Controller came on-line during taxi

[Randy Tyndall 1087023]

Dace,

 

I have to disagree with two of your comments...slightly.

 

However... 9 out of 10 times a 'SPL dct LAM' flightplan also means a pilot who hardly has a clue how to operate his aircraft

 

Change that comment to "EHAM-EGLL flight plan" and I would agree with the "9 out of 10" statement. The mere fact of any pilot filing "SPL DCT LAM" tells me they know those VORs exist and perhaps they know how to use the signals from them. Maybe "5 out of 10"...

 

Obviously the aircraft type and equipment is a clue for the controller as to what to expect

 

The default aircraft type and equipment code, at least in FSInn, for a B737 is "T/B737/F". That would be a clue to the "9 out of 10". Again, the mere fact that the pilot had the knowledge to change that default entry...and at least in FSInn it does take an intentional click/backspace/type" action...to "B737/A" would indicate they have been "around the block" if not the whole city once or twice so...maybe "3 out of 10"...

 

But I agree with the premise that the flight plan, aircraft type, and equipment code can speak volumes about pilot quality. Teach them, don't demean them and above all else, give them the benefit of the doubt until they prove their abilities are, shall we say, not up to par.

 

So, the "T/B737/F" guy filing "EHAM-EGLL" is approaching the LAM VOR on your scope. The controller options are varied depending upon other traffic inbound LAM and inbound EGLL.

 

Option 1 - Tell the pilot he's an idiot and disrupting your traffic flow and to disconnect immediately and learn how to fly. Don't laugh or express disbelief...it's been done! Whoops, there goes a new or even a seasoned pilot from the network. Someone who given a little patience and tolerance could be a "Kyle Ramsey" or "Simon Kelsey" or "Florian Harms" someday...

 

Option 2 - Give the guy vectors to LAM, "RYN123 25 miles from LAM, Lima Alpha Mike, VOR frequency 115 decimal 6. Turn left heading 225 proceed direct LAM." I timed it, that took me 11 seconds to say at a slow pace that should be easily understood. Now watch him and see what he does.

 

Option 2A - Pilot turns left and heads directly toward the LAM VOR. Okay, this guy we can work with...controller stops holding breath.

 

Option 2B - Pilot turns right and starts climbing to FL225. Watch this guy, he's new, but don't "blow up on him". "RYN123, you are turning right and climbing...I said turn left to a heading of 225, not flight level 225. Turn left immediately now to heading 200 and descend to (insert altitude)"

 

I could go on and on, Dace, and you are right, never having controlled I have no idea what is genuinely fun for a VATSIM controller and would love to hear what is. I should expect events are fun, that is why they are planned, yet I consistently hear of events with heavy traffic and controllers and pilots "losing it" because a new guy had the audacity to fly in and make mistakes.

 

One of my first VATSIM flights was from Boise to Colorado Springs during "Rocky Mountain Rumble". Yes, I filed "T/B737/F" and used nothing but VORs...KBOI/BOI/MLD/OCS/CHE/RLG/HBU/BLUE MESA TRANS/DEBERRY1 STAR/KCOS. In the comments I wrote "/v/REC VOICE/TRANS TEXT/HAVE CHARTS Newbie < 100 hours" All of these, especially "NEWBIE" points to a guy who needed watching, yet thanks to the extreme patience of a DEN_CTR controller (all the ground up controllers were at KDEN so I only had center top down getting me to KCOS) I had a blast and only screwed up minimal times, but I did screw up. Still, I was hooked! And so will the guy be that turned right and started climbing...with patience and tolerance.

 

Randy

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

part of option 1 isnt doable as its not the controllers job nor in their list of responsibilities to tell a pilot to disconnect. in fact when we got caught doing so at ZMA, we were pretty much told to stop that practice immediately by division. thats a supervisors job, not the controllers (and i can understand that, some controllers often take advantage of their position and tell people to disconnect, some never come back)

[1275389]

I have to disagree with you in some regards Randy.

First off, I agree 100% with everything you said regarding how to speak to pilots, deal with new ones, etc. You pretty much summed up what every controller should be doing.

On the other hand, I think your examples are a bit faulty.

1) Not allowed (for obvious reasons)

2) Okay, that seems really simple when you spell it out. But for the newbie,they might not know what in the world a VOR is. I can tell you that when I first started, I didn't even know what "Squawk Standby" meant, let alone what a VOR was (nor how to tune it, proceed directly towards it, etc.). I'll address the vectoring below.

2A) Woo, it worked.

2B) This is more what I expect. Maybe confusing the heading for the altitude is a bit much, but there are plenty of pilots who would be lost if you told them to proceed direct to a VOR without any magical magenta-flavored FMC.

 

One of my first flights was similar to your too, except it was all VFR, and I for the most part didn't navigate far outside of my "comfort" area. But here's the thing, too many pilots don't know how to navigate without FMCs (and some even with FMCs). It's a real shame, I really do enjoy navigating the old fashioned way. I don't think most new pilots understand this concept, and I would love to see more attention brought to it.

 

Now onto the topic of vectoring. I understand where you're coming from. It seems like it would be super fun to actually be "controlling" the planes (in terms of manipulating their heading rather than following any procedure). Yes, some times it is. But on the other hand, if you have someone that is entering your airspace via your main departure corridor, direct to the field, etc., it's not something I would really call "enjoyable" (or better, what I look forward to when I control). If I'm busy, it adds an extra unnecessary workload (especially if the pilot is new). By all means, fly non-RNAV procedures/routes, they're really cool. There's just a big difference between providing vectors in the immediate vicinity of the arrival/departure airport and having to provide them at every phase of flight (to comply with traffic flows, airspace constraints, etc.).

[Simon Kelsey]

Option 1 - Tell the pilot he's an idiot and disrupting your traffic flow and to disconnect immediately and learn how to fly. Don't laugh or express disbelief...it's been done! Whoops, there goes a new or even a seasoned pilot from the network. Someone who given a little patience and tolerance could be a "Kyle Ramsey" or "Simon Kelsey" or "Florian Harms" someday...

 

Well I'm not sure that I deserve to be in such exalted company, but I do agree with you. I'm sure there would be plenty of sniggers at some of my callsigns, flightplans etc from my first flights on SATCO! I definitely benefited from the knowledge of those around me on the network, but I would also say that if I were to go back and do it all over again I would probably do it slightly differently and would have done a little more homework, and with that in mind I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to encourage others joining the network to learn from one's errors, as it were!

 

I also think that those of us who joined in those days had a bit of an advantage in some respects:

 

• Traffic levels were generally lower and thus controllers generally had a little more time
  
• In the days of FSW95/FS98 etc, there were no 'shortcuts': there was no such thing as a flight planner/GPS etc. If you wanted to get from A to B, you really had no choice but to learn the basics of navigation. As such I'd already managed to pick some of these up when I joined the network... and...
  
• SB2 had a built-in FMS! It was basic, but it hooked in to the default autopilot and did everything you would want a basic navigation system to do, so everyone had the same basic capability (we were also fortunate of course in those days to have free AIRAC updates). In the days of registrations being manually processed, it was also a minimum of two weeks from signing up to actually being issued a PID and network p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]word, and so you bet that I spent a load of time between signing up and actually connecting to the network flying offline with SB and the SB FMS, so by the time I actually connected to the network I could load a flight plan, do a direct-to, get from one place to the other... etc.

 

Nowadays addons are infinitely more complex and managing the flight is a much taller order for an inexperienced sim pilot. It is never the new guy's fault: there is a great, mature training structure in place for controllers, but less so for pilots. Hopefully this will start to change with the ATO system and I know there are many great ATOs doing excellent work to deliver training materials in a variety of engaging and entertaining formats to suit different learning styles -- in the past, of course, training for the sim pilot generally meant you had to know what to look for and where to find it, and then read large dense PDFs, which doesn't suit everybody!

 

We absolutely have to make VATSIM a welcoming place where we encourage new members and people feel that their mistakes will be tolerated rather than punished/shouted at/banned. However, having said that I do think it is reasonable for us to be up front and honest with new members (perhaps more up front and honest than we are at the moment) and explain that we are a community, we're all in it together -- and it benefits everybody's enjoyment if one puts in a modicome of effort to learn the basics of flying, flight planning, navigation and research the local procedures before each flight (for instance, I always check the local vACC website before I go anywhere unfamiliar to check for any special local procedures, pilot briefing material, preferential runways etc etc). There are (on this thread and others) many examples of people pointing to the CoC etc and explaining that various things are not 'required': take charts, for example. VATSIM does not 'require' you to have charts, nobody can force you to refer to them, but that doesn't mean it isn't good sense or 'neighbourly' towards one's fellow members to use them. In the real world too there are many examples of things that may not be legally required: but it doesn't mean that it isn't good airmanship or good manners to do them, and I don't see VATSIM as being any different in that regard.

 

I think it is also important to recognise that, frankly, some parts of the VATSIM world are far busier than others. If you have three or four aircraft on frequency in a piece of airspace the size of France, naturally you are likely to have plenty of time to 'hold hands' with a newbie and walk them through a flight. However, in the UK for instance, we have three of VATSIM's top ten busiest airfields within 200NM of each other (LHR, LGW and MAN) -- last month those three airfields alone generated in excess of 10,000 movements, more than three times that of say BOS (#3, but the only airfield in the vicinity with a significant number of movements), JFK (again, even adding EWR and LGA doesn't get anywhere near even LGW on its own) or SFO. LHR and LGW, of course, are barely 30NM apart and account for more than 8,000 movements a month between them (nearly 270 per day). The guys controlling there are busy, the departure and arrival procedures interact as it is and require active intervention to keep things apart, and I can sympathise with them if they don't feel as though they need any extra 'fun'! Perhaps in the States things are different with much more space and less traffic density meaning controllers don't have so much to do.

 

There is also a bit of an implicit [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umption that all VATSIM controllers are also sim pilots and therefore should be able to hand-hold pilots through flying their aircraft: this is of course not always the case (it is certainly not a requirement for a controller to own a copy of MSFS etc) and other than the fact that it is common for controllers to also fly on the network by no means do 100% of them -- is it reasonable to expect all controllers to also act as flight instructors? With that in mind, I can understand why some might feel frustrated if rather than enjoying their hobby of providing simulated ATC services, they are instead spending all of every session teaching pilots about the basics of flying and navigating. To turn it on its head, if every time you flew on the network you had controllers demanding you tell them how to operate their ATC client (that you've never used), vectoring you the wrong way, didn't know where any of the fixes on your flight plan were or you had to talk them through the basics of providing an ATC service, would that be an enjoyable experience flight after flight after flight? I mean, I enjoy helping people, but everybody has a limit... I'm not saying that all ATC sessions are like that, of course, but I can understand the frustration some feel at the perceived "hey, come and fly, doesn't matter if you don't know how to operate any of the software, don't know how to navigate, can't hold a heading or altitude and don't understand any instructions, just dive right in to an event, there'll be plenty of ATC around to coach you and it doesn't matter if you make a mistake" message (I know that's not exactly what you're saying, but I know it is what some perceive, with some justification, the attitude of the network to be).

[Magnus Meese]

^Now THAT is taking the pulse on the state of VATSIM.

[Don Desfosse]

I rather dislike thread hijacks, and this is one of the worse ones in recent history, but... I feel so strongly about this I'll temporarily abandon my non-thread-hijacking rule, because I do have to say, if there were a Like or Love button for this, I'd hit it a thousand times.... I've never heard the controller vs. pilot training/certification argument put this way, and it's absolutely brilliant!

 

...if every time you flew on the network you had controllers demanding you tell them how to operate their ATC client (that you've never used), vectoring you the wrong way, didn't know where any of the fixes on your flight plan were or you had to talk them through the basics of providing an ATC service, would that be an enjoyable experience flight after flight after flight? I mean, I enjoy helping people, but everybody has a limit... I'm not saying that all ATC sessions are like that, of course, but I can understand the frustration some feel at the perceived "hey, come and fly, doesn't matter if you don't know how to operate any of the software, don't know how to navigate, can't hold a heading or altitude and don't understand any instructions, just dive right in to an event, there'll be plenty of ATC around to coach you and it doesn't matter if you make a mistake" message (I know that's not exactly what you're saying, but I know it is what some perceive, with some justification, the attitude of the network to be).

[Randy Tyndall 1087023]

Simon,

 

I completely get what you are saying and couldn't agree more. That is why I specifically refrained from mentioning anything about a controller "instructing" a pilot on how to fly his or her aircraft. At least I don't think I did and if anyone got that impression I apologize. It's certainly not their job or requirement. Everything a new pilot needs is in the CoC, CoR, and PRC, as well as the Flight Sim itself and any manuals that came with their "gee-whiz" top of the line payware....if only they would read them. Sadly, I fear most newcomers do not. It's too easy to come here, or PMDG, or AVSIM, or Flightsim and simply post the question and someone will always answer. Very little work required of the poster. The one thing not in any of those docomeents are the actual traits of patience and tolerance, although in a manner the requirement for both is there.

