ATC Incorrect Phraseology

They fired the Aces Studio so until they found Asobo nobody was interested in ATC. Asobo has created an interesting platform as a starter but although they can probably fix the ATC it will take a long time before we see a great AI driven ATC system. The priority should be to get the planes flying correctly IMO then work on all the other stuff!

Admittedly not an ATC system, but I did use EditVoicePack on FS9 through to and including P3D5 which made it really easy to get airport names, aircraft names and call signs correctly spoken. It also had a method to replace US ATC with ICAO phraseology (within the limitations of those sims) and it would be great to have at least this functionality.

P3D + EditVoicepack shows just how terrible FS2020 ATC is. Even the voices sound more natural. They can pronounce callsigns properly, for a start. The words flow in a much more natural way. And the only advantage that FS2020 ATC has (SIDs, STARs, and approaches) is badly implemented and will send you into the flight levels a few miles away from your destination.

And as a well known but little recognized bit of info: FSX and P3D ATC does in fact have SIDs and STARs and approaches. The thing is that these procedures are simplified, generic, and not editable.

1 Like

We still have issues with phraseology even after SU4 that was supposed to make ATC compliant with FAA standards. Things like QNH/Altimeter not being read back but confirmed with “Roger” by the pilot, and using station name for every call to the ATC. Station name only used on first contact, after that you just use your callsign. I also noticed ATC handles you over to Center when in a sector controlled by approach. Might do proper testing today to make a list. Hope this will get fixed. Should be a relatively easy fix to implement since it’s mostly about changing the script.

As far as I know, reading back altimeter settings is not required. In busy airspaces it might actually be discouraged.

Ok, it’s been awhile since I’ve flown in the US, but here in Europe it’s mandatory.

Good point. Just looked it up. All i could find is SERA.8015(e)(1)(iii), but it applies starting from 27 January, 2022.

My biggest gripe, aside from the still incorrect runways based on the winds, is the phrase:
“N808XY maintain present heading and altitude…expect visual approach rwy 36”
That is not really what they mean, but rather:
“N808XY proceed as filed, expect visual approach…”

Maintain present heading and altitude means:
From where you are at the moment you look at the current heading and altitude and hold those two values…until ATC comes back to you or you fly into a mountain.

1 Like

Maintain present heading does occur in real life. Maintain present altitude not, thats a nonsense call.

@Nijntje91 : Read what I wrote mate…I did not say this phrase doesn’t exist. And actually the combination HDG and altitude together is one I have frequently received IRL in SoCal.

Usually this went something like “N8087B maintain present heading and altitude, contact approach on 124.65” That next controller would then either give you a new heading or altitude or both depending on the situation.

But the way MSFS ATC uses it is complete BS. Quite often it is used when there are still two or three waypoints between present position and the IF or destination airport.
And if you actually follow the ATC instruction, in the cases I have seen, you would never get near the destination…I tried…flew 150nm out of the way just to see if there ever would be a new heading.

From my observations so far you get the maintain heading & altitude when being “vectored” to a visual approach, which in my case I’ve had set up on the FPS. I now ignore that instruction because I never get near my destination and instead let the AP fly it to the visual final approach. Has worked fine with no irate ATC a few times.

Which is annoying really because you’d never get away with it IRL!

Agreed.

Should be “proceed on course. Expect ils 27r approach via PEKUE transition.”

What Microsoft flight simulator normally says for this is “maintain present heading and altitude. Expect ILS 27R via PEKUE transition. Cleared to PEKUE.”

I get that it’s extending the clearance limit to PEKUE, but this reads as “Direct PEKUE”, which is also not what it intended.

I think it should be call sign, You are 30 miles East of the airport. Expect ILS 27 right approach via PEKUE transition. Proceed on course to PEKUE."

Then, presumably I will be cleared for the ILS 27R approach at some point prior to reaching PEKUE by TRACON.

Then I will be given my landing clearance when established on the approach and handed off to tower.

As opposed to today, when I am already performing half of the approach and then handed off to tower who then goes through a lightning quick sequence where I get my landing and approach clearance basically back-to-back.

I do, this phrase doesn’t exist, at least not in European airspace (or under ICAO phraseology). I don’t see the purpose of this phrase at all. If you are climbing or descending or not maintaining the assigned altitude accurately, are you then supposed to maintain the current (present) altitude rather than the cleared altitude? Doesn’t make sense. I taught VFR and IFR radiotelephony for years never heard of it… But then FAA phraseology has more weird quirks :sweat_smile::joy:

I don’t know…I have right around 2000h IRL both VFR and IFR flown in the western half of the US.
To me that is what MSFS is based on and all prior FS ATCs as well.

The purpose of this phrase as it was used in SoCal airspace just to give you one example was to hold you at your current altitude and heading to let crossing traffic pass safely over your path without either aircraft having to deviate much to maintain separation.

If you look at the LA/ONT sectional you will see a huge number of airports and with generally good Wx a ton of GA airtraffic mixing it up with commercial traffic in/out of ONT, LAX,BUR,SAN.

Not everyone was talking on the radio and with ATC either so sometimes “maintain present altitude” also kept you away from conflicting traffic without having to deviate from you planned course.

Interesting, I guess those kind of airspaces don’t really exist in Europe. VFR and IFR are usually separated, TMAs are controlled airspace, often two way radio communication is mandatory, international airports often have class A TMAs so VFR is not even allowed.

Similar cases in EU are usually solved by “level of altitude / FL …” or “recleared altitude / FL … due crossing traffic”, in any case an exact altitude or level is given.

Well you also can’t just shoot 6 ILS approaches into an international airport in Europe, say thanks to the controllers and head back to your airport and have a beer in your hangar.
The only cost being the 100LL you pushed through the IO540 and the beer :slight_smile:
The few times I have flown in Europe since moving back I am always reminded just how good I had it in CA when it comes to freedom to fly.

Pay for this, charge for that, rules and obstacles everywhere.
Most GA aircraft did talk to ATC simply because it did not cost anything and if everyone was talking everyone was one bit safer.

You could, I have even flown practice approaches at Frankfurt, Munich and Schiphol with a Single Engine Piston when I was a flight instructor. Dusseldorf also regularly although not a mainport, spend a couple of days at Innsbruck flying every instrument procedure with a couple of students. But yeah, GA is not as big in Europe and it is indeed more strict.

But not for free :smiley: … We did one ILS at FRA as well in a friends Bonanza and I am pretty sure there was a Eurocontrol charge for that.

There is indeed, I’m not sure if you pay per approach though. I luckily have never paid for anything ever, instead I got paid :joy:

Big difference. I only paid at two airports. LAX because they made you taxi to an FBO and park. and Catalina which is a private airport.
I only got paid for 200 hours though :smiley: