ATC questions
Didier Chesto
concentrating on the _build_ of my cockpit. As it progresses [1] it becomes
more serious to fly it. Hence I have a few questions on MSFS2004's ATC
combined with FMC programming. I've studied the Angle of Attack 747
training [2] so I have a pretty good idea of the official procedures. I
tried EHAM-EDDF today but most of the problems arise on other routes as
well.
- Take off runway.
Officially, you program the FMC at the gate. You need to know the runway
number where to take off. When you're ready, you ask taxi clearance. FS2004
ATC only gives you the runway number in the taxi clearance however.
Delivery doesn't mention the runway. Is there another way?
- SID for the runway assigned.
The flight planner took me to PAM and ATC assigned runway 9. But there's no
SID for PAM, not in the FMC and not in the charts. I must say, the most
recent chart I could find was 20 oct 06 but my FMC is updated every month.
- Ascent clearance.
Let's say you have clearance for 6000ft. When you're there, you get
clearance for 12000. But ATC first lets your autopilot level out at 6000
and then gives the next clearance. For a smooth climb, it would be nicer if
they say it 500ft in advance. Is this like in real life?
- STAR
About 40-60 DME out, you get your landing runway. You select that runway in
the FMC and it presents the STARS for that runway. I find it very hard to
select the right one. In a demo (on FSWeekend) a real life pilot sayed
'just pick the one that corresponds with a waypoint on your route'. But I
can never find one. If I do select one, it gives a very ackward route on
the FMC, often it adds dozens of waypoints that seem to take you across the
area in no logical way. On top of that, ATC vectors you in a complete
different way. What is the point of STARs anyway if ATC vectors you?
- Charts/frequencies/add-ons
For some airports I have add-ons and for some I don't. I look for free
charts on the internet but they're not always actual. Sometimes I find the
ILS frequency doesn't correspond with... well with what? How do I know if
the chart is wrong, the default airport is wrong, the add-on is wrong or
the navdate for my FMC is wrong? The annoying part is that you only find it
out during your flight. Is there a way to check it in advance?
- Traffic
When you select traffic on the EFIS, you see white diamonds that represent
other aircraft. What does the +28, -200 etcetera mean? Am I correct if this
is 2800 feet higher and 20.000 feet lower than me?
[1] latest status:
http://www.mycockpit.org/forums/album.php?albumid=77&pictureid=403
[2] I don't use project magenta or PMDG but flightdecksoftware.com
--
Everything I do is either illegal, immoral, or fattening.
(W.C. Fields)
TOCA
"Didier Chesto" <yesyesdeardear.per...@be.even.now> skrev i
meddelelsen news:s4dov4om0w9h.13t6jr1lva7fn$.dlg@40tude.net...
> Hi all, I've not been so active here lately because I've been very busy
> concentrating on the _build_ of my cockpit. As it progresses [1] it
> becomes
> more serious to fly it. Hence I have a few questions on MSFS2004's ATC
> combined with FMC programming. I've studied the Angle of Attack 747
> training [2] so I have a pretty good idea of the official procedures. I
> tried EHAM-EDDF today but most of the problems arise on other routes as
> well.
>
> - Ascent clearance.
> Let's say you have clearance for 6000ft. When you're there, you get
> clearance for 12000. But ATC first lets your autopilot level out at 6000
> and then gives the next clearance. For a smooth climb, it would be nicer
> if
> they say it 500ft in advance. Is this like in real life?
>
I'll stick to the one I know a little bit about.
IRL they would tell you to climb to the first altitude, but add "Expect
XXXXX", if you have filed for FL200 in a big iron, they most likely would
not ask you to start at 6000ft, but send you directly above 10.000, where
yoy can gain some speed for the next step upwards, however weather and
traffic conditions may influence.
IRL, ATC knows that those big'uns has to get up where they belong, as soon
as possible, or they will not have enough fuel to reach the destination, so
generally they are lead to their cruise altitude straight away, but in the
sim, ATC is made for GA traffic, which is why you more often than not are
only cleared for altitudes lower than 10.000ft after TO, and are getting all
thos small steps durring the climb, and for some odd reason they are not
clearing you for the next step untill you are only 200 ft from reaching the
last asigned alt., just like they are not starting to deccent untill you are
about 50nm from the airport, no matter what you are flying, they are set for
the speed and deccent rate of the Boeing 737 at FL200.
