Controller's Schedule

[MARK MAYO]

A very idealistic thought:

Wouldn't it be wonderful if there was a method whereby all controllers - when they log on - are completing a form that provides data to VATSIM with their intended time for controlling. Naturally, events will arise that will limit their ability to keep to their planned schedule, but probably for the most part, those planned schedules can be adhered to.

 

On so many occasions we start flights (after checking "time online"), and the controllers are gone by the time we get in the air... or sometimes even before we get to the runway for departure.

 

As I stated first, I recognize that this is probably not all that easy to accomplish... but it would be great!

Thanks for your consideration.

Mark Mayo

BVARTCC/N49

[Alistair Thomson]

Wouldn't it be great if all pilots completed a form which provides data to VATSIM about their intended time (and location) for flying? Naturally, events will occur which might limit the pilots' ability to adhere to their planned schedule, but probably for the most part those planned schedules can be adhered to....

I've seen this suggestion offered to ATC so many times here that it gets a bit repetitive, and what gets me is that it's always about making ATC accountable for their time on VATSIM. Why can't we request that pilots to do the same, if it's so essential?

[Kirk Christie]

Have a look through the forums, there are plenty of discussions on this topic.

[Robert Shearman Jr]

For two of the more recent ones:

https://forums.vatsim.net/topic/32611-it-really-irks-me/

https://forums.vatsim.net/topic/32942-is-it-common-procedure-for-a-controller-to-book-their-availability/

[Matthew Bartels]

On 4/11/2022 at 2:36 PM, MARK MAYO said:

On so many occasions we start flights (after checking "time online"), and the controllers are gone by the time we get in the air... or sometimes even before we get to the runway for departure.

As stated in the many other threads, but it bears repeating.

Don’t chase ATC, that usually will lead to disappointment.  Instead fly where you want to fly and if you get ATC even better!

[Liesel Downes]

This actually already exists in Euroscope, VRC etc where you can enter a planned log off time.

[Andreas Fuchs]

On 4/12/2022 at 2:48 AM, Alistair Thomson said:

Wouldn't it be great if all pilots completed a form which provides data to VATSIM about their intended time (and location) for flying?

We actually have this through VATBOOK. Although, at the moment only vroute does insert flight plan data into VATBOOK's database: http://vatbook.euroutepro.com/ext_rmt_planned.php

This data enables local organizations to filter for flights that are planned to touch their airspace and - if coded accordingly - alert their members/controllers about upcoming traffic peaks.

 

[Alistair Thomson]

55 minutes ago, Andreas Fuchs said:

We actually have this through VATBOOK

I wasn't actually advocating it! :) Just pointing out that there seems to be a unilaterality in the frequent requests that ATC ought to make, and stick to, advance bookings wherever possible.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Yupp, I understood that, but also wanted to point out the existence of such service, for other readers.

And, yes, this an old debate about booking ATC hours. Those who want to do it, should also stick to their bookings or cancel in them in good time, in case that they cannot connect for whatever reason.

[Ryan Renz]

Yes, this is an old record that keeps going round and round; and for good purpose. 

 

I would totally submit logs/ schedules as a pilot for when I intend to fly online, I recognize that humans don't want to sit and stare at a blank scope with no aircraft, just as much as pilots don't want to sit on a Sim and fly empty airspace with no traffic and no controllers.  It's also why I was flying offline more and more over the past years, better to have robot atc and traffic than ghost town. 

 

When I first started on VATSIM, I tried posting my availability and flight/ trip planning on the "fly with me page".  Pilots don't commit to or get involved with a system, just as controllers. 

 

It's not about 'forcing' controllers, or even pilots for that matter to be on at specific periods, or even to hold persons to schedules.  But there certainly is an overwhelming trepidation about any sort of near schedule or organization (notwithstanding events and larger organized zone or division occurrences).  Perhaps it's looked at a "well no one will ever use it so why even bother attempting to implement", certainly there are ideas and anything is possible; however my experience has been that any sort of mention or approach to this topic is like the start of a witch hunt, everyone is eager to light their torches.  ( and I'm not pointing fingers)

 

I think there should be some sort of organized schedule system.  Pilots can register fights, atc can register availability, keep it casual and if it never got used who cares, storage space for 10kb is very cheap; I'd use it until it was deleted.

 

VATSIM has the same falters as any other club (I imagine world wide, but my experience is with various local clubs and not for profit organizations).  Humans struggle with politics in any organization.  We fumble about blindly in the dark and some how carry on in some mean (average) direction.  VATSIM is not special in that regard, it's actually impassive at how well it has maintained cohesion over the years given that it is global, and we vary vastly in cultural and often idealistic ways.  But also as I've experienced with clubs and organizations, they (and VATSIM) often have the appearance of 'allergic to change'.  Any change, big or small, a bit of "don't rock the boat syndrome".  Sure one can join boards and move into "decision making" positions, but that isn't for everyone either.  Sometimes people just hate other people's ideas and that's it.  Eventually you just stop sharing your ideas because you hate getting kicked. 

 

I like how at every organization where I have experienced that, it's never "okay interesting idea let's mold that and see if we can get something everyone likes; let's actually "talk", "communicate", "brainstorm", 'pretend' we actually like each other and care about opinions, and are similar minded (or at least share similarities with hobbies or values); it's usually just "No that's a bad idea we don't need that, we're not doing it".  Even without fully understanding or comprehending someone's viewpoint.  - but maybe that's just "me!"  I certainly recognize I am different, I don't always fit in, I rub people the wrong way, so on and so forth, so many flaws... but it sucks when you're trying to contribute and make something better and you're just not worthy of the time of day.  The "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality... I think we'd still be in caves with fires if that adage were true (but who doesn't like fire!).  I just think some things can always be improved; even (especially) the BEST things I have EVER done.  If I were to just stop and think, that's good enough, no reason to improve; well, I think life would be over, there would be no purpose to move on, because my life is constantly an improvement to do better, that's ALL I know. 

 

I might even get banned for this.  🤭  Jeez, some contribution, that turned into a rant; I'm extremely sorry.  But anyways, I should go hide in my corner now.

 

P.S.  I think VATSIM is Fantastic! and Fabulous!  I have only "met" excellent people on here and I am honoured to be a part of it.  But I personally think things can/ should change, to suite me more.  I also think some of my ideas, I am not alone with.  But alas; be grateful for what you have I guess.  Again, LOVE VATSIM, but nothing in this infinity is perfect (well, except women).

[Ryan Renz]

14 hours ago, Alistair Thomson said:

I wasn't actually advocating it! 🙂 Just pointing out that there seems to be a unilaterality in the frequent requests that ATC ought to make, and stick to, advance bookings wherever possible.

Haha Alistair, I remember your signature, glad you haven't changed it.  It's nice to recognize someone from the original ranks!  Not sure where everyone else is hiding but you're the first name I recognize, glad you're still here!  Contributing to the forums as usual. 

[Robert Shearman Jr]

13 hours ago, Ryan Renz said:

it's usually just "No that's a bad idea we don't need that, we're not doing it".  Even without fully understanding or comprehending someone's viewpoint.

It's more like the idea that new people come in with what they believe is a new idea, where the more experienced people on the network can respond and say that it's not new, it's been tried before, and why it did or didn't work.  There's nothing wrong with wanting to innovate and try new things, but, be willing to listen to experience instead of blindly repeating history over and over.  Communication is a two-way street.  As much as the old birds around here need to be willing to listen to new ideas, the young hatchlings need to be willing to listen to the widsom of experience and history.

[Ryan Renz]

That quote was of my specific experiences in the past with other organizations; although I liken that to experiences with VATSIM; it was meant as a catch all explanation (my view of how the politics work).

 

You're point is valid, I concede that often ideas are rehashed (such as this topic) and it gets old because it's failed in the past.  However that shouldn't limit the 'forward progress' of examining why it failed, and perhaps if those failures can be corrected.  Additionally, it certainly does not apply to some of my specific experiences with VATSIM, because at least one of my ideas was never tried, cut off at the legs before even given a chance.  I'm not a genius, but I do believe I am correct in thinking the Boeing 73 was not the very first aircraft ever invented.  And it wasn't just a brief period working out the bugs of air travel.  Every few years manufacturers release newer/updated models (cellphones and technology is almost annual); not even because of problems; often because of financial greed; but definitely (because they believe) improvements can be made.

 

I don't know about you, but I think lots of stuff from the past is pretty good; good enough to not need replacing.  However there are lots of cool new things as well.  I mean look at King Airs, and Mooneys, and fighter jets, and well, so much cool stuff.  Lots of failures too. 

 

Although, I do not recall any specific "controller schedule board"; nor one for pilots.  I guess it might have failed because either no one bothered to use it, or people complained when others didn't follow their (self) schedule.  Who knows, I've never seen any explanation.  But I entertain the idea of exploring this and other ideas. hm.

