Real world procedures and regulations - how strict are we?

[Jon Story 1357003]

Hey, newbie here just wanting some clarification on how strict we are on following real world procedures.

 

I don't mean "Can we break 250kts

 

More along the lines of

 

• EGLL in reality is IFR only, do we allow VFR flights in Vatsim or would they be turned away? Obviously we aren't landing 1 plane every minute in Vatsim, so it's not quite the same
  
• At EGCC I believe LISTO and SANBA departures are used differently for jets/regionals/small aircraft. Does anyone care if we get this kind of detail wrong?
  
• EGCC-LON area has a maximum FL of 190 - I flew the other day at FL230 and it wasn't mentioned, then on wednesday I was told to correct it. That wasn't a problem, but I just wanted to clarify whether that was controller discretion, or whether the first controller just forgot about/wasn't aware of the restriction

 

On this kind of thing, is the general attitude closer to a "Must follow", "Follow if you remember but don't sweat it", or a "We don't really care, it's nice to try to be realistic if you can though"?

[Magnus Meese]

The rules are that you can do whatever you like as long as you stay within VATSIM regulations, which have no rules covering how pilots should navigate. In other words, the pilot who want to fly on dismanteled navaids to no longer existing airprots can do that. You can fly DCT GPS across the continent as long as ATC is competent enough to get you into the departure flow and onto your "routing". However, the general attitude is "as real as we can get it in this environment", and the more you follow charts and real life regulations, the happier your controllers and (competent) fellow pilots will be. So, according to VATSIM regulations, there's really nothing stopping you from flying circuits at EGLL during Cross The Pond, as long as you uphold the regulations. Might be you'll be orbiting at key point for 50 minutes for traffic, though.

 

Note that you'll meet different attitudes from different controllers. Some won't care whatever you do as long as you're able to do the basic stuff and not crash into others, some will help you through while PMing advice for you to improve, and sometimes you'll meet the guy who's been desperately working first-timers for the last hour and will straight out ragequit in frustration when that final straw comes along.

[Simon Kelsey]

It's a bit of all three.

 

If you file the wrong SID for your aircraft type, or the wrong level for your route or direction of flight, a controller will usually correct it and should politely let you know the reason for the change so that you get it right the next time (think of it less as a matter of adhering to the rules, and more as a courtesy to reduce the workload of the controller). Depending on the controller, their experience/knowledge and where you are in the flight, they may choose not to insist on a different level/SID if it's not going to hurt anyone/you're about to start descending anyway etc etc.

 

Likewise, nobody can stop you flying VFR out of Heathrow, but my argument would be that there are much nicer/more interesting places to fly VFR to . I think we all strive to emulate the real world the the greatest extent possible, and sticking to the appropriate SIDs, agreed levels etc makes the very carefully designed (by the experts in the real world) airspace system work nicely for everybody, improves the realism for the controllers (who do it for fun/immersion as well) and for other pilots, but obviously it's impossible to expect everybody to know every detail about everything. Hence "learning environment" -- we try to get things right, but if you don't know something just ask and people will usually be more than happy to point you in the right direction.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

in the grand scheme of things, not very strict, after all we have teens flying jumbos anywhere they wish.

 

as much as the network tries to adhere to real world procedures, the network always gives those a back seat to something else when needed (see the founders letter under the general discussion section for more info. it was an attempt to help guide those who were starting to branch off into their own uber realism)

[David Zhong]

Heathrow is a Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] A control zone which allows Special VFR (unless the UK have filed a difference to ICAO standards).

[David Lovell]

Hello folks,

 

VATSIM.UK implemented the switch of Heathrow to cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] D with the restriction that VFR fixed wing traffic is not allowed within an inner area, as per https://community.vatsim-uk.co.uk/topic/30583-incorporated-04102014-heathrow-egll-london-ctr-redesignated-cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]-d/

 

Hope that helps,

David

[David Zhong]

Interesting, thanks for bringing that up David. Wasn't aware of the change.

 

To answer your question, Jon, it is generally "Follow if you remember but don't sweat it". Circomestances will shift the attitude to either side of this: at a beginner-friendly event, everyone will be a lot more tolerant; at a major event where controllers are being pushed to breaking point, you can imagine that the controllers will be hoping that everyone is more on the same page than less.

[Brian Pryor 810138]

Hello folks,

 

VATSIM.UK implemented the switch of Heathrow to cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] D with the restriction that VFR fixed wing traffic is not allowed within an inner area, as per https://community.vatsim-uk.co.uk/topic/30583-incorporated-04102014-heathrow-egll-london-ctr-redesignated-cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]-d/

 

Hope that helps,

David

 

With it not being visible to the public, it's a bit difficult to expect pilots to adhere to it.

 

And if uncontrolled you could still fly VFR aircraft at LHR, as long as you coordinate.

[Simon Kelsey]

With it not being visible to the public, it's a bit difficult to expect pilots to adhere to it.

 

https://www.vatsim-uk.co.uk/EGLL/

 

The forum thread linked is really a notice to controllers to formally confirm the details of the way the real-world change is to be implemented on VATSIM.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

isnt there an issue of local rule overruling VATSIM's? i remember when ZAU used to try that with ORD, it didnt work out well for them. howd this get approved? then again given history

[Andreas Fuchs]

I also find it contradicting VATSIM's rules. I'd rather get that sorted out with VATEUD1/VATEUR1 to avoid being h[Mod - Happy Thoughts]led from someone further up the food chain.

[David Zhong]

Depends on the reason for the restriction and how you apply it. If the reason for the restriction is for traffic purposes and, as a controller, you take a common sense approach by allowing VFRs when other traffic is light, then there is no problem. If it is a blanket ban with no flexibility, then that's a different story.

[Daniel Hawton]

EGLL's traffic on VATSIM is also a LOT heavier than ORD's.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

not when meigs was the default field

[Magnus Meese]

Possibly, but ORD has about five million runways, you can always have a few Cessnas occupy one of them. Different story with the Londoners and their always active pair of strips

[Andreas Fuchs]

But Heathrow has millions of taxiways that you could use as a runway. Come on, be a bit more creative!

[Jon Story 1357003]

Thanks guys, sounds like I'll stick to the "Do it if you remember, don't sweat it if you don't" approach, then!

 

It's not been a problem so far, with controllers just fairly politely rejecting my flight plan, I just couldn't quite work out some of the inconsistencies

[Trent Hopkinson]

• At EGCC I believe LISTO and SANBA departures are used differently for jets/regionals/small aircraft. Does anyone care if we get this kind of detail wrong?

 

europe has ATC [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign the departure SID anyway. I'd hope that ATC uses the right departure. Pilots filing the wrong initial waypoint can be adjusted with a reroute or just dealt with depending on traffic. On a quiet day it's just easier to let the pilot go on his way because there's not going to be any conflict anyway.

 

• EGCC-LON area has a maximum FL of 190 - I flew the other day at FL230 and it wasn't mentioned, then on wednesday I was told to correct it. That wasn't a problem, but I just wanted to clarify whether that was controller discretion, or whether the first controller just forgot about/wasn't aware of the restriction

 

Filing it wrong is ok. It's pretty easy for the ATC to either just let it slide depending on traffic (that cap is due to descending traffic on another frequency, so if they are the only aircraft around, it's not going to conflict with anything) or just issue "ABC123 climb to FL190, final level." or "Recleared FL190" etc. The usual problem is "You filed FL180, which is invalid for your direction of flight, would you like FL170 or FL190?"

 

Personally for reduction in Radio congestion, I reccon controllers should just give the lower of the 2 options unless it conflicts or is below MVA. You know the aircraft can climb to 1000ft below the filed altitude, but 1000 above might be higher than OPT.

[Otniel Ocampo 1219647]

I ask the world of VATSIM!!! How would I go about politely arguing with a perceived bogus Instruction or restriction of an Air traffic controller on duty??? Here was my scenario. I was happily minding my business taking a Virtual Flight from KSBP to KAVX when I finally got within range of LAX Center I was instructed to abort my landing because the airport was closed (Apparently the airport closed @ 7PM)!!! I Said to my self CLOSED?? I had a great line ready for the controller in which I was Virtually Flying to that Island because there was a guy that virtually cheated with my wife!!! And I was going to virtually KICK HIS REAR-END!!! But I refrained from doing so and Just Disconnected my session and Landed @ KAVX. Again how do I go about handling those kind of situations... THANKS!!!

