Ground maneuvres in LAX.

[George Anopov 895164]

I flew several times to LAX from LHR. And all this few times i had collisions with other aircrafts on ground while i was taxing or at boarding the gate. Nevertheless, there was a controller, who hardly paid any attention to traffic on the ground. You know, it become VERY annoying after long-haul transatlantic flight.

So what's the problem?

Possibly US virtual pilots don't connect their SB to Multiplayer session so they can't see other traffic, or this is simply TOTAL irresponsibility of ATC?

 

PS Please don't recommend to disable FS crash because i'm using ACARS and FSp[Mod - Happy Thoughts]egers, so it is impossible.

 

Please imporve the situation.

 

Cheers.

Edited May 5, 2006 at 09:17 PM by Guest

[Norman Blackburn]

PS Please don't recommend to disable FS crash because i'm using ACARS and FSp[Mod - Happy Thoughts]egers, so it is impossible.

George,

 

Taking the above issue first, how is it not possible? I strive for realism but have crashes turned off in FS and in FSPax since one can never legislate against accidental collisions.

 

I would be very suprised if a controller is willfully having ground traffic crash into each other. Even if a pilot was not to connect to the SB3/FSInn multiplayer session they would still be blips on the radar screen.

[Daniel Hill 810430]

I'm curious. How would you suggest ATC "improve the situation?" Your "Subject" for this thread is highly misleading .

 

Irresponsible/misinformed virtual pilots are a GIVEN on a system such as VATSIM. It was your DECISION to use FSP[Mod - Happy Thoughts]engers and ACARS (thus enabling your collision detection), so I would suggest it is you that needs to take the lead and "improve the situation" by turning OFF collision detection.

[Steven Perry]

i had collisions with other aircrafts on ground while i was taxing or at boarding the gate.

 

George:

 

For the most part, ATC in the USA has no jurisdiction over the boarding gate area. Once leaving or before entering a taxiway it is the pilots' responsibility to see and avoid. If collisions did happen on a taxiway, then yes it would be the controller's fault.

 

However, one should take into account what position the controller was working. I often work a "_CTR" position and am responsible for 70,000 square miles and hundreds of miles of taxiways. I often do not have time to zoom in on one airport and sort out the ground situation. Short of allowing only one plane move at a time, there is no effective way to keep some wild captain from careening into a sensible, cautious pilot.

 

If it was a ground or local controller, then I'm sure ZLA would like to know about it. Many US facilities have feedback forms and/or forums on their website.

 

Steve Perry

[Paul Biderman]

Complaints like this, regardless of their validity, should be handled via the ARTCC's contact form, or via a private email to the ATM of the facility.

 

Mr. Anopov, I know you're frustrated, but airing your grievance on a public forum is not the way to handle the situation.

[George Anopov 895164]

We are here to simulate reality? Right? - Right!

So why we have to disable crashes. Are you more comfortable with disabled crashes? You are not bored what can happen to you?

But in real life it is different, that's why i will not disable crashes.

 

Even if a pilot was not to connect to the SB3/FSInn multiplayer session they would still be blips on the radar screen.

Of course, BUT i mean the side from that pilot (you misunderstood me) - he didn't connect Multiplayer, so he is unable to see me! This connects other side - ATC. They must avoid any collisions. But in my cases in LAX - they failed to do this.

 

Simple example.

I was boarding at the gate. Other aircft was requesting pushing back. Controller failed to notice him that i'm behind him, crash as a result... i'm behind schedule as a result as well.

 

Other example.

Right after my landing. I was taxing to the gate. Speedbird (Other traffic on image) p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ed junction straight ahead. United (Traffic on image) also supposed to p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] this junction straight ahead as atc instructed him, but he accelerated and turned left, right into me! That's how my 12 hours flight has finished...

 

PS Sorry i'm not great painter

[Craig Moulton]

George, your arguments are really going to get you no where fast. As stated earlier, in your first example, ATC has no authority of aircraft in non-movement areas such as in the terminal area.

