I feel like sometimes when I am flying in area where there is mountains and the APPR controller puts me in a heading where I am almost close to the Mountain that I will crash and I turn a few heading away just to not go into the mountains
When making a feature you don’t need to put a poll to indicate wether you want to vote for it, because there is already a button there
Don’t forget to vote on your own feature!
Idk that it’s my first time making a poll but thanks for the tip
Oh okay, also you need to make a space when doing the poll like this
Random text [poll type=regular results=on_close] * Testing * Testing [/poll]
And anyway back to the topic, this would be cool. But I ran out of votes
You shouldn’t change your heading (even a little) if approach gave you one which you think will lead you into a mountain. IFATC are highly experienced and will not fly you into a mountain. If you don’t have trust in ATC, fly somewhere without ATC.
I was only saying that because today I was flying into SCEL and I was close to the mountains and since ATC was busy I did a heading change to avoid going into the mountains
“Close” doesn’t mean anything. Just because approach is busy doesn’t mean they aren’t watching. They know where the mountains are and won’t let you hit them. They are probably sending all of the arrivals on the same path as you, and are familiar with where to have you turn. And in the worst case scenario, isn’t it better crashing than getting ghosted?
You can request a Altitude Change if you see that there isn’t or there won’t be 1000ft clearence of Any Terrain…
In all other cases this feature would only lead to confusion, people requesting headings that make no sense and the Approach Controller would get spammed with requests for a more expedited Service that would disrupt his/her plan.
But we already have vectors so surely you just request different vectors?
That’s not the same thing.
When you request radar vectors you basically want new instructions to get you to the airport.
This feature is simply;
“Qatari 243, request heading change to 260”
As an example.
In theory, Approach is going to have a standardized few paths to the intercept, and this would include headings (helped immensely when people don’t use one-waypoint flight plans and come in all over the place), so the existing altitude change is actually more preferable anyway. You need to climb a thousand feet, ask for that. Then you don’t end up breaking up a line or whatever.
And that’s just talking about situations where terrain is actually an issue.
If this were added, what you’d have is constant heading requests completely unrelated to terrain, whether it be pilots attempting to fly their flight plan or whatever else. It’s already hard enough dealing with the pilots who think they need to request altitudes in 2k foot increments over the course of 10 minutes without adding another message with which they can spam the frequency.
A simple altitude adjustment, which already exists, will work just fine in these cases.
Ahh ok thanks
Well I will say this is needed. I totally agree with this. Sadly I don’t have votes.
I agree with @Tim_B here, instead of a heading change, the easy workaround is to request a change in altitude. ATC will understand why you’d request it especially if you’re in a mountainous area and will typically respond by granting the altitude change or giving you a new heading.
Not only heading change request, but also alert for dangers we needed i guess, regarding to how do they exist in real life.
Yes please add this. I am very annoyed, sometimes the ATC approach give me vectors and make me go long way around when there is no line. There are no planes in the line and if we go straight we can fit in the line very easy. But still, he makes me go long distance around. I want to ask if I can change my heading to save time but I do not want to be ghosted. This is a very good idea to add request heading change.