Can we get lower please?

[Daniel Hawton]

I still disagree with you. When there is 1 controller controlling all the areas of PCT, there is no reason that they need to simulate the Charlie gate just because that's what the SOP says.

 

Despite my 'joined date', I'm a bit new to VATSIM here, so please forgive the ignorance, but I must ask you, "Why?"

 

Not to be rude, but come to our side of the scope. SOPs are meant to be so the next controller the pilot talks to will know what to expect as you operate. However, if missing the next controller then the SOP is mute because .. well .. there is no next controller for that aircraft to operate a specific way for. Enroute expects aircraft direct Charlie gate and climbing to specific altitudes, it's the DCA part of PCT that needs aircraft vectored through Charlie gate.

 

ZDC Enroute doesn't care what gate they go through, as the aircraft isn't in their airspace until they p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] through the ceiling anyway and isn't under the center control until it's out of PCT's airspace. So that means that if I, as a PCT controller, send an aircraft direct PALEO and up to FL190, until they p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] through the PCT upper airspace at FL190. All enroute cares about is the aircraft is direct PALEO and climbing to FL190. Enroute expects the aircraft direct PALEO and FL190, DCA expects the aircraft through the KRANT sector (Charlie gate).

 

You said there is no reason, but isn't the reason exactly what you said immediately following that statement, that is, to simulate because it is standard procedure.

 

It's only standard procedure, when traffic requires. You think RW is going to push people out gates when traffic is low? Standard procedure for ZJX during the overnight hours when traffic is normal VATSIM hours is to route people direct to airports within their airspace or where an LOA exists to define this standard procedure. Yes, that is inclusive of the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] Bs.

 

I thought I signed up for a Virtual Air Traffic Simulation Network. Whether as a pilot or controller, being new, I would fully expect to learn to control and to fly the standard procedures. If that means controlling through the Charlie gate... Okay. If that means flying through the Charlie gate... Okay.

 

Read above.

 

What is the obsession with short cuts? I signed up for a "Simulation Network" and, personally, I would like to simulate standard procedure - not only to learn the procedures that are flown real world, but to have fun "playing pretend" (in other words, simulating).

 

Short cuts ARE standard procedure.

 

Ah, here's the rub, and likely the real question that is being debated here. Before getting into the Catch-22, let's try to answer the question. Why shouldn't we? My answer is because we don't know what each person's individual motivation is for being on this network. For me, I would be disappointed as a controller or a pilot for not learning, teaching, following or being directed by the standard operating procedures. Giving or receiving instructions contrary to those, in some way, feels like cheating (emphasis: this is my feeling / my opinion, your mileage may very).

 

Short cuts aren't cheating, they are standard procedure in the real world.

 

Then there is the Catch-22, in regards to simulating real world. You seem to be arguing that since short cuts are given in the real world, our simulated world should follow. However, I think we must first consider why short cuts are given in the real world, and then check whether they apply in our simulated world. I've thought of a few possible reasons, there is likely to be more, but how many, of these few, apply to an online simulation? (Is it to save fuel? Is it to save time? Whose time? Is it to make up for lost time? Is it to keep on published schedules? Is it because traffic is light?) The way I figure, most of these don't apply on VATSIM. The last, though, is the tricky part. Unlike the real world, from what I've seen thus far, the majority of traffic on VATSIM is light. So, in lines with your argument, and if this is indeed a real world reason, does this mean short cuts should be used in light traffic situations (in other words, most of the time)? Honestly, I think that would break from the spirit of the simulation environment; generally, for all the reasons I stated above as to why I joined this network.

 

You missed the point that standard procedure for ATC (at least in the US) is:

 

The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision between aircraft operating in the system and to organize and expedite the flow of traffic, and to provide support for National Security and Homeland Defense.

REF: 7110.65 2-1-1, emphasis mine

 

By this definition, it is safe to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that short cuts falls directly in line with the primary purpose of ATC because it is neither unorganized nor unsafe to do so when traffic doesn't warrant non-direct routing. The only time it doesn't is if it violates the SOP/LOA with a neighboring controller wherein the action can still be taken so long as coordination is completed and the APREQ approved.