 

Second, regardless of how much realism you might like, with the MS Multiplayer environement it is possible to have an aircraft collision even though you are CLEARLY "clear" of other traffic. I have, on numerous occ[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ions, had collisions p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing well behind other traffic where I CLEARLY had more than enough room from my wingtip to his tail. I have also had collisions with other aircraft where it appears that other aircraft start to go crazy and their positions change rapidly. In this case it is simply a matter of the Pilot client trying to rectify the position of another MP aircraft with its actual position. Let's remember that the server we use only sends so many position updates in a given amount of time. If the other aircraft is moving in a straight line at a constant speed, this isn't too big a problem, and aircraft movement is fairly fluid. If on the other hand the aircraft is maneuvering on the ground with turns and speed changes, then the position updates, which are not continuous will need to be interpreted by your pilot client and the result will be, at some point the actual aircraft position and the interpreted position will have to be reconciled and will result in what appears to be erratic movement.

 

Finally, please understand that it is also possible that not everyone is able to connect to the multiplayer session, for whatever reason, and they have NO way of knowing where you, or anyone else is in relation to themselves.

 

As stated earlier, ATC is not necessarily going to be able to monitor the taxiway you are on, depending on the position they are manning. It is up to YOU to see and avoid, as well as others.

 

You have two choices. You can turn OFF your crash detection (WITH OTHER AIRCRAFT, not necessarily all crash detection) and enjoy the level of realism that VATSIM can bring. OR You can leave your crash detection completely on and risk becoming frustrated with events that are beyond the control of yourself, other pilots and ATC.

 

That is completely YOUR choice, and you will need to live with what your choice brings your way. Most pilots on VATSIM have learned the hard way that running with crash detection (WITH OTHER AIRCRAFT) running can ruin a very long flight.

[Garry Morris 920567]

ATC was not responsible for either of those situations. As already stated, we do not control the ramp area, and in your second example, you clearly stated ATC told the other aircraft to taxi straight and he turned, so it would have been the pilot's fault, not ATC.

[Aaron Flodin 878523]

As was previously stated in Craig's post. ATC has neither the responsibilty nor the *Authority* to control traffic in non-movement areas such as the one that you were in.

[Richard Green 810012]

In the US... ATC ( with a few exceptions ) have no control over RAMP OPERATIONS.

These Terminal Ramps are controlled usually by either the Airline that "owns" the terminal, or by a private company.

If we were to simulate this, we would need ramp controllers for every airport. Ramp control isn't a valid ATC position.

 

George... you ask us to strike for realism, and you are getting just that.

 

I am sorry you have had several bad incidents at ZLA, I howver can say I never have in my many, many years of flying into ZLA or any other airport.

[Gerry Hattendorf 935415]

Mr. Anopov,

 

I'm just curious when your preparing to start a new flight, before you connect to VATSIM, how do you know the gate/stand you plan to start on isn't already occupied by another aircraft?

 

And if you did "materialize" on top of another, wouldn't that ruin the flight for the aircraft you just landed on? I'm afraid that ATC couldn't have any control over that.

 

As Craig mentioned earlier, some pilots cannot connect to multi-player, and I have witnessed first hand prudent pilots connected to multi-player see only some of the aircraft and not others. Most pilots are not out to intentionally crash into you, and ATC is certainly not trying "bang the targets" for jollies, as it would be a very short lived virtual ATC career!

 

As everyone else in this thread are recommending, by disabling AIRCRAFT COLLISIONS, you can still enjoy the realism you like without the frustration of accidental collisions from pilots that never saw you.

 

Cheers!

[George Anopov 895164]

George, your arguments are really going to get you no where fast. As stated earlier, in your first example, ATC has no authority of aircraft in non-movement areas such as in the terminal area.

