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

When I listen to real ATC on liveatc.net, it sounds just as bad. The
quality problems aren't the same, but their magnitude is. I'm
surprised more aircraft aren't running into each other. I can only
hope that the audio quality is much better aboard the actual aircraft,
but I doubt it.

My experience is that controllers are always pretty clear, although
they may talk rapid fire. I think this is because controllers have good
headsets.. not much background noise, and powerful (?) ground based
transmitters. As opposed to pilots who have lots of noise around them.

For someone like me that is more visual than auditory (it sounds like
you are similar) it takes practice to be able to visualize what I just
heard. It helps that for almost everything it follows a very standard
format (and controllers are good at following that format) as opposed
to us pilots that tend to try it on the cool, i.e. "uh, up from 4 for
5.2" etc. Those Don Brown columns I pointed you to earlier has a whole
bunch of columns on phraseology and its usefuleness for safety.

Do you listen to Vatsim on a headset? Might make it easier.

bdl writes:

Do you listen to Vatsim on a headset? Might make it easier.

Yes, a headset with a microphone. SquawkBox (the interface module for
VATSIM) complains that I have too much background noise, but when I
ask for a radio check people say I sound fine. Unfortunately, very
often I can't hear them. I don't need to hear other pilots, of
course, but I do need to hear controllers, and sometimes the quality
is so bad that I just use text.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

Viperdoc writes:

For example, the Extra 300 model is extremely poor. The acceleration is
slower than the real aircraft, and the roll rate is much, much less than the
full scale plane.



Perhaps so. I presume the Extra 300 is a "fun" plane, not a serious
one, like many of the others.



It does't get much more serious than an Extra 300 when it comes to
general aviation aircraft!

Nomen Nescio wrote:

Landings are waaaay too easy. A poor landing in reality is a lot more
exciting than the MSFS models.

No ****.

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..

"Steer with your feet"
"You're flaring 20 feet too high"
"Steer with your feet"
"Hold the nose up"
"Steer with your feet"
"Watch your speed"

As the ground rushes up towards you at 60 knots
and the feeling that you're just about to
literally drag your ass down the runway.

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

Jim Stewart wrote in
:

"Steer with your feet"
"You're flaring 20 feet too high"
"Steer with your feet"
"Hold the nose up"
"Steer with your feet"
"Watch your speed"

As the ground rushes up towards you at 60 knots
and the feeling that you're just about to
literally drag your ass down the runway.

Don't forget "right rudder, right rudder" being drilled in your head from
your instructor for takeoffs.

Allen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic wrote:
A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

Not often. For the most, visual approaches are used over ILS
approaches. When cleared for the visual approach, you won't be using
autoland, as you won't be on an ILS approach, regardless of if you join
the localizer and track it. You're still on the visual approach.

Yes, from a regulatory standpoint. But I can still configure for
autoland. It looks like any other landing from the tower, heh heh.

I'd hate to see what would happen if tower tells you that you
have a 40 or 50kt overtake on the traffic you're following, and to
S-turn. Kills your autoland. If you want the realism, you should and
fly the approach and land, and use your instruments when you need them.
Should you get the helmet and can't see them, you would be screwed...
royally.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFnaHYyBkZmuMZ8L8RAj7oAJ4+6uimAAwC0MsrBciICf cc2pI6bwCeJFBJ
GqSi/+r/pNBg5ZPYWENsT+0=
=X5cu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
So it would probably be best to set the MCP to prevent any descent
until I'm cleared, then?

MCP = max continuous power? Sorry- not familiar with the term as used on an
FMS. The important thing is to not set the altitude hold for descent until
cleared by ATC.

In simulation, too, even though traffic is sometimes too light to
justify it (the ATCs need practice as well). In fact, it seems that I
almost never follow the arrival procedure as published. Often just as
I'm beginning it, ATC gives me other instructions. I suppose it's a
bit of a relief as then all I have to do is follow their instructions,
rather than try to follow the arrival chart (but if the FMC is doing
it, it's easy).

A good center controller will have all of the arrivals spaced like pearls
before everyone hits the arrival's gate. That way everyone can follow the
arrival as charted with ATC isssuing speed changes to maintain spacing.

Is there a specific phrasing that means "you can do your own lateral
AND vertical navigation"? Or does ATC as a rule never let IFR flights
select their own altitudes?

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.

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.

What does ATC say if they want you
to follow everything on the plate, including the indicated altitudes?

"DESCEND via the Korry 3"

Did your colleague get into significant trouble?

No, because seperation wasn't lost.

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.

So there is no equivalent of "resume own navigation" for altitude,
like "resume own altitude," or whatever?

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

If ATC regularly overrides the plates and (apparently) doesn't often
clear anyone to follow the altitude indications on the plates, why do
all the approach plates seem to mention altitudes? Just for radio
loss?

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'.

D.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Do you listen to Vatsim on a headset? Might make it easier.

Yes, a headset with a microphone. SquawkBox (the interface module for
VATSIM) complains that I have too much background noise, but when I
ask for a radio check people say I sound fine. Unfortunately, very
often I can't hear them. I don't need to hear other pilots, of
course, but I do need to hear controllers, and sometimes the quality
is so bad that I just use text.

FYI, i listen to other pilots as well as the controllre instructions to
them. A lot of times it will help with the big picture situational
awareness. For example, knowing that I'm likely to be asked to keep my
speed up on that ILS, because he's vectoring a Hawker behind me for the
same ILS.

Nomen Nescio writes:

The rudder is a joke. It changes the direction that the nose is pointed,
but does not control flight path.

What does a real aircraft do?

Ground effect is either poorly modeled, or not modeled at all.

You don't sound very certain.

Actual aerodynamic effects of wind such as wind shear are either pooly
modeled, or not modeled at all.

See above.

Stalls are not poorly modeled, but not entirely accurate.

What parts are inaccurate?

"Turbulence" is pathetic. The plane just twitches around a bit. This
does not even come close to reality.

I didn't know there was a standard form of turbulence.

Landings are waaaay too easy. A poor landing in reality is a lot more
exciting than the MSFS models.

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

Most real pilots have told me that it's much easier to fly an aircraft
for real.

Mass and moment of inertia effects range from poorly modeled to
weak, depending on the modeled aircraft (some add ons are pretty
fair, but the limitations of MSFS calculations limit the accuracy of the
models).

Which limitations of the MSFS calculations produce which flaws?

High altitude flight results in highly unrealistic control responses and overall
aerodynamic behavior.

What are the unrealistic details?

I could probably come up with a few more if I spent a few more minutes
thinking about it.

It would be better to quantify and isolate the ones you've already
mentioned, in order to make it possible to verify them.

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

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

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.

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