Confussed ATC PHX to SAN

I just had an interesting situation departing PHX to SAN in AA B757-200. My issue is has any simmers ever came across this before, everything was going right after being in the air for 45 min, I was starting my descent into SAN was still going well the ATC had me banking left then suddenly banking right to the wrong heading then back left, then right still descending to FL 2000 still ok it was still going left, right several more times giving wrong headings I almost was heading into a mountain. I have done this route before with no problems. It has been awhile but all good. I like to fly into SAN from time to time, not sure if this is fluke or what? I know I can not fly there but I like to fly SWA into there. Anyone out there ever had this happen before. Any responses would be much appreciated. Thanks Kenny

yeah, FSX ATC hasn't passed their drug test in a while.

yeah, FSX ATC hasn't passed their drug test in a while.

 

Most here would agree ..... as it's the FS2004 forum. There's a lot of stuff over there that's "wacky".

I just had an interesting situation departing PHX to SAN in AA B757-200. My issue is has any simmers ever came across this before, everything was going right after being in the air for 45 min, I was starting my descent into SAN was still going well the ATC had me banking left then suddenly banking right to the wrong heading then back left, then right still descending to FL 2000 still ok it was still going left, right several more times giving wrong headings I almost was heading into a mountain. I have done this route before with no problems. It has been awhile but all good. I like to fly into SAN from time to time, not sure if this is fluke or what? I know I can not fly there but I like to fly SWA into there. Anyone out there ever had this happen before. Any responses would be much appreciated. Thanks Kenny

 

Yeah, I've had FS9 ATC try to "kill" me with mountainous terrain several times over the years. FS9 ATC would also occasionally vector me towards a 100+ mile final approach for ILS landings. That got real irritating. It was the biggest reason that I switched over to Radar Contact V4.

Yeah, I've had FS9 ATC try to "kill" me with mountainous terrain several times over the years.

That is untypical when on approach, FS9 ATC usually takes terrain into account and if anything (when there is high terrain) does not tell you to descend until it is too late to land.

 

Zig-zag approaches are more common, the mothod FS9 uses for vectors rounds the figures and can keep diverting you to keep you on the exact course it wants.

 

On the other hand Radar Contact and other add-ons pay no heed to terrain and will indeed vectore you into mountains so the latter point is invalid. Their manuals/forums clearly say that it is for you to make the decisions on high ground.

 

John

That is untypical when on approach, FS9 ATC usually takes terrain into account and if anything (when there is high terrain) does not tell you to descend until it is too late to land.

 

/QUOTE]

 

I tend to disagree. I have been routed by ATC MANY times directly into "mountains" and have had to disregard and "do my own thing" in order to keep from kissing earth.

I am agreeing with gwillmot on this one. I do not think the default ATC has any awareness of terrain. It may "appear" that it does, but I suggest this is just that the approaches it uses at some airports will be based on real world ones and these steer clear of the mountains.

 

Addon ATC programs use the same FS9 "internals" and suffer the same faults in this regard. But with addon ATC (at least the one I use - PFE) you can set your minimum FAF per airport so ATC will never descend you lower than that.

To many answers so I want to thank all that responded to my question. I just found this issue out, always made me make the usual two banks to final, then right in missing the mountains. If I remember the next time I arrive at SAN I will have to fly it on my own, I just happened to like when ATC tells me where to be. Again thanks to y'all Kenny:)

I am agreeing with gwillmot on this one. I do not think the default ATC has any awareness of terrain. It may "appear" that it does, but I suggest this is just that the approaches it uses at some airports will be based on real world ones and these steer clear of the mountains.

Interesting that you chaps have that view. I guess the aircraft and routes I use differ from yours but I can say with great certainty that the inbuilt ATC does recognise the terrain 99% of the time. In mountainous areas I have sometimes been instructed to descend and then climb again because land is in the way. I have made many dramatic descents at obscure airports in thick cloud and not experienced issues (other than, as I say, being too high to land in a safe manner). It is just a personal opinion but I find the default ATC safer than the add-ons for this reason - despite all the other nice features they offer.

 

Go back in time to FS2002 (or was it 2000, it is so long ago!) when ATC was introduced and and it is a different story - land was not taken into account in those days at all.

 

The only time in 2004 I find you can get directed into mountains is on airport departure because ATC isn't clever enough to identify your potential climb rate. It is necessary to either ignore the ATC nags and divert a little, or circle to gain height.

 

As a great illustration of the above I invite you to both land and take off from Kathmandu on Runway 2 in a slow descending/climbing aircraft (say 700-1000 fpm). You will get descent instructions to a certain altitude a couple of thousand feet above the ground at that point until you are clear of it, and then get some impossible descent and ILS landing instructions with the runway almost below you! On take-off you will need to circle several times to clear land.

 

Another spectacular one is Cuzco, Peru, which needs accurate terrain mesh for fullest appreciation. At over 10000 feet the airport was served by unpressurised DC-4s in the 1960s and it is surrounded by so much land that you will have a job to get there without climbing to 18000 feet! I'm not sure quite how the crew and passengers survived (hardy lot, the Peruvians are) but it was on a scheduled route with 11 flights per week in 1965. This is a visual landing so flying here in cloud is not recommended. Again you will be kept high until clear of land.

 

Also, if you file a FP in FS for an altitude lower than some mountains en-route you will be instructed to climb to clear it and to descend afterwards. This even works with AI traffic.

 

Best regards,

 

John