 

Second, regardless of how much realism you might like, with the MS Multiplayer environement it is possible to have an aircraft collision even though you are CLEARLY "clear" of other traffic. I have, on numerous occ[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ions, had collisions p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing well behind other traffic where I CLEARLY had more than enough room from my wingtip to his tail. I have also had collisions with other aircraft where it appears that other aircraft start to go crazy and their positions change rapidly. In this case it is simply a matter of the Pilot client trying to rectify the position of another MP aircraft with its actual position. Let's remember that the server we use only sends so many position updates in a given amount of time. If the other aircraft is moving in a straight line at a constant speed, this isn't too big a problem, and aircraft movement is fairly fluid. If on the other hand the aircraft is maneuvering on the ground with turns and speed changes, then the position updates, which are not continuous will need to be interpreted by your pilot client and the result will be, at some point the actual aircraft position and the interpreted position will have to be reconciled and will result in what appears to be erratic movement.

 

Finally, please understand that it is also possible that not everyone is able to connect to the multiplayer session, for whatever reason, and they have NO way of knowing where you, or anyone else is in relation to themselves.

 

As stated earlier, ATC is not necessarily going to be able to monitor the taxiway you are on, depending on the position they are manning. It is up to YOU to see and avoid, as well as others.

 

You have two choices. You can turn OFF your crash detection (WITH OTHER AIRCRAFT, not necessarily all crash detection) and enjoy the level of realism that VATSIM can bring. OR You can leave your crash detection completely on and risk becoming frustrated with events that are beyond the control of yourself, other pilots and ATC.

 

That is completely YOUR choice, and you will need to live with what your choice brings your way. Most pilots on VATSIM have learned the hard way that running with crash detection (WITH OTHER AIRCRAFT) running can ruin a very long flight.

 

Craig, thanx for such long and constructive message!

Of course i'm taking into account that because of specific structure of connection, collusions MAY happen even in the clear field, nevertheless, it is more exceptions rather than the standards. I have quiet a big experience of flying in Vatsim (about 1400 hours), but i never used had collisions before...

 

So in my opinion virtual pilot MUST connect multiplayer session. On the other hand, ATC for example being on Tower position must avoid ANY collisions on ground. It even sounds funny - aircraft collision on the ground... (So when i'm providing ATC in Gatwick, i'm always taking responsibility to avoid any dangerous manoeuvres which can lead to ground collisions)

 

Thanx

[Nicholas Bartolotta 912967]

George,

 

You talk about aircraft hitting you, that might be because they have the most updated version of SB3. SB3.0.4 has a known issue that Joel is currently working on fixing for the next update and it is with the beta testers now. Once that is released, pilots should download the updated version, and should have no problem seeing other aircraft. I know I've had cases where I have inadvertantly hit another aircraft on the ground at an airport, and I simply cannot see them, which is why (luckily it was company traffic so they weren't upset ).

 

I think you'd be lucky if you found a Center controller who gives you taxi instructions. Reason being, they are zoomed out view, trying to look at the whole scheme of things, not just you moving. It's your responsibility as the pilot to be vigilant. If an aircraft is moving toward you, private message him and ask him to turn kindly or stop moving so you can figure out a way to avoid a collision. If you have a reckless pilot who thinks taxiway B at LAX is his own personal I-95, then let Center know, and they should deal with it appropriatly.

[Steve Ogrodowski 876322]

Ramp situation has already been discussed.

 

But, your second situation is still not the Controller's fault. If anything, it is the other pilot's fault. If Pilot A (the other traffic) received an instruction, and even read it back correctly, there is no way the controller can account for an incorrect maneuver on the ground once it is executed. You are Pilot B, the best you can do is to use your discretion and not move your aircraft until you know it is safe to do so. It's the pilot's ultimate responsibility to maintain the safe operation of his aircraft. If Pilot A is ignorant enough to utilize taxiways he has not been cleared on, that's not your fault, and it's not the Controller's fault either.

 

Ground and Local controllers monitor taxiways, yes, but I'll bet you anything that by the time the controller could see the tag of Pilot A turn down the wrong taxiway, there would be NOTHING he could do about it, except say: "Uh, Pilot A, you just turned down the wrong taxiway." In the time that it took Pilot A to accelerate quickly and turn (like many pilots around here do), the controller wouldn't be able to issue any kind of instruction to stop him, lest put up some forcefields around planes that make you bounce off each other.

