Improvements

[Bisca 0]

Hai,

First, I have to say that this simulation is not to bad. It comes close to real ATC.

But after some hours of playing the game I have some ideas. A couple are already mentioned in this forum.

• Speed redusing during descent could be quicker. Yes it is not easy to reduse speed if you keep the same descent rate but when lowering your descent rate you will be able to reduse.So the ATCer doesn't have to wait untill the aircraft is in level flight before it will reduse
• Aircraft adopt there descent rate so they will pass the waypoint at the altitude restriction for that point. Same as for the Speedrestictions.
• Speed reduction on long final is a bit quick
• Aircraft are joining the hold on there inbound heading and are not joining the standard published hold. Wich has probably a different inbound heading. So thay have to make eg a offset entry.
• Aircraft at EHAM cannot take off from 18L with an aircraft lined up on 24 at the same time. But these are two independent runways so should not give a collision
• in the runway menu there is stated: SELECT VISUAL APPROACHES. But what you really do is select runways with instrument approaches. The word "visual" is misleading.
• Intersection line up would be a great option for a quicker departure sequense
• Departure altitude for the airway could be mentioned somewhere. Now I just give some odd or even altitude
• Selection of showing VORs, SID waypoints or airway waypoints would be nice
• The aircraft lables should be resizeable. Now they are often to big

Well that's it for now

Alex

[RobsonM 94]

HI, thanks for your observations. Some of them are either faulty or outdated.

1. That one depends. You can of course use speedbrakes but this isn't that much of an issue.
2. To be honest can you imagine workload needed to introduce such VNAV for 50 aircraft on one scope?
3. For me it seems pretty good with flaps out. And you always have flaps out on final... At least first notch.
4. There are no published holdings in AIRAC so no source for that one.
5. I am pretty sure that two aircraft can depart from two different runways... I don't think I get what you meant.
6. Please read carefully! There are VISIBLE approaches, not VISUAL!
7. No info on intersections in AIRAC, same as for published HOLDs.
8. What departure altitude? If there is no specified altitude in SID then no altitude restriction applies.
9. Already on ToDo list
10. Aircraft labels are resizeable... See Settings -> Interface & Performance -> Sizes.

[Martijn Coenen 9]

My 2 cents:

3: It is very realistic. Speed falls like brick with flaps extended and gear out.

5: Yes they are independent, but the "extended runway" crosses 18L. Or at least, Navadata gives this data to GATC so it thinks the airplane on 24 is lined up on (part of) 18L. In reality, the lineup will be on 24 out of the area of 18L. But GATC doesn't know that, it doesn't use intersection takeoffs.

8: Those are published in AIPs, not AIRAC data. As ATC you should know this data, as is TA/TL.

And on 9, Robert, great you are working on this suggestion

[Bisca 0]

Thank you for your quick reply.

First.

6 oeps sorry

10 oeps sorry again

1. What I mean is, if you have an aircraft descending from lets Say FL240 to FL110. And at the same time you let this airplane reduce from 300kts to 250 Kts. At FL130 it only reduced to 280 or 290 kts. So in GATC descending has priority over reducing. As ATC you want this aircraft earlier at 250kts than when its level at FL110. Because in level flight the speed changes are quickly and correct (I think).

2. The workload for the game you mean?

3. mmmm. As a B737 pilot myself I have to disagree. To lower the speed goes rater quick but still not that quick. To increase will take longer with gear and flaps down. Off course not during a go around

4. Ok. Maybe a option: Enter hold on inbound hdg XXX. where possible you insert it in the software as player. Or Maybe something you could do with help of the GATC community, I understand otherwise it will be a lot of input work.

5.When the combination 24 18L is in use at EHAM indeed they use at RWY 24 intersection departures. This is done because of the jet blast I think. Not because the aircraft will hit each other. The reason I mention this is because it's the most frequent used combination and it is to bad if it cannot be used in GATC.(not with departure at the same time)

7. You could cheat and implement it on every runway. Even when it is not on the AIRAC info. There are more runways with intersection take off than ones without. Maybe an option to select it in the runway menu. Below the VISIBLE approaches What is the crash range? 200m should be nice.

8. Yes the initial SID climb altitude you must know. But then? Climb every aircraft to FL 300 or? There is missing a part in the flightplan. Cruising altitude.

9. GREAT

I'm just giving you this feedback to make this great game greater. I hope you also feel it that way.

[RobsonM 94]

2. The workload for the game you mean?

For the PC. This is massive amount of calculations.

ad. 1 What I thought about ATC is that altitude is a priority, and speed is mostly pilots decision with rare cases of maximum speed limit given by ATC hence the priority of altitude instructions over speed instructions

[Martijn Coenen 9]

3. mmmm. As a B737 pilot myself I have to disagree. To lower the speed goes rater quick but still not that quick. To increase will take longer with gear and flaps down. Off course not during a go around

Who can disagree with someone who is in the business. My experience doesn't go past VATSIM and Planefinder

8. Yes the initial SID climb altitude you must know. But then? Climb every aircraft to FL 300 or? There is missing a part in the flightplan. Cruising altitude.

