FMC RTE page 1 I import the exported plan as a COROUTE (when exporting the plan name it KMSPKDEN and to import it simply type KMSPKDEN in the scratch pad followed by LSK COROUTE, LSK Activate, and EXE. Then in RC load the plan of the same name that was exported to your flight directory for FS9.There are some freeware planners that may export to both but my preference is the payware FSBuild 2.2. Others use FSNav, and there may be others. For FSBuild whether you auto-route-edit-build or manually build, when it exports the plan your airways for FS9 become individdual waypoints that RC will follow.If you search on my name or FMC in this forum, you will find numerous threads on how to get it all matched up.Remember: ATC rules, not the FMC! :)

[Guest c210_cvs]

I use fs9's default flight planner to find the high altitude route. Save that flight plan as a pln file and load that in RC4. In the FMC I don't load the flightplan but but in the first waypoint route, ie FACT - FAJS will follow jetroute UA405 from WY at Cape Town to HGV close to Johannesburg. So in the FMC is say DIRECT to WY then on LSK2 will be UA405 and RSK2 HGV. The FMC fills in the blanks along route UA405. Now why would these two not match up? And yes, I do wait for it say resume own navigation.I stopped using RC4 now all together since it does not control AI planes aswell (and the control AI button is set in the settings) thus making it almost as bad as the default ATC in fs9. So don't use ANY ATC, just tune to tower freq or AIS to get QNH and then follow my own route since FS Passegers penalise you for not using correct QNH. On landing in IMC TCAS and listen out on tower radio to make my chances better. Quite a pity!!! Was kinda impressed when I got a 'expect 15000 10 miles from xx beacon' the other dayThe other pain in the behind is that not to get penalised by FS Passengers you need to set your ICE codes for emergency/radio failure etc and as soon as I touch my xponder setting RC4 will moan NON STOP about them not seeing me, until I declare a emergency in it's menu aswell! Oh well.....

[jd 57]

the two .plns have to agree. why don't you load the .pln that you loaded into rc, into your fmc? i'm pretty sure everyone else doesi'm unclear what you mean rc doesn't control ai. it most certainly does. i move them out of your way enroute all the time. if you are referring to tower handling of ai, if it isn't right, then i suspect you haven't clicked the "rebuild scenery database" in rc. that will let me know what your scenery looks like, and i'll know where the runways, and thresholds are. otherwise, you are getting default fs9 values.the transponder thing is being fixed in v5. as a matter of fact, i just not went through the code and made those changes.and why can't you use the correct qnh? that was a big improvement in v4, the ability for non faa flights to have their own transition altitudes/level based on airport.are you sure you're running rc v4.2?jd

[Guest c210_cvs]

>the two .plns have to agree. why don't you load the .pln that>you loaded into rc, into your fmc? i'm pretty sure everyone>else does>I'm a handson kinda guy ;) No shortcuts here ;)>i'm unclear what you mean rc doesn't control ai. it most>certainly does. i move them out of your way enroute all the>time. if you are referring to tower handling of ai, if it>isn't right, then i suspect you haven't clicked the "rebuild>scenery database" in rc. that will let me know what your>scenery looks like, and i'll know where the runways, and>thresholds are. otherwise, you are getting default fs9>values.>Cause a 320 smacked into me on short final in IMC while I was under RC4 control and this guys never spoke to or was controlled by RC4. When do you need to run the update? I did when I installed the software and since then have not installed any other scenery files or addons, just FS Passengers!>the transponder thing is being fixed in v5. as a matter of>fact, i just not went through the code and made those>changes.>Sounds gr8>and why can't you use the correct qnh? that was a big>improvement in v4, the ability for non faa flights to have>their own transition altitudes/level based on airport.>Nope, might have understood me wrong. I could set the QNH before, since I don't use an ATC anymore I just tune to the default ATC to get it to set so not to get the penalty in FSP. While typing this I actually remembered the 'b' key so no need to do that either then ;)>are you sure you're running rc v4.2?>I actually don't know. Will have to look!

[jd 57]

usually the ai try to avoid you when they can. you were on the ground when he hit you, or you were landing too, and he hit you

[ronzie 21]

Are you running 3.70 or better of FSUIPC? One earlier version had a problem with AI on final.

[Guest c210_cvs]

Upgraded to 4.2 and did a flight tonight. Vast improvement and no moaning about the airway :) Cool bananas!!

[neilbradley1 2]

JD,May I make a suggestion for RC5 to handle these occurances of differences between the plan the aircraft is flying and the one RC is using.Instead of the ATC going into your standard phraseology ' ... you appear to be diverging from the airway, fly heading until etc etc', what about and interim phraseology along the lines of '...you appear to be diverging from the airway, advise intentions.'This would allow the pilot to identify the problem - his next waypoint not matching RC's - and so select the appropriate menu and and ask for a 'direct to' a matching waypoint. That way everyone is happy and no more niggly posts.Just a thought,NeilYPAD

[Ray Proudfoot 8,930]

Hi Neil,I'm sorry but I have to agree with JD on this. Why would you file one plan into the FMC and a different one into RC4? It makes no sense at all?The only time you could get away with this is if you include extra waypoints in one of them that do not involve a heading change. Such as when using some or all of the waypoints in a J route. That is the only time it would be acceptable.However, there are plans in v5 to monitor if you have missed a waypoint and then check if you're flying to the next one in the plan. If that is the case then RC5 will update the active waypoint and issue a suitable response so the user doesn't need to request Direct XXX.Hope that helps,

[neilbradley1 2]

Hi Ray,I noe create my plans in FSBuild 2.1 and load the the plan into RC4, and also into the PMDG FMC. But every now and again the seems to be a disconnect between the two which to date I have not been able to resolve. I now know what to do when ATC draws my attention to the problem. It is just that it seems to be a long winded way to resolve the problem, hence the suggestion.Regards,NeilYPAD

[Guest Douglas Thompson]

Hey Neil,I've been using FSB in conjuntion with the b737ng for some time now. Can't say I've ever seen a disparity in checkpoints RC vs the FMC. Guess I'm lucky :-). MY problem is in my not paying close attention to what FSB builds! It's not always a logical route; sometimes even humerous. I've learned the hard way, more than once (which means I'll probably never learn (-:.Background - I've got 25yr at ZME as an enroute controller. I would never, ever ask an off course flight "his intentions". (Most) of these guys are pro's and we expect them to fly accordingly.That's not to say RC doesn't need improvement. I know the schpeel you're talking about; that's been there since maybe v2. More realistic would be (in no uncertain terms), to advise the A/C he's off course and "suggest" the #degrees it'd take to get the A/C pointed back in the right direction.At that point, you sit back almost expecting a request for direct somewhere. That's fine, no problem whatsoever. The COD option is there (3rd menu page). As an afer-thought Neil, you'd be amazed how often the off course heading just happens to be :-lol suspiciously towards what a future checkpoint would be :) :) :).Aaaanyway... I'll make note