Controller came on-line during taxi

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

just another side note as well, it isnt out of the norm to file non rvsm and still get into RVSM airspace, in fact it does happen in the real world and there are real procedures in place for when it happens (IE ATC will give 2000ft seperation instead)

 

for example when you buy a new private jet, you dont often get all the certifications right then and there. it takes a while before you get them, especially RVSM certification. my former CFI for example, when his Boss's company bought their Phenom, it took several months before they got their certification. they still kept it flying in the meantime, sometimes they would get approval from ATC to get into RVSM, sometimes theyd have to stay below it, all depends on traffic, which online you will rarely have that problem.

 

also a note, with the recent changes with the suffixes, /W is now an RVSM code (RVSM +NO GNSS/NO RNAV) so works just fine considering pretty much all sim aircraft are RVSM capable

 

Realism is fine, blindly trying to apply realism without taking into account why certain things are done in the real world that way, not even the real world agrees with that

[Dace Nicmane]

Jim,

 

I think you misunderstood me. The question was more, why do it in an inappropriate way when you are able to do it properly. It was the "for fun" motivation that I was questioning. Frankly, I never thought of pilots not having FMCs. I myself don't have any payware add-ons. The only thing I've paid for is the simulator itself and a couple of Navigraph updates. And hardware (stick and pedals). I have a simple freeware FMC that basically just gives me the waypoints and little else.

Ok, the pilot doesn't have an FMC or an aircraft that would natively be /A (or he doesn't know how to fly it) and he wants to fly exactly EHAM-EGLL. But why the FL120 if you are able to fly at FL240? I was questioning whether it was really necessary to file it as wrong as you can while still p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing through and whether it will be fun for the ATC, because he'll try to correct it, but the pilot will refuse to accept. Especially if the attitude was don't-try-to-tell-me-what-to-do-it's-not-your-job-just-give-me-my-clearance-for-what-i-filed.

I never said anything against non-RNAV, either. Of my last 6 flights, half of the SIDs were non-RNAV: out of Geneva, Gatwick and Hamburg.

 

blindly trying to apply realism

Not me. I'm an advocate of middle ground.

[Magnus Meese]

That said, I DO try to fly the planes that are in the game as reasonably realistically as possible

Game? ... GAME?!

 

 

[Bradley Grafelman]

So, when I'm filing as a B737 /A (or /W if that's the expectation in RVSM airspace), it is *not* an attempt to circomevent any rules or procedures. It is a simple statement that says to the controllers I'll interact with, that the aircraft I'm flying does not have an FMC, but I am intending (and capable) to fly it using normal VORs, NDBs, Jet airways, SIDs, STARs and IAPs, as filed in my flight plan.

 

Perhaps that is not as elite as flying some whiz-bang, expensive payware product where you can program some buttons and let it fly itself to wherever it's going, but for me, I am flying the airplanes I have, to the capabilities they have, and that's "real" enough for me.

 

No, filing (and flying) a B737 as /A isn't wrong at all. If nothing else, pretend it's a non-rev ferry flight to a maintenance airport with the fancy instruments placarded out as INOP.

 

But no, you do not need an FMC or payware product to file and fly as /L using RNAV (airways/SIDs/STARs/IAPs/etc.). Freeware aircraft using the default/built-in Garmin GPS in FSX, for example, can be used to do so.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

Dace if the pilot wanted to fly the entire flight at 6000 in an A380, its not "wrong". Thats the pilots job, not the controllers so long as there are no operational requirements and complying with minimums. Pilots well within his right to do it. Itd be foolish to do it in the real world just on fuel burn alone, But we dont pay for fuel here so who cares really. The controller in such cases can only ask the pilot to confirm what he filed, but hes not there to play the realism police and force the pilot to fly higher just cause he thinks its better

[Don Desfosse]

...I am intending (and capable) to fly it using normal VORs, NDBs, Jet airways, SIDs, STARs and IAPs, as filed in my flight plan.

 

Perhaps that is not as elite as flying some whiz-bang, expensive payware product where you can program some buttons and let it fly itself to wherever it's going, but for me, I am flying the airplanes I have, to the capabilities they have, and that's "real" enough for me.

But no, you do not need an FMC or payware product to file and fly as /L using RNAV (airways/SIDs/STARs/IAPs/etc.). Freeware aircraft using the default/built-in Garmin GPS in FSX, for example, can be used to do so.

 

In case it's helpful Jim, and anyone else, I've written dozens of times about a freeware/donationware/payware optional way to update the default MSFS GPS and have it use RW up-to-date routes. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=71316 is an example. Then you can use your aircraft to more full potential than when it was delivered out of the box.

 

I know everyone's personal taste is unique, and that's absolutely fine. But I did chuckle a little about not paying for upgrades to aircraft on a 10 year old sim. I liken it to replacing an engine on a RW airplane, or updating the avionics in a RW airplane, or remodeling your bathroom/kitchen/family room/take your pick -- you are building on the foundation of the old to make something more usable for your current purposes. Perhaps just another perspective.

[Jim Hurst 1353723]

Hi

 

@Dace:

I've not flown in EU airspace, so I'm not sure how RVSM is implemented over there, but in USA airspace, /A would be the correct code for both 12,000 and FL240 non-RNAV ops, so I don't even begin to see how one is more real than the other, and I'm getting more confused on what your point (and expectations) even are at this stage.

