ATC vectors to final, or vectors to an ILS - bugged or just not desigend correctly.?

User Support Hub ATC, Traffic & NAVAIDs
1

In current MSFS, has Vectors to final, or vectors to an ILS even been designed or implimented into the sim ?

It seems to be an option in the ATC menu, to request vectors, but often those vectors are incorrect, and not based in the current plane’s position.

Without any formal DOCUMENTATION on how MSFS is designed to work, one can only assume that if it is not working as in RL, it is bugged… but maybe some features, just don’t exist in the sim yet.

For example, when selecting an option in the Flight Plan, or on a GPS to have vectors to final, or to the IAF, does the sim even do that. ?

Has anyone in MSFS ever experienced ATC vectors onto an ILS approach ? .

This is an example of what it SHOULD sound like. without being too Country specific

===================================

Here’s an example of two-way communications between an IFR General Aviation (GA) pilot and Approach Control ATC for vectoring onto an ILS (Instrument Landing System) approach:

,

  • Pilot: “Potomac Approach, N123AB, request ILS approach runway 19 at Dulles, with information Delta.”

  • ATC: “N123AB, Potomac Approach, radar contact 10 miles southwest of Dulles. Expect vectors ILS approach runway 19. Descend and maintain 4000 feet, cleared direct WOOLY, then cleared for the ILS approach. Report established.”

  • Pilot: “Descend and maintain 4000 feet, cleared direct WOOLY, then cleared for the ILS approach runway 19, will report established, N123AB.”

  • After following the assigned heading and descending to 4000 feet:

  • ATC: “N123AB, turn left heading 060, intercept the localizer, report established.”

  • Pilot: “Left turn heading 060, intercepting localizer, will report established, N123AB.”

  • The pilot continues to fly the assigned heading to intercept the ILS Localizer.

  • Pilot: “Potomac Approach, N123AB, established on the ILS Localizer runway 19.”

  • ATC: “N123AB, roger, contact Dulles Tower 119.1, good day.”

  • Pilot: “Contacting Dulles Tower 119.1, N123AB, good day.”

This example showcases the typical communication exchange between an IFR GA pilot and Approach Control while receiving vectors for an ILS approach, including headings, altitudes, and confirmation of being established on the ILS Localizer.

Note: Approach (with radar) does not hand off the aircraft to Tower, before they have established the plane on the ILS Localizer.

Currently in MSFS, Approach hand of the plane to tower some 20 miles out, and leaves it to Tower to guide and give the ILS approach clearance … JUST SO WRONG.

Even VATSIM does it correctly !!!

So, in MSFS, is this Bugged, or simply just not designed correctly ??

1 Like
2

From the SU14 Beta:

  1. Now assigning a new vector & clearance every time the user asks the ATC for a new vector.
3

(I am in the beta)

Yes, every time you ASK … a good improvement, and now it is updating the Vector heading every time you ask (which was not being updated before)

but even that is still flawed, as the vector is given is to the next waypoint, “from the previous waypoint”, and NOT to the next waypoint from the plane’s “CURRENT Position”.

So if you are off course and asking for Vectors, ATC will give you a Parallel heading to the leg between the two waypoints, and not a vector TO the next waypoint. :scream:

Note: This should be a very easy fix (and test), once the error is appreciated - but now, unfortunately, probably a little to late for the SU14 release , despite being reported at the early stage of SU14 beta testing.

3 Likes
4

I am a little confused by your description, specifically the part with the “report establed” being used at different parts of that clearance. I have flown lots of vectored approaches in SoCal but that sequence I have never encountered.
However MSFS should, as with many other things related to ATC, simply go back to FS9/FSX. Vectored approaches worked in those sims. You might have had to as for lower occasionally, especially when flying radial engined aircraft, to avoid having to dive bomb the final segment, but overall you usually ended up with a fairly standard intercept angle for the ILS.
The same applies to a visual approach, which MSFS pretty much has no clue how to get an airplane on the active runway apparently.

5

You and me both !!

The ATC communications were copied directly out of the MSFS ATC log.

Being handed off to tower some 25 mile out and not even vectored onto, or established on the ILS, and then having Tower “Clear me for the ILS” when I am so far away, wrong heading, wrong altitude, and wrong distance, is just “unworkable”

6

I was referring to this section mainly. There are two references to report established. And while it’s been a while, I am not sure that is a realistic clearance either.

But again, MSFS is not even remotely close to that at this point. Which is to me the single biggest downfall of the entire software. ATC is just horrible and in almost every sense worse than FS9 or FSX.
So with all the complaints and bug reports I am still puzzled why they don’t even attempt to rebuild using that code.

1 Like
7

I agree. the 1st “Report Established” was not needed.

BTW. That was NOT MSFS – I only wish it was !!

Instead, it is an example, that I wrote, to demonstrate what such an approach typically sounds like in the real world (USA)

Hopefully, MSFS2024 will achieve something similar

8

Vectors will just be headings and step down altitudes until you’re close to the approach gate. The vector will include a PTAC (Position, Turn, Altitude, Clearance). Like:

“604CF, 5 miles from JARNU, turn right heading 200, maintain one thousand eight hundred until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 17R approach”

Sometimes you will be given direct to a fix on the final approach course (prior to the FAF) and they can omit the turn. In this case, you’ve already been given direct ELMAC (possibly via vector):

“604CF, 3 miles from ELMAC, cross ELMAC at or above 3000, cleared ILS runway 35L approach.”

Generally, most TRACONs will have you on radar coverage and won’t ask you to report established, but I’ve had to do it when center is issuing the approach and/or you’re outside radar coverage. YMMV with certain LOAs at certain facilities. Basically, in radar contact, don’t expect to report, but if you’re not in contact or they ask, then you need to.