What I do to cope with FS ATC is to decrese the climb rate to 1800ft/min
about 1000ft before reaching the asigned alt, to give them time to call and
clear me for the next step, and when I'm arriving in a fast A/C at high alt.
I start asking for lower alt. way in adwance, in order to be at or below
FL200 when I reach that 50nm distance, and makes sure to have slowed down to
less than 330KIAS (250 in the Concorde). Those two tricks makes most climbs
and landings rather smooth, or as smooth as ATC allows them to be :o)
Tommy C, Denmark
Iain Smith
> Hi all, I've not been so active here lately because I've been very busy
> concentrating on the _build_ of my cockpit. As it progresses [1] it becomes
> more serious to fly it. Hence I have a few questions on MSFS2004's ATC
> combined with FMC programming.
Didier, if you want more realistic ATC and, like me, you don't want to
go the VATSIM way then you need Radar Contact. Have a look at their
website but bear in mind that a new version, v5, is due out in the next
12 to 18 months.
I've been using it for nearly four years now and would never go back to
default FS ATC.
Iain
Rugby, UK
Tom P
> Hi all, I've not been so active here lately because I've been very busy
> concentrating on the _build_ of my cockpit. As it progresses [1] it becomes
> more serious to fly it. Hence I have a few questions on MSFS2004's ATC
> combined with FMC programming. I've studied the Angle of Attack 747
> training [2] so I have a pretty good idea of the official procedures. I
> tried EHAM-EDDF today but most of the problems arise on other routes as
> well.
>
> - Take off runway.
> Officially, you program the FMC at the gate. You need to know the runway
> number where to take off. When you're ready, you ask taxi clearance. FS2004
> ATC only gives you the runway number in the taxi clearance however.
> Delivery doesn't mention the runway. Is there another way?
>
get the DP (or SID) after taxi clearance. Maybe Microsoft uses this
procedure.
> - SID for the runway assigned.
> The flight planner took me to PAM and ATC assigned runway 9. But there's no
> SID for PAM, not in the FMC and not in the charts. I must say, the most
> recent chart I could find was 20 oct 06 but my FMC is updated every month.
>
the realistic departure from RWY9 for EDDF is either ARNEM1N or LOPIK1N.
> - Ascent clearance.
> Let's say you have clearance for 6000ft. When you're there, you get
> clearance for 12000. But ATC first lets your autopilot level out at 6000
> and then gives the next clearance. For a smooth climb, it would be nicer if
> they say it 500ft in advance. Is this like in real life?
>
IRL At our local airport the pilot contacts DEP when airborne and
usually gets clearance to some level like FL110 or FL120.
> - STAR
> About 40-60 DME out, you get your landing runway. You select that runway in
> the FMC and it presents the STARS for that runway. I find it very hard to
> select the right one. In a demo (on FSWeekend) a real life pilot sayed
> 'just pick the one that corresponds with a waypoint on your route'. But I
> can never find one. If I do select one, it gives a very ackward route on
> the FMC, often it adds dozens of waypoints that seem to take you across the
> area in no logical way.
Sometimes the waypoints programmed in the STAR duplicate the ones on the
route. You just have to spend time checking the arrival legs and edit
out the duplicates. It's true that for some airports it's hard to figure
out which STARs are appropriate. That's when you need to look at the
charts in advance.
But then you have lots of time during the cruise phase to do all this,
right? <G>
On top of that, ATC vectors you in a complete
> different way. What is the point of STARs anyway if ATC vectors you?
>
IIUC STARS save ATC and pilots a lot of work. It means that ATC does NOT
have vector you all the way. You just get a clearance to follow the
STAR. If you're talking about Microsoft ATC, well that's a different
story of course.
> - Charts/frequencies/add-ons
> For some airports I have add-ons and for some I don't. I look for free
> charts on the internet but they're not always actual.
All the RW up-to-date charts for the whole of Europe can be found at
ead.eurocontrol.int. Just register and enjoy.
Sometimes I find the
> ILS frequency doesn't correspond with... well with what? How do I know if
> the chart is wrong, the default airport is wrong, the add-on is wrong or
> the navdate for my FMC is wrong? The annoying part is that you only find it
> out during your flight. Is there a way to check it in advance?
>
Good question. I guess you could position your plane at the destination
and check if the ILS is there. I've only had very few problems of this
sort - EIDW occurs to me.
Didier Chesto
Thx Tommy, I'll try that!
Didier Chesto
Thnx for the tip. Eventually I'll be using VATSIM or IVAO but I'm not ready
for that yet. So much to do at the sim with almost everything being top
priority.
Didier Chesto
>> - STAR
>> About 40-60 DME out, you get your landing runway. You select that runway in
>> the FMC and it presents the STARS for that runway. I find it very hard to
>> select the right one. In a demo (on FSWeekend) a real life pilot sayed
>> 'just pick the one that corresponds with a waypoint on your route'. But I
>> can never find one. If I do select one, it gives a very ackward route on
>> the FMC, often it adds dozens of waypoints that seem to take you across the
>> area in no logical way.
> Sometimes the waypoints programmed in the STAR duplicate the ones on the
> route. You just have to spend time checking the arrival legs and edit
> out the duplicates. It's true that for some airports it's hard to figure
> out which STARs are appropriate. That's when you need to look at the
> charts in advance.
> But then you have lots of time during the cruise phase to do all this,
> right? <G>
>
> On top of that, ATC vectors you in a complete
>> different way. What is the point of STARs anyway if ATC vectors you?
>>
> IIUC STARS save ATC and pilots a lot of work. It means that ATC does NOT
> have vector you all the way. You just get a clearance to follow the
> STAR. If you're talking about Microsoft ATC, well that's a different
> story of course.
Ok so you get clearance for a STAR. That's logical and it's realistic to
study the possible STARS during cruise. Especially when the procedures
become more natural. I find it hard to fly the sim on my own by the way.
Mostly I have a fellow builder that flies with me and it's really a job to
do together when you want to stick to all official procedures.
Didier Chesto
You need to put the wwwwwwwwwwwuh in front of the ead but I'm not sure if
you need to put the huttuttupuh in front of the wwwwwwwwwwwwwwuh. The Phone
Jacker knows more about this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvPTaYGPBS8 (1:20)
Walter Mitty II
<yesyesdeardear.per...@be.even.now> wrote:
>Op Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:07:10 +0100 schreef Tom P:
>
>> ead.eurocontrol.int
>
>You need to put the wwwwwwwwwwwuh in front of the ead but I'm not sure if
>you need to put the huttuttupuh in front of the wwwwwwwwwwwwwwuh. The Phone
>Jacker knows more about this.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvPTaYGPBS8 (1:20)
ROFLGO
Walt
* * *
email: waltK...@live.com
(Replace "K5J4H3K" with "mitty")
Tom P
yyyuuupp the wwwwwwwwh does the tttrriiiccckkk
Didier Chesto
> ROFLGO
"How du yu spel th�t?"
fat_boy
First up, the inbuilt ATC doesnt know about SIDs and STARs. It is therefore
difficult to use both in a flight. There are a few ways that you can try to
integrate both, but there are no guarantees that it will work. Please read
on to see my answers to your various questions.
"Didier Chesto" <yesyesdeardear.per...@be.even.now> wrote in
message news:s4dov4om0w9h.13t6jr1lva7fn$.dlg@40tude.net...
> Hi all, I've not been so active here lately because I've been very busy
> concentrating on the _build_ of my cockpit. As it progresses [1] it
> becomes
> more serious to fly it. Hence I have a few questions on MSFS2004's ATC
> combined with FMC programming. I've studied the Angle of Attack 747
> training [2] so I have a pretty good idea of the official procedures. I
> tried EHAM-EDDF today but most of the problems arise on other routes as
> well.
>
> - Take off runway.
> Officially, you program the FMC at the gate. You need to know the runway
> number where to take off. When you're ready, you ask taxi clearance.
> FS2004
> ATC only gives you the runway number in the taxi clearance however.
> Delivery doesn't mention the runway. Is there another way?
