Deprived Of Rights By FTW Center

[Christian Ybarra 1168317]

Today at about 0500z, I logged into KDFW in my C172 to do some VFR traffic pattern work but i was denied clearance by the center even though there was no one on the ground. I asked him why? and he replied it is prohibited at both DFW and DAL. I knew these were violating my rights right away. I mean come on all I want is to fly my 172 at a major airport in the states with live ATC and the only way to do that is on Vatsim. I guess not huh. I told him i have done closed traffic in the Orlando Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B before and had no problem. He replied then go fly over there. I wolleped FTW center and a supervisor was there immediately. He was very helpful and tried his hardest to try to get the problem resolved but FTW prevailed. I have done a lot of closed traffic in many different airports on Vatsim all in a Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B airspace and had no problem. PLEASE if anyone has had this experience by being denied VFR or any other requests by FTW, speak up and i will bring this up with another SUP. Thanks you guys!!!

 

Christian Ybarra

[Brian Pryor 810138]

Hi Christian,

 

I'm sorry you had a poor experience today on the network. You should contact the Fort Worth Air Traffic Manager to discuss what happened.

 

His name is Jose Suarez, his e-mail is jose.suarez (at) zfwartcc.com as ATM he is the first point of contact for issues with the facility.

[Christian Ybarra 1168317]

Thank you Brian i will. I just feel like i should be able to have the same rights over IFR aircraft. and i believe the other sup felt the same way. i will contact him thanks you

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

this is actually SOP at ZFW, if you have any issues, should probably contact one of the VATUSA regional directors aswell (think VATUSA8 for this area)

 

http://www.zfwartcc.com/pilots.php

Flying VFR at DFW is somewhat restricted - as it is in real life. Pilots wishing to fly VFR patterns should do so at airports outside the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B airspace. This means that pattern work is not permitted at KDFW or KDAL, as these airports are in Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B airspace at the surface up to 11,000 feet. Pattern work should be conducted at other airports, such as KSHV, KABI, KOKC, KTYR, KLBB, or KMAF. Each of those airfields have tower positions that may be manned by an air traffic controller from ZFW.

 

you can get the VATUSA staff contacts at

http://www.vatusa.net/staff.php

 

i know they arent the only ones that do this. i still find it hard to believe any ARTCC/FIR gets that much traffic that they cant work the pattern in. Real World is one thing, they get 20x more traffic then we do on a daily basis on the entire network

 

feel free to come fly florida, both ZJX and ZMA will be glad to have ya in the pattern at their bravos

[David Malinowski 1087539]

feel free to come fly florida, both ZJX and ZMA will be glad to have ya in the pattern at their bravos

I'd much rather have an a/c in the pattern when controlling MCO. This way I don't have to twiddle my thumbs!

 

Ernesto hit it right on the nose btw, on a serious note.

[Ryan Geckler]

ZJX's neighbor to the north (ZDC) won't mind either

[Frank Otero]

Christian,

 

Go back there, file VFR to another airport and take off, a few miles out, request a return to the field (do not declare an emergency, just want to go back), then you are going to have one of those nights where you cannot get your numbers right on approach and will need to keep calling go-arounds, again and again, and again. I know, I know, a little militant, but this is one time that (if the facts are as explained) I cannot side with the controller.

[Daniel Hawton]

Another instance when some ARTCCs take realism a little too far. Yes, real world they don't usually allow a cessna to do pattern work at a cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B airport.. but that's also because they have a constant flow of IFR traffic coming in. In the real world too IFR has priority over VFR so they can get away with it. If I was busy, I'd still do it but would clear them for a low approach at or above 500 if I had another aircraft landing on the runway in front of them. It's still pattern work and still lets me keep my flow so everyone wins.

[Christian Ybarra 1168317]

To all the other centers thank you and i will most certainly be coming over to you guys soon.

 

Alvarez i know i saw that on their web site and this should not be...IFR aircraft dont get priority over VFR and vise versa.

 

Otero haha thats is a good idea im doing that tonight. there is always a way around everything haha thanks man!!!

 

Daniel it is there was no traffic in DFW when i logged in and they have plenty of runways that werent being used...i just want my closed traffic haha...

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

Don't get online with the thought of being provocative. Handle the situation in the correct manner and it can get resolved; being further provocative will get you sideways with a SUP in a hurry.

 

This matter is best resolved by writing to the ATM, Region manager, and/or USA1, not posting in the forums in a possible CoC violation. This is the wrong way to get this resolved and I hope you will choose a productive path, not a provocative one.

[Steven Caffey]

this is actually SOP at ZFW, if you have any issues, should probably contact one of the VATUSA regional directors aswell (think VATUSA8 for this area)

 

http://www.zfwartcc.com/pilots.php

Flying VFR at DFW is somewhat restricted - as it is in real life. Pilots wishing to fly VFR patterns should do so at airports outside the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B airspace. This means that pattern work is not permitted at KDFW or KDAL, as these airports are in Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B airspace at the surface up to 11,000 feet. Pattern work should be conducted at other airports, such as KSHV, KABI, KOKC, KTYR, KLBB, or KMAF. Each of those airfields have tower positions that may be manned by an air traffic controller from ZFW.

 

you can get the VATUSA staff contacts at

http://www.vatusa.net/staff.php

 

i know they arent the only ones that do this. i still find it hard to believe any ARTCC/FIR gets that much traffic that they cant work the pattern in. Real World is one thing, they get 20x more traffic then we do on a daily basis on the entire network

 

feel free to come fly florida, both ZJX and ZMA will be glad to have ya in the pattern at their bravos

 

Perhaps the controller should have directed the pilot to one of the smaller fields, if the SOP was driving his actions.

 

We have a policy at ZLA that states closed traffic is prohibited at KLAX ONLY when SMO or HHR have TWR online (they're right next to LAX) I'd bet that is more due to wanting to get newer student controllers traffic at those fields..

[Matthew Bartels]

 

Alvarez i know i saw that on their web site and this should not be...IFR aircraft dont get priority over VFR and vise versa.

 

 

Actually, they do.

Traffic permitting I do agree with closing off VFR pattern work. This would only be in event level traffic though.

As far as your "rights" go, a quick glance of the forums will show that you have no rights on this network. It is owned by the founders and they have selflessly given us the privilege of using it. If they wanted to, they could take that away. Therefore I would be thankful for their generosity, not saying that some nonexistent right has been violated.

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

I fail to see why if Center was on, why the pilot couldn't have simply gone to a more appropriate airport. He still would have gotten ATC.

[Luke Kolin]

I fail to see why if Center was on, why the pilot couldn't have simply gone to a more appropriate airport.

 

I fail to see why DFW wasn't an appropriate airport.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

Flying VFR at DFW is somewhat restricted - as it is in real life.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

this is not real life as has been mentioned previously

 

if they had the same traffic levels we do online, you would definitely be able to fly around in the pattern anywhere. they dont allow it in the real world because of that traffic, and usually because of noise aswell, which we also dont deal with online

[Michael Benson]

Arrival and departure procedures are also created for higher than VATSIM traffic loads and for noise abadement - shall we get rid of them too and have everyone flying DCT GPS?

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

why not? i know atleast one of the founders would be all for it. i cant remember the last time an ATM got a complaint from neighbors for having a 747 screaming overhead arriving in the middle of the night. if taking someone off their procedure and sending them direct gets them in/out faster, go for it.

 

at some point, folks need to remember some real world procedures dont really apply to our virtual world. those procedures were created to accommodate those levels and situations, not ours.

 

see the founders letter for more

[Jason Baxter 920557]

Following that to its logical conclusion why have controllers, the big sky theory holds up with much more traffic whats the point of playing if the game is too easy.

[Brian Pryor 810138]

Jason it still boils down to, what harm does having the guy doing closed traffic cause?

 

I'm willing to bet like most nights, ZFW was empty or had a small amount of traffic , hardly enough to warrant denying an aircraft to do a few runs through the pattern.

 

It boils down to common sense, SOPS's/LOA's are guidelines not in stone rules, with the proper coordination they can be altered providing there is no sacrifice when it comes to safety.

[Jason Baxter 920557]

Im not agreeing with the controller; I was addressing the side argument which seemed to erode some of the fun parts of controlling the network (pretending to work real traffic, as it is, usually in your home area).

[Arjun Murthy 1051343]

Cmon Guys,

 

Theres a clear line between online "simulation" and real world procedures. There are some things we do, some things we can't. Our main bottom line is for us all to have fun. If the realism aspect ruins the fun of others while not making anyone else have ANY extra fun, then is it really necessary?

 

In this situation, FTW CTR and the Pilot looses fun simply because we simulate something online that improves our experience/fun factor in no way what so ever.

 

If someone flies GPS Direct from KJFK - KLAX, does it really matter? Is it goign to affect the controllers? The pilot may still get extra fun because eh gets to fly in our caring and loving environment. This is when you suggest tips so a person can get more experience and increasing the "realism" aspect for everyone while ALSO increasing the "fun" aspect.

 

I would like to link you guys to this thread from the Australia/Pacific forums (http://vatpac.org/forums/showpost.php?p=59490&postcount=1).

 

Just when rules like these are being made, is it really necessary?

Edited October 22, 2010 at 08:06 AM by Guest

[Frank Otero]

.....erode some of the fun parts of controlling the network

Would it be fair to say that enforcing a RW rule that results in an empty scope is also eroding the controller’s fun?

 

Even if the airport in question was busy, either due to traffic levels or the controller’s abilities, the controller could have told the pilot to expect non-standard patterns (calling his base, long/short downwinds, etc) or other delays. If the pilot cannot accept the compromise, then perhaps another field would have been a better choice for him, but just telling him to go somewhere else is a little harsh - and perhaps it is the controller who needs to find a different field.

 

How many of us would complain if we are told to slow down due to slower traffic or a student pilot (which we all are) in the pattern? Last time I check my fuel is free and my chief pilot does not care

 

Arrival and departure procedures are also created for higher than VATSIM traffic loads and for noise abadement - shall we get rid of them too and have everyone flying DCT GPS?

 

I do not think anyone would want to eliminate SIDS/STARS. But, if we ever had to choose what procedures to eliminate, I would say eliminating these would have little effect in the enjoyment of interactions between ATC and Pilots, which is what the majority of us signed up to do.

 

I would like to link someone to this thread from the Australia/Pacific forums http://vatpac.org/forums/showpost.php?p ... ostcount=1)

Good point, Arjun.

[Jose Miguel Villamizar 112]

I know is not real life but they (Ctr) might act like it is.

 

Chapter 3 section 2 paragraph 3 of the Aeronautical Information Manual indicates your problem.

[Romano Lara]

I think it's pretty simple. What is done online and in the real world is different. Before they implement SOPs in the real world, they study the current conditions and its needs and how to improve it. While in the virtual world, we implement SOPs to mimic our real world counterparts. But have we ever thought that what is implemented in the real world corresponds to a certain condition that might not be non-existent here. A good example is this one. We do not meet the traffic level they do in the real world to defer a VFR pilot from doing a circuit in a Bravo airfield, or am I missing something?

 

Its always better to analyze them carefully before implementing them, study what might be the effects (good or bad) to the community and those who will be flying by them, then make the appropriate adjustments that meets the current conditions of our virtual airspace. Balancing realism and fun that is. Everybody's a winner and we can all enjoy our hobby.

 

My 2c.