EDDM Ground chart problem

[Juhana Suhonen 973330]

I was flying in EDDM on 5th August at about 8-10 GMT with callsign DLH123. When I got to ground in EDDM and was handled to EDDM_Ground, they ordered me to gate 209 via N3 W2. When I was on W2, according to my chart (http://www.munich-fir.org/downloads/charts/EDDM/EDDM%20GND-03,%20TAXI%20&%20PARKING%20-%20FS2002.pdf), the EDDM Ground ATC asked from me where the heck I was. I said to him I'm at W2, but he said I'm somewhere very different. After that I continued taxiing via Twy S after coming from S7 (my chart), the ATC ordered me to hold short immediately. i did, and he said I'm going somewhere total lost. I asked him what he ment, as I had just followed the map, but he said I should be somewhere different. We continued this about 20 minutes, and i said to him I can't say where the problem started, but most likely we had different maps. This is very weird, as i had the map from Germany own VACC site, and ATC should have a map from there too (although I don't know how ATC works). Then I gave him the URL to this map, but he said nothing. then he ordered me to go back to w2, and there I got little lost, as my aircraft's autopilots throttle gave too much gas, and I went too fast and I couldn't turn in time. Then ATC said what I'm doing wrong again; This was my first own mistake, caused by me. On the others I followed the chart. Then ATC said he gives up, and I said I'm sorry, I didn't mean to harm you. Then after a while he left without saying anything, and I tried to contact him about 10 minutes before I noticed he had left (he propably left because his time ran out, not because me). Then I logged off and started writing this.

 

 

To the ATC: I am REALLY SORRY about what happened, but it really wasn't my fault all. I didn't want to bother anyone with my flight, I was just doing flight for my enjoy and learning experiment. I have been online for few weeks, and I don't yet know everything, although I'm trying to learn. I got that chart from Vatsim and from EU Flightplan site(http://www.euroutepro.com/fp/fp_main.php?site=se then click from eddm to something and then details and there are links to airport charts).

 

 

To VACC Germany: Maybe you should check your charts, if you have different versions or something. If you only have one type of charts, same with atc and pilots, then you propably should check whether the chart is for default scenery or custom scenery, as I had default, and then the Rwys and Twys could be on different places. I was using default scenery.

 

 

And to you, who have read this long post: Thank you for reading. I hope we find solution, and feel free to contact me, if I have done something wrong or anything. I hope the ATC I was in contact in EDDM ground will see this or someone who knows him. He told to me that he is in real life a pilot and a pilot instructor.

 

Regards Juhana Suhonen

[Luca Vetturi 874351]

I can't speak for the vacc-sag controllers, but in Italy I usually say "vacate left/right, taxi to the gate of your choice".

Why to waste 30 minutes of the pilot time getting mad on taxiways, taxi hold-shorts and gates when there are usually 2-3 different sceneries for each airport

[Philipp Geng 960001]

Hi Juhana,

 

neither of the charts was wrong, the problem is quite simple:

Everything in Munich is designed for FS2002/2004 (with German Airports 1), the controller's groundlayout on the screen and the taxicharts are exactly designed for this addon, as this is the closest to reality. But there is still a FS2002 default groundchart available for those not willing to buy and fly with German Airports. I don't know which Simulator you are flying; due to the offset I would guess you're using X-Plane. And there's the next problem, the Offset between German Airports and X-Plane (default) is enormous (Don't nail me, but I think it was something like 0.5 NM...).

I don't know what my colleague on Apron told you exactly, but we know there is a problem with offset and there's no way of solving it, as there are five different groundlayouts and airportpositions (depending on which simulator and addon you use the airport is either on the correct position, half a mile offset or in between). I am the new chartdrawer of Munich FIR and I know about the problems between default, addon and the different FS and X-Plane versions, but I can't do anything. We can't say everybody has to fly with the addon (There are freeware addons for X-Plane and FS2004, but not for FS2002), on the other hand we can't say everybody has to fly without it.

I hope my colleague will reply too, as I don't know what happened between you two.

