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

[Mxsmanic]

I fly from KLAX to KLAS, using the FMC to handle most of the flight.
With the routing I put in, the FMC decides on some default altitudes
and includes required altitudes for the arrival and departure
procedures I select. Part of what it does is to create a descent
schedule from the nominal cruise altitude to the arrival procedure.

So I leave KLAX and my last explicit instruction from ATC is "climb
and maintain FL290," which is my programmed and filed cruise altitude.
Now, my question is this: If the FMC has a programmed descent in its
route, do I let the FMC start the descent where it sees fit, or do I
force the aircraft to maintain FL290 until ATC explicitly clears me
for my own navigation or for a lower altitude? And if ATC's last
instruction had simply been "resume own navigation" or "proceed as
filed," would that mean that I'd be free to begin the descent whenever
the FMC (or I) decides it's best?

In situations where I can begin the descent at my discretion (assuming
that own navigation implies this), should I tell ATC that I'm leaving
my cruise altitude? If the FMC has a continuously changing estimate
of lower altitudes in the descent profile, what should I give as my
target altitude? The next fix that has a specific altitude? (Such as
a fix in the arrival procedure)

Climbing I think I understand. If I'm told to resume own navigation,
or cleared as filed in the first place, I climb per my flight plan/FMC
profile. If ATC says maintain X, I stay at X until ATC tells me to
resume own navigation or instructs me to change altitudes. But the
descent part still has me a bit confused.

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

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I fly from KLAX to KLAS, using the FMC to handle most of the flight.
> With the routing I put in, the FMC decides on some default altitudes
> and includes required altitudes for the arrival and departure
> procedures I select. Part of what it does is to create a descent
> schedule from the nominal cruise altitude to the arrival procedure.
>
> So I leave KLAX and my last explicit instruction from ATC is "climb
> and maintain FL290," which is my programmed and filed cruise altitude.
> Now, my question is this: If the FMC has a programmed descent in its
> route, do I let the FMC start the descent where it sees fit, or do I
> force the aircraft to maintain FL290 until ATC explicitly clears me
> for my own navigation or for a lower altitude? And if ATC's last
> instruction had simply been "resume own navigation" or "proceed as
> filed," would that mean that I'd be free to begin the descent whenever
> the FMC (or I) decides it's best?
>
> In situations where I can begin the descent at my discretion (assuming
> that own navigation implies this), should I tell ATC that I'm leaving
> my cruise altitude? If the FMC has a continuously changing estimate
> of lower altitudes in the descent profile, what should I give as my
> target altitude? The next fix that has a specific altitude? (Such as
> a fix in the arrival procedure)
>
> Climbing I think I understand. If I'm told to resume own navigation,
> or cleared as filed in the first place, I climb per my flight plan/FMC
> profile. If ATC says maintain X, I stay at X until ATC tells me to
> resume own navigation or instructs me to change altitudes. But the
> descent part still has me a bit confused.
>
Are you flying IFR? if so then ATC will tell you what altitude to be at.
Resume own navigation refers to routing not altitude. VFR is a
different set of rules.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Theune ]
> Posted At: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 8:49 AM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's
ATC
> Subject: Re: Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's
ATC
>
....
> Are you flying IFR? if so then ATC will tell you what altitude to be
at.
> Resume own navigation refers to routing not altitude. VFR is a
> different set of rules.

He's not flying in the system, but rather he's trying to program his
flight simulator scenarios. This is a case of learning the mechanics
without understanding the system.

MS - why don't you get a copy of the instrument flying handbook or the
TERPS manual, or some other good text and learn the system? Every one of
the questions you've been asking are addressed in those and in the AIM
and FARs. These are the information sources that aspiring pilots use in
their pursuit of knowledge.

[mad8]

i wonder if his simulator's ATC tells him to hang himself he will? (one
can only hope)
John Theune wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > I fly from KLAX to KLAS, using the FMC to handle most of the flight.
> > With the routing I put in, the FMC decides on some default altitudes
> > and includes required altitudes for the arrival and departure
> > procedures I select. Part of what it does is to create a descent
> > schedule from the nominal cruise altitude to the arrival procedure.
> >
> > So I leave KLAX and my last explicit instruction from ATC is "climb
> > and maintain FL290," which is my programmed and filed cruise altitude.
> > Now, my question is this: If the FMC has a programmed descent in its
> > route, do I let the FMC start the descent where it sees fit, or do I
> > force the aircraft to maintain FL290 until ATC explicitly clears me
> > for my own navigation or for a lower altitude? And if ATC's last
> > instruction had simply been "resume own navigation" or "proceed as
> > filed," would that mean that I'd be free to begin the descent whenever
> > the FMC (or I) decides it's best?
> >
> > In situations where I can begin the descent at my discretion (assuming
> > that own navigation implies this), should I tell ATC that I'm leaving
> > my cruise altitude? If the FMC has a continuously changing estimate
> > of lower altitudes in the descent profile, what should I give as my
> > target altitude? The next fix that has a specific altitude? (Such as
> > a fix in the arrival procedure)
> >
> > Climbing I think I understand. If I'm told to resume own navigation,
> > or cleared as filed in the first place, I climb per my flight plan/FMC
> > profile. If ATC says maintain X, I stay at X until ATC tells me to
> > resume own navigation or instructs me to change altitudes. But the
> > descent part still has me a bit confused.
> >
> Are you flying IFR? if so then ATC will tell you what altitude to be at.
> Resume own navigation refers to routing not altitude. VFR is a
> different set of rules.

[JD]

Jim Carter wrote:
> MS - why don't you get a copy of the instrument flying handbook or the
> TERPS manual, or some other good text and learn the system? Every one of
> the questions you've been asking are addressed in those and in the AIM
> and FARs. These are the information sources that aspiring pilots use in
> their pursuit of knowledge.

Online version of the AIM: http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/index.htm

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> Are you flying IFR?

Yes. I've filed a SID, a route, and a STAR, and programmed this into
the FMC as well. The FMC apparently decides when to start the descent
from cruise (if you don't override it), presumably based on the
altitude restrictions it has to respect for the arrival procedure.

> if so then ATC will tell you what altitude to be at.
> Resume own navigation refers to routing not altitude.

Ah ... is there another phrase that also means altitude is at my
discretion, or is altitude always under the control of ATC? The fact
that the FMC provides for its own descent schedule implies that there
must be situations in IFR where I'm allowed to climb or descend at my
discretion (?).

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Carter writes:

> He's not flying in the system, but rather he's trying to program his
> flight simulator scenarios. This is a case of learning the mechanics
> without understanding the system.

For instrument flight, they work the same way.

> MS - why don't you get a copy of the instrument flying handbook or the
> TERPS manual, or some other good text and learn the system?

I have the IFR handbook, but it doesn't go into extreme detail for
phraseology, or I've missed it.

> Every one of
> the questions you've been asking are addressed in those and in the AIM
> and FARs. These are the information sources that aspiring pilots use in
> their pursuit of knowledge.

So what do you discuss on rec.aviation.ifr?

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

[JD]

On Jan 3, 9:21 am, "mad8" > wrote:
> i wonder if his simulator's ATC tells him to hang himself he will? (one
> can only hope)
>

MS, don't let post like this bother you. ANY interest in aviation is
good. Real pilots are in general one of the most POLITE bunch of people
you'd ever want to meet and hang out with. It's a a close knit
community. A lot of GA pilots like to hang out at the local airports
and do nothing but "hanger flying", i.e. sit around and talk about
aviation (and other topics).

Try it sometime, and join a local chapter of the EAA (experimental
aircraft association). You'll learn a lot more from talking to folks
than from reading posts like Mad's.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> I fly from KLAX to KLAS
>

No, you don't. For the sake of those reading here that haven't
discovered your background, please state clearly that you are playing
MS FS.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> The fact
> that the FMC provides for its own descent schedule implies that there
> must be situations in IFR where I'm allowed to climb or descend at my
> discretion
>

No. That fact implies that the simulation does not simulate real life
well in this respect. You wanted an example, you got one all by
yourself.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Pixel Dent]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> If the FMC has a programmed descent in its
> route, do I let the FMC start the descent where it sees fit, or do I
> force the aircraft to maintain FL290 until ATC explicitly clears me
> for my own navigation or for a lower altitude?

It seems what you really want is to read the rules about clearances in
the AIM. The section on the altitude portion of a clearance is 4.4.3.d
and can be found at

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0404.html


d. Altitude Data.

1. The altitude or flight level instructions in an ATC clearance
normally require that a pilot "MAINTAIN" the altitude or flight level at
which the flight will operate when in controlled airspace. Altitude or
flight level changes while en route should be requested prior to the
time the change is desired.

2. When possible, if the altitude assigned is different from the
altitude requested by the pilot, ATC will inform the pilot when to
expect climb or descent clearance or to request altitude change from
another facility. If this has not been received prior to crossing the
boundary of the ATC facility's area and assignment at a different
altitude is still desired, the pilot should reinitiate the request with
the next facility.

3. The term "cruise" may be used instead of "MAINTAIN" to assign a block
of airspace to a pilot from the minimum IFR altitude up to and including
the altitude specified in the cruise clearance. The pilot may level off
at any intermediate altitude within this block of airspace.
Climb/descent within the block is to be made at the discretion of the
pilot. However, once the pilot starts descent and verbally reports
leaving an altitude in the block, the pilot may not return to that
altitude without additional ATC clearance.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>> and FARs. These are the information sources that aspiring pilots use in
>> their pursuit of knowledge.
>
>So what do you discuss on rec.aviation.ifr?

Corner cases - cases where the rules say one thing and common sense says
another, where the rules seem to contradict each other, or things that
weren't covered in normal IFR training. It's not here to act as a
person's CFI-I.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Nazis are part of *every* government, everywhere, in all of human
history. They're just not always called that.
-- J.D. Baldwin

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>> if so then ATC will tell you what altitude to be at.
>> Resume own navigation refers to routing not altitude.
>
>Ah ... is there another phrase that also means altitude is at my
>discretion, or is altitude always under the control of ATC? The fact
>that the FMC provides for its own descent schedule implies that there
>must be situations in IFR where I'm allowed to climb or descend at my
>discretion (?).

If your FMC wants to descend, ask ATC for a descent. If you're going to
be descending with multiple segments of different descent rates, ask ATC
for "descent at pilots discretion".

Real world IFR flying is about coordinating your actions with those of all
the other planes out there, not flying along fat, dumb and happy doing
whatever you feel like. That's the whole point of ATC - to make sure you
don't hit what you can't see. ATC's second priority is to make sure the
system runs smoothly, so your actions don't interfere with somebody else
and somebody else's actions don't interfere with you.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"I love the smell of burning components in the morning.
Smells like victory." (The ******* Operator From Hell)

[Mxsmanic]

Paul Tomblin writes:

> Corner cases - cases where the rules say one thing and common sense says
> another, where the rules seem to contradict each other, or things that
> weren't covered in normal IFR training. It's not here to act as a
> person's CFI-I.

Are you the moderator?

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

[Mxsmanic]

JD writes:

> MS, don't let post like this bother you.

Not to worry; I am refractory to personal attacks.

> ANY interest in aviation is good.

I agree.

> Real pilots are in general one of the most POLITE bunch of people
> you'd ever want to meet and hang out with.

Why are so many of the ones accessing USENET so rude, then? Or
perhaps they are not actually pilots (?).

> A lot of GA pilots like to hang out at the local airports
> and do nothing but "hanger flying", i.e. sit around and talk about
> aviation (and other topics).

Is that anything like ... simulation?

> Try it sometime, and join a local chapter of the EAA (experimental
> aircraft association). You'll learn a lot more from talking to folks
> than from reading posts like Mad's.

I live in Europe, so I don't really have those options. I try to read
things on paper and online, and I fly in simulation, and I fly in
network simulation (VATSIM) to practice ATC and to have some level of
unpredictability in the simulation.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> That fact implies that the simulation does not simulate real life
> well in this respect.

What part of the FMC or ATC simulation is incorrect?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Paul Tomblin writes:

> If your FMC wants to descend, ask ATC for a descent. If you're going to
> be descending with multiple segments of different descent rates, ask ATC
> for "descent at pilots discretion".

OK, thanks. Is that the procedure followed by pilots in the real
world as well?

> Real world IFR flying is about coordinating your actions with those of all
> the other planes out there, not flying along fat, dumb and happy doing
> whatever you feel like.

Yes. That's why I'm trying to find out what the rules are.

> That's the whole point of ATC - to make sure you
> don't hit what you can't see. ATC's second priority is to make sure the
> system runs smoothly, so your actions don't interfere with somebody else
> and somebody else's actions don't interfere with you.

Yes. I try to be cooperative with ATC.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> No, you don't.

I did so last night. Today, at least thus far, it was Chandler to
Sedona, and then back from Sedona to Phoenix.

> For the sake of those reading here that haven't
> discovered your background, please state clearly that you are playing
> MS FS.

Why? Most people don't have a phobia of simulation, and for things
like instrument flight and ATC, simulation isn't different enough from
real life to matter for most of the major concepts of both. In
domains where I suspect there may be a discrepancy, I ask for
clarification, which is why I'm here.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Pixel Dent writes:

> 3. The term "cruise" may be used instead of "MAINTAIN" to assign a block
> of airspace to a pilot from the minimum IFR altitude up to and including
> the altitude specified in the cruise clearance. The pilot may level off
> at any intermediate altitude within this block of airspace.
> Climb/descent within the block is to be made at the discretion of the
> pilot. However, once the pilot starts descent and verbally reports
> leaving an altitude in the block, the pilot may not return to that
> altitude without additional ATC clearance.

I think I read this section before; this paragraph sounds familiar. I
always get instructions to "maintain," though. What's the phraseology
when I get a block of altitudes? Or does it even happen with
frequency in real life? How do I request it (or do I even need to
request it)?

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Why are so many of the ones accessing USENET so rude, then?
>

You need to recalibrate your rudeness sensor to include yourself. It
will help. I guarantee.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Why? Most people don't have a phobia of simulation, and for things
> like instrument flight and ATC, simulation isn't different enough from
> real life to matter for most of the major concepts of both.
>

Jeeze, not always the same again.

Your description of your "flight" would never, ever happen in the real
world (which, BTW, means that you statement about the differences
between sim and RL is complete, utter BS). Thus, if you really want
people to react in a sensible way, you need to provide the context,
which is simming. If you don't, people won't understand your post in the
least bit.

Since you have been made aware of this problem in your posts several
times, the only logical conclusion is that you are not interested in
sensible reactions. That's why people conclude you're a troll, not
someone asking for clarification.

--

Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Your description of your "flight" would never, ever happen in the real
> world (which, BTW, means that you statement about the differences
> between sim and RL is complete, utter BS).

Which aspect of the flight was unlike the real world?

As I recall, I started at gate 35 at KLAX, was cleared to KLAS with
LOOP4 DAG KEPEC1 at FL290, left on 24L (which is right behind the
gate), and proceeded more or less uneventually to KLAS, with a few
minor modifications to my route from ATC along the way. I did have to
fight with the autopilot and FMS on the way in to KLAS, but only
because I'm not that experienced with them yet. I'm getting better.
In particular, I'm slowly figuring out how to change things en route
so that I can adapt to instructions from ATC, instead of being
compelled to let the FMS fly the entire route as originally entered.
As I get used to it, I like the FMS more than I did at first.

> Thus, if you really want people to react in a sensible way, you need
> to provide the context, which is simming.

Which part of the above doesn't happen in real life?

> If you don't, people won't understand your post in the least bit.

They seem to have understood it without any difficulty.

> Since you have been made aware of this problem in your posts several
> times, the only logical conclusion is that you are not interested in
> sensible reactions.

No. Another, more probable possibility is that it's not a problem to
begin with, except in your own perception, which is not universal.

> That's why people conclude you're a troll, not someone asking
> for clarification.

Virtually no one has reached this conclusion, apart from a vocal
minority that finds me irritating. It's unfortunate that I end up
explaining this to that minority in almost every thread in which I
participate. If they would just stick to the topic, things would go
much better for all.

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

[Pixel Dent]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Pixel Dent writes:
>
> I think I read this section before; this paragraph sounds familiar. I
> always get instructions to "maintain," though. What's the phraseology
> when I get a block of altitudes? Or does it even happen with
> frequency in real life? How do I request it (or do I even need to
> request it)?

In general (i.e. I'm sure someone will come up with an exception), you
won't get things like cruise clearances, VFR on Top Clearances, or block
altitudes unless you specifically ask for them. 99% of the time ATC
gives you an altitude and expects you to stay there until they tell you
otherwise.

That doesn't mean you can't ask for a descent when your FMS tells you it
wants to start down, but there are a number of reasons you may not get
it. There may be conflicting traffic below you or the controlling
authority for the area you are in may have letters of agreement with the
surrounding areas that specify what altitude flights heading in various
directions or to various destinations must be at. In addition sometimes
the controller you're talking to doesn't control the altitude you want
to head down to. For a given ground position there may be three
different controllers handling different altitude blocks and your guy
may not have time to coordinate or even be allowed to descend flights
into the area below you.

[Gary[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Which aspect of the flight was unlike the real world?

You never left the ground?