You dont mention which aircraft/FMC you are using. Personally I would
programme a DISCO in the FMC so that I could have two or more SIDs in my
route, When ATC confirmed the SID I could delete the portion of the route
that no longer applied. ( A DISCO is a discontinuity ) I would also
programme the waypoints for the SID by hand rather than loading up a pre
built one in the FMC. This does mean that you have to find charts before the
flight. Also please bear in mind what I said at the start. The ATC in FS2004
doesnt make allowance for SIDs. If you must use the inbuilt ATC, then you
have to be prepared to be sent en route before completing the SID. Same
thing applies for the STAR, which I will cover more later. In essence, when
using FS ATC you might want to try inputting only a couple of the SID way
points in the FMC rather than trying to fly the whole SID.
>
> - SID for the runway assigned.
> The flight planner took me to PAM and ATC assigned runway 9. But there's
> no
> SID for PAM, not in the FMC and not in the charts. I must say, the most
> recent chart I could find was 20 oct 06 but my FMC is updated every month.
EHAM is possibly not the best airport to fly from when trying to do what you
are. With so many runways and SIDs, it is almost impossible for you and FS
to get it right. It might be better to choose an airport and wind direction
such that it is obvious which runway you will be using.
Reducing the variables will help whilst you are learning how to best work
with FS ATC and still fly some parts of your SIDs and STARs.
>
> - Ascent clearance.
> Let's say you have clearance for 6000ft. When you're there, you get
> clearance for 12000. But ATC first lets your autopilot level out at 6000
> and then gives the next clearance. For a smooth climb, it would be nicer
> if
> they say it 500ft in advance. Is this like in real life?
That all depends on where you are, how busy it is, what aircraft you are
flying and the controller etc. E.G. some controllers might say " no speed"
which means no speed restrictions below 10,000 feet. As mentioned in another
reply, ATC often want the heavies up high and fast. In the case of the
earlier 747's, they simply didnt like flying at slower speeds, pilots would
request and usually expect "no speed"
As for stepped climbs, some SIDs work like that. You have to stay below a
certain altitude until you pass a waypoint, or until cleared to a higher
alt. Again IRL you can request a higher alt, but dont expect it. As for the
SIM, if memory serves you can request a higher altitude. I cant recall, but
maybe you can file a lower alt in the plan and then request higher altitudes
along the way ? Also determine if you are looking for best angle of climb,
or best rate of climb ?
Finally, whatever rate of climb you have set, start reducing it when you are
say within 1000 feet of your assigned altitude. Hopefully this should reduce
the amount of time you have to stay at that altitude before FS ATC clear you
higher.
>
> - STAR
> About 40-60 DME out, you get your landing runway. You select that runway
> in
> the FMC and it presents the STARS for that runway. I find it very hard to
> select the right one. In a demo (on FSWeekend) a real life pilot sayed
> 'just pick the one that corresponds with a waypoint on your route'. But I
> can never find one. If I do select one, it gives a very ackward route onn
> the FMC, often it adds dozens of waypoints that seem to take you across
> the
> area in no logical way.
IRL STARs are designed largely based on the direction an aircraft will be
approaching from. Again, not knowing which FMC you are using, it is hard to
imagine what kind of STARs it will produce for you. In theory they should
all be similar, but in practise they are not so. Here in the UK we have
something called the UK SRD ( Standard route document.) This covers any
route within or across UK airpsace. It tells us what SIDs and STARs to use
from/to any UK airport, plus to/from all waypoints that are on the edge of
UK airspace. It is very useful for sim flying too. For example, say I want
to fly from EDDF to EGGB (Birmingham). I would load up the planner in the
sim. Choose departure airport and destination, and pick a direct route. Then
I would scroll the map to see where the route crossed UK airspace. It might
be somewhere like RAPIX, or KONAN, or XAMAL. Lets say RAPIX is closest, use
the UK SRD to work out the UK portion of the route. It will give you
something like RAPIX -> LAM -> HEMEL -> BUZAD -> GROVE1C where grove 1c is
the star. Now go back to the map and enter these waypoints by dragging and
dropping the line on them.( And put them into the FMC.) Thats one half of
the plan in. Now go to the departure airport in the map and look at the
waypoints that are close to our original straight line plan. If your FMC is
any good, you should be able to call up the SIDs to compare them, i.e. see
which ones are westerly departures, and close to one of the waypoints in the
FS plan. Hope that all makes sense. When you have done this a few times, you
will think about giving up on the FS atc because it doesnt take any real
life planning like this into account, or it doesnt seem to.
There are other routing guides for other parts of Europe. You will have to
do a bit of research Im afraid.