 

Cheers,

Philipp

(München Tower at that time)

 

PS (Luca): That's something we are told not to do (by some of our instructors in Munich). (Just got the example during my Tower PreCPT)

[Luca Vetturi 874351]

PS (Luca): That's something we are told not to do (by some of our instructors in Munich). (Just got the example during my Tower PreCPT)

 

I know how a _GND works, but after more than 30 minutes of panic letting the pilot taxi to a safe gate on his own looks like human, at least

[Philipp Geng 960001]

I know how a _GND works, but after more than 30 minutes of panic letting the pilot taxi to a safe gate on his own looks like human, at least Wink

 

I didn't mean the case. It was just a reply to your

but in Italy I usually say "vacate left/right, taxi to the gate of your choice".

. It was the

usually

I was aiming at.

 

Cheers again,

Philipp

[Kyprianos Biris]

PS (Luca): That's something we are told not to do (by some of our instructors in Munich). (Just got the example during my Tower PreCPT)

 

Then Philipp its about time your instructors understood that:

a) with three different locations of Munich in the FS World,

b) with Local and Foreign pilots visiting Munich (different sceneries, default scenery, different simulator)

c) pilots with & without charts

... EDDM Ground controllers should be more relaxed and avoid ruining the fun factor of this hobby when they detect that the pilot faces some difficulty.

 

ATC should try and help relax the situation instead of insisting to death on the proper taxying procedure, let the pilot taxy wherever he likes and simply keep other traffic away.

 

Its not the first time we hear stories about obsessive insistance of SAGvACC ATC insisting on full simulation of real procedures. I remember the other thread of a pilot who fell into an ATC test night and two GND/TWR shift changes and took him almost 1 hour to get ATC clearance because his FPL was not consistent with SAG FPL Center routes and someone had ammended his FPL.

 

For god's sake my friends, relax, you certainly ruined the night of of Juhana Suhonen 973330 from Finland who joined VATSIM on July 7th, 2006.

 

Why ?

Was it worth it ?

 

Please SAG Instructors !, you know EDDM ground is a mess regarding the multitude of the users and their setup. German Airports is a payware product, not all of the users have or can afford payware stuff. Accept the fact that its hard to provide realistic GND service in EDDM since not every body is in the same FS & Scenery setup. Train your ATCOs for the peculiarities of the simulators we use and maintenance of the fun factor as first priority and leave 100% simulation as a second priority.

 

PS1: Apologies to Juhana for using his name; just needed a live example !

PS2: Uwe this responce is not addressed personally to you but the people who trained you.

[Martin Georg 811874]

Gentlemen,

 

 

please keep the tone of your postings civil. No one here intends to ruin others experiences on VATSIM, and I will not allow such accusations to take place here. Also, please don´t dig out old dirty laundry from the past, this doesn´t help at all and does not contribute in any way to resolve what had happened, and what can be done to avoid such things in future.

 

 

First of all, my apologies to both Juhana and Uwe (who was the ground controller) for this unpleasant experience. This is not what VATSIM should be. However, by analyzing the situation we will see that both parties were under a misinterpretation about where the pilot was, and what kind of instruction ATC gave to him.

 

 

First of all, we need to now WHERE Juhana landed - on the northern or the southern runway at Munich? From Juhanas own description I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that he landed on the southern runway, because he stated that he continued to taxi via taxiway S - while Uwe gave him the instruction to taxi via W3 and O2, which means an entry from taxiway N, i.e. from the northern runway! So it looks like we have a m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive scenery displacement in North/South direction here (about 1700 meters, which is the distance between the two runways).

 

Second, as Juhana also stated, he was using the stock FS2002 scenery. In this scenery Terminal 2 does not exist at all, because it wasn´t built at time yet. However, ATC gave him a taxi instruction to a gate on that terminal, i.e. an instruction he couldn´t comply with.

 

So, to sum the situation up, ATC [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umed the pilot on the northern part of the airport entering apron from N, while the pilot thought he was on the south, on taxiway S. He got a parking position he didn´t have in his scenery and on his chart.

 

Now, what should be done in such a situation? Just continuing to move around is the worst idea, because nothing is resolved then. It may interfere with other traffic on the airport, and it will cause additional stress to both ATC and pilots.