 

Maybe it is time we needed an "entry exam" based entirely and solely on those three docomeents. At least it would force them to glance at the three VATSIM docomeents. I certainly wouldn't be offended if I had to take one to continue flying. I've read the three so many times (actually printed them all out and store them in a binder right beside my "flight station") and I still find things I never knew...or forgot.

 

I would never presume to tell or explain to a controller how to do their "job" (because I couldn't, but that's beside the point), yet there are some pilots, a very few thankfully, who have no qualms about doing so. That's sad I think. Same thing with controllers telling pilots how to fly, but I cannot help but relate this to real world, which is wrong of me I know and what really started me down this "hijack" (Sorry Don, I do apologize. I just couldn't keep quiet. An error on my part and again, I apologize profusely).

 

If, in the real world a controller were to come across a pilot who was not following instructions and didn't seem to know their aircraft systems what would he or she do, short of calling in the F-16s to shoot the plane down, which could be the end result. But in the meantime, up to that point, what are they going to do? They are going to keep all the aircraft around this single erratic one safe. Primary! They're going to then try to get this single erratic one on the ground safely. That is each and every controller's ultimate goal...safety.

 

Now in VATSIM nobody dies and nobody gets shot down except maybe in the vSOAs , but we have erratic pilots, far more than we have erratic controllers. The very training people keep mentioning that controllers must go through, while pilots do not, almost forces the controller to take some sort of action to alleviate the situation. No, not "fly their airplane" for them. But keep the other aircraft, first, and the single aircraft, second, safe. That is done by patience and tolerance, not gyrations, frothing at the mouth, threats of supervisor wallop. Although it may have to come to that for the sake of others trying to enjoy the network. But why not first try to help the guy or girl save some face and recover from a situation they lost control of? Many do try, Some will up to a point, others don't want to be bothered.

 

But, now even I am getting off the hijacked topic so I'll just shut up and go fly.

 

Oh, and to bring this back to Earth...contact the controller if and when it becomes safe to do so. On the ground it should be relatively soon since all you have to do is stop rolling, or get off the runway and stop, and dial the frequency. Just remember controllers, we are one person emulating the job of two and sometimes three in everything from a simple glider to a complex payware we have no idea how to fly. "When" may take us a bit to get to, expecially on approach or landing...

 

Randy

[Ryan Geckler]

Maybe it is time we needed an "entry exam" based entirely and solely on those three docomeents. At least it would force them to glance at the three VATSIM docomeents. I certainly wouldn't be offended if I had to take one to continue flying. I've read the three so many times (actually printed them all out and store them in a binder right beside my "flight station") and I still find things I never knew...or forgot.

 

Glad to see this idea become less of a fantasy and more of a possible reality from the user base - it's something that I've wanted for a long, long time, and I think it's very overdue.

 

If, in the real world a controller were to come across a pilot who was not following instructions and didn't seem to know their aircraft systems what would he or she do, short of calling in the F-16s to shoot the plane down, which could be the end result. But in the meantime, up to that point, what are they going to do? They are going to keep all the aircraft around this single erratic one safe. Primary! They're going to then try to get this single erratic one on the ground safely. That is each and every controller's ultimate goal...safety.

 

Bingo - there are some differences though. Remember, we are working entire facilities of airspace at a time primarily... if we are busy, we don't have time to try and handhold someone down to the ground. In the real world, that aircraft will go to a different frequency where he is worked down without any distractions. That is a very, very, very rare case for the network.

[Dace Nicmane]

Teach them, don't demean them and above all else, give them the benefit of the doubt until they prove their abilities are, shall we say, not up to par.

Agreed. What I disagreed with is the idea that we should deliberately do something wrong, like filing a wrong flightplan (because /A is just the wrong suffix for B737) for the controllers' entertainment. First, because it's just wrong and second, I've read enough threads on the forums (haven't you?) to know controllers do NOT enjoy pilots doing things wrong, they enjoy them doing things right, which is kinda logical... An occasional mistake could be refreshing, I imagine, but that will happen by itself without you trying, sometimes more than you'd like.