On top of that, ATC vectors you in a complete
> different way. What is the point of STARs anyway if ATC vectors you?
IRL, or at least here in the UK, stars end in a hold. You are cleared to the
entry point for that star. Both you and ATC know where you are going from
there on, with you hoping that ATC will come back and vector you to the
runway rather than having to hold. Once you have received vectors, you
forget the STAR and listen to ATC. The sim is a bit like that ;-))
> - Charts/frequencies/add-
> For some airports I have add-ons and for some I don't. I look for free
> charts on the internet but they're not always actual. Sometimes I find the
> ILS frequency doesn't correspond with... well with what? How do I know if
> the chart is wrong, the default airport is wrong, the add-on is wrong or
> the navdate for my FMC is wrong? The annoying part is that you only find
> it
> out during your flight. Is there a way to check it in advance?
I cant answer this one, sorry.
>
> - Traffic
> When you select traffic on the EFIS, you see white diamonds that represent
> other aircraft. What does the +28, -200 etcetera mean? Am I correct if
> this
> is 2800 feet higher and 20.000 feet lower than me?
Yes.
>
> [1] latest status:
> http://www.mycockpit.org/forums/album.php?albumid=77&pictureid=403
> [2] I don't use project magenta or PMDG but flightdecksoftware.com
> --
> Everything I do is either illegal, immoral, or fattening.
> (W.C. Fields)
It wouldnt let me see your page. Or I wasnt prepared to join another web
site ;-)
Chris
Iain Smith
> If you must use the inbuilt ATC, then you have to be prepared to be sent en route before completing the SID. Same
> thing applies for the STAR,
Actually many RL pilots will tell you that is what often happens in real
life. ATC is more concerned about operational requirements than which
SID or STAR you have in your FMC. :-)
Iain
Rugby, UK
Didier Chesto
> Hello Didier
[...]
Hi Chris, thanks for your extensive explanation, obviously from real life
experience. That's what I like about flight simming, the interest of real
pilots. Actually, I have a simulator trainer trainer (yes that's somebody
that trains simulator trainers) coming over to take a look at my sim. I'm
nervous already :-)
> It wouldnt let me see your page. Or I wasnt prepared to join another web
> site ;-)
I'm sorry, I didn't realise it was for members only. Here's another pic of
my sim. This answers your question about which plane I use.
fat_boy
"Iain Smith" <iaindotsmithdotrugby@atbtinternetdotcom> wrote in message
news:sPidneInsPP2mp7W...@bt.com...
Thanks and agreed
Rgds,
Chris
MikeW
>
> I'm sorry, I didn't realise it was for members only. Here's another
> pic of my sim. This answers your question about which plane I use.
>
> http://tinypic.com/r/1g2ah0/6
What? No yoke for the co-pilot! That's a bit mean isn't it Didier. :-)
That is one fantastic set-up you have there, but before I buy one, I will
need a bigger house! :-)
--
MikeW
Shrewsbury, UK
Flying is the perfect vocation for a man who wants to feel like a boy, but
not for one who still is.
fat_boy
"Didier Chesto" <yesyesdeardear.per...@be.even.now> wrote in
Hi again,
The cockpit is looking good.
Truth is I only have limited experience of being up front IRL but when I was
heavily into flight simming, I spoke to a lot of RL pilots and did some
extensive research/reading. I also flew with a VA that had some very
knowledgeable pilots. ( Including one or two RL.) Some people at that VA
prided themselves on their attempts to replicate real life procs etc.
We also had a good real life ATCO, plus a wannabe pilot who is now I believe
a dispatcher for an airline, another guy who has been working on aircraft
for years etc. Incidentally, one of the main guys there lives not far from
Frankfurt if memory serves.
Keep up the good work.
Rgds,
Chris
BTW, if English isn't your first language, you speak it very well.
Loek
Did you visit the FS weekend in EHLE? We missed each other in that case....
Loek
"Didier Chesto" <yesyesdeardear.per...@be.even.now> schreef
in bericht news:s4dov4om0w9h.13t6jr1lva7fn$.dlg@40tude.net...
Iain Smith
>
> I'm sorry, I didn't realise it was for members only. Here's another pic of
> my sim. This answers your question about which plane I use.
>
> http://tinypic.com/r/1g2ah0/6
>
That is an amazing set-up, Didier! Talk about immersion factor, one
could get totally absorbed with that. Not wishing to be nosey but I'm
just curious - roughly how much did it cost you?
Iain
Rugby, UK
Didier Chesto
Thanks for the compliment. It cost roughly EUR 5000 so far. The most
expensive part to come is the throttle, which is around EUR 2400 when they
are servo controlled (so they move with the autothrottle). Building one
myself is an option but that takes a loooooot of time. I estimate the total
sim around 15.000 when it includes the pedestal, yokes, chairs and
overhead. Hope to have that late 2010. Maybe I go for a shell and motion
platform after that but I also need more space then.
Didier Chesto
> Didier,
>
> Did you visit the FS weekend in EHLE? We missed each other in that case....
>
> Loek
Yep I was there on Sunday. There was a dinner with about 30 cockpit
builders and suppliers from all over the world on Saturday but I couldn't
make it.
Didier Chesto
> Didier Chesto wrote:
>>
>> I'm sorry, I didn't realise it was for members only. Here's another
>> pic of my sim. This answers your question about which plane I use.
>>
>> http://tinypic.com/r/1g2ah0/6
>
> What? No yoke for the co-pilot! That's a bit mean isn't it Didier. :-)
:-) Guess what, we're planning to make a dual linked yoke out of heater
pipe. Connected under the platform, attach a universal game controller and
there we go. Some gutter pipe (grey and in the right color) as enclosure of
the control columns. The only thing I'll buy is the yoke itself (I mean the
'steering wheel' part). They are for sale as replica's for around EUR 100.
Didier Chesto
Thnx ;-)
Dallas
> Thanks for the compliment. It cost roughly EUR 5000 so far.
Very cool.. is this going to be for personal use or do you plan to sell
some time in it?
--
Dallas
Tom Duhamel
> What? No yoke for the co-pilot! That's a bit mean isn't it Didier. :-)
And he better not make comments about how you fly!! :P
Tom Duhamel
> - Charts/frequencies/add-ons
> For some airports I have add-ons and for some I don't. I look for free
> charts on the internet but they're not always actual. Sometimes I find the
> ILS frequency doesn't correspond with... well with what? How do I know if
> the chart is wrong, the default airport is wrong, the add-on is wrong or
> the navdate for my FMC is wrong? The annoying part is that you only find it
> out during your flight. Is there a way to check it in advance?
I use FS9. I'm not RL pilot, just simmer.
I have few add-ons, but when I install one it's usually so that my sim
looks good and realistic, not usually to make things actual (as in
'present'). It's ok if that airport I want to go to is accurate at some
point in time but is not currently actual, I will never fly there for
real anyway. For this reason, I'm not looking for charts that are
current, but rather for charts which I can use for the airport as
represented in the sim. I have charts which are dated 2004 or 2006, and
I'm fine with them as they represent what I'm going to see in the sim
when I arrive there.
One example, my local airport (CYSC) has RW 13-31 now, but in 2004 (when
FS 9 came out) it was 14-32. I have an older chart, but it matches the
printing on the RW in the sim, so I don't get any surprise when I
approach. (Not that such a change makes a huge difference, one degree is
not going to make you land off the runway.)
Hope you get my point,
Tom :)
Didier Chesto
Primarily it's for fun.
TOCA
"Didier Chesto" <yesyesdeardear.per...@be.even.now> skrev i
meddelelsen news:kl04qhs71vzh.1630p5zb22jp6$.dlg@40tude.net...
> Op Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:49:36 +0000 schreef Iain Smith:
>
>
> Thanks for the compliment. It cost roughly EUR 5000 so far. The most
> expensive part to come is the throttle, which is around EUR 2400 when they
> are servo controlled (so they move with the autothrottle). Building one
> myself is an option but that takes a loooooot of time. I estimate the
> total
> sim around 15.000 when it includes the pedestal, yokes, chairs and
> overhead. Hope to have that late 2010. Maybe I go for a shell and motion
> platform after that but I also need more space then.
> --
> Everything I do is either illegal, immoral, or fattening.
