Case 3 ATC query

[markturner1960]

Apologies for all the posts, often the way when you start concentrating on something in depth! Working on Case 3 & ACLS landings. 

I was starting at 7000 ft approx 25 miles out and therefore check in and platform were very close as my DME was 21, angels 6.......

I commenced and descended, at 4000fpm, I hit platform, called it and then immediately afterr, check in

Message history shows platform at 55:35 and check in at 55:56

I carried on my approach, but did not hear the next expected calls....when I selected the radio menu again, it was still showing the platform and check in menu....so even though I was at 1200ft and approx 7 miles, I had to call platform again......

The ATC then seemed to catch itself up, but wondered what was happening  and why......

 

Thanks

 

[Jel]

Somehow confusing, sure you did the correct order ?

 

You start by getting your designated pattern altitude and call "established".

Afterwards, after the designated time, you start your approach, calling "commencing", lady then tells you to "switch approach". 

Here you "check in" (meaning "hey i´m here") and continue your path - your check in should be validated by a "roger" from approach.

Once you reach "platform" -call it.

Edited December 13, 2024 by Jel

[markturner1960]

thanks, yes, I am aware of the procedure, but was wondering if the sequence matters and how the parameters are used by the AI ATC.....Check in in real life is supposed to be at 20 miles, but if commencing at 21 which you always do if a single player, commencing, platform and check can all fall on top of each other.....

I was wondering if the sequence mattered, and how much leeway you get from the AI if you are late or oput of parameters or call platform before check in for example......

[Tommy_CVW-66]

The sequence doesn't matter so much to the ATC. You can call up on marshal, get instructions, call established (no matter where you are, just be more than 10nm away) and then instantly do platform and you'll get data suggesting you need to descend to 1200ft. Then just fly your approach and at around 10nm they'll continue with the Case3 procedure. 8nm is final radar contact, 5/6nm ACLS lock on and from that point you get your last DATA update and you can engage ACLS.

You can skip commencing and checking in calls and it will still work as described above. 

[TonyG]

18 hours ago, markturner1960 said:

Check in in real life is supposed to be at 20 miles

Curious as to your source on this?   Carrier Control Area (CCA) is more like 50 miles.  The below document is worth a read  

 

[markturner1960]

I mean the “check in” call, after “inbound” & “established” calls……where you switch channels from marshal to approach………..not the initial “inbound” call to Marshall you are referring to. That guide is fantastic, was in Pieter’s squad when he was writing it, so am very familiar. See chapter on communications. 
 

It’s all a bit confusing, as DCS does not follow the exact real life procedures and does not account for switching channels or differentiate between modes of landing in its response to you. 

[MAXsenna]

8 minutes ago, markturner1960 said:

It’s all a bit confusing, as DCS does not follow the exact real life procedures and does not account for switching channels or differentiate between modes of landing in its response to you. 

Personally I thought they were gonna achieve that with the SC release. Draw experience and knowledge from it, for "porting" it to the rest of the SIM, primarily ATC. Seems to me a missed opportunity. And I was, (still am), a little disappointed when I learned this. 

[paulca]

On 12/15/2024 at 3:13 AM, TonyG said:

Curious as to your source on this?   Carrier Control Area (CCA) is more like 50 miles.  The below document is worth a read 

It is a worth a read, but it's also full of inconsistencies and contradictions.

The source for much of it is actually threads on this forum, nearly literally copy and pasted.  Often from a single individual.  

 

 

 

[Nealius]

Most of it is sourced from CNATRA, with images and paragraphs cut/pasted directly into it. Despite using it as a primary source the author claims CNATRA is "useless" whenever someone points out all the inconsistencies and contradictions.

[norman99]

On 12/15/2024 at 2:39 PM, MAXsenna said:

Personally I thought they were gonna achieve that with the SC release. Draw experience and knowledge from it, for "porting" it to the rest of the SIM, primarily ATC. Seems to me a missed opportunity. And I was, (still am), a little disappointed when I learned this.

That's exactly what were were told, many times. Unfortunately, years later, we're still waiting on anything resembling ATC improvements.

[markturner1960]

Actually, most of the document is from the authors work in producing it with Lex, a real life F18 pilot…….you got a better one?

[fagulha]

1 hour ago, markturner1960 said:

Actually, most of the document is from the authors work in producing it with Lex, a real life F18 pilot…….you got a better one?

And GB (real life Hornet pilot, and flew other airframes too).

Edited December 19, 2024 by fagulha

[Nealius]

And CNATRA, like I said. Specifically P-816 if I recall correctly. Diagrams and paragraphs are cut directly from it. Literally cited as a source at the end of the document.

One thing that many people don't have awareness of is that some first-hand SME info is only valid for the time frame and squadron(s) they were flying. SOP differs from squadron to squadron, time period to time period. What was true for operations in 1997 isn't necessarily going to be true for operations in 2006, or in 2020. Now add the objective fallibility of human memory that often mixes things up, and it's wiser to cross-check testimony with official documentation. I.e. best to avoid appeals to authority. So while it is a "definitive" guide, it's not absolute and there's still a lot of leeway for exceptions. Unlike a lot of other SMEs out on the social media sphere who make it a point to stress that their information is valid for when they were in service and not necessarily still valid today, the lack of that same humility shown by the author of the document is a red flag for me.

Edited December 20, 2024 by Nealius