PondLife Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 The Russians. mmHG is not an appropriate unit for the A-10C, but then nor is QFE, and we're stuck with both in DCS. The fact that DCS doesn't use a uniform system of units depending on the user settings and the aircraft in use has long been a source of frustration for many. Maybe one day it'll change, who knows. A lot of UK military still use QFE.... and also display pilots often use QFE.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamdring Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 I understand the local rules (FAA in the US, JACB in Japan, etc.) but how do they interact at international airports where incoming pilots are on ICAO rules? I can't imagine it being pleasant having FAA/ANO/JACB rules clashing with ICAO rules in the same airspace. I'm mainly thinking radio phraseology here, since that's the only bit I'm familiar with. That's why we only change things if we feel there is a genuine reason for it. It is up to the pilots to brief themselves on the differences in the countries that they are flying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flamin_Squirrel Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 I understand the local rules (FAA in the US, JACB in Japan, etc.) but how do they interact at international airports where incoming pilots are on ICAO rules? I can't imagine it being pleasant having FAA/ANO/JACB rules clashing with ICAO rules in the same airspace. I'm mainly thinking radio phraseology here, since that's the only bit I'm familiar with. It's not a massive problem because in most cases it'll be a commercial pilot flying into another country with someone who's flown into that country before, or if you're visiting you take a check ride with an instructor before you go on your own. Phraseology is one of the easier things to change (the US changed from "position and hold" to "line up and wait" not that long ago). Airspace, units of measurement; those are much harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamdring Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Millibars to Hectopascals really ripped my knitting. Millibars is just so much easier to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoJoe Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 I understand the local rules (FAA in the US, JACB in Japan, etc.) but how do they interact at international airports where incoming pilots are on ICAO rules? I can't imagine it being pleasant having FAA/ANO/JACB rules clashing with ICAO rules in the same airspace. I'm mainly thinking radio phraseology here, since that's the only bit I'm familiar with. I'm wondering that too. As far as I know you are required to follow the regulations of the airspace you're currently in. So when flying from the US into the UK, you start following the UK regulations once you've entered their airspace. As for the ICAO, their rules provide guidance for rule-making to keep things common between countries, but I think it's the local regulations that have to be followed. Again, "as far as I know". I'm a pilot in the US, but I don't do any international flights so I haven't had to deal with this yet. --NoJoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nealius Posted January 23, 2014 Author Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) Ah, I just recalled that "line up and wait" bit. It still sounds very odd to me, since "line up" in American English usage is more for sorting people/objects/vehicles in a line, which would make "line up and wait" imply to line up and wait on the taxiway with all the other waiting aircraft. "Hold short" and "position and hold" make more sense from an American perspective. But if it causes confusion there's no option but to change it. Millibars to Hectopascals really ripped my knitting. Millibars is just so much easier to say. I wonder why two terms for the same thing even exist :p @NoJoe The only ICAO regulations I know that have to be followed regardless of airspace is in English usage. Otherwise pilots wouldn't be held to ICAO Level 4 or above proficiency, and I assume that is applied to standard phraseology. Edited January 23, 2014 by Nealius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamdring Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 "line up and Wait" is never really used on it's own though, at least in the UK. It would be part of a line up clearance, e.g. "Speedbird 25B, Via Delta 1, Line up and Wait, runway 24" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFunk1606688187 Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Seems pretty... normal to me that they'd have to deal with these differences? I mean how many truck drivers go over from England to Mainland Europe and have to start driving on a different side of the road? Part of international travel is having to cope with countries having different ways of doing things. Thats true for everything like laws, system of measurements, side of the road, traffic lights, LANGUAGE, culture, customs, etc. Its so easy to be comfortable in your home environment. :P Warning: Nothing I say is automatically correct, even if I think it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nealius Posted January 23, 2014 Author Share Posted January 23, 2014 "line up and Wait" is never really used on it's own though, at least in the UK. It would be part of a line up clearance, e.g. "Speedbird 25B, Via Delta 1, Line up and Wait, runway 24" Would that be clearance for Speedbird to hold short of the runway, or to taxi onto the runway and hold there? In American English "line up" is too ambiguous (at least for my liking) without a reference with which to line up on. "Hold short" is assumed "hold short (of the runway)" and "position and hold" is assumed "position (yourself on the runway) and hold." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flamin_Squirrel Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Would that be clearance for Speedbird to hold short of the runway, or to taxi onto the runway and hold there? Taxi onto it. Probably the reason why "position and hold" was done away with (not just to match the rest of the world) to remove such confusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTFDarkEagle Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Would that be clearance for Speedbird to hold short of the runway, or to taxi onto the runway and hold there? Taxi onto the runway and hold there, via entry D1. Lukas - "TIN TIN" - 9th Shrek Air Strike Squadron TIN TIN's Cockpit thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nealius Posted January 23, 2014 Author Share Posted January 23, 2014 Aha. I guess what's ambiguous to one group is perfectly understandable to another. "Line up" conjures images of soldiers lining up for inspection, not airplanes lining up on a runway :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flamin_Squirrel Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 You're lining up with the runway I suppose. There are usually good reasons for the way phraseology is the way it is. 'Takeoff' used to be used in departure clearances until a 747 pilot heard it, tried to takeoff then plowed into another 747. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamdring Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 You're lining up with the runway I suppose. There are usually good reasons for the way phraseology is the way it is. 'Takeoff' used to be used in departure clearances until a 747 pilot heard it, tried to takeoff then plowed into another 747. Indeed. We now use the word "departure". E.g. "Speedbird 54F, Hold Position, after departure fly heading 055". Notice the addition of "Hold Position", belt and braces safety which can probably be traced back to a few specific nasty incidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nealius Posted January 23, 2014 Author Share Posted January 23, 2014 Off topic again, but what's the best reference for ICAO standard phraseology? I've looked at Doc 4444 (chapter 12 IIRC?) and Doc 9432 but they don't appear to be comprehensive.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamdring Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Off topic again, but what's the best reference for ICAO standard phraseology? I've looked at Doc 4444 (chapter 12 IIRC?) and Doc 9432 but they don't appear to be comprehensive.... Unsure tbh. It's CAP413 in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nealius Posted January 23, 2014 Author Share Posted January 23, 2014 I assume the CAP413 pretty much follows ICAO standard phraseology? I noticed most Aviation English (phraseology or otherwise) seems to be based off British English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamdring Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 I assume the CAP413 pretty much follows ICAO standard phraseology? I noticed most Aviation English (phraseology or otherwise) seems to be based off British English. For the most part it follows ICAO (I think). There will obviously be differences especially with ATSOCAS (Air Traffic Services Outside Controlled Airspace) as we have our own way of doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nealius Posted January 24, 2014 Author Share Posted January 24, 2014 Thanks. I'm more concerned with the commercial side so I don't think uncontrolled airspace will matter much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Pv- Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 " 'Takeoff' used to be used in departure clearances until a 747 pilot heard it, tried to takeoff then plowed into another 747." Actually, the pilot in question got impatient. The controller withheld take off clearance because he could not see the 747 that just landed. The departing 747 took off anyway causing one of the biggest airline disasters in history. Has nothing to do with how to properly configure the altimeter in A-10C so I just supported a thread hijacking and derailing. -Pv- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFunk1606688187 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 " 'Takeoff' used to be used in departure clearances until a 747 pilot heard it, tried to takeoff then plowed into another 747." Actually, the pilot in question got impatient. The controller withheld take off clearance because he could not see the 747 that just landed. The departing 747 took off anyway causing one of the biggest airline disasters in history. Has nothing to do with how to properly configure the altimeter in A-10C so I just supported a thread hijacking and derailing. -Pv- Actually as I understand it most of the confusion came from non standard phraseology and the fact that interference on the transmission created further misunderstanding because the word "takeoff" stood out while the fact that the clearance was with held was missed. Further interference prevented the Pan Am's call that it was on the runway from being heard. Pilots are frequently impatient, but dangerous systems and malfunctioning/absent equipment make individual decisions more dangerous because the system suddenly loses the ability to control those individuals. Basically it was a crap load of things that were wrong or absent that were changed to be standard today. Pretty much the ultimate watershed moment for aviation. Warning: Nothing I say is automatically correct, even if I think it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camsr Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Here's a nice little video about basic altimeter principles I found. In case any of you were interested. :thumbup: Thanks, I liked the back to basics presentation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Case Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) I just read through this entire thread and wow...nice job keeping the sim community's reputation up guys! BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND In DCS I have a waypoint set for 20,000' MSL over some high terrain. QNH is 29.51, but my altimeter is set 29.92 so I am flying at FL200. The waypoint at 20,000 feet is still above me. Because the altimeter increased its indicated altitude when going from 29.51 to 29.92 shouldn't the waypoint be below me? Or is the "MSL" altitude in the ME not related to QNH at all? I mean, if I wanted to arrive at the waypoint with my altimeter showing exactly 20,000' what should my pressure be set to? I don't have access to DCS now but I think the assigned altitudes for the waypoints you set in the editor are true altitude (actual feet above DCS sea level) which means that any deviation in temperature will have big impact on what your altimeter reads at a given true altitude. If I recall it correctly this effect is even evident when using the standard weather which I believe is 15 degrees C, QNH 1013,25HPa etc. I remember I found it frustrating when the tankers wouldn't fly at an altitude which made sense, except when spectating them from F2, there they were maintaining their assigned true altitude. Edited January 29, 2014 by Justin Case Clarifying http://www.masterarms.se A Swedish Combat Flight Simulator Community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajdary Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I also red through all and found it very intresting. But i also get the conclusion that such an important thing like Altitude should be one general standard law for all. Its funny how things like Football (soccer) have the same rules all around the world and a more serious matter like this one is so confusing! Phanteks Enthoo Evolv Tempered Glass, Asus ROG Maximus IX Hero, Intel i7 7700K @ 4.8, Corsair HX 1000i, Nzxt Kraken 62, 32gb DDR4 3000Mhz Corsair Dominator Platinum, Nvme SSD Samsung 960 Evo 1Tb, Asus Strix OC 1080ti, Philips 43" 4K Monitor + 2 x Dell 24" U2414H, Warthog HOTAS, Track IR 5, Obutto R3volution, Buttkicker Gamer 2, MFG Crosswind pedals, Occulus Rift CV1, Windows 10 Pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vortex225 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Does anyone know which altitude is displayed (e.g. MSL) when viewing your aircraft from the F2 external view? I ask because my aircraft altimeter did not match the altitude in F2 view when I'm dialed into QNH (based on a quick test done in the ME). I also flew over some mountainous terrain to compare it to AGL; the F2 altitude definitely did not match my radar altimeter. My ultimate purpose here is to use the right pressure indication for ALT SRC data on the AHCP. Based on the info in this thread, it seems clear I'm interested in QNH to make sure my ownship altitude estimate may be compared properly with target elevation estimates from DTS or the TGP. Thoughts? Edited January 28, 2014 by Echo225 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts