My FSX wishlist items

[N.A.P.M]

I would like to see the MS-FSX producers looking at helos. I find it very frustrating to be directed to rwy so & so instead of the helopad when flying a helo. This applies to ATC handling helo take-offs and landings. It must be possible to organize the ATC-messages according to the type of aircraft flown. In the "aircraft.cfg" there is the "atc_model=". If the syntax reads "atc_model=helo" or "atc_model=helicopter", it must be possible to switch to the right ATC-messages.

Another ATC-wish is that during "touch&go-training" I will not be directed to "ground" once the undercarriage touched a surface. As of that moment, in FS9 and FS2002(PRO), the landing is considered to be a "full-stop" one and I'm not cleared for an immediate take-off.

And my last ATC-question is:"Why is there no ATC using a waterplane from or to a waterplane-base?"

I truly hope that someone at Microsoft has the same thoughts!

[n4gix]

>Another ATC-wish is that during "touch&go-training" I will not
>be directed to "ground" once the undercarriage touched a
>surface. As of that moment, in FS9 and FS2002(PRO), the
>landing is considered to be a "full-stop" one and I'm not
>cleared for an immediate take-off.

If you are hearing "contact ground" when flying circuits, that simply means that at some point or another you've wandered off the active runway, or perhaps landed too short, i.e., before the TDZE. If - even momentarily - any part of the landing gear touch anything "off the runway," that is a trigger for you to be handed off to ground control.

I can fly T&G all day long and never get handed off to ground, until I get tired and turn off the active... ;)

>And my last ATC-question is:"Why is there no ATC using a
>waterplane from or to a waterplane-base?"

What do you mean my "no ATC?" Waterplane-bases are uncontrolled, so there's no "tower" to contact. They are treated just as any landbased, uncontrolled airport: UNICOM. OTOH, it's perfectly possible to file a flightplan from a waterplane-base, just as you can from an uncontroled, landbase airport.

[tdragger]

<<Waterplane-bases are uncontrolled, so there's no "tower" to contact. >>

Actually I think Lake Hood in Anchorage is controller. Would be an interesting additon.

[tdragger]

<<Another ATC-wish is that during "touch&go-training" I will not be directed to "ground" once the undercarriage touched a surface. As of that moment, in FS9 and FS2002(PRO), the landing is considered to be a "full-stop" one and I'm not cleared for an immediate take-off.>>

Are you requesting touch-and-gos from ATC? I can fly the pattern all day long and never get handled off to ground.

[JSkorna]

Yes, if you land, touch or roll off the runway you will be asked to contact ground. If you keep it on the runway you will not be asked.

Hope this helps,
Jim
http://www.hifisim.com

http://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-development.jpg http://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-proud.jpg [hr][link:www.jdtllc.com|http://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannersupporter.jpg]

[tdragger]

<<Yes, if you land, touch or roll off the runway you will be asked to contact ground. If you keep it on the runway you will not be asked.>>

Er, okay. Isn't that how it should work? I don't suppose real-life ATC would assume you wanted to continue your pattern work if you ran of the runway.

[lnuss]

Perhaps one slight change would be in order. Though I'd certainly not expect to do the GO portion of a T&G if a wheel went off the runway, I'd still not expect to get handed off to ground until I was well clear of the runway, and that generally is only on the taxiways. If I crossed the dirt to the parallel taxiway I'd expect to get handed off to ground, but not get handed off if I were to bring the aircraft back on the runway until I turned off on the taxiway.

Perhaps you could extend the "on runway" sensing to half the distance between the runway and the adjacent taxiway (if there is one, else half the runway width, or some such), at least for handoff purposes.

[n4gix]

><<Waterplane-bases are uncontrolled, so there's no "tower" to
>contact. >>
>
>Actually I think Lake Hood in Anchorage is controller. Would
>be an interesting additon.

Now that I've thought about it a bit more, there are in fact several water runways in FS that're tower controlled... such as at Honolulu... ;)

[tdragger]

Ah, well that gets into the "where EXACTLY is the user aircraft?" problem. It's actually much, much more complicated that it would appear at first. A good blog topic for when I have more time...

[andyjohnston]

I have to admit, I've often wondered how it determined that. Does it go by contact points, by the center point of the model, by the way Jupiter aligns with Mars?

Personally I don't mind it how it is. Kind of tells you "Hey ya wandered off the runway you dope."

[lnuss]

I'm looking forward to reading that blog entry.

Thanks for listening.

[tdragger]

It's live now.

[lnuss]

Thanks, Mike -- well done.