OnCourse Software

Thank you guys for involvment in this matter! Really appreciate it!

ThomasAH wrote:

The next one indicates that you are using a COM1 without standby frequency, so while switching to Tower 118.1 you had dialed in Departure 118.6 for a second.
PF3 starts talking to you as soon as it sees you on the Departure frequency for a moment, even if you did not tell them that you are on that frequency.
(Dave, this is a bug. Should I file separately it in the beta forum?) -- Edit: I just filed it as "departure talks to rvm33 before making checkin"

ThomasAH, I think you nailed one issue: when asked to connect to departure after take off, the moment I switch to the departure freq the controller starts giving instructions without waiting to be contacted first. This is I think since 3.1.7 and happens to me every flight. I even stopped calling departure after take off, just dial in the freq and wait for the instructions to come.
You were right, I flew the DC9 which has no standby com1.

I picked up 3 good advice, to use vcp mode to 3, to set PTT delay to 5-10 seconds and use PTT button.
At this last one I am a bit confused: I see the option in the hotkey definition for the PTT button (the default setting is "ESC") but it seems impossbile to define a joystick button to it. Principally the same button I use to talk to mce.

ThomasAH wrote:

So I think the main problem was not doing the proper check-in with Departure due to PF3's bug of letting Departure talk to you before check-in.
The followup error was trying to work around this problem by requesting a higher altitude while PF3 was already confused.

I will fly the same flightplan again right now but this time with the GCTimeout=5 and vcp mode to 3 and report back.
I will refrain from asking a new flight level.
Regarding the SID problem, that start SID is always the last waypoint I will try and replicate it. I will insert after JUICE which will remain start SID waypoint another two, AVAKI and LESOR.

vololiberista wrote:

A note regarding the original fpl. There appears to be only one departure from TIST: the PALCO 6 Departure. When I ran the fpl through routefinder it picked this up as well. Also routefinder created a slightly different route. Routing via A638 I suspect to avoid some of the airspace restrictions. http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=18.337 ... 73&zoom=10
TIST-->PALCO-->STT-->GUYRO-->SLUGO-->TNCM.

Thank you for the link to the vfr map. I chose this flight plan because flying the DC9 and testing PF3 I needed at the end of B520 a VOR and a course in order to navigate by radio. When flying to TNCM there is PMJ 113.0 with course 112 at the end of B520 and when flying to TIST there is STT 108.60 with course 295. Uncomplicated to navigate, maybe not true to real life.
Sorry for the error in the previous post, the set flight level is 190 and not 170 as I previously stated.

rvm33 wrote:

I picked up 3 good advice, to use vcp mode to 3, to set PTT delay to 5-10 seconds and use PTT button.
At this last one I am a bit confused: I see the option in the hotkey definition for the PTT button (the default setting is "ESC") but it seems impossbile to define a joystick button to it. Principally the same button I use to talk to mce.

I would recommend VCP mode 2 first, so PF3 does not change your AP settings. At least for me that made things more clear: The VCP communicates and sets COM frequencies, I fly.
For joystick as PTT button for PF3: Maybe FSUIPC or some other joystick-to-keyboard mapping tool can help with this?

rvm33 wrote:

I even stopped calling departure after take off, just dial in the freq and wait for the instructions to come.
You were right, I flew the DC9 which has no standby com1.

If you do not check-in, you don't get the right instructions. Even if Departure talks first (until that is fixed), you need to check-in.
With VCP mode 2 you do not need to worry about this for now

ThomasAH wrote:

rvm33 wrote:

Even if Departure talks first (until that is fixed), you need to check-in.
With VCP mode 2 you do not need to worry about this for now

This is the same problem with speed restrictions being given by the Tower after tuning to them but before contacting them. Or being told to reduce speed by Approach after they have handed you over but you haven't yet changed frequency.

Ok, did the test.

Flightplan looks like this:
TIST - take off RW28
PASIC - 19000
LARPP - 18000 with adjustment to 17000
JUICE - 11000 with adjustment 9000 and also Start SID
BOPER - 5000 with adjustment 3500
LESOR - 3000 with adjustment 2000
TNCM - landed RW10

VCP mode 2 is selected, PTT timig set at 5 seconds.
I got interaction with PF3 only at requesting clearance, then at selecting the runway 28 instead of 10 and at the end with tower. The rest is PF3 vs PF3.
I requested twice the runway because the first time the display showed "rw 28 y/n" and when selecting "yes" per mce the display switched to "rw10 y/n". The interface between pf3 and mce is not perfect, allthough I got a confirmation that I requested "runway 28 for take off" in the upper left corner red displayed, mce cycled through the available options and then stopped again at the first runway, so 10-28-10. The runway selection had to be per keyboard.

Climb instructions were perfect, fly 295 and climb 3000, then turn right 100 and then step climbs all the way to 190. Perfect!

First problem:
Immediately after passing PASIC PF3 instructs "to descent at pilots discretion to 17000" later "to descent to 17000".
I guess the second instruction is due to a TOC waypoint set internally.
In the case of this flight plan is not so evident but PF3 always instructs to descent immediately after entering a leg which ends with a lower altitude, regardless of the distance between them.
In one flight I was instructed to descent 320 NM from the destination airport. It so happened that the passing waypoint was at FL330 and the next one 280NM further at FL110.
This can not be correct.

Going further, all descent profiles were perfect down to 2000 feet!

Second problem:
When reaching JUICE, which is start SID waypoint as per adjustment file, PF3 asks me "to stay on this freq for receiving traffic" and then descents me to 2000 through BOPER and LESOR.
PF3 did not issue a "cleared to final for rw10, when established contact tower on ...." or some other instruction. O at least my copilot and me missed it and did not go to tower freq.
At reaching LESOR I am basically forgotten at 2000 feet without any instruction, flying graciously over the airport...
I turn back, contact tower, refly the approach and land, taxi to gate, the flight ends.


Since this time PF3 had perfect climb and then descent instructions it must be because I did not contact "departure" despite receiving the instruction already as ThomasAH suggested. Thanks for that, would not have found it on my own!

Oh? Did you confuse SID and STAR? SID is for Departure.

Yeah, it looks like I referred to TOD as TOC and STAR as SID. Sorry for the mistake.

Here is another log that shows that PF3 always issues descent instructions immediately upon entering a leg which at its end has a lower altitude set without creating a TOD point.
In this case NARTA is 290 NM from the destination airport. Here I receive the descent instruction to FL160, some 170 NM from the real calculated TOD in the FMC.

The flight was successful, thanks for the tip of contacting departure, it changed the experience with PF3 completely in a positive way.

rvm33 wrote:

Yeah, it looks like I referred to TOD as TOC and STAR as SID. Sorry for the mistake.

Here is another log that shows that PF3 always issues descent instructions immediately upon entering a leg which at its end has a lower altitude set without creating a TOD point.
In this case NARTA is 290 NM from the destination airport. Here I receive the descent instruction to FL160, some 170 NM from the real calculated TOD in the FMC.

The flight was successful, thanks for the tip of contacting departure, it changed the experience with PF3 completely in a positive way.

It might be possible here when PF3 issues a decent a long way before an actual TOD to always use "At your discretion". At the moment it seems to be a random additional call. An easy way for PF3 to calculate whether to use this phrase or not is if the next wypt after cruise altitude is set to a lower altitude: (distance between last cruise altitude wypt and next wypt after cruise-12 x 3) if the answer is say within 2,000ft of the cruise altitude then make "Descend to FLxxx at your discretion" mandatory.

To me, it would make more sense to create another virtual waypoint along the lines of the xxx comms boundaries; one that represents the TOD, and then it doesn't matter where the last waypoint is. The position would be calculated based on the aircraft profile's rate of descent, the difference in altitude between cruise and the handover to approach, and the current speed.

All the while descents are tied to waypoints, the is going to happen in some form or other.

Andy

awralls wrote:

To me, it would make more sense to create another virtual waypoint along the lines of the xxx comms boundaries; one that represents the TOD, and then it doesn't matter where the last waypoint is. The position would be calculated based on the aircraft profile's rate of descent, the difference in altitude between cruise and the handover to approach, and the current speed.

All the while descents are tied to waypoints, the is going to happen in some form or other.

Andy

The problem with that is that PF3 still won't know your own calculated TOD. And indeed ATC don't have to or want to. So there will always be those complaining that PF3 descended them too late or too early. The point of "at your discretion" is ATC saying we want you to be at a specified altitude by xxx but you don't have to start your descent right now. In other words start your descent when you have reached "your" calculated TOD. The terminology is correct but PF3 doesn't apply it correctly.
Another point to bear in mind is the actual rate of descent. It doesn't always have to be exactly the same. Quite often on long haul flights a/c will make their initial descent quite slowly. For example between RAGSO and CHALI on the approach into Hong Kong the distance between them is 97nm. The fpl is FL240 and at RAGSO I am asked to descend to FL160. So the rate of descent is my choice. I choose a shallow descent as that keeps my ground speed high. Then arriving at FL160 about 4-5 minutes before CHALI enough time to slow down for the turn. Also it avoids having the strap the passengers in which you would have to if descending at 2-2,500fpm.
The FMC (if you are using one) isn't flying the aeroplane. You are!!

You're making all sorts of assumptions that are leading to you to counter an argument that I'm not making.

First, all my flying is done in an FS world regressed to the 1950s. I can't even spell F M C. No idea what it's for. I use a sextant I don't need to be told who's flying the aircraft, thanks. I fly oceanic routes lasting 15 hours using RDF and celestial navigation and calculate fuel loads based on worst-case headwinds rather than a weather app that tells me, to the knot, what the expected headwind will be. Consequently, my diversion planning is considerable and prolonged!!

This has nothing to do with me expecting to be descended at my calculated TOD, although doing what I suggest allows the aircraft to keep to its design limits. I might be in a DC-4. I CAN'T descend at 2000' a minute without ripping my wings off. It has everything to do with ensuring that the aircraft is where PF3 wants it to be when it wants it to be and ensure that the aircraft can actually get there safely and in a believable profile.

By calculating a TOD that respects the aircraft profile, the issue of too LATE descents goes away.

By not limiting PF3 to a waypoint that might be 190 miles from the destination, aircraft cruising at less than FL200 don't spend an inordinate amount of time at a daft low altitude. 'At Pilots Discretion' descents are fine but we both know they have a very brief range before they're enforced, and it ain't anything like 100 miles. It also embraces actual ATC procedures, both current and historical.

And were you to suggest that flying in classic-era aircraft with ATC is not what PF3 should be about, because it is focused on you chaps running around brandishing SIDs and STARs, I actually stick with it because it is the ONLY ATC application with the flexibility to build flight plans that provide ATC in anything like the kind of limited form that existed in the 1950s, including long stretches without any en route control and only HF position reporting going on.

The main issue, it seems to me, is that Dave has designed PFE/PF3 to be used in a certain way, but those ways are somewhat opaque to the user. The manual doesn't really explain what PF3 needs or expects to function properly. It's great at explaining what its various buttons do, but light on the actual processes it's using to provide an illusion of ATC. The result is that you keep seeing frustrated users who think it should work one way, only to find that it doesn't, but then not understanding how it DOES work.

I've puzzled it out and can get a reasonable ATC experience with believable descents and vectoring, but none of what I have learned was gleaned from the manual.

Kind regards

Andy