 

What then would I suggest. To me it would be simple: follow procedure first. If there are no complaints, then proceed. If that's not what you want to do, request an alternate. That seems simple to me.

 

And is actually against not only what is done by the rw, but is also not expeditious flow of traffic either. SOPs don't exist to make aircraft follow a line like a line of ants bringing food back to the nest, but rather, SOPs are there so the neighboring controllers know what to expect the aircraft to do.

[Daniel Hawton]

I thought I signed up for a Virtual Air Traffic Simulation Network. Whether as a pilot or controller, being new, I would fully expect to learn to control and to fly the standard procedures. If that means controlling through the Charlie gate... Okay. If that means flying through the Charlie gate... Okay.

 

And just to add. You don't know what standard procedures for IAD are (at least, most pilots don't about 90% of the time). They know their route begins at KIAD and specifies direct PALEO as the first part of their route (also written IAD..PALEO, KIAD..PALEO, PALEO in the route box, etc.). By standard procedure, you would expect to go directly to PALEO on departure.

 

We have the same thing in ZJX. I, working F11, wouldn't take an aircraft departing out of F11 and leave them heading due west for 50 miles before turning them to their route that is north of the airport unless traffic required it.

 

If I knock a few points off your route in a direct routing, and you want to fly your full route, just let us known by saying "Unable" or "Would prefer to stay with filed route" or the liking. I don't take it personally. 1 out of 50 pilots say it to me in response to an issued short cut.

[Kyle Koskey 1067284]

 

 

Now anyone who gets on should know the script for when [Mod - lovely stuff] hits the fan, but, as they get on and control, there should be ZERO reason they shouldn't learn something new [unless there is no traffic, then it's hard to learn new things about ATC when staring at a blank screen unless you happen to be reading one of the many ATC pubs].

 

That's just it, this is VATSIM and most of the controllers are learning something new, even if that new knowledge happens to be the "script" you speak of, it's still very new to them. Once they master that, then they can move on to improvising and learning beyond the "script".

 

You have to learn to crawl before you can run.

That's not how we train ATC in real-world. In r/w you learn the fundamentals (point-outs, appreqs, expediting traffic) and they make sure you know that and aren't just going by some rote "script." Scripts may be good for flying, but are really bad in ATC because there will always be situations slightly different than expected, and your rote "script" solution won't provide effective separation. That's probably the #1 cause of separation loss in the U.S. anyway, and you read it time and time again in the reports ("I always give them that altitude, and they always climb fast enough... except this time").

 

All your controllers should be thinking, "he's getting close to the top of my airspace, I should be handing off or pointing him out for higher" and then think "except on this route, where we level them at 10K per SOP". But they should always have that first impulse, since it's true in other similar situations. That's how you need to teach them.

 

And certainly if the pilot requests something, you should be granting it. It's just dumb to deny it, and have no reason, just because you're "trying to make things more realistic." Denied requests for no reason are not realistic.

 

That isn't my "script" solution, I don't control or teach anybody how to control. I was just pointing out that this isn't real world, it is VATSIM, and most of the people here don't go to school and spend years learning these things like they do in the real world. With a hobby like this, my guess is that it is much more efficient to learn the SOP first and get online and practice that before moving on to improvising and possibly messing up the flow for an adjacent controller if you aren't experienced enough in giving shortcuts in busy airspace like ZDC.

 

I actually agree wholeheartedly with most of your points and Daniel's about how traffic should be handled and I too don't think people should be vectored all of the place for non-existent traffic, or denied requests for no reason, but this is VATSIM and by now I think you should have realized that many things happen backwards here when compared to the real world. For instance, on VATSIM, pilot's start their flying career in 747's without having the slightest knowledge about how to fly it. Fortunately, in the realm of controllers on VATSIM, the backward progress isn't nearly as dramatic as it is with pilots.

 

The main point I think some people are trying to make is this: sure traffic levels on VATSIM are very low compared to the real world so, yes, it is silly not to give shortcuts, but if controllers never follow SOP's for heavy traffic in busy airspace, then what are they supposed to do when there is a high level of traffic and they aren't proficient at routing people in order to correctly avoid, say DCA's departure/arrival flow because all they have done thus far give pilots instructions to go direct to the first waypoint because there's never any traffic anyways. Sure they can review the SOP before a big event, but that doesn't mean they will be proficient at following them if they haven't had any practice doing so.

