ATC doesn’t tell you to keep doing something. “Proceed on course” is not akin to “keep doing what you’re doing.” Talk to any pilot, the in-sim ATC is a joke. Except it’s not a joke, because jokes are funny.
What really blows my mind is that they developed a sim from the ground up and clearly didn’t even bother with ATC. They didn’t even try. It’s just astounding.
I am a pilot.
In real life you are correct. Sorry I wasn’t clear. I was posting that the instruction MSFS intends to assign:
Continue on course to clearance limit (which is the transition fix)
(Yes I know this is also the wrong phraseology)
Has phraseology that is so incorrect : maintain present heading and altitude
That it actually has changed the meaning of the intended instruction.
Fly in a straight line
“Continue” is common instruction in US when handed off to tower but before landing clearance can be issued.
Me “Ohare Tower, Bigbird 123, 5000, ILS 28C”
ORD “Bigbird 123 Continue. Traffic ahead on 5 mi final”
2 Likes
Thank you and thanks @Zeeflyboy, that makes perfectly sense now. I made the AZF (german international radio certificate for IFR) years ago but never proceeded to the IFR rating so while the phraseology and usually common procedures are nothing new to me some things remain a secret 
It is worse than that, they did not develop a sim from the ground up but they leveraged as much as they could and wanted from FSX. Yet FSX ATC worked better and was more realistic than MSFS2020 ATC.
1 Like
I can only imagine how difficult it must be to build an intelligent and creatively “thinking” AI for a 3D flight simulator. The ATC of FS9 and FSX was robust but totally simple and very very wrong, XP has a simply terrible attempt of an ATC. That’s not just a couple of cops spawning and running at you, taking cover behind a wall, rather it must be a logic that can catch you wherever you are and guide you to wherever you want covering a couple of thousands of rules and regulations and on top of that coordinate that with AI or even other players’ traffic. And then, cherry on the cake, make a difference between countries. That would basically cover the expectations of people in this forum.
Development alone might be worth a couple of hundred of dollars per customer. I would prefer no AI ATC at all and a good implementation and support/cooperation of VATSIM and IVAO. But that won’t happen either
2 Likes
Yeah, I remember a few times hearing developers talking about working with FSX code. It left me slack-jawed.
Good news is you always have the option of disabling the AI ATC and using VATSIM or IVAO full-time if you want (at no extra cost).
that’s the advantage in this direction, that’s true. It is muted here indeed.
Yes, disappointing how that worked out 
I’ve read a lot about Pilot2ATC. Does it handle traffic at airports better? Or does it ignore AI/Live Planes?
I got Pilot2ATC…and it’s ok, but still serverly limited. Can’t say I ever noticed it handling traffic at all…don’t think it can?
I used it as a bit of a trainer for Vatsim. And now I pretty much only fly on vatsim, which is a game changer. Flying into Dubai last Saturday with literally dozens of other aircraft on approach, with 2 (highly proficient) approach controllers managing the traffic flow was really an amazing experience.
“Maintain …” is not the same as “proceed on course”. “Proceed on course” must be an FAA phrase, I believe it has the same meaning as the ICAO “own navigation”?
Example:
KLM 123 for separation, maintain present heading.
KLM 123, own navigation EEL.
Although its more common to receive a “direct to” as “own navigation” means you don’t need to proceed in the shortest direction.
KLM 123, direct EEL.
The point is, ATC does occasionally clear you to maintain something you already have which could be present altitude, heading or speed. But the MSFS phraseology is wrong.
Present heading → indicating transfer to whatever procedure or airway you are currently flying to radar vectors. The phrase “maintain present heading” is correct in this case. Its common practise to report the present heading for further vectoring by ATC.
KLM 123, maintain present heading, vectors for ILS approach runway 27.
Maintain heading 360 degrees, KLM 123.
Present altitude or level → the only situation I can think of is being cleared to follow the lateral part of a procedure but not cleared to follow the vertical part yet or only to a certain altitude. The phraseology used here should be “maintain altitude … ft”, thus the cleared altitude or level is repeated. “Maintain present altitude” is not a phrase used in (ICAO) RTF.
KLM 123, cleared … approach, maintain altitude … ft.
KLM 123, cleared visual approach runway 27, maintain altitude … ft, expect descent shortly.
KLM 123, maintain altitude … ft until on final.
Another example is this category is asking for a higher / lower level with traffic above / below, again the currently cleared altitude or level is repeated.
KLM 123, request climb FL350.
KLM 123, negative, maintain FL330, traffic above.
Present speed → if ATC wants you to maintain present speed, they would likely ask you what speed you are currently maintaining and then clear you to maintain that speed.
For example:
KLM 123, report speed.
Speed 250 kts, KLM 123.
KLM 123, maintain speed 250 kts.
Conclusion of a long story, “maintain present heading” is a thing (after which you should receive vectors of course and not having to ask for the next vector yourself 
), “maintain present altitude” is not a thing.
So is it asking me to continue my approach without changing altitude?
Because in the case I was dealing with last night if I continued the approach and began my descent then ATC would contact me complaining that I wasn’t maintaining altitude. If I continued to the runway I was never given clearance to land.
When I continued my direction it eventually (10 minutes later) told me to contact the tower for landing.
I’m really thinking what the game is asking me to do is to hover around the airport until whatever traffic is landing has landed and the runway is free for me to land?
Its just bugged, I never never select an approach using vectors for this reason.
Well, as long as you guys keep posting that the ATC stuff is still broken, i cannot be bothered to turn it on again. Just hope there’s some light at the end of the tunnel for the people that actually are serious enough to use it. Thanks for the thread!
Woof ~ Woof
Steiny
ATC isn’t “broken”. It’s just not perfect. Some people will not be satisfied until the in-game ATC is indistinguishable from real life.
The ATC is currently pretty good. It just depends how tolerant you are of bad instructions. Similar to how tolerant you are to bad autocorrect. I’m pretty tolerant. It doesn’t cause me huge immersion problems.
2 Likes
Confirmed. We often get “proceed on course” or even more frequently, if a turn is required to join the IFR cleared route, “right on course.” We also get “own navigation” calls.
Me: “New York Departure, Good day Bigbird 123 with you, 2000 for 6.”
NY: “Bigbird 123, Radar contact 2300, right on course”
Me: “Right on course, own navigation, Bigbird 123.”
What it’s really asking you to do is continue the last assignment via cleared route or assigned altitude instruction until you get to the clearance limit (transition fix).
If you’re on a STAR with vertical planning info, might make sense to do what it tells you, regardless of ATC assignment because there is a chance you’ll come in too high and too fast and be forced to go around. As you get close enough, ATC will sometimes stop barking at you and offer you the right handoff.
I think most who recognize my posts would agree that I’m not a “the sky is falling, everything is broken, it’s the end of the world” type of person when it comes to MSFS.
I must respectfully disagree with you. In game ATC is atrocious. I’m not talking about from an immersion perspective, I’m speaking from a “does it do what it’s supposed to do” view.
As a real pilot, in-game ATC makes me break rules i have trained. For VFR, sure it’s good enough. For IFR, it’s a disaster.
Not only is the phraseology seemingly to get worse with each update. The best from a US flying perspective was when the “good day” greetings showed up, was it SU5 or the world update right before? It continued to regress from there.
I should not be given altimeter setting in a takeoff clearance. I’m in a high workload environment. I should already have the right altimeter prior to push, when I tuned ATIS, when I did the predeparture IFR systems check during taxi and so on and so forth.
IRL, if the altimeter does change, all controllers (ground, Tower, sometimes approach/departure) will give:
ATC: “Attention all aircraft: Milwaukee information B is now current. Wind 260/7, Altimeter 29.99.”
Fine, this is a small example, but this is the newest mistake that came up with the 1.19.9.0.
“Maintain speed not above” is wrong, but this is only immersion. It’s not that big a deal.
Bigger issues:
-
Failure to descend me to the point of being able to intercept an approach is a big problem. How often have we come down too hot and too high needing to go around just because in game ATC didn’t descend us on time?
-
“Maintain present heading and altitude” - in the above issue, I’ve actually been sent way off course complying with ATC. This is simply not a correct instruction.
Secondly, if my clearance limit is now the transition to approach, how can I proceed on the approach without that route having been cleared for me?
Instead, I throw away my years of training, continue to fly the approach, TRACON hands me off to tower (still no approach clearance and I’ve flown 75% of the approach on an uncleared route?!). Short final, Tower gives me in lightning succession, cleared for the approach (ooops) and before I have time to read back, cleared to land?
In the real world, I should expect “bigbird 123, possible pilot deviation, expect to copy a phone number from the Ground controller after you land.”
This always gives me the creeps, 2000 for 6 what? . ICAO phraseology:
Passing altitude 2000 ft, climbing to altitude 6000 ft.
With flight levels “to” is omitted.
(post deleted by author)