 

For instance, if you were flying a B737 from LGA (New York, La Guardia) to PHL (Philadelphia), a grand total of ~83nm, either as a short hop commuter, or more probably a repositioning or maintenance flight, you're not likely to fly it at FL240 during that flight.

 

In any case, I think we can just let this one go and take our own approach towards "appropriately realistic" in this case

 

@Bradley:

Indeed you *can* fly an RNAV route using the FSX default GPS. My fundamental issues are that:

A> lot of intersections are missing, so odds are fairly high with the stock game that you'll need to fudge the route anyway.

B> (afaik) you can't enter a flight plan into the GPS from inside the cockpit (implying a trip to the menu based planner)and also once you've put it in, afaik, you're pretty much stuck with it. So, if ATC, changes it up on you, you can (again, afaik) go Direct to a Single fix, or flip back to NAV mode and fly it "old school" -- since I'm doing the latter already, I'm avoiding the first problem entirely (a Good Thing, in my book)

 

@Don:

Thanks for the link -- I've actually read and visited Herve's site, and have contemplated installing it as I'm very aware that FSX is missing a LOT of intersections (several on the SEAVU2 STAR to LAX, as a recent example I flew). I'm always a bit wary with tinkering around with the "guts" of FSX, as it has lead to crashes and BSODs in the past. Additionally, Herve has mentioned some caveats on his site regarding those updates, as they may not "play nice" with the built-in flight planner, and add-on scenery. That said, it's still one I may look at down the road.

 

I've also looked a bit at vasFMC, but I've not gotten that to work, and it seems to require payware updates for navaids. EasyFMC is another option, that uses the FSX DB (which would then be more reason to install Herve's updates), but iirc (it's been awhile since I researched that one) it didn't have full autopilot interaction and functionality.

 

Regarding payware in general, first, FSX isn't the primary "game" I spend my time on -- it comes and goes on my PC, and it's only been this year that I've decided to give VATsim a try with it, so it's really not that much of a priority. Secondly, I'm an old(er) school pilot (got my PPL in '94), so I don't mind flying with VOR's, NDBs, and airways. It's what I'm used to. None of the planes I actually flew in RL even had a GPS in them, and I wouldn't even want to contemplate the hangar fees on them, let alone an engine rebuild or replacement cost. Yikes!

 

I get that a lot of folks want to fly the flashy, computerized, whiz-bang airplanes, but I'm quite content with simple stick & rudder flying, simple autopilot, simple navigation, and the simple stock planes available in the game. I've looked at some of the freeware add-ons (Planes, Scenery, and other gizmos), and I imagine that sometime, I might even get some of those installed and working, but it's not a high priority, so long as I can fly and enjoy what I have.

 

That said, this isn't about me, per se. The only reason I chimed in at all, was simply regarding the /A issue as being "wrong". I think that issue is fully resolved in my mind, though I'm still on the fence a bit about /W as noted in an earlier post (technically, it probably should be the non-RNAV choice above FL290, I suppose, though I'd prefer /A there too), and until (or unless) I get a working FMC with current nav points installed, I'm content to leave /G or /L for the PMDG guys.

 

@Magnus:

LOL: Ok, within reason, I'll concede your point... That said, sitting in the actual Cessna is RL, that big boxy thing on stilts with the operator and all the fancy controls and screens is a Simulator, and those moving pixels that show up on my PC monitor while I'm sipping my favorite adult beverage is ... a game.

 

Cheers,

Jim

[Don Desfosse]

Jim, in case it helps at all, I have been using Herve's updates for years, FSX, updating the default GPS on mostly default and freeware aircraft, with no crashes or problems. Granted, that's only one data point, but I am imagine if it were a persistent problem, there would be a lot of talk about it on the forums.

[Jim Hurst 1353723]

Jim, in case it helps at all, I have been using Herve's updates for years, FSX, updating the default GPS on mostly default and freeware aircraft, with no crashes or problems. Granted, that's only one data point, but I am imagine if it were a persistent problem, there would be a lot of talk about it on the forums.

Hi Don,

That's quite helpful and does help ease my mind about potentially updating the FSX navaids database down the road. Yours might only be one data point, but it's an encouraging one -- Thanks!

 

 

Regards,

Jim

[Don Desfosse]

No worries. And, of course, back up your old files before installing new, just in case....

[Robert Shearman Jr]

I have been using Herve's updates for years, FSX, updating the default GPS on mostly default and freeware aircraft, with no crashes or problems. Granted, that's only one data point,

Yours might only be one data point, but it's an encouraging one

You can count me as a second one. I fly mostly default planes & have been using that site to update my nav database routinely for several years, and use EasyFMC to modify my default GPS route when needed. FSX for me has been a very stable platform, with very few program crashes.

[Jim Hurst 1353723]

Thanks Rob -- Good to know.

 

I'm not in any particular rush for an FMC. EasyFMC is also payware (albeit pretty inexpensive), but I'm definitely interested in getting the navaids updated, as I've already run into several instances where intersections (mostly) are not in the default FSX database.

 

Regards,

Jim