What does 'Maintain present heading and altitude' actually mean?

[trex5365]

@anon50268670

This always gives me the creeps, 2000 for 6 what?

I did that on purpose!

Yes, officially, we’re supposed to give 2000 ft for 6000 ft.

[mdapol]

@trex5365

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.

Ok, that’s fair enough. I will amend my comment to be “*for non-pilots, I think ATC is pretty good however for pilots or those who are training to be pilots, it’s not acceptable”. I agree that if you are using MSFS for practice, you need to practice correctly.

[PZL104]

I’ve never tried the in game ATC, but it ATC keeps you e.g. way too high for too long so that you are unable to start the final approach at the correct altitude, ATC is especially useless for non-pilots!
Pilots know how to calculate their TOD and hence they can ignore ATC if necessary.

[mdapol]

Well, I haven’t had the “too high” problem very much. Not at all in fact, since SU5. But maybe I’m just lucky.

[PZL104]

Nice to know

[Enkanath]

@sverzijl

I’ve read a lot about Pilot2ATC. Does it handle traffic at airports better? Or does it ignore AI/Live Planes?

I don’t think it takes notice of AI traffic at all …

[CaptainRude91]

@KenG1175

I’d like to say the ATC that is built into our $20 million Full Flight Sims is better, but it is not.

There actually are really good sims with SATCE (Simulated ATC Environment) nowadays.

@KenG1175

Maintain heading is vague, the FAA prefers Heading 360. Same with altitude

There is nothing vague about “maintain present heading” its proper ICAO phraseology. I agree with “maintain present altitude”, thats a nonsense phrase and not used in real life (I hope).

[CaptainRude91]

I have the same experience, its usually quite close to the aircraft natural top of descent.

[KenG1175]

(post deleted by author)

[CaptainRude91]

ICAO Doc. 4444:

Ok, might have been confused with “continue” instead of “maintain” present heading. But “Continue present heading” IS proper ICAO phraseology.

[KenG1175]

(post deleted by author)

[CaptainRude91]

FAA is not following ICAO phraseology anyway .

In Europe its common to respond with “continue heading … degrees” when cleared to continue present heading. Same when asked to turn … degrees left or right, the response usually includes the new heading e.g. “left 10 degrees, new heading 360 degrees”. Otherwise ATC would need to ask you to “report heading” and then clear you to continue that heading, its a bit shorter this way I guess.

[sverzijl]

When it says:

‘SXG, you are 65 miles west. Keep speed not above 210 knots. Expect blah. Blah. Cleared to MENEA’.

Does that mean I can now go direct to MENEA, or do I need to continue my current flight plan (few more waypoints to go) and then head to MENEA?

[PZL104]

This is supposed to mean direct to MENEA.
To avoid exactly this question IRL ATC would say: Cleared from present position direct to MENEA,
or only, cleared direct to MENEA.

The only other way I can think of why ATC would mention MENEA IRL is as a clearance limit.

[trex5365]

@PZL104

The only other way I can think of why ATC would mention MENEA IRL is as a clearance limit

In real life I agree with PZL104, it could mean Direct to. But in MSFS, I don’t think thats what it means.

I think MSFS is providing a clearance limit. I think what you are supposed to do is add the approach using MENEA as a transition fix. Then continue to fly your existing route having added MENEA and transitioning to the approach afterward.

This phrasing would not happen in the real world. I would double check with ATC: “Please confirm- direct to MENEA or continue on course to MENEA.”