jarhead565

My point this whole thread has been that assigning an altitude like 8,800' is done in the U.S. Again, you have constantly said that this has never been done, other than on an approach. What I haven't argued about is that 8,800' was wrong in the video because it sent the aircraft into terrain. I think everyone can agree that that altitude was wrong and needed to be higher. You are trying to join your argument regarding being flown into a mountain with the same argument that 8,800' cannot be assigned. Can 8,800 be assigned by ATC? Yes. Was it wrong in the video due to the terrain? Yes. Is this a bug in MSFS? Yes. You wanted examples... Example 1: I work airspace with many MOA's. If I have a MOA active from 7,000' and above and an aircraft at 7,000' if going directly towards it, I will descend them to 6,500' and move on. Example 2: An aircraft at 1,500' calls me for an IFR clearance to airport XXX which is 20 miles away. The minimum IFR altitude I can assign in this case is 3,200 for the route of flight. I can issue 3,200 to the pilot. I can also issue 4,000. Both are correct. Example 3: An aircraft is approaching a deck of clouds with icing reported in it. The base of the clouds are at 6,000'. If the pilot wants 5,500' to go under, let's do it!

There seems to be a few points that he is trying to make. 1. 8,800' would never be and has not been assigned by ATC other than on approach, ever in the history of aviation. 2. The new ATC implementation is bugged and should be better for a brand new game.

Well I'd bet my pension on the fact that "they" do give cruise altitudes like that if requested and/or if needed by ATC.

I replied to the question about 8,800' being an assignable altitude, which it is. You seem to be in denial about this and do not want to accept the fact that other people are correct. 3,200/4,700/10,200 can all be assigned by ATC (In the US). I have issued instructions like this dozens of times and I have never been questioned by pilots. I don't think anyone is arguing about the fact that 8,800' is wrong because it does not clear terrain along the route. That is very clear.

This is correct. The people who actually know the rules in the real world have confirmed this is allowed.

There are two points here. Is 8,800 feet an assignable altitude? You said no and that this isn't done unless on an approach. This is false. I can give more examples if needed. Is there an error in the game at that airport and probably others that don't take into account the terrain along a route of flight and adjust the altitude accordingly? From that video, that appears correct.

Well I must have been doing my job wrong for the past 5 years as an FAA enroute controller. I can and do assign altitudes like 3,200' whenever I need to or if it is requested and I can accomodate it. Is it common, no. An IFR aircraft has an emergency and needs the lowest altitude? It could be 2,900' in that area. That's what I'll assign. It is legal in the US? Absolutely. In your video, L35 airport is about 6,800' AGL. Maybe it is coded that you are given an altitude 2,000' AGL for the visual approach.

I'd be willing to bet money that the next GA release from A2A is either a Bonanza or a Comanche.

Go to UND (North Dakota). The best 4 years of my life were spent in Grand Forks. It is a public university, so tuition is cheap! Their in-state tuition is one of the lowest in the country. When you end up spending $50,000 for flying, that cheaper tuition really helps. Winters suck, but you get used to them. Speaking of flying... There is so much empty airspace in the area for flying. UND is constantly getting new aircraft and the airport is easy to fly out of. Take plenty of time to research, though. Shoot me a message if you have any questions!

If "FMC" is showing up, it means there is a message on the FMC for you to see. Requesting most kinds of data will result in the "FMC" message when it is uploaded. Hope that helps!

Nice shots, Luke!

I'll believe SP1 when I see it.

Yes. Do that. You are thinking too hard on this subject. Install initial release, then SP1c.

As long as there isn't a tailwind during run up, then any other position is fine. That keeps any exhaust gases and fumes from entering the cabin.

Jim, I do agree with you. I think the people who are just looking for a different airplane to fly who already bought the A2A 172 will not see much appeal in the Cherokee.