 

But it is difficult to "listen to wisdom and history" if there is no documentation and no explanation.  Perhaps if everyone is tired of repeats, stickies should be posted with details of ideas in the past and what went wrong, then new comers could do the research and learn.  Like I say "this has been talked about before, done before"; isn't actually helpful.  (and I'm not calling anyone out; just stating a fact)

 

So I get it, being asked the same question over and over by new people is not ideal, quite frustrating and annoying; however imagine taking your vehicle to a mechanic and asking some mundane question they get a million times like "why...", but because they're tired of explaining you're given a simple answer of "because". 🤔

 

It's not constructive on a forum to not educate, or contribute.  Whether right or wrong, popular, isolated, or indifferent; a community only works if the majority work together. 

 

To me, decades of rehash spells out an obvious lack.  Ignoring things doesn't make them get better, or go away.  However, perhaps it's best if people of similar ideas got together and worked through these details and then collectively brought them up.  (palm to forehead!) Yeah... like an organization within an organization... how many organizations and political divisions do we need! 😅

 

Hay, if I new the answers... (shrugs) things would be different. 

 

Anyway, I guess my point is... I have never seen in depth discussion regarding any of the views and ideas I have (with regards to VATSIM, OR other organizations).  So perhaps they just happen behind closed doors when I am not invited?!  I guess that leads to my second point which is; I absolutely hate being treated like a mushroom!  It happens often and my tolerance has worn thin.  I stand up for people's rights, my own and especially others.  It just really bugs me when you're purposely being held back.  It shouldn't bother anyone if I want to waste my time and spin around in circles getting nowhere; it's frustrating if no one contributes and all you get are crickets; but it's actually worse to have doors slammed in your face. 

 

Well, I should hush up.  (I don't know if I ever make sense on forums... but in my head it seems to)

[Ryan Renz]

Actually not correct... I don't know why I only thought of this now, but Pilots file flight plans.  Even as VFR, I'm not sure the official policy,  but pilots are strongly suggested to file VFR flight plans.  I have flown a few vfr flights on VATSIM over the years in which I did not file a flight plan, and atc always hassles me for details about my flight.  IFR is understandably mandatory.  So if controllers wanted to see when and where pilots are flying they could look at the flight plans, and then think "Right on, I have some aircraft coming to my airport, I can log on at this time and do what I do".

 

They're is no facility like this for pilots, with regards to atc.

[Andrew Crowley]

On 4/11/2022 at 5:48 PM, Alistair Thomson said:

Wouldn't it be great if all pilots completed a form which provides data to VATSIM about their intended time (and location) for flying? Naturally, events will occur which might limit the pilots' ability to adhere to their planned schedule, but probably for the most part those planned schedules can be adhered to....

Don't we call that a flight plan? 

That sounds snarky and I don't really mean it to, it's just an honest observation.  Controllers DO have a tool to use, to figure out which pilots will be flying where, and for how long, right? 

From a pilot perspective, it WOULD be nice for us to have a similar tool to figure out what a controller's plan is, right? 

[Ryan Renz]

Imagine a system where neither controller nor pilot would have to sit online empty.  ATC post availability, pilots file flight plans; and then they all log on and fly together as intended. 

 

For example: Someone running ATC can post their potential availability, say Saturday between 10:00-16:00.  Then they don't log on, but they keep track of any activity.  If they get busy, no worries life continues as normal, if no one flys their airspace, they aren't wasting their time looking at a blank scope.

Now Saturday is coming up and I feel like taking a flight, I see there is going to be ATC in an area I fly so I take that into account for my flying and file a flight plan.  Now other pilots and other ATC can see that there one ATC "scheduled" and one flight "scheduled".

 

There is then a very real possibility that more people will join. 

 

Another scenario: Let's say one controller likes to log on during "night shift". If I'm not flying then I have no clue that controller is on.  But if the controller lists availability Tuesday through Thursday from 20:00 through 04:00 then I would be inclined to schedule some flights during those times.

 

Most of us have some sort of schedule, or routine.  But it is literally impossible to know just what that is if I don't actually know you or communicate with you.  That's what I envision.  Is a way of putting all of that together so that we can all make use of it. 

 

I can say: "GA Pilot flying N.A., available Friday, Saturday Sunday 00:00 through 22:00 most weeks".  Controllers can contact me and say "Hay I run such n such ATC at this airport and plan to control Friday 17:00, why not come make a flight this way?".

 

I mean all it takes are little steps.  Perhaps this would be a scheduling nightmare if it actually caught on.  However I also think it would increase the value added density to everyone's online time.  The closest thing we have to this are events, globally they happen continuously; however on a local scale they are few and far between.  I would be happy with having a busy online flying session once or twice a week... not one every month or two.

 

Events take a lot of work (I can imagine) to operate.  This type of a system would alleviate a lot of that burden by individuals collectively organizing events - within their own flexibility of availability, schedule, and motivation. 

 

I see it as