ATC Help

[KellyB]

I've started mucking about with FS9's native atc, and have a question about VFR.

Is it not possible to start out from a small airport on a VFR flight plan and get to a large airport's control space and request landing instructions? I have successfully done it with an IFR flight plan, but I can't imagine that when on a VFR flight, that about all you can ask for is flight following from approach control.

I've been through the Learning Center, and it doesn't say anything specific about it except that on a VFR flight, you can fly into and out of controlled airspaces without talking to ATC. But I'd guess that you can't simply take off from PeeInTheBoot Maine on a beautiful sunny calmish day and fly VFR down to Logan and just land without talking to someone.

What am I missing? (Be kind, please)

[Tom Clayton]

When I'm flying VFR into a controlled airport without Flight Following, I start pulling up the Nearest Airports list several miles out. Sometimes I have to scroll through a few pages to find my airport, depending on how many little grass strips are around, and there's usually a bunch. Once you select your airport, there's different options, including airspace clearance, touch and go, or full stop. After you announce that you intend to land, you'll be given a runway and pattern entry instructions. It's a bit different at non-controlled fields. You select your runway and intentions from the menus, then the Sim puts an announcement together for you such as "Air Harbor traffic, N690TC is eight miles out to land, runway 9."

EDIT: You can also fly IFR to a non-towered field. ATC will vector you to a point where you are instructed to tune to the traffic frequency. You will then get the same set of landing intention menus. It's then up to you to make use of any available navaids, or to abort if you can't make a safe visual landing.

[stansdds]

Actually, you do talk to someone even when arriving at or departing from uncontrolled fields. Every field has a radio frequency and you do call for taxi and takeoff as well as landing intentions as your calls may be heard by other pilots landing or preparing to takeoff from your field. So even with VFR at uncontrolled fields, you are letting others in the area know your intentions. It is wise to monitor the radio to hear their intentions as well.

ATC can guide you to and from uncontrolled fields, but once your are on final, ATC will release you and you then tune to the tower frequency of the uncontrolled field and announce your intention and give your position.

Sometimes you may find yourself flying a VFR plan and when you request to land at a controlled airfield you are denied your request and told the field is IFR. When this happens, go to the flight planner screen, enter your origination and destination airfields, select IFR, select altitude (I set it at my current altitude to prevent ATC from directing me to climb or descend), save, but do not select the "move aircraft" prompt. This basically files an IFR plan on the fly and ATC will run you around until you are where they want you to begin an IFR approach.

[KellyB]

Thanks for the replies. Tonight I shall try these tips and learn.

Really good tech support here.

[Matt Wynn]

Stans is right even my local farm Strips (Baxterley & Sittles) ask that you announce ground movements and pattern so that pilots can hear you as you come in, generally in FS this is what 'Traffic' in some comm channels refers to IIRC...

[srgalahad]

Good, simple start to answering your question. Now for the next big step.

Read what pilots have to read enroute to getting a license:
AIP
AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/AIP/AIP_21st_Edition.pdf


It's only 1606 pages, but you don't need/want to read it all right now :icon_lol: so save it or bookmark it for those rainy days.
P 191-204 Background info
P 214-221 Phraseology and techniques
P 353-359 rules and procedures
p 365-369
P 439-449 Airspace and weather minima

No-one-said-it-was-easy. :kilroy:

[Sunny9850]

Actually in real life US airspace it is entirely possible and legal to fly a VFR flight without talking to anyone....it just depends on the airspace your route takes you through. And while it is not a smart idea not to bring a radio along on every flight it is perfectly legal to fly a NORDO aircraft as long as you remain clear of B, C, D and E classes of airspace. There is only a very strong suggestion to use a radio at uncontrolled fields.

In FS as usual things are a little different than what you would find in the real world, but fairly close. ATC will give you entry instructions for the active runway on your VFR arrival but it will not give you a phone number if you do not follow the instructions exactly. Depending on your position relative to the active runway you will get something like "make left traffic for runway XY". At that point you need to figure out how to get your airplane into that position on the downwind leg of the active runway. Fly parallel to the runway and await the cleared to land instruction...normally you get that when you are "abeam the numbers", meaning you are just at the approach end of the active runway. Extend the downwind appropriate for the AC you are flying and turn base and final as usual.

At a uncontrolled FS airport you get to make all the decisions yourself...and just like in the real world if you bend sheet metal in the process it's all your fault. Even if another pilot breaks the written or unwritten rules...if you bend the airplane it's your rear end on the line as much as his.

The CTAF or common traffic advisory frequency is the best way for everyone flying at a uc field to get on the same page. Where is everyone, what type of airplane are they flying, what are their intentions. Here is how I use it in real life for an airport arrival.

1. Tune it in as early as possible (10-15nm out) and simply listen. This is where you form that picture of what is going on at the airport. Which runway is being used and what airplanes are in the airport pattern and where. Do NOT ask for advisories on the CTAF...that's what a Unicom is for if the airport has one. When someone asks for advisories you generally end up with a jumbled mess of pilots talking over each other and nobody is any wiser.
2. 5 nm out from the airport position call as short and concise as possible: "PA32 87B, 5 NW 3500' inbound for 45 entry right downwind 24"
3. On entry of the 45 I know where everyone else is (or I would not enter) and in the next call I let the other pilots know how I plan things to go " 87B entering 45 for right downwind 24, number 2 behind yellow high wing on the downwind" This lets the guy/gal in the yellow airplane know I have him in sight and will slot in behind him.

My CFI liked to use an old phrase he probably heard from his CFI's .... you have 1 mouth and 2 ears....so listening must be more important than talking.

Cheers
Stefan

[KellyB]

I followed the instructions and behold! I did it! What had me confused was when I set myself up heading for Bangor Intl. (KBGR) and was close enough that ATC told me to tune Bangor Approach right off the bat, which only gave me the Flight following option with no option to request a landing.

When I scrolled through the airport list and found then selected Bangor, I got the right options, and landed without running into anyone.

Again, thanks for all the answers.

I'm off to try Stefan's inputs now, and land at a towerless airport.

Fortunately, I'm better at marine navigation; good thing as sailor. We don't have to clear into the harbors here in Maine; It's ALL VFR. (lol)

[KellyB]

Good, simple start to answering your question. Now for the next big step.

Read what pilots have to read enroute to getting a license:
AIP
AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/AIP/AIP_21st_Edition.pdf


It's only 1606 pages, but you don't need/want to read it all right now :icon_lol: so save it or bookmark it for those rainy days.
P 191-204 Background info
P 214-221 Phraseology and techniques
P 353-359 rules and procedures
p 365-369
P 439-449 Airspace and weather minima

No-one-said-it-was-easy. :kilroy:

I couldn't agree more; M$oft just makes it more difficult by leaving out important little items in it's "documentation" of how its own ATC works. Like so many software creators, the documentation is more of an afterthought written by people who know how it works, and leave out little items one needs to know. Spent too many hours, days and some nights dealing with Adobe, M$oft, Corel, and other vendors of graphic arts softwares through the 80's.

It wasn't so much a problem of knowing a real world procedure in this case as it was knowing how M$oft dealt with it.

This is what makes sites like these a godsend to those of us who haven't stumbled on the switch that never got mentioned.

[stansdds]

M$'s modeling of ATC has been notoriously poor through their whole FlighSim series. Only in MS FlightSim can you have a major systems failure in flight and not be able to declare an emergency and have ATC give you a clear shot to the nearest runway. M$ ATC also does not seem to be capable of allowing transitional climbs or descents, everything is either climb and climb faster or nose dive to the final approach. There are payware add-ons that do allow for more realistic ATC behavior.

[srgalahad]

M$'s modeling of ATC has been notoriously poor through their whole FlighSim series. Only in MS FlightSim can you have a major systems failure in flight and not be able to declare an emergency and have ATC give you a clear shot to the nearest runway. M$ ATC also does not seem to be capable of allowing transitional climbs or descents, everything is either climb and climb faster or nose dive to the final approach. There are payware add-ons that do allow for more realistic ATC behavior.

It's really simple - you cannot model ATC well because ( in spite of all the conventional images) it is a human environment. While it's possible to develop a standardized set of approaches and vectoring schemes for some of the IFR airports, and very rudimentary VFR ATC (join downwind/base, get sequenced sort of, get landing clearance or overshoot) it does not lend itself to lines of code nor in the small segment of the sim's HD space.

Over the last 20 years ATC systems and the airlines have worked hard to standardize operations (SIDs & STARs) in the busier IFR environments to simplify workload and increase flight efficiencies but that doesn't apply to many IFR airports, virtually never in VFR flight and mostly only in the large primary airports around the world served by 'heavy iron'. For the remaining 90% of the world's airports it takes the constant awareness and reaction of humans to manage the variety of traffic, types, speeds and unique needs of the traffic.

Imagine trying to write code for THIS:

JxMIiQAbef8

OK, there are groups like VATSIM that offer the human factor, but (like the large chunk of the FS community that thinks the only worthwhile flying is in a 747 or Airbus with an FMS) you don't see a lot of VATSIM types regularly manning VFR or VFR/IFR towers (but oh, do they want to 'push tin' at LAX or JFK).
Interestingly, a "better ATC" was rumoured for FSX, but it was one of the things that never came to fruition - for obvious reasons. As much as I'd like something better the only advice I can give is 'life with it or forget it'.

[Sunny9850]

There are major deficiencies no doubt in the built in ATC system, but overall it is actually quite flexible AND quite close to modern day ATC. At least in the US airspace.
Much of the gripe in my opinion is actually caused by users expecting one thing and if they don't get exactly that the system sucks. Instead look at what options there are and work with them.
While it is true that you can't do anything within the sim to change the expected minimum climb or descent rates you do have options to step climb and to schedule a descent more in tune with Propliner flying. You just need to tell ATC what you want and not expect it to offer it for you.

Step Climb: Flight plan for a realistic initial altitude for the aircraft and configuration you are flying. ATC may give you an even lower initial altitude in the IFR clearance and then a climb to your filed altitude. Provided of course that you did your homework and the filed altitude is higher than the MEA along your route. Level off at the assigned altitudes and once you have burned enough fuel off for the next step climb use the ATC menu to ask for 2000 or 4000 feet higher. Repeat as needed until you reach the optimal cruising altitude for the flight plan distance.

Avoiding a Slam Dunk: Plan your BOD point based on the aircraft you are flying and how much of a level flight period you need to slow the airplane for the final approach. If able check the Wx conditions at your destination to get an idea what approach to expect (or ask for) and include that in your descent plan. Without pilot request ATC will keep you as high as possible for as long as possible, most modern day airlines actually like it that way, but as PIC you do have at least the option to ask for lower as you near your BOD point. You can only get 10000ft less than current but generally that works out ok if you planned correctly. Again ATC takes MEAs into consideration, so if you have 12000ft mountains between you and the destination you may not get what you ask for.

Avoiding the erratic vectoring for final approach: IF you do have the approach plates for the destination airport, and you really should, you politely decline the usually offered vectors to ILS XY and instead use the ATC menu to pick from the available options. It can of course still be the ILS to the same runway, who would opt for a NDB DME arc when you can simply follow the ILS beams, but instead you ask for the VOR transition. ATC will clear you direct to the VOR and from there expect you to fly the procedure as published on the plates.
You will find that sometimes a real world airport has 12 or more possible procedures and FS ATC only has 5 options to chose from....but one of them usually works.

So is Radar Contact better ?? Of course it is. But it is dedicated software written solely to provide better ATC within FS. Most payware aircraft are vastly better than the default ones you got with the incredible bargain that is MS FS9.
I do have RC4 and I like many of the features such as the emergencies and priority handling. But to me the actual voice transmissions are waaaayyy too slow. I fly real life in SoCal...and if our blessed controllers talked that slow nothing would get done. So I find myself using the built in ATC which got a speed boost years ago from EVP.

Stefan

[stansdds]

For FSX I bought one of the add-on ATC packages, but the only thing it successfully did was crash FSX to the desktop. I found and installed some freeware, EditVoicepack X. It updated the phraseology used by the stock ATC and has three settings for how fast ATC talks to you, slow (stock), medium, and fast. It really helped out with the painfully slow comms that are stock in FS.

As for stepping altitudes, yes, I do request altitude changes, especially if I encounter turbulence or foul weather and if I end up cruising at 10,000 feet or higher I try to request a step down before ATC gives me the instructions for the landing pattern. Nearly all of my flying is in FSX and in unpressurized aircraft, so I don't fly much above 10,000 feet. I have, several times, become so frustrated with IFR ATC during landing that I have canceled my IFR plan and then landed VFR, weather permitting. For whatever reason I often get positioned behind a much slower aircraft when on final and get the wave off. I don't care how much drag full flaps and landing gear give, a Piper Chieftain will still overtake a Maule or Cub on final. :icon_lol:

[Sunny9850]

AI traffic can of course throw the proverbial monkey wrench into just about any carefully laid out plan. But then so can in fact the same aircraft in real world ATC operations.
Try flying into a busy GA airport, such as KCMA for the excellent Tri-Tip lunch on Saturday for example and despite ATCs best intentions sometimes things just don't work out. The 172 in front might be doing best speed on final as instructed, but leaves the power in just a bit too long and ends up landing long and fast making it impossible to clear the active in time for the airplane slotted in behind him.
Or the controller simply turns you in a tick too tight behind the leading Bonanza and despite your best efforts you end up catching up with him as he slows for gear and flaps. That's life...and keeps it interesting.

Heck I turned myself in way too tight as it turned out behind the CAF C-53 visiting my uncontrolled home base, not expecting the old girl to slow to 65 kts on short final, prompting a second trip around the patch for my Saratoga. That's why you have fuel reserves and practice go arounds.

Or the tower controller tries to get just one more airplane out before you land and either you were a tick too fast or the pilot taking off has a different interpretation of "immediate departure without delay" and things get too tight for comfort.

And don't even get me started on the guy in his Ercoupe that thinks he is wasting valuable fuel at the hold short line while you "trundle" down a short final and so decides that he should be well clear by the time you get there, only to find out that his spacial judgment and acceleration of the little twin tail are way off as he sees a blue Piper streaking by offset to the right, it's IO-540 now gobbling down 25 GPH as it climbs back out.
( thanks for that Bill, way to close out 2011 last night :salute: )

So yes FS ATC is not perfect by any stretch, and no matter which add-on you use it never can be. Online ATC can be exceptionally good, try flying in the Vancouver,BC area for example on one of their fully staffed weekends, but can also be hugely frustrating if you get a controller with a major attitude problem or simply a lack of real world understanding of how things should work. Those thankfully are rare in my experience.

I know at least one real world tower controller that always has very quiet shifts, because his handling of the interpersonal relationship that is ATC is so ... brutal for lack of a better word. It's the only one where I have heard pilots asking for a telephone number as they were taxiing off the active.

Try programming that into ones and zeros and I'll buy your product.

Cheers
Stefan

[falcon409]

Whenever ATC is brought up in a thread I like to mention that back when I was flying Pro_Pilot that program had an ATC engine that was much more advanced than anything Microsoft has ever been able to muster. . . .why is that? In FS9 or FSX if you are directed to take off from a specific rwy via specific taxiways but you get lost and end up at the opposite end via completely different taxiways, the tower will still clear you for takeoff. It seems incapable of discerning where you are, only that you have reached the "hold short" marker.

With pro-pilot, if you were given the same instruction and even made one wrong turn, the controller was asking where you thought you were going. . . .you're on the wrong taxiway. It seems inconceivable that Microsoft gave us what we laughingly refer to as ATC and said that's the best we can do.

[KellyB]

Whenever ATC is brought up in a thread I like to mention that back when I was flying Pro_Pilot that program had an ATC engine that was much more advanced than anything Microsoft has ever been able to muster. . . .why is that? In FS9 or FSX if you are directed to take off from a specific rwy via specific taxiways but you get lost and end up at the opposite end via completely different taxiways, the tower will still clear you for takeoff. It seems incapable of discerning where you are, only that you have reached the "hold short" marker.

With pro-pilot, if you were given the same instruction and even made one wrong turn, the controller was asking where you thought you were going. . . .you're on the wrong taxiway. It seems inconceivable that Microsoft gave us what we laughingly refer to as ATC and said that's the best we can do.

Not to doubt you, but just for the fun of it, I got clearance to taxi at KBUF to rwy 5 and hold short. So I taxied out and slowly taxied DOWN the opposite rwy 23 into landing traffic and not a word from anyone even after running into the 737 which had just touched down.

I guess it just isn't something the guys in Redmond got around to. But, for $20.00, it's still a fun sim to fly. Maybe I'll break down and spring for one of the addons, but I need to perfect other skills first.

[falcon409]

Not to doubt you, but just for the fun of it, I got clearance to taxi at KBUF to rwy 5 and hold short. So I taxied out and slowly taxied DOWN the opposite rwy 23 into landing traffic and not a word from anyone even after running into the 737 which had just touched down.
I guess it just isn't something the guys in Redmond got around to. But, for $20.00, it's still a fun sim to fly. Maybe I'll break down and spring for one of the addons, but I need to perfect other skills first.
Yep, even as lame as it is, I still use it, lol. It's better than talking to yourself while you're flying. One thing I did like in FSX is that it can be used in Multiplayer. . . .it's not any better than what I had in FS9, but at least it's available. I don't know what Microsoft has in store for "Flight" but I do hope they don't tack the same old ATC engine onto it and try to pass it off as "New and Improved". lol