CoC B3 -you're welcome

[Len Vasilev]

...or CoC B3 , when Controller report people instead of reporting their readiness to provide service

 

I understand at times a certain controller is not willing controlling certain pilots

(for differnt reasons and rightfully so, since it all is on voluntary basis) .

Up until now after 5k+ vatsim hours,Its the first time ever I've been reported for violating CoC B3.

 

So agreeing on a contact me-policy to show the controller's readiness to provide you with ATC services on the one hand

(which as I said worked for me without any incidents ever since I joined VATSIM) and reporting me for not asking for ATC is a

deliberate double standard .

 

Funny thing is,me like probably most of us here actually want to have the more ATC the better.

Every time there is one station emerging I am waiting just for this contact me message to pop up,

and I do respond within 5min tops .

 

And now this ;D

 

toda !

[Dace Nicmane]

What happened?

[Johnny Coughlan]

Don't WAIT for ATC to send you a contact me message, follow CoC pilot conduct B3;

 

A pilot must at all times check for appropriate air traffic control coverage for the airspace he is crossing at any given time. If there is an appropriate air traffic controller available or upon request to make contact with an appropriate air traffic controller, then the pilot should immediately contact such controller..

 

It's that simple.

 

If an ATC is online the he/she should be active.

 

You're welcome.

[Len Vasilev]

It's all a matter of attitude,I guess.

 

If you really like controlling and you send

me a contact me I will approach it with the best possible preparations and respect.

 

-- what seems to be optional within the mentioned section of CoC -

thus misleading when approaching it by means of custom and practice ,

which went well until this happened and someone reported me for not

contacting HIM ,while me I thought, o well,fine he is not really into

the idea of controlling my flight in particular_ like I said ;

 

its totally fine by me - but by twisting it like it was ME who didn't want

ATC you kind of punish me twice,don't you?) ,

 

maybe not the best example,

but somehow appropriate to show the sense I get from such behavior.

It's like you're going into a store (Im online and dead sure wish ATC was there)

and the owner is denying you any service or purchase (he is not sending me a ctc me ),

yet calls the police (wallop rep)to accuse me of stealing just the object I wanted to purchase in the first place (by going online ).

 

Double punishment and a slap in the face from one (supposedly) grown up to the other.

At least this is how it feels like ,when you make a solid FP+ oceanic preps -

and then you've been reported for not asking ,whether the controller is going to control YOU.

 

It alienates me to say the least.it's not Armageddon and this post is not going to change or

do anything I know; I' ve been on for quite some time when it happened (8hrs or so),

always at the sim (monitoring ATC at separate Monitor through VatSpy as I always do),

crashed twice ,had to refile ,restart etc...

 

it just came out of nowhere almost- and yes I can see that technically I am wrong here

and you are right to interpret this CoC section that way.

But would it be possible to send a contact me just once,

just step over one's ego maybe as they say for the sake of this beautiful

hobby? any way ? do we really need sanctioning cautious and polite behavior?

 

I don't think its right and I hope you don't mind when I respectfully disagree on that point because I really don't like double standards

and deliberate acting while referring to inconsequential formulations.

 

If you say ,from now on, every pilot is obliged to initiate contact with the controller no matter what, forever and for always

I think I would never come into such "troubles"again.

 

after all - Just judging by common sense,

-why do I log in ? to not to respond or get into contact with ATC?

how does that make ANY sense ?

 

nice weekend to you all ,and thanks to every Controller for making Vatsim possible in the first place

[Matt Booker]

I always concluded that it was helpful if a controller sent a contact me to a pilot, especially in more complex airspace.

Edited August 27, 2018 at 09:07 PM by Guest

[Steven Perry]

If you feel you have been removed from the network improperly, please file a complaint at https://www.vatsim.net/pilot-resource-centre/vatsim-basics/introduction-vatsims-conflict-resolution-process

 

Your issue will be addressed. Maybe a supervisor needs some retraining. Help him/her get that retraining by following the process in addition to bringing it for open discussion here.

 

Except when a pilot is an imminent threat to other's enjoyment (e.g. logging in while occupying active runway during an event, intercepting other aircraft without prior permission, or causing mayhem on the radios), I personally give pilots a real chance to resolve the issue before disconnecting them. And they ALWAYS get an explanation of why I disconnected them.

 

That said... I've made mistakes that I know about. E.g., I've disconnected AAL132 when I meant to disconnect AAL123. I apologized profusely to that pilot once I realized my mistake. We worked it out and no one's day was ruined.

 

I've probably made mistakes I do not know about. Hopefully when it happens next, someone will bring it to my direct attention through appropriate channels so I can learn from it!

[Don Desfosse]

As you can probably surmise from all of your past experience, it's quite rare for a controller to wallop a pilot for CoC B3 without making some effort (hailing on Unicom, .contactme, etc.) to raise the pilot first.

 

Please note that none of what I'm about to say is meant to be confrontational, rather, simply educational and/or to add perspective from the ATC side.

 

Right, wrong or indifferent, it is truly your responsibility to contact ATC; not the other way around. I would suggest never waiting to contact ATC. Most times you'll get identified and provided ATC service, just like you were hoping for. I wager somewhat rarely, if the controller isn't "interested in" / able to provide ATC service (because they are about to log off, etc.), they will let you know. Remember, also, that in any given piece of controlled airspace, there is one controller and often many pilots. I can tell you that when it gets busy for controllers, and they are task-saturated, it actually is a big deal to try to hunt down pilots that haven't contacted ATC and I believe that's why the requirement in CoC B3 is written that way. An example -- there have been numerous instances where, when working Enroute/Center, there are say 8 aircraft that I'm working into 4 different airports, plus enroutes and overflights, and suddenly while diverting my attention to another corner of the airspace, an unidentified aircraft that never called is about to become a traffic conflict to someone else. It's not always like that, I agree, but keeping the rules standardized for everyone in order to accommodate the worst possible situation is generally a smart thing to do in this environment.

 

I always try to contact the pilot before reporting them, and I'd wager the vast majority of controllers do that and teach others to do that. Everyone should, if their situation allows. I don't really like the .contactme because I see it as a crutch; I try to contact the pilot via Unicom first, use the .contactme second, leave them alone third, and only .wallop as a last resort if there is (or I foresee) a conflict. But all of that would go away if pilots would simply contact ATC when entering controlled airspace. There are numerous situational awareness tools that have been written about dozens of times on these forums, while not necessarily perfect, are likely "close enough" to help pilots be able to do that effectively the vast majority of the time.

 

I do hope this perspective helps.

[Len Vasilev]

thanks for the feedback and ideas !

 

there might be a case (when only crossing certain airspace e.g.)

when the "priority" of my flight is low ,so the ATC won't even bother

to initiate contact. Up until now thought it was ok just to continue

without no one (neither me nor the ATC) acting.

 

Now I will consider what Don had to say and actually initiate the contact

myself upon 10mins not receiving a contact me from the ATC. Lesson learned ;D.

 

good week everyone!

[Don Desfosse]

Thanks, Len. If I could offer just a little more encouragement, it would be to initiate the contact within 25 miles or so BEFORE entering controlled airspace, or at least very soon thereafter. Best regards!

[Len Vasilev]

Thanks, Len. If I could offer just a little more encouragement, it would be to initiate the contact within 25 miles or so BEFORE entering controlled airspace, or at least very soon thereafter. Best regards!

 

ok, I see ...even before or short after

 

I like exact/positive regulations and that was surely something I never had certainty about.

Apologize for making such a big deal out of it - it just hit me hard being accused of not wanting ATC ;DD

Now,I'll take these matters in my own hands^^

 

Thank You ,Don - Thanks everyone

 

have a nice Day !

[Len Vasilev]

What happened?

 

sorry Dace for the late answer:

 

I was flying oceanic BOS-TLV, when short after entering Shanwick an ATC opened Gander .

I saw it ,I had my oceanic sheet and all data ready and thought he would contact me very soon.

 

Like I said ,normally (95%) I get a contact me and I do within 5mins or so.

The other 5% is when I only cross a certain airspace and there's really not much to do,

or the ATC is really busy with ongoing DEPs or ARR,Idk - maybe its even just because my English

sounds not that well .For me it's allright , as long as ...

 

...just before reaching the Irish coast I've been kicked by a SUP.

First I really thought it was a technical issue or something,it took me a while to understand

what I've been accused of. And I had no contact me no other messages before.

 

I do longhauls all the time, since I work on my computer (multiple screens etc.)

there's no way I would miss a call.The SUP sends me a hello you there or something

(of course with the time stamp) after 6-8 or 12 hours and I respond quickly...25-30 mins is really an exception.

 

Thats what happened and I did some screenshots -

and as I said,there was no call no admin message.

 

It was like

1.You're not there

2.Youre not responding/being reported by XY

3. I disconnect you ( according to CoCB3 etc)

 

I received those 3 messages within 5mins tops,then (immidiately !) reconnected ,

to ask the SUP for further info about what has happened.He was very polite but I couldn't agree

on the reason and the consequence (sorry for that) it took some time to cool down and reevaluate

everything so that it won't happen ever again

[Ira Robinson]

What happened?

 

sorry Dace for the late answer:

 

I was flying oceanic BOS-TLV, when short after entering Shanwick an ATC opened Gander .

I saw it ,I had my oceanic sheet and all data ready and thought he would contact me very soon.

 

Like I said ,normally (95%) I get a contact me and I do within 5mins or so.

The other 5% is when I only cross a certain airspace and there's really not much to do,

or the ATC is really busy with ongoing DEPs or ARR,Idk - maybe its even just because my English

sounds not that well .For me it's allright , as long as ...

 

...just before reaching the Irish coast I've been kicked by a SUP.

First I really thought it was a technical issue or something,it took me a while to understand

what I've been accused of. And I had no contact me no other messages before.

 

I do longhauls all the time, since I work on my computer (multiple screens etc.)

there's no way I would miss a call.The SUP sends me a hello you there or something

(of course with the time stamp) after 6-8 or 12 hours and I respond quickly...25-30 mins is really an exception.

 

Thats what happened and I did some screenshots -

and as I said,there was no call no admin message.

 

It was like

1.You're not there

2.Youre not responding/being reported by XY

3. I disconnect you ( according to CoCB3 etc)

 

I received those 3 messages within 5mins tops,then (immidiately !) reconnected ,

to ask the SUP for further info about what has happened.He was very polite but I couldn't agree

on the reason and the consequence (sorry for that) it took some time to cool down and reevaluate

everything so that it won't happen ever again

 

I have to tell you that if you have screen shots of receiving three messages within a total of five minutes, and then you have screen shots of your discussion with the Supervisor where he explained why he removed you from the network, I would send all that in a package to the VP Sups. The reason i say that is because unless the controller considered you a threat to other aircraft, to my way of thinking you should have received a lot more than five minutes before any action was taken. In fact I don't understand why the Supervisor didn't ask the controller if he did send a contact me and how long ago did he send it? I have found that on long haul flights, too many times a controller will log on after the pilot has long since entered his airspace, in which case it is not always the pilots fault for not realizing ATC is available. To my mind, the pilot deserves the benefit of the doubt in those situations.

 

Yes, I would send a letter to VP Sups, not because you are asking him to change anything; you were after all, not in compliance with the rules. But I would ask him to review how the Supervisors are handling these types of situations. Change only comes if leadership is made aware that there might be a problem.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Ira, we have had orders to disconnect pilots in these circomestances...

[Kenneth Haught]

Ira, we have had orders to disconnect pilots in these circomestances...

 

While we do disconnect pilots, I believe the crux of Ira's post is that unless there is a conflict with other users 5 minutes to respond before being kicked is quite extreme. If indeed that was the timeframe, and there were no other mitigating factors, then some patience should have been exercised while contact was being made. One of the first questions I ask a controller when responding to an "unresponsive" pilot call is "when did you send your first .contactme". From the OP it appears that may not have happened, nor was a "reasonable" time given by the supervisor for the user to answer. I believe that's why Ira is suggesting to have VPSups take a look, to see if perhaps there was room for improvement on our part.

[Ira Robinson]

Ira, we have had orders to disconnect pilots in these circomestances...

 

Andreas, you are quite right. So call me a rebel, but I still think a few seconds of common sense needs to be used. In this case, for example, I would be curious if the Supervisor asked the controller how long he was online? We have all seen too many times a controller demanding we kick a pilot for not checking in when the controller has been online for all of five minutes.

 

No, you are right, we are supposed to disconnect a pilot who doesn't make contact with ATC. But I would suggest it is hardly all that simple.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Ken and Ira,

 

I do share your points of view and you can verify this by my posts in the relevant thread back then.

 

As an ATC it does become unnerving, though, when you have the 5th or 6th unresponsive pilot entering your airspace within a timeframe of an hour, or so. For me that justifies the termination of these connections within a couple of minutes after attempts to make contact did not result in a reaction.

 

Common sense, I wish we could and would use more of it.

[Richard Quigley]

With the advent of relatively inexpensive flight simulators there appear to be an increasing number of pilots with little experience in the procedural aspects of aviation. As our poster admitted in his first post he was waiting for ATC to contact him. "I am waiting just for this contact me message to pop up" He did not initiate contact.

 

All this because of one little word in CoC B3 ... "should". Would that these dilatory letters all be thrown out but the "S" and the "U" and a magic "M" and a terminal "T" be added to create a definitive "MUST"!

 

No, it would not eliminate the problem but it might go some way towards mitigating it. One small step at a time.

 

The idea that if a controller fails to hail an aircraft that aircraft id being denied service is an interesting twist.

However, if one pilot thought that you can be sure that out of 80K odd there will be many others with the same idea. That's a bit unsettling.

 

I'm agree with Andreas. If you're working a TMA and you get one coming in (with the FMC doing the flying while they watch Netflix) on the wrong runway and they blow your sequences and will not talk to you it is unsettling. I had one last night slewing all over the airfield and environs. The duty Sup was quick to respond but it still takes about 5 minutes to work through the protocols to get rid of them as they kept re-connecting. During that time they interfered with 4 other pilots who had all done the right thing but were, nevertheless, inconvenienced by one infantile idiot.

 

In the matter of the long haul flyers (who wish to remain connected to the network) would it not make sense for it to be mandatory for them to be checking for ATC presence say from 10 minutes before until 10 minutes after they are scheduled to leave one control area and enter the next? Also, a note in their flight plan remarks like:" AFK until 1234Z" might help a little although not save them from banishment and durance vile in the event of a conflict!

 

With respect to controllers coming on line and finding aircraft in their CTA let's make it a requirement that they log the time, callsign and result of their hails to such aircraft. That might give a Sup something to work with.

[Jonathan Fong]

I'm agree with Andreas. If you're working a TMA and you get one coming in (with the FMC doing the flying while they watch Netflix) on the wrong runway and they blow your sequences and will not talk to you it is unsettling. I had one last night slewing all over the airfield and environs. The duty Sup was quick to respond but it still takes about 5 minutes to work through the protocols to get rid of them as they kept re-connecting. During that time they interfered with 4 other pilots who had all done the right thing but were, nevertheless, inconvenienced by one infantile idiot.

But is context not relevant? If you've got dozens of planes to handle in your airspace and someone logs on without contacting you and starts slewing all over or interfering with traffic flow, then yes, if they don't make contact and ignore you a quick DC is warranted. But if your airspace is quiet (say, you're on Gander Radio at midnight with 5 planes in your airspace) and a long haul pilot at FL380, well out of the way of any traffic, doesn't contact you or respond within five minutes of entering your airspace and/or you logging on, is it really justified to boot them off straight away?

 

In the matter of the long haul flyers (who wish to remain connected to the network) would it not make sense for it to be mandatory for them to be checking for ATC presence say from 10 minutes before until 10 minutes after they are scheduled to leave one control area and enter the next?

And what if ATC connects while they're smack bang in the middle of their airspace? That was one of the concerns raised - that ATC would connect, a pilot would be in the middle of their airspace and not notice their presence right away, and then ATC would ping a SUP asking for them to be booted off. Sometimes even if I'm at my computer monitoring my flight I can miss ATC coming on abruptly for up to five minutes mid-flight. I don't see how your solution would solve the problem. Yes, long haulers on the network need to be aware of active ATC coverage, but placing such mandatory demands on pilots is really not the most effective nor reasonable answer.

 

With respect to controllers coming on line and finding aircraft in their CTA let's make it a requirement that they log the time, callsign and result of their hails to such aircraft. That might give a Sup something to work with.

As a controller myself (and I presume you are too), I really think that's a waste of time. If you have an unresponsive pilot you've tried to make contact with (and let's be real here, pinging a SUP is not the appropriate first reaction to a pilot who hasn't checked in with you right away), you already have the timestamps of each message and/or contact attempt in your controller client and you can just screenshot and/or export them for the SUP to see for themselves. Controllers and SUPs can both check if someone's in your voice room already or not anyway, so if they're not responding to you on voice and they are in your voice room that's evidence enough (and if they aren't in your voice room, why waste the effort calling them there?).

[Richard Quigley]

But is context not relevant?

That was part the point. The other part of that same point is that the protocols take too long. That is a side effect of the safeguards put in place to protect pilots form overzealous Sups. However, they can often be the cause of disruption to others use of the network. It does not happen often to most people. Nevertheless it is a price they should not have to pay. There is a principle of natural justice involved.

 

And what if ATC connects while they're smack bang in the middle of their airspace?

Was it not clear to you that that situation was, is now and ever shall remain the reason why we have been given that clever little auto command ".contact me"?

 

I really think that's a waste of time.

Well might you think that. I will not comment further other than to say that every time a Sup has contacted me in reference to a non-responsive aircraft (and I've handled more of them than you've had hot breakfasts) those are the questions that have been asked of me. It might be relevant to have them at hand as an aid memoir for the controller, rapid transfer of accurate information to the Sup and in fairness to the pilot.

[Andreas Fuchs]

We have had this discussion before...

 

If ATC has been online for more than 30 minutes, you can boot a pilot without too much delay. A little bit of a learning experience has to be provided through this. If ATC has been online for a couple of minutes, a bit of discretion can and should be given, but not too much.

 

If ATC has been online for 1, 2 or more hours, then no tolerance will be given, there's simply no excuse for not reacting, because pilots are supposed to check ahead by means of tools like Qutescoop, Accomeap, Vatspy, Vatastic etc..

 

I do not agree that pilots must make contact with ATC at all times. If they realize that they are inside active airspace, they should attempt contact, yes. But primarily ATC knows best where their airspace begins and ends and shall send out contact-requests. Pilots then must react and contact ATC.

[Mark Smith 1119598]

So many excuses why pilots are not doing the basics, yes basics. You want to play pilot and this is a part of playing pilot. You sure would not do this in the real world and we are simulating the real world. Open Vatspy or whatever and check or ask the controller. I have watched planes fly through my airspace and asked why are you not contacting me, most of the answers that I was told is that "you would contact me". I asked where did you get that from, Hang on....... "a friend told me", in other words, more NON information is getting around. Whats next? You want the controller to share a cockpit with you and fly the plane? Maybe my words are extreme to some, but the bottom line is a COC B3 is up the pilot to comply, not the controller. Stop making the controller responsible to ask you to contact them on an online network designed to get ATC service.

[Randy Tyndall 1087023]

I have been watching this thread with a great deal of interest to see how the differing thoughts of "who, when, why, where" are formed in the minds of our pilots and controllers. And so, now I post my thoughts.

 

I always try...as a pilot, I have never controlled...to be aware of which aircraft are where in regards to my vicinity, what they are doing at the moment, and what they intend to do, if I am able to glean that information from either their broadcasts over UNICOM if they have done so or their interaction with ATC.

