PeteP

Hi Ilan,"...a good rate must be a good rate (most people would give double v/s, that's a good rate from ATC POV).I'm intrigued by your use of "good rate". Is this phrase defined in any ATC or RT manual (ICAO, FAA etc.) that I can look at? I'm particularly interested in the "double v/s" aspect of it - again, is this part of its definition or is this just what you'd expect from 'custom and practice'?Pete

HPSOV,You certainly have started soemthing, mate - well done, anything's better than PIC v PMDG! :)"I think I have misunderstood the term 'good rate', do ATC in the USA actually use this? it sounds like bad terminology to me."That's not really surprising since, as far as I know, it's not defined anywhere. Don't know about the USA but here in the UK, although you will occasionally hear it used by both controllers and pilots, it is indeed considered to be bad (or, at least, non-standard) phraseology and its use is discouraged. Interestingly, as it's Ilan that brought it up, many Israeli controllers are trained in England at the the UK's College of ATC at Hurn and I'd be willing to bet your salary :D:D that they're not allowed to use phrases such as "good rate" on the course.Pete

HPSOV,...to correct for what is a fault by ATC unless they make a second request for me to increase the descent rate.Whatever makes you think that an instruction to expedite (what I assume Illan means by "good rate") a descent - or climb for that matter - is the result of an "ATC fault"? The ability to vary an aircraft's vertical rate (even over a very limited range)is a perfectly valid controlling tool which is available to controllers in all situations - not just to correct errors! It needs to be used with extreme care but, properly used, it can often provide the solution to problems, especially in areas of high traffic density, that would otherwise require extensive vectoring or long 'stop-offs' to wait for a pass. What's really puzzling me, though, is the phrase "..unless they make a second request...". I may well have misunderstood what you mean here - I hope I have - but it seems to imply that you would accept a clearance and then do nothing about complying with it until told a second time. Pete

Doesn't look like anybody can, Stephen, but I'll bump it up for you just in case...P.

What is a "donk"??A slang term for an engine. I believe the origin is the word donkey, i.e. the thing that pulls you along.Pete

Thanks for answering that while I was asleep, jd. It's my own stupid fault for spending a whole evening trying to help someone with Mr Klucznik's reputation - I shan't be making that mistake again.All the bestPete

In the state of MA we like folks to put their money where their mouths are.Do you indeed, Blais? Well, at the times you sent your first message, 00:39 BST (British Summer Time) and your second, 03:38 BST, my mouth was on my pillow along with the rest of my head. Don't know about you but I've always found it very difficult to read and answer e-mails when I'm fast asleep.Pete

As I had the house to myself this evening I thought I'd try a flight from KEWR to EDDF via YYT and DOLIP to see if I got the same results - I didn't.After departure, I was transferred to New York, Boston and Monkton Centres as expected. With 225 nms to run to YYT I was transferred to Gander (domestic) and at 51W to Gander Oceanic. Spot-on 30W I was told to contact Shanwick and 3nms after passing LIMRI (15W), I was passed to Shannon. I stopped the flight there.This, of course, doesn't help you find out why it went wrong on your flight but it does at least cut down on the possible reasons. Whatever the cause, I think that you can exclude "programming flaws" in RC3 since it clearly does know who controls what airspace on that route.Pete

As far as the real-world goes, you're correct about Gander and Shanwick. Had you been doing this flight for real, you would have worked Gander Oceanic from about 50W until 30W when you would have been transferred to Shanwick. If your route took you via DOLIP, you'd leave the OCA at 15W (probably either at MALOT or LIMRI) at which point you'd be handed over to Shannon Control.You don't say where your route took you next, but assuming you turned east to fly across the southern parts of Ireland, Wales and England to leave UK airspace somewhere east of Dover, you would be transferred from Shannon to London Control then, at the London/Brussels UIR boundary to Maastricht. I've no idea why RC didn't pick up this sequence because, although not perfect, it has a resonable facimile of the airspace divisions on your route. I'll have to leave it to one of the RC3 team to work out whether it was you or the program which was in error but if you want to post your flight plan here I'll take a look and see if there's anything obvious that's causing the problem.Pete