Edited February 3, 2012 at 01:14 AM by Guest

[Daniel Hawton]

That isn't my "script" solution, I don't control or teach anybody how to control. I was just pointing out that this isn't real world, it is VATSIM, and most of the people here don't go to school and spend years learning these things like they do in the real world. With a hobby like this, my guess is that it is much more efficient to learn the SOP first and get online and practice that before moving on to improvising and possibly messing up the flow for an adjacent controller if you aren't experienced enough in giving shortcuts in busy airspace like ZDC.

 

I actually agree wholeheartedly with most of your points and Daniel's about how traffic should be handled and I too don't think people should be vectored all of the place for non-existent traffic, or denied requests for no reason, but this is VATSIM and by now I think you should have realized that many things happen backwards here when compared to the real world. For instance, on VATSIM, pilot's start their flying career in 747's without having the slightest knowledge about how to fly it. Fortunately, in the realm of controllers on VATSIM, the backward progress isn't nearly as dramatic as it is with pilots.

 

I didn't spend many years in school either.

[Kyle Koskey 1067284]

I didn't spend many years in school either.

 

I didn't say you spent many years in school. I said controllers go to school and spend many years learning. Not all learning has to come from school, experience in various situations that you haven't been exposed to before would also be considered learning, as far as I'm concerned.

 

EDIT (addition):

 

BTW, I didn't even use the word 'many' at all in my post. (Correction: I meant to say...in the statement you were referring to about school, I didn't use the word 'many'. I just had to point that out in case you reviewed my post and found that I did in fact use the word 'many' in a sentence unrelated to the point about school.)

 

This is a problem I pointed out in another thread. Too many people on here try to counter arguments based on their inaccurate interpretation of what somebody else has written, which is exactly why these threads always have a tendency to go in circles.

[Christopher Coon 1097126]

That isn't my "script" solution, I don't control or teach anybody how to control. I was just pointing out that this isn't real world, it is VATSIM, and most of the people here don't go to school and spend years learning these things like they do in the real world. With a hobby like this, my guess is that it is much more efficient to learn the SOP first and get online and practice that before moving on to improvising and possibly messing up the flow for an adjacent controller if you aren't experienced enough in giving shortcuts in busy airspace like ZDC.

You're touching on a good and deeper issue, and maybe off topic for this thread, which is how do we train VATSIM controllers in as little time as possible. And it's the same problem in the r/w, so lessons from there still apply, I think.

 

And what we found in r/w is it's not quicker or better to have people just memorize "scripts" and blindly follow SOP's, like so many regions seem to teach at least where I fly in the U.S.. We found you need to first teach new controllers the basics: what are handoffs, point-outs, how and why is airspace divided up, what is positive control and positive separation and how does that all work together. It doesn't take that much time. ATC schools do it in about 20 or 30 hours. But after that, the rest follows naturally. People will learn phraseology quickly, especially from monitoring other controllers. And LOA's and SOP's are a sort of unimportant side-thing students can learn on their own, and aren't the focus of training.

 

...if controllers never follow SOP's for heavy traffic in busy airspace, then what are they supposed to do when there is a high level of traffic and they aren't proficient at routing people in order to correctly avoid, say DCA's departure/arrival flow because all they have done thus far give pilots instructions to go direct to the first waypoint because there's never any traffic anyways. Sure they can review the SOP before a big event, but that doesn't mean they will be proficient at following them if they haven't had any practice doing so.

That's just not an issue. If a controller understands how to separate and sequence traffic, and how and why handoffs and pointouts are made, and how controller's "own" airspace, they can easily adhere to some procedure they haven't "practiced" before. And the way the system is set up, if the receiving controller doesn't like what the incoming aircraft is doing (either on a bad route or altitude), and again if they know the "basics," they know it's simple to call the other sector to issue different instructions. Or to tell that controller "put everybody through charlie gate please, we're busy here." It's just not an issue.

 

How about to sum this up:

 

--Controllers, keep doing what you do now if the pilot doesn't request anything different.

--But if the pilot requests something different, approve their request unless there's an actual traffic issue.

 

I think that simple idea will keep everybody happy, both hardcore simmers and casual pilots.

[Romano Lara]

Spinning the title around, Can I get higher please? That was my question in our recent group flight.

 

I left feedback of course, but to share the scenario, I requested higher since I was kept at 12,000' for about 5 minutes. Knowing there's CTR above me, the departure controller simply told me that I should stay at 12 because that's as far his airspace can go vertically, and I should wait until I'm handed off to CTR then I can request higher. I checked VATSPy to see if there's going to be any conflict if this controller hand me off to CTR earlier. There was none. All were departing to the same direction, and the traffic ahead of me was about 50-80 miles ahead. No factor.

 

I got in touch with the instructor who was training the CTR controller, and I explained the situation, and how it could have been prevented. Instead of getting a positive response (I.E Thanks, will sort that out) no, nothing, instead I was given.. normally departures are kept at 12,000' because arrivals are held at 13'. I explained that there was no incoming traffic ahead of me in the same line opposite to my heading. It ended with.. "Okay, but we still have to adhere to our policies regardless if there's a conflict or not."

 

It's terribly frustrating to hear that coming from an Instructor. Just imagine how his trainee will do alone in CTR if that's what they're p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing. I just hope the trainee will learn to use common sense instead of becoming an SOP/Policy robot. Just like what Chris pointed out above. And of course, I left feedback.

[Kyle Koskey 1067284]

That isn't my "script" solution, I don't control or teach anybody how to control. I was just pointing out that this isn't real world, it is VATSIM, and most of the people here don't go to school and spend years learning these things like they do in the real world. With a hobby like this, my guess is that it is much more efficient to learn the SOP first and get online and practice that before moving on to improvising and possibly messing up the flow for an adjacent controller if you aren't experienced enough in giving shortcuts in busy airspace like ZDC.

You're touching on a good and deeper issue, and maybe off topic for this thread, which is how do we train VATSIM controllers in as little time as possible. And it's the same problem in the r/w, so lessons from there still apply, I think.

 

And what we found in r/w is it's not quicker or better to have people just memorize "scripts" and blindly follow SOP's, like so many regions seem to teach at least where I fly in the U.S.. We found you need to first teach new controllers the basics: what are handoffs, point-outs, how and why is airspace divided up, what is positive control and positive separation and how does that all work together. It doesn't take that much time. ATC schools do it in about 20 or 30 hours. But after that, the rest follows naturally. People will learn phraseology quickly, especially from monitoring other controllers. And LOA's and SOP's are a sort of unimportant side-thing students can learn on their own, and aren't the focus of training.

 

...if controllers never follow SOP's for heavy traffic in busy airspace, then what are they supposed to do when there is a high level of traffic and they aren't proficient at routing people in order to correctly avoid, say DCA's departure/arrival flow because all they have done thus far give pilots instructions to go direct to the first waypoint because there's never any traffic anyways. Sure they can review the SOP before a big event, but that doesn't mean they will be proficient at following them if they haven't had any practice doing so.

That's just not an issue. If a controller understands how to separate and sequence traffic, and how and why handoffs and pointouts are made, and how controller's "own" airspace, they can easily adhere to some procedure they haven't "practiced" before. And the way the system is set up, if the receiving controller doesn't like what the incoming aircraft is doing (either on a bad route or altitude), and again if they know the "basics," they know it's simple to call the other sector to issue different instructions. Or to tell that controller "put everybody through charlie gate please, we're busy here." It's just not an issue.

 

That makes sense, thanks.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

i wish i could say the robotics ends with instructors, but their are plenty of ATM's, DATM's, and whatever acronyms that head many ARTCC's and FIR's that not only practice and teach it, but if you were to approach them about it, they would have no idea they had the "option" to get off script. not that its their fault, mostly because thats the way they were also trained when they went through the ranks on VATSIM.

 

thats the other side effect of going by script. i get why some people do it, they want to learn the airspace etc.. fine, but its gone beyond just "learning" in the majority of places, to the point that some folks dont know how to handle situations not on script.

[Jason Baxter 920557]

The issue is a lot of controllers don't know the SOP, or read it about as much as required until no one was looking and then let themselves go.

The other issue is VATSIM events are opportunities for a great simulation but they're routinely blown because of a lack of skill or a lack of understanding. Using the SOP and choosing to do otherwise occasionally is fine. Constantly forgoing the procedure just because there's no need to is a bad idea and is part of the cause of the low-quality controlling that's prevalent in VATSIM.

 

Running to the extremes isn't the point, I was flying into IAD a few times where significant crosswinds favored 30, the center rated controller insisted that I use runway 1 because of SOP, I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ured him there was nothing standard about a 30kt crosswind in a large wing airplane with tip tanks, I left feedback that even cited a section of the SOP where IAD supported runway 30 although no approach procedures were depicted.

 

Conversely, when I controlled at ZLA we had canned routes that included altitude restrictions, the two most popular routes SAN-LAX and the reciprocal were restricted to 10 and 11 respectively people would routinely request or file for altitudes above this and grumble when the altitude was changed due to our SOPs but over three years I've seen maybe a dozen planes that could reach a higher altitude and not have to immediately descend.

 

While in real the controllers may be under constant pressure to cut every corner but in the virtual world gas is still $0.00 and no one get's fired for missing schedule the extra 97 seconds and imaginary 300lbs of fuel aren't worth giving up the opportunity to practice for the very few times that you'll actually have traffic which is why a lot of ARTCCs embarr[Mod - Happy Thoughts] themselves during events.

[James McDonald 1159825]

What then would I suggest. To me it would be simple: follow procedure first. If there are no complaints, then proceed. If that's not what you want to do, request an alternate. That seems simple to me.

That's the problem we're talking about, though. I agree that's how it should be handled. But we are in fact requesting something different, and it's being denied for no reason other than their "SOP." That's unrealistic in the real world and makes things frustrating. I get climbed to the top of a controller's airspace and leveled off. I request higher and get told unable. I ask where's the traffic? And he says there's no traffic, it's just our standard procedure. I ask can you hand me off to the controller above you then? And he says there's nobody online. Well WTF?

 

Though I agree with you, James, we do want things somewhat over-controlled here to help create a simulated environment of a much busier real-world situation. But where's the line? I don't think delaying us (including our climbs and descents) for pretend traffic is a good reason. Direct routes are a little different. If I file a route and the controller doesn't give me a shortcut, he's not delaying me. (In fact I've given unsolicited direct routes in the real world, only to have the pilot refuse it... sometimes they're already running early and the gate's not going to be open when they get there anyway).

 

But, and I agree with Daniel Hawton on his idea of realism, specifically if a pilot requests something, Vatsim controllers should always approve it unless there's specific traffic or sequencing reasons! "It's our standard procedure" is not a reason in real-world and shouldn't be here. SOP's and LOA's are only meant to reduce coordination, not eliminate it. If you look over and that other position is totally down the tubes, then it's a valid reason to deny it because you're trying to reduce their workload. But with normal, non-event VATSIM traffic levels? Not a reason. If I'm approaching the top of your shelf and request higher, make a point-out to the other sector and keep me going. If there's nobody online, [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume the point-out is good and keep me climbing. If I request direct CAMRN and the LOA says "all aircraft shall be on so-and-so route," call that sector with an appreq (approval request) for me to go direct CAMRN. That's part of your duty as a controller, to keep traffic moving and approve pilot requests unless there are reasons of safety or traffic.

 

Christopher , I agree with everything you've said here.

 

I still disagree with you. When there is 1 controller controlling all the areas of PCT, there is no reason that they need to simulate the Charlie gate just because that's what the SOP says.

 

Despite my 'joined date', I'm a bit new to VATSIM here, so please forgive the ignorance, but I must ask you, "Why?"

 

Not to be rude, but come to our side of the scope.

 

No offense taken. I am trying to see things both ways. In some aspect, you might consider me an impartial observer; I have yet to control or fly on the network.

 

It's only standard procedure, when traffic requires. You think RW is going to push people out gates when traffic is low?

 

No, I would not expect that. However, so I can fully understand, is this your argument?

 

A) In the real world, standard procedures are used when traffic requires.

B) In the real world, when traffic is low, short cuts are used.

