ATC communications

[Hoggorm]

Hi,

I find the ATC communications in DCS A-10C to be a bit strange and "unprofessional". Now I must admit that I do not have a very good knowledge about military radio communication. But I do have a fair knowledge about civilian communication with ATC and there are several moments that I find strange in DCS...

1 - Generally there are no closed loops. For example you request startup, startup clearance is given, but you do not respond with something like "cleared to start". You are cleared to taxi or takeoff, but do not respond to the clearance, etc, etc. That is a major error in radio communication. All communication loops on the airband should be closed.

2 - When you request taxi, you "request taxi to runway". That does not sound very professional as it will be assumed that you will taxi to the runway. I would ask for "Request taxi" only.

Then ATC will tell you "Cleared taxi to runway XX". At least in civilian communication, the word "cleared" shall only be used in clearances to land or take off, not in any other communications between aircraft and ATC, hence the clearance for taxi should be something like "taxi to runway xx" only.

3 - When at the holding you "request takeoff". Once again I do not think (I can't really remember right now) that the word “takeoff” should be used in any communications except in clearances to takeoff from ATC and the pilots response. "Ready for departure" or something similar seem more appropriate to say...

4 - ATC does not hand you over to any other unit after takeoff, nor do they tell you to "go tactical", clears you to leave the frequency etc.

5 - When you are established on final (and talking to something that might be an approach controller) you are instructed to contact the tower. However this is done on the same frequency. Does not seem realistic at all. Why would two controllers be on the same frequency?

6 - Quite often I do not get a landing clearance at all. If I decide to land anyway I get a "taxi to parking" after landing.

As mentioned above I'm not too familiar with military ATC communication, so I might be wrong, but it just does not seem right, or "flows naturally" in DCS. Now I do not know if this is a subject not highly researched by the DCS team, but looking at the sim at all other levels, I find it strange that this part holds (as far as I can see) this low standard...

[Jona33]

Another option is BMS where the ATC is good though they have a few derp moments. Although approach and tower and ground are the same frequency it's good enough. They give you vectors and you can declare an emergency and they'll give you priority. The odd bit is the speeds which includes "maximum forward speed" and 400 knots on base leg.

[Snoopy]

Requesting startup is a real thing. This allows the ground and tower controllers as well Airfield Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) situational awareness in case of a fire or other emergency during the start. In response to your #1, positive two way communications and challenge-response format is critical to safety. In this case request-clearance-acknowledgement of clearance resolves any question that both the controller and aircraft are clear as to which tail number is cleared to do what. These are hallmarks of Crew Resource Management/Aircrew Coordination Training - Enhanced (CRM/ACT-E).

 

2. Since you are unfamiliar I'll try to describe radio procedures with an example. The proper general format for requesting taxi and takeoff VFR would be (and this is a bit generalized for usefulness: "Moody Ground, Claw 1-1, ready to taxi with Information Golf, departing to the northeast." The response would be "Claw 1-1, Moody Ground, Squawk 5213, taxi to and hold short of Runway 36 Left via Hotel, contact tower on 128.45."

You'll taxi to the run up area, do your engine run and then proceed to the hold short line or behind any aircraft already holding short. When it's your turn, you'll switch freqs and say "Moody Tower, Claw 1-1, ready at Runway 36 Left." "Claw 1-1, Moody Tower, winds calm, altimeter 29.92, climb runway heading to 6,000 feet, then proceed on course." "Cleared for takeoff, Claw 1-1" Now you'll take the runway, get on the center line and align your HSI ILS needle and course bug to runway heading (this is helpful to maintain runway heading after rotation with the nose way up up and low visibility below/behind). Takeoff, fly whateveer the tower gave you for course rules, i.e. runway heading to 6,000 feet. Given a 500 feet-per-minute climb at expected air speeds this will put you at 6 grand and a general distance that is clear enough to hand you off to the next controller and for you to maneuver safely.

 

The rest is highly situationally dependent, and just an example taking a Hog from Moody to an airshow in Pittsburgh...

 

Once you reach that point in space: "Claw 1-1, Moody Tower, contact Valdosta Approach on 285.6, Good Day" "Moody Tower, Claw 1-1, over to Valdosta 285.6, good day." switch freqs and you'll say "Valdosta Approach, Claw 1-1, 8 miles north of Moody at six thousand" "Claw 1-1 Ident" You'll flash your transponder code. "Claw 1-1 Valdosta Approach, radar contact 9 miles north of Moody at 6 thousand feet, say request." "Valdosta, Claw 1-1 request flight following to Kilo Papa India Tango." "Claw 1-1, squawk 2313, remain on this frequency." "Squawk 2313, Claw 1-1."

 

Notice there is a call and response to everything. That's how it works. I could keep going all the way to shut down on the USAF Reserve ramp on the north end of KPIT, but you get the point. The key to the whole thing is brevity and talking really fast so as not to be on the freq too long with every other dude and their mother trying to do the same thing.

 

 

For more information there's a great book called Say Again, Please: Guide to Radio Communications. I encourage all my students to read it.

 

Looks spot on except our pilots at Moody don't call for start-up clearance that's done before they even step to the aircraft.

[Jona33]

"Maximum forward speed" is usually directed at the four banger piston guys, to encourage them to hustle up to the touchdown point for the jets on final behind them. It's a gray area, because they can't really make you go any faster than the proper speeds for a stabilized final in a light civil aircraft anyways.

 

Yeah, I usually ignore them anyway.

[BlueRidgeDx]

Yep, accurate for a VFR flight, minus the clearance to start bit. Clearance to start - and in the civilian world, clearance to pushback - are not always required and depend on the airport/airfield in question.

 

Things sound a bit different for IFR departures, but the DCS ATC is so basic, the difference is moot. Nonetheless, the OP is right about not reading back clearances.

[Rivvern]

Requesting startup is a real thing....

 

Interesting reading. Thank you for a well written post. I hope we will get some realistic ATC in DCS sometime.

[Druid_]

Of course you are describing peace time comms. In a war situation it's very much different, shouldn't we be modelling that correctly instead? Because if we do then there will be a lot less communication going on. In short, comms to ATC are kept to an absolute minimum, pre-arranged SOPs will be in force (and will vary depending on the situation/threats). This extends to tanker ops also. For instance war time air refuelling procedures are accomplished with no communication between tanker and receiver at all.

 

If I want to blah blah with ATC continuously then I'll fly FSX. In DCS however, & for reality I wish I had the option to turn off comms in a bunch of my missions. EMCOM 0 !

[Eddie]

In the case of WWIII the above may be true, but in reality military aircraft use ATC just the same as anyone else, even in combat.

 

During air ops in Libya last year it was possible to listen in to the Malta ATC internet feed and hear every combat flight operating in the med, obviously they checked out when they went tactical, but during transit they have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

 

The same goes for Afghanistan, and Iraq.

 

While there may be times when EMCON becomes the priority, it is far from the norm.

[Hoggorm]

Since you are unfamiliar I'll try to describe radio procedures with an example.

 

Thank you for your reply Trev.

As mentioned in my initial post my unfamiliarity lies with military atc communication. I'm a pilot, flying civilian airplanes (obviously). I would assume that military ATC is about the same as civilian, but as I cannot confirm that I made it clear in the start of the thread that I could be wrong pointing out the (from a civilian pilot point of view) strange behavior of ATC communications in DCS. But as far as I can tell from your example, military and civilian ATC communications is basically the same.

When so is true, I find it strange that ED has settled on such poor quality ATC, when the rest of the sim really shines!

[Hoggorm]

Of course you are describing peace time comms. In a war situation it's very much different, shouldn't we be modelling that correctly instead? Because if we do then there will be a lot less communication going on. In short, comms to ATC are kept to an absolute minimum, pre-arranged SOPs will be in force (and will vary depending on the situation/threats). This extends to tanker ops also. For instance war time air refuelling procedures are accomplished with no communication between tanker and receiver at all.

 

If I want to blah blah with ATC continuously then I'll fly FSX. In DCS however, & for reality I wish I had the option to turn off comms in a bunch of my missions. EMCOM 0 !

 

I know that the Royal Norwegian Air Force (RNoAF) from time to time do a so called "alpha scramble" when the Russians fly in close vicinity of Norwegian territorial waters (happens several times a year, sometimes several times a week (and the activity has increased in the last few years)). When they do they will start, taxi and depart without calling the tower at all, not telling their intentions. The military will call the tower in advance, only telling that they have an alpha scramble going so that ATC can get all other traffic out of their way.

 

What I find strange in DCS though, is that here we have a sim that seem realistic in every aspect. However the one thing I have some knowledge about does not make sense at all. So then my question could be: What more of the sim is not as good and realistic as we all think it is?

Now do not get me wrong. I'm sure ED has put a lot of resources into getting the sim as real as it could be for a desktop simulator, but then why do they settle with a less than half product in the ATC part? As a pilot I just find the ATC communications in DCS silly...

[Druid_]

In the case of WWIII the above may be true, but in reality military aircraft use ATC just the same as anyone else, even in combat.

 

During air ops in Libya last year it was possible to listen in to the Malta ATC internet feed and hear every combat flight operating in the med, obviously they checked out when they went tactical, but during transit they have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

 

The same goes for Afghanistan, and Iraq.

 

While there may be times when EMCON becomes the priority, it is far from the norm.

Poor examples Eddie. You can't compare Libya and Afghanistan with a NATO Russian conflict over Georgia. In Libya they had air superiority and no threats anywhere near their operating bases. Afghanistan bases do have EMCOM procedures when mortar threat levels are high, but in general there is little need since its generally known what they are armed with. In IRAQ we had air superiority and our bases were well away from the front line and the only threat was Scuds. Given the amount of traffic it was deemed safer to have standard comms. However, the tankers who were much closer to the enemy were operating without comms and at night (it got pretty scary at times too).

 

If you have a conflict with two opposing sides fairly equally matched in fairly close proximity then comms are going to be at a minimum. In the RAF we practiced these procedures regularly. You don't announce when you are launching or recovering. Why give the enemy free SA?

 

Even in a 2/4 ship at low-level we used wing rocks, hand signals between aircraft rather use the radios to communicate. Using the radios was a last resort if any other methods failed or weren't able to convey the message.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Druid_

[Druid_]

do not get me wrong. I'm sure ED has put a lot of resources into getting the sim as real as it could be for a desktop simulator, but then why do they settle with a less than half product in the ATC part? As a pilot I just find the ATC communications in DCS silly...[/font][/color]

I think it's just a question of resources. I guess they have to prioritise and ATC isn't the big deal to some that it is to others. There are much bigger issues that I would rather them work on. Who knows maybe they will improve ATC at some point. I'd like the option to turn off ATC and have the option to use triggers in the mission to simulate ATC. That would be an easy fix but obviously mean a little more work for miz builders.

[Eddie]

Poor examples Eddie. You can't compare Libya and Afghanistan with a NATO Russian conflict over Georgia. In Libya they had air superiority and no threats anywhere near their operating bases. Afghanistan bases do have EMCOM procedures when mortar threat levels are high, but in general there is little need since its generally known what they are armed with. In IRAQ we had air superiority and our bases were well away from the front line and the only threat was Scuds. Given the amount of traffic it was deemed safer to have standard comms. However, the tankers who were much closer to the enemy were operating without comms and at night (it got pretty scary at times too).

 

If you have a conflict with two opposing sides fairly equally matched in fairly close proximity then comms are going to be at a minimum. In the RAF we practiced these procedures regularly. You don't announce when you are launching or recovering. Why give the enemy free SA?

 

Even in a 2/4 ship at low-level we used wing rocks, hand signals between aircraft rather use the radios to communicate. Using the radios was a last resort if any other methods failed or weren't able to convey the message.

 

Indeed, as I said, there are times when EMCON is the primary concern but they are not the norm.

 

In the case of a major conflict involving countries possessing regular armed forces what you are saying is true, but in any other situation it is not. Therefore accurate ATC modelling is a very important feature in any sim.

 

And intra flight comms is not the subject being discussed, so those techniques are not relevant. Hand signals etc is a whole other subject.

[Druid_]

My point was that, what exactly do you model to be accurate? I was providing an alternative view to accurate comms. I've flown out of USAF, RAF, German and civilian international airfields where full ATC comms are very different at each. Construct a war scenario mission and what comms do we go for then to remain realistic? All of them? It's a minefield and whatever ED does it will please some and not others.

 

Maybe a solution would be to open up this particular area to modders.

[Eddie]

Maybe a solution would be to open up this particular area to modders.

 

Oh god no. Modders playing with things like aircraft or terrain is one thing, but the last thing we want are modders playing with fundamental features that affect all aspects of the sim.

 

I don't see the issue to be honest, the number of situations where ATC would be used out number the times when they would not. And as the reasons for limiting such comms are not present in this, or any, sim it doesn't make sense to ignore such a feature.

 

The option to disable ATC and/or airfield lighting at a given airfield would be the best option.

[Evil.Bonsai]

Here's some examples of tactical radio comms from the HBO series Generation Kill. Some really good examples of a talk-on with Hogs and Hornets, 6-line Artillery Call-For-Fire, etc. They did a really great job with this. I love the call sign Torment.

 

 

 

 

First disk of this should be arriving from Netflix very soon.

[FreeFall]

6 - Quite often I do not get a landing clearance at all. If I decide to land anyway I get a "taxi to parking" after landing.

 

Haven't installed DCS World yet, but with the standalone v1.1.1.1 the tower gives you the "cleared for visual, contact tower" -line when your distance is about 6 nm from the airport. However, if you try to contact the tower immediately after that line, the tower won't answer. The tower will answer only after you are within approx. 5 nm. So, because you have to wait a bit before asking for the clearance, it's pretty easy to forget to contact the tower, and ATC will give you an "automatic" clearance just before landing.

[Hoggorm]

OK cool. What do you fly? I'll be in a G1000 DA-40XL tomorrow:D

 

I fly a Beech 200 Air Ambulance in Northern Norway :)

[FreeFall]

I fly a Beech 200 Air Ambulance in Northern Norway :)

 

Something like this?:

 

REoIGnxuka0

[Hoggorm]

Something like this?

 

Exactly like that :)

[badger66]

Be very helpfull if they count incorporate an emergency landing request and to clear the runway , for when your in the crap .

[Druid_]

Oh god no. Modders playing with things like aircraft or terrain is one thing, but the last thing we want are modders playing with fundamental features that affect all aspects of the sim.

I think you'd be surprised what the modding community could come up with given the chance. After all you don't have to install the Mod if you don't like it.

 

Don't think Airfield ATC affect all aspects of the sim but I do agree that it shouldn't take too much to improve it, even slightly.

 

Be very helpfull if they count incorporate an emergency landing request and to clear the runway , for when your in the crap .

You could probably do something along these lines yourself with triggers at the moment but yeh, that would be a nice feature.