[Mxsmanic]

Pixel Dent writes:

> That doesn't mean you can't ask for a descent when your FMS tells you it
> wants to start down, but there are a number of reasons you may not get
> it. There may be conflicting traffic below you or the controlling
> authority for the area you are in may have letters of agreement with the
> surrounding areas that specify what altitude flights heading in various
> directions or to various destinations must be at. In addition sometimes
> the controller you're talking to doesn't control the altitude you want
> to head down to. For a given ground position there may be three
> different controllers handling different altitude blocks and your guy
> may not have time to coordinate or even be allowed to descend flights
> into the area below you.

OK. But this is a bit worrisome in that the FMC apparently already
calculates the optimal descent. If I can't start down in time, I may
not be able to make the other altitudes in the route without holding
or some other diversion to provide more time to descend. For some
reason, the FMC seems to be optimistic about how quickly it can force
the aircraft down. I have to deploy spoilers a lot, and that's even
when the descent starts on time.

Anyway, so I can just say "request descent" when I'm ready to start
down?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Gary writes:

> You never left the ground?

Is that good or bad? What does it have to do with ATC?

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

[Pixel Dent]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> OK. But this is a bit worrisome in that the FMC apparently already
> calculates the optimal descent. If I can't start down in time, I may
> not be able to make the other altitudes in the route without holding
> or some other diversion to provide more time to descend. For some
> reason, the FMC seems to be optimistic about how quickly it can force
> the aircraft down. I have to deploy spoilers a lot, and that's even
> when the descent starts on time.
>

Well, I don't fly airliners. I fly a single engine prop that rarely sees
anything above 9000'. That being said I fly a lot of IFR and have never
heard a pilot say "Center, my FMC says I need to start descending now."
Somehow in real life they manage it.

If you're having trouble descending fast enough in the Sim maybe you
just need to slow down the plane to give you more time.

> Anyway, so I can just say "request descent" when I'm ready to start
> down?

Sure. But even if it's approved that doesn't mean you can just descend
at will to the airport. What you're likely to get is something like
"AB123, descending and maintain one two thousand expect lower in 20
miles."

In general what happens is you gradually get "stepped down" in altitude
via a series of descents as you get closer to the airport until the
final approach controller gets you down to whatever altitude is needed
to start your approach (usually something like 2000' AGL). Once you're
given each new altitude assignment the controller really wants you to
hurry down to the next altitude and level off there so you get out of
the way of other traffic. At times you'll even get requests like "AB123
I need best speed down to one five thousand, I have conflicting
traffic."

To really get a feel of how this all works I'd suggest you go to one of
those live atc sites and listen to an approach controller. You'd be
amazed how much you can learn listening to one for a half hour. At first
it will seem chaotic and then you'll realize there are patterns to what
he's doing with the planes.

[Gus Cabre]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Anyway, so I can just say "request descent" when I'm ready to start
> down?

Affirm, exactly that. And if you are not going to collide against another
aircraft or terrain, they usually clear you to descend.

Gus Cabre
EGYC

[Gus Cabre]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> I live in Europe, so I don't really have those options. I try to read
> things on paper and online, and I fly in simulation, and I fly in
> network simulation (VATSIM) to practice ATC and to have some level of
> unpredictability in the simulation.

Where in Europe do you live? Depending where you are, I could put you in
contact with local experimental aircraft associations and/or simmers who are
well versed in simulated flying.


Gus
EGYC

[Mxsmanic]

Gus Cabre writes:

> Affirm, exactly that. And if you are not going to collide against another
> aircraft or terrain, they usually clear you to descend.

I'll try that, then. Is there any difference between "request
descent" and "request lower"? Can I be more specific, like "request
descent to cross BUBBL at 12000" (if the FMC is trying to do that)?

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

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>Paul Tomblin writes:
>
>> Corner cases - cases where the rules say one thing and common sense says
>> another, where the rules seem to contradict each other, or things that
>> weren't covered in normal IFR training. It's not here to act as a
>> person's CFI-I.
>
>Are you the moderator?

It's not a moderated group. You asked what the purpose of the group was,
I answered. If that upsets you, then let me know so I can join the legion
of people who have you kill filed.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"All this news about Terri Schiavo, and i JUST realized that when they
talk about her living in a persistent vegetative state, they don't mean
Florida." - Rone

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>Paul Tomblin writes:
>
>> If your FMC wants to descend, ask ATC for a descent. If you're going to
>> be descending with multiple segments of different descent rates, ask ATC
>> for "descent at pilots discretion".
>
>OK, thanks. Is that the procedure followed by pilots in the real
>world as well?

I live and fly in the real world, so I can only talk about the real world.
My "real world" is part 91 IFR below the oxygen altitudes, however, so
some of what I say isn't applicablle to part 121 in class A airspace.

Another "trick" is to ask for a cruise clearance, which also allows you to
manage your own descent profile. However in my chunk of the real world,
I've never seen it used or needed it.

I fly with a Garmin 296 handheld GPS. In my experience, nearly always
just around the same time it says I need to start my descent if I want to
descend at 500fpm to my destination, ATC clears me down to a lower
altitude without being asked.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
A male pilot is a confused soul who talks about women when he's flying,
and about flying when he's with a woman.

[Gus Cabre]

You can always ask. If it is not convenient they will tell you. They might
clear you to descend at a different waypoint or "not before XYZ".

Gus
EGYC
"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gus Cabre writes:
>
>> Affirm, exactly that. And if you are not going to collide against another
>> aircraft or terrain, they usually clear you to descend.
>
> I'll try that, then. Is there any difference between "request
> descent" and "request lower"? Can I be more specific, like "request
> descent to cross BUBBL at 12000" (if the FMC is trying to do that)?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gus Cabre writes:

> Where in Europe do you live?

Paris.

> Depending where you are, I could put you in
> contact with local experimental aircraft associations and/or simmers who are
> well versed in simulated flying.

Thanks, but here they would probably all speak French and talk about
French flying, which doesn't interest me that much because I want to
learn U.S. regulations and fly in English. I usually like to fly in
the American Southwest when I'm simming.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Pixel Dent writes:

> Well, I don't fly airliners. I fly a single engine prop that rarely sees
> anything above 9000'. That being said I fly a lot of IFR and have never
> heard a pilot say "Center, my FMC says I need to start descending now."
> Somehow in real life they manage it.

I presume they don't say it in so many words, if they say it at all.

Small aircraft seem to be easier to get down towards the ground, or
perhaps they just don't have as far to go. In the Baron that I
prefer, there's no automation of descents, anyway. You can set the AP
to a new altitude and the aircraft will descend to it at your choice
of rates, but it's not fancy like a FMC (nor does it object if you
give it unreasonable objectives).

> If you're having trouble descending fast enough in the Sim maybe you
> just need to slow down the plane to give you more time.

It's hard to slow the plane down, too. With spoilers deployed on a
737-800, I can descend quickly or slow down quickly ... but not both.

> Sure. But even if it's approved that doesn't mean you can just descend
> at will to the airport. What you're likely to get is something like
> "AB123, descending and maintain one two thousand expect lower in 20
> miles."

That would still help me, I think.

> In general what happens is you gradually get "stepped down" in altitude
> via a series of descents as you get closer to the airport until the
> final approach controller gets you down to whatever altitude is needed
> to start your approach (usually something like 2000' AGL). Once you're
> given each new altitude assignment the controller really wants you to
> hurry down to the next altitude and level off there so you get out of
> the way of other traffic. At times you'll even get requests like "AB123
> I need best speed down to one five thousand, I have conflicting
> traffic."

Yes, I've had that. Usually the FMC decides what's best, but at least
I can override that and force a descent at a higher rate (provided
that I can tolerate the airspeed increase).

> To really get a feel of how this all works I'd suggest you go to one of
> those live atc sites and listen to an approach controller. You'd be
> amazed how much you can learn listening to one for a half hour. At first
> it will seem chaotic and then you'll realize there are patterns to what
> he's doing with the planes.

I have a really hard time just understanding what they are saying
sometimes. I don't know how pilots and controllers manage to
understand each other without making mistakes. Unfortunately, the
same problem exists with virtual flight networks like VATSIM (but for
different reasons).

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

[Mxsmanic]

Paul Tomblin writes:

> If that upsets you, then let me know so I can join the legion
> of people who have you kill filed.

Nothing upsets me, but I'd prefer that you killfile me, just the same.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Paul Tomblin writes:

> I fly with a Garmin 296 handheld GPS. In my experience, nearly always
> just around the same time it says I need to start my descent if I want to
> descend at 500fpm to my destination, ATC clears me down to a lower
> altitude without being asked.

I have noticed this as well. I suppose if they know the route well,
they know when the descent usually starts.

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

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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


Okay.. KLAX LOOP4.DAG.KEPEC1 KLAS at FL290? I'll actually give an
objective tutorial on this, as it's in the sector I'm affiliated with
and do most of my time in. Also as I am doing this objectively, anyone
else who would like to objectively chime in, please do so.

Look CLOSELY at those charts, and I mean closely. There are
some things you will need to adhere to that your FMS may or may not
know about that is not depicted totally in words.

CAVEAT. the charts I'll list are not to be used for real world
flight.

LOOP4: http://www.laartcc.org/charts/DP-LOOP.pdf

KEPEC1: http://www.laartcc.org/arrivals/STAR-KEPEC.pdf

KLAS ILS 25L: http://www.laartcc.org/charts/KLAS-I25L.pdf

I suggest looking at the KEPEC1 first before the LOOP4. Yes,
it's the arrival and you haven't even departed yet, but you are in the
flight planning stage at this moment, and there is something important
that needs to be learned. The KEPEC1 arrival is an RNAV procedure,
requiring RNAV-capable equipment. Aircraft that are /E, /F, /G, and /R
are RNAV capable. If said aircraft is RVSM capable, then the following
suffixes apply: /J, /K, /L, /Q (FAAO 7110.65, 2-3-7). If your aircraft
is not one of then your flight plan will be rejected because you can
not use the KEPEC1 arrival.

LOOP4. If your aircraft is not capable of climbing at 500ft per
nautical mile to 10000, you're using the wrong SID. LOOP4 requires it.

I'm going to assume that you a) have RNAV and RVSM capable
equipment onboard and your aircraft is able to meet the climbing
requirement, and that you are familiar with ATC in the terminal area.
You've received your clearance, and will be cruising at FL290. Great.
ATC clears you to takeoff on 24L. You best look at the LOOP4 chart
again, as you have 2 crossing restrictions you must meet. You must
cross the SMO R-160 at or below 3000ft. From there, you should get
vectors back to LAX with something being told to you like:

"Turn left direct Los Angeles, resume the LOOP4 departure,
comply with all restrictions, climb and maintain 15000".

You do exactly that. Your restrictions are to cross LAX at or
above 10000, KEGGS at or above 13000, and COOPP at or above 15000.
Sometime at that point you'll be handed to the Center controller who
will climb you to your cruise altitude. That ends the use of LOOP4
unless you end up NORDO for some reason.

Now, you're en route, and you're ready for the arrival. You're
still at FL290. Staying that high until your FMS starts to descend is
really going to increase your descent rate, as well as try its hardest
to maintain a slow speed for your descent. Not good. Also, the DAG/HEC
corridor is one of the busiest streams in US Airspace. Just about every
arrival into the LA Basin passes in that corridor, and all
northeastbound flights leave the basin through that corridor. You may
have a flight which ATC has positively separated you from, laterally
and vertically. It is best to let them control your descent instead of
asking.

ATC should tell you something like the following:

"Cross MISEN at and maintain FL240".

If you look at KEPEC1, you have a segment there where you have
a crossing restriction at MISEN of FL240 or higher. The closer you are
to that, the easier your descent will be for your next crossing
restriction, which is CLARR. ATC will tell you this:

"Cross CLARR at and maintain 13000 and 250kts. Las Vegas
altimeter xx.xx".

From here, you'll be descending and reducing speed for the
arrival, and must hit CLARR at that altitude and speed. From there, the
arrival tells you everything you need to do. Should ATC have you
execute the full arrival, they will tell you something like:

"Descend via the KEPEC1 arrival".

That's it. From there, you're crossing KEPEC below 13000 and
above 12000, IPUMY below 12000 and above 1000, NIPZO above 9000 and
below 1000, SUNST at 8000 and 210kts, KIMME at 210kts, CHIPZ at 170kts.

Look now at the ILS 25L chart. You'll notice that the altitude
you're at by the time you hit PRINO is the same altitude you should be
at for executing the ILS approach from PRINO. So ATC should only have
to tell you:

"After PRINO, cleared ILS 25L approach".

No PTAC is needed, as the RNAV arrival drops you off directly
on the IAF for the approach. From there, follow the chart down. 8000 or
above at PRINO, 6500 or above at LARRE, 4900 or above at SHAND, 3800 or
above at RELIN.

In short, like everyone else has mentioned, just because your
FMS thinks it's okay to descend, doesn't mean that it's kosher with ATC
for you to descend. They may have other things impending your descent.
When in doubt, ask. The worst you'll get back is 'no', and a reason for
why you can't at that time.

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)

iD8DBQFFnCBXyBkZmuMZ8L8RAnh7AKDKuOLSIDNqR14KTgvPcQ xjTmg+0gCfT7n6
cnVQ34bLprbBOctBe7NLTL8=
=zQYN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Milen Lazarov]

On 2007-01-03, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Pixel Dent writes:
>
> I think I read this section before; this paragraph sounds familiar. I
> always get instructions to "maintain," though. What's the phraseology
> when I get a block of altitudes? Or does it even happen with
> frequency in real life? How do I request it (or do I even need to
> request it)?

From a flight today, west of Billings, MT:

N12345: Unable to maintain 16,000 for turbulence.
ATC: N12345 maintain between 14,000 and 16,000

or you can just request it directly:

N12345: Request block altitude between 15,000 and 17,000.
ATC: N12345 maintain block altitude between 15,000 and 17,000.

-Milen
>

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>Paul Tomblin writes:
>> I fly with a Garmin 296 handheld GPS. In my experience, nearly always
>> just around the same time it says I need to start my descent if I want to
>> descend at 500fpm to my destination, ATC clears me down to a lower
>> altitude without being asked.
>
>I have noticed this as well. I suppose if they know the route well,
>they know when the descent usually starts.

Except they know where to start my descent whether I'm flying a 100 knot
Archer or a 140 knot Lance, or on one occasion, a Piper Dakota with a 70
knot tail wind.

I suspect there is software they use to handle this.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
#define sizeof(x) ((int)rand()*1024)

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> Okay.. KLAX LOOP4.DAG.KEPEC1 KLAS at FL290?

Yes.

> I'll actually give an objective tutorial on this, as it's in the
> sector I'm affiliated with and do most of my time in.

OK. I often take my routes directly from FlightAware, so that I'm
flying the same routes people fly in real life. If I'm staying within
SoCal, I also use TEC routes.

> Look CLOSELY at those charts, and I mean closely.

Which charts? I have VFR sectionals and TACs, plus SIDs, STARs, and
instrument approach plates, but no IFR charts.

> I suggest looking at the KEPEC1 first before the LOOP4. Yes,
> it's the arrival and you haven't even departed yet, but you are in the
> flight planning stage at this moment, and there is something important
> that needs to be learned. The KEPEC1 arrival is an RNAV procedure,
> requiring RNAV-capable equipment. Aircraft that are /E, /F, /G, and /R
> are RNAV capable. If said aircraft is RVSM capable, then the following
> suffixes apply: /J, /K, /L, /Q (FAAO 7110.65, 2-3-7). If your aircraft
> is not one of then your flight plan will be rejected because you can
> not use the KEPEC1 arrival.

The aircraft is RNAV-capable, but I will grant that I didn't notice
that it was RNAV. I just look at the fixes and so on most of the
time, knowing that ATC will probably tell me to do something
different, anyway.

> LOOP4. If your aircraft is not capable of climbing at 500ft per
> nautical mile to 10000, you're using the wrong SID. LOOP4 requires it.

The aircraft is capable of this.

> I'm going to assume that you a) have RNAV and RVSM capable
> equipment onboard and your aircraft is able to meet the climbing
> requirement, and that you are familiar with ATC in the terminal area.

Yes, it's a BBJ2 or 737-800, and I know ATC a little in the area, as I
fly around there a lot.

> You've received your clearance, and will be cruising at FL290. Great.
> ATC clears you to takeoff on 24L.

Yes. More specifically, I was told to climb and maintain 5000.
Departure told me to climb and maintain 15000 (IIRC) and to proceed
direct LAX, which I did.

> You best look at the LOOP4 chart again, as you have 2 crossing
> restrictions you must meet. You must cross the SMO R-160 at or
> below 3000ft.

I believe the FMC knew that, although I wasn't watching to see. ATC
had already told me to climb and maintain 5000, which I assumed
overrode all other instructions.

> From there, you should get vectors back to LAX
> with something being told to you like:
>
> "Turn left direct Los Angeles, resume the LOOP4 departure,
> comply with all restrictions, climb and maintain 15000".

I was told proceed direct LAX, climb and maintain 15000. No mention
of restrictions, though. Had ATC said that, I probably would have
looked back at the plate to see (although the restrictions are mostly
coded into the FMC's database).

In reality, all I really did was dial 15000 into the MCP, letting the
FMC continue its climb, and I plugged LAX into the FMC as the current
leg, forcing it to proceed to LAX directly (LAX was the next leg,
anyway).

> You do exactly that. Your restrictions are to cross LAX at or
> above 10000, KEGGS at or above 13000, and COOPP at or above 15000.
> Sometime at that point you'll be handed to the Center controller who
> will climb you to your cruise altitude. That ends the use of LOOP4
> unless you end up NORDO for some reason.

I was handed to Center, which then told me to climb and maintain
FL290.

> Now, you're en route, and you're ready for the arrival. You're
> still at FL290. Staying that high until your FMS starts to descend is
> really going to increase your descent rate, as well as try its hardest
> to maintain a slow speed for your descent. Not good.

I recall stepping through the legs looking for anything that seemed
like a steep descent and possibly tweaking some legs, although I don't
remember the details.

What I do remember is that I reached the top of my descent and the FMC
started down, then ATC called me and asked why I was low. So I reset
the MCP to FL290 and went back up. Seconds later, Center told me to
cross something at something (I don't remember what now). My guess
was that he forgot that I'd be starting my descent and remembered when
he saw me descending, so he called me on it and then cleared me down.

> Also, the DAG/HEC corridor is one of the busiest streams in US Airspace.

It's extremely busy even in the virtual US airspace. The difference
in the simulated world is that pilots look for heavy traffic, whereas
I presume they aren't so thrilled about it in real life.

> Just about every arrival into the LA Basin passes in that corridor, and all
> northeastbound flights leave the basin through that corridor. You may
> have a flight which ATC has positively separated you from, laterally
> and vertically. It is best to let them control your descent instead of
> asking.

Fine with me. I just wasn't sure about whether I was supposed to
start on my own or wait to be cleared down.

> ATC should tell you something like the following:
>
> "Cross MISEN at and maintain FL240".

I recall something like that, but I don't remember the fix or
altitude.

> If you look at KEPEC1, you have a segment there where you have
> a crossing restriction at MISEN of FL240 or higher. The closer you are
> to that, the easier your descent will be for your next crossing
> restriction, which is CLARR. ATC will tell you this:
>
> "Cross CLARR at and maintain 13000 and 250kts. Las Vegas
> altimeter xx.xx".

Yes, I recall getting that.

> From here, you'll be descending and reducing speed for the
> arrival, and must hit CLARR at that altitude and speed.

I recall some trouble hitting the descent, but I tweaked it and
arrived at the right altitude and speed. I think starting the descent
late messed it up.

> From there, the arrival tells you everything you need to do.
> Should ATC have you execute the full arrival, they will tell
> you something like:
>
> "Descend via the KEPEC1 arrival".

Unfortunately, they vectored me around, and then told me to follow
some traffic going the opposite way (towards the airport, whereas I
was still headed east). I messed up so much fiddling with the FMC and
autopilot that I couldn't follow the other guy in, so I had to go
around. Then it was more vectors, and following someone else in. I
gave up on the AP and flew by hand towards the other aircraft, then
intercepted the localizer and configured everything for a nice
autoland.

> That's it. From there, you're crossing KEPEC below 13000 and
> above 12000, IPUMY below 12000 and above 1000, NIPZO above 9000 and
> below 1000, SUNST at 8000 and 210kts, KIMME at 210kts, CHIPZ at 170kts.

Yeah, if ATC doesn't send me hither and yon instead.

> Look now at the ILS 25L chart. You'll notice that the altitude
> you're at by the time you hit PRINO is the same altitude you should be
> at for executing the ILS approach from PRINO. So ATC should only have
> to tell you:
>
> "After PRINO, cleared ILS 25L approach".

I think ATC was looking to have more fun. In simulation, ATC, like
pilots, tends to look for challenges rather than seeing traffic and
complexity as undesirable.

> No PTAC is needed, as the RNAV arrival drops you off directly
> on the IAF for the approach. From there, follow the chart down. 8000 or
> above at PRINO, 6500 or above at LARRE, 4900 or above at SHAND, 3800 or
> above at RELIN.

I wish.

> In short, like everyone else has mentioned, just because your
> FMS thinks it's okay to descend, doesn't mean that it's kosher with ATC
> for you to descend. They may have other things impending your descent.
> When in doubt, ask. The worst you'll get back is 'no', and a reason for
> why you can't at that time.

OK. I will ask next time. I have yet to do an approach (in the
presence of ATC) that followed the plates, though. Somebody always
wants me to do something different.

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

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>Paul Tomblin writes:
>
>> If that upsets you, then let me know so I can join the legion
>> of people who have you kill filed.
>
>Nothing upsets me, but I'd prefer that you killfile me, just the same.

Your loss.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,
for there you have been, there you long to return." -- Leonardo da Vinci.

[Mxsmanic]

Milen Lazarov writes:

> or you can just request it directly:
>
> N12345: Request block altitude between 15,000 and 17,000.
> ATC: N12345 maintain block altitude between 15,000 and 17,000.

I'll try that, thanks.

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

[Newps]

Milen Lazarov wrote:
> On 2007-01-03, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>>Pixel Dent writes:
>>
>>I think I read this section before; this paragraph sounds familiar. I
>>always get instructions to "maintain," though. What's the phraseology
>>when I get a block of altitudes? Or does it even happen with
>>frequency in real life? How do I request it (or do I even need to
>>request it)?
>
>
> From a flight today, west of Billings, MT:
>
> N12345: Unable to maintain 16,000 for turbulence.
> ATC: N12345 maintain between 14,000 and 16,000

Yep, we had severe and extreme turbulence pireps near the mountains
today. Bad day to fly anywhere but east from here.

[Pixel Dent]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> Yes, I've had that. Usually the FMC decides what's best, but at least
> I can override that and force a descent at a higher rate (provided
> that I can tolerate the airspeed increase).

Well, once again I don't know much about airliners, but in smaller
planes at least you don't generally increase airspeed to descend you
reduce power. At least in the area of the country I fly ATC often has
speed restrictions on the airliners so they couldn't increase speed
during a descent if they wanted to. It's good practice to hold your
airspeed steady while reducing power to make your descent.

>
> > To really get a feel of how this all works I'd suggest you go to one of
> > those live atc sites and listen to an approach controller. You'd be
> > amazed how much you can learn listening to one for a half hour. At first
> > it will seem chaotic and then you'll realize there are patterns to what
> > he's doing with the planes.
>
> I have a really hard time just understanding what they are saying
> sometimes. I don't know how pilots and controllers manage to
> understand each other without making mistakes.

Practice, practice, practice. Everyone has a hard time understanding at
first but the more you listen the more it makes sense.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"John Theune" > wrote

> Are you flying IFR? if so then ATC will tell you what altitude to be at.
> Resume own navigation refers to routing not altitude. VFR is a different
> set of rules.

He is flying a simulator "game," so he isn't really flying anything, and has
no consequences to whatever he does.

Get it?
--
Jim in NC

[Capt.Doug]

>"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
> Now, my question is this: If the FMC has a programmed descent in its
> route, do I let the FMC start the descent where it sees fit, or do I
> force the aircraft to maintain FL290 until ATC explicitly clears me
> for my own navigation or for a lower altitude?

The profile in the FMS is for efficiency and does not take other traffic
into account. You must wait until ATC explicitely clears you to another
altitude. If you are about to pass the FMS's descent point, politely prompt
ATC for a lower altitude. Going into LAS, you very well may get vectors off
the planned route so that ATC can adequately space the arrival traffic (in
the real world).

>And if ATC's last
> instruction had simply been "resume own navigation" or "proceed as
> filed," would that mean that I'd be free to begin the descent whenever
> the FMC (or I) decides it's best?

No. That would be for lateral navigation only unless explicitely cleared for
different altitudes. Here is an example that one of my colleagues recently
received counseling about. He was cleared via the KORRY 3 arrival into KLGA.
He started to descend according to the profile. ATC asked why he was
descending and to call a number after landing (not good). He was cleared via
the KORRY 3, not cleared to descend via the KORRY 3. Slight difference, but
very important for traffic seperation.

> In situations where I can begin the descent at my discretion (assuming
> that own navigation implies this), should I tell ATC that I'm leaving
> my cruise altitude?

Yes, the Aeronautical Information Manual states that a pilot should advise
when leaving an altitude.

> If the FMC has a continuously changing estimate
> of lower altitudes in the descent profile, what should I give as my
> target altitude? The next fix that has a specific altitude? (Such as
> a fix in the arrival procedure)

Yes.

> Climbing I think I understand. If I'm told to resume own navigation,
> or cleared as filed in the first place, I climb per my flight plan/FMC
> profile. If ATC says maintain X, I stay at X until ATC tells me to
> resume own navigation or instructs me to change altitudes. But the
> descent part still has me a bit confused.

Query ATC for the assigned altitude so that both of you are on the same
page. Climbs are the same as descents. 'resume own navigation' is for
lateral flight. Don't climb unless expicitely assigned a new altitude by
ATC.

D.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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


Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> Look CLOSELY at those charts, and I mean closely.
>
> Which charts? I have VFR sectionals and TACs, plus SIDs, STARs, and
> instrument approach plates, but no IFR charts.

I just told you. LOOP4, KEPEC1, ILS 25L at KLAS. Those are also
charts.

> The aircraft is RNAV-capable, but I will grant that I didn't notice
> that it was RNAV. I just look at the fixes and so on most of the
> time, knowing that ATC will probably tell me to do something
> different, anyway.

You should look at those, because if you choose the wrong
chart, and your equipment can't support the chart you're filing, you'll
be given another SID/STAR to use.

> Yes, it's a BBJ2 or 737-800, and I know ATC a little in the area, as I
> fly around there a lot.
>
>> You best look at the LOOP4 chart again, as you have 2 crossing
>> restrictions you must meet. You must cross the SMO R-160 at or
>> below 3000ft.
>
> I believe the FMC knew that, although I wasn't watching to see. ATC
> had already told me to climb and maintain 5000, which I assumed
> overrode all other instructions.

If you lost your FMC, what would you do? You just can't let
your instruments do everything for you the moment you rotate. I'd
fathom to see what would happen if you were a /A and didn't have an
FMC.

>> Now, you're en route, and you're ready for the arrival. You're
>> still at FL290. Staying that high until your FMS starts to descend is
>> really going to increase your descent rate, as well as try its hardest
>> to maintain a slow speed for your descent. Not good.
>
> I recall stepping through the legs looking for anything that seemed
> like a steep descent and possibly tweaking some legs, although I don't
> remember the details.
>
> What I do remember is that I reached the top of my descent and the FMC
> started down, then ATC called me and asked why I was low. So I reset
> the MCP to FL290 and went back up. Seconds later, Center told me to
> cross something at something (I don't remember what now). My guess
> was that he forgot that I'd be starting my descent and remembered when
> he saw me descending, so he called me on it and then cleared me down.

I doubt it. There's two places where the Center controller
could give you the crossing restriction; one at MISEN, the other at
CLARR. If he gave you the one at MISEN (which I know he did), it would
make the CLARR crossing restriction a lot easier to make.

>> "Cross CLARR at and maintain 13000 and 250kts. Las Vegas
>> altimeter xx.xx".
>
> Yes, I recall getting that.
>
>> "Descend via the KEPEC1 arrival".
>
> Unfortunately, they vectored me around, and then told me to follow
> some traffic going the opposite way (towards the airport, whereas I
> was still headed east). I messed up so much fiddling with the FMC and
> autopilot that I couldn't follow the other guy in, so I had to go
> around. Then it was more vectors, and following someone else in. I
> gave up on the AP and flew by hand towards the other aircraft, then
> intercepted the localizer and configured everything for a nice
> autoland.

They had visual approaches in use. Also, it has been said
before: 99.9% of all landings are hand flown, not autolanding, unless
on a Cat III ILS approach. ILS 25L is not CATIII.

>
> OK. I will ask next time. I have yet to do an approach (in the
> presence of ATC) that followed the plates, though. Somebody always
> wants me to do something different.
>

It could be because visual approaches may be in use over using
an instrument approach. It provides more flexibility with ATC, plus
puts separation responsibility back on the pilot. If you were following
traffic, and you were coming in too fast and had to go around, that may
not be ATC's fault. There would be some things you could have done to
slow your speed down.

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)

iD8DBQFFnFyxyBkZmuMZ8L8RAlRPAJ46F/N4zOsSv1e6XGhgEKxPzl4IIQCfciYC
xuJph8+VuIj1wpVcmleP2to=
=LYDq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brad ] On Behalf Of A Guy
Called
> Tyketto
> Posted At: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 7:48 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's
ATC
> Subject: Re: Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's
ATC
>
....
> If you lost your FMC, what would you do?
....

He'd reboot - its Windows and Flightsim after all.

[Milen Lazarov]

On 2007-01-04, Newps > wrote:
>
> Yep, we had severe and extreme turbulence pireps near the mountains
> today. Bad day to fly anywhere but east from here.

Yep, the ice was not nice either. Seems that tomorrow will be better
so I might get home. :-)

[[email protected]]

Jim Carter wrote:
> He'd reboot - its Windows and Flightsim after all.

I just read about a guy who's Garmin mx20 died.

The screen went blank and then blue.

On the bottom of the screen:

"Microsoft Service Pack 2"

ak.

[Gus Cabre]

Just out of curiosity, what simulator are you using?

Gus
EGYC

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>I fly from KLAX to KLAS, using the FMC to handle most of the flight.
> With the routing I put in, the FMC decides on some default altitudes
> and includes required altitudes for the arrival and departure
> procedures I select. Part of what it does is to create a descent
> schedule from the nominal cruise altitude to the arrival procedure.
>
> So I leave KLAX and my last explicit instruction from ATC is "climb
> and maintain FL290," which is my programmed and filed cruise altitude.
> Now, my question is this: If the FMC has a programmed descent in its
> route, do I let the FMC start the descent where it sees fit, or do I
> force the aircraft to maintain FL290 until ATC explicitly clears me
> for my own navigation or for a lower altitude? And if ATC's last
> instruction had simply been "resume own navigation" or "proceed as
> filed," would that mean that I'd be free to begin the descent whenever
> the FMC (or I) decides it's best?
>
> In situations where I can begin the descent at my discretion (assuming
> that own navigation implies this), should I tell ATC that I'm leaving
> my cruise altitude? If the FMC has a continuously changing estimate
> of lower altitudes in the descent profile, what should I give as my
> target altitude? The next fix that has a specific altitude? (Such as
> a fix in the arrival procedure)
>
> Climbing I think I understand. If I'm told to resume own navigation,
> or cleared as filed in the first place, I climb per my flight plan/FMC
> profile. If ATC says maintain X, I stay at X until ATC tells me to
> resume own navigation or instructs me to change altitudes. But the
> descent part still has me a bit confused.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> He is flying a simulator "game," so he isn't really flying anything, and has
> no consequences to whatever he does.

The consequences are slightly different; IFR flight, however, is the
same, with the same rules and procedures, with a few very minor
exceptions imposed by technical constraints (not applicable in the
context of this discussion).

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

[Mxsmanic]

Pixel Dent writes:

> Well, once again I don't know much about airliners, but in smaller
> planes at least you don't generally increase airspeed to descend you
> reduce power.

The FMC does this through the autothrottle. At least the one I use
lets you choose between a descent path (altitudes respected, ignoring
speed constraints if necessary) and a speed path (speeds respected,
even if altitudes must be ignored), with the former being the default.
At least that's what I understand of it thus far.

Anyway, the FMC normally controls lateral and vertical navigation and
the throttle, and optimizes all in order to attain its preprogrammed
path, altitude, and speed.

> At least in the area of the country I fly ATC often has
> speed restrictions on the airliners so they couldn't increase speed
> during a descent if they wanted to. It's good practice to hold your
> airspeed steady while reducing power to make your descent.

The FMC tries to do this, although altitude and course are normally
the priorities. It does a good job in most cases.

In the world of simulation, we rarely have heavy traffic, so I only
occasionally get speed restrictions. They are not too hard to
respect, usually--just setting a different speed in the FMC is often
sufficient.

> Practice, practice, practice. Everyone has a hard time understanding at
> first but the more you listen the more it makes sense.

Probably, but it seems so easy to misunderstand that I should think it
would be very mistake prone. I read back almost every instruction I
get to ATC just to make sure that I've understood it.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> > He is flying a simulator "game," so he isn't really flying anything, and has
> > no consequences to whatever he does.
>
> The consequences are slightly different; IFR flight, however, is the
> same, with the same rules and procedures, with a few very minor
> exceptions imposed by technical constraints
>

How would you know? Many here can make a direct comparison - and have. You can't.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> I just told you. LOOP4, KEPEC1, ILS 25L at KLAS. Those are also
> charts.

I have those.

> You should look at those, because if you choose the wrong
> chart, and your equipment can't support the chart you're filing, you'll
> be given another SID/STAR to use.

On the 737, I have essentially everything. I usually check for
specific instructions or restrictions on the type of aircraft.

> If you lost your FMC, what would you do?