You were talking about newbies and inexperienced hobbyists in your original post, so I (and others replying) [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umed you meant the non standard flightplan would be filed by a newbie because of lack of knowledge, not an advanced pilot for non-RNAV navigation, which are two completely opposite things for the controller. In the first case it would be reasonable to expect further problems, while the second case could be the fun you were talking about.

The line '9 out of 10' was Martijn's, not mine, btw.

[Martijn Rammeloo]

Perhaps stating the obvious, but I never meant that those '9 out of 10' have no right to fly on the network. On the contrary actually. Workload permitting I (or better: we) try to help them, via private chat or otherwise. A 'different' flightplan is just a hint that the pilot concerned might need more attention.

 

Some remarks though:

- I often encourage newbie pilots to learn the basics about their planes offline. Why add the extra layer of difficulty dealing with ATC when you have your hands (& brain) completely occupied mastering the PMDG NGX for example?

- I agree that we (ATC) should work around newbie pilots and their 'non-standard behavior'. However, as a relatively inexperienced APP controller at a busy airfield, it sometimes takes all my skill to handle just the regular traffic, including non-RNAV approaches. You can imagine that a pilot entering the TMA at 400 kts, not / very slowly responding to instructions and turning towards the ILS whenever he thinks is a suitable moment is not my idea of 'fun'. Maybe after 50 more hours or so...

 

Martijn

[Randy Tyndall 1087023]

Dace,

 

Sorry about the misquote. However...

 

because /A is just the wrong suffix for B737

 

Is it? Flying in non-RVSM flight levels at 25,000 feet without benefit of an FMC in the default B737 isn't /A the correct suffix? You cannot [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that everyone flying in a B737 on VATSIM is using the PMDG NGX. I certainly don't have it, but that is an entirely other topic. Yes, there is a default GPS, but the default GPS is not the friendliest instrument in the world and I have removed it from many of my panels. Again, that's the real world/VATSIM world trap. You see "B737/A" and make the faulty [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umption of "Newbie, no idea what he's doing", when in fact, maybe he knows exactly what he is doing, is tired of boring long holes in the sky using the FMC, and wants to simulate an equipment malfunction and "breaks" his FMC.

 

I tried to find out just how often /A is used in tubeliners in the real world and failed, but I did find this from 2007, so a little outdated, but proof it happens.

 

http://expertaviator.com/2007/09/22/when-atc-asks-whats-your-equipment-suffix/

 

All I'm asking for here is...I'll say it one last time...patience and tolerance, for both pilots and controllers. That controller who contacts you while you are taxiing is doing so because he or she has a p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ion for controlling and doesn't want to miss an opportunity to "control". Don't deflate that p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ion because you "can't be bothered right now, you're busy". Same thing with the pilot flying EHAM-EGLL as a B737/A filing SPL DCT LAM. They are doing so because they have discovered they have a p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ion for flight simulation. Don't "kill the thrill" because you don't like what they filed...work with what they filed.

 

I fly with a few Virtual Airlines, but one requires all flights to be on VATSIM...love it...and requires an explanation for late departures. Flights for me for that VA invariably end up with delays because controllers are dealing with new pilots at the departure airport and I have to wait...patiently...while they sort out issues, or slow readbacks, or "say agains", etc. I could get impatient and say "Jeez, man, learn how to interact with ATC", but I don't because I used to be where that new pilot is and I'll never forget that feeling.

 

As Martijn said...

 

However, as a relatively inexperienced APP controller at a busy airfield, it sometimes takes all my skill to handle just the regular traffic, including non-RNAV approaches.

 

Every controller has been at that level of task saturation at some point in their progression. Just one more aircraft and the whole thing "goes South". We, as pilots, need to give that controller the benefit of the doubt, not berate them for their failures. Both sides of the scope need the other side. Why drive the other side away?

 

Randy

Edited November 2, 2016 at 02:19 PM by Guest

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

Dace, never [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume aircraft equipment based on type. the two have nothing to do with each other. its whats being used for navigation that should be filed, not the other way around, and in fact equipment can change even inflight if something fails. if your GPS fails for example, you need to let ATC know and the change will be made

[Dace Nicmane]

And you said it yourself...

 

However, as a relatively inexperienced APP controller at a busy airfield, it sometimes takes all my skill to handle just the regular traffic, including non-RNAV approaches.