My suggestion is to stop, notify ATC that you are confused, and inform ATC about which scenery and which flightsim you are using (tip from the pro´s: State your sim and scenery equipment in your flightplan remarks!). If there are signs about disorientation from the pilot, ATC should ask him to stop, then ask him for his flightsim type and scenery. Second would be to commonly agree to the current position of the pilot.

Third, when both have confirmation about the position, ATC then should use simple aiding taxi instructions to guide the pilot to a safe place on the apron. Instructions like "continue straght ahead, take the next exit to the right, then left to the end of the apron" are appropriate.

Fourth, after the pilot has parked on a safe place, both parties may review the situation again via private chat. ATC may inform the pilot about scenery offerings to avoid the displacement, or give him some info about general procedures about the airport.

 

What can both side do to avoid such situations in future:

 

1) the pilot:

State his flightsim type and scenery equipment in his f/p remarks

Read the whole chart to get an impression about what ATC meant with his instruction

Don´t continue to taxi if there is an uncertainity about the own position, or the instruction from ATC

Report "unable" to ATC, and describe the situation

 

2) the controller:

try to figure out which scenery and flightsim the pilot uses

don´t give taxi instructions to parking positions which the pilot does not have in his scenery

try to find out with the pilots help WHERE he really is in his scenery

Guide him to a safe place using simple instructions

Advise the pilot about free or commercial addon solutions, and invite him to come back to the airport at VATSIM for a better experience

Don´t log off without resolving the situation first

 

ATC instructors should inform their trainees about what can happen when a pilot loses his orientation on the airport, and what can be done then. With a little bit of luck this can even be trained in a real situation during an ATC lesson. In all cases it´s important that both ATC and pilots can learn from what has happened, and that this learning will lead to improvements on both sides.

 

To conclude, and to quote from VATSIM´s own mission statement:

"One of the main goals of VATSIM is to create an environment which is fun and, at the same time, educational and a realistic simulation of procedures followed by pilots and air traffic controllers everyday around the world."

 

What we should keep in mind is, that if we focus more on the educational part, we will all get more fun out of it, which in return will lead to a very realistic simulation

 

Got it? :):)

[Kyprianos Biris]

Got it? :):)

 

Copied

[Donato Torrese 886965]

Gentlemen,

 

 

please keep the tone of your postings civil. No one here intends to ruin others experiences on VATSIM, and I will not allow such accusations to take place here.

 

Sorry Martin, but I haven't found any kind of accusations or bad intentions in all the posts in this thread. Juhana apologized, referring he maybe was confused and was not helped as much as he expected, Munich Tower tried to find a reason for the misunderstanding and both was really polite.

I think we should instead try to encourage this kind of messages, because it's the way to resolve any issue between pilots and controllers and to understand the expectations they have when connecting to VATSIM.

 

First of all, we need to now WHERE Juhana landed - on the northern or the southern runway at Munich? From Juhanas own description I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that he landed on the southern runway, because he stated that he continued to taxi via taxiway S - while Uwe gave him the instruction to taxi via W3 and O2, which means an entry from taxiway N, i.e. from the northern runway! So it looks like we have a m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive scenery displacement in North/South direction here (about 1700 meters, which is the distance between the two runways).

 

My point of view is slightly different. As you correctly stated, it seems that the pilot landed on the northern runway, but simply did not stop at the stand and continued (as stated by the pilot) via S7, then S (which means: he went through all W2 twy).

If I am right, then, the first thing to do as a controller is to ask pilot to stop and park in the area on his right (the chart Juhana posted does not report the stands for Apron2, at least I'm unable to find the stand 209 on this chart, which is the FS2002 version, infact!). You know that Milano Malpensa has 3 different (freeware though) sceneries. Runways are aligned, but taxiway are different for each scenery. If I'm unable to instruct the pilot, because I'm not sure the simulator, the scenery and the availability of charts on board, I usually prefer to give him permission to park on a stand of own choice. This is the only suggestion I would give to the controller.

I fully agree with all other suggestions you gave in the rest of your post; those are suggestions useful worldwide, for any controller, pilot or instructor, so I'll not quote this part.

 

Lastly, I'd like to remember the CoC A10 rule, because it explains the correct way to interact each other:

 

Since this is a learning environment, there are times when a pilot may encounter a new air traffic controller who is in the process of learning his airspace and/or general air traffic control procedures. The same may be true of the controller who may find himself issuing ATC to a pilot flying online for the first time. Everyone should remember to exercise patience and courtesy to these new pilots and controllers.

 

Using Martin's expression: Got it?

[Andreas Jung 873217]

Since especially Kyprianos with his statements aimed to the SAG controllers and in detail to the EDDM instructors, well here I am: It was me who was the trainer of Uwe. First of all I appreciate Martin´s thread to bring us back to an objective discussion. Second of all what I completely was missing in this thread is the ATC´s point of view. Gentlemen, let me use this opportunity to not only reflect to the pilots point of you but to also consider the ATC´s point of view and especially to Kyprianos: To proove my statements you are cordially invited to not only monitor how EDDM instructors are performing ATC training but to also have a look on what happens in Munich each day. I am sure you will change your mind on the quality of SAG intructors and controllers in very short terms!

 

After some chats which I had with Philipp and Uwe here is what happened with Juhana: He indeed landed on the northern runway and taxied to N3. Due to traffic situation he was waiting about 2-4 minutes before he received a taxy clerarence to the gate. On his way to the gate Juhana obviously lost orientation since he taxied back and forth on the apron. Of course Uwe as the apron controller tried to guide him to the gate, of course he tried everything to help Juhana via private chat. In the time being there also was one instruction in German language from Uwe, which he corrected into English. Juhana also told Uwe that a kind of autopilot failure mislead him throughout the apron. That made Uwe believe that he was talking to a new and unexperienced pilot. Therefore he hinted to look for EDDM ground at the VACC-SAG homepage. Since all guidance was in vain Uwe finally “surrenderedâ€

[Kyprianos Biris]

Andreas I feel you missunderstood my words.

The training that takes place in Munich and other FIRs of SAG is amongst VATSIM's top quality.

 

The issue here is about how much growth (in quality) can the system sustain.

 

Controllers must be able to ballance between fun & learning advices to pilots.

 

It is no fun to stop a pilot because he is not familiar with Munich or even worse our hobby and insist on sending him to visit a webpage and download a chart while he taxies. I am not implying that this is what haqppened but merely using it as an example.

 

What I would do as ATC in this case (when I'd find a pilot has problems) is that I would let him taxi wherever he wanted (ease the arrival of a flight - fun part) and THEN at the end, traffic & workload permitting, I would advise him about the charts download, the SAG FPC , vatsim PRC and so on.

 

Sustainable growth (in quality) is what I am referring to here. Some times we as ATC have to be carefull and measure how much a situation can take on diverting from simple aviation instructions to instructional help (education). Sometimes this is not easy, there are language barriers, time constraints and other stuff related primarily with the pilots.

 

So keep up the excellent job you do, you are amongst vatsim's best. Just be carefull as to how much of this quality can be absorbed on each case. Sometimes it is not easy and at these instances we have to step back, remember this is a hobby and a pilot is here to have fun by perhaps needing to keep things simple.

 

We have to remember that pilots based at a vACC/FIR will always have much better knowledge of the airport & airspace from a "foreign" pilot or even worse a newbie in our hobby or a member not aquainted with our language.

 

Yes, we did not focus on the pilot in this thread. I believe that this discussion here is about how controllers treat pilots and how sometimes the ATCO's are the coordinators of the fun factor in our environment.

 

So as Martin said, lets keep the fun factor high by educating as well but, what I advise is to remember that when at some points we try to compress education at an instance where it can't p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] through this endagers the fun factor. Maybe its purelly a timing issue (the moment we choose to educate) and it is not related to the pilots ability to absorb it.

 

On a side note, always remember that private chats are really usefull BUT they kill simulation. I always leave them for the end and I always hate it when someone chats me at "high simulation" moments

 

Regards