Controller saying my weather is wrong.

[Danice Schramm]

……………………..

Edited June 12, 2020 at 12:05 PM by Danice Schramm
...................................................

[Robert Shearman Jr]

There's no requirement to simulate real weather on the network.  And even if you are, technical limitations occasionally inhibit two or more people in the same place on VATSIM from seeing the exact same conditions.  If assigned a visual approach in IMC, reply "unable, we're in cloud cover right now" or "unable, low visibility" or similar.  If you don't get re-assigned an instrument approach (or you can even specify -- "unable visual, request RNAV Yankee" for example) then it sounds like it may be time for a .wallop and/or feedback to the ARTCC or FIR website. 

Edited May 25, 2020 at 02:13 AM by Robert Shearman Jr

[Joshua Jenkins]

Keep in mind that if for whatever reason the controller is unable to give you a suitable approach (assuming it’s a legitimate and valid reason), you can also ask to divert to an alternate where such approaches are available or the weather is better. But as Rob already mentioned, the magic word is “unable” 😉

 

Cheers!

[Sean Harrison]

Tell them their weather is wrong.  As a pilot you can’t be forced to take any approach.  Fly, Navigate and Communicate.

[Romano Lara]

The word unable is very powerful. Without going into technical specifics, PIC will override ATCO any time. 

Just say "unable visual approach due weather, request ILS/RNAV/VOR approach." 

[Mats Edvin Aaro]

Danice, know that ATC is not always correct. Naturally, given the size of the network there will always be someone who try to go against the rules we have in order to fulfill some sort of personal agenda. That does not mean it should happen.

Should you ever have questions regarding things like this while you are on the network, wondering if something is okay or not, how to approach a situation or if someone is doing something wrong, call for supervisor assistance by using the ".wallop" command and include a brief description of what you need help with, like this: ".wallop is ATC allowed to tell me to disconnect when I don't have the current weather?"

A supervisor should contact you shortly thereafter based on their current workload, and help you out. 🙂

Have an excellent time on the network!

[Daniel Mckee]

So what does a pilot do whilst waiting for a response from .wallop supervisor?

[Mats Edvin Aaro]

Tricky question...

Usually, if a supervisor is online he will contact you as soon as possible (you can check if one is online by going to e.g. vattastic.com and navigate to the ATC tab, and look for people with a SUP rating under 'observers'). 

Although we aim to be online 100%, that isn't realistic for a voulentary network. If there is a serious offense made, gather all the evidence you can, including callsign, timestamps, chatlogs etc. and email it to [email protected]. 
In this particular case though, I would not have disconnected as he is not allowed to, but I would gather the controller's details, along with a chatlog if able. Voice matters are a bit trickier, but I always advise people to use "NVIDIA Shadowplay" which has a built-in instant replay function, which automatically saves the last 15 or so minutes to your drive with the press of a button. I'm sure there are alternatives to that software as well. 🙂

 

[Sean Harrison]

Stats indicate about 75% of up time.  No data is published in regards;

number of nil responses from a .wallop

average time between .wallop and contact from a supervisor

Two thing which I think are much better performance criteria for management.  Being connected to the network is one thing, being timely on response is another.

[nebojsa milosavljevic]

What is the point of ATIS ,if there's no requirement to simulate real weather on the network. Just wondering.

nebojsa

[Ross Carlson]

5 minutes ago, nebojsa milosavljevic said:

What is the point of ATIS ,if there's no requirement to simulate real weather on the network. Just wondering.

nebojsa

Despite the fact that it's not required, the vast majority of pilot use real world weather.

[Don Desfosse]

"No requirement" protects the least common denominator, while the vast majority of people who prefer to use this simulation network choose to do just that, simulate reality.

[Sean Harrison]

21 hours ago, nebojsa milosavljevic said:

What is the point of ATIS ,if there's no requirement to simulate real weather on the network. Just wondering.

nebojsa

Not sure we are saying disregard controllers.  ATIS is an information system, not a directive system.  I use real world AS feeds and I can’t recall a situation where the runway was incorrect.  I can recall regular ‘sky’ conditions being different.   Like others have said, the word ‘unable’ is powerful.   What about DAY/NIGHT?  There are procedural differences there too.

We all need to be adaptable, not prescriptive in my opinion.

[Kirk Christie]

Being cleared a visual approach does not mean you cant use Instruments.

[Danice Schramm]

DELETED

 

Edited June 12, 2020 at 12:06 PM by Danice Schramm
Topic not benificial

[Tom Szczypinski]

3 minutes ago, Danice Schramm said:

sorry I'm just frustrated.....

I understand this, but not sure posting a post like this on the forums is beneficial to any party. Instead, try submitting feedback at the facility (Division/vACC/ARTCC) where this happened, and they'll be able to deal with this in an appropriate way.

[Danice Schramm]

T...……………………………………….

Edited June 12, 2020 at 12:06 PM by Danice Schramm
..............................................................

[Dominic Nguyen]

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/642269265
I was the controller in your stream. In my opinion I was nothing, but helpful throughout your whole flight. I have not raised my voice once and I only engaged/asked a question. I noticed how new pilots are based on their responses and that increases my leniency on the frequency (ie. I will speak slower and enunciate or will try to explain what I'm doing) despite how busy I am. I will let other forum members read, watch, and tell us what they think. In the beginning of the flight till nearing the end you got frustrated because you didn't understand how the procedures work out in our airspace; your debriefing clearly showed that frustration. Before I even explain, you resorted to .wallop's and went directly to my superiors to complain about my service instead of simply messaging me at the end to ask why I did what I did so we can be on the same understanding. My superior comes back with a hammer head bias simply because we care about the professionalism and quality output without even divulging and getting both sides. A discussion wasn't even attempted yet you reached to the peak. I hope you're not one that goes after to tarnish controllers' reputations just because you're frustrated and learning yourself. Allow me to address your issues mentioned in the video

• I took you off of the ODP because in my judgement, you're in complex airspace and are climbing above my minimum vectoring altitudes so I gave you a shortcut instead of letting you fly the long route
• I vectored you off before SAC because I was setting you up for a square visual approach. Things changed when you couldn't see the airport while abeam it so I gave you the ILS. It doesn't help to see the airport head on nor is it smart to set you up in the departure corridor around other airports.
• That was a 3-4 mile abeam the airport- downwind, not 10. I simply told you the airport METAR was SKC, so if you're IMC you should expect the ILS. Hence why I asked your flight conditions- which apparently was > 30sm in vis, not 3 like you said. You were just under a cloud layer and the airport was clearly seen in the video.
• The best way to get you in was to vector you to the final approach course. You made the mistake of loading the procedure and directing yourself to the FAF. I cannot allow you to present position direct the FAF or IF along the approach at that angle. Regardless, I walked you through. I have to vector you beyond the FAF for legal interception on my part and allow myself more time to balance other priorities. The situation still got the best of me and I allowed you to get past the LOC, I got you back on and asked if it was okay to be vectored to the FAF because the 7110.65 requires me to have pilot concurrence to be vectored that close inside the approach gate. You responded with "Well I'm just doing what I'm told which was to join the LOC" I didn't have time to explain what I meant by the question because I had more planes to deal with. 

See? Not so hard was it. You just had to ask and I'll gladly explain to you whatever I did and the reasoning behind it. I could learn from something, you could too. Countless pilots ask me after they landed and apologize for the inconvenience they've caused, to which I always answer "we're all learning, that's why I'm here". PS. I was not the controller the OP mentioned about asking people to disconnect.

[Dace Nicmane]

The controller was a bit quiet so I might have missed something but I didn't see any wrong in what he did except for sending you through the localizer and a bit late descent clearance but I'd put it down to him being very busy (obviously, when there is a Friday night event next door). The downwind was a bit long for a C172 but since you were IFR for an ILS approach, this was necessary as I understood from what the controller wrote. I think, Danice, you were concentrating too much on "this is the guy who argued with me about the weather", so you got the feeling he was somehow trying to hurt you when he was just being busy.

I was recently left at FL290 where I should've been at FL60 by a busy controller, then he let me fly almost 100 nm away from the airport while descending. Finally he realized he wasn't able to service me, apologized and sent me to unicom for my landing (I was the only arrival to a smaller airport in his airspace). I just chuckled and did what I was told to do. When they're busy, they're busy, nothing you can do. It's not on purpose. 🙂

Also you could have called the field in sight when you saw passing it and he would've been able to change your approach to visual again.

@Dominic Nguyen I know you're a great controller and I'm sure your superiors know this, too, so your reputation is not easily tarnished. 🙂

Edited June 6, 2020 at 09:43 PM by Dace Nicmane

[1275389]

Danice, on top of what Dace mentioned, when you're unsure of why you're doing something or are concerned, you should question the controller. When you initially took off and made some negative comments how you were being vectored into an obstacle, you should have questioned that. You would have, in that case, found that there was no obstacle since you were well above the minimum vectoring altitude. When you were getting vectored on the downwind, you could have asked for a shorter approach. In the case of MHR, there is terrain which prevents you from being descended below certain altitudes depending on where you were. Because of the MVA and the angle you were approaching the airport from, a shorter approach is not always possible. Reiterating what Dace mentioned, if you had the field in sight, you could have mentioned that and you would have been cleared for a visual approach.