 

And, you're right, having some damage/collisions off is not quite as realistic. But Flight Simulator doesn't like to simulate crashes, it likes to stop your plane and say "this happened". That's not realistic eitusher. And becae of the sporatic-collision possibilities, it is absolutely prudent to NOT have crashes turned on. Even though it would be "more realistic" to pretend there was actually a collision, I don't want my flight simulator to stop. You're correct, it's extremely dissapointing to have a "crash" after a 12-hour flight, all-the-much more why I wouldn't want to have crashes on. That way, it just can't happen. If you want to simulate damage on your airplane to the bigger extent, then that's your cup of tea. It's not always everyone else's, but it's your choice. We also can't tell everyone they must have their multiplayer on. Once again, if they are content with not seeing other traffic, that's their cup of tea. It then makes your job harder as another pilot to maintain safe conditions, but it's your responsibility nonetheless.

 

What should be improved upon though, is pilot handling on the ground. Pilots should take their taxi between 5-10 kts groundspeed, not at 20 and 30 and 40 knots. That is a reasonable thing that can be done, with everyone, to make our taxiways much safer and kinder. That way, controllers can see with enough time to react to when there will be problems.

[George Anopov 895164]

Mr. Anopov,

 

I'm just curious when your preparing to start a new flight, before you connect to VATSIM, how do you know the gate/stand you plan to start on isn't already occupied by another aircraft?

 

Well, this is simple, e.g. if i'm preparing for departing in LHR, i'm starting first ASRC to determine which gates/stands are already occupied, than switching off ASRC and starting up MSFS... In not such busy airports like Heathrow, i'm always trying to choose say quiet unpopular stands/gates far from main airport area which are not likely to be already occupied.

[George Anopov 895164]

Yes guys, you are right, but in both cases i contacted the pilots but as you can see, it didn't change anything...

 

I think you'd be lucky if you found a Center controller who gives you taxi instructions. Reason being, they are zoomed out view, trying to look at the whole scheme of things, not just you moving.

Here in UK for example, you will not see EGTT_N_CTR just alone, London Control Area is quiet busy place and physicly one controller is not able to hand all the traffic, so you will certainly see at least Heathrow Tower and Director, onlt in this case EGTT_(N,C,S)_CTR will appear. I think the same think should be used in LAX, so Centre controller don't have to keep his eye on airfield every movements.

 

What should be improved upon though is pilot handling on the ground. Pilots should take their taxi between 5-10 kts groundspeed, not at 20 and 30 and 40 knots.

Is far as i know, 25 knots is ok for most acfts, and 8 knots on 180 degree turn...

Anyway, i tend to think collisions happen not because of speed of the aircraft, but because of total careless of the pilot...

 

 

Thanx everybody for their opinions, this thread will be certainly useful for some people

[Ross Carlson]

Anyone flying on VATSIM with aircraft collision detection turned on is simply asking for disappointment. They have no one to blame but themselves. There are simply way too many factors beyond ANYONE's control that can contribute to a collision ... most of them are by-products of the simulation ... very few are actually pilot or controller error, even though on the surface they might appear to be.

[Nicholas Bartolotta 912967]

Yes guys, you are right, but in both cases i contacted the pilots but as you can see, it didn't change anything...

 

Well then in that case, there really isn't anything the controller can do unless you let him know the pilot isn't responding

 

I think you'd be lucky if you found a Center controller who gives you taxi instructions. Reason being, they are zoomed out view, trying to look at the whole scheme of things, not just you moving.

Here in UK for example, you will not see EGTT_N_CTR just alone, London Control Area is quiet busy place and physicly one controller is not able to hand all the traffic, so you will certainly see at least Heathrow Tower and Director, onlt in this case EGTT_(N,C,S)_CTR will appear. I think the same think should be used in LAX, so Centre controller don't have to keep his eye on airfield every movements.

 

Same in LAX, just maybe not at the same peak times. If I go, tomorrow morning at 7am eastern time to Heathrow, chances are I'm not going to see Tower. But if I go when it's a busy period, and there are lots of pilots, I'm sure I'd find Tower or other ATC staffing up that area. Same in the US, peak times are at evenings for us, which in Europe happens to be late night for you. ZLA does a great job of staffing up LAX during those times, and I wouldn't be surprised if you had Ground, Tower and Approach all on a regular night at LAX

[Matthew Horan 901577]

Although, Nick - it would be quite a ride to control LAX_CTR by yourself, under intense traffic.. I think AF has a story about it happening with him one time

[Steve Ogrodowski 876322]

Is far as i know, 25 knots is ok for most acfts, and 8 knots on 180 degree turn...

Anyway, i tend to think collisions happen not because of speed of the aircraft, but because of total careless of the pilot...

 

Traditional taxi speed is walking speed. There is no reason to taxi at 25 knots. You blamed the controller for an accident; I'm pointing out that if an aircraft is taxiing that fast, there is very little reaction room. Because it takes a few seconds to refresh our radar, and because aircraft can accelerate very quickly in the time between each update, there can only be a small margin of error. If aircraft taxi around 10 knots, then we have a lot more that we can do as controllers to ensure safety is maintained.

 

As far as staffing goes, it's probably just not always possible to have all the appropriate positions staffed. As someone already said, there are "peak times" that most facilities staff up during. At other times, the ATC generally is sketchy and doesn't get much more than one to three controllers. That's just a fact of the U.S. area. But to require that you have XX number of controllers to be able to staff YY positions before signing in, is unreasonable, no matter what the controller workload will be. If the controller wants to sign on, but he'll be alone, he'll just be under more pressure and will not be able to provide as much services to certain pilots, just like the real world. There's no way around it. It's better to have a little service than none at all. If you wish to fly to a location regardless of its staff and busy-ness, then it's your choice and challenge to deal with all the other traffic. We already have enough restrictions and expectations of controllers; I don't think we could ensure, or rule, that you must have a certain number of controllers before anyone could log in.

[Joshua Ridderhoff 873800]

Traditional taxi speed is walking speed. There is no reason to taxi at 25 knots.

Next time you get a chance to get a window seat in a turbofan/turbojet aircraft at a large airport, watch out the window when your aircraft is taxiing parallel along half the length of the runway. I *dare* you to try & keep up at walking speed. Heck, I *dare* you try & keep up at running speed! I've been on lots of aircraft -- in real life, ranging in size from CRJs to 767s -- that have quite often taxiied at 20-30 knots. Nothing unusual about that at all.

[Craig Moulton]

Since we're off on a tangent, aren't pilots taught from the beginning to taxi at what you deem to be a brisk walk? Keeping in mind that the further you are away from the ground, the faster you'll go to maintain the same brisk walk "feeling".

 

Helicopter pilots are very attuned to this, as when they are on approach they try to maintain what "appears" to be a constant speed based upon the sight picture out the window. The closwer one gets to the ground, the slower you must get in order to maintain the same illusion/sight picture.

 

If you don't believe this analogy, try flying an airplane at 10,000' doing 200kts. Then fly at 100 kts at 100'. Which one gives you the illusion of greater speed?

 

Okay, back to the topic at hand.

[Keith Smith]

I think the same think should be used in LAX, so Centre controller don't have to keep his eye on airfield every movements.

 

With respect, I don't believe you're in a position to make that judgement. I've had the pleasure of working LAX_CTR, solo, with large volumes of traffic, and for the most part, everyone has a good time. Controllers can't magically make other controllers log in. While it's nice to have LAX_TWR online while working CTR, there is no REQUIREMENT to have one, and there never will be.

 

LAX presently has a number of VERY active student controllers, though, so the number of nights where LAX_CTR is the only position online is slowly diminishing...but it's not the end of the world to have a solo center.

 

If everyone listens and uses some common sense on frequency, it's not out of the question to have a single controller handle 20-25 aircraft simultaneously, and efficiently.

[Lance Williams]

I can tell you right now, 20-25 knots is normal on any flight I've been on for taxi. As far as George is concerned, you will learn in time. This incident was your fault, not ATC's.

[George Anopov 895164]

I can tell you right now, 20-25 knots is normal on any flight I've been on for taxi. As far as George is concerned, you will learn in time. This incident was your fault, not ATC's.

 

My fault?