Jump to content

PeteP

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    416

  • Donations

    $0.00 

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by PeteP

  1. Posted

    >Regarding the repeated 'altimeter check' call when remaining>at or slightly around the transition level : My altitude>deviation is set at 200 ft (I had also tried 500, but it's the>same). The altitude oscillation caused by autopilots during>turns is far less than that though (I'd estimate +/- 50 ft). Mike,I'm surprised (and very disappointed) to read about this problem because it was fixed months ago during beta testing. It became obvious that there was a problem with altitude oscillations as soon as we introduced the European TA/TL system where - unlike that used in the US - the Transition Altitude can be used as a cruising altitude.After a lot of testing and experimentation, a compromise solution was reached which covered all the likely circumstances. If you're interested, the co-pilot should not call "altimeter check" until the aircraft passes TA +300ft going up and actual altitude of TL -300ft going down. As you can see, if this was working as it should, you would not have received multiple calls for deviations of +/-50ft!If you've only noticed this with version 4.01 and not 4.0 then it's possible that something was "broken" while jd was working on the new bits - it's not at all uncommon in computer programming for this to happen. If you have the time, perhaps you'd be kind enough to repeat the flight, this time with "Debug" on and send the files to jd - he needs to check this out.BestPete

  2. Posted

    >Gotcha. The program does not do it. It states feet instead of>Flight Level. Millibar settings are correct. Again I am a>licensed pilot and to get instructions to climb from FL380 to>400 feet is not correct nor is giving instructions to descend>into a rock wall. The root cause of this seems to be that you're getting confused between altitudes and flight levels. Are you a licenced pilot in the US? If so, that may be adding to the problem - for flights outside the USA, Radar Contact uses a system based on ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices which are different from those of the FAA which you may be used to.You're absolutely right, of course, when you say, "to get instructions to climb from FL380 to 400 feet is not correct" but it is very unlikely that that's the clearance you were given. Almost certainly, you were cleared to FL400 (spoken as "flight level four hundred") and on hearing "four hundred" you assumed it meant 400 feet. I think you made the same mistake when RC climbed you to FL200 ("flight level two hundred") and descended you to FL100 ("flight level one hundred") by assuming RC had said 200ft and 100ft.You might like to try the flight again, listening very carefully to whether the clearance is to an altitude or a flight level. Make sure you have the comms so that you can ask for a repeat if you're not sure or you might like to switch on the text display so that you can double check what's been said. Outside the US, the word "feet" will always be used with an altitude clearance and the format is "descend/climb to altitude x,xxx feet" and the format for a flight level is always "climb/descend flight level xxx" so they're quite easy to tell apart.All the bestPetehttp://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannerbeta.jpg

  3. Posted

    Luigi,I can help with questions 1 and 2:1) When instructed to "resume own navigation...", you should not turn back to the original route but fly from your present position direct to the fix. This accords well with real-world practice and I believe that the 4.1 release of RC will have the word "direct" added to make the procedure clearer for users.2) You will only receive the "cross 40 miles from..." type of descent clearance if the last waypoint of your flight plan is a VOR situated on or very close to your destination airport. This is something that I hope will change in future releases but, for the moment, that's the situation.Pete

  9. Posted

    Hi again Ron,If you're talking real-world, then 3000ft is the Transition Altitude throughout the whole of the Amsterdam FIR - in other words, over the whole of Holland and at all airfields within that country. Unfortunately, unlike the US which has a single standard, procedures vary from country to country within Europe. For example, the United Kingdom also has a national Transition Altitude of 3,000ft but it also has different Transition Altitudes for specified airfields with certain areas. For example, all the airfields within the London TMA have a common TA of 6000ft and those withing the Manchester TMA, 5000ft. Outside these areas, the TA reverts back to the standard 3000ft but you would really need charts to know to know which area you were in.If you're asking about how RC handles these changes from one altitude to another - when, say, on your flight from EDDF to EHAM, RC changed from the departure TA of 5000ft to the arrival TA of 3000ft, you'll need an answer from jd - I'm sure he'll be visiting here soon.BestPetehttp://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannerbeta.jpg

  10. Posted

    Ron,Your problem is almost certainly an incorrectly set altimeter brought about by using the 'B' to set your altimeter instead of doing it manually. The 'B' key is set up for US altimetry procedures (Transition Altitude 18,000ft) and it does not work correctly with European procedures. I note you said you were cleared to 6000ft - as the Transition Altitude at Amsterdam is 3000ft, RC would actually have cleared you to FL60 and this is why you had a problem. Pressing the 'B' Key would have set the local QNH and you should still have been on standard setting (1013.2 hPa or 29.92in/Hg).You might like to read this previous explanation I posted in the forum - it may make things a little clearer to you:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=16233&page=3To help you overcome the problem of having an altimeter that only has in/Hg in the subscale, I suggest you download my conversion chart which you'll find in the libraries at Avsim and Flightsim.com under the name presconv.zip. Make sure it's version 2, though, as the original version had a couple of errors.Petehttp://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannerbeta.jpg

  12. Posted

    >I had the same problem. but with altitude. I had to fly a>FL170 . I did a barocheck so all seemed fine but I got>punished four times for not flying FL170 but I was flying>17000 ft, so what am I doing wrong. If you trying to fly>properly but being yelled at (also in the flight critique)>it's painfull, even you know it's just a flipping>computerprogram :)Rob, You seem a little confused about whether you should have been at FL170 or altitude 17,000ft. Read this post: http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=16233&page=3It may answer your question about what you're doing wrong.BestPetehttp://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannerbeta.jpg

