chrispeel

I seem to have lost the ability to drag and resize the ATC dialog window.All other aspects of RC4 and FS9 are fine.I've touched nothing,honest.

Hi again IainIt sounds as if I got the same instructions as you.I was on a roughly easterly heading but the ATC instruction to turn to 185 (approx)was quite correct as the next instruction to turn to 125 was just about right to intercept the 096 radial to the VOR.The VOR approach is based on the 096 radial to the PJM VOR on 113.00.The joining procedure is to be overhead the VOR at 3500 feet and take an outbound heading of 288(CAT A and B aircraft)for 3 mins descending to 1500 for the turn back inbound on 096.IN RC4 they vector you to the final approach path but you could ask for the VOR procedure of course.There are charts at http://www.fscharts.com/?action=search&type=icao&term=TNCM These are similar to mine which are part of a FAA book of Carribean and S.American charts and are 10 years old.The new VOR procedure I have found via Google is outbound on 276R at 2600 feet to 4.8 miles followed by a procedure turn inbound at 1600 feet.

Hi IainOut of curiosity(never having flown there in real life or FS) I've just done this flight but in an ATR as it is such a short hop.I planned it at 12000 feet ASL and took the vectors for 09 as you did.I had set the aircraft up for a VOR RW09 Approach as per some oldish charts I have.The vectors I was given were pretty much as yours but the turn to 185 degrees is at right angles to the runway center line not opposite direction as you say.I was given the clearance to turn towards the VOR at about 35 miles and just in time not to overshoot the centerline so I was established on the 096 radial well ahead.At the time I flew this(a few minutes ago)the barometer settings were pretty close to the standard 2991mb and I'm not excatly sure where the FIR boundary is anyway.In other words this flight was fine and RC4 did exactly what was expected.

A very fine set of pictures JD.

You can always take back the comms from Otto before descent.Then you will be able to tell ATC you want to have a PD descent(Option 3) and later that you will be unable to make the crossing altitude/flight level at the 40 mile mark.(Option 6)This is useful if you're landing the wrong way round.E.G.If LAX is on easterlies and you are coming in from the east.Many people have written in to this forum to say that 11000 feet is too high if making a straight in approach to a sea level airfield in a heavy.It can be tight and as I understand it may well be changed in RC5.As Ray has advised many times the best plan is to get to minimum clean speed or thereabouts by that point.

That's good.Thanks

True Ron but now and then it gets confused and the last time it took 3 goes to sort it.The controller was pretty quick to step in and issue the "fly heading"instruction so that we were going round in circles,literally as well as verbally!Maybe it needs more of a delay but I'm no expert on programmingIt's only a minor blip as far as I'm concerned.

I sometimes find that even at normal speed if the controller is busy with other aircraft when you are at a waypoint you do not get a credit when passing it.It is rare I admit,but it does happen occasionally.When it happened the other day I asked for a "direct to" the next waypoint and was refused "due traffic".It took a while to unravel that one as I kept getting the "fly heading xxx"instruction.

Simbol,the problem I find in going to 4X(you can go faster if you like) is not so much what Ray says,although that can be an issue I agree,it is when you get a frequency change or other communication form ATC close to a waypoint.Even if the co-pilot is handling the comms it may well result in you not having your passing of the waypoint registered and thus getting the "fly heading xxx until suitable..." etc.In other words you are not credited with passing your waypoint.RC doesn't like that.You get told off!I personally cope with that by simply requesting a "direct to" the next waypoint.Or slow down to 1x when you approach a waypoint.(Assuming you are still there and not having a cuppa with the ladies in the back)

I do that all the time Ronzie.when doing long distance high altitude flights in the 767,747 aircraft.It can take a long time before a B747 on a long route can get up to say FL370/390

I cannot add anything useful to Norman's very succinct reply to you David but if you get into the FAA(for the USA)or NATS(for UK)websites you will get a list and charts of all the current SIDs and their full procedures,fixes etc.STARS and other procedures too.Try http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/d_tpp for the USand http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index...p;Itemid=2.htmlfor UKThere are other sites for many other countries.