 

I fly with either an aircraft that comes with an authentically reproduced FMC updated to the current AIRAC through an annual subscription to the Navigraph database or a freeware aircraft that I have installed Ernie Alston's delightful suite of nearly authentic FMC's from Integrated Simavionics Group, also with a current AIRAC update from Navigraph. I use the NAVIGRAPH Charts Database to keep my situational awareness of where the ARTCC/FIR boundaries are in relation to my flightpath. If there is not a waypoint at the boundary between two of them I place a user waypoint there using the FMC's Place/Bearing/Distance function. I know when I am about to cross an ARTCC/FIR boundary. I watch on VATSPY and through my client to see which, if any, controllers are on.

 

So, now you know my process. I set myself up as much as I can to comply with my requirement per the CoC to initiate contact when a controller is online and I am entering their airspace from an uncontrolled region or comes online as I travel through what was previously uncontrolled.

 

I rarely get that chance to initiate contact at the waypoint I have in my flightpath/flightplan. I almost always get a "Contact Me" from the controller before I can contact them on my own. I have tried to "circomevent" that by contacting the controller at various points before the boundary with something like "Center, ABC1234, FL350, twenty miles from KLMNO about to enter your airspace enroute to ." You would be surprised how many times I get told, "Contact me in 20 miles", which is every bit of a minute at tubeliner speeds, much, much less when I fly the Concorde using the Delco C-IV-AC Inertial Navigation System.

 

I will say this, Minneapolis Center is one of the few ARTCC I have encountered that tends to take a "wait and see" approach as to whether they will be contacted or not, letting aircraft posing no immediate danger to other traffic whiz merrily on their way without sending them a "Contact Me". I like that concept. One of, "if you don't have situational awareness enough to want service, I won't give service as long as you are no danger to others" attitude. if you have been one of those whizzing aircraft that was aware the controller was online and waiting for the "contact me" message, it is your own fault for not contacting them.

 

Now, having said all that...and I am a pilot on the side of the controllers here...rarely, I think, in the real world does this "pilot not contacting ATC" happen, although I suspect that when and if it does, the controller is very, very quick to attempt contact with that unidentified aircraft. So, controllers, despite what the CoC says about pilots initiating contact, you only have yourselves to blame if you let a blissfully unaware pilot transit your airspace without attempting to contact them. They would in the real world...why not here where realism is attempted?

 

Finally, I have been referring, albeit benignly, to En Route ATC service for the most part here. It is very easy for me to know almost exactly, to the mile, when I need to contact Center, Tower, Ground, Clearance, and when departing, Departure. Arrival is another matter entirely. All they are is a "circle" on the VATSPY map and not one that even roughly matches their area of control. I have yet to determine a good way to know when I should contact the Approach Controller when entering from uncontrolled En Route airspace. I try to determine it from the Arrival Chart...not an easy task sometimes. I typically try to pick the first "hard crossing altitude" and waypoint on my STAR (if in the US) or at the final waypoint before the most logical STAR (if elsewhere) to do so. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Sometimes the controller will tell me, sometimes they just seem "annoyed" that I contacted them too "early".

 

Oh, one last thing, don't even get me started on the infamous California TEC Routes in and through congested traffic areas. I just trust that those who know which tower or approach controller is supposed to do what will do so. I will say this, there was this one flight and this one controller and this one TEC route flight...well, despite the "top down" philosophy of VATSIM I was severely rebuffed for contacting Center (the only controller on line at departure although Approach was on at arrival but not handling my departure airport) on a TEC Route flight. Ah but that was years ago and I have peeled that scab away long ago and only occ[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ionally look at the scar left behind...

 

Randy

[Kenneth Haught]

... I have yet to determine a good way to know when I should contact the Approach Controller when entering from uncontrolled En Route airspace. I try to determine it from the Arrival Chart...not an easy task sometimes. I typically try to pick the first "hard crossing altitude" and waypoint on my STAR (if in the US) or at the final waypoint before the most logical STAR (if elsewhere) to do so. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Sometimes the controller will tell me, sometimes they just seem "annoyed" that I contacted them too "early".

 

Randy

 

A good rule of thumb if no CTR is online but APP is, is give a call between 40-50 miles from the destination airport (if that is their primary airport), that's what IMO most APP stations have as a lateral radius, although it does very depending of course.

[Randy Tyndall 1087023]

Thanks for that suggestion Kenneth. Much appreciated.

 

Randy