I would use the MCP alone. If that fails, I fly the aircraft by hand,
which I can do, although it's rather tedious over long distances.

I do have a problem with transitions between automated systems and
flying by hand. Sometimes it's hard for me to keep track of what the
systems are doing and what I am doing. As a last recort I
occasionally disengage the automation entirely and fly by hand
(particularly for approaches and landings), but that is not the
objective, that's just to get on the ground safely.

> You just can't let your instruments do everything for you
> the moment you rotate.

You can if they work as designed. And real life comes very close to
that, although I understand most pilots fly the first part of the
departure by hand, and often landings as well.

> I'd fathom to see what would happen if you were a /A and didn't have an
> FMC.

I don't know what /A is, but if I don't have a FMC, I fly with
autopilot alone. If I don't have that, I fly by hand. However, I
would not want to fly an aircraft without at least an autopilot, if I
were planning anything other than practice in the pattern.

> I doubt it. There's two places where the Center controller
> could give you the crossing restriction; one at MISEN, the other at
> CLARR. If he gave you the one at MISEN (which I know he did), it would
> make the CLARR crossing restriction a lot easier to make.

I don't recall MISEN, but I recall the CLARR restriction. He said
cross CLARR at 12000 or whatever, and I was at FL290, and so I assumed
that my descent to CLARR was implied in this--otherwise how could I
follow the instructions. So when the FMC started down, I didn't say
anything, as I recall.

> They had visual approaches in use.

Yes. Visual approaches seem to be popular when weather permits. I
still tune the ILS and follow it, if possible.

> Also, it has been said before: 99.9% of all landings are hand
> flown, not autolanding, unless on a Cat III ILS approach. ILS 25L
> is not CATIII.

The aircraft will still autoland on it.

> It could be because visual approaches may be in use over using
> an instrument approach.

No doubt, although ATCs in simulation seem to enjoy making more work
for themselves, rather than less (in contrast to the real world).

> It provides more flexibility with ATC, plus puts separation
> responsibility back on the pilot.

That is probably the main motivation in real life. Simulation ATCs
just like to have more practice, understandably.

> If you were following traffic, and you were coming in too fast
> and had to go around, that may not be ATC's fault. There would
> be some things you could have done to slow your speed down.

When he first called the traffic, it was at 11:00. By the time I saw
it, it was around 8:00 and moving fast opposite to my track. When I
called the traffic in sight, he told me to follow it, which required a
steep 180 to get behind him. As I was still in LNAV and was fooling
with the FMC and MCP trying to figure out why it had refused the
descent path for my approach, I got confused and had trouble turning
to follow the traffic. I was all over the place on the approach and
way too close to the other traffic (which had not yet touched down,
and I was only at 1500 feet or so and nearly abeam the threshold), and
finally I decided to go around--which was an adventure in itself since
I had not previously tried to go around with an FMC and fancy
autopilot in the mix. I disconnected everything and flew by hand to a
few thousand feet, and ATC vectored me around, which was troublesome
because the VOR he wanted was on my MFD but not tuned, so I had to try
to find it on the MFD and steer towards it. I finally stabilized and
there was another aircraft on the way in and I was told to find it and
follow it as before. This time I was much further out, however, and I
was able to line up better. Once I was nearly on the centerline I set
up the MCP for the ILS again, and then I set for autoland just to get
some rest. The landing proceeded uneventfully on 25R, I think.

I don't know if the ATC screwed up; he was a regular controller, not a
student. I certainly made a mess of it, though. It's good that I had
the seat belt sign on. I need to practice more with dealing with the
unexpected while using an FMC and/or autopilot.

This is all much easier when I fly the Baron, as the autopilot isn't
terribly fancy and there's no FMC, so I'm already on top of things
when ATC calls. But I've screwed up in that as well, in one case
trying to land on the wrong runway until I heard Approach telling
other people about a plane that didn't seem to know where it was
going, hint hint.

I haven't had any crashes, though, except in extremely strong winds
(near Denver, once at KVGT in incredibly gusty winds, etc.). I
haven't had a fatal crash in a long time. The last one was when I hit
a hill on the way out of Henderson Executive at night. I still don't
know which hill it was, as I had examined the chart carefully and was
sure that my departure was clear of terrain. But it was dark.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Capt.Doug writes:

> The profile in the FMS is for efficiency and does not take other traffic
> into account. You must wait until ATC explicitely clears you to another
> altitude.

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

> If you are about to pass the FMS's descent point, politely prompt
> ATC for a lower altitude.

"Request descent," or something, I presume.

> Going into LAS, you very well may get vectors off
> the planned route so that ATC can adequately space the arrival traffic (in
> the real world).

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).

> No. That would be for lateral navigation only unless explicitely cleared for
> different altitudes.

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?

> Here is an example that one of my colleagues recently
> received counseling about. He was cleared via the KORRY 3 arrival into KLGA.
> He started to descend according to the profile. ATC asked why he was
> descending and to call a number after landing (not good). He was cleared via
> the KORRY 3, not cleared to descend via the KORRY 3. Slight difference, but
> very important for traffic seperation.

Hmm. I just assumed that since the plates usually indicate altitudes,
"cleared via the KORRY 3" would necessarily mean following both the
course and altitude indications. What does ATC say if they want you
to follow everything on the plate, including the indicated altitudes?

Did your colleague get into significant trouble?

> Yes, the Aeronautical Information Manual states that a pilot should advise
> when leaving an altitude.

OK.

> Yes.

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

> Query ATC for the assigned altitude so that both of you are on the same
> page. Climbs are the same as descents. 'resume own navigation' is for
> lateral flight. Don't climb unless expicitely assigned a new altitude by
> ATC.

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

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? (Except they often seem to have separate procedures for
communications loss.)

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

[Mxsmanic]

Gus Cabre writes:

> Just out of curiosity, what simulator are you using?

Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004.

However, I use the PMDG 737-800 add-on aircraft, which is equipped
like the real thing (practically a different world as compared to the
default 737 in the simulator). I also use the Dreamfleet Baron 58
add-on, which, again, is also in a category of its own. Both are
renowned for their uncompromising realism with respect to the real
aircraft.

I also have a separate joystick and throttle, and rudder pedals.
Anything fancier is hard to justify at this time.

I fly a mixture of VFR and IFR on the Baron, and mostly IFR on the
737. I also use VATSIM, the leading virtual flight network, so that I
can interact with other human pilots and controllers by radio, rather
than just interact with the computer-generated stuff provided by MSFS
when it is in offline mode.

All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
detractors like to believe.

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

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
> detractors like to believe.

How do you know?

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> > Also, it has been said before: 99.9% of all landings are hand
> > flown, not autolanding, unless on a Cat III ILS approach. ILS 25L
> > is not CATIII.
>
> The aircraft will still autoland on it.
>

But t odo that would be totally unrealistic. You can't have it both
ways: Either you strive for attempting maximum realism, or you fudge.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> I fly a mixture of VFR and IFR on the Baron, and mostly IFR on the
> 737. I also use VATSIM, the leading virtual flight network, so that I
> can interact with other human pilots and controllers by radio, rather
> than just interact with the computer-generated stuff provided by MSFS
> when it is in offline mode.
>
> All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
> detractors like to believe.
>

I don't think you understand the aerodynamics of the real world. MSFS
has great scenery but the aircraft and the atmosphere modeling are
terribly wrong in MSFS.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mxsmanic ]
> Posted At: Thursday, January 04, 2007 3:23 AM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's
ATC
> Subject: Re: Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's
ATC
>
....
>
> I do have a problem with transitions between automated systems and
> flying by hand. Sometimes it's hard for me to keep track of what the
> systems are doing and what I am doing. As a last recort I
> occasionally disengage the automation entirely and fly by hand
> (particularly for approaches and landings), but that is not the
> objective, that's just to get on the ground safely.
>

So you are really using your home computer as a procedure and systems
simulator and not a flight training tool. I will agree that learning
systems and procedures are part of the flight training process (or any
training process that involves automation), but they are not as big a
part of the overall training as you seem to believe. I say that because
of your devotion to the idea that you really are doing exactly the same
thing as a professional pilot actually flying an aircraft along the same
routes.

There are a lot of freewill decisions that still take place in the
cockpit and those decisions can not be simulated.



> > You just can't let your instruments do everything for you
> > the moment you rotate.
>

This is another way of saying that the freewill decision process has to
be considered and you have to allocate the variables those decisions
introduce. If it were considered safe, reliable, or even desirable to
automate the entire process (as a systems simulator provides) then there
would be no flight training requirements because there would be no
pilots. True flying is involves much less systems integration and
systems management than you seem to believe. Sure, flying will always
involve some systems management -- hell we can't even fly our Super Cubs
or Taylorcraft in controlled airspace anymore without working with the
system somewhat.

My point to this post is that you seem to have the incorrect idea about
systems management and procedure memorization being the most significant
part of operating an aircraft -- that's not the way it is for the large
majority of people who fly.


> You can if they work as designed. And real life comes very close to
> that, although I understand most pilots fly the first part of the
> departure by hand, and often landings as well.
>

Refer to your earlier posting about rudeness and consider that you have
no experience on which to base your comment immediately above, yet you
still have taken an authoritative position from your tone and word
choice. This is why others have suggested you consider your own
"attitude".

[Mark Hansen]

On 01/04/07 05:10, Sam Spade wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>>
>> I fly a mixture of VFR and IFR on the Baron, and mostly IFR on the
>> 737. I also use VATSIM, the leading virtual flight network, so that I
>> can interact with other human pilots and controllers by radio, rather
>> than just interact with the computer-generated stuff provided by MSFS
>> when it is in offline mode.
>>
>> All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
>> detractors like to believe.
>>
>
> I don't think you understand the aerodynamics of the real world. MSFS
> has great scenery but the aircraft and the atmosphere modeling are
> terribly wrong in MSFS.

But of course, the marketing literature for the simulator product and
it's add-ons claim that it is realistic, so the simulator must be
correct. If there are perceived differences, it must be that the real
pilots aren't interpreting reality correctly.

;-\

[Sam Spade]

Mark Hansen wrote:

>
>
> But of course, the marketing literature for the simulator product and
> it's add-ons claim that it is realistic, so the simulator must be
> correct. If there are perceived differences, it must be that the real
> pilots aren't interpreting reality correctly.
>
> ;-\

Got it! It was like being beaten up by company destructors in the
simulator every six months. Then, flying the first line trip
afterwards, with a glazed look on one's face, saying, "Darn, this stupid
airplane isn't flying like the simulator."

[Mark Hansen]

On 01/04/07 08:39, Sam Spade wrote:
> Mark Hansen wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> But of course, the marketing literature for the simulator product and
>> it's add-ons claim that it is realistic, so the simulator must be
>> correct. If there are perceived differences, it must be that the real
>> pilots aren't interpreting reality correctly.
>>
>> ;-\
>
> Got it! It was like being beaten up by company destructors in the
> simulator every six months. Then, flying the first line trip
> afterwards, with a glazed look on one's face, saying, "Darn, this stupid
> airplane isn't flying like the simulator."

That's right - send the airplane back, as it's obviously not working
properly! ;-)

[bdl]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
> detractors like to believe.

The realism is very striking. That doesn't make it REAL, however. By
definition.

[bdl]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I have a really hard time just understanding what they are saying
> sometimes. I don't know how pilots and controllers manage to
> understand each other without making mistakes. Unfortunately, the
> same problem exists with virtual flight networks like VATSIM (but for
> different reasons).

If you were in "real" IMC it's even worse (at least until you develop
some practice and learn to keep the picture in your head). Always
seems like ATC is telling you to do something just as you are in the
middle of something else.

Brian

[Sam Spade]

bdl wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>
>>All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
>>detractors like to believe.
>
>
> The realism is very striking. That doesn't make it REAL, however. By
> definition.
>
The topography is striking. The realizm is zip.

[bdl]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Anyway, the FMC normally controls lateral and vertical navigation and
> the throttle, and optimizes all in order to attain its preprogrammed
> path, altitude, and speed.

Is the FMC flying or are you? I'm not an airline pilot, so I'll go
ahead and ask the question (please real world answers only) is the FMC
the boss or is the pilot? If the FMC says optimal is such and such,
but ATC says do this, doesn't the airline pilot do what ATC says? I
always assumed that a FMS in a modern airliner was just a souped up
version of my Garmin 430. I.e. it has a plan, but what I get is ALWAYS
different. Even when I try to "guess" ahead of time.

> In the world of simulation, we rarely have heavy traffic, so I only
> occasionally get speed restrictions. They are not too hard to
> respect, usually--just setting a different speed in the FMC is often
> sufficient.

Yet another difference between your simulated world and the real world,
huh? Does the lack of heavy traffic make you a better simulated pilot?

> Probably, but it seems so easy to misunderstand that I should think it
> would be very mistake prone. I read back almost every instruction I
> get to ATC just to make sure that I've understood it.

Two words, "Say again"

If you want to get a glimpse into real world ATC, take a look at Don
Brown's columns at Avweb
(http://www.avweb.com/news/sayagain/193881-1.html)

[bdl]

Sam Spade wrote:
> bdl wrote:
>
> > Mxsmanic wrote:
> >
> >
> >>All in all, the realism is striking, and much better than some
> >>detractors like to believe.
> >
> >
> > The realism is very striking. That doesn't make it REAL, however. By
> > definition.
> >
> The topography is striking. The realizm is zip.

And the topography wasn't that striking till they fixed the bridges...
;)

[Newps]

> Pixel Dent writes:
>
>
>>Well, once again I don't know much about airliners, but in smaller
>>planes at least you don't generally increase airspeed to descend you
>>reduce power.

Not me. The descent is where I get back the speed I invested in the
climb. If turbulence allows I set up a 500 fpm descent, without
touching the power which is almost always max for cruise. I generally
then get 190 MPH indicated in the descent, which is the bottom of the
yellow arc.

[Mxsmanic]

bdl writes:

> Is the FMC flying or are you?

When the FMS is on, it flies the plane. More specifically, the FMC
provides data to the flight director, and the autopilot then executes
the instructions from the flight director. For most of the flight,
you don't have to do anything, as the FMC will manage climb, cruise,
descent, and (with a few buttons) autolanding.

You can enable or disable the FMC wholly or partially, depending on
your requirements. You can shut it off completely and just use the
MCP (the autopilot panel on the glare shield) to manage the flight
director and the autopilot. You can wholly or partially shut that
down, too. You can also turn off the autopilot and just fly the
aircraft by hand, either following the flight director's instructions,
or entirely on your own.

The autopilot/FMS controls pitch, roll, and throttle, so everything is
covered. You have a lot of flexibility in choosing how much you want
to do automatically, and how much you want to do by hand.

In the real world, the FMS handles most of each flight, mainly because
that provides the best fuel economy and least wear and tear on the
aircraft (because the FMS is programmed to optimize those by default).

> I'm not an airline pilot, so I'll go
> ahead and ask the question (please real world answers only) is the FMC
> the boss or is the pilot?

The pilot is the boss. The FMS is no more in control than an
autopilot. It flies the plane when you tell it to, but it stops when
you tell it to stop.

> If the FMC says optimal is such and such, but ATC says do this,
> doesn't the airline pilot do what ATC says?

From the discussion here, apparently ATC is in control. If the FMS
doesn't agree, you override the FMS.

> I always assumed that a FMS in a modern airliner was just a souped up
> version of my Garmin 430. I.e. it has a plan, but what I get is ALWAYS
> different. Even when I try to "guess" ahead of time.

It's a very, very souped up version of a Garmin 430, but the basic
idea is the same. And the results can vary because real-world
conditions (such as winds aloft) can vary. But an FMS is much better
at executing the plan than a Garmin 430.

For example, an FMS knows that you must not exceed 250 kts below
10,000 feet MSL, and will respect that restriction. A less
sophisticated automation system doesn't know this. Indeed, the
automation used in smaller aircraft doesn't pay any attention to speed
or throttle at all.

> Yet another difference between your simulated world and the real world,
> huh?

Yes.

> Does the lack of heavy traffic make you a better simulated pilot?

Over the long run, I don't think it makes any difference, any more
than it does in the real world. It's the product of time and traffic
that counts.

> Two words, "Say again"

Yeah, but after saying this once or twice, I begin to feel like a
nuisance.

> If you want to get a glimpse into real world ATC, take a look at Don
> Brown's columns at Avweb
> (http://www.avweb.com/news/sayagain/193881-1.html)

I'll take a look.

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

[Mxsmanic]

bdl writes:

> If you want to get a glimpse into real world ATC, take a look at Don
> Brown's columns at Avweb
> (http://www.avweb.com/news/sayagain/193881-1.html)

I looked at the page. He seems to discuss nothing but politics.

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

[Mxsmanic]

bdl writes:

> If you were in "real" IMC it's even worse (at least until you develop
> some practice and learn to keep the picture in your head). Always
> seems like ATC is telling you to do something just as you are in the
> middle of something else.

I've already had that experience in simulation.

On VATSIM, you can communicate by voice or by text. I usually
communicate by text, simply because the sound quality is often so bad
for some controllers that I cannot make out what they are saying.
However, it is true that text is woefully unrealistic, and it also
makes it difficult or impossible to communicate during the most
critical phases of the flight, as one simply doesn't have time to type
(even fast typists like me).

