I have noticed this change in ATC instuctions since the recent update.
For example, flight plan requests cruising altitude of say 35,000.
When given instructions by ATC to step climb to an an altitude below your final cruising altitude (example 26,000), I have noticed since the update that ATC now gives you further instructions to climb again around 2,000 feet (at 24,000 feet) before you have reached the 26,000, therefore not giving you any time to level off and increase your speed.
Before the update, ATC would give you an instruction to further climb once you had reached and began to level off at the previously instructed altitude, which I prefered somewhat as it enabled you to gain some speed whilst level before climbing again.
If you level off too long you get the constant annoying ATC instructions repeatedly telling you to climb.
Therefore my wish list is: When ATC tells you to climb to an altitude, that say 30 or 60 seconds is lapsed before a further instruction is given to climb?
Even in a modern A320 I find it a strain to try and maintain airspeed climbing from 5,000 feet up to 36,000 feet in one go.
Any opinions on this from anyone or is there a fix for this already?
This was intentional change, as the ATC really should not have been waiting until you already reached your previously assigned altitude before giving you another step climb. It’s a marked improvement over the prior version where you would have no choice but to level off slightly every time before they’d grant you your next step which was typically unrealistic and disruptive.
If you need to continuously level off to gain more speed, that suggests you may have the wrong power configuration or are attempting to climb too quickly. Generally speaking you should be able to climb continuously to your final climb altitude in nearly any aircraft - especially the A320 since that’s what you have tagged on the post. You should be climbing at a constant IAS until roughly FL250-300 when you’ll intercept your desired Mach climb speed, typically around .78M, depending on cost index. As you gain altitude you should be climbing slower to maintain the same IAS/Mach.
If you’re using climb in managed mode, the A320 will manage it’s own climb vs vertical speed. I often wait until ATC give me the final climb step, punch it in, leave on managed mode and let it do it’s thing.
And don’t worry if it’s climbing under 500ft/min at the higher altitudes, this is completely normal due to thinner air up there. Someone with a bigger gaming chair than me can explain the technicals.
Many thanks for your detailed reply, I do usually climb manually, taking into account reducing the climb as I get higher. I usually switch over to mach around FL270 and above FL300 a climb rate of approx 1000-1200FT/M. It’s above FL300 I find many aircraft struggle to keep desired airspeed at this rate and any climb < 800FT/M ATC is nagging you to increase your climb.
I fly both FNX & FBW A320 & PMDG 739, F1 Bae146.
I guess I do it this way rather than using managed climb (& descent) as I like to feel more active in the cockpit and enjoyed leveling off.
This is one of those cases where automation is inherently safer: you should be climbing by setting power, and using pitch to manage airspeed.
For example, a C172 will climb at around 90 knots. If I was flying it in a climb, I’m setting my climb power (25” MAP and 2500RPM), and trimming for the airspeed. I’m NOT using vertical speed control.
In an A320, you should be using automation for the climb. The flight computers know what the climb speed should be based on the aircraft weight, environmental conditions, and altitude, and the FADEC knows what power to set for climb.
I realize everyone has fun different ways, but I recommend not working yourself through trying to manually control every detail of the climb. Instead, may I recommend letting the computer manage the climb so you can cross-reference the fuel burn with the planned fuel burn, and enjoy the views from the sky while you’re climbing?
I don’t believe the new system of level allocations is either an improvement or realistic, in fact I think it was a missed opportunity. Why?
In an ideal world the most fuel efficient method would be for ATC to allow an aircraft to climb continuously after take off until it had reached its initial cruising altitude. Now this is only rarely possible for a number of reasons:
Standard Instrument Departures may have level restrictions attached to prevent climb above a certain level, in order to keep outbound aircraft below the inbound aircraft routes or holding stacks, or in order to provide seperate levels for aircraft departing from multiple airports in a terminal control area. Once clear of departure restrictions ATC units may only have responsibility for a limited zone of airspace up to a defined level, which may limit their ability to climb aircraft until they are transferred to an en-route control unit. In addition of course there is the overriding requirement to seperate aircraft, which in a non radar environment is difficult unless level restrictions are imposed until aircraft tracks have crossed.
Similar restrictions prevent inbound aircraft from carrying out the continuous descent procedures which are most fuel efficient.
I believe the Sim should endeavour to provide the most realistic procedures when I fly in the simulator. Neither of the options used so far achieve that. While it is unfair to expect complete realism, I think with a bit of imagination a more realistic scenario for IFR flights could be accomplished relatively easily, as follows:
The Sim has access to the departure SID level data, so ATC departure clearances could allocate initial levels in accordance with the SID restrictions.
When the aircraft changes from the departure tower frequency then the subsequent ATC units could use a random number system to decide whether to restrict an aircraft for a period of time, or whether to issue further climb instructions. Local terrain restrictions would need to be taken into account and phraseology would need to be adapted such as “maintain x feet /level, expect further climb shortly”. Possibly the ATC system could determine different climb restrictions based on the complexity of the airspace and or AI traffic levels. A similar system could vary the descent instructions.
Now I know this would be an artificial system, until a true ATC process is developed, and it would add to the complexity of flying, but it would be more realistic than having ATC always clear you to a higher level 2000 ft before you level off.
I too wish ATC would honour climb and descent restrictions, something it only appears to do on airways at the moment. However the earlier clearance to climb is for me a great improvement, previous to the update I used to set the initial altitude 100ft higher and hope I’d get the final cruise altitude before having to level off.
I don’t deny that its an easier system than the original, however it doesn’t offer any degree of realism. I fly the Just Flight Bae146, which is an excellent aircraft but was never designed for single pilot operation, but I get more satisfaction on the rare occasions when, after a difficult and complex flight, I manage to do somethings right.
I find flying the A320 very boring as the degree of automation takes most of the enjoyment out of the flight. I would agree with your wish that ATC would correctly apply climb and descent restrictions, as these are implemented very badly in the sim.
Someone with a bigger gaming chair than me can explain the technicals.