> (W.C. Fields)
Oh yeah, the problem of having too much money and so little time to spend it
;o)
15.000 E........That's a lot of dough for a relaxing hoby, but then again
the maintenance, on this baddie, is only a fraction of the real thing, so I
guess it's money well spend, and once it's finished you can start renting it
out at E 500,- an hour :o)
Tommy C, Denmark
Wishing he had half the space and money for some thing like Didiers rig
Didier Chesto
Yes I understand that; I thought about that, too. The only thing is that my
FMC is updated every month so when I go to the approach page in the FMC to
see what frequency the ILS has for the runway I selected, it's the most
recent frequency. The airport in FS9 has to mach that en consequently the
charts :-S
Iain Smith
> Not that such a change makes a huge difference, one degree is
> not going to make you land off the runway.)
Although 10 degrees, as the figures actually represent, might! ;-))
Iain
Rugby, UK
fat_boy
"Iain Smith" <iaindotsmithdotrugby@atbtinternetdotcom> wrote in message
Hello Iain,
Steady tiger,
It might actually be one (or two) degree(s) that caused the change, but I
know what you're saying. On average one might suppose a runway 13 might have
a centreline that is ten degrees less than a runway 14. Truth is the runway,
for whatever reason, could have been altered by a couple of degrees and thus
needed to rename to runway 14 instead of 13.
The point Iam trying to make is that runway 13 doesnt have to be ten degrees
less than runway 14 etc.
Rgds,
Chris
Iain Smith
> The point Iam trying to make is that runway 13 doesnt have to be ten degrees
> less than runway 14 etc.
Fair comment Chris and I'm sure Tom knows as well. I was just teasing
him! :-)
Iain
Rugby, UK
fat_boy
"Iain Smith" <iaindotsmithdotrugby@atbtinternetdotcom> wrote in message
Ooopppsss, OK, sorry, lol.
Chris
Tom Duhamel
LOL yes indeed, it's 10 degrees, but just as you said, it's less than that.
Actually, as you might know, magnetic north pole derives slowly. So if
the runway was 136 degrees (and thus marked as 14) and slowly changed to
134 (which is now RW 13) they needed to make the change. I don't think
FS knows the real orientation of runways to the precise degree, because
my compass shows exactly 140 degrees when landing on runway 14,
eventhough I may assume it's less than that if they had to change it to
13 a few years ago.
Tom :)
fat_boy
"Tom Duhamel" <tom420....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:he49g5$qqe$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Hi Tom,
And as you probably know, using a compass at CYSC could be a bit of a
guessing game IRL
http://www.fltplan.com/AirportInformation/CYSC.htm
Notice the magnetic variation. ( 17W )
It also suggests that FS doesnt take magnetic variation into account I
spose.
Not sure though how much it has changed over the years ;-)
Chris
Tom Duhamel
> Notice the magnetic variation. ( 17W )
>
> It also suggests that FS doesnt take magnetic variation into account I
> spose.
>
> Not sure though how much it has changed over the years ;-)
What does that mean, 17W???
rob
fat_boy
Hello Tom,
A compass points to magnetic north. "True north" is usually a number of
degrees to the left ( west ) or right (east ) of this. True north is taken
as being where the Earths axis would surface, i.e, at the north pole.
The difference between true north and magnetic north is expressed as
magnetic variation, or magnetic declination, amongst other things. It varies
from place to place. If you see a map or chart that says 17W, what it is
telling you is that when your compass points to north, it is actually
pointing to a point that is 17 degrees west (to the left) of true north.
Obviously if it said 08E, it would mean that true north was 8 degrees to the
left of where your compass is pointing. (In other words the compass would
point 8 degrees to the right of true north.)
Here is a web page that deals with this in more detail, and might be a bit
clearer than my explanation.
http://www.geo-orbit.org/sizepgs/magmapsp.html
You can also read here why it used to be important for pilots to check and
update their information on a regular basis.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_04_09/4/
Finally, this difference is expressed in three different ways. The above is
one example, used mainly in nautical and aeronautical navigation. Here is a
page explaining all three methods or descriptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_declination
HTH
Chris
fat_boy
"rob" <rw...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:497177d2-a35e-4399...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_variation
Thanks Rob,
Hadnt seen your reply whilst I was typing mine.
Chris
scott s.
news:dtGdnZ89TqGB2prW...@giganews.com:
In the northern most part of Canada they use true bearings, due to
excessive variation. FS does too.
scott s.
.
fat_boy
>
> In the northern most part of Canada they use true bearings, due to
> excessive variation. FS does too.
>
> scott s.
> .
Cheers Scott,
It appears Canada has a different version of a cone of confusion. The
general rule everywhere used to be the closer you get to the north pole, the
less you can rely on the compass.
Chris
scott s.
news:vOudnTRkD_MBJJrW...@giganews.com:
I think you have to turn off the magnetic slave (if you have it)
on your compass so it acts as a directional gyro. The whiskey
compass is NFG. Oh!! Canada.
scott s.
.
fat_boy
"scott s." <75270...@csi.xcom> wrote in message
news:Xns9CCAEFC6A270E...@216.168.3.70...
Makes you wonder how they ever found their way through the Northwest
passage, or as I once called it at school, the great back passage ;-)
Chris
Tom Duhamel
>> What does that mean, 17W???
>
> Hello Tom,
>
> A compass points to magnetic north. "True north" is usually a number of
> degrees to the left ( west ) or right (east ) of this. True north is taken
> as being where the Earths axis would surface, i.e, at the north pole.
>
> The difference between true north and magnetic north is expressed as
> magnetic variation, or magnetic declination, amongst other things. It varies
> from place to place. If you see a map or chart that says 17W, what it is
> telling you is that when your compass points to north, it is actually
> pointing to a point that is 17 degrees west (to the left) of true north.
> Obviously if it said 08E, it would mean that true north was 8 degrees to the
> left of where your compass is pointing. (In other words the compass would
> point 8 degrees to the right of true north.)
Thanks! Very clear explanation!
So if the runway here is 13-31, it means its true orientation (relative
to the True North, is 15-33? That's a huge difference!
fat_boy
Sorry for not replying/commenting sooner but yes you are correct . It also
gives us a clue as to why we sometimes have to rename runways. Their
magnetic heading changes. Or, to use the words from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway
Runway designations change over time because the magnetic poles slowly drift
on the Earth's surface and the magnetic bearing will change. Depending on
the airport location and how much drift takes place, it may be necessary
over time to change the runway designation. As runways are designated with
headings rounded to the nearest 10 degrees, this will affect some runways
more than others. For example, if the magnetic heading of a runway is 233
degrees, it would be designated Runway 23. If the magnetic heading changed
downwards by 5 degrees, the Runway would still be Runway 23. If on the other
hand the original magnetic heading was 226 (Runway 23), and the heading
decreased by only 2 degrees to 224, the runway should become Runway 22.
Because the drift itself is quite slow, runway designation changes are
uncommon, and not welcomed, as they require an accompanying change in
aeronautical charts and descriptive documents. When runway designations do
change, especially at major airports, it is often changed overnight as
taxiway signs need to be changed and the huge numbers at each end of the
runway need to be repainted to the new runway designators. In July 2009 for
example, London Stansted Airport in the United Kingdom changed its runway
designations from 05/23 to 04/22 overnight.
Also please bear in mind that airspace around parts of North America and
esp. Canada require slightly different rules because compass deviation
varies a lot. Heading and instructions from ATC are given as true heading
rather than compass headings.
HTH
Chris
Tom Duhamel
>> So if the runway here is 13-31, it means its true orientation (relative to
>> the True North, is 15-33? That's a huge difference!
>
> Sorry for not replying/commenting sooner but yes you are correct . It also
It is ok, I'm sure you have other activities too, called Real Life :)
> example, London Stansted Airport in the United Kingdom changed its runway
> designations from 05/23 to 04/22 overnight.
Our runway here (CYSC - Sherbrooke... uncontrolled, single runway)
changed from 14-32 to 13-31, about 3-4 years ago. FS9 has the old numbers.
>
> Also please bear in mind that airspace around parts of North America and
> esp. Canada require slightly different rules because compass deviation
> varies a lot. Heading and instructions from ATC are given as true heading
> rather than compass headings.
Not sure about that, but I doubt this affects most airports. As you may
know, 95% of Canadiens live in a slim area in the south, next to the US
border (because it gets colder as you go north, obviously), and I don't
think compass are affected very much in this area. Before the arrival of
GPS, compasses were actually very common in cars here (as most drivers
have to drive long distances frequently, because of our low density and
large land area). I will have to check about that, out of curiosity, and
because it might make me a better sim pilot.
>
> HTH
>
> Chris
>
>