OnCourse Software

Hi Dave. I'm afraid I'm still a bit bemused by the use of the new(ish) 'descend now' function (Ctrl+Shift+S): I have not once received a descent instruction when I try to use it, just a confirming beep, and silence. I know that there are parameters that need to be met, but what I (at least) was hoping for before you introduced this was to be able to request a descent when I am past the ToD shown on my cockpit instruments, no matter whether I am at or past PF3's ToD or not (which I can't see, especially flying VR with a 3D headset on), and no matter what PF3's next waypoint altitude is (which I also don't know: all I have are the altitudes shown in my FMC.

In other words, something very much like the 'Request descent due to turbulence/clouds' (which work fine), but just without an audible request from the pilot.

Is that not possible? Whatever, the currently required parameters are never being met in my flights, so, to be 'brutally blunt' ( ) the new function might as well not be there (speaking just for myself, of course).

Or maybe the function as I describe it is not what you want (it's your 'baby', at the end of the day, after all!)

Thanks Dave!!

Quote:

next waypoint altitude is (which I also don't know

Actually, in the Web Display you can see your next waypoint and altitude.
Cheers,
Luc

martinlest wrote: *

Thu Jan 18, 2024 5:06 pm

Hi Dave. I'm afraid I'm still a bit bemused by the use of the new(ish) 'descend now' function (Ctrl+Shift+S): I have not once received a descent instruction when I try to use it, just a confirming beep, and silence. I know that there are parameters that need to be met, but what I (at least) was hoping for before you introduced this was to be able to request a descent when I am past the ToD shown on my cockpit instruments, no matter whether I am at or past PF3's ToD or not (which I can't see, especially flying VR with a 3D headset on), and no matter what PF3's next waypoint altitude is (which I also don't know: all I have are the altitudes shown in my FMC.

In other words, something very much like the 'Request descent due to turbulence/clouds' (which work fine), but just without an audible request from the pilot.

Is that not possible? Whatever, the currently required parameters are never being met in my flights, so, to be 'brutally blunt' ( ) the new function might as well not be there (speaking just for myself, of course).

Or maybe the function as I describe it is not what you want (it's your 'baby', at the end of the day, after all!)

Thanks Dave!!

When it doesn't work please let me see a log file

Quote:

When it doesn't work please let me see a log file

I did post a log file last time Dave: you just said it was because the parameters as described hadn't been met, so it may well be working as intended. I was saying, well, what I said ... wondering if it might be made a bit less 'choosy' and operate more like the other descent requests (clouds/turbulence): I very rarely fly with clouds, but that doesn't cause PF3 to tell me there aren't any when I use that as an excuse to request a descent

Quote:

Actually, in the Web Display you can see your next waypoint and altitude.

Web display? In any case, I need to descend according to my FMC, or I can too easily end up too high for an approach. Asking for a descent due to clouds or turbulence is the only way, but it's not very 'staisfying', when neither are present.

Quote:

Web display?

http://www.ocs-support.co.uk/forums/viewforum.php?f=11

You should check it out one day if you have time. Either runs in any browser or you have an inflight display.
Very useful.
Cheers,
Luc

OK, thanks for the information

Also works in VR

Thing is, re. Web Display, I am trying to make things less, not more complicated in my X-Plane setup and procedures: I already have so many layers of complexity, I am aiming to thin things down a bit; and knowing where the PF3 ToD is or what the waypoint altitudes are wouldn't actually help me with this 'on the fly' problem, in any case. As I say, what I need (and surely, others would appreciate too?) is some function in PF3 which would enable me (in X-Plane, where the specific altitude request doesn't work) to get descent instructions as and when I see I need them (mostly, if ATC is clearly not going to instruct me to descend at, or relatively close to the ToD: a definite problem if the next waypoint is relatively distant). I thought, when it was announced, that the Ctrl+Shift+S input (just 'H' in my setup), was going to be 'just what the doctor ordered', but due to the inbuilt restrictions, it has no effect at all when I need it. So I resorted to the 'due to turbulence' excuse/lie again in my last flight, but even there, ATC refused, twice ('unable at this time': not possible, as far as I can see, to set this so that refusals are turned off).

Well, I attach the log you asked for Dave. I don't know if it's even possible to have the 'Ctrl+Shift+S' function operate so that you will always be given descent instructions no matter what (well, once you've at least reached your set cruise altitude, say, or some similar restriction!). That's what I would really like; otherwise, as I said before, if I don't just select a random COM frequency and descend anyway without PF3 - I almost never do that! - I all too often end up scrambling down with full spoilers to reach a workable approach altitude, because ATC has left it too late to tell me to descend. I am sure my blood pressure goes up at those moments (in VR/3D/360 deg. views - it can be almost scarily realistic! )

What do you think Dave?

Hi Martin, I will look at this again but there are of course reasons why I had to put certain criteria into the request, to do otherwise was going to create a lot more work unfortunately. But looking at your log you requested to start your descent just before reaching RIVAM, which was set to FL380.

PF3 had already flagged that you had reached TOC and the automatic changes PF3 had initially made to your flight meant you 'would' have begun your descent. However you changed the altitudes manually.


RIVAM @ 38000 <- PF3 flagged TOC here and it's where you requested to descend
ERPOG @ 38000
ESODU @ 33000 You changed to 38000
TIXIR @ 27000 You changed to 38000
ASPIR @ 24000 You changed to 38000
MOPUV @ 18000 You changed to 32000
LAT @ 9000 You changed to 17000
WP1 @ 5000

Without your altitude changes... had you waited just 9 miles, your request would have been accepted. However, with the changes you made you'd pushed your TOC onto ASPIR

Hi. Thanks for looking at that.

Before I start the sim, I set altitudes in PF3 according to my flight planner, but in practice neither that nor the PF3 plan will match the altitudes I end up with in the aircraft FMC (which I then use most times for a Managed/VNAV descent and approach). It's a kind of 'best guess' situation at the time I set up my flight plan and to tweak things so that 'Little Navmap' (flight plan creator), PF3 and my eventual aircraft all agree on waypoint altitudes and the ToD is virtually impossible. Which is why, for me at least, a 'no questions asked' descent option (assuming that one had at least reached cruise altitude, say) would solve a lot of problems and certainly help prevent me from ending up too high to land, if I follow PF3 ATC instructions to the letter (which, as I said, I do 99% of the time, whatever the consequence).

Maybe, from what you say, I'd be better not making any changes to the PF3 waypoint altitudes - could be that doing so makes things worse rather than better (though where I have a long STAR, PF3 of course programmes me to be far lower than I should be - I think I had to re-programme 7000' to 22000' in that example - as PF3 sees me as intending to fly directly to the runway from my last flight plan waypoint. Not sure what to do for the best, frankly).

Quote:

I had to put certain criteria into the request; to do otherwise was going to create a lot more work unfortunately.

From the point of view of an end-user who has comparatively little idea of the complexity of updating PF3, my (naïve?) view is that the function is already present to a large degree, when you request a descent due to clouds or turbulence. All that would need to change (IMHO!!) is for the references to 'cloud' and 'turbulence' and the chance of ATC refusing the request to be removed - and (ideally) for there to be no verbalised request to descend from the pilot. I do appreciate that the reality may be a lot more complicated than that though!