C) VATSIM should simulate real world. specif. FAA Order JO 7110.65S 2-1-1

D) In relation to the real world, VATSIM traffic is nearly always low.

 

A + B + C + D => E

 

E) Short cuts should be used nearly always on VATSIM.

 

I don't like this as a norm. Although it fully supports the spirit of realism on simulated network, I feel, paradoxically, it would make the simulated network feel less real. Inherently, this is because of "D" above. The VATSIM network, except during large events, will never see real world traffic levels. Because of this, as a simulated environment, I think we would either need to slightly redefine the parameters of the equation above, or accept that it does not need to be the norm. I argue for the latter; more on this later.

 

And just to add. You don't know what standard procedures for IAD are (at least, most pilots don't about 90% of the time). They know their route begins at KIAD and specifies direct PALEO as the first part of their route (also written IAD..PALEO, KIAD..PALEO, PALEO in the route box, etc.). By standard procedure, you would expect to go directly to PALEO on departure.

 

We have the same thing in ZJX. I, working F11, wouldn't take an aircraft departing out of F11 and leave them heading due west for 50 miles before turning them to their route that is north of the airport unless traffic required it.

 

If I knock a few points off your route in a direct routing, and you want to fly your full route, just let us known by saying "Unable" or "Would prefer to stay with filed route" or the liking. I don't take it personally. 1 out of 50 pilots say it to me in response to an issued short cut.

 

First, as an aside; Daniel, please do not tell me directly what I do or do not know. That is not your place, and doing so I consider rude.

 

The problem here is that neither of us know anything about the other 49 of those 50 pilots. Did they realize and appreciate the short cut? Do they believe redirecting them because of traffic? Did they even know it was a short cut? More to the point, if you didn't offer them a short cut, how many would have said something? These are all questions we can not presume to know.

 

I think that we agree here:

 

Should controllers never give short cuts? No. If I somehow implied that earlier, I retract that.

Should controllers never allow short cuts? No. If asked for, traffic allows, and coordinated (if needed), they should be granted.

 

The issue, then, is what the norm should be. Honestly, I don't think there should be one. As I said before, we don't know what each person's individual motivation is for being on this network. The primary goal should be enjoyment along with cooperation; after all, aren't we all just playing a 'game'?

 

If a controller would like to simulate as the equation mentioned earlier stipulates, giving short cuts during light traffic when available, I don't believe a correction is needed. Let the controller control this way. Whether this is what you do or not, it is not my place to criticize. Insisting it always be done this way, is where I disagree.

 

So, then additionally, if a controller would like alter the equation earlier, taking into account that VATSIM and real life traffic are not comparable, and always simulate proper procedures as if traffic were heavy, I also don't believe that a correction is needed. *(This is the point of my long-winded post)

 

In both cases, let the controller play 'the game' the way that they enjoy. Aside from the possibility that the latter may conflict with FAA Order JO 7110.65S 2-1-1. In my option, both situations are valid as far as realism on the network is concerned.

 

Conversely, the pilot player needs to be respected. Pilots, as does everyone else, have their own motivations. Pilots need only ask they would like an alternate - whether or not it is rejecting a short cut or requesting one.

 

In Jason's, Ernesto's, and Romano's case, it appears that the controllers broke from this ideal. In these situations, standard procedures appeared to be redefined as required procedures. Excepting conflicting traffic, this does not make sense to me. Whether this is a training issue, or a personnel issue, I have no place to make a determination. This is likely from where our debate is arising. How to solve the problem is beyond the scope of this post.

 

Christopher summed it up perfectly for me.

How about to sum this up:

 

--Controllers, keep doing what you do now if the pilot doesn't request anything different.

--But if the pilot requests something different, approve their request unless there's an actual traffic issue.

 

I think that simple idea will keep everybody happy, both hardcore simmers and casual pilots.

[Kyle Rodgers 910155]

Arguing about how strictly to follow the SOPs on VATSIM, under the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umption that controllers have proper technique to properly control outside of the SOP norms, is like trying to argue the point that pilots should all meet some standard.

 

Can we stop the stupid bickering back and forth about what's appropriate in terms of how controllers want to control? It's really getting old, especially since the word parsing is getting extreme.

 

To be honest, some of your all's arguments are shaky at best, and the post above this one accurately describes my reasons. This discussion is here to point out to pilots phraseology, not technique. Go argue until you're blue in the face about technique somewhere else. I will say, however, I find it VERY funny that someone who's insistent on pointing out people's flaws all over the place through finding SOP references and the 7110 is essentially invalidating them in this thread. So where, as an instructor, do I set my standard? If the SOP is too scripted, to what standard do we hold our controllers? I really can't be taken seriously if I'm asking them to be knowledgeable and properly apply the concepts of the SOP, and then not five minutes later, on the network, tell them to abandon it.

 

..and to whoever was talking about a climb being held at 12000 or whatever, with another controller on, we need to wait until you've been handed off or properly pointed out to climb you above our airspace. I could start a handoff as soon as I picked up track on you, and if Center doesn't accept it, or acknowledge a pointout, you're staying at my ceiling. Sorry Charlie...

 

Running to the extremes isn't the point, I was flying into IAD a few times where significant crosswinds favored 30, the center rated controller insisted that I use runway 1 because of SOP, I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ured him there was nothing standard about a 30kt crosswind in a large wing airplane with tip tanks, I left feedback that even cited a section of the SOP where IAD supported runway 30 although no approach procedures were depicted.

 

Out of curiosity, what were the winds? If it's not above a certain threshold, it isn't [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned, because doing so essentially puts the entire airport down to the use of one runway (for apps anyway). There is a charted approach procedure, though it's not obvious. When winds are strong enough, they'll do 1R CTL 30, or if the weather is decent in terms of visibility, they'll vector farther east of the airport to make the final turn a little easier as a simple visual 30. It's very rare that they use it (perhaps once or twice a year), so unless the winds were sustained above the upper twenties/thirties, the controller made the correct call, per the SOP. Had you requested it with no conflicting traffic, it should've been accepted, but I can't gather that from what you wrote.

 

From what you wrote, I can tell the wind favored 30, and the center controller [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned one of the 1s. From there, I can't tell if you asked for 30 and were declined, or if you simply stated what the winds were and asked if the 1s were correct.

[Norman Blackburn]

Kyle started this thread with great intents and relevant to the pilot community as a whole. Sadly too many have turned it away from Kyle's original intent as well as making it US centric therefore it has been moved.

[Ira Robinson]

You should have buried it sir because it's been dead for some time now. With all due respects, and since everyone has decided to nit pick this to death I'm going to head far into the other directions and make the most general statement of all.

 

In my experience the pilots who complain about having to hold at 11000 for 3 minutes are usually the pilots who climb at a rate and speed far exceeding what could be considered normal under any circomestances. They are also generally the same pilots who upon arrival get upset when you descend them one step at a time, asking why can't they just descend all at once. Well hells-bells sir you did file the STAR; all I'm doing is letting you fly it. You want me to tell you to cross SWEET at 7000 when your still 100 miles out that's fine with me. Leaves me lots of extra time to do other things besides control. After all, why I should get a chance to have a little fun and control when my sole purpose on the network is to make sure that you get to fly when where and how you choose.

 

okay, now that my tongue is so firmly in my cheek that it feels glued there, guys there is a common ground here and it is reached every day in almost every flight when atc gives an instruction and you choose to follow it. You as the pilot always have the option to simply request something different and should if you feel that something is wrong, but don't give the atc guys grief simply because they are trained to follow a procedure that you don't see the sense in. And instead of leaving snarky feedback how about sending the TA a note suggesting that his controllers don't understand the reasoning for or the logic behind having to hold someone at altitude if there is no one else within 100 miles. You don't know that the departure controller is brand new and still settling in, or maybe he is also handling other traffic that you don't see as a conflict but it is enough to distract him from you for a few minutes.

 

We are all trying to play together nicely you now.

 

Ira

[Paul Byrne]

Hi,

 

As regards the initial intent of this thread, as long as the pilots intentions are clear to me, I really don't care if they say "Can we get lower?", "we're near TOD, any chance of lower?" or "request lower". I'll give them lower when I can.

 

If I need clarification, I'll ask them. Same with any other procedure and I'd do the same to ATC if I wasn't clear on their intentions towards me as a pilot (more people should do this).

 

Cheers!