Jump to content

PeteP

Members
  • Content Count

    416
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PeteP

  1. You're welcome, Iain. I keep meaning to ask jd to pin it at the top of the forum or use it as the basis for an FAQ entry - you're far from the only one to be caught out with this 'B' key issue when flying outside the US.All the bestPP
  2. Oh, you do say the nicest things.:-kewl I'm blushing.PP
  3. I'll leave detailed explaination of TA/TL to the manual and our experts Ray and...Ho, ho, Doug, that'll make Ray's day! :-):-):-)PP
  4. Anyone else had this? Yes, Iain, if you look back through the forum posts, you'll see that quite a few users have had this and it's nothing to do with "crazy controllers". It's always the same reason - an incorrectly set altimeter, often caused by use of the 'B' key. Although you don't say what the QNH was, I'd guess that it was less than 1013mB/hPa which would put 12,000ft above FL120. If this is the case, it's not too difficult to work out what happened. When you were descending to FL120, you probably set the QNH either by pressing the 'B' key or directly so that when you levelled, it was at altitude 12,000ft and not FL120. When you reached your crossing restriction point, the controller noted that you were still above FL120 (i.e. at 12,000ft) and turned you 90 degrees to keep away from approach's airspace until you reached FL120. However, as you had levelled off at 12,000ft, you were never going to get there. It was only when you decided to take matters into your own hands and began to descend that you eventually got to FL120 and it was this much-belated compliance with your clearance that triggered the controller to resume activity and transfer you to approach for final vectoring. So, it was nothing whatsoever to do with poor controlling and, I'm afraid, you thoroughly deserved your rollicking in the critique for failing to comply with a clearance through incorrect altimeter setting procedures - something which, as PIC, you are entirely responsible for. :-)Please read this post which may help clear things up for you: http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=16233&page=3BestPete
  5. Well, as Ray has joined in, perhaps I could do the same. As soon as I read your description of what happened, I came to exactly the same conclusion as Ray. The most likely cause is that you didn't make your crossing restriction - perhaps you were too busy admiring the clouds to properly monitor your rate of descent :-) - and you were turned 90 degrees off track to keep out of approach's airspace.Did you by any chance stop your descent at a level other than FL120? If so, this would explain why you were not turned back towards the airport. If you have missed a crossing restriction, RC will not let you resume your own navigation or transfer you to approach until you've reached your cleared level.Pete
  6. Well spotted, Matthew, that could well be it. Incidentally, did you know that in his spare time, jd is a Strategic Systems Architect at...yep, you've guessed it... BellSouth! Just 2 "l"s though. :-) :-) PP
  7. OK, Jerel, they're on their way to you. This time when you edit them please use Notepad, WordPad or a similar text editor and NOT a spreadsheet!BestPete
  8. Sorry about the partial instructions, Jerel. As John has pointed out you need to change the "F" to an "I" in 2 different files. So, the revised instructions are:1. Open s4.csv and search for all the entries for Mexico, Mazatlan, Merida and Monterrey.2. Change each "F" (which you'll find at the end of each entry) to an "I"3. Open z4.csv and search for all the entries for Mexico, Mazatlan, Merida and Monterrey.4. Change each "F" (which you'll find towards the start of each entry) to an "I"That should do it.Pete
  9. Thanks, JB - I wondered if there would be more than the Mexico FIR to change and I forgot completely about z4. Oh well, I knew I should have left this post to the airspace expert! I hope I haven't confused Jerel too much. x( PP
  10. Hi Jerel,If you change Mexico to "ICAO" as I described in my previous post, you won't have to set any values. RC has TAs for the Mexican airports in its database and will set them automatically. The program will then set an appropriate TL depending on the pressure (QNH) at the time when you click "Start RC". All you need to do is listen carefully to whether your clearance is to an altitude or a flight level and set your altimeter correctly. Your co-pilot will remind you when it's time to change from QNH to standard setting on climb and vice versa on descent by saying, "altimeter check".If you want to know what TAs and TLs RC is using, they're displayed briefly on advdisp when you start RC or you can minimise Flight Sim and refer to RC's "Controller Info" page.Pete
  11. Well spotted Jerel, I think you may be correct. I had a quick look at the file s4.csv where the centre information is kept and all the entries for Mexico are flagged as using FAA procedures. From what I can find on-line, although Mexican procedures are similar to the US, they do seem to use the term QNH rather than "altimeter" and although they use TA of 18000ft, there is a fixed TL of FL200 so ICAO procedures would be a closer match, I think.If you want to have RC use ICAO rather than FAA procedures, do the following:1. In your RC4data directory, find the file s4.csv and back it up.2. Open s4.csv with WordPad or Notepad - NOT Excel - and do a "Find" on Mexico.3. At the end of each Mexico entry, you'll see a single letter "F" indicating FAA procedures to be used. Change each one to a letter "I" to indicate ICAO.4. save the file, start RC4 and you should have ICAO procedures in the Mexico FIR.PeteEDIT: jd and I were obviously posting at the time time with two oposite views so you can take your pick. :-) PP
