FLIGHTCONTROL Ideas

[funkyfranky]

Some thoughts about flightcontrol and what we can add/change:

• request for startup: mostly unnecessary and do nothing, but gives a little bit communication and you know if other players already in the plane.
• on airports with several runways the information which runway is closed for landing and free for taxiing. This affects only some airports.
• possibility for request taxi to a place to rearm and an other place to refuel. Absolutely nonsense in DCS but bring s a little bit more immersion for people how like it.
• the idea of the holding pattern is a little bit unclear. It could be a simple overhead approach on the one side or a more complex holding in a star approach. But for the pilot it is not clear. Maybe a more clear description in the F10 menu.
• a simple method that the tower says: "you are leaving my controll area switch to frequency ..."

[derbuur]

I also thought a little bit longer about the landing topic and it is a really complex thing in DCS and also in real life.
Thinking always from the perspective of an pilot never landed on the airport for me is important which information the pilot needs to land safely.

On the other hand there are over 200 airports in DCS and for this Moose can only work on information catchable via the api for all basic information. The rest must be added via mission designer.
For a VFR landing it is simple. Me as an pilot expect only a vector to the airfield and the QFE, the rest is done visual by the pilot. All the organization and the spacing between airplanes. And this should be easily done via scripting.

Now it gets much harder with the IFR landing.
Therefore that there is no way to get airport beacons via scripting and also often a mobile TACAN is added via mission editor, we have here the first point that the mission editor has to add the beacons manually. Something like FLIGHTCONTROL:setVOR(frequencie,coordinates). Than the ATC can give a course to the airport and also an arc to fly to intersect the glide path. Something like "Enfield, fly 300 and fly a 10.8 arc around the VOR. Intersect the glide path at 220."
This is nearly a standard IFR landing which suits for most of the airports.

Now we have at least the pilots who will fly with airport charts. Maybe a simple one.
The mission creator has to supply to the pilots the charts and finally we need only a system where the mission creator can define the radio call via SRS.
For example: if runway 30 is active, ATC says: "You are clear to land on runway 30 using approach chart xyz".

[derbuur]

Here a possibility to calculate the 10nm arc with an offset of the TACAN sender.

[funkyfranky]

Well, I guess the first question is how to differentiate between an VFR and IFR approach?

• Should the be the pilot's choice? For example, via separate inbound calls in the F10 menu? I.e. options to request inbound for IFR or request inbound for VFR
• Should it be restricted by the mission designer?
• Is VFR only possible under certain weather conditions?
• What if the mission designer did not provide enough info for an IFR approach?
• What if the plane cannot do an IFR approach?

[derbuur]

Think it should be pilot's choice, and I see the mission designer not as restrictor than more as enabler. If mission designer didn't place a mobile TACAN for example the pilot cannot land. Or if the frequencies are not shared.

Should be VFR only possible under certain weather conditions? First, I'm not sure if DCS will provide us enough information about the visibility over the airfield and second I'm not sure if there is a method to prohibit a VFR landing. So it is pilots choice and finally his risk.

If the mission designer did not provide enough info for an IFR approach than the pilot could look into the F10 map and search for a beacon and land. But that happens if the mission designer give not enough love to his mission and is nothing solvable via script.

And the same for planes not able to do an IFR approach. What should we do via scripting? A talk down? Do this sometimes as an ATC and you must be very quick in your commands to bring the plane on the right course and glide scope. Personally I think that SRS TTS isn't fast enough for this. Planes without the right IFR equipment are good weather planes and so they have to land via VFR.

Here an example of the conversation between pilot and ATC, not that I'm a real pilot or ATC and know how it have to be done:
Pilot: "request inbound"
ATC: "runway 33 is open, Sight 5 miles, VFR and IFR via VOR are possible."
Pilot: "request VOR approach"
ATC: "fly heading 254 ...."

[derbuur]

Here some more thoughts about the IFR approach, especially about the different cases which we had if we start on different places:
Sector 1: Starting an approach from this sector, ATC should give us a direct vector to the initial point of the glide scope. The pilot could intercept the glide scope an this point.
Sector 3/4: ATC should give us a vector to the TACAN, than we can fly right/left the arc until we intercept the IP.
Sector 2: The plane is inside the 10nm TACAN radius. ATC should guide the pilot to the initial point and the pilot must fly a turnaround.