Could "[F1] Inbound", "[F2] Request Azimuth" (navigation assistance) be more helpful?

[-0303-]

Add option to ask ATC "where am I relative to field" or have ATC volunteer this info.

 

Example. Called "Inbound" west of Batumi (see image), it directs to rwy 13. It gives contra course, which might seem odd. What is happening, I believe, is that anytime I call "[F1] Inbound", or keep calling "[F2] Request Azimuth", it keeps directing me to a point outside of the field in the runways extension (for runway 13, extension is to about 9 nm NW Batumi I surmise looking at F10 map).

 

As experiment I kept calling "[F2] Request Azimuth" (Navigation assistance), it kept giving me any and all directions 75, 250, 179, 56 ... whatever (because I kept passing the point it directed me too). In daylight, you can ignore this and just keep heading for the field until it calls "cleared for visual, contact tower".

 

In pitch black night time on the other hand ... you can keep running around forever getting new directions, never seeing the field or even being told you should see the field. One can infer I guess, if one keeps getting contradictory directions but remembering it's for rwy 13, that must mean you are NW of Batumi. One could then steer 130 hoping to see the rwy and getting the "cleared for visual, contact tower".

 

It would be a help, especially at night, if ATC actually told you where you are relative to the field: "you are NW Batumi" followed by "steer 297" (or whatever) for "landing inception point".

 

If ATC AI was really intelligent, of course, it would never say "297" in this situation, it would suggest a course (and altitude?) that asymptotically approaches the correct RWY approach. But adding human judgement to ATC AI is extremely complicated and will not happen. But adding an option to have ATC AI volunteer where you are relative to the field or adding an option to straight up ask "ATC where am I relative to the field?", that could be done. Following real world vocabulary of course.

 

 

 

This brought about because I've never seen RWY lights in multiplayer ever, that I can remember so I tried an night offline mission. Yes, the RWY lights do come on when calling inbound (and goes off if you call abort landing). So then I tried some pitch black navigation and discovered I can run around forever, never seeing the field, if I keep following "[F2] Request Azimuth" directions.

Edited October 19, 2020 by -0303-

[MAXsenna]

You are correct. It gives you directions to enter the pattern. Not the directions to the airfield.

If every module (or at least the Su-25T) had a few simple training missions on how to communicate WITH the ATC. This would be easier to understand. I learned it in another SIM.

One of the DLCs for the A-10C takes care of all this and explaines it as well.

Cheers!

 

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

[Frederf]

The point ATC directs you to is along the runway centerline some distance out, I think 10km but something. The only directions are to this one point. When you arrive at this point it's expected that you see the runway and turn into it. The directions are also directly to the point, in ruler direction, I think varies km/nm, and without any allowance for turn radius.

 

If you wander within a range of the field from any direction you get cleared for visual because it's assume you're close enough to see it. You're supposed to ask for landing clearance when on final a certain range of distances out and basically aligned with the runway. If you ask too far out you get nothing and if it does it automatically then you waited too long the same way if you taxi before asking to taxi.

[-0303-]

In the real world I gather there must be some formalized manner to ask ATC "where the frack am I?". Could we have that?

[-0303-]

The point ATC directs you to is along the runway centerline some distance out, I think 10km but something. The only directions are to this one point. When you arrive at this point it's expected that you see the runway and turn into it. The directions are also directly to the point, in ruler direction, I think varies km/nm, and without any allowance for turn radius.

 

If you wander within a range of the field from any direction you get cleared for visual because it's assume you're close enough to see it. You're supposed to ask for landing clearance when on final a certain range of distances out and basically aligned with the runway. If you ask too far out you get nothing and if it does it automatically then you waited too long the same way if you taxi before asking to taxi.

I understand all this. As mentioned I tried a pitch black approach. On arriving I kept on passing the point (not seeing the field at all) only ever getting new directions.

 

Getting new direction and distance would help. Getting a short distance "297 for 1 nm" would inform me I'm at the point close enough and I could steer 130 for the airfield.

 

Maybe AI could be smart enough to volunteer when I'm close enough to the point to directly steer for the RWY. IF DISTANCE TO POINT < 0.5 nm THEN SAY "Steer 130 for RWY". Additionally it would be nice to have the option (at any time) to directly ask ATC "Where am I in relation to field (distance & direction)?"