Or better, the one thing missing is the Flightplan! Planes are randomly generated and go everywhere. A Dash-8 can depart to the east from, say, Miami and go to the direction of Europe, so to speak

I'm just giving you this feedback to make this great game greater. I hope you also feel it that way.

No one will be offended here!

Martijn

[Bisca 0]

ad. 1 What I thought about ATC is that altitude is a priority, and speed is mostly pilots decision with rare cases of maximum speed limit given by ATC hence the priority of altitude instructions over speed instructions

This off course depends on the situation but. WHEN ATC will give you a speed restriction than you should comply with that as soon as possible AND if possible also comply with the altitude restriction on the STAR. If one or both is not possible you should inform ATC. This is important if the TMA is full of traffic and you get inbounds at the boundary. You want to "delay" the traffic far away so you have time to clear the TMA. If those aircraft keep flying with 300kts then they are to soon near the field. Also when fast traffic is following slow traffic you want to have the fast traffic reduced quickly and not get closer to the slow traffic.

So yes, Speed had also priority

If ATC does not give you a speed restriction then the speed is yours, if you stay within the limitations of the STAR (the speed limit points (ARTIP 250kts @ EHAM))

[tumbi 2]

Hai,

First, I have to say that this simulation is not to bad. It comes close to real ATC.

But after some hours of playing the game I have some ideas. A couple are already mentioned in this forum.

• Speed redusing during descent could be quicker. Yes it is not easy to reduse speed if you keep the same descent rate but when lowering your descent rate you will be able to reduse.So the ATCer doesn't have to wait untill the aircraft is in level flight before it will reduse
• Aircraft adopt there descent rate so they will pass the waypoint at the altitude restriction for that point. Same as for the Speedrestictions.
• Speed reduction on long final is a bit quick
• Aircraft are joining the hold on there inbound heading and are not joining the standard published hold. Wich has probably a different inbound heading. So thay have to make eg a offset entry.
• Aircraft at EHAM cannot take off from 18L with an aircraft lined up on 24 at the same time. But these are two independent runways so should not give a collision
• in the runway menu there is stated: SELECT VISUAL APPROACHES. But what you really do is select runways with instrument approaches. The word "visual" is misleading.
• Intersection line up would be a great option for a quicker departure sequense
• Departure altitude for the airway could be mentioned somewhere. Now I just give some odd or even altitude
• Selection of showing VORs, SID waypoints or airway waypoints would be nice
• The aircraft lables should be resizeable. Now they are often to big

Well that's it for now

Alex

What a breath of fresh air from Bisca. You have some very good ideas, backed by the authority of real life aviation experience.I do agree with a lot of what you have said, but especially want to endorse your comments on speed reduction.Descending and speed reduction are not mutually exclusive. Yes it would be easier to reduce speed in level flight, but in a controlled descent I believe speed could be reduced at the same time.My experience in many cases is:When an approaching aircraft arrives on my screen I immediately tell it to reduce to approach speed. I wait for the speed to come back before I can reduce altitude. Even so, I have to divert the aircraft away from its approach path to give it time to reduce both speed and altitude in order to be ready for either a visual or IlS approach.So, yes i add my vote for a more realistic speed reduction rate, regardless of level flight or on descent.Secondly, would it not be reasonable to expect an aircraft arriving within 30 miles of its destination would already be reducing to something less than cruise speed? Then the controller need issue speed directions only to regulate traffic flow. Normal arrivals.should not need speed instructions, I reckon. We don't need to tell a pilot to slow down for landing!Sounds critical? Not intended to be - this is a great simulation and any comments are intended to help improve the product.

[Bisca 0]

two more points:

11. Zoom in or out steps smaller. So you will be able to adjust the zoom more precise.

12. Cleared to land command given by mouse is hard to give on fields with multiple runways like KORD. You will easily select the wrong runway. Maybe it's possible the give the command by clicking twice on the label if an aircraft is established on an ILS or visual approach.

[Trainzak 4]

12. Cleared to land command given by mouse is hard to give on fields with multiple runways like KORD. You will easily select the wrong runway. Maybe it's possible the give the command by clicking twice on the label if an aircraft is established on an ILS or visual approach.

You can issue "Cleared to land" command easily by right clicking the airplane and selecting "Cleared to land".

[Bisca 0]

You can issue "Cleared to land" command easily by right clicking the airplane and selecting "Cleared to land"

Great! Thanks

[Bisca 0]

GATC is a tower And radar sim.

But when it's busy and you are zoomed out for the inbound traffic. The traffic around the field is hard to see with all the labels.

Is it possible to have a second radar screen (small in a corner or on a second monitor) to let say zoom into the 15 nm around the field.

In real time of course there is not only one controller which is controlling the traffic from fl 240 till the ground. ( at busy airfields)

[Bisca 0]

Is it possible to give combined clearances.

Like. Direct PAM then HDG 240 or DCT PAM then DCT REFSO

If not could this be implemented?