Deprived Of Rights By FTW Center

[Garry Morris 920567]

You know, unless I had TGIF/Superbowl traffic coming into Phoenix, I never minded someone in the pattern at PHX. I sent them off to runway 26, and spun them around there repeatedly while most of the traffic came in on 25L. Heck, a few times I had them switch if I noticed a knot of airplanes coming in that were going to clog up the runway I had them on.

 

What's fun about DFW is that you have 5 main runways. Count them, 5, one of which is well away from the others. As tower, I'd tend to put someone (or someones) wanting to do pattern work out on 35R and voila, I still have 4 runways left to take care of inbound/outbound traffic. In my personal opinion, unless you have the serious workload of a fly-in, put 'em on 35R and let him go to town.

 

Now, as to your "rights", in a Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B, IFR traffic takes precedence. They can deny you entry into the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] Bravo airspace entirely if they so choose. I agree, it shouldn't be done except under heavy workload. That said, there are two great airfields very nearby that would be excellent for pattern work (and where you see a ton of GA traffic in real life) - KADS and KTKI. Collin County Regional (TKI) is used heavily for pilot training real world, Addison (ADS) is also a haven for bizjets and bugsmashers, and both are towered fields. If you don't want him at DFW, fine, send him over to one of those two and let him party.

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

Without DP/STARs controllers would have to **GASP** manually control airplanes with vectors. OMG!!

[Jason Baxter 920557]

Frank, I'm not sure why you quoted me as though I agree with denying the guy because it isn't done in real world, but I'll humor you. In a busy control environment CTR won't have time to do this non-standard pattern stuff, extend downwind, turn base now is wasted radio time unless it maintains a sequence. Secondly I've done pattern work, it isn't denied as SOP it is denied as a matter of course, when it's too busy the pattern gets shut down even at cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] Ds but it's a direct function of traffic and very seldom a matter of procedure. Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] Bs happen to be the busiest in the country. Thirdly DPs/STARs are very useful on vatsim as they were designed for controllers to handle 20-30 planes, I don't know about you all but that conspires to happen a lot where I control. Just two nights ago a small fly in came on the VISTA2 had I needed to vector each plane that wouldve been an extra 90 transmissions, add to that the language barrier was making things difficult. Vectoring takes time and effort and in congested areas which is where STARs come in.

 

Kyle, you almost made it seem like ATC is reluctant to vector, as has been noted most atc can vector into a cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B no problem the gap is when the 'real controlling' into other airports starts. As for ATC interaction riddle me this: how much interaction is there in a direct climb to cruise and direct JFK off LAX.

 

P.S I get PMs from pilots all the time about how me descending them to FL290 will cost them, apparently not everyone thinks fuel is free.

[Frank Otero]

Hi Jason,

 

I know you were not agreeing with refusing pattern work, I was just addressing the "eroding the fun" part of your comment. The other blah, blah, blah was not in response to you.

 

I fully understand the need for SID/STARS, especially in your scenario. Sometimes, though, SID/STAR are to a controller what the magenta line is to the FMC-only pilot - yes, they make things more efficient, but take out a lot of the human factor and challenge out of the equation. Not to mention that SID/STARS are so predictable (like watching a movie after already having read the book) that they can become mundane.

 

I hear and respect what you are saying about wasted radio transmissions in order to accomodate the student pilot, but I still feel it is possible and certainly worth it.

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

Sometimes, though, SID/STAR are to a controller what the magenta line is to the FMC-only pilot

 

And controllers are required to accommodate a pilot who cannot do anything but follow a magenta line. Why shouldn't pilots be required to accommodate a controller who needs SIDS/STARS?

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

would you be able to guess who can and cant fly one? big difference from just lookin at a chart. pilots actually got to understand whats on it and actually be able to fly it

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

They really aren't that complex, even if your using nothing more than VOR/DME. If you can learn to set up FSInn/SB you can learn to follow a SID/STAR.

[Richard Gerrish]

They really aren't that complex, even if your using nothing more than VOR/DME. If you can learn to set up FSInn/SB you can learn to follow a SID/STAR.

 

problem is the pilot also has to want to learn and that is something ATC can't force them to do.

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

VATSIM requires ATC to learn, to the extent that training has become a m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive barrier to entry as a result of scarcity. Pilots should be required to learn, to a lesser extent.

 

Reading diagrams really isn't that hard. Seriously.

[Richard Gerrish]

training has become a m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive barrier to entry as a result of scarcity. Pilots should be required to learn, to a lesser extent.

 

Reading diagrams really isn't that hard. Seriously.

 

true enough. at the same time training scarcity isn't always true, the influx of new controllers is much like the tides, constantly changing.

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

I wonder how many controllers give up training though, not because they find the ATC stuff difficult, but the find the bureaucratic process difficult.

[Jason Baxter 920557]

I find over the course of my instructing students drop out in 3 areas generally.

 

1) On a pre-control exam (including failing the open book, multiple choice, open instructor, just-read-the-sop-the-answer-can-be-found-with-control-F tests).

 

2) After getting an initial rating in GND or TWR and deciding controlling is not for them (for a multitude of reasons).

 

3) When they start radar training and either: A) Can't get the hang of it. B) Can't get traffic. C) Failing the OTS.

 

I can't speak for other ARTCCs but my home CTR is generally good at pumping out S1s through S3s, after that they just disappear.

 

There is a 4th category in my area and that's people who can't handle the traffic and just up and quit. On LAX_APP/CTR it can get very busy, very easily, very quickly. Most students are discouraged when their instructor keeps coming in with "disregard" and eventually just quietly stop putting in training requests. I can't speak for low traffic ARTCCs, but thats how the systems been on my side.

[Brian Pryor 810138]

Jason there are also cases there where the times just don't sync up between students and instructors.

 

I'm an example of that category hence why i'm a sup with S1 privs at LAX.

[Jason Baxter 920557]

Jason there are also cases there where the times just don't sync up between students and instructors.

 

I'm an example of that category hence why i'm a sup with S1 privs at LAX.

 

Yes but we usually have an answer for that, his name is Eugene "I never sleep" Zaporozhets. How often and what times are you requesting training that it doesn't match up?

 

I'll go through records and see what's up with your progress.

[Frank Otero]

And controllers are required to accommodate a pilot who cannot do anything but follow a magenta line. Why shouldn't pilots be required to accommodate a controller who needs SIDS/STARS?

 

This is the compromise I was talking about in a prior post above. If the student pilot wants to do pattern work in a busy field, he needs to understand that he may not get as many touch-and-go's as if he goes to another field with the lonely TWR controller who is begging for traffic. The controller (busy field) should also compromise and accomoadate the in there.

 

The same with the SID and STAR argument. Miami is doing visuals/vectors all night, you insist on the STAR/ILS, Miami should give it to you and you should take whatever delay/inconvenience/trauma that may cause you. But Maimi should not deny you the landing

[William Lewis]

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?

 

 

No because that particular airspace could be busy enough to warrant such use. I believe that once in your En Route stage of flight the center controller should determine your separation and clear you direct to the farthest point of which he can determine that your separation will not be affected.

 

I am curious as to what happens if an aircraft is flying the pattern at DFW with no ATC online and then a controller signs on?

 

Once two way radio communication is established does the ZFW controller tell the pilot that he mush be full stop or depart the area immediately.

 

I can see the purpose during a major event where the runways are being used constantly. I myself have suggested to a pilot that it may be better for them to go to another airfield and make suggestions as to which ones would still have full ATC service, but i have never out right denied them. I simple just inform them that they can expect delays as the runways will be congested with other traffic.

 

On day to day operation they cannot fly around DFW because of what Congestion? That is why it is in the real world ops. IRL DFW is in the top 10 or 5 busiest airports in the US. It is obvious why they don't allow it. It would be two easy for a mistake to be made and for and accident to happen. Here on the Network at this time a Saturday late afternoon when i would expect traffic loads to be a bit higher than norm, there are only 3 aircraft airborne filed to DFW and they are spaced out about an hour. If your controllers are unable to effectively separate 1 aircraft an hour with a guy in the pattern and only 6 other runways open i think you may have a problem.

 

Don't get me wrong I an all for realism but when there is not the traffic to support those procedures i don't think that they have to be followed to the T. I would just ask to use common sense and courtesy. What I typically tell my students is that they have two basic rules Properly separate and Expedite the flow of traffic. If they make a decision and both those tasks are met and you coordinate with your fellow controllers, 99% of the time they are correct and proper in doing so.

[Callum McLoughlin]

I wonder how many controllers give up training though, not because they find the ATC stuff difficult, but the find the bureaucratic process difficult.

 

Most students give up because it takes so long to get up to a decent rating, (in the UK, that's S3). In our part of the world, the waiting time has decreased significantly which is only a good thing, but of course there is still more work to do.

 

The bureaucracy does not hold students back, but it does prevent staff teams from functioning as efficiantly as they could do.

 

In what way have you found the training process difficult, and how does it tie in with bureaucracy?

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

I'll need to schedule a lesson. I'll make a few posts, no reply for a week +. I pop into teamspeak, and eventually find an instructor and manage to schedule a lesson. I go to the lesson, complete the lesson and go go back to attempting to schedule a subsequent lesson.

 

Once I get a rating, I get told to "practice" to get a major field endorsement. Well, practice is good! Right? Except it's impossible to practice without any traffic. Can't practice without traffic, can't get traffic without practice.

 

There are so few instructors, it's difficult to schedules lessons, training policies are such that it's impossible to get practice. Bureaucracy comes in when, as you said, it becomes difficult to schedule lessons and policies prevent working at an airport with any traffic at all.

[Callum McLoughlin]

I'll need to schedule a lesson. I'll make a few posts, no reply for a week +. I pop into teamspeak, and eventually find an instructor and manage to schedule a lesson. I go to the lesson, complete the lesson and go go back to attempting to schedule a subsequent lesson.

 

Luckily VATSIM-UK does not have a problem when it comes to requesting, and accepting sessions in an efficiant manner. We have an excellent training system which is basically a fancy calendar. Posts such as yours highlights the need for canny technology that takes the legwork out of what we do, and make it easier for things to be arranged.

 

Those who are not members of the UK Division (in the CERT database) will not be able to log in to the RTS system, however you can have a browse to see how things work: http://rts.vatsim-uk.org/home/login.php

 

Once I get a rating, I get told to "practice" to get a major field endorsement. Well, practice is good! Right? Except it's impossible to practice without any traffic. Can't practice without traffic, can't get traffic without practice.

 

Have you written to your ATM expressing your concerns? Perhaps a sweatbox session could be arranged so you can be broken in to heavier traffic levels, and then given the validation to control at the major field - this sounds like a credible solution to your problem.

 

There are so few instructors, it's difficult to schedules lessons, training policies are such that it's impossible to get practice. Bureaucracy comes in when, as you said, it becomes difficult to schedule lessons and policies prevent working at an airport with any traffic at all.

 

That's what you said .

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

The problem did persist across two ARTCCs, but I believe I will ask about getting a high-traffic sweatbox for a major rating. Thanks for the suggestions.

 

And if that doesn't work, I'll give the UK a try perhaps.

[Callum McLoughlin]

The problem did persist across two ARTCCs, but I believe I will ask about getting a high-traffic sweatbox for a major rating. Thanks for the suggestions.

 

Did you contact the ATM? You never know, you may have been making a mistake somewhere down the line that was causing the holdups.

 

And if that doesn't work, I'll give the UK a try perhaps.

 

Sure, but I always recommend that people move around the globe for the right reasons, (i.e. they want to control the positions within the area and become part of the community etc) - it would be for you to decide whether you would be doing that or not.

[Harold Rutila 974112]

Come on, Darrol. I read these forums literally three times a day. I check my e-mail via phone throughout the day. And I'm in Teamspeak on most weekend nights. I control Denver Center several times a week.

 

Your ARTCC, which I run, has but one training request in the queue. You have flown under my ATC as a pilot on multiple occasions since your last training was scheduled on October 2nd at 1700Z. You were marked by the instructor as being a "no-show" for training and have not since contacted me or any instructor to re-schedule.

 

If you have questions for me about your training, obviously you should ask them instead of [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming we're too busy to respond to questions in the first place. There are 4 training staff members for a currently-active student base of about 10. We're plenty staffed.

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

Huh. I understood that there were multiple requests in the queue. I apologize if I misunderstood that. I had an emergency on the 2nd and after that figured that, since it was difficult to schedule the lesson in the first place, I would take a break from ATC training for a while. The instructor had said I needed to 'practice' before moving up to DEN or ASE(the only two airports with traffic) and that was the issue I was referring to, since it's impossible to get practice, it was hard to see the point in putting forth the effort to get a Denver lesson, when I would probably told to get more practice at a traffic-free airport.

 

No offense intended. I don't think you(or anyone else) is doing anything wrong, I was just commenting on the absurdity of not allowing students to staff moderately busy airports.

[Richard Gerrish]

No offense intended. I don't think you(or anyone else) is doing anything wrong, I was just commenting on the absurdity of not allowing students to staff moderately busy airports.

 

most new controllers don't have the experience or the knowledge to deal with moderate and heavy traffic loads. I've seen it too many times both in sessions and observing controllers where they get a rush and they do nothing but flounder until they are so overwhelmed they log off and don't ever come back.

 

Everyone starts out with working the smaller airports. the adage still works "if you man it regularly they will come." Work with your training staff and put a little bit of effort in and you'll be working the positions that you want to work.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

like they say. "if you staff it, they will come"

 

theres a few popular airports that do get traffic in ZDV, Eagle County being one not sure why students overlook this airport, it sure would be nice to have a tower

 

ZDV's a BIG ARTCC. lots to choose from. you just got to either staff it regularly so people know when they can expect to have some ATC, or be controlling when those airports are getting traffic instead of flying yourself. youll miss those otherwise.

 

students tend to limit themselves sometimes too much to the point they get bored, when theres plenty they can do, especially in a big ARTCC like this. just got to be patient and your time will come.

 

everyone wants to work the majors, but what will you staff when you are fully certified and those positions are manned by someone else?