dhleong

That's disappointing, but I respect your decision. I would, however, like to respectfully disagree on the point that it "shouldn't be used based on the rules." Looking at JO 7110.65W (https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/ATC.pdf) 2-4-20 a. 2: If you've found something that contradicts this, however, I would be happy to read it.

One time bump for visibility: This was my first post and took longer than my other to be approved, so it fell off the front page.

That did the trick, thanks!

Oh, perfect! I'll give this a shot next time I sit down to play. Thanks!

For a regular taxi-to-runway instruction, the phraseology is "RUNWAY (rwy), TAXI VIA (route)." However, for intersection departures, Tower!3D seems to only accept "RUNWAY (rwy) AT (ixn) VIA (route)." I couldn't find a specific rule in the FAA document about this, but I would expect it to be "TAXI VIA (route)" instead of just "VIA." It'd be nice to unify these to both use (or at least support) the "TAXI VIA" phraseology. Or, if I've missed something that shows it should *not* use TAXI, I'd be very interested in reading it. Thanks!

Hello! I owned Tower 2011 back in the day and recently picked up Tower!3d Pro on Steam. I suspect this has been asked before but I thought I'd go ahead and throw it out there: is there any chance of supporting the "group form" of numbers pronunciation for airliner callsigns? This is the FAA regulation where callsigns like "UAL2042" should be read as "UNITED TWENTY FOURTY TWO" instead of "TWO ZERO FOUR TWO," the latter of which is the only thing Tower seems to support. Even though I know that group form isn't currently supported, it's a tough habit to break from ATCpro and Vatsim.... Thanks for your consideration!