Aaand that was Martijn again, not me I do agree with what you say about not bashing pilots (or controllers). In fact I couldn't care less if somebody filed SPL LAM because I'm not a controller and I don't know what they are trained to do in such cases. My guess is that they have to at least offer advice on a more appropriate level, route etc just in case this is one of the 9 people out of the 10...

[Randy Tyndall 1087023]

Aaand again I showed my a@#. Sorry Dace, I edited my post to correctly reflect the poster.

 

I agree to a certain extent, but I really don't think a controller needs to...or must..."offer advice on a more appropriate level". They certainly can and should, but do not "need to". It's not their job. What is their job is to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign me a correct flight level based on my aircraft capabilities and equipment. There is one factor they cannot know, however, my payload and fuel load. Thus, interaction is necessary. In the vast majority of times, I have always...always...been asked, "Can you accept?"

 

And it's not just controllers. I was sitting at KLAS one time getting ready to depart for LAX. Another pilot came on via text and quite bluntly told me, "your flight plan is wrong". I thanked him for his concern...patience and tolerance...and called for clearance anyway. I was cleared to LAX using that plan and took off. I was in LAX before the KLAS pilot even made it off the ground because he struggled and fought with the controller that his plan was correct. His struggle with the controller began with...I'll never forget this..."Why did you clear XXX1234 to LAX? His flight plan was wrong".

 

But the bottom line is, pilots, let the controllers have fun, by being reasonable, competent, patient, and tolerant. Even when they contact you during taxi. It's what VATSIM is about. Controllers, let the pilots have fun by being reasonable, competent, patient, and tolerant. Even when they file B737/A SPL DCT LAM. We both need each other to make this thing called VATSIM work.

 

Randy

[Dace Nicmane]

I really don't think a controller needs to...or must..."offer advice on a more appropriate level". They certainly can and should, but do not "need to". It's not their job.

You can't say that checking and correcting flightplans is not the delivery's job. It's the reason it exists. They do suggest, even simple corrections like flight levels for the direction of flight all the time. Surprisingly there's a lot of pilots who file this simple thing wrong. How else are the pilots going to learn? With the example you gave, the DEL controller can't know whether the pilot is competent or a newbie who needs help with flightplanning. The flightplan is suspicious and at the very least, the pilot can expect to be questioned about it. He shouldn't feel offended about it because DEL is just doing their job. And in certain cases, like during an event, they could disallow it. But the question was not only whether or not you can do it. The question that was raised was whether what is fun for you as a pilot is fun for the controller, too. Or whether what you think is fun for the controller really is fun for him. Somehow I hear that a lot of controllers prefer realism and they are not bored at all when flightplans are standard, procedures are adhered to and the aircraft are following their magenta lines (would you rather they were not following them and be off course?). Otherwise they wouldn't be controlling. When you say you don't know and can't even imagine what is fun for them, I have to wonder what you mean, especially since you are an active member of the forums and this has been discussed so many times.

[Jim Hurst 1353723]

Worst I've had happen like that was a ground controller coming online while I was in my takeoff run and instantly start yelling at me that I didn't have clearance and he was going to report me and get me banned.

 

Ignored the guy and completed the flight without incident. That was years ago though.

Hillarious calling for the ban. I once had a ground controller sending me private messages where he was instructing me to land on the other runway while I was on short final at EGLL trying to land Concorde. Concorde is not an easy plane to land by anyones standards, nor is a ground controller supposed to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign runways to pilots in unicom airspace. It wasn't a pleasant experience, but at least nobody threatened me with a ban lol

 

I've run into this one also (fairly recently). I was inbound to an ILS (appropriate for the current wx & wind) and a ground controller for that airport told me I should be using the opposite runway. Hmmmm.. I politely mentioned that the winds favored the runway I was inbound for, and his response was "ok - do what you want" -- While a little odd, I just left it at that, continued my approach and landed... After landing, I then contacted him for taxi to parking clearance, and we proceeded from there.

 

I've not had the OP's particular experience, but as one of the other posters mentioned, contacting a newly logged in controller would very much depend on the exact situation, and my pilot workload at the time -- during landing approach, or takeoff / departure, it's probably going to be a minute or two before I check in. If I'm on a taxiway or ramp, then no problem -- I can flip over to his frequency pretty quickly and easily. In RL, PiC *always* has final say-so, and that's not meant to be smug, it's because he's the final authority (and probable goat if there's a screw-up) regarding the safety of his aircraft.