  12. Does anyone have a site where different country's TA and TL are available?We in the RC beta team were never able to find a single site listing all the world's Transition Altitudes - we had to do it the hard way.The authoritative source for such information is each country's Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) and more and more of these AIPs are becoming available on-line. Unfortunately, many countries do not have a single TA but one which varies from airport to airport so a more-usable source is probably the approach and/or departure charts for individual airports - there are now many sites on the Internet offering these charts.Transition Levels, however, are a different kettle of fish because, in the vast majority of cases, the TL is a calculated value based on the TA and the current pressure and so can't be published in advance. I say, "in the vast majority of cases" because, as with everything in this world, there are exceptions to this rule and a few countries - New Zealand springs to mind - have both a fixed TA and a fixed TL! (The fixed TL situation is not simulated in this version of RC and all TLs are calculated.)As far as Radar Contact goes, the TAs the program is using are shown on the "Controller Info" page after you've loaded your flight plan. Once you've clicked "Start RC" the calculated TLs RC will be using are shown briefly on the advdisp display or you can refer back to the "Controller Info" page where this data also now appears below the TAs. Probably the most complete list of TAs in one place is in the file that RC uses although I wouldn't vouch for its complete accuracy. You'll find it in the RC4data directory in the file m4.csv. Open this file with only Notepad or a similar text editor and NOT Excel or other spreadsheet! You'll find the TA as the last figure against each airport - non-US airports for which we couldn't find a TA have the US 18,000ft as a default.Pete
  13. One other thing Pete, how often have you refused an aircraft a deviation for weather?Steve,Many apologies for taking so long to answer this question. Refusing an aircraft permission to deviate for weather is very rare but it does happen occasionally albeit a temporary refusal. The sort of situation would be where the consequence of the deviation would result in a more immediate danger than the approaching weather. Examples would be the avoidance manoeuvre resulting in climbing descending or turning towards other aircraft or infringing an active danger area where ground-to-air firing or air combat practice was taking place - the UK, for example, has several such areas situated very close to the air route structure. However, the refusal would last only as long as it takes get the situation resolved by, for example, moving the other traffic, contacting the range safety authority and so on.Unfortunately, RC is not (yet) that sophisticated and what you (probably) came across was a technical device used by the program. To ensure that each waypoint is correctly progressed and the flight plan advanced, RC will refuse any requests for weather deviation within 25nm of a waypoint. This has not been a major problem in the past but with the increasing sophistication and use of add-on weather programs I can see it could be. The approach of the Radar Contact developers is one of continual improvement so, if enough users comment on it, I can see an improved method of handling such requests being added to Doug's "to-do list".BestPete
  14. I think you can also get turned around when you're not climbing or descending at a rate that ATC likesHi Bob,I'm glad you're finding the "Dir Chkpt" function useful for missed waypoints. I don't know of any routine in RC that turns you around because of a poor climb rate - although it that does happen occasionally in real life. What you're probably thinking of is when the RC controller turns you away from approach's airspace if you've descended too slowly to make your crossing restriction. In this case, it's always a specific heading 90 degrees away from your original heading and is only applied until you reach the level specified in your descent clearance.BestPete
  15. Cant remember if there is a call that informs the the RC4 controller if there is a TCAS deviation.No, there isn't at the moment, Michael, but it's something that needs to be added to RC for realism. Unfortunately, to do it properly, new pilot wavs would also be needed - "TCAS climb" or "TCAS descent" and "returning to {assigned altitude/level}".Doug keeps tabs on these sort of things so, if you feel TCAS should be added, send him an e-mail at doug@jdtllc.com and ask him to consider adding it.Pete
  16. Jeff,There's about 295nm between DOTTY and 5248N so it's possible that there would have been a few degrees of difference between RC's calculated track between those waypoints and that of your FMC but certainly not the 180 degrees (275 - 095) that you mention in your original post.No, the only reason you'd get a track difference of 180 degrees between DOTTY and 5248N is if you failed to progress DOTTY to RC's satisfaction. Try flying the plan again and see if you can replicate the problem. If you're told you're 180 degrees of track again, check the waypoint RC is navigating to (top line of the advdisp window) against the current one in your FMC. That should you give you the answer to the problem.Pete
  17. I think RC doesnt handle waypoints very far apart properly.I don't think that's the issue in this case - see my reply to Jeff. However, it is something that's being worked on for a future release and beta team members have already carried out successful long distance great-circle track test flights.You're only likely to experience problems with the current version if your waypoints are more than about 300nm apart. If you try to keep your flight plan waypoints to no more than 250nm apart, you won't see the problem at all and this restriction should be more than adequate for most flight plans - I have, though, heard of a user trying to fly a "flight plan" which just consisted of EGLL DCT KJFK and that sort of thing really does give the current version a headache!If you do have to fly with waypoints more than, say, 300nm apart, the workaround is to increase the permitted heading deviation on the Radar Contact Options page - the default is 15 degrees. You can work out the amount of deviation that may be needed by comparing the track RC expects you to follow between waypoints (shown on the top line of the advdip display window)with that expected by your FMC, GPS or whatever. The other possibility when you have a long distance between waypoints is to ignore the FMC/GPS and follow the track information provided by RC instead - you'll still get where you're going and ATC won't yell at you.Pete
  18. Jeff,Bryan is correct - you missed a checkpoint (waypoint). The big clue is the 180 degree turn RC wants you to do to reach it. Remember, you're required to pass within 2nm in the departure phase and within 5nm in the en-route phase to be credited with a checkpoint.To confirm this is what has happened, compare the waypoint RC thinks is next (you'll find this at the top of the advdisp display) with what your FMC, GPS or whatever you're using for navigation thinks is next. If they're different, that's your problem. The solution if this happens in the en-route phase of your flight is to select the "Dir Chkpoint" item from the advdisp menu (you'll find it on page 2 by pressing the "next" key) and request a direct route to whichever waypoint your FMC/GPS etc. thinks is next. Problem solved.Pete
  19. There certainly is, Terry. We were discussing that very thing in the forum on Saturday. Here's the link: http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho..._id=18494&page=BestPete
  20. Yep, drdickie is absolutely right. You missed a checkpoint (waypoint) - the big clue is the 180 degree turn RC wants you to do to reach it. You're required to pass within 2nm in the departure phase and within 5nm in the en-route phase to be credited with a checkpoint.To confirm this is what has happened, compare the waypoint RC thinks is next (you'll find this at the top of the advdisp display) with what your FMC, GPS or whatever you're using for navigation thinks is next. If they're different, you've got a problem. The solution is to select the "Dir Chkpoint" item from the advdisp menu (you'll find it on page 2 by pressing the "next" key) and request a direct route to whichever waypoint your FMC/GPS etc. thinks is next. Problem solved.Pete
  21. Well done, Don. Glad to hear you're getting the hang of it. Oh, and thanks for taking the trouble to post again - it's always good to get that sort of feedback. Happy flying.Pete
  22. Absolutely, Don and I hope you didn't think I was being critical of your efforts - I was just trying to gently nudge you in the right direction to get the most out of RC. I understand just how steep the learning curve can be but Radar Contact is one of those programs that you'll get so much more out of if you invest a little bit of time and effort reading the manual and flying the tutorials. If, after you've tried my suggestions, you still have questions about altimeter setting procedure - or anything else for that matter - please do post again. You'll always find someone here who'll be happy to help.PP
  23. Don,It's difficult to know where to start here - I think I'll leave the flight plan and (probable) missed crossing restriction issues to jd and just address the altimetry side.In order to get RC to work correctly, you will need to pay a little more attention to the altimeter setting procedures used in Europe and particularly to the dangers of using the 'B' key on such flights. Before you fly again, may I suggest you have a quick look at pages 107-108 of the Radar Contact manual and also read this post: http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=16233&page=3Together, they should give you a better idea of how to set your altimeter and the problems of using the 'B' key outside the USA. You might also like to try the European flight tutorial which begins on page 265 of the manual.BestPete
  24. Curiouser and curiouser... it loads perfectly into my RC4. We'll see what Ray comes up with.Incidentally, does Ray's plan load into your RC4 correctly? If so, you may like to dump this one and use Ray's - his has the correct route in UK airspace for traffic inbound to Leeds-Bradford.PPEDIT: sorry, I see Ray already aswered whilst I was typing. Too slow as usual. :>))
×
×
  • Create New...