  13. Posted

    You need to check what altitude is actually in your flight plan because that's where RC gets its information from. (I think John just had a momentary lapse when he said it doesn't):-) If you open the .pln file in Notepad or some other text editor, you'll be able to see what altitude is in it - I'll think you'll find it will be 5000ft. You can also see this information in the 'Cruise Altitude' box on the 'Controller Info' page after you've loaded the plan. If it's not the correct one, you can as John said, alter it.Petehttp://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannerbeta.jpg

  15. Posted

    Ah, right, I see what you're talking about now, Ron - you're referring to magnetic variation which is the angular difference between True North and Magnetic North which is, of course, simulated in FS.The deviation you mentioned is actually the term for the angular difference between the magnetic heading and the compass heading. This angular difference is brought about by the effect of the metal of the aircraft and any electrical devices such as radios within the vicinity of the compass. It varies from aircraft to aircraft and with the direction in which the aircraft is pointing. That's why each compass has to be "swung" when it's installed so that the effects can be measured in situ through a range of headings and an individual "deviation correction card" - which you'll find placed close to every magnetic compass installation - filled in. BestPetehttp://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannerbeta.jpg

  18. Posted

    Mark,This does still sound like an altimeter setting problem to me. Just a few more questions:1. Are you sure that your clearance was to altitude 8000ft and not FL80? Getting these two confused is a very common cause of level busts in both the real-world and RC2. What was your destination airport? Knowing this will help us establish the Transition Altitude.3. Did you change the Transition Altitude from the one in RC's database and, if so, to what?BestPete http://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannerbeta.jpg

  19. Posted

    >Two more things that, in my opinion, are useless:You're entitled to your opinion, James but, even though you may not have heard them, both those phraseologies are used by real-world ATC for good safety reasons and are in RC for equally, imho, good reasons.Let me explain the background. One of the biggest difficulties in "internationalising" Radar Contact has been the fact that there is no single standard for things like RT, procedures or altimetry or a single controlling authority like there is in the US with the FAA. Although ICAO produces Standards an Recommended Practices upon which the majority of countries base their ATC systems, they are not mandatory and individual states are free to file "differences" and to go their own way. So, wherever possible, I have used standard ICAO phrases but on 3 occasions - you've picked-up on 2 of them - I decided to use other phrases for reasons of "best practice".The word "altitude" is mandatory for UK controllers when giving vertical clearances based on QNH - they're also required to use the word "height" with clearances based on QFE. This practice was introduced as a safety measure to help combat a number of incidents caused by confusion over altimeter settings. As I'd seen many posts from users over the years showing a lot of confusion in this area - a confusion shared by the majority of the RC beta team incidentally - it seemed logical to include it in RC to give users every possible help in understanding what type of vertical clearance they'd been given.If you listen carefully, you'll hear that RC does not say degrees after every heading but only after headings ending in "zero". This is another safety-related practice introduced by the UK to help combat possible confusion between headings and flight levels. There have been a number of incidents caused by pilots transposing headings that end in "zero" with flight levels and ending up steering their cleared level or climbing to their heading!How to overcome this has been discussed by real-world aviation safety authorities for a number of years with numerous solutions being trialled such as insisting that controllers didn't use headings ending in zero at all - so, instead of 270, controllers would use 269 or 271! However, the UK's solution seemed the most practical to include in RC4 so that's why it's there - after all, if well trained and experienced real-world pilots can make basic errors like this when they're busy, why wouldn't RC users?I hope this has made the reasons for their inclusion in RC4 a little clearer.All the bestPetehttp://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannerbeta.jpg

  20. Posted

    I'll leave the RC stuff to jd but I must take issue with you (as a professional air traffic controller and not as a member of the Radar Contact beta team) over your incorrect statements about the word "roger" and your misunderstanding of its proper use."Roger" is defined by ICAO as having the specific meaning I have received all of your last transmission.- nothing more, nothing less. There are a number of occasions when the understanding of a transmission is required to be confirmed by a full read-back but there are many other times when this is not required and "roger" is the correct response. Properly used, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the word "roger" and it is used routinely (and correctly) by controllers and pilots the world over.Pete

  22. Posted

    I was going to say that the existing spoken airport file names/scripts are all in the format a_ICAO - for example a_EGLL.txt/.wav, a_KJFK.txt/.wav and so on. However, having re-read your e-mail I'm not sure that's what you're asking. If you want to know what's in each wav/script file so that you can find suitable sounds to to chop up and stitch together to make new spoken airport wav files all I can say is that you've set yourself one heck of a task - good luck! :-)Oh, and as far as I know, the only way to be sure what's in each wav file is to open the corresponding txt file.Petehttp://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannerbeta.jpg

  23. Posted

    You'll find lots of little (and not so little) differences like that, Bob, when you start venturing outside the US. As an aside, a few years ago ICAO tried to introduce the phrase, "taxi holding position, runway..." UK controllers staged a revolt and flatly refused to use it on safety grounds. It used almost identical words to the FAA's "taxi into position and hold" but had exactly the opposite meaning - the FAA means enter the runway, the ICAO means remain clear of the runway!Petehttp://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannerbeta.jpg

×
×
  • Create New...