Hi Ray,...aren't all ATC commands meant to be in English especially at major airports.Interestingly enough, no, they aren't. Although it's a very widely held belief, English is not the only language that can be used for ATC although it should always be available for international flights. In the US, the FAA has mandated the use of English but in the rest of the world, things are a little different.The use of English as the aviation lingua franca is a well established practice but it is not embodied in any ICAO Standard, only in a Recommended Practice - that is, a rule of a lesser binding value since its uniform application is considered desirable instead of necessary, as in the case of a Standard. ICAO's view is, "Pending the development and adoption of a more suitable form of speech for universal use in aeronautical radiotelephony communications, the English language should be used as such and should be available, on request from any aircraft station.., at all stations on the ground serving designated airports and routes used by international air services." (ICAO Annex 10 - my emphases). Incidentally, since the legal status of this rule does not guarantee its immediate and full implementation, Annex 10 further recommends that when the aircraft and the station on the ground cannot use a common language, "arrangements be made between the competent ATS authority and the aircraft operator concerned for the provision of an interpreter by the latter"!!!!!!!!Outside the US, each state is entitled to use any language it choses for ATC and although many do specify English there are many others who allow their own national language - political considerations before safety perhaps? As an aside, the French authorities, who have received much criticism over the years for the use of French in ATC especially at busy international airports and en-route centres, eventually got around to appyling an English-only rule at Charles de Gaulle last year - it lasted just one month before French slipped back in. ICAO Annex 1, Personnel Licensing, currently includes an international Standard that requires air traffic controllers to demonstrate knowledge in "the language or languages nationally designated for use in air traffic control and ability to speak such language or languages without accent or impediment which would adversely affect radio communication." Again though, ICAO has no power to mandate this and its implementation is left to individual states and/or their ATS providers. In many case, Eurocontrol, for example, this is carried out to the highest of standards but in some areas of the world (I'll leave you to fill in which!) the level of language and communication skills is extremely poor.Despite the fact that communication difficulties have lead to numerous incidents and accidents (some of them very high profile) we're still a long way from achieving the goal of common standards for international ATC communications. We'll get there one day but I think I'll be long-retired before it happens.Pete

Maybe someone might have the proper answer but thats my feeling on it.Your feeling is spot-on - it's to keep the noise "footprint" as small as possible. If my memory serves me correctly, during testing and the early days of operation, the ILS glideslope was set a 7 degrees when the only aircraft using City was the Dash-7. As this type was already out of production, it was reduced to 5.5 degrees allowing many more types to use the airpoprt.PeteP

Henrik,If you want to know about the US system, I'll have to let Doug or Larry from the RC3 team explain it to you as their system is rather different from that used in the rest of the world. However, as your profile says you're Danish, you may be interested in what happens on this side of "the Pond". I'll use the UK as an example.As you've suggested, there is more than just "a matter of notation" between the two - they're actually very different things. The Transition Altitude is defined as the altitude at and below which vertical position is defined by reference to altitude (QNH). The Transition Level is officially defined as the lowest usable flight level above the Transition Altitude or, to put it in a more user-friendly way, the level at and above which vertical position is defined by reference to flight level (1013.2mB/hPa). The variable depth of airspace in between the Transition Altitude and the Transition Level is known as the Transition Layer. Put simply, the TA and TL mark the changeover points from QNH to standard setting (1013.3 mB/hPa) and vice versa.The essential difference between the Transition Altitude and the Transition Level is that the TA is a fixed and published value - the UK for example, has a standard TA of 3000ft with higher values at certain airfields - and the TL is a variable value which is calculated by ATC with reference to the current QNH. As the QNH changes, the TA remains the same but the TL changes. If you look at your Jepps for European airports you'll see a value stated for the TA - eg, Transition Altitude 6000ft, - but the Transition Level is given as "By ATC" because it has to be calculated. Here's an extract from the look-up table used by ATC in the UK to calculate the Transition Level with a constant Transition Altitude of 6000ft:QNH between 1050-1032 TL=FL55 QNH between 1031-1014 TL=FL60 QNH between 1013-996 TL=FL65QNH between 995-978 TL=FL70QNH between 977-960 TL=FL75QNH between 959-943 TL=FL80As you can see, the Transition Level can vary quite considerably as the pressure changes. The practical aspects of this for altimeter setting procedures within controlled airspace are as follows:When at an altitude below the TA and cleared to a flight level, set 1013.2 when leaving the altitude unless a vacating report at a higher altitude has been requested by ATC in which case set 1013.2 after passing this altitude. For example:1) at 3000ft and cleared to FL80, set 1013.2 when leaving 3000ft. 2) at 3000ft, cleared to FL80 to report passing 5000ft, set 1013.2 when passing 5000ft.It works in reverse in the descent when cleared from a level above the TL to an altitude:1) at FL100 and cleared to 6000ft, set QNH on leaving FL1002) at FL100 and cleared to 6000ft to report passing FL80, set QNH on passing FL80.In other words, when operating "on airways", it's not strictly necessary to know the TL because ATC will give a clearance in either altitude or FL format as approprite. However, when operating "off airways" this responsibility returns to the pilot and it becomes necessary to ask ATC for the appropriate TL.Hope this all makes sense.Pete

So you do, jd. Sorry, I should have sent you a gift-wrapped signed copy instead of making you go fetch your own! ;) Enjoy the flights but do watch those Transition Altitudes - some are as low as 3000ft! :-lol :-lol :-lol Pete

Dom,I noticed you've also asked a related question about how to input the NAT tracks for this flight into the FMC on the PSS forum but haven't had an answer yet. As this is obviously your first foray into this area, why don't you use one of my real-world B747-400 (or B777) flight plans?They're available from AVSIM.com and Flightsim.com as '744fplv1.zip' and '772fplv1.zip'. Both contain a number of transatlantic flights complete with NAT tracks. Each plan comes in two versions - one *.pfp for loading to the PSS FMC and an identical one in *.pln format for RC3 - which ensures that the FMC and RC are working from the same data. PeteP

Those who enjoy using real-world flight plans with RC3 might like to know that I've just released 115 plans for various types of Regional Jet aircraft in *.pln format. The plans cover a wide variety of UK internal and UK-Europe flights and are available from the libraries at AVSIM.com and Flightsim.com as 'rj_fpl.zip'.PeteP

Well, jd, a little "Sherlock Holmes" work maybe? :-) If you remove the 'EG' (ICAO code for the UK region) from EGSAM and the 'GC' (ICAO code for the Canaries') from GCGDV you're left with SAM, the Southampton VOR on the south coast of England and GDV, the Gran Canaria VOR on (you've guessed it) the island of Gran Canaria. The distance between these two waypoints is about 1500 nautical miles which suggests the problem is great circle navigation.Snagge,RC3 doesn't handle navigation well between two points that are 1500 miles apart - well, who does? :-) - such as the two you've got in your flight plan - the maximum distance (in RC3) between waypoints for accurate navigation is about 350nm. Simply put, you need more points in your plans.Try inputting this one for the Canaries and I think you'll find RC3 handles it perfectly:EGLL SAM ASPEN ORTAC GUR LARSI QPR ERWAN LOTEE AVS KORET BARKO RALUS CANAR VIS ABETO DIGAL MAGUM ATECA BAROK BENTU NEVEL MITLA SAMAR GDV GCLPPete

I can put your mind at rest on that one, Vulcan. FSBuild2 is much improved in its handling of European routes and (if I've done my job properly ;) ) it should be particularly accurate over the UK.But it does many other things too. My favourite is its ability to handle real-world flight plans complete with airways, either cut-and-paste or typed in, and output them in just about every FS format including PIC and the various PSS formats. Give it a try when it comes out - I'll think you'll be surprised at just what it can do - and it's the perfect partner to FSNav's map features.Pete

You're both right. According to the Luftfartsverket site, a new runway (01R/19L) was completed at Arlanda last year but will not come into service until April 17 2003. Pete

I'm no expert on Maastricht UAC, jd, but I can probably answer your questions.is it safe to say, these are all center?Yes, it is - Maastricht is an Upper Air Centre which means it does only "center" work above FL245. any chance we can seperate low, from high, from super?It should be possible as the r/w situation is similar to RC3's low/high/super set-up. Because of the references to COA, SASKI and the London frequencies of 127.82 and 118.47, I guess most of the .wavs are of the Maastricht Brussels West sector which has a high/low split at FL335. This means you can use Brussels Control (which sits below Maastricht) as the RC3 'low' (what's a thousand feet diference between friends? ;)), Maastricht Brussels West Low as the RC3 'high' and Maastricht Brussels West High as the RC3 'super'.To sort which .wav belongs to which Maastricht sector will be simple if Robert has kept a note of which frequency (or channel) each was recorded from, otherwise you'll have to make an educated guess as to which is which - good luck!Pete

Is there a guideline for fixing a route across the Atlantic?Yes, although they're not mandatory, the majority of aircraft crossing the North Atlantic do so on what's called an Organised Track Structure. Unlike their fixed overland counterparts, these tracks - known as North Atlantic tracks (NAT tracks) change regularly (often daily) to take account of the weather patterns over the Atlantic. In simple terms, they usually have waypoints spaced at each 10 degrees of longitude and each track is separated laterally by 1 degree of latitude (i.e. 60 nautical miles apart which, if my memory serves me correctly is the basic Oceanic ATC separation). The tracks themselves are identified by letters - from the beginning of the alphabet for westbound tracks and at the end for eastbound. Here are a couple of examples from today:EastboundX DOTTY 52/50 53/40 54/30 54/20 DOGAL BABANW YAY 53/50 54/40 55/30 55/20 NIBOG TADEXWestboundB DINIM 50/20 48/30 47/40 46/50 BANCSC SOMAX 49/20 47/30 46/40 45/50 RAFINYou can see clearly the 10 degree east/west progression and the 1 degree track separation. For more information on daily NAT tracks and links to other Oceanic sites go to: http://www.natroutes.glideslope.de/You'll also find some suggested tracks at: http://www.vatsim-uk.net/vatsim-uk/ under Oceanic OCA.The next step is to get this track information in your flight plan. I note you mention FSNav4 which, fortunately, contains all these waypoints. The 5-letter waypoints such as DOTTY, DOGAL etc, can be entered as is but the lat/lon ones such as 52/50 (N520000W0500000) etc., need a slightly different format for input. In FSNav you'll find 52/50 is 5250n, 48/30 is 4830n, 45/50 is 4550n and so on.Try entering Track X, above, into FSNav using this format for the lat/lon and you'll find you get a great-circle(-ish) track with waypoints about 350 miles apart which is fine for RC3.Good luckPete

Yes, I know, but we're just curious to see if it can be done now even without a specific "backtrack approved" .wav file or procedure.Pete

Sounds like it might be possible, Rob - I guess it depends on how jd detects a runway incursion. Let us know how you get on.Pete

If he does, then "backtracking" is the correct technical term. Presumably, it can't be done now because there's no phraseology/procedure for it in RC3 and, as things are at the moment, if you enter the active before being told to "taxy into position and hold", you're in trouble? ;)Pete

No, backtracking is simply the act of taxying along an active runway in the reverse direction.Pete

OK Marc - it happens to us all at one time or another - thanks for letting us know what went wrong.Two small points - 26R/08L is actually just a taxyway that's been upgraded for occasional use as an emergency runway so use 26L/08R in preference and if you don't like (or find unsuitable) the runway RC allocates for landing (or departure for that matter) you can always request a different one.PeteP;http://jdtllc.com/images/RCbeta.jpg