[Trent Hopkinson]

When flying and still connected:

Open your connection client software. Open the text window, and type.

.wallop Hello, Supervisors help requested, LAX Centre is not allowing me to land at KAVX due to it 'being closed'.

 

After the fact after disconnected:

http://laartcc.org/index.php/feedback

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

Otniel, no controller on VATSIM is allowed to close an airport, regardless if the real airport shutsdown at a certain time, bad weather, etc... under no circomestance is a controller allowed to do this. this is against the VATSIM Code of Conduct and Regulations. as Trent mentioned, simply .wallop and get a supervisor

 

also ask the controller to send you the same thing (if it was on voice) on text. take a screenshot of that text (so its not "he said vs she said") save the screenshot, send it to both the ATM of the ARTCC with feedback and the controllers information, CC the VP Supervisors in the email

 

theyll handle the rest. you dont need to argue with the controller. cancel IFR after that and continue inbound, he "closed" the tower, so not under his control anymore

 

if you were already VFR, i wouldve just replied with "thanks, switching to unicom"

 

considering the ARTCC which tends to have well trained controllers when it comes to handling VFR and G/A traffic, ill givem the benefit of doubt in that there was probably a misunderstanding, what he probably told you was that the tower was closed, in which case, hes telling you he is not providing ATC service since the airport is now uncontrolled. he shouldnt have canceled your landing though, but again, ill givem the benefit of doubt and [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume something was misunderstood. when the towers close, and they do, you basically are flying into an uncontrolled airport and treat it like any other uncontrolled airport on 122.80 (VATSIM)

[Bradley Grafelman]

this is against the VATSIM Code of Conduct and Regulations.

Devil's advocate; to which clause(s) of both are you referring?

 

considering the ARTCC which tends to have well trained controllers when it comes to handling VFR and G/A traffic, ill givem the benefit of doubt in that there was probably a misunderstanding

Certainly possible (although note that he had an IFR flight plan filed for this leg). Given that it was a visiting controller who's notorious for copping a holier-than-thou attitude... I'm not as hopeful as you.

 

@Otniel - in addition to the above, another thing to note is that both sides of feedback (to the ARTCC and to the supervisors) work best when you don't wait over two months to send it.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

§6.03

Prohibited Conduct

In addition to the terms set forth in Articl

e VI., §6.02 above, a member of VATSIM.net is

subject to removal, tempor

ary suspension, formal suspension or permanent expulsion

from VATSIM.net for prohibited conduct. Prohi

bited conduct includes, but is not limited

to, the following:

VATSIM –

Code of Regulations

35

A.

The use of the VATSIM.net network by any me

mber or individual to

threaten, har[Mod - Happy Thoughts],

abuse, intimidate, stalk or to otherwise

violate the legal rights, including rights of

privacy and publicity, of other members or

individuals logged

on to the VATSIM.net

network;

B.

The use of the VATSIM.net network by any member or individual to publish, post,

distribute or disseminate any defamatory,

infringing, obscene, vulgar, profane, or

other unlawful material or information;

C.

The use of the VATSIM.net network by any me

mber or individual to engage in any

action or conduct which blocks

, interferes with or othe

rwise prevents any other

member(s) of VATSIM.net or individuals

from logging on to and/or enjoying the

VATSIM.net network. This rule does not

apply to Administrators, Supervisors or

other individuals specifica

lly designated by the VATSIM

.net Board of Governors or

this Code of Regulations who are acti

ng within the scope of their authority;

[Bradley Grafelman]

Excellent - one of those catch-all, means-nothing-specific clauses.

 

So, the next time any controller [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igns you a heading, speed, or altitude [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignment (or, really, any instruction) - just say "unable; I wouldn't enjoy that."

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

nope, everything within reason. nothing is meant to be as black and white in writing (itd be hundreds of pages long if that were the case to try and cover each and every occasion where itd fit). giving vectors doesnt block anyone from the network, closing an airport does