RUDE ATC'S

[tony moseley 1088954]

yes ryan but you have to expect new pilots to have a go at flying online who haven't the ability to understand charts and follow them.

 

you keep reading on the forum how newbies are encouraged to take their first step and not to worry , how everyone is here to help, and as long as you try and cover the basics vatsim is a big happy family.

 

and then the newbies pitch up at gatwick and find thats not the case, and the experienced old hands on this forum back up a rude comment like that

[Krzysztof Szerszen 861225]

And what is exactly so "ultra-realistic" about having charts?

[Ryan Geckler]

Tom, I fully agree. One of the reason I feel that we are losing controllers is that we are required to learn, study, and memorize our airspaces, spend hours and hours on getting better, only to have pilots that don't care or spend any effort to learn and get better. These pilots don't have charts, can only go GPS direct, etc...

 

And worse is, we have to accommodate these pilots, no questions asked. Why not hold pilots to similar (but not equal to RL pilots) standards? If you hold controllers to such a high standard and b**** at them every time they make a mistake, then that seems incredibly unfair to me and I understand the loss of controllers.

 

Lets get a few things straight.

 

VATSIM has never imposed any testing standards on the controllers. Even with GRP all that was given was a list of competencies. All the written testing and OTS/CPT was created by the locals. It's all a creation of the divisions and ACC/ARTCC/FIR structure. So, if you have a beef with it, go thank your local staff but quit harping about what VATSIM has made you do.

 

Now I am off to go find a 14 year old controller in Anchorage who likes to yell at people on the radio..... There's some "realism" for you.

 

Believe me, I don't mind learning the controller materials; it's what I signed up for.

 

My point is that controllers are put in a hard spot; either accommodate pilots that refuse to make an attempt at learning by just filing GPS direct and possibly interfering with other traffic, or try to amend their route or change something else and get called out on the forum for being rude and putting in snarky comments

 

Controllers want to enjoy their time on the network as well. I know that I'm here to simulate semi-realistic procedures. I just wish pilots would try to do the same instead of taking the easy way out.

 

Tom: that's why you put something in your controller info about where to find charts, and they can ASK the controller how to fly and read the chart. Pilots don't do that enough; we are here to help and teach; I have no problem with a new pilot coming on my frequency and asking for help regarding how to read charts. I'll help him out every time (unless I'm extremely busy). You can't learn if you don't ask or try.

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

RJ's point is that it is you, the local INS, that make the climb to an ATC position hard to achieve, not anything VATSIM itself requires. GRP simply states what competencies a controller needs, the level that people get trained to is controlled by local staff who either are mis-informed or using malcious complicance to read much more into GRP than is there to press their own agenda. Nowhere in GRP does it require event level demonstrated competence to get signed off, that is also a local thing not supported by VATSIM Founders nor BoG. If that is the treatment you are getting from your local staff tell them to knock it off.

[Kirk Christie]

My point is that controllers are put in a hard spot; either accommodate pilots that refuse to make an attempt at learning by just filing GPS direct and possibly interfering with other traffic,

 

As a ATC online you should be maintaining separation of traffic, if the Newbie pilot is going to interfere with other traffic because hes chosen to go outbound on a normal inbound route, then just give him a left or right vector of 20 deg untill he has climbed above the inbound traffic, then clear him as the Americans say "as filed"

 

What do you want to do when you log in as ATC, just sit and watch traffic follow the same routes inbound one behind the other, apply a bit of speed control, or actually use your skills you learned to provide some separation [Mod - Happy Thoughts]urance with a few vectors.

 

Tom: that's why you put something in your controller info about where to find charts, and they can ASK the controller how to fly and read the chart. Pilots don't do that enough; we are here to help and teach; I have no problem with a new pilot coming on my frequency and asking for help regarding how to read charts. I'll help him out every time (unless I'm extremely busy). You can't learn if you don't ask or try

 

This works, but have you ever tried to copy and paste something from Squawkbox, or Euroscope, you cant do it, which means you need to type the whole lot out in the browser, not something some is going to be willing to do on the approach phase of their flight

[Krzysztof Szerszen 861225]

At least the message is now clear.

