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

In article ,
john smith wrote:


It believe it is based on the instrument requirement (?) of 500 fpm rate
of descent.

That's the absolute minimum descent rate; more typical is a 3-degree
(roughly 300 feet per nautical mile) descent. ATC is expecting a normal
rate of descent for your particular type of airplane to achieve that.

In a spamcan doing 90 knots groundspeed, 500fpm is about right. In a
typical jet doing 450 knots over the ground, that's going to be more
like 2300 feet per minute. (Groundspeed in knots * 5 will give you a
pretty good target to achieve a 3 degree descent.)

Mxsmanic wrote:

If your instructor shouts, you need a new instructor.


I remember preparing to takeoff from a training hill in a hang glider
and when I started running, then wind direction slightly changed and I
started hesitating and thought about aborting run. An instructor
started shouting "Run, run you bloody stupid f***d!" . And a lot of
other unpleasant words in a split second. I ran, took off Ok and landed
well.

When I came back, I thanked her for saving me from possibly broken arm
or leg (no kidding) and unpleasant time spent in hospital, never mind
bent aluminium.

You have no clue, do you?

Mxsmanic wrote:

If your instructor shouts, you need a new instructor.


I remember preparing to takeoff from a training hill in a hang glider
and when I started running, then wind direction slightly changed and I
started hesitating and thought about aborting run. An instructor
started shouting "Run, run you bloody stupid f***d!" . And a lot of
other unpleasant words in a split second. I ran, took off Ok and landed
well.

When I came back, I thanked her for saving me from possibly broken arm
or leg (no kidding) and unpleasant time spent in hospital, never mind
bent aluminium.

You have no clue, have you?

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

There are many different possibilities. In the experiment suggested
to me, I held the wings level (via the autolevel function of the
autopilot), applied full right rudder, and the aircraft yawed and
gradually changed heading. The ground track was a segment of a circle
(depending on how long I held the rudder). Supposedly MSFS can't do
this, but it did.

Well, then that conflicts with what another poster said which I believe was
that MSFS allowed you to yaw the nose without any heading change.

When flying IFR with jet aircraft, the pilot has little discretion
unless specifically given by ATC.

A usual transmission is, United xxx, descend to 15000, and that's what
you do. On rare occasion, it may be a little looser, United xxx
descent at pilot's discretion, cross intersection xyz at 15000.

If you want a better feel for what actually goes on than you will ever
get via newsgroup, take a couple of United flights and listen to the
ATC channel - it can be much more entertaining than the movie at times.

Alexey,

You have no clue, have you?


On human interaction and when shouting might be appropriate? No, he
doesn't.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Paul kgyy wrote:

If you want a better feel for what actually goes on than you will ever
get via newsgroup, take a couple of United flights and listen to the
ATC channel - it can be much more entertaining than the movie at times.

A cheaper way is check this out:
http://www.liveatc.net/

Mxsmanic wrote:

...and many of them [VATSIM] are pilots or controllers in real life.

How do you actually know they are real controllers? Within
any endeavor, there's room for a few who do odd things. But
I have trouble believing the typical ATC would regularly
spend off-hours directing nonpilots in a make-believe IFR
environment.

If there were many real controllers doing this, you wouldn't
have so many misconceptions about IFR, the few rigid rules
which are not to be violated, and the essential task of the
controller.

F--

Mxsmanic wrote:

No, I think the main reasons are that some pilots depend excessively
on physical sensations, and become disoriented without them.

In visual flight conditions? You don't know what you're
talking about.

F--

Mxsmanic wrote:
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.

All planes, and various propulsion systems, react in the
same way to air density. The program itself could handle
this, needing only some specifics from the model file and
which it does supply for certain things. Whatever. Of the
zillion FS planes out there for download, point me toward a
normally-aspirated, piston aircraft, with certificated HP in
the model file, and which isn't a real hoot when slewed up
into the flight levels.

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

What does it do wrong?

The red knobby thingy? Besides doing little but being an
on/off switch? I dunno. Regarding rarefied air, I read
somewhere on the net it's just the way carburetors work.

F--