Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC

Capt.Doug,

OK, so should I say something like "leaving FL290 for 12000 at CLARR,"
assuming I'm already cleared to descend at my discretion?

Sounds professional.


Actually, no, it doesn't. The word "for" is to be avoided because it sound
the same as "four". It sounds like many airline pilots (just like "twelve
hundred" or "with you"), but professional it is not.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Alexey,

nice post. Good luck with your flying lessons!

You however insist on you right to claim experience without having any,

Yep. The word "imposter" comes to mind.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Nomen,

Why do so many real pilots have trouble landing in the sim, then?

One of the reasons is the useless rudder modeling.


I think the main reason is lack of visual clues.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Capt.Doug writes:

MCP = max continuous power?

Mode Control Panel--the gadgets on the glare shield that control the
autopilot. So I set the ALT HOLD parameter on that to prevent the FMS
from going below a certain altitude on its own.

The important thing is to not set the altitude hold for descent until
cleared by ATC.

Up to now, I've been setting the altitude above my cruise for the
climb, and then below the airfield for my descent, thus preventing it
from ever limiting the FMS. But it now appears that I should be using
it to make sure I don't overstep any ATC instructions. So if they say
climb and maintain 5000, I set 5000 until I get new instructions, thus
preventing the FMS from taking me all the way to cruise altitude
before I've been cleared for it.

I note, however, that I'm often cleared for a higher altitude before
reaching the previously cleared altitude, so sometimes I just keep a
hand near the altitude setting on the MCP, ready to adjust it if I
have to, while letting the FMC do its thing.

A good center controller will have all of the arrivals spaced like pearls
before everyone hits the arrival's gate.

The quality of controllers in simulation is quite variable, but the
good ones are just as good as real controllers (sometimes they _are_
real controllers, who, for some reason, like to simulate their work
when they aren't doing it for real--I guess some people really like
their jobs).

The most common is a clearance to cross a fix at an assigned altitude
(crossing restriction). Say for example you are cruising at FL290 and the
controller isues you a clearance to cross a fix at 12000'. It is your
perogative as to when to start your descent so long as you cross the fix at
the assigned altitude.

OK, I've had those. I'll remember to treat them as an implicit
clearance to descend or climb to the specified altitude at my
discretion.

During the climb, ATC sees the final altitude we requested on our flight
plan. They try to get us up there, traffic permitting. After that we request
from ATC any altitude changes we want and they work us to that altitude,
traffic permitting.

Do you often need a different altitude from the one you filed?
Perhaps for fuel considerations, or headwinds, or something?

"DESCEND via the Korry 3"

Ah ... see, I would have interpreted that as more restrictive, i.e.,
meaning that I should change altitudes but that my heading should not
change. I guess it's the other way around. And I suppose it doesn't
make much sense that you'd be cleared to descend via the STAR and yet
not be cleared to follow it laterally, now that I think more about it.

No, because seperation wasn't lost.

So what do they say in this telephone call?

Sounds professional.

Cool. Now if I can just say it with a Texas drawl.

In the IFR world, altitude is all important. There are crossing restrictions
and block altitudes, but most of the time we follow

I would have thought that altitude and track would both be about
equally important.

In the real world we usually follow the arrival procedures with the
altitudes as published. When flying the big jets, just remember that you
will need 3 miles for every 1000' you want to descend plus another 5 miles
to slow for the 250 knot speed restriction at 10000'.

I have discovered that it's much harder to move large jets towards the
ground than it is to move them towards the sky.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Judah writes:

How do you know who is honest and who is lying?

By knowing their overall personalities.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Wade Hasbrouck writes:

I would like to see him tell Patty Wagstaff that her airplane is just a
"fun" plane and not a "serious" plane. :-)

I was talking about the MSFS model of the plane, not the plane itself.

I'm sure Patty Wagstaff considers it fun; otherwise, why would she fly
it?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jim Stewart writes:

I have about 150 hours in MSFS and 10 hours
and 5 or 6 landings in a real plane. *Nothing*
in FS prepares you for the instructor shouting..

If your instructor shouts, you need a new instructor.

I wonder if Max could even handle the
degree of psychological battering it takes
to become a good real-world pilot.

An instructor who could not keep a cool head would never retain my
business. I have too much experience to tolerate that sort of
misbehavior.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Viperdoc writes:

An Extra 300 is a pretty serious plane- extremely sensitive on the controls,
and can be pretty much flown with three finger touch.

Even in simulation, it's extraordinarily "nervous." I'm sure it's
much worse in real life. Nevertheless, I can see why an aerobatic
pilot would enjoy flying it. It seems to be an aircraft that will
instantly do whatever it is told ... for better or for worse.

It is much harder to
land than most spam cans due to limited forward visibility, and in fact it
comes in over the fence at the same speed as the Baron, only with no view
forward.

I imagine anyone who is competent to flying probably can land it
virtually blindfolded.

Also, pulling or pushing over six g's is pretty serious flying, let alone
while doing rolls at 400 degrees a second or tumbling end over end.

In real life, I don't like Gs at all, as they are hazardous to health.

MSFS does not even come remotely close to the visceral sensations or flight
model of the Extra.

Thank goodness!

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Newps writes:

It changes flight path, like he said, you dumb****.

The rudder rotates the aircraft about its yaw axis, in both simulation
and real flight. Whether or not this changes the flight path depends
on a number of factors.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

TxSrv writes:

For starters, the program doesn't really understand air
density. The program tries, but only in MSFS can one
maintain a semblance of controllability in a 172 at FL 250.

That would probably be a flaw in the specific model.

How does the 172 fly when you pilot it at FL250 yourself?

Plus, the mixture control does not react as it should at
even 7000.

What does it do wrong?

But it's a totally phony experience
at face value. Flying IFR in mere marginal weather like
just 2-3 viz, thus not "hard IMC," can be a pleasure, and
only partly because VFR flight in poor viz can be a
distasteful chore. Set up that condition in MSFS and it's a
complete bore.

Speak for yourself.

Ditto as to punching through a thin (but VFR
ceiling) overcast under IFR, but do that in MSFS it's
objectively a bore with phony, all-white below.

See above.

I guess a lot of pilots like all those strong physical sensations.
There doesn't seem to be much of an intellectual component to their
enjoyment, and they seem to regard the brain work parts as necessary
evils rather than as enjoyable in themselves. This may be relatively
specific to GA pilots, though. Large aircraft involve fewer
sensations and a lot more brain work, and might appeal to the sedate
and cerebral types a bit more.

I also like playing Walter Mitty now and then by flying big
air carrier jets too, but why anybody would simulate that by
engaging autopilot and letting FMS do the tricky stuff
(well, not really, if exp) for a thousand+ miles, hours on
end, I don't understand.

Because that's how it is done in real life. In real life, you don't
buzz control towers and fly through narrow canyons in a 737. You fly
it on sedate, planned, IFR routes from one major city to another.
Some people like that, some don't. It's like the differences among
speedboats, sailboats, aircraft carriers, and tankers.

And taking ATC instructions from VATSIM people who likely know
little of the real-life nuances of ATC at least.

Actually, they know a great deal about it. They have to train for it,
and many of them are pilots or controllers in real life.

What % of air carrier pilots actually fly MSFS as an avocation?

A surprising number of pilots enjoy MSFS. You can't always jump in a
real plane and go. This is especially true if you fly large aircraft
for a living; few people have jet airliners of their own to fly for
pleasure.

The tiny % who may do I suggest have issues, and I'd rather
not be a pax in seat 17A whilst he/she is up front, thank you.

Then it's best not to ask anyone up front if he ever uses MSFS, as you
might get a very unpleasant surprise.

Conversely, if flight exp via computer is all you want (and
moot, as all you can afford), fine.

It's all that is practical, and I'm not entirely sure that real flight
would be an improvement. There are a lot of unpleasant things about
flying for real.

Why, from everything I've read about sociology and
psychiatry on the net, I think you have issues. Forgive me,
that stepped over the line!

No problem. You've just put me into the same category that you had
previously set aside for many airline pilots, and that's not bad
company.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.