PeteP

Yes, I know what you mean but, last night, "The Grumpy One" gave a perfectly reasonable reply to a question about a new version of the vital MakeRunways here: MakeRunways For MSFS 2020

Nothing, you're just confusing the terms Transition Altitude and Transition Level. What RC shows on the controller page is the Transition Altitude for a particular airport and this is a fixed value - the basic UK Transition Altitude is 3000ft but, as you mention, many UK airports have a TA of 6000ft. However, what RC shows in the display window is the Transition Level which is a calculated value obtained by applying the local pressure (QNH) to the Transition Altitude to give the lowest usable flight level that will provide the required separation from the Transition Altitude. By definition in the UK the Transition Altitude is the altitude at and below which vertical reference is by altitude (i.e. vertical distance above sea level in thousands of feet) and the Transition Level is the flight level at and above which vertical reference is by flight level (i.e. vertical distance above the 1013Hpa pressure line). So, in the example you give (TA 6000ft, TL FL80), climb clearances up to 6000ft on the climb out will be passed as altitudes in thousands of feet and above that, the instructions will be in flight levels. It works in reverse coming down with descent clearances down to FL80 being given as flight levels and below that once again as altitudes in thousands of feet. Although it's good to know, it's not really necessary to understand it as RC does the work for you. When it's time to change from QNH to standard pressure as you are cleared above the Transition Altitude or vice versa on descent below the Transition Level, you'll receive an "altimeter check" call from your co-pilot. Also, the controller will prefix his climb/descent clearances with the word "altitude" for altitudes at and below the Transition Altitude and the words "Flight Level" for levels at and above the Transition Level. Pete

Scott, If RC does not recognise your airfield of departure - as seems to be the case here before you stripped out the 'K' - it sets its location to 0 degrees longitude and 0 degrees latitude and moves the flight there. That's why you found yourself in the Atlantic Ocean about 700 miles off the west coast of Africa where the Greenwich meridian crosses the equator. P.

Yes, I think that's the sensible approach, Mark - try it and see. Sorry I can't remember which file it is but if you can't find it yourself I'm sure one of the team members will be along soon with that info. Pete Oh yes, one very important thing I forgot - if you do find the right file please make sure you edit it in a text editor such as Notepad and NOT in Excel or a similar spread sheet program. P.

Hi Mark, It can be done but it will have some (possibly) unwanted side effects. The first thing to understand is that call signs such as "Melbourne Control" are not recorded as such but are 2 separate sound files - "Melbourne" and "Control" - played in sequence. Each ATC unit's name is recorded individually - Melbourne, London, Gatwick, Brest and so on - and then a separate sound file for its function - Delivery, Ground, Tower, Approach and Center/Control - is added as appropriate. What triggers the use of "Center" or "Control" for a control centre is whether it's classed as' FAA' or 'ICAO'. When we set up the ATC world in Radar Contact, we decided to split it into just two jurisdictions known to the team as 'FAA' and 'ICAO'. Under this system, FAA Radar Contact ATC units (the USA and any country known to use a US-style ATC such as Canada) use US procedures and phraseology and the rest of the world uses ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices for its phraseology and procedures. To keep things as simple as possible, the policy was that all FAA en-route centres use the call sign "Center" and all ICAO en-route centres use "Control". We realised that there were variations to this rule in the real-world but to implement them would have required further sub-divisions to the ICAO area adding yet more complexity to an already very complex program - we were, after all, trying to cover the whole ATC world - so this was felt to be a sensible compromise. So to answer your question, to change Melbourne and Brisbane Centres from "Control" to "Center" it's just a simple matter of changing them from ICAO Centres to FAA Centres. However, please note that this is a global change! Everything else will change to FAA too and Australia will end up with an 18,000ft transition altitude, US phraseology, visibility reports in statute miles and so on which you may not want. You will, though, get group form numbers in call signs which I think is also an Australian difference from ICAO Standards and Practices so you gain some things and lose others by doing this. If you do want to change Australia to an FAA jurisdiction country, it's a simple matter of changing an 'I' to an 'F' in the appropriate file. I don't have the program installed at the moment so I can't tell you which one off the top of my head but I'm sure one of the team members will along to let you know which it is. Pete

Just goes to show it's not only nature that abhors a vacuum. PP

LOL, I hope not Al as the states of the Russian Federation (and Mongolia, I think) abandoned metres and changed to flight levels based on feet for IFR traffic in November last year. I think the question about ICAO as opposed to FAA procedures relates as much to altimetry as phraseology - e.g. pressure settings in hectopascals as opposed to in/Hg, variable Transition Al**udes from country to country (and sometimes airport to airport) as opposed to a fixed one of 18000ft in the US and so on. Any reports on this aspect? Pete

Yes, I agree that constantly being given information on traffic that is properly separated is an irritation and not the practice in our part of the world but, as far as I know, there's no way to change this. You have to remember that Radar Contact is American in origin and, therefore, firmly based on FAA procedures. Serious work to produce a version using ICAO procedures for flights outside the US began in version 3 and continued in version 4. Although this unnecessary traffic information problem was raised several times in the development team, there were so many more fundamental differences in ICAO and FAA procedures to be worked on, along with general work on improving and expanding the program's capabilities, that it never quite made it to the top of the to-do list. As with all programs, there are inevitably things that don't make it into the final release version and this, I'm afraid, was one of them. Pete

An object lesson in how to hijack a thread! Airbumps' post, which really deserves an answer, has now been buried under a pile of dross.Well done, gentlemen!Pete

I think I would be inclined to agree with that. :( P.