 

I wish ATC would give something to indicate I'm not passing the insanity test (keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result). In the real world ATC would say "Hey retard, you've been circling 9 nm NW forever, you're delaying other traffic, shit or get off the pot, airfield is 9 nm SE.". In every movie I've seen ATC is real helpful like (and polite).

 

I'm not asking for ATC AI to say the latter. Programming AI is real hard. I'm looking for simple doable things. Giving direction and distance on "[F2] Request Azimuth" is simple and doable.

Edited October 19, 2020 by -0303-

[-0303-]

Learned the lesson, the moment "[F2] Request Azimuth" suddenly shifts wildly, then you can turn towards RWY direction.

 

Noted something. From inside cockpit, one must zoom in field of view or you won't see RWY lights at a distance. RWY white lights and red green lights pops in at different zoom levels. Outside view, it's directly visible (but that's cheating).

 

Closer up, on final, RWY lights looks fuzzy.

Edited October 19, 2020 by -0303-

[SharpeXB]

Well the WWII fighter aircraft unless they were being flown by specialized pilots, didn’t operate at night. The modern aircraft in DCS have the instruments and such to navigate and land in darkness. That’s more realistic.

 

The night landing on the carrier in the Hornet does have realistic AI comms.

[Dragon1-1]

ED is planning a rework of land ATC to match Supercarrier comms in realism. How long it'll take, I don't know, but hopefully calling ADF will be more useful then.

[-0303-]

Well the WWII fighter aircraft unless they were being flown by specialized pilots, didn’t operate at night

Reminds me of an intriguing book on the beginnings during WW2. Arthur C Clarke, of all people, worked as a tech for an experimental radar controlled approach system during WW2. Pilot (Avro Anson) was blind at night and talked down. Clarke got a ride, and was less than happy about it. It was dangerous, on the upside he stopped being jeaulos of the pilot. Other project same book, burn away fog all around the RWY with kerosene. Hot up winds made it seriously dangerous.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glide_Path

Glide Path is a novel by Arthur C. Clarke, published in 1963. Clarke's only non-science fiction novel, it is set during World War II and tells a fictionalized version of the development of the radar-based ground-controlled approach (called "ground-controlled descent" in the novel) aircraft landing system, and includes a character modeled on Luis Alvarez, who developed this system. It is based on Clarke's own wartime service with the Royal Air Force, during which he worked on the GCA project.

 

I recommend this book. Reading it decades ago I remember it as a straight up A C Clarke remembrance, rather than fictional. Maybe Alvarez was fictionalized to avoid any trouble writing about a living person.

At one point they had a defend-against-german-saboteur exercise. The "saboteurs" we're picked up immediately because defenders, including Clarke, unbeknownst to "saboteurs" used the RADAR truck to see them in the night.

 

Edited October 20, 2020 by -0303-
Add some thoughts

[Zohardv]

In my opinion, ATC comms. are bad (and this is an understatement).

Some of them are not up to code. For example, the pilot should never ask for "takeoff" and is not allowed to say that word over the radio, but must use the word "departure".(see the results from the Tenerife airport disaster).

We're should be able to ask the tower for meteorology information, or at least altimeter settings (QNH/QFE), taxi information etc.

We're should be able to declare an emergency and to have priority over other aircrafts... and the list goes on...

[Dragon1-1]

English ATC comms are bad. They use the same protocol as the Russian ones, which might be more correct for them. Now, I don't actually know all that much about about how Russian ATC works, but it sounds consistent with other Russian terminology I've heard, and ED mentioned, when talking about the rework, that it's so different from Western one that one system cannot accommodate both cases. It might be that the original system was modeled on the Russian one, especially seeing as the Russians have a plethora of voices, both male and female, while the English has just one guy, and an awfully generic one at that.

[skywalker22]

bumping this thread... just had this same issue as OP, and was swearing like hell  

Would be cool to see, if ED does some work on it. Now this is pretty much useless - and after all these years.

[syzygy]

On 12/30/2022 at 10:14 PM, skywalker22 said:

if ED does some work on it.

I would definitely like a complete ATC overhaul

[=DROOPY=]

IRL, during periods of good weather, the ATC in the tower will state, "Airport is at your 'X' o'clock and 'X' miles.."  I most often here them say it at night due to proximity to a satellite airport in the area. 

I'm also one that is very anxious to have more realistic ATC comms.