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.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> But to do that would be totally unrealistic.

Not at all. The aircraft is perfectly capable of autolanding in real
life. As far as I know, the actual ground equipment is the same for
all ILS categories. The aircraft equipment differs by category (the
higher the category, the fancier the equipment), but the 737-800 is
fully equipped for Cat IIIc autolanding.

I don't know how often autolanding is used in real life. Apparently
many pilots like to fly the landing and perhaps at least part of the
approach by hand. But they can still autoland if they want to.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Carter writes:

> So you are really using your home computer as a procedure and systems
> simulator and not a flight training tool.

I use it for both. When I fly a 737-800, there's a much greater
emphasis on systems and procedures. When I fly a Baron 58, there's a
much greater emphasis on flight training itself. I use the Baron for
pattern practice, but the 737 for complex navigation and ATC practice.

> I will agree that learning
> systems and procedures are part of the flight training process (or any
> training process that involves automation), but they are not as big a
> part of the overall training as you seem to believe.

I think that depends hugely on what type of flying you intend to do.
For airline pilots, systems and procedures seem to be the lion's share
of what they do. Actually flying the plane is becoming increasingly
incidental.

> I say that because
> of your devotion to the idea that you really are doing exactly the same
> thing as a professional pilot actually flying an aircraft along the same
> routes.

Exactly the same thing? I think not. But I come very close.

> There are a lot of freewill decisions that still take place in the
> cockpit and those decisions can not be simulated.

I make free-will decisions, too.

However, in practical commercial aviation, the idea is to reduce free
will to a minimum. Free will does not yield economical and
low-maintenance flight. Flying exclusively by the numbers with a
computer does. Airlines would probably love to dispense with pilots
entirely.

> If it were considered safe, reliable, or even desirable to
> automate the entire process (as a systems simulator provides) then there
> would be no flight training requirements because there would be no
> pilots.

That time will come. Their presence even today is increasingly as a
back-up. It's already possible to fly aircraft from gate to gate
without a pilot, although such systems have not actually been deployed
commercially, as far as I know.

> True flying is involves much less systems integration and
> systems management than you seem to believe.

Maybe in a Cessna, but not in commercial aviation.

> My point to this post is that you seem to have the incorrect idea about
> systems management and procedure memorization being the most significant
> part of operating an aircraft -- that's not the way it is for the large
> majority of people who fly.

Do you fly large jets for an airline, or small aircraft?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> How do you know?

The honest ones admit it to me.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> I don't think you understand the aerodynamics of the real world. MSFS
> has great scenery but the aircraft and the atmosphere modeling are
> terribly wrong in MSFS.

It sounds like you don't fly much in MSFS.

Tell me _exactly_ what's wrong with the aircraft modeling.

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

[Mxsmanic]

bdl writes:

> The realism is very striking. That doesn't make it REAL, however.

As long as the realism is striking, it doesn't have to be real. The
whole purpose of simulation is realism without reality, after all.

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

[john smith]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

>In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>
>
>>Paul Tomblin writes:
>>
>>
>>>I fly with a Garmin 296 handheld GPS. In my experience, nearly always
>>>just around the same time it says I need to start my descent if I want to
>>>descend at 500fpm to my destination, ATC clears me down to a lower
>>>altitude without being asked.
>>>
>>>
>>I have noticed this as well. I suppose if they know the route well,
>>they know when the descent usually starts.
>>
>>
>
>Except they know where to start my descent whether I'm flying a 100 knot
>Archer or a 140 knot Lance, or on one occasion, a Piper Dakota with a 70
>knot tail wind.
>
>I suspect there is software they use to handle this.
>


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

At a given airspeed and altitude, at 500 fpm an aircraft should commence
its descent at the calculated distance.

This will vary depending on the facility, traffic and procedures.

I calculate the distance in may head for my given cruise altitude and
wait to see if ATC calls me at the appropriate time. They are usually
early on the call to assign lower.

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

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.

Plus, I'm not pulling or pushing 8 g's or rolling at 400 degrees a second in
the chair. Sims, even full motion ones, can not mimic the visceral cues
found in real flight.

Additionally, the visual cues looking at a computer monitor are not the
same, since there is no peripheral vision input on the simple models such as
MSFS. There are some advantages to multiple monitor systems with motion.

Even without motion, having a full size cockpit with real instruments adds a
lot to the realism (at least this was my experience at Simcomm). Sitting in
front of a computer screen flying with a joystick, pedals, and throttle
really don't come close to the actual experience of flying.

[gpsman]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Judah writes:
>
> > How do you know?
>
> The honest ones admit it to me.

Spurious conclusion. Those who agree with you are honest, those who
don't are not?

Either way, your judgment of realism is based on anything -but- your
own experience, and you are left to sort the opinions of others. Your
opinion that MSFS is realistic, or unrealistic, has no basis in any
-fact- that you have ascertained, since those... lemme count... yep,
zero is the total.
-----

- gpsman

[Buck Murdock]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> The aircraft is perfectly capable of autolanding in real
> life. As far as I know, the actual ground equipment is the same for
> all ILS categories.

And you'd be *wrong*.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> But to do that would be totally unrealistic.
>
> Not at all. The aircraft is perfectly capable of autolanding in real
> life. As far as I know, the actual ground equipment is the same for
> all ILS categories. The aircraft equipment differs by category (the
> higher the category, the fancier the equipment), but the 737-800 is
> fully equipped for Cat IIIc autolanding.
>
> I don't know how often autolanding is used in real life. Apparently
> many pilots like to fly the landing and perhaps at least part of the
> approach by hand. But they can still autoland if they want to.
>

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.

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)

iD8DBQFFnXmXyBkZmuMZ8L8RAhhpAJ92Lh5yirlENcqWYuyvC6 pjGHKUHACgkS55
LIEW8SE3CIIXM6D0XJDlLsc=
=DrqL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Ross]

Viperdoc wrote:
> 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.
>
> Plus, I'm not pulling or pushing 8 g's or rolling at 400 degrees a second in
> the chair. Sims, even full motion ones, can not mimic the visceral cues
> found in real flight.
>
> Additionally, the visual cues looking at a computer monitor are not the
> same, since there is no peripheral vision input on the simple models such as
> MSFS. There are some advantages to multiple monitor systems with motion.
>
> Even without motion, having a full size cockpit with real instruments adds a
> lot to the realism (at least this was my experience at Simcomm). Sitting in
> front of a computer screen flying with a joystick, pedals, and throttle
> really don't come close to the actual experience of flying.
>
>

It's not a Extra 300 but I had the opportunity years ago to "fly" the
American Airlines Fokker F100 at their DFW training center at full
motion. I thought that was pretty realistic for this general aviation pilot.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Mxsmanic]

Buck Murdock writes:

> And you'd be *wrong*.

OK. What's different about the ground equipment for the different
categories of ILS approach?

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

[Mxsmanic]

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.

Anyway, the usual reason for this is that I'm working on the systems
and procedures, and not on the actual flying of the aircraft. If I
want to practice flying it, I set up a different flight. Sometimes I
just fly offline for practice in flying skills, since I don't need ATC
for that. Exercises like flying holds by hand or by autopilot, touch
and go landings, etc. I do this more in the Baron than in the 737.

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

[Mxsmanic]

gpsman writes:

> Spurious conclusion. Those who agree with you are honest, those who
> don't are not?

No. The honest ones admit it; the dishonest or disingenuous ones
argue about it endlessly.

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

[Mxsmanic]

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.

Note that the accuracy of simulation depends not only on the
simulation engine, but also on the parameters for each aircraft model.
The default aircraft are rather casually defined.

> Plus, I'm not pulling or pushing 8 g's or rolling at 400 degrees a second in
> the chair. Sims, even full motion ones, can not mimic the visceral cues
> found in real flight.

Yes, yes. I'm getting tired of hearing about this. That's not a flaw
in the simulation, anyway.

> Additionally, the visual cues looking at a computer monitor are not the
> same, since there is no peripheral vision input on the simple models such as
> MSFS. There are some advantages to multiple monitor systems with motion.

I can look left and right by twisting the stick, although I'll grant
that it's not like the real thing. However, that's not a defect in
the simulator software, either.

> Even without motion, having a full size cockpit with real instruments adds a
> lot to the realism (at least this was my experience at Simcomm). Sitting in
> front of a computer screen flying with a joystick, pedals, and throttle
> really don't come close to the actual experience of flying.

I tried a much more elaborate simulator about a week ago (still
without motion). I wasn't familiar with the aircraft it
simulated--apparently something like a Piper Cub--but I managed to do
several ILS approaches successfully with an instructor alongside.

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

[bdl]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> bdl writes:
>
> > If you want to get a glimpse into real world ATC, take a look at Don
> > Brown's columns at Avweb
> > (http://www.avweb.com/news/sayagain/193881-1.html)
>
> I looked at the page. He seems to discuss nothing but politics.

The latest column probalby wasn't a good example, since he no longer
works for the FAA. But you might try any of the ATC courses (ATC 101,
ATC102, etc.) that prevoius columns offer.

Helps me to understand why I get vectors in certain situations. And
why when I request something I might get a "unable, but try again in 10
miles".

Brian

[bdl]

> 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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[john smith]

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!

[Jim Stewart]

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.

[A Lieberma]

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

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----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-----

[Capt.Doug]

>"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.

[bdl]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

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.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> No. The honest ones admit it; the dishonest or disingenuous ones
> argue about it endlessly.

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

[TxSrv]

MxsClueless wrote:
>
> Tell me _exactly_ what's wrong with the aircraft modeling.

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.
Plus, the mixture control does not react as it should at
even 7000. Ditto the ASI whilst upstairs.

I indeed do have every version since 1.0, and yes the
graphics on ver. 10 are outstanding and a decent frame rate
on my newish machine. 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. 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.

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. And taking ATC instructions from
VATSIM people who likely know little of the real-life
nuances of ATC at least. What % of air carrier pilots
actually fly MSFS as an avocation? 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.

I also think MSFS is an excellent implementation, given the
programming challenge, and I tell my flying friends, even
"old duffs" like me but who are into computing and have the
machine for it, to try it for just some occasional fun and
see some nifty stuff it now does. And no more, without
actually saying so, since I know they won't get hooked.

Conversely, if flight exp via computer is all you want (and
moot, as all you can afford), fine. Chacun a son gout. But
an analogy is where I served in the U.S. Army, but own only
one handgun I fired just once, so I'm not a gun enthusiast
but respect such avocations of others. Chacun a son gout. I
even think there's too many weapons/capita here, but whether
the attendant consequences are tolerable is a legitimate
debate. I think on balance it is tolerable, but could I ever
start a silly, flaming debate by arguing the contrary,
especially never having really engaged in the sporting
activity! I also think I know know many technical things
about weapons, but hardly an expert, despite what I might
read further on the internet. If I have a technical
question, I can post to a gun enthusiast net group and hope
it's only a 4-post thread not flaming me should I be branded
naive or just an annoyance.

What I would not do is take pot shots at those who engage in
legitimate activities such as gun collecting, shooting
sports, or actual flying in a group of those who do, nor
would I claim shoot-em-up computer games is realistic and
sufficient for practical purposes. Nor would spend much of
my waking hours arrogantly posting on matters I really don't
know much about, especially where my actual identity is
known to the entire English-speaking internet world.

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! :-)

F--

[Newps]

You wonder why people ridicule you.





Mxsmanic wrote:
> 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?


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



>
>
>>Ground effect is either poorly modeled, or not modeled at all.
>
>
> You don't sound very certain.


Spoken like someone who couldn't even identify a plane, much less fly one.



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

See above.



>
>>"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.

It's a computer. Other than maing the screen wobble what else can it
do? It's **** poor.




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


Then why ask the question?
>

[Alexey Goldin]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Yes, yes. I'm getting tired of hearing about this. That's not a flaw
> in the simulation, anyway.
>

Let me jump into it.

First about background --- I am not GA pilot yet, I plan to start
lessons in a fall. I however a small time hang glider pilot (about 25
hours, 83 flights), currently live in Chicago where the weather is not
great for hang gliding in winter. While hang glider is very different
from GA aircraft, it has some things in common --- being stupid can
kill you.

What you are getting annoyed is the following (and here I am
extrapolating from what I know in different flying community) --- there
is invisible hierarchy and you do not accept it. The hierarchy is for a
reason though --- people are not equal, some know more then others,
some have more experience.

Why is this important? Listening to people with experience and learning
from them can help you in a sticky situation. However to assign weight
to what people are saying it is very important to know if they know
what they are talking about.

You however insist on you right to claim experience without having any,
and write about flying from one airport to another without ever
mentioning it was just a simulation. There is extremely small (once in
a million or less), but nonzero chance that some day you give advice
based on you experience which can kill a student who will take it
seriously. I know your background at this point, so I will not take
your advice seriously, but somebody without knowing your background
might. This is why I believe it is important that you know your place
in invisible hierarchy of pilots (I know mine, it is fairly low at this
point but will get higher after I learn to fly these noisy oil and gaz
burning contraptions), mention your background when discussing you
"flights" and avoid giving advice.

While everyone has right to live the life he chooses, it is important
that we use appropriate words lest we stop understanding each other
and words loose their meaning and we are back to this tower of Babel
situation again. Your "flights" are not flights, although they can be
very enjoyable, the distinction is very important. You are trying to
redefine meaning of words, make them fuzzier in a community where
precision of communications means saving lives and surprised at
hostility you are getting. I wonder why?

While sims can be pretty detailed, they are by definition are different
from the real thing, because people who create them are just humans and
their knowledge is limited. Because knowledge of every particular
person is limited, it is possible that no one knows all details how
different they are from the real thing. You may not find out until it
is too late. The difference is often found in a very spectacular
fashion. I do not think anyone who flied any kind of Space Shuttle
simulator had failure similar to what happened to Columbia. Every year
many pilots find there is a difference between their mental model of
airplane ("I still have 1 hour of fuel") and real thing. You expect
your mental model to be perfect. Well, as I often heard when I still
was scientist "In theory there is no difference between theory and
practice. In practice thee is." One difference that real flying (yes,
hang glider too) teaches you that you have a lot of limitations.
Apparently simming does not, because you are not getting scared
enough. In real flying smug feeling is a sure sign that humility
lesson is coming, as one smart guy said. I wonder how is this aspect of
flying is taken care of in MSFS.

I do not have enough time in GA aircrafts (or simulators for that
matter) to say how similar is simulation to real thing --- latest
"Flight training" magazine seems to suggests it might be somewhat
useful. I am absolutely confident that simulation is absolutely useless
for training to fly hang gliders, just like it would be useless for
learning to ride a bicycle. Never mind feeling forces that give you
important feedback, noise of rushing air or squeaking of the
structure that gives you important clues about speed or how close you
are to stall. How would you talk about glider feeling "mushed" to
someone who never experienced it? He might just say "You are not clear
on this point so you do not know what happens and it is not in MSFS
anyway so I might forget about it". Never mind adrenaline when you
make a stupid mistake and find out that problems always happen in
clusters and pile up much faster then you can think about them with no
option to pause, save, think and restore later. What is more important
--- no simulation can prepare you for the feeling when you circle 5
feet away from a young falcon who found first thermal in his life.

[A Lieberma]

Newps > wrote in
:

> Then why ask the question?

Because he is a troll.............

When will we learn not to answer his question is the 64K question of the
year.

Allen

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> 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!
>

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

[Mxsmanic]

bdl writes:

> FYI, i listen to other pilots as well as the controllre instructions to
> them.

Agreed, but I often have to strain just to understand the controller.

> 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.

I've not had that experience. Like most sim pilots, I look forward to
areas and periods of high traffic so that I can get more experience in
dealing with congested airspaces. But simulation has the opposite
problem of the real world: the real world has too much traffic, and
simulation has too little. It's getting better, though (even as the
real world gets worse!).

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

[Mxsmanic]

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.

I'm kind of surprised that ATC so often goes with visual approaches
for IFR flights. Wouldn't it be more straightforward to funnel
everyone into ILS approaches, given that they are already IFR?

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

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> 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.

All you have to do is pull a switch and take over.

> If you want the realism, you should and fly the approach and land,
> and use your instruments when you need them.

Yes, in principle. But if I'm practicing the systems and automation,
I use those. If I'm offline, I can just stop the simulation when I've
covered the part I want to practice, and then go back and do it again.
If I'm online, I'm required to land, as it is bad form to simply
disappear from the controller's scope with no explanation. So I may
autoland, both for the practice with automation and to conform to the
requirement to land, given that online simulation is supposed to be
like real life.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> OK. What's different about the ground equipment for the different
> categories of ILS approach?
>

That information is rather easy to find on the internet. Look it up.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

If that post doesn't prove you're an arrogant troll, I don't know what
it takes to people here still believing you just seek knowledge.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

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)

[Thomas Borchert]

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)

[Thomas Borchert]

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)

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> That information is rather easy to find on the internet. Look it up.

Information is elsewhere.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> 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.

Which airline do you fly for, again?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It rotates the aircraft
about its yaw axis, which can have a number of different effects,
depending on the situation.

