Yup, that’s what I’m doing atm
Just saw this now… I have a few comments:
I see what you’re getting at here, but this is next to impossible. Minimum Safe Altitude is depicted in the AIP of each and every airport, and you would manually have to get those (for the facilities actually having them). For approach I think getting the terrain map back would be adequate. Or as you say tweak it a bit to get a rough estimate of the MSA.
Airspeed visible too:
No no no. Controllers cannot see the airspeed on airplanes unless they are mode-S equipped. Airspeed is measured manually and isn’t broadcasted anywhere unless you have mode-S, which not many have yet. Also, having the airspeed could be a measure of false safety, since winds change at different altitudes. One would look as he’s going 250 KIAS, but he’s still overtaking the guy in front on 270 KIAS. Not good.
Tower: altitude command:
Well, this would be an awesome thing to have, but I don’t think having it as a command is the solution. What would be a lot better is include it in the ATIS commands as an “initial climb 6000ft” remark.
Tower: Maintain seperation with nearby traffic
This could be confusing. Instead of that, I would change the “please follow instructions or you will be ghosted” back to the not-so-scary “please follow instructions” command. You’re not actually saying which aircraft he should be seperated with, what I did back in the days was to chain the “please follow instructions” command with the command he did wrong. Worked perfectly. And if you’re thinking of this command as the “Maintain visual seperation with traffic” command IRL, that is not strictly FAA procedures, and we haven’t got enough VFR commands for that… :P
I don’t think this is a good idea either. This is almost never used IRL, as you are actually starting to mix up with the pilot duties here. Each aircraft has different descent profiles to which they can descend efficiently. I see what you’re going on about here, but it’s the pilot’s responsibility to ensure seperation with terrain. Another more realistic solution to this is the “cross/level at” command. For example “ABC123 descend 6000ft to level in 18nm” (since we haven’t got good waypoint practice). It’s then up to the pilot to calculate this. But this is also a matter of practice and situational awareness from the controller’s perspective.
That command would be amazing, could be an option when using the drag and vector since it can measure distance already.
Please check the example of why it’s useful 😉… if you use that information correctly there is no way to get confused. Actually about the mode S it seemed to me that most planes have it here. Not sure about other places, but here I’m pretty sure of that.
I get what you mean and that’s actually a really good idea. Though with my example with the go around that wouldn’t really work…or better, it could but you’d need to have two altitudes in atis and it could get complex in my opinion.
For the altitude that’s actually great! If pilots actually managed to do that it would be awesome! Not too sure if they would, but it would also help with the ones flying-100fpm…
I’m just bumping the topic back up again. There have been new ATC topics and I have to admit I didn’t really follow them all. If there’s anything missing in the list please tell me and don’t forget to go vote!🙂
I’ll try to have a look myself. And let’s hope most requests can be done sooner or later
So it’s seems I can’t edit my first post anymore…
Anyways here’s what I wanted to add onto it. It’s a feature request I had missed but it’s really good:
I recently used holds for the first time. I have to admit they are pretty good and should/could be used more often. Unfortunately I was faced with a problem at the start is that I couldn’t understand where planes were going. If I could see the holds that wouldn’t have been a problem, but without seeing them I never knew weather the pilots were entering them wrong and if so which ones. This would also help for example if you’re using two holds close to each other. That was my case. I didn’t know weather they intersected or not which meant I couldn’t use the same altitudes for both of them. I ended up pretty much using one since it did the same thing…
I also think this is a simple feature that has been asked a long time ago so why not integrate it with another update…?