Paul Byrne Posted March 24, 2011 at 06:11 PM Posted March 24, 2011 at 06:11 PM There are 6 ways to ID a target and there are many controllers that just limit themselves to just one. There are many controllers who reissue a squawk code every time regardless if you have already been given one that is perfectly valid and is not in use by any other aircraft. And is there something technically wrong with that? Or does it just not fit in with your style of controlling? Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Carlson Posted March 24, 2011 at 06:40 PM Posted March 24, 2011 at 06:40 PM Bryan and Daniel, couldn't Bryan have been [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned blame in his example (had something bad happened) if he had used only the position to ID the target, since there was another aircraft nearby that could be confused with the pilot that was calling up? In other words, aren't you only supposed to use the position method if there is zero ambiguity as to which target is calling you? If I understand the example right, there were two aircraft 10 miles apart at the same altitude. I would think that's more than enough potential for ambiguity, in the eyes of the FAA investigator. (And clearly, the facts support that, because the pilot gave an incorrect estimate of his distance from DAG, which happened to match another target altogether.) Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Wollenberg 810243 Posted March 24, 2011 at 07:17 PM Posted March 24, 2011 at 07:17 PM Ross, you are absolutely correct. It's hard to "see" from my example, but the aircraft who was calling up, was actually about 35 miles E of the only VFR target I had. He was actually completely outside of my airspace off in the restricted area, and blended in nicely with the military targets that were out there playing...some squawking 4000, some on other discreet codes, some squawking VFR, and some squawking standby. Never would have guessed he was where he was. From an absolute legal perspective, I think Daniel is right. From the information I was given, there really was no ambiguity, so I'm sure I would have been covered had something happened. But as he also said, that doesn't help you sleep any better at night, and it certainly doesn't prevent you from being grilled in court. I'd like to avoid that, and for a quick extra step or two, and apparently a small inconvenience to the pilot (I never realized changing a squawk code and hitting the IDENT button could be so inconvenient...takes about 2 seconds to do ), better safe than sorry, IMO. Daniel, that sound nuts down there! A guy I work with worked down there when he was in the military (quite some time ago), so the only stories I have are the older ones. That's hilarious with the Cessna. Oh my! Bryan Wollenberg ZLA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Carlson Posted March 24, 2011 at 07:40 PM Posted March 24, 2011 at 07:40 PM Ross, you are absolutely correct. It's hard to "see" from my example, but the aircraft who was calling up, was actually about 35 miles E of the only VFR target I had. He was actually completely outside of my airspace off in the restricted area, and blended in nicely with the military targets that were out there playing...some squawking 4000, some on other discreet codes, some squawking VFR, and some squawking standby. Never would have guessed he was where he was. From an absolute legal perspective, I think Daniel is right. From the information I was given, there really was no ambiguity, so I'm sure I would have been covered had something happened. Ahh, okay, I misread your original post. I thought you were saying that the two aircraft were only 10 miles apart (one 25 SW of DAG, one 35 SW of DAG) ... I see now that the guy calling was actually 35 SE of DAG, not SW. So I see what you and Daniel mean, not much ambiguity there, and you would have been technically in the clear if something bad happened. I can certainly understand why you don't use position only ... and your example is proof-positive that using a squawk [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignment is safer. (Not that anyone is disputing which is safer.) Now that I think about it, I'm surprised that controllers even have the option of using nothing but position to ID a target and start giving vectors and altitudes. Don't they know how fallible those silly pilots can be?!? And I also just realized that I had (until now) a misunderstanding of when you could use position-only to radar ID a target. I thought that you could only use nothing but a position report to radar ID a departure if that target was observed within a mile of their departure field. I don't remember ever being taught about using position only, plus heading or route of flight, to ID a track. I probably just never committed it to memory since I always used the 1 mile departure method, or the squawk method. Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Bauman 1156360 Posted March 24, 2011 at 10:50 PM Posted March 24, 2011 at 10:50 PM I was a student pilot, coming back from one of my first solo VFR cross-countries, coming in from the northwest. I still remember how I felt when I made my initial call to the local tower, reporting ten northeast. I knew where I was; I just said the wrong thing. "Are you sure you don't mean ten to the northwest?" Ohhhhh my face got so hot and red. I apologized profusely, but I was lucky there wasn't another plane where I reported that I was. Summary: It's true, sometimes randomly we will lie to you (although not on purpose). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Pavlak 1058071 Posted March 25, 2011 at 05:02 PM Posted March 25, 2011 at 05:02 PM This is almost cheating, and certainly doesn't hold me to a higher standard of situational awareness... But I just look at the BOTTOM of my HSI/DG when reporting my location, to ensure I'm giving the right cardinal direction ([Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming I'm traveling TOWARD the point I'm referencing in my position report). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Virgilio 1019275 Posted March 29, 2011 at 04:54 PM Posted March 29, 2011 at 04:54 PM Interesting thread here. I agree that the pilot and controller cadre on VATSIM don't always execute every aspect of flight in controlled airspace to the high standards that the professionals do. The truth is that the real world pros don't always do it either. I hope I didn't burst anyone's bubble with that news. I don't agree that writing a long essay/rant, following up with several rantish posts, followed by more rantical replies, is really an effective way of teaching anybody. The moment I began reading this thread I was reminded of an early training session I was doing with a student of ours at ZOA, now a very good friend of mine. He made a comment on our training material along the lines of "You expect me to read all of this? Give me a break!" Often times we get so carried away in the fact that we think we know something, that we feel motivated to write about it, and write some more, and write some more, and write some more until we feel that everyone is sufficiently convinced that we know what we're writing about. The truth is, I couldn't make it through the first 5 paragraphs without being completely distracted by the fact that the original writer failed to proofread his piece. Couple that with the fact that there is a wealth of misinformation in that article, and it is pretty clear to me why new controllers might not be experts at all things ATC. The only way to improve the foundation of knowledge in the controller base on VATSIM is to have knowledgeable people, with training/people skills, aid the virtual controller along their path. This is better done through discussion and practical examples/exercises than dissertations. I agree that the subject of airspace and how one aircraft moves from airspace to airspace really works and what it involves is not to be taken lightly. It also isn't something that has really been emphasized much in my vARTCC. Do realize that it's a pretty "big" idea that a lot of laymen perhaps are not fully prepared to be introduced to. If you choose to be grow frustrated, irritated, and even snobbish because some members on VATSIM aren't perfect, then perhaps you need to better understand just what reality is really playing out here. This isn't the FAA. Most of us are not really FAA Controllers. The pilots don't work for *insert airline here*, and for the most part, the information that is available is p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ed on from one generation of not-completely-informed individuals to the next. So here we are. Try to help out as you will, but please don't bark at/behind the back of people about their lack of knowledge when yours isn't quite perhaps as sound as you think it is. None of us are as important as we think we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romano Lara Posted March 30, 2011 at 07:45 AM Posted March 30, 2011 at 07:45 AM I also do not agree with 'other' controllers viciously talking about 'other' controllers they encountered that doesn't have the same standard or skill for that matter as theirs. Simply because not everyone here are real world controllers, nor have attended a CTI. I believe this is a hobby, if you noticed something incorrect, help them, instead of talking about them without their knowledge in a vicious manner. It's quite funny how *some* people expect everyone to be par to their knowledge. [end rant, hiding to my bunker] Romano LaravACC Philippines, Manager - Training & Standards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Baker 1004102 Posted March 30, 2011 at 04:24 PM Posted March 30, 2011 at 04:24 PM I think a cool, and relatively easy change to VRC would be if realistic tags mode is selected, to hide the callsign of the aircraft being sent a .contactme message. That way you really have no idea what plane you asked to contact you. It'd be even cooler if it was possible to tag up the wrong A/C as I imagine this is possible in RW ATC. ZMP_BD MITRE OP1 survivor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernesto Alvarez 818262 Posted March 30, 2011 at 05:06 PM Posted March 30, 2011 at 05:06 PM I think a cool, and relatively easy change to VRC would be if realistic tags mode is selected, to hide the callsign of the aircraft being sent a .contactme message.That way you