[Richard Jenkins]

Tom, I fully agree. One of the reason I feel that we are losing controllers is that we are required to learn, study, and memorize our airspaces, spend hours and hours on getting better, only to have pilots that don't care or spend any effort to learn and get better. These pilots don't have charts, can only go GPS direct, etc...

 

And worse is, we have to accommodate these pilots, no questions asked. Why not hold pilots to similar (but not equal to RL pilots) standards? If you hold controllers to such a high standard and b**** at them every time they make a mistake, then that seems incredibly unfair to me and I understand the loss of controllers.

 

Lets get a few things straight.

 

VATSIM has never imposed any testing standards on the controllers. Even with GRP all that was given was a list of competencies. All the written testing and OTS/CPT was created by the locals. It's all a creation of the divisions and ACC/ARTCC/FIR structure. So, if you have a beef with it, go thank your local staff but quit harping about what VATSIM has made you do.

 

Now I am off to go find a 14 year old controller in Anchorage who likes to yell at people on the radio..... There's some "realism" for you.

 

Believe me, I don't mind learning the controller materials; it's what I signed up for.

 

My point is that controllers are put in a hard spot; either accommodate pilots that refuse to make an attempt at learning by just filing GPS direct and possibly interfering with other traffic, or try to amend their route or change something else and get called out on the forum for being rude and putting in snarky comments

 

Controllers want to enjoy their time on the network as well. I know that I'm here to simulate semi-realistic procedures. I just wish pilots would try to do the same instead of taking the easy way out.

 

Tom: that's why you put something in your controller info about where to find charts, and they can ASK the controller how to fly and read the chart. Pilots don't do that enough; we are here to help and teach; I have no problem with a new pilot coming on my frequency and asking for help regarding how to read charts. I'll help him out every time (unless I'm extremely busy). You can't learn if you don't ask or try.

 

 

...and what I am saying is just because the ATC side of VATSIM decided to go with the testing and high standards path so must the pilot side is wrong. And frankly the generalizations of the pilot side, and for that matter, the controller side in the recents threads are grossly unfair. There are pilots on VATSIM that can take anything ATC wants to dish out to them and probably give some back. In most cases, we are all amateurs here and we make mistakes, don't know things, and even take lazy shortcuts because we have limited time to fly or control online.

 

The sooner all of you quit looking down your noses at each other the better. I talk to RW controllers with 20 - 30 years experience and they laugh at some of the self-important garbage that happens here. Same with pilots. I know of at least 3 ATP with more years experience than most of you have been alive, that shake their heads at some of the stuff they read here from the self-annoited experts, who probably have never set foot in the cockpit of anything bigger than a 172.

 

In short, you all better figure out a way to co-exist with both your inadequacies. The screaming, whining, and self absorbed sense of entitlement has worn thin. Anyone offended yet? So what....

[Krzysztof Szerszen 861225]

Even clearer.

[Frank Otero]

I just wish pilots would try to do the same instead of taking the easy way out

 

I really cannot see what the big deal is if a pilot does not have a chart or cannot perform a procedure (for whatever reason) or files direct. As in real life, ATC deals with pilots who are less prepared or in lower performance equipment than the rest. These pilots can usually expect delays. Issue a hold or vector and get them out of the way until you can squeeze them in.

 

I sometimes rather to be vectored to a visual/ILS or get departure instructions than to follow the same STAR/SID. it is this interaction between controller and pilot that I seek in VATSIM...I do not need a controller to follow a SID/STAR, I can do that all by myself and even off line just the same

[Ryan Geckler]

 

Believe me, I don't mind learning the controller materials; it's what I signed up for.

 

My point is that controllers are put in a hard spot; either accommodate pilots that refuse to make an attempt at learning by just filing GPS direct and possibly interfering with other traffic, or try to amend their route or change something else and get called out on the forum for being rude and putting in snarky comments

 

Controllers want to enjoy their time on the network as well. I know that I'm here to simulate semi-realistic procedures. I just wish pilots would try to do the same instead of taking the easy way out.

 

Tom: that's why you put something in your controller info about where to find charts, and they can ASK the controller how to fly and read the chart. Pilots don't do that enough; we are here to help and teach; I have no problem with a new pilot coming on my frequency and asking for help regarding how to read charts. I'll help him out every time (unless I'm extremely busy). You can't learn if you don't ask or try.

 

 

...and what I am saying is just because the ATC side of VATSIM decided to go with the testing and high standards path so must the pilot side is wrong. And frankly the generalizations of the pilot side, and for that matter, the controller side in the recents threads are grossly unfair. There are pilots on VATSIM that can take anything ATC wants to dish out to them and probably give some back. In most cases, we are all amateurs here and we make mistakes, don't know things, and even take lazy shortcuts because we have limited time to fly or control online.

 

The sooner all of you quit looking down your noses at each other the better. I talk to RW controllers with 20 - 30 years experience and they laugh at some of the self-important garbage that happens here. Same with pilots. I know of at least 3 ATP with more years experience than most of you have been alive, that shake their heads at some of the stuff they read here from the self-annoited experts, who probably have never set foot in the cockpit of anything bigger than a 172.

 

In short, you all better figure out a way to co-exist with both your inadequacies. The screaming, whining, and self absorbed sense of entitlement has worn thin. Anyone offended yet? So what....

 

Not sure if that last part of your post is a jab at me, but whatever.

 

I'm done with this thread. In the end, nothing will change and this debate will never end.

[Robert Wright]

Well,

 

In a round about way, VATSIM is a victim of its own success.

 

We all started out with various levels of Squawkbox and ProController and various add-ons that would enable multiplayer service.

The Common Shapes library was amazing. You could have someone next to you on the tarmac which would render as a fuselage with 4 sides . . . . and we loved it.

Then we got more adventurous - VOICE . . . wow - some jumped in, some where hesitant but more and more people took it up. There were frequent disconnections "say again" "what" "zzzz . . . pop" "silence .........."

Then the controllers got ASRC - VaVoom . . . powerful stuff

Then the Pilots got FSNAV 3 for FS98 and FSNAV4 for FS7 and 8 - we had a moving map display . . . . Heaven. . . .

FSBuild, VRC, FSINN, PMDG, LDS767 all added to upping the on-line experience and Euroscope came along with its own API.

 

Things were really buzzing, now what ?

 

REALISM !!!

AIRAC's - we all started downloading loads of AirAC's from the NAVData site - remember that free service from Richard Stefan ?

Controllers started downloading all the Notams for their respective facility.

But this was not enough -

Pilots wanted more . . . . . "its raining outside my house but VATSIM doesn't have any rain !!!"

Controllers wanted more "You can't park there, its closed for resurfacing since yesterday" was sent to me in 2007 when parking at a certain airfield in the UK !!

 

I have an 800000 id, so I was in at the beginning. I knew what was required. I found out where to find stuff and what was required of me when EVERYONE was still learning.

Try putting yourself in the position of a person who has a p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing interest in aviation, OR who just wants to try out on line flying and jumps in right now. There is just so much to learn and there is no regimented route of finding out every little detail of what you need to know . . .

 

Controllers though have a proper method of VATSIM learning.

Also, controllers know that Pilots are not required to take exams, or come up to any set standard, but controllers do have set standards to p[Mod - Happy Thoughts], they then complain that "we had to take exams but pilots don't" . . . . but you knew that when you signed up to be a controller ??!!??

 

I think if a controller wants to have maximum realism, then fine, just so long as it doesn't impact on the rest of us. There are pilots out there who DEMAND maximum realism from controllers, well, you will just have to tone it down a notch, unless you happen to come across a maximum realism controller and then the both of you can really hang out !!

 

I'm pretty sure we can all get along and slowly change for the better, if, we just show a little bit of understanding and respect for our other colleagues here on VATSIM.

 

[edit] I should point out that the MAJORITY of controllers and pilots get along just fine and enjoy their experience . . . . its just the . . . very few . . . that don't.

[Thomas Mathieu 998318]

I put him in a holding or let him wait until he gets charts - I know it is necessary for our network not to become worse in pilot quality than what it is now.

 

 

Putting me into a holding to get charts, instead of helping me, perhaps with vectors will result in my immediate disconnection. I cannot believe that this is done here. This kind of attitude is what keeps me from flying in some areas...still.

 

Edited: to remove the lovely word

[Richard Gerrish]

Putting me into a holding to get charts, instead of helping me, perhaps with vectors will result in my immediate disconnection. I cannot believe that this is done here. This kind of [Mod - lovely stuff] is what keeps me from flying in some areas...still.

 

said controller doesn't put people into holds

 

Wohooo, the action is here....

 

Kirk, Jonas would not put a pilot into a hold deliberately. He would offer it to him, to give him the chance to download the charts and have a look. This will educate the pilot to reach the next level of knowledge and proficiency. If said pilot refused to do so (holding+charts), Jonas would not put him into a holding. He knows that he cannot do this.

 

Believe it or not, 95% of our pilots are considerate members of VATSIM who thanksfully accept the piece of information and advice and try to do what you suggest to them. And even if it just for the next online-flight. That is sufficient for me as a SUP/vATC/vPilot.

[Stefan Hueneburg 1062056]

To be fair, Jonas is one of the most friendly and helpful controller I know. So he wouldn't force a pilot into a hold, I guess it was ment as a joke or ironic comment.

 

Once he even did look up an old chart for an NDB approach for me, cos the current charts had only the new RNAV approaches.

 

I would really like to know if the pilot quality is going as downhill as one can read in the controller forums.

[Jordan Krushen 1135174]

Kirk, Jonas would not put a pilot into a hold deliberately. He would offer it to him, to give him the chance to download the charts and have a look. This will educate the pilot to reach the next level of knowledge and proficiency.

I'll admit to being somewhat amused at the notion of a pilot that doesn't have charts, but can actually fly a hold. In my experience, knowledge of how to read charts comes way before knowledge of how to properly hold.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hmmm, with the hold-option in most FMCs it is not a real problem, if they get instructed to hold at a certain fix/point on present track. But I know what way you are trying to go

[Thomas Mathieu 998318]

Holding with a GPS, INS or VOR nav is quite challenging though.

[Krzysztof Szerszen 861225]

And we don't need challenged pilots.

[Jonas Eberle]

Once he even did look up an old chart for an NDB approach for me, cos the current charts had only the new RNAV approaches.

 

I would really like to know if the pilot quality is going as downhill as one can read in the controller forums.

Yes, I remember. I found the chart on IVAO

 

I think it was not me that took this discussion so strongly off. The point was taken by others to show how wrong we are if we ask something from pilots. In fact it was misused just to show how friendly VATSIM wants to be. I like idealistic thoughts, they can be visions that form goals, unite and lead. In this context they do not work for me.

 

I cannot judge by time, I am with you since 2 years only. Pilot quality could be better - we have outstanding pilots, we have average, we have newbies and we have ignorants, and I started with a comment about how I feel with ATCOs that are getting rude (because I experienced it myself). You can go crazy by all the stuff that you hear and see. I am playing with you a lot of time, I know the pilot gangsters that come back day by day and not learning anything.

 

I am not asking for current AIRAC (setting a simulated AIRAC for VATSIM world-wide would be favorable, by the way to safe energy and money!) nor insisting on a specific route. I do get ILS frequencies for pilots (sometimes! I like more to give them some delay vector and let them read the charts themselves). I am happy to see someone new that obviously has read at least 30 minutes before coming online. I am also helping the others, but not to the extent that I feel frustrated afterwards. I like if a pilot says "unable" or "please explain" or puts "Newbie" in his flightplan. I HATE if a pilot reads back an instruction and flies something else that sounds similiar. I HATE if a pilot uses me just to get his plane flown. I am not the Microsoft Flight Simulator helpdesk. I am controlling my airspace, I want you to control and navigate your plane. This is my attitude.

 

You may say I am overtrained, but when I fly in your airspace, I would like to be able to cancel IFR, receive appropriate vectors and speed separation, too. In plain, well to understand and optimally standard phraseology. I am just learning how to handle military traffic (supersonic et al) and can memorize final approach altitudes of all my 15 airfields + realistic parking positions in the main airports. I take this learning environment as a vision that I impose on myself.

 

Can we just leave the "rude business" to the SUPs?

[tom van der elst]

.. and here I sit,as a PILOT ... and I'm just glad not everybody is pampering us pilots.

 

i expect there are many controllers who get sick of pampering pilots who only use text.thats not as real as it gets, it downgrades the simulation no end in my opionion, why can't those pilots use voice? cos it can spoil it for others when controllers are typing away instead of controlling by voice, the service can get reduced because of it.

 

i expect tom you don't mind that leniancy and pampering because it suited you for 7 years to fly by text only.

 

i don't mind those who use text because there might be many reasons why they do, just the same as a pilot without charts could have reasons why they are not present.

 

no voice -no excuses....i don't think so do you?

 

I don't think so,indeed,'cos there are valid excuses for having no voice.

I'm thinking of deaf people,and/or people that cannot speak english very well,etc.

But for me,there was no excuse,and I have eventually realised there wasn't an excuse and thus

started using voice.

So if no voice,no excuse is for me only,yeah,you're right,and I have acknowledged and acted according to that remark.

Now,we have shown you that there is no excuse for not being prepared,so will you be,next time you fly?

I mean I went through the trouble of becoming Voice enabled,splashed some dough for a headset,

and have set it all up so that I'm understandable,so I can expect something back from you,can't I?

Don't mind if you take 7 years to do that also,as long as you do it,and show goodwill on the way there.

 

Anyway,I'm just surprised that most people do not see the strange thing going on here.

On the one side we have ATC,which is supposed to be competent enough to handle traffic,

on the other side we have pilots which aren't supposed to be anything but interested in flying.

 

Now,I may very well offend you folks again,but please explain unambiguously how wé can say

If you are a flight sim pilot or interested in virtual ATC, feel free to join us at VATSIM.net! Learn to fly in a real environment and share the adventure of flying with more than 250,000 members around the globe.

 

What exactly IS real about flying a plane you don't know jack about,and asking a controller how to navigate it,

then get cross with the controller because YOU fail the test?

 

Is it the controllers that make it real by being trained to a certain standard?

Is it the environment?

 

It is OBVIOUS the pampering approach does not work,and it is even more obvious we are losing

valuable people according to that,and if you don't see that,I don't know what will make you see it.

 

I also strongly object to the words ultra realism,as I do not find having charts and knowing

how to pilot the plane of choice being ultra realistic.

I know how to fly my plane,and I have the charts,and usually I prepare a route that will be accepted.

Most other pilots I know do the same.

 

Now,if I drive my car I will have a chart with me,just in case,and if I loose the way during driving I will

look up an information sign and see where I am.

Likewise,when I drive somewhere I haven't been before,I will check a map,or satnav,just to know

where I will be ending up.

And when I didn't have a license yet,I asked others how driving a car was,and how driving a truck was,and what to watch out for.

Most other drivers I know do the same.

 

When I take the train I won't go to the station and wing it,I will find out at what time the train goes I need to make,

'cos winging it means I will not achieve what I set out to do,most of the time.

 

If I have to fly somewhere,I will see what flight fits me and book it,then plan out the rest so as to accomodate.

 

The list goes on.

 

But when I fly in a supposedly real environment,I can just hop in,

do whatever pleases me,without any regard to the real world,and if the ATCO is rude to me,I can complain and

he gets a slap on the wrist or worse,while I can continue ruining the fun for others.

Where's the logic in all this,and why oh why are we at this stage?

 

On the one hand we are steadily referring pilots to the PRC,and telling them that has all the info they need

to fly on VATSIM but we do not enforce any standard whatso-ever,and if you god forbid discourage someone from

flying on VATSIM and learn to handle their plane first,some members of VATSIM throw a hissy fit and

start telling you off for being rude.

The truth may be rude,or unfriendly,or hard ... but it is the truth nonetheless.

 

As for IVAO,they somehow do things better then we do in Europe,

but I think that is because they aim for a different audience.

There are flightsimmers enough to sustain 2 networks,so yeah, let's diversify.

Let's do something better then they do,and pilots and ATCO's might very well be moving this way,

instead of moving that way.

I personally think the something better might be to actually encourage people to learn,in all ways possible,

without going berserk everytime the pilots "sitbackrelaxtheATCwillsupervisetheride" attitude is challenged.

If you have nó interest in learning,you should not be in a learning environment,and I have read that this is a learning environment countless times these days.

So,let us start learning,then.

 

The pilot rating program is a great first step to achieve something different and I very much hope it will prosper,

just as the PRC has done.

 

And you know what I would like?

A pilot feedback form.

Let those ATCO's rate me for a change,instead of me rating them.

Something aking to the feedback you get on Ebay and similar.

That I would like.

 

Tom.

[Frank Otero]

I am not the Microsoft Flight Simulator helpdesk. I am controlling my airspace, I want you to control and navigate your plane. This is my attitude.

 

I cannot agree with this more and is the way it should be.

 

Unfortunately, VATSIM is a reflection of society and human behaviors and attitudes. Instant gratification and reward with the least amount of effort are well represented here.

 

The theme of “learning environment” is a noble one, but it is often abused by some and mislead by others. Many times when a new pilot asks for advice on this forum he is quickly directed to the world of “shortcuts” like: can’t navigate?... just download free FMC; don’t know how to file or prepare a route?.... get one at Simroute and stick it in FMC; can't hold altitude or heading?....this is how to use the autopilot.... etc, etc, etc.

 

Purposely clueless and the inexperienced (low time pilot) are not the same category and a distinction is warranted. At the end of the day, it is the controllers who have to deal with these cases of cluelessness. Solution, vector them where they are not a “danger” to your enjoyment and that of others, and deal with them when able. They will eventually get the point and either seek improvement or fly somewhere else.

[Andreas Fuchs]

The magic words are: common sense. Use common sense.

[Daniel Macfarlane 1033470]

I just wish pilots would try to do the same instead of taking the easy way out

 

I really cannot see what the big deal is if a pilot does not have a chart or cannot perform a procedure (for whatever reason) or files direct. As in real life, ATC deals with pilots who are less prepared or in lower performance equipment than the rest. These pilots can usually expect delays. Issue a hold or vector and get them out of the way until you can squeeze them in.

 

I sometimes rather to be vectored to a visual/ILS or get departure instructions than to follow the same STAR/SID. it is this interaction between controller and pilot that I seek in VATSIM...I do not need a controller to follow a SID/STAR, I can do that all by myself and even off line just the same

 

If your referring to Airliner pilots in there home country then they need to loose there job or the airline needs to train them better. Say if you had a American Airlines 752 flying into DFW, he should have the required training to fully interact with ATC and do everything that he is payed to do. Aka fly the plane.

 

If your talking about VFR pilots earning their PPL then yes, they can and sometimes do cause problems.

[Richard Gerrish]

EDIT: deleted cause i'm a (insert choice wording here) and can't read without caffine

Edited July 19, 2010 at 06:45 PM by Guest

[Jason Baxter 920557]

[

 

He was making reference to Frank's "even in real life" portion of the comment.