2 Likes
9

Ever had to do it when TOWER was clearing you onto the ILS Approach ?? :rofl:

10

Heh, that one practice approach. But they really didn’t give a real clearance, just an “approved as requested, maintain VFR, cleared to land” kind of thing after I basically told them what I was going to do.

11

I forgot about “Practice Approaches” – MSFS ATC is starting to make Possible sense now.

If I had a PPL that was only trained to fly VFR, and I was writting code to represent an ILS approach, I may well only be aware of my experience of possibly getting a “Practice ILS request” approved, and think that it was Tower that should issue a IFR clearance, as well as to Vectoring me to the ILS, not being aware that Tower Controllers do not “Radar Vector”.

Of course, if I had a Real World IFR pilot, or professional ATC controller as a Consultant, I probably would be better informed.

1 Like
12

Yeah, practice approaches… my advice would be to not implement them in the sim as there are so many complications and permutations. You can almost always get at least one approach if you filed IFR, but to get a string of them, usually not, unless it’s a TRACON that’s not busy and/or used to accommodating students.

Even if we’re not working on our initial instrument rating, to maintain our IFR currency we have to do 6HITS every six months (six approaches, holding, intercepting and tracking using electronic nav). If you log any of these approaches in VMC you have to use a view-limiting device, and that means you need a safety pilot who is rated in the category/class and type (if necessary), with a current medical to act either as PIC or SIC.

However, ATC isn’t always willing or able to play along with practice approaches. A good chunk of the time real-world ATC will be unable to accommodate practice approaches due to workload/traffic or lack of radar coverage. If it’s center’s airspace and you’re requesting practice approaches, they’ll often tell you to pound sand (again, depending on the center and workload).
The result is we often do them “own nav” into non-towered airports with the safety pilot providing vectors, and our interaction with ATC is kept to an advisory nature.

Either way, a typical VFR practice approach conversation goes like this:

“604CF, request practice RNAV runway xxx into xxx”

“604CF, maintain VFR, practice approach approved as requested, radar services terminated, keep your squawk (was on FF), frequency change approved, report back this frequency upon termination of approach.” No vectors, no “clearance.”

So in that case we just do the approach own nav, VFR in VMC, under the hood, making “practice approach” calls on CTAF.

But the last time I did my 6HITS, I filed a round robin IFR (same origin and departure airport) and put the approaches I wanted in the comments. Every approach was followed by modified missed approach instructions (not the published missed), something like:

“N604CF, at termination of low approach and upon reaching controlled airspace, turn right heading xxx, climb and maintain xxxx, and contact me this frequency.” Then after readback, the PTAC and a frequency change.

So you have four practice approach scenarios:

  1. Own nav (simulated IMC/IFR), no ATC
  2. Own nav (simulated IMC/IFR), with ATC advisories
  3. Full ATC guidance and practice clearances under VFR (still simulated IMC/IFR)
  4. Full ATC under IFR (but you may only get one approach)

And I suppose the “fifth” option for logging an approach is an actual IFR approach, in IMC past the FAF. But that’s the real deal, not practice, haha.

If you’re past the 6 month window, you can’t file IFR, so you have an additional six month window to get them done using one of the first three options before your IFR completely expires and you have to do an instrument proficiency check with a CFII.

These are the kind of things that come to mind when I see people wanting “real ATC,” I just don’t think they know how varied it actually is in the US. There are so many exceptions, LOAs, etc, that “real” becomes very subjective, very quickly.

13

Again it has been a while (2013), but even flying in very busy SoCal airspace around ONT, CNO, SNA etc I never had any problems getting a couple practice approaches in with ATC.
Of course time of day and day of the week did make a difference. You simply did not ask for ILS into ONT during the busy afternoon or early evening hours when all the airlines were lined up all the way back to PHX😃
I often fulfilled my IFR-currency requirements in one afternoon flight on Saturday or Sunday. The only airport that was always a bit weird was SBD, with an ILS into rwy 6 but prevailing winds almost always favoring 24. Many of the years I flew there it was untowered and a favorite playground for all flight schools with its 10000ft runway making is really easy to teach ground effect, touch and go etc and still have all kinds of safety reserves. Flying approaches into there meant the safety pilot really had to stay sharp and you never really flew down to minimum.

But on other occasions controllers would even as if I had time and fuel to play. For example if a tower controller needed a GCA to remain current. Now there is something that is a lot of fun … not holding my breath that we will ever see that in MSFS.

14

Always great to get your input, ether here in the Forum, or on your MSFS Twitch Streams.

However, I am still confused (as MSFS also to seems to be), about the MSFS ATC implementation of a normal IFR, ILS approach, with interaction with Approach, and later with Tower, !

1 Like
15

Air Force Bases, active and former (as long as they haven’t been turned into a primary airport like AUS or MCO) are great places to request practice approaches! Just don’t touch the wheels down on an active base.

Did you end up doing a circle to land Rwy 24 from that ILS to Rwy 6?

16

We seem to have way off the original topic of ATC giving a vector to next waypoint as

  • From last passed waypoint to next waypoint,

and not as

  • Current Aircraft Position to next waypoint

Is it only me that finds this wrong ?

2 Likes
17

On occasion yes, but usually just ended going “missed” and then back up with ATC for something else or in many cases back to now destroyed L67.
In those days SBD was really sort of in-between uses. There was an outfit repurposing old airliners, a flight school and FBO. Not even a restaurant.

Later MillionAire opened a FBO, a Tower came back in operation and there was more cargo traffic.
And at some point tenants from L67 were supposed to move there.