really have no idea what plane you asked to contact you. is this an oxymoron? if youre sending a .contactme, even if you arent right clicking etc, just typing it in with the callsign, or clicking the target, doesnt that technically mean you know where they are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romano Lara Posted March 30, 2011 at 05:22 PM Posted March 30, 2011 at 05:22 PM It'd be even cooler if it was possible to tag up the wrong A/C as I imagine this is possible in RW ATC. David, This is possible with Euroscope. So if asked to confirm your position, better make sure you give us the right response, otherwise, we might tag the wrong target. Regarding VRC, I don't think there's a way to actually send a .contact me without knowing their callsign if the realistic mode is in use. You need to either type their partial/callsign to do so. With ES, we can actually send contact me message to unidentified targets. Which is something VRC doesn't do since you need to have the A/C selected first before attempting to use .contactme - try Euroscope? (more inside) Romano LaravACC Philippines, Manager - Training & Standards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Carlson Posted March 30, 2011 at 05:40 PM Posted March 30, 2011 at 05:40 PM I think a cool, and relatively easy change to VRC would be if realistic tags mode is selected, to hide the callsign of the aircraft being sent a .contactme message.That way you really have no idea what plane you asked to contact you. is this an oxymoron? if youre sending a .contactme, even if you arent right clicking etc, just typing it in with the callsign, or clicking the target, doesnt that technically mean you know where they are? You know *where* they are, yes, but not *who* they are. After all, you would never send a contactme if you didn't know where they are anyway. In other words, I think David is suggesting that you should be able to right-click an uncorrelated target (LDB) and send a contactme without VRC showing you the callsign that it just sent the contactme to. You know the target is in your airspace, but you don't know who he is. Personally I don't think it's worth it ... the .contactme function is 100% unrealistic as it is. Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Baker 1004102 Posted March 30, 2011 at 06:11 PM Posted March 30, 2011 at 06:11 PM @Ross: While I agree it's totally unrealistic, it does seem to be necessary, unless you want to sit on a center scope and watch all of you planes fly through your airspace without talking to you - which is as equally unrealistic. Thanks for replying though. I appreciate it. @Ernesto: Right, knowing there's an aircraft there and knowing who that aircraft is are different things. When I sign on as center, and send contact mes to the planes in my airspace, I also know exactly who they are. @Romano, that is cool about Euroscope, I did not know that. From what I hear though, the DSR tags available aren't really up to snuff. I'd also not be interested in a lot of the automation stuff that it allows. I'm [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming that's configurable? ZMP_BD MITRE OP1 survivor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Carlson Posted March 30, 2011 at 06:15 PM Posted March 30, 2011 at 06:15 PM @Ross: While I agree it's totally unrealistic, it does seem to be necessary, unless you want to sit on a center scope and watch all of you planes fly through your airspace without talking to you - which is as equally unrealistic. Thanks for replying though. I appreciate it. I think you misunderstood me ... I'm not saying we should get rid of .contactme ... I'm saying there's little point in hiding the callsign when the .contactme function is used. It would be like trying to add a tiny bit of realism to a fully unrealistic function. Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Baker 1004102 Posted March 30, 2011 at 06:29 PM Posted March 30, 2011 at 06:29 PM I think you misunderstood me ... I'm not saying we should get rid of .contactme ... I'm saying there's little point in hiding the callsign when the .contactme function is used. It would be like trying to add a tiny bit of realism to a fully unrealistic function. No, I understood. I think that more real is better than less real, especially when it's easy. I do understand where you're coming from however. Again, thanks for taking the time to discuss it. ZMP_BD MITRE OP1 survivor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Carlson Posted March 30, 2011 at 06:59 PM Posted March 30, 2011 at 06:59 PM I think that more real is better than less real I agree with that statement in a vacuum, but in this case I think it's like putting lipstick on a pig. Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Hawton Posted March 31, 2011 at 04:04 AM Posted March 31, 2011 at 04:04 AM Regarding VRC, I don't think there's a way to actually send a .contact me without knowing their callsign if the realistic mode is in use. You need to either type their partial/callsign to do so. + = .contactme to that target.. regardless of realistic mode or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Baker 1004102 Posted March 31, 2011 at 02:13 PM Posted March 31, 2011 at 02:13 PM + = .contactme to that target.. regardless of realistic mode or not. That is indeed exactly how I do it. I'm just saying it be nice to not see the pilots callsign in the text box after sending. ZMP_BD MITRE OP1 survivor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhruv Kalra Posted March 31, 2011 at 05:28 PM Posted March 31, 2011 at 05:28 PM + = .contactme to that target.. regardless of realistic mode or not. That is indeed exactly how I do it. I'm just saying it be nice to not see the pilots callsign in the text box after sending. That'd work fine until you get the guy who's flying "United 232" that's connected as "UA232" or worse "UNITED232" and wonder why you can't keyboard select him by typing "UAL232 " Dhruv Kalra VATUSA ZMP ATM | Instructor | VATSIM Network Supervisor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Carlson Posted March 31, 2011 at 07:36 PM Posted March 31, 2011 at 07:36 PM That is indeed exactly how I do it. I'm just saying it be nice to not see the pilots callsign in the text box after sending. That'd work fine until you get the guy who's flying "United 232" that's connected as "UA232" or worse "UNITED232" and wonder why you can't keyboard select him by typing "UAL232 " I think most people would just type "232", but maybe not everyone realizes you can do partial callsigns this way? (Granted, if there is another flight in range with a callsign ending in 232, this won't work.) Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhruv Kalra Posted March 31, 2011 at 08:02 PM Posted March 31, 2011 at 08:02 PM Yeah I'm aware you can do it with partial callsign (I believe the minimum is 2 characters). Just playing advocatus diaboli . Dhruv Kalra VATUSA ZMP ATM | Instructor | VATSIM Network Supervisor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhruv Kalra Posted April 1, 2011 at 06:48 AM Posted April 1, 2011 at 06:48 AM It's quite funny how *some* people expect everyone to be par to their knowledge. I don't believe the initial intent of this thread was to belittle anyone. I think it is certainly far-fetched to expect perfection out of anyone in a hobbyist community such as this. That being said, however, it is unfortunate to see how many have chosen the other extreme and decided that because this is a hobby, no learning needs to take place. Dhruv Kalra VATUSA ZMP ATM | Instructor | VATSIM Network Supervisor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Doubleday Posted April 1, 2011 at 06:52 AM Author Posted April 1, 2011 at 06:52 AM VATSIM is not the FAA, not even a CTI! Not everyone here are real world controllers or aviation experts. This seems to be the general excuse I hear now days to stop learning... this wasn't intended to be an argument, just that the network can use a dose of professionalism every now and then. Romano, you of all people should know that the very most... I'm not really expecting perfection out of controllers, none of us really know everything, myself included. Just the caring of trying to apply the correct information and p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] that on to other people... it would help out the rest of the division in a positive manner in the long run. Don't try to take this as an attack... EDIT Even I learned a few tips from this post from others... Sorry if it came across rough... I'm guilty of that often because I'm p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ionate about ATC... The point is to keep learning, not just get your certification and continue to be ignorant towards learning more. Andrew James Doubleday | Twitch Stream: Ground_Point_Niner University of North Dakota | FAA Air Traffic Collegiate Training Initiative (AT-CTI) Graduate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Hawton Posted April 1, 2011 at 01:53 PM Posted April 1, 2011 at 01:53 PM + = .contactme to that target.. regardless of realistic mode or not. That is indeed exactly how I do it. I'm just saying it be nice to not see the pilots callsign in the text box after sending. That'd work fine until you get the guy who's flying "United 232" that's connected as "UA232" or worse "UNITED232" and wonder why you can't keyboard select him by typing "UAL232 " What does the person's callsign have to do with the method I posted? Nothing. + uses zero methods of callsign. So they can be connected as AIRFORCE1, AF1, A1, it doesn't matter.. at no point are you doing anything that has anything to do with their callsign and 100% with (which means moving your mouse to them and clicking). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Baker 1004102 Posted April 1, 2011 at 02:19 PM Posted April 1, 2011 at 02:19 PM + = .contactme to that target.. regardless of realistic mode or not. That is indeed exactly how I do it. I'm just saying it be nice to not see the pilots callsign in the text box after sending. That'd work fine until you get the guy who's flying "United 232" that's connected as "UA232" or worse "UNITED232" and wonder why you can't keyboard select him by typing "UAL232 " True dat. I usually do what Ross suggests and go for the 232 , but it doesn't always work - as he says. ZMP_BD MITRE OP1 survivor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts