Jump to content

Via Radar Vectors?


Romano Lara
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thinking about the second portion of your post... This has been brought up before.

 

I'm not looking for that exact level of detail, just better than where we're currently at. Take ZMP for an example. If you consider that too much for VATSIM, that's kind of a shame. As far as I've been made aware, not one student out of there has complained at the way that place is run or to the level of detail provided. And if any have... They probably didn't put any effort in towards training (missing training sessions, etc).

 

I'm not looking for complete perfection, just more standardization. The network is capable of far more than it currently sits, I think a healthy number would agree with me on that. At the end of the day, it's up to you guys (management) to decide what standards you'll set. But I think they're potential for better than you might think possible. People just aren't afforded the opportunity at this point to make that difference.

 

 

Regards,

Andrew James Doubleday | Twitch Stream: Ground_Point_Niner

University of North Dakota | FAA Air Traffic Collegiate Training Initiative (AT-CTI) GraduateGPN_Horizontal_-_Tertiary.thumb.png.9d7edc4d985ab7ed1dc60b92a5dfa85c.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, I almost think a lot of the management hates the idea of anything near realism nowadays because they can't (or don't want to) live up to it on their own. It feels like they like the game aspect, so why would anyone ever want realism? The fact that most of the feedback we receive is from pilots, citing how a controller wasn't realistic enough (read: pilots want realism), and most controller students voluntarily delve into the 7110 to refine their skill (read: controllers want realism), doesn't affect them in the least. They want to cater to the minority here, because that's all that's important. They want to please "everyone" with the idea that if they please the minority, everyone's happy, right?

 

 

 

...and I will quote the mission statement, because that's the purpose of the statement. It's there to smack people in the head with when they get off track to remind them of their purpose (which...SURPRISE!!!). Your willful ignorance of it isn't going to change it. Nobody here is expecting our students to be able to control real world after going through our training programs. We're expecting that if we log on and fly, we'll get some semblance of the real world. A feeling, and that's it. We're demanding that for ourselves, we're demanding at least a concerted effort from them, and we're doing it for the pilots (those same pilots ya'll do anything for, yet seem to ignore the fact that most of them want the realism, too).

Kyle Rodgers

 

The content of this post, unless expressly written, refers only to those procedures in the United States of America,

following the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations thereof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radar vectors, in my opinion are the most overused tool in the VATSIM book. Without much understanding nearly every controller arbitrarily routes airplanes via radar vectors to SUMFX failing to realize that other routes can be provided, by saying nothing it's up to the pilot to get to that place. Given that, the average controller---including TAs and ATMs understanding ends in Direct or intercepting the localizer. With very little fail if I fly slant alpha I will be cleared via radar vectors, given direct a fix and then admonished for not being able to fly what I file.

 

This is yet another one of those areas where VATSIM controllers fall short due to lack of education.

CS13_Sig_D.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cleared to (some place) airport via radar vectors xxxx

 

That is a personal pet peeve of mine. It's not realistic, and absolutely destroys the basics of IFR. You basically stopped the pilot from doing his filed IFR route and then didn't tell him what to expect to do after departure. There should be zero points that an IFR aircraft has that shouldn't somehow be connected to another. IE, the pilot now, technically, has no idea what to do after departure. He can [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume fly runway heading, but, that's definitely not safe.

 

IF controllers were taught to say that, it's wrong. It should be "Cleared to (some place) airport, as filed." [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igning departure headings would still be completely valid. And not [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igning them won't break IFR.

 

We use this in the real world, most for pop ups but it is perfectly legal to state "cleared to XXX airport via radar vectors to YYY, then as filed...." [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming that YYY is a fix on their filed route. It's 4-3-2 d-1 in the 7110, which states:

 

d. Route of flight. Specify one or more of the following:

 

1. Airway, route, course, heading, azimuth, arc, or VECTOR.

 

2. The routing a pilot can expect if any part of the route beyond a short range clearance limit differs from that filed.

 

PHRASEOLOGY-

EXPECT FURTHER CLEARANCE VIA (airways, routes, or fixes.)

 

The second part doesn't apply since we are vectoring them to a fix on their filed route. That is our interpretation we use at my facility anyways...

 

To bring it back around to departures off the ground, stating "cleared to XXX airport via the YYY departure, radar vectors to ZZZ, then as filed..." is perfectly fine since the fix the pilot is expecting vectors to is on his route of flight. Let's [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume I'm working departure and the pilot goes NORDO before ever checking in with me, I would expect him to proceed via direct to ZZZ and on his route since that is what he was told to expect in his clearance and climb to his [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned altitude how ever many minutes after departure (obviously [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming he can't just proceed VFR and land at the nearest field). Same deal if we give a guy a heading up at altitude and he goes NORDO, he would proceed direct to the next fix on his last cleared route and go on his way...

There is an art . . . to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.

 

Benton Wilmes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but EWR controllers tell IFR aircraft to begin circling at the outer marker of 22/4 to runway 29. Just because it's done doesn't mean it's legal.

 

[Needless tangent] What's the point of having an aircraft intercept the ILS two miles from the OM only to break off at the OM, if it's VMC just give them the visual[/Needless Tangent]

CS13_Sig_D.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Cleared via the Kennedy One departure, XXXX climb, radar vectors YYYY...." (Where YYYY is the terminal exit point).

 

This is used everyday in the real world. It's also facility SOP phraseology for VFR departures.

 

You're still giving them departure instructions. The big thing is "Cleared to ____ via radar vectors ____" and then controllers never [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igning a departure heading. Not legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but online they tend to forget.

They do? Depends where. Maybe you should write the TA's / ATM / dATM of the facilities where it's always screwed up. Would probably be better if people actually thoroughly explained this stuff to new people still, rather than mimic off a cheat sheet. There's too much mimicry without actual understanding.

VATUSA, vZAU S2 / ORD Major Cert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally, online controllers don't know when you use via radar vectors versus cleared as filed. In reality, there isn't a reason to not say as filed when the local controller is going to give a departure heading as the concept is still the same. You just won't break IFR if the local controller forgets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...