> There is in MSFS. There isn't in real life. My guess is that MSFS merely
> uses a random number generator to add a degree or 2 of bank or pitch.
> Real turbulence can throw a plane up or down a few hundred ft in seconds.
> Turbulence in MSFS has NO effect on altitude.

It does when I encounter it.

> One of the reasons is the useless rudder modeling.

No, I think the main reasons are that some pilots depend excessively
on physical sensations, and become disoriented without them. Also,
some depend a lot on a large field of vision, which most simulator
configurations don't provide.

> Here's a test you can do yourself.
> Fly straight and level.
> Look at your heading.
> Now feed in full rudder (pick a direction) and hold the wings level (this
> is critical).
> After doing this for couple minutes or so, release the rudder. Again, always keeping
> the wings level (any bank at all will screw up the test).
> Now look at the heading. If you did this perfectly, the heading will be exactly
> the same. Now check your flight path. You'll see that it's a straight line.
> With a real rudder, your heading will change significantly and your flight
> path will not be a straight line.

I did it. The plane turns (reluctantly), and the flight path curves.
The heading changes. And the wings were level, because I turned on the
wing leveling function in the autopilot, which forces them to stay
level (it was using quite a bit of aileron to keep them level, but
they did not budge).

So MSFS apparently passes the test.

> BTW, The rudder responses are reasonably accurate in "x-plane" so
> there's no reason MSFS couldn't model it properly. But that does not
> change the fact that it's not.

It seems to work fine on my copy of MSFS. Rather like your rudder
test.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Which airline do you fly for, again?
>

Are you determined to make a complete idiot of yourself now? But I'm
glad to see it is possible to penetrate that armor you've conveniently
constructed around your sorry self.

GA aircraft and airlines use the same radio frequencies. They are
required to use the same phrases in their radio work. So I don't need
to fly for an airline to make qualified statements about radio work. I
have been educated in radio work in just the same way as an airline
pilot. You haven't. So take the advice of another poster: STFU and take
notes!

FWIW, the part I mentioned is easily obtainable by reading the AIM or
the Pilot-Controller-Glossary, which you have been pointed to, but are
too lazy to read. Instead, you prefer to try making silly personal
attacks. You're a lying troll.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
> > Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.
>
> Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It rotates the aircraft
> about its yaw axis, which can have a number of different effects,
> depending on the situation.

Staying within the context of this discussion vis-a-vis rudder input alone
and your statement above, can you describe when it does and does not affect
flight path and in which aircraft this is true? What are the number of
different effects it can have and what situations do they occur in.

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> Staying within the context of this discussion vis-a-vis rudder input alone
> and your statement above, can you describe when it does and does not affect
> flight path and in which aircraft this is true? What are the number of
> different effects it can have and what situations do they occur in.

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.

Adjusting the rudder yaws the aircraft. In ordinary level flight,
this will tend to cause the aircraft to enter a turn. The asymmetric
lift resulting from the yaw will tend to push the aircraft into a bank
in the same direction as the rudder is turning the aircraft, and
aerodynamic forces on the rest of the aircraft will assist this.

The rudder can also be used to compensate for other forces acting
about the yaw axis. It can be used to compensate for crosswinds or
engine torque. It can be used to establish and maintain coordinated
turns. And so on.

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

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

While this thread is obviously degenerating to your base level of illogic
and circular reasoning, I can tell you that your statement "anyone competent
to flying can probably can land (an Extra) virtually blindfolded" is
laughingly untrue.

Landing a tailwheel airplane is a distinctly different challenge compared to
a tricycle gear plane. I have close to 1000 hours in tailwheel planes, and I
(along with any other pilot of tailwheel aircraft) will tell you that it
takes a lot more attention to land these planes, particularly in gusting
crosswind conditions.

The Extra is harder in some ways, because it lands fast and sinks rapidly,
with no forward visibility. On the other hand the controls (especially the
rudder) remain effective even at low airspeeds. Once on the runway it is
very stable, and does not hop around like a Pitts.

The reason why people are alienated by your posts are the ridiculous
pronouncements like the one quoted above, which are illogical conclusions
based on no meaningful experience or reasoning. Get a clue.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> bdl writes:
>
>
>>The realism is very striking. That doesn't make it REAL, however.
>
>
> As long as the realism is striking, it doesn't have to be real. The
> whole purpose of simulation is realism without reality, after all.
>
In the context of aviation the purpose of simulation is to faithfully
duplicate the aircraft flight deck, panels and systems, motion, and
outside visual references so that pilot qualification in the simulator
translates into pilot qualification in the aircraft.

[BDS[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> 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.

It's insulting diatribe like this that convinces me that contrary to what
Jose and Jay seem to think, Mx is not here to learn but rather to provoke.

He is always the first to resort to insults when he has nowhere else to go
in the argument. Why else would he make comments like the above along with
such things as "GA pilots are incompetent", "people in the USA have no
courage, only ego", etc., etc.

Not once have I seen him admit that he might be mistaken, and that in itself
is very telling.

[Buck Murdock]

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.)

[Alexey Goldin]

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?

[Alexey Goldin]

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?

[BDS[_2_]]

"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.

[Paul kgyy]

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.

[Thomas Borchert]

Alexey,

> You have no clue, have you?
>

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

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

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/>

[TxSrv]

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--

[TxSrv]

> 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--

[TxSrv]

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--

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Ross wrote:

>>
>
> It's not a Extra 300 but I had the opportunity years ago to "fly" the
> American Airlines Fokker F100 at their DFW training center at full
> motion. I thought that was pretty realistic for this general aviation
> pilot.

Was that full motion simulator running MSFS? That was the software in
question.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Alexey Goldin wrote: The same message twice.

You are using google groups to post aren't you? Trust you first click. :)

[Sam Spade]

Paul kgyy wrote:
> When flying IFR with jet aircraft, the pilot has little discretion
> unless specifically given by ATC.

Jets are given pilot discretion clearance whenever possible. It is not
a rare event.
>
> 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.

You have that a bit wrong. If a crossing restriction is included a
pilot's discretion descent is implied.

AIM Reference:

If the altitude information of an ATC DESCENT clearance includes a
provision to “CROSS (fix) AT” or “AT OR ABOVE/BELOW (altitude),” the
manner in which the descent is executed to comply with the crossing
altitude is at the pilot’s discretion. This authorization to descend at
pilot’s discretion is only applicable to that portion of the flight to
which the crossing altitude restriction applies, and the pilot is
expected to comply with the crossing altitude as a provision of the
clearance. Any other clearance in which pilot execution is optional will
so state “AT PILOT’S DISCRETION.”


>
> 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.
>
If someone has to ride United Airlines to learn about ATC transmissions,
the pain isn't worth the gain.

[Sam Spade]

B A R R Y wrote:

> 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/>


I'd add the caveat that the value of listening to tower or TRACON,
although, great, does not give the flavor of listening to center sectors
adjacent to busy terminal airspace. For instance, all the descent stuff
that might include PD clearances will occur on Los Angeles Center
frequenices, high and low sectors, not on SoCal frequencies.

[Alexey Goldin]

Sorry :-) Will be more careful next time.


Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Alexey Goldin wrote: The same message twice.
>
> You are using google groups to post aren't you? Trust you first click. :)

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> 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.
>

You get dumber everyday.

[bdl]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I've not had that experience. Like most sim pilots, I look forward to
> areas and periods of high traffic so that I can get more experience in
> dealing with congested airspaces. But simulation has the opposite
> problem of the real world: the real world has too much traffic, and
> simulation has too little. It's getting better, though (even as the
> real world gets worse!).

You should "simulate" the look of fright from your wife sitting next to
you with a look of fear when you acknowledge keeping your speed up.
She's sitting over there imagining a jet that's going to ram you.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
>>Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.
>
>
> Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> BDS writes:
>
>
>>Staying within the context of this discussion vis-a-vis rudder input alone
>>and your statement above, can you describe when it does and does not affect
>>flight path and in which aircraft this is true? What are the number of
>>different effects it can have and what situations do they occur in.
>
>
> 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.
>
> Adjusting the rudder yaws the aircraft. In ordinary level flight,
> this will tend to cause the aircraft to enter a turn. The asymmetric
> lift resulting from the yaw will tend to push the aircraft into a bank
> in the same direction as the rudder is turning the aircraft, and
> aerodynamic forces on the rest of the aircraft will assist this.
>
> The rudder can also be used to compensate for other forces acting
> about the yaw axis. It can be used to compensate for crosswinds or
> engine torque. It can be used to establish and maintain coordinated
> turns. And so on.



You still haven't listed one time when the rudder does not change flight
path.

[Peter R.]

Sam Spade > wrote:

> I'd add the caveat that the value of listening to tower or TRACON,
> although, great, does not give the flavor of listening to center sectors
> adjacent to busy terminal airspace. For instance, all the descent stuff
> that might include PD clearances will occur on Los Angeles Center
> frequenices, high and low sectors, not on SoCal frequencies.

Not sure if you are assuming that LiveATC.net only carries tower or TRACON
frequencies or not, but in case you are: LiveATC.net also carries many
centner frequencies.

As an example, LiveATC.net has many Boston and NY center frequencies.

Another point is that LiveATC is made up of volunteers providing scanned
frequencies. There are not a lot of western US frequencies on the site due
simply to the lack of volunteers offering them. If you know anyone... :)


--
Peter
A LiveATC volunteer feeding KSYR tower and approach.

[Sam Spade]

Peter R. wrote:
> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>I'd add the caveat that the value of listening to tower or TRACON,
>>although, great, does not give the flavor of listening to center sectors
>>adjacent to busy terminal airspace. For instance, all the descent stuff
>>that might include PD clearances will occur on Los Angeles Center
>>frequenices, high and low sectors, not on SoCal frequencies.
>
>
> Not sure if you are assuming that LiveATC.net only carries tower or TRACON
> frequencies or not, but in case you are: LiveATC.net also carries many
> centner frequencies.
>
> As an example, LiveATC.net has many Boston and NY center frequencies.
>
> Another point is that LiveATC is made up of volunteers providing scanned
> frequencies. There are not a lot of western US frequencies on the site due
> simply to the lack of volunteers offering them. If you know anyone... :)
>
>
I missed the center frequencies. To get a good flavor of the east high
and low LA frequenices you would need a volunteer in Barstow and one
somewhere in the Ontario area. ;-)

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>>
>>> Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
>
>
> There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.

Not so. When an engine fails on a multi, a lot of rudder is required.
Skillfully done, the application of a lot of rudder is mandatory to
maintain the desired flight path.

[bdl]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I'm kind of surprised that ATC so often goes with visual approaches
> for IFR flights. Wouldn't it be more straightforward to funnel
> everyone into ILS approaches, given that they are already IFR?

Another case of where simulation doesn't match real life. By giving a
visual approach clearance, separation rules change. A controller can
funnel more airplanes into the approach. Otherwise he can't have more
than one airplane on the approach at the same time.

It's also one of those reasons controllers like for you to cancel in
the air for uncontrolled airports (you wouldn't know about that because
thats just "fun" flying) is because they can't let an IFR departure
while your on the approach. Or another approach. Hence, the airport
is "closed" for IFR arrivals/departures.

Real world example, departing Quincy IFR one time (in VMC). Plane
takes off ahead of us on an IFR clearance. We can't take off IFR
because that plane just took off. And radar coverage at KUIN is spotty
below 5000. So I can wait on the ground until said plane gets into
radar coverage, or just depart VFR and pick up my clearance airborne.
We departed VFR.

[Peter R.]

Sam Spade > wrote:

> I missed the center frequencies. To get a good flavor of the east high
> and low LA frequenices you would need a volunteer in Barstow and one
> somewhere in the Ontario area. ;-)

Is that where their antenna farms or just the facilities are located?

--
Peter

[Mark Hansen]

On 01/05/07 09:58, Sam Spade wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
>>
>>
>> There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.
>
> Not so. When an engine fails on a multi, a lot of rudder is required.
> Skillfully done, the application of a lot of rudder is mandatory to
> maintain the desired flight path.

It is changing the flight path the aircraft would have taken had you
not applied the rudder.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

TxSrv wrote:
> But I have trouble
> believing the typical ATC would regularly spend off-hours directing
> nonpilots in a make-believe IFR environment.

So do I.

I also have trouble believing very many real pilots would bother to
participate in that whole shebang.

[Barney Rubble]

How do you know that they aren't just agreeing with you in the hope that you
will go away? Seems much more plausible based on your current performance.

Transpose mxsmanic with moron to reach the whining, live in the dark,
trolling buffoon.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

[Barney Rubble]

She flies it to get away from you....

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> That information is rather easy to find on the internet. Look it up.
>
> Information is elsewhere.
>
And it's up to you to find it, not be spoonfed it. Otherwise,
you will never know how to be self supportive. Like the old saying:

"Give a man a fish, and he'll feed himself for the night. Teach
a man to fish, and he'll feed himself for a lifetime."

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)

iD8DBQFFnpoGyBkZmuMZ8L8RAsWZAJ9q1kitdOphCPc7yifa12 P0SO+0jgCg1MAt
yQkE81+SQpavYN+cdtpLCw8=
=Win3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Steve Foley]

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Give a man a fish, and he'll feed himself for the night. Teach
> a man to fish, and he'll feed himself for a lifetime."
>

"Build a man a fire, warm him for the night.
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life."

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----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.
>
> I'm kind of surprised that ATC so often goes with visual approaches
> for IFR flights. Wouldn't it be more straightforward to funnel
> everyone into ILS approaches, given that they are already IFR?
>

No. And if you understood more about ATC in general, as well as
the differences between visual and instrument approaches, you wouldn't
be asking this question. What would you do if the runway in use does
not have an instrument approach? You'd be screwed. I'd love to see you
land at KLAS during the summer when winds are out of the east and
density altitude is so high that they have 19L/R and 7L/R active.

There is no correlation between VFR/IFR and visual/instrument
approaches.

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)

iD8DBQFFnprlyBkZmuMZ8L8RAvv3AJ0arFR62WVDOVkp9fJY+/wxGfDAuwCgly9I
TG1sXMKn9xv1T6vOEWbWDH8=
=o9er
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Alexey Goldin]

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> different.
> In MSFS, maintain normal climb pitch, and speed, and you will
> always climb. Maintain normal descent pitch and you will always
> descend. Independent of MSFS "turbulence". Any 10 hr REAL pilot
> already knows that this is not true in a real plane.
>

If this statement about MSFS behavior is true, it is impossible to
simulate soaring flight in MSFS. I have no experience with MSFS --- is
this the case? Never mind simulated flying under cumulonimbus or in
virga --- exactly the case where you do not want to do it for real...

I saw simulated soaring flight in X-plane, so at least some programs
probably do it more properly...

[Sam Spade]

Peter R. wrote:
> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>I missed the center frequencies. To get a good flavor of the east high
>>and low LA frequenices you would need a volunteer in Barstow and one
>>somewhere in the Ontario area. ;-)
>
>
> Is that where their antenna farms or just the facilities are located?
>

It would be where the remote transmitter/receivers would be located.
(aka "RCO" remote communications outlet.)

I am approximating the location of these two RCOs. Stay tuned.

[Sam Spade]

Mark Hansen wrote:

> On 01/05/07 09:58, Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>Newps wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
>>>
>>>
>>>There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.
>>
>>Not so. When an engine fails on a multi, a lot of rudder is required.
>>Skillfully done, the application of a lot of rudder is mandatory to
>>maintain the desired flight path.
>
>
> It is changing the flight path the aircraft would have taken had you
> not applied the rudder.

That is like saying a localizer changes the flight path on an ILS.

[mad8]

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.

i love that "channel". It's really fun being able to say to the person
you're flying with "i can predict the future. Check it out, we're gonna
turn left in about 3 seconds"

just like at work i always listen to the DFW stream...
http://www.caesimuflite.com/atcindex1.html

[Ross]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>How does the 172 fly when you pilot it at FL250 yourself?
>
>
> It can't get up there, the C172 has a service ceiling arount 14,000 ft.
>

I had mine on a cold day to 14,500 and still climbing at 500 fpm. Forgot
the O2 to go any highter. I just wanted to see how high I could go. I
was in contact with ATC for monitoring. Just a fun thing to do.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Ross]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> Ross wrote:
>
>
>>It's not a Extra 300 but I had the opportunity years ago to "fly" the
>>American Airlines Fokker F100 at their DFW training center at full
>>motion. I thought that was pretty realistic for this general aviation
>>pilot.
>
>
> Was that full motion simulator running MSFS? That was the software in
> question.
>
>
Nope, this was the real multi million $ American Airline simulator in
Ft. Worth Texas at their training center. I do not suspect they you
MSFS. I even had a AA instructor at the computer behind me.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Jim Stewart]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> 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.


Airplanes are noisy and students get fixated
on things.

I don't need another instructor, I need to
stop replying to your senseless trolls.

>>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.

Your abject cluelessness is staggering.

In this case shouting and a cool head
have nothing to do with each other.

I'm done with you. You seem to be reasonably
intelligent yet you seem to have the wisdom
of a 2-year old. Please, please stay away
from real airports and real planes.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Steve Foley > wrote:
> "A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
> om...
>>
>> "Give a man a fish, and he'll feed himself for the night. Teach
>> a man to fish, and he'll feed himself for a lifetime."
>>
>
> "Build a man a fire, warm him for the night.
> Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life."

Touche!! I like that!

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)

iD8DBQFFnq/MyBkZmuMZ8L8RAiLYAKDillkHc50Jh4JCq4PiSw48cARTGgCgo SpY
9NOqVPXUsg1f4eAjoKCm4bs=
=lndf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Steve Foley]

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
et...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Steve Foley > wrote:
>> "A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
>> om...
>>>
>>> "Give a man a fish, and he'll feed himself for the night. Teach
>>> a man to fish, and he'll feed himself for a lifetime."
>>>
>>
>> "Build a man a fire, warm him for the night.
>> Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life."
>

It's not mine. I stole it from someone, but I don't remember who.

[Mxsmanic]

bdl writes:

> You should "simulate" the look of fright from your wife sitting next to
> you with a look of fear when you acknowledge keeping your speed up.
> She's sitting over there imagining a jet that's going to ram you.

I'm not married, nor do I simulate marriage.

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

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> And it's up to you to find it, not be spoonfed it.

I was showing the insignificance of such statements.

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

[Mxsmanic]

bdl writes:

> Another case of where simulation doesn't match real life. By giving a
> visual approach clearance, separation rules change. A controller can
> funnel more airplanes into the approach. Otherwise he can't have more
> than one airplane on the approach at the same time.

OK, but I don't see how this distinguishes simulation from real life.

> It's also one of those reasons controllers like for you to cancel in
> the air for uncontrolled airports (you wouldn't know about that because
> thats just "fun" flying) is because they can't let an IFR departure
> while your on the approach.

Actually, I did know that. ATC does that in simulation, too.

> Real world example, departing Quincy IFR one time (in VMC). Plane
> takes off ahead of us on an IFR clearance. We can't take off IFR
> because that plane just took off. And radar coverage at KUIN is spotty
> below 5000. So I can wait on the ground until said plane gets into
> radar coverage, or just depart VFR and pick up my clearance airborne.
> We departed VFR.

Simulation traffic is usually low enough that this isn't a factor at
uncontrolled airports. Of course, when controllers are in short
supply, sometimes even KLAX or KORD are uncontrolled, which makes
things a bit weird.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Barney Rubble writes:

> How do you know that they aren't just agreeing with you in the hope that you
> will go away? Seems much more plausible based on your current performance.

I know they aren't stupid.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Ross writes:

> Nope, this was the real multi million $ American Airline simulator in
> Ft. Worth Texas at their training center. I do not suspect they you
> MSFS.

Sometimes it can be surprising what runs on the back end.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Alexey Goldin writes:

> 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.

She could have accomplished the same without shouting or swearing.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> It can't get up there, the C172 has a service ceiling arount 14,000 ft.

Then how do you know how it behaves at FL250?

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

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> How do you actually know they are real controllers?

I know where they work.

> But I have trouble believing the typical ATC would regularly
> spend off-hours directing nonpilots in a make-believe IFR
> environment.

Is it also hard for you to believe that an airline pilot would spend
his off-hours flying a small private plane?

> 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.

Why don't you try it, and report back here?

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

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> I also have trouble believing very many real pilots would bother to
> participate in that whole shebang.

Many real pilots play with MSFS all the time.

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

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> 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.

Since you cannot test the real aircraft that high, you have no way of
knowing whether the simulation is accurate or not.

> The red knobby thingy? Besides doing little but being an
> on/off switch?

It's considerably more than an on/off switch when I use it.

> I dunno.

I agree.

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

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> 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.

Yes, it does.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> You still haven't listed one time when the rudder does not change flight
> path.

A forward slip.

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

[A Lieberma]

"Barney Rubble" > wrote in
:

> How do you know that they aren't just agreeing with you in the hope
> that you will go away? Seems much more plausible based on your current
> performance.

Only way the troll will go away is for us not to answer him.....

Allen

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.

Landing in a crosswind.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Mark Hansen writes:

> It is changing the flight path the aircraft would have taken had you
> not applied the rudder.

It is also maintaining the flight path that you originally intended.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Won't work that way. The wing leveler won't keep the wings level in
> that situation.

You are telling me things that are manifestly untrue when I actually
try them, which wastes my time.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Alexey Goldin writes:

> If this statement about MSFS behavior is true, it is impossible to
> simulate soaring flight in MSFS. I have no experience with MSFS --- is
> this the case? Never mind simulated flying under cumulonimbus or in
> virga --- exactly the case where you do not want to do it for real...

MSFS includes a glider. I have no glider experience so I cannot
comment on its realism.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> In the context of aviation the purpose of simulation is to faithfully
> duplicate the aircraft flight deck, panels and systems, motion, and
> outside visual references so that pilot qualification in the simulator
> translates into pilot qualification in the aircraft.

No. Simulation reproduces specific aspects of the real world with
specific levels of accuracy and realism. No simulation reproduces
everything perfectly. Some simulators reproduce certain things
perfectly. There is no one size that fits all, nor is it necessary
for all simulators to reproduce everything.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Paul kgyy writes:

> 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.

I didn't know it was possible to do that. I haven't flown in a long
time. I'm surprised nobody has forbidden it as "useful to
terrorists."

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

[Sam Spade]

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:


>
>
> 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.
>

That just isn't so. Jet aircraft are required to remain on, or above,
the ILS G/S whether on an ILS approach or on a visual approach. At the
company I worked for, failure to tune and identify the ILS for a visual
approach to an ILS runway was a check-ride bust.

As to autoland, most of them are down in good weather for proficiency
and to maintain certification of the airborne equipment. Autolands can
(and are) even be practiced on visual approaches provided the ILS is
intercepted prior to the PFAF.

[Sam Spade]

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

>
>
> 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.

You can't S-turn at busy airline airports very often.

[Sam Spade]

bdl wrote:

>
> Another case of where simulation doesn't match real life. By giving a
> visual approach clearance, separation rules change. A controller can
> funnel more airplanes into the approach. Otherwise he can't have more
> than one airplane on the approach at the same time.

Depends what you mean by approach. If there is radar and a
non-conflicted missed approach there can be quite a string of aircraft
on the ILS.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>I don't think you understand the aerodynamics of the real world. MSFS
>>has great scenery but the aircraft and the atmosphere modeling are
>>terribly wrong in MSFS.
>
>
> It sounds like you don't fly much in MSFS.
>
> Tell me _exactly_ what's wrong with the aircraft modeling.
>

Off the top of my head:

The King Air, on autopilot, will not maintain the set vertical speed if
the IAS drops below 120 knots or so. It will nose-dive and crash. Not
so with a real King Air.

Cross winds on autopilot are not handled correctly on an RNAV approach.

Strong winds aloft dramatically affect IAS in a holding pattern, which
is wrong beyond belief.

That is my short list.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Ross writes:
>
>
>>Nope, this was the real multi million $ American Airline simulator in
>>Ft. Worth Texas at their training center. I do not suspect they you
>>MSFS.
>
>
> Sometimes it can be surprising what runs on the back end.
>
In those $10 million simulators it sure as Hell ain't windows.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>In the context of aviation the purpose of simulation is to faithfully
>>duplicate the aircraft flight deck, panels and systems, motion, and
>>outside visual references so that pilot qualification in the simulator
>>translates into pilot qualification in the aircraft.
>
>
> No. Simulation reproduces specific aspects of the real world with
> specific levels of accuracy and realism. No simulation reproduces
> everything perfectly. Some simulators reproduce certain things
> perfectly. There is no one size that fits all, nor is it necessary
> for all simulators to reproduce everything.
>
Did I say "perfectly?"

How much Appendix D simulator training and proficiency checks have you had?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> TxSrv writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> Since you cannot test the real aircraft that high, you have no way of
> knowing whether the simulation is accurate or not.


To all of you R.A.P., R.A.I. and R.A.S. regulars out there that take up for
this little twit please read the above and rethink your position. If you
still think he asks logical questions and makes only reasoned statements
please list you name below.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> MSFS includes a glider. I have no glider experience so I cannot
> comment on its realism.


POST OF THE MONTH.

[Mark Hansen]

On 01/05/07 14:15, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> TxSrv writes:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Since you cannot test the real aircraft that high, you have no way of
>> knowing whether the simulation is accurate or not.
>
>
> To all of you R.A.P., R.A.I. and R.A.S. regulars out there that take up for
> this little twit please read the above and rethink your position. If you
> still think he asks logical questions and makes only reasoned statements
> please list you name below.
>
>


Well, I just laughed when I saw that statement. But, I've seen so may
like that from him that it's just the same old thing.

Still, it's been clear to me for some time that he's not here for
the exchange of information, but to disrupt this board (among other
things) - and he's keeps getting plenty of help ;-\

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.
>
>
> Not so. When an engine fails on a multi, a lot of rudder is required.
> Skillfully done, the application of a lot of rudder is mandatory to
> maintain the desired flight path.




Yep, thus changing the flight path from the centered position.

[Newps]

bdl wrote:


>
>
> Another case of where simulation doesn't match real life. By giving a
> visual approach clearance, separation rules change.

Separation does not change because visual approaches are in use. It
remains the same unless visual separation is used. This is independent
of any type of approach clearance.



A controller can
> funnel more airplanes into the approach. Otherwise he can't have more
> than one airplane on the approach at the same time.


Not even remotley true. You are mixing and matching rules.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>You still haven't listed one time when the rudder does not change flight
>>path.
>
>
> A forward slip.


BZZT, try again.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.
>
>
> Landing in a crosswind.


Steeeeeerike two.

[Alexey Goldin]

Amazing. Anyone knows about possibility for killfile in Google groups?


Mxsmanic wrote:
> Alexey Goldin writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> She could have accomplished the same without shouting or swearing.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[bdl]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> > You should "simulate" the look of fright from your wife sitting next to
> > you with a look of fear when you acknowledge keeping your speed up.
> > She's sitting over there imagining a jet that's going to ram you.
>
> I'm not married, nor do I simulate marriage.

It's a joke. Christ...

[bdl]

> Separation does not change because visual approaches are in use. It
> remains the same unless visual separation is used. This is independent
> of any type of approach clearance.

Thanks, I appreciate the correction.

[Rick Branch]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> B A R R Y writes:
>
>> I also have trouble believing very many real pilots would bother to
>> participate in that whole shebang.
>
> Many real pilots play with MSFS all the time.
>

A friend of mine is a pilot for an international cargo carrier, and he
does play with MSFS. He just loves to fly a 747 off of a grass strip
that is about half a mile from his (real) house. The grass strip is in
the MSFS database, so he uses it. (I guess it beats pretending to drive
to the airport.)

So, at least one professional pilot likes to _PLAY_ with MSFS.

[Peter Dohm]

> >> I also have trouble believing very many real pilots would bother to
> >> participate in that whole shebang.
> >
> > Many real pilots play with MSFS all the time.
> >
>
> A friend of mine is a pilot for an international cargo carrier, and he
> does play with MSFS. He just loves to fly a 747 off of a grass strip
> that is about half a mile from his (real) house. The grass strip is in
> the MSFS database, so he uses it. (I guess it beats pretending to drive
> to the airport.)
>
> So, at least one professional pilot likes to _PLAY_ with MSFS.

Could be amusing. Tthose sim engines are virtually imune to FOD; and the
wing tips can slice through trees like they were never there ... <bfg>

Peter

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Since you cannot test the real aircraft that high, you have no
> way of knowing whether the simulation is accurate or not.

Brilliant. How do we get there in the first place? What
limiters do you suppose in a normally-aspirated,
piston-engine A/C would prevent us? Barring extraordinary
ridge lift in winter-cold air, and maybe that would be
insufficient, how do we get to FL 300 like I've done in MSFS
in a 172? Possible only with slew. And what's that silly
MSFS phugoid thing all about in this rarefied air? It's
program code; not reality.

F--

[Buck Murdock]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ross writes:
>
> > Nope, this was the real multi million $ American Airline simulator in
> > Ft. Worth Texas at their training center. I do not suspect they you
> > MSFS.
>
> Sometimes it can be surprising what runs on the back end.

As someone who's been flying them every six months for a decade, and
*instructing* in them for several years, it wouldn't be surprising at
all. And as Mr. Space correctly points out, there's not so much as a
snippet of Microsoft code running those $12 MM simulators.

They run custom-designed simulator software, running on banks of
computers. They can communicate with the actual, physical avionics that
are the same as those installed in the aircraft. (Very, very different
from painting graphics on what amounts to a matte painting that looks
somewhat like a cockpit.) They also mimic the physical sensations,
which are *critical* in coming anywhere close to completely simulating
flight.

I've played MSFS, I've spent hundreds of hours in full-motion
simulators, and I've flown thousands of hours in transport aircraft.
Until you have done more than one of the above, you ARE NOT QUALIFIED to
make comparisons amongst them.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> And it's up to you to find it, not be spoonfed it.
>
> I was showing the insignificance of such statements.
>
And the result ended up with you showing your lack of
proaction and initiative. Like I said, no-one is going to spoonfeed you
things like this when they are asked commonly both in the real and
virtual world. In short, your question is an FAQ. The answers are
already posted in this and many other places. It is up to you to go
look for it. You're not on scholarship around here. you want to do what
those in the real world are doing? Read up and Study it. That's what
they do, that's how they learn it, that's how they do it.

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)

iD8DBQFFnugtyBkZmuMZ8L8RAlV4AJ44+7XgkZ7XlB7MqkfgGl ky5i5apgCdGIL0
3SHmMm/6ZiMMOXM1K5xqLu8=
=CFxH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Sam Spade > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> You can't S-turn at busy airline airports very often.

Depending. It's done commonly at LAS on the 25s. I agree, it
isn't done often, but it is done.

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)

iD8DBQFFnuhkyBkZmuMZ8L8RAqRjAKCVCZuS7s8bwMZTjEcmnR UtPhX90gCgqs4b
9/Fr7n/tJZX3uUgNjs6UQrs=
=+R5B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Sam Spade > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> That just isn't so. Jet aircraft are required to remain on, or above,
> the ILS G/S whether on an ILS approach or on a visual approach. At the
> company I worked for, failure to tune and identify the ILS for a visual
> approach to an ILS runway was a check-ride bust.

This would be a company policy, no? Because it could still be
done in any other aircraft outside your company.

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)

iD8DBQFFnukEyBkZmuMZ8L8RAv1XAKCfj+FajnHlCSUmibkiUn qoSwwTWACdG9B7
hbOiFPvSRrU9vjUr8YKRGHE=
=bsZe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Capt.Doug]

>"Mxsmanic" wrote in message > Do you often need a different altitude from
the one you filed?
> Perhaps for fuel considerations, or headwinds, or something?

Often times our actual weight will be slightly different from the flight
planned weight requiring 2000' up or down for fuel optimization. Turbulence
is another reason to change altitudes, sometimes 10000' or more. A 2000'
change in altitude usually doesn't make enough difference in headwinds to
justify the increased fuel burn of changing altitudes. Sometimes we are just
plain stuck at an inefficient altitude because of same direction traffic.

> So what do they say in this telephone call?

Along the lines of 'Now you know- don't do it again".

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

They are both important, however altitude leeway is +/-300' whereas airways
have .5 to 4 miles of leeway.

D.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
> 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.

Let's split hairs- I am aware of the Flying Tigers' accident. However,
'four' followed by 'twelve' is hard to confuse. 'four one two thousand'
doesn't make sense either. Professionals are admonished to be concise and
efficient in their transmissions. In that sense, and because Maniac did say
that he was already issued the crossing restriction, "Leaving FL290" would
be better.

D.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> I know they aren't stupid.

How do you know this?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Viperdoc" > wrote:

> While this thread is obviously degenerating to your base level of illogic
> and circular reasoning, I can tell you that your statement "anyone competent
> to flying can probably can land (an Extra) virtually blindfolded" is
> laughingly untrue.

Aww heck, landings are assured. Surviving the landing is a different matter

:-)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Sam Spade]

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>You can't S-turn at busy airline airports very often.
>
>
> Depending. It's done commonly at LAS on the 25s. I agree, it
> isn't done often, but it is done.

I guess we agree?

[Sam Spade]

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>That just isn't so. Jet aircraft are required to remain on, or above,
>>the ILS G/S whether on an ILS approach or on a visual approach. At the
>>company I worked for, failure to tune and identify the ILS for a visual
>>approach to an ILS runway was a check-ride bust.
>
>
> This would be a company policy, no? Because it could still be
> done in any other aircraft outside your company.

You must be another non-pilot?

91.129

A large or turbine-powered airplane approaching to land on a runway
served by an instrument landing system (ILS), if the airplane is ILS
equipped, shall fly that airplane at an altitude at or above the glide
slope between the outer marker (or point of interception of glide slope,
if compliance with the applicable distance from clouds criteria requires
interception closer in) and the middle marker; and
(3) An airplane approaching to land on a runway served by a visual
approach slope indicator shall maintain an altitude at or above the
glide slope until a lower altitude is necessary for a safe landing.
>

[Sam Spade]

Capt.Doug wrote:

>>"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.

Mode Control Panel

[Sam Spade]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Mxsmanic,
>
>
>>Which airline do you fly for, again?
>>
>
>
> Are you determined to make a complete idiot of yourself now? But I'm
> glad to see it is possible to penetrate that armor you've conveniently
> constructed around your sorry self.

Well stated, Tom.

I fell for this jerk in the beginning.

[Sam Spade]

Buck Murdock wrote:

> In article >,
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>
>>Ross writes:
>>
>>
>>>Nope, this was the real multi million $ American Airline simulator in
>>>Ft. Worth Texas at their training center. I do not suspect they you
>>>MSFS.
>>
>>Sometimes it can be surprising what runs on the back end.
>
>
> As someone who's been flying them every six months for a decade, and
> *instructing* in them for several years, it wouldn't be surprising at
> all. And as Mr. Space correctly points out, there's not so much as a
> snippet of Microsoft code running those $12 MM simulators.
>
> They run custom-designed simulator software, running on banks of
> computers. They can communicate with the actual, physical avionics that
> are the same as those installed in the aircraft. (Very, very different
> from painting graphics on what amounts to a matte painting that looks
> somewhat like a cockpit.) They also mimic the physical sensations,
> which are *critical* in coming anywhere close to completely simulating
> flight.
>
> I've played MSFS, I've spent hundreds of hours in full-motion
> simulators, and I've flown thousands of hours in transport aircraft.
> Until you have done more than one of the above, you ARE NOT QUALIFIED to
> make comparisons amongst them.

AMEN

And, it is Mr. Spade. ;-)

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not so. When an engine fails on a multi, a lot of rudder is required.
>> Skillfully done, the application of a lot of rudder is mandatory to
>> maintain the desired flight path.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yep, thus changing the flight path from the centered position.

That is pure b.s. It keeps the flight path intended going, rather than
letting if follow the flight path at the centered position, which is
also known as a torgue roll into intverted flight, followed by a briefly
painful death for all aboard.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not so. When an engine fails on a multi, a lot of rudder is required.
>> Skillfully done, the application of a lot of rudder is mandatory to
>> maintain the desired flight path.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yep, thus changing the flight path from the centered position.

Have a nice torque roll day.

[Newps]

It is common to ask any aircraft you need to give you some S turns.
More common at VFR towers.



Sam Spade wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
>>> A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That just isn't so. Jet aircraft are required to remain on, or
>>> above, the ILS G/S whether on an ILS approach or on a visual
>>> approach. At the company I worked for, failure to tune and identify
>>> the ILS for a visual approach to an ILS runway was a check-ride bust.
>>
>>
>>
>> This would be a company policy, no? Because it could still be
>> done in any other aircraft outside your company.
>
>
> You must be another non-pilot?
>
> 91.129
>
> A large or turbine-powered airplane approaching to land on a runway
> served by an instrument landing system (ILS), if the airplane is ILS
> equipped, shall fly that airplane at an altitude at or above the glide
> slope between the outer marker (or point of interception of glide slope,
> if compliance with the applicable distance from clouds criteria requires
> interception closer in) and the middle marker; and
> (3) An airplane approaching to land on a runway served by a visual
> approach slope indicator shall maintain an altitude at or above the
> glide slope until a lower altitude is necessary for a safe landing.
>
>>

[A Lieberma]

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> But that gets boring after a while since it's so damned easy to cook this
> ant.
> So I'm done.

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> And the result ended up with you showing your lack of
> proaction and initiative.

The result depends on the reader. It was deliberately ambiguous in
order to ensure this. The interpretation put upon it by the reader
can reveal much.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> That just isn't so. Jet aircraft are required to remain on, or above,
> the ILS G/S whether on an ILS approach or on a visual approach.

But doesn't one normally fly below the glide path in order to
intercept it?

> At the company I worked for, failure to tune and identify the ILS for a visual
> approach to an ILS runway was a check-ride bust.

So it's a company policy, but not a FAR. However, such a policy does
not surprise me. Why deprive oneself of the information from the ILS
just because it is a visual approach?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> You must be another non-pilot?
>
> 91.129
>
> A large or turbine-powered airplane approaching to land on a runway
> served by an instrument landing system (ILS), if the airplane is ILS
> equipped, shall fly that airplane at an altitude at or above the glide
> slope between the outer marker (or point of interception of glide slope,
> if compliance with the applicable distance from clouds criteria requires
> interception closer in) and the middle marker; and
> (3) An airplane approaching to land on a runway served by a visual
> approach slope indicator shall maintain an altitude at or above the
> glide slope until a lower altitude is necessary for a safe landing.

That regulation applies only to Class D airports.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Capt.Doug writes:

> They are both important, however altitude leeway is +/-300' whereas airways
> have .5 to 4 miles of leeway.

Three hundred feet seems generous for altitudes. I thought I read
somewhere that I was supposed to be within 100 feet, or was it 60
feet? Now I can't seem to find a specific tolerance in the FARs. Of
course this isn't normally a problem if I'm on autopilot, but when
flying by hand I still have trouble holding an altitude.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> In those $10 million simulators it sure as Hell ain't windows.

I don't know, as I don't have any specs in front of me, but Windows
might well be used for certain functions, as it would lower
implementation costs if the OS is suitable for the purpose (writing a
custom operating system is very expensive). If the actual simulation
software is custom-written, I'd expect something a bit more efficient,
like a bare-bones UNIX system, or a dedicated real-time OS. But one
cannot use just anything, because the more exotic the OS, the more
expensive the development carried out for it.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Buck Murdock writes:

> Until you have done more than one of the above, you ARE NOT QUALIFIED to
> make comparisons amongst them.

Qualifications on USENET are never certain.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Rick Branch writes:

> A friend of mine is a pilot for an international cargo carrier, and he
> does play with MSFS. He just loves to fly a 747 off of a grass strip
> that is about half a mile from his (real) house. The grass strip is in
> the MSFS database, so he uses it. (I guess it beats pretending to drive
> to the airport.)

I didn't think that 747s could be used with grass strips. I know some
other airliners can be used on unpaved strips, although it may require
special option packages.

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

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> Brilliant. How do we get there in the first place?

If it's above the ceiling of the aircraft, you don't.

> Barring extraordinary
> ridge lift in winter-cold air, and maybe that would be
> insufficient, how do we get to FL 300 like I've done in MSFS
> in a 172?

You don't.

The point is that, since you cannot test the real aircraft at that
altitude, you don't really know how it would behave. And so you don't
necessarily know if the simulation is accurate or not. Simulation
allows you to magically place the aircraft at that altitude. In real
life, you'd have to climb to that altitude. The only exception might
be a drop from a larger aircraft, which would indeed allow you to test
it at high altitudes. It's hard to see any use for that, however,
beyond satisfaction of curiosity.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> BZZT, try again.

Which flight path is followed in a forward slip?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> Steeeeeerike two.

Why? The intended flight path is aligned with the centerline of the
runway, and in fact that is the flight path followed; there is no
deviation.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> The King Air, on autopilot, will not maintain the set vertical speed if
> the IAS drops below 120 knots or so. It will nose-dive and crash. Not
> so with a real King Air.

Does the King Air allow you to set a vertical speed? What happens on
the real aircraft?

> Cross winds on autopilot are not handled correctly on an RNAV approach.

Which autopilot? What does it do incorrectly?

> Strong winds aloft dramatically affect IAS in a holding pattern, which
> is wrong beyond belief.

I'll have to look.

> That is my short list.

I don't recall ever flying the King Air, but I'll try to remember to
look at the other things the next time the opportunity arises.

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

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Sam Spade > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>
>>
>> This would be a company policy, no? Because it could still be
>> done in any other aircraft outside your company.
>
> You must be another non-pilot?

Right now, no. I'm working on that. doing all the studying I
can and taking notes from you who already are pilots before taking the
plunge myself. I want to be ready before I take that step.

> 91.129
>
> A large or turbine-powered airplane approaching to land on a runway
> served by an instrument landing system (ILS), if the airplane is ILS
> equipped, shall fly that airplane at an altitude at or above the glide
> slope between the outer marker (or point of interception of glide slope,
> if compliance with the applicable distance from clouds criteria requires
> interception closer in) and the middle marker; and
> (3) An airplane approaching to land on a runway served by a visual
> approach slope indicator shall maintain an altitude at or above the
> glide slope until a lower altitude is necessary for a safe landing.
>>

I understand now. I was more familiar with the .65 than the
FARs. Thank you for the enlightenment.

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)

iD8DBQFFn0d5yBkZmuMZ8L8RAsPnAKDW6Rh51rT87+3Sm5snUp h5RaOj4ACdH8aF
6n7O8d2g4dtC7Mtg2fvXBj0=
=VJlq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>> That just isn't so. Jet aircraft are required to remain on, or above,
>> the ILS G/S whether on an ILS approach or on a visual approach.
>
> But doesn't one normally fly below the glide path in order to
> intercept it?

Depends. There are times when you pick up the glideslope at or
a bit above the appropriate altitude before it is totally intercepted.
Case in point: ILS 25L and 24R at LAX, ILS 25L at Vegas.

>> At the company I worked for, failure to tune and identify the ILS for a visual
>> approach to an ILS runway was a check-ride bust.
>
> So it's a company policy, but not a FAR. However, such a policy does
> not surprise me. Why deprive oneself of the information from the ILS
> just because it is a visual approach?
>
You really don't get it.

No-one is depriving anyone from the readouts an ILS approach
has. Because you're on a visual approach however, it is the pilot's
responsibility for separation, not ATC's. ATC can tell you to join the
runway localizer and track it inbound, but still to expect a visual
approach.

Just because an airport has a runway with an instrument
approach does not always mean you will use that runway. Like I said
before.. I'd hate to see how you'd get into some place like LAS when
the 19s and 7s are in use, or PSP when the 13s are in use.

Let me ask this.. Granted, you will have more issues to deal
with when/if it happens, but what would you do if you were on approach
to an airport, and you lost your entire panel? According to your very
post above, you'd be deprived of your precious ILS.. I hope you know
how to land a plane without anything.

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)

iD8DBQFFn0ouyBkZmuMZ8L8RAoEhAKCyUWd0jhOzy8Vs6epbuP bFboptpgCgtU2A
pqlzJGxUDPTkoswCaSlpxKU=
=DYAi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> Depends. There are times when you pick up the glideslope at or
> a bit above the appropriate altitude before it is totally intercepted.
> Case in point: ILS 25L and 24R at LAX, ILS 25L at Vegas.

It must be awkward, since the glide slope constantly descends, and
you'd have to chase it downward.

I also seem to recall reading that some autopilot systems will only
capture correctly from beneath. They expect the glide path to descend
towards them. I haven't tested this in simulation, and of course
there's no guarantee that the simulation would be accurate on such a
small detail, but I'll have to try it sometime.

> ATC can tell you to join the
> runway localizer and track it inbound, but still to expect a visual
> approach.

I haven't heard that. I'll have to listen for it.

> Just because an airport has a runway with an instrument
> approach does not always mean you will use that runway. Like I said
> before.. I'd hate to see how you'd get into some place like LAS when
> the 19s and 7s are in use, or PSP when the 13s are in use.

It hasn't happened to me thus far.

> Let me ask this.. Granted, you will have more issues to deal
> with when/if it happens, but what would you do if you were on approach
> to an airport, and you lost your entire panel? According to your very
> post above, you'd be deprived of your precious ILS.. I hope you know
> how to land a plane without anything.

In VMC, I'd continue visually. In IMC, I'd have to find a place where
I could land visually. It depends on exactly which instruments I've
lost. If I have nothing at all and I'm in IMC, the outlook is grim.
In VMC, it would be challenging but doable.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Since you've never flown a real aircraft AT ALL, you have no way of
> knowing whether the simulation is accurate or not.

The real aircraft cannot climb to that altitude, so _nobody_ knows
whether the simulation is accurate or not.

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

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Three hundred feet seems generous for altitudes. I thought I read
> somewhere that I was supposed to be within 100 feet, or was it 60
> feet? Now I can't seem to find a specific tolerance in the FARs. Of
> course this isn't normally a problem if I'm on autopilot, but when
> flying by hand I still have trouble holding an altitude.

Autopilot does work quite well in MSFS, really. In real
flight under IFR, the bounds of permissible altitude
deviation as seen by ATC via our Mode C squawks are derived
from published FAA documents, not the FARs. Google is fun;
site:www.faa.gov. Knock yourself out. I also can hold
altitude quite well within 10's of feet in a real
no-autopilot airplane in even raucous meteorological
conditions. Years of MSFS sim weenie experience taught me
how, I must admit.

F--

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> The real aircraft cannot climb to that altitude, so _nobody_ knows
> whether the simulation is accurate or not.

You are missing the point that MSFS does not model, nor need
it for the vast majority of sensible users, the forced
(slewed) behavior of a 172 in the high flight levels be
real. Any real pilot, who knows the feel/behavior of a 172
class airplane near sea level, verses say 12,000 feet, and
who understands the aerodynamics involved and the effect of
limited HP in really rarefied air, need not be a "rocket
surgeon" to be able to accurately extrapolate.

F--

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> What happens on the real aircraft?

They crash. Real airplanes easily crash, despite what even
a King Air pilot I know well tells me. Not exactly a
pussycat, but a solid, predictable machine. Heck, he's just
a "blowhard," to use your word. Please also ignore any
alleged pilot here who tells you anything. The Microsoft
Games Development Team are the real gurus; I though we
stipulated that hundreds of posts ago.

F--

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

> It is common to ask any aircraft you need to give you some S turns. More
> common at VFR towers.

I understand that. But, it is very uncommon at major air carrier
airports because turns quickly compromise operations on adjacent, often
closely spaced runways.

The context of the OP was that type of airport.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>You must be another non-pilot?
>>
>>91.129
>>
>>A large or turbine-powered airplane approaching to land on a runway
>>served by an instrument landing system (ILS), if the airplane is ILS
>>equipped, shall fly that airplane at an altitude at or above the glide
>>slope between the outer marker (or point of interception of glide slope,
>>if compliance with the applicable distance from clouds criteria requires
>>interception closer in) and the middle marker; and
>>(3) An airplane approaching to land on a runway served by a visual
>>approach slope indicator shall maintain an altitude at or above the
>>glide slope until a lower altitude is necessary for a safe landing.
>
>
> That regulation applies only to Class D airports.
>
Virtually all aircraft that can autoland operate only into Class D airports.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>That just isn't so. Jet aircraft are required to remain on, or above,
>>the ILS G/S whether on an ILS approach or on a visual approach.
>
>
> But doesn't one normally fly below the glide path in order to
> intercept it?
>
>
>>At the company I worked for, failure to tune and identify the ILS for a visual
>>approach to an ILS runway was a check-ride bust.
>
>
> So it's a company policy, but not a FAR. However, such a policy does
> not surprise me. Why deprive oneself of the information from the ILS
> just because it is a visual approach?
>
The FAR requires remaining on or above the glideslope. It is very
difficult to comply with the regulation without tuning and identifying
the ILS. It probably is company policy at most, if not all, airlines.

Company policies are established to assure compliance with regulations
that might otherwise be overlooked.

So, the say it is a company policy for other than FAR compliance would
be quite mistaken.

Further, I suspect FAA operations inspectors get all over any airline
that does not have this policy.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Buck Murdock writes:
>
>
>>Until you have done more than one of the above, you ARE NOT QUALIFIED to
>>make comparisons amongst them.
>
>
> Qualifications on USENET are never certain.
>
You think I am making up the knowledge I have about air carrier operations?

You could learn from someone like me, instead you would rather be
arrogant and defend your lack of knowledge as being what it is most
certainly not.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>The King Air, on autopilot, will not maintain the set vertical speed if
>>the IAS drops below 120 knots or so. It will nose-dive and crash. Not
>>so with a real King Air.
>
>
> Does the King Air allow you to set a vertical speed? What happens on
> the real aircraft?
>
>
>>Cross winds on autopilot are not handled correctly on an RNAV approach.
>
>
> Which autopilot? What does it do incorrectly?
>
>
>>Strong winds aloft dramatically affect IAS in a holding pattern, which
>>is wrong beyond belief.
>
>
> I'll have to look.
>
>
>>That is my short list.
>
>
> I don't recall ever flying the King Air, but I'll try to remember to
> look at the other things the next time the opportunity arises.
>
Again, you're handicaped because you have no experience in comperable
aircraft.

You are a total waste of time.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> Virtually all aircraft that can autoland operate only into Class D airports.

That would mean that all the largest and most expensive aircraft
(which are generally equipped with autoland) avoid all the largest and
most complex airports in the United States (which are generally Class
B or Class C), which is exactly the opposite of reality.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> You think I am making up the knowledge I have about air carrier
> operations?

I don't know. But I'm certain that many people make up many things on
USENET, and I know better than to believe whatever I'm told.

When someone tells me that most of the autoland-enabled aircraft are
landing only at Class D airports, I start to wonder.

> You could learn from someone like me, instead you would rather be
> arrogant and defend your lack of knowledge as being what it is most
> certainly not.

I see a lot of anomalies, and it makes me wary. See, despite what
people claim, I _do_ consult other sources, and if they conflict with
what people tell me here, it raises a lot of questions in my mind
about who is correct.

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