 

Now, the other comment that got my attention here is the "filing as a B737/A is just wrong" statement. I file that way often, and I question that [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ertion. It is my understanding that the equipment suffix tells one thing only -- the type of equipment / capability you have in your aircraft for navigating your flight. It isn't (afaik) related to an aircraft type or model.

 

So, I fly the stock FSX 737 using (mostly) stock scenery. I have the default GPS in that aircraft, but (imho) it isn't sufficient, or current enough, to use for RNAV operations, and I don't use it for anything other than an occasional crosscheck. The stock 737 does not have an FMC either. Consequently, the highest equipment capability that I actually use for navigation is VOR / DME using standard navaids, Jet Airways, and I also use non-RNAV DPs, STARS and IAPs.

 

To me, that mandates a /A suffix, and in my filed flight plans, I always include the comment "NO RNAV" as well.

 

So, I'm wondering how exactly it's wrong? I prefer to file what I intend to fly. Would it be preferable to file /G and then refuse any RNAV directives? Personally, I don't think so, so I'm at a loss to understand how filing /A for non-RNAV flight operations is inappropriate and / or wrong in that situation.

 

 

Regards,

Jim

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

its not wrong at all, nor should it serve as some kind of indicator of ability or lack of skill. lots of gross generalizations around the network, these are a few that often give false expectations

[Dace Nicmane]

Now, the other comment that got my attention here is the "filing as a B737/A is just wrong" statement. I file that way often, and I question that [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ertion.

My bad, I didn't know it was possible. However it's not realistic (I doubt they allow you to depart with a broken FMC in real life; another thing if it fails in-flight) and you can count on ATC asking you a few questions. But then again, this is VATSIM, we have our limitations and we can be a little creative.

It was actually Randy's own words that made me think he's suggesting to file the flightplan (slightly) wrong, especially this:

When it all goes right there's not a whole lot for either side of the scope to do.

That's when I thought this was taking the idea of 'fun' a bit too far, hence my comment.

[Don Desfosse]

Incidentally, there's nothing wrong with /A.... That's all the B731 had, and until the PDC (predecessor to FMS) was developed in 1982, all B732s only had steam gauges too. It wasn't until 1984 that the B732 and B733 got what is now truly known as an FMS. Regardless, even a B739 could be certified with steam gauges and no FMS, if that's what the operator truly wanted to do. And, in VATSIM, we do allow (within reason) for the operator to do what they want to do. So, if anyone wants to fly a Boeing 7-3 variant as /A, more power to ya!

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

My bad, I didn't know it was possible. However it's not realistic (I doubt they allow you to depart with a broken FMC in real life; another thing if it fails in-flight) and you can count on ATC asking you a few questions.

 

Not sure where you are getting the info from but i would suggest more studying (dont take that the wrong way, it just seems you are making [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umptions).

 

There are procedures in place in the real world for these scenarios. Minimum equipment lists etc... Most also often [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume you cant continue IFR with equipment failure, you actually can as long as you meet the minimums, an fmc is not one of those minimums

[Jim Hurst 1353723]

Thanks for the confirmation gents on 737 /A procedure. I feel a bit more relieved now that I have some verification that I'm not doing things improperly.

 

The only further point I'd wonder on is whether I should use /W over /A. Obviously, below FL290 and non-RNAV, then /A would be completely correct as it's also non-RVSM as well. Based on my review of the ICAO equipment codes however, in RVSM airspace, /W is the only thing that seems to come close for non-RNAV ops above FL290 (in RVSM airspace).

 

My issue / question with that though, is that it doesn't imply *any* navigational equipment at all, whereas /A clearly says you've got something at least.

 

When I look at the minimum equipment list for RVSM, it basically seems to boil down to (in my uninformed view), as dual, independent altitude reporting equipment, along with some form of Altitude Hold autopilot, all capable to certain tolerances (~65-200 ft - depending), a mode S transponder (ie. SSR capability,) and some form of altitude alerting equipment should the altitude stray. So imho, /W basic says "I can hold a proper altitude - to strict tolerances", but it implies (afaik) nothing that describes how you'll navigate from A to B.

 

To Dace's point, with RL airliners, the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umption of an FMC is pretty high, but I don't see a requirment for one for RVSM ops. Am I missing a key piece there?

 

As others have mentioned, this is VATsim and not RL, but I'd imagine that VATsim controllers would also be quite likely to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume an FMC capability with a /W plane. In the sims, of course, while we may not meet the minimum equipment list for RVSM in the default FSX A/C (No SSR transponder, no Altitude Alerting, and I'm not even sure about dual independent altimeters either), they can hold altitude just fine. Additionally there's a *lot* less air traffic besides, so actually flying RVSM isn't really a difficult issue in the network (barring mistakes, of course). Once again, given that, I'm more inclined to stick with /A for non-RNAV ops over /W, even in RSVM. In terms of useful information, I feel that /A is more useful for the VATsim controller to know about.

 

So, I'm curious to hear what more experienced folks think. In VATsim, is /W a better choice for non-RNAV ops in RVSM airspace, or would sticking with /A be more informative / useful?

 

Perhaps that is a discussion for another thread, but I'll toss it out here since we've already forayed far from, (but hopefully answered), the OP's original topic.

 

 

Regards,

Jim

[Dace Nicmane]

Incidentally, there's nothing wrong with /A.... That's all the B731 had, and until the PDC (predecessor to FMS) was developed in 1982, all B732s only had steam gauges too.

Except it was a 737-700 in the original flightplan.

Anyway, when I said 'realistic', I meant what is done in real world, not what could be done in theory. We all know in real world 737-700s don't fly from Amsterdam to London non-RNAV at FL120, so I don't know why some of you are trying to convince me otherwise. Randy himself never meant it to be realistic, he said, unrealistic, yet within bounds.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

what we are trying to tell you is the aircraft has nothing to do with it, it CAN, nothing unrealistic about it. what you are failing to realize is there are other factors that come into play, such as air regulations that determine when you can and cant do something, such as regulations related to scheduled p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]enger service, etc..

 

if you can find a used 737-700 in the real world that doesnt have any fancy electronics (a challenge on its own), nothing stopping you from flying it

 

we dont need to convince you, we are simply trying to give you knowledge so that you dont continue to p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] judgment on others based on your own misinformation

[Dace Nicmane]

Well, I don't. The only thing I didn't know was that /A was possible with B737, but that's been cleared up now. I still don't agree it's realistic and still don't agree it would be more fun for the ATC because most other people on VATSIM are going in the opposite direction, trying to make it as real as the simulated environment allows, not as unrealistic as VATSIM rules allow.

[Jim Hurst 1353723]

Well, I don't. The only thing I didn't know was that /A was possible with B737, but that's been cleared up now. I still don't agree it's realistic and still don't agree it would be more fun for the ATC because most other people on VATSIM are going in the opposite direction, trying to make it as real as the simulated environment allows, not as unrealistic as VATSIM rules allow.

Well, I'm sorry you feel this way.

 

I can only speak for myself, and I can say, it's not about stretching any "rules". The simple fact is that the stock, default planes don't have those "modern" capabilities that you seem to be expecting everyone to use. Again, speaking for myself, I'm not particularly interested in paying $50+ for a payware aircraft for a 10 year old game.

 

That said, I DO try to fly the planes that are in the game as reasonably realistically as possible, using current charts, and appropriate navigation procedures for the instrumentation that is available in the aircraft to pursue this hobby.

 

While I have no doubt that there are RL airline captains flying on the network, along with RL pilots (I have a ppl myself, in fact), by and large, VATsim isn't an FAA approved training program for pilots or a feeder system for the airline industry.

 

Imho, it is an online environment, where we can extend the workings of basic aircraft simulator software to allow people to enjoy this hobby in a more immersive way, by adding real world procedures where appropriate and feasible.

 

So, when I'm filing as a B737 /A (or /W if that's the expectation in RVSM airspace), it is *not* an attempt to circomevent any rules or procedures. It is a simple statement that says to the controllers I'll interact with, that the aircraft I'm flying does not have an FMC, but I am intending (and capable) to fly it using normal VORs, NDBs, Jet airways, SIDs, STARs and IAPs, as filed in my flight plan.

 

Perhaps that is not as elite as flying some whiz-bang, expensive payware product where you can program some buttons and let it fly itself to wherever it's going, but for me, I am flying the airplanes I have, to the capabilities they have, and that's "real" enough for me.

 

Anyway, I think I've gleaned all the information I need from the questions I asked, so I'll just leave it here and get to planning my next non-RNAV, B737 /A flight.

 

Thanks for your time and responses.

 

Regards,

Jim