RandhIn UK nearly all the major airports use radar vectors to ILS approaches.As Ronzie implies the the traffic patterns using the published procedures would simply not be suitable for the numbers involved.In fact in Europe many flights are in effect radar vectored a lot of or even the whole way with "fly heading xxx"or "proceed direct to xxxxx fix".Round here where I live(EGCC)even the SIDs are frequently dispensed with after the first few fixes.

There is an option in the RC dialog box which needs to be checked.It's under the aircraft callsign area.

GuilioThe "PD" descent option only appears if you have taken over the comms from Otto.It is Option 3 in the menu.You will also get an option to say"unable" if you can't make the 11,000 or 12,000 foot requirement when asked to do so..If you are doing a far side approach I find 12000 feet often to be too low and if doing a straight approach in it can be too high.When flying heavy jets that is.As has been mentioned in here before you need to be well slowed up if you are doing a straight in from 12000 feeet to a sea level airport.

Hi SubsYes I hear a lot of ACARS on VHF here and have decoded it on occasions.I don't know how much it is used for position reporting instead of HF radio though.It will be interesting if you do find that web siteCheers

ST1322,It would be interesting to ascertain how many aircraft do use other means of communicating over the non VHF areas of the world.I've never piloted trans oceanic routes myself but I know a few who do and they mainly still use HF.I think expense is a consideration!Most of the major US and EU airlines can be heard on HF every day,over the Atlanic and the Pacific but I was once in the jump seat of a Cathay 747 en route Hongkong when a certain amount of data linking was being done.Cheers

True ST1322.ETOPS is not a problem for most places these days.The Tahiti to LAX route is another one that has to deviate to accomodate it.I've not looked into it but I image the South America to New Zealand routes might as well but I've only ever seen 4 engined planes on those routes.

As an ordinary(non beta tester) user I fully endorse Ronzie's suggestions.I've been caught out several times just as Jim has so I tend not to use them.I've deleted them from any saved plans in FS9 and the appropriate FMC.For your interest at the present moment(in the reral world) the DME with the MCT is being used for ILS approaches to 23R at EGCC.The DME with the ILS being currentlyu/s.Hopefully temporarily.

Yes the NAT do vary daily depending on the jet stream and general 200/300mb wind pattern.It's also right to say that the North Atlantic doesn't have fixed waypoints except at the Oceanic FIR entry points.From there it's Lat/Long cordinates or in some areas random tracks.The latter often apply from the Carribean to UK.As Ron says the Pacific is more stable but Air New Zealnd for example have a computer programme for best use of the upper winds so they may go"off route" from AUK to LAX for example.There's also ETOPS to take into account for twins like 767/777/757/A330 etcHF is still in quite extensive` use though.All over the world despite the advances in teechnology

Hi JET1 just to let you know. HF is used daily over oceans & land areas where there is no VHF infrastructure.The Atlantic still has a family of frequencies in use as do the Pacific and Indian Oceans.Unfortunately FS9 does not model the NAT waypoints very well.

Don't think I realised you were from "Down Under" Subs.Great country.Only had 2 visits and am hoping for another next year.Never been to the west side yet.Yes UK Airspace is highly complex and I think you guys do a terrific job with the whole package.Those new UK areas must look like small beer compared to what happens in Oz.Cheers.

True enough in every way apart from the one fact that the name does indeed change.That's really all I was saying.The name has been changed not the boundaries.It's a minor issue although some pilots are still calling it "Manchester".They're learning mind you.Old habits etc!

Subs and Co.This post is not to do with airline call signs.You will probably be aware that the Manchester(UK)ATC sub centre has now gone and is now controlled from Prestwick c/s Scottish.I'm not sure I've ever heard "Manchester" in use in RC-apart from the airport itself(EGCC) but just thought I'd mention it as obviously you do try to keep to the proper centre boundaries in the current productI'm sure Ray will have mentioned this amongst othersIt seems really odd to be contacting "Scottish"immediately after take off from some UK airports but that's what we have to do now.

APOMET 1 It works for me in FS9 if I feel so inclined.

I should have said I always use the published procedures when I do IFR flights in FS9.I have a large collection of plates and use Navigraph's excellent product.I hardly ever take vectors although I have done so out of curiosity to see how they are handled compared to the real thing.I concoct my own approaches when the STARS in the FMC leave you needing vectors.Based on what I know of real world operations.