No, his question is about neither of those situations. IFBP is the "In-Flight Broadcast Procedure", an IATA procedure for use in the AFI region - i.e. Africa - where, in parts, en-route ATC provision for IFR flights varies from minimal to non-existent. The procedure consists of pilots transmitting their own position reports and level change intentions in English on a common frequency (126.9) for the benefit of other pilots in the vicinity to enable them to provide their own separation.

Oh, silly me! Of course, for Radar Contact version 4, it is m4.csv. Thanks for pointing that out, Ken - I'll edit my original post.PeteEdit: looks like I can't edit my original post - I think that happens once it's been replied to. Maybe if jd has the required privileges, he can make the necessary changes, otherwise for m5.csv please read m4.csv..PP

On March 10, the Transition Altitude in the Birmingham CTA/CTR and the East Midlands CTA/CTR changes from 4000ft to 6000ft. Those of you wishing to update RC4 to use these new values automatically should do the following: Locate your m5.csv file - you'll find it in the data folder (directory) of your root RCV4 folder on whichever drive you installed it - and make a back-up (just in case); Open the m5.csv file using Notepad or a similar text editor - DO NOT use Excel or a similar spreadsheet - and scroll down until you find the data line for EGBB; The line should look like this - 'EGBB,561,4000,B'. Change the value of 4000 to 6000 so that the line now reads 'EGBB,561,6000,B'; Scroll down and make the same change from 4000 to 6000 for EGBE and EGNX; Save the file. That's it. It's very straightforward but it's worth reiterating, though, that you must use a text editor and not a spreadsheet to edit and save the m5.csv file.If you're not confident about doing this, you can also change the value of the TA manually when you load your flightplan into RC but, you've got to remember to do it and what the value is - changing the m5.csv file means RC will do it automatically.Also, if you haven't previously made the amendments for EGFF, EGHH, and EGHI which have already changed from 4000ft to 6000ft you could take the opportunity to do that as well. Finally, whilst looking through the m5.csv file I notice that EGNM is incorrectly shown as 4000 - it should be 5000 so you might like to change that too using the method detailed above.Pete

Now that's a question that's set my old grey matter whirling! Dave. It's so long since I designed the non-US altimetry system used by RC4 - at least 6 years ago, possibly longer - that I honestly can't remember what, if anything, I did about it. I clearly remember explaining to jd the possibility of that situation occurring and suggesting the phrase "adjust to FLxx" or "QNH xxx adjust to altitude x thousand ft" but I don't think we implemented it. I think the consensus was that the amount of work to be done on the program to deal with it was out of all proportion to the number of times it was likely to happen, so, the en-route phase was left 'as-is' and the 'problem' was dealt with, as you found, in the approach phase. Maybe jd can check the code but I think that's the situation.In the real world, it's much simpler to handle with the controllers involved issuing the appropriate pressure setting and initiating the level/altitude adjustment. You'll also find there's usually transition areas (or buffer zones) either side of a boundary where these changes take place. Simple to handle in real life - much more complicated in a computer program.Pete

There certainly is' date=' John - in fact, knowing your expertise in this area, I've been tempted to contact you through CBFS on several occasions about this very thing. One of the former RC beta team members, Graham Jackson, has released several sets of additional call signs and airport names for RC4 with, by his own admission, varying degrees of success depending mainly on the quality and suitability of the wavs used to produce the new call sign file.The process itself is very straightforward and involves just 2 stages - editing existing wav files to produce the new file in the appropriate format (11KHz, 8-bit, mono if my memory serves me correctly) and adding a data line to the c4.csv file. You'll find this file in your RCv4/data folder. If you want to have a look at it, please note that despite its .csv suffix, it's a simple text file and should be opened (and edited) in a text editor such as NotePad and [u']not[/u] a spreadsheet! The main problem with the process is the sheer number of wavs that need to be edited to produce just one new call sign set because it has to be done for each of the pilot and controller voices but, as Graham has shown, it can be done - it just depends whether or not you have the time and inclination. :( If you want to know more or have any other questions about RC why not PM me via CBFS.BestPete

That's good to hear, Raul - thanks for letting us know.Pete

I'm sorry you're annoyed at the omission but, as has already been pointed out, the Thomson call sign did not exist when RC4 was released so it's hardly surprising it's not there.It is perfectly possible to add new call signs to RC4 - however, as it involves modifying and combining existing .wav files in sound editing software and adding new entries for all the controller and pilot voices in the c4.csv file, it's not something that can be done in a few minutes. The zip you mention, "uk_airports_and_callsigns_2.zip", was produced by Graham Jackson who was a member of the Radar Contact team at the time he made the new files and he's done all the hard work for you. As I mentioned above, the new call signs have been produced by combining parts of existing wav files so don't expect perfection - the end result depends on the suitability of the original files and the results can vary from voice to voice. That said, I find the "Thomson" wavs at the very least acceptable and often, very good.As this call sign seems important to you I suggest you download and install the file as it's your only real option for RC4. If you follow Graham's instructions, everything will be put in the right place for you. One small point that Graham doesn't mention in the readme file, though, is that the unzip process installs a new c4.csv file. It would be a sensible precaution to back up your existing c4.csv before installing the new files.PP

Excellent, you learn something new everyday. I could have sworn you dropped the ai vectoring routines ages ago but, obviously not. Thanks for putting me right. Pity you replied so quickly though - I was hoping to be entertained by some amusing answers along the lines of those posted in the current "250kt speed limit" thread. I see even CAP393 got a mention there! :(

It's actually a very sensible question Yuri and I, for one, will be fascinated to see what answers you get... and from whom. :(

I certainly do. Here's a hectopascals/millibars to inches of mercury conversion table I did some years ago. I think it's exactly what you're looking for.Pete

Iain, I can understand your irritation and no, you really don't need to be given that sort of information on correctly separated aircraft - regardless of whether or not you're in RVSM airspace - in level flight or even climbing or descending to correctly separated levels provided that separation will not be lost at any stage. This applies in the real world on this side of the Pond for aircraft operating in regulated airspace where all traffic is known and notified and is in receipt of a control service (there are other types of service available from ATC, of course) which is what RC4 and earlier versions assume for the en-route stages of the flight which is when you'll get these messages. The only reason we would give a "traffic advisory" to properly separated aircraft would be if there was some specific advantage in doing so - otherwise it is just a waste of valuable RT time! It might, of course, be different in the States - and you have to remember, here, Radar Contact's American origins. Although it's made great strides towards internationalism (if I can put it that way) in versions 3 and 4, there's still an awful lot in it that's "pure Doug"! :( In the interest of balance, I should mention that what I said about not giving traffic information on properly separated traffic only applies in the real world to the type of regulated airspace I described and which RC assumes for its en-route phase. In other types of airspace (not simulated by RC4) where not all traffic may be known or notified or operating under a control service, it may well be appropriate to pass traffic information on separated traffic which, of course, may well not remain so. I can also mention that the phraseology used by RC4 differs from that used in the UK, for example, in as much as - for safety reasons - we never state the actual level of the traffic but use a relative description such as 1000ft above, 2000ft below and so on. Again, the US may well be different.It would, of course, be improper for me to reveal information that's been discussed in the private beta team forums but I don't think it'll be breaking any confidences to say that this difference in procedures and phraseology has been "flagged up" several times but it has to be allocated time and priority with all the other changes/improvements being considered so it may well be a while before it floats to the top. Will it be important enough to make it into V5? Only jd can answer that.To finish, just a little fun. If you can tell me exactly what the phrase "traffic ten to eleven o'clock" means, I'd really love to know! :( Pete

I started in ATC at Heathrow in 1967 and we had it then. It always amuses me that people think there's no equivalent to the "pink line" in the real world. As you've pointed out, there most certainly is.Pete

It has everything to do with real world procedures. In RVSM (Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum) airspace, which RC assumes by default, standard vertical separation up to and including FL410 is 1000ft. Above that level, it becomes 2000ft so the next available levels are FL430, FL450, FL470 etc. RC was just following the rules. Incidentally, outside RVSM airspace, standard vertical separation is 1000ft up to FL290 then 2000ft above that so the next available levels above FL290 would be FL310, FL330, FL 350 and so on.Pete

Essentially, Iain, it comes down to the fact that there are only 4096 codes available for all uses and a significant number of those are reserved for special purposes, further reducing the number available for general use - i.e. there are more aircraft flying around at any one time than there are codes for them to use.To help with this problem, ICAO has set up a scheme called the Originating Region Code Assignment Method (ORCAM) which divides the world (other than the US which does not participate in ORCAM as far as I know) into regions, each of which has its own allocated block of codes. There are so few codes and so many regions that codes have to be repeated in different regions but, wherever possible, adjacent regions have different codes for their own use. So, in theory, you can make a flight within a single region and, often, in 2 adjacent regions without having a squawk change but for longer distance flights which take in 3 or more regions, at least one squawk change may be necessary.There are occasionally other (usually ATC operational) reasons for a squawk change becoming necessary even for a flight within a single region but, in essence, it all comes back to my opening statement that there are more aircraft around than codes available under the present Modes A and C system. With introduction of Mode S, which has 16,777,214 individual 'addresses' as they're known, this problem will disappear.Pete

No, Subs, the new NAME of "SN Brussels Airlines" is "Brussels Airlines". Its new CALL SIGN is "bee-line". This call sign is already in V4 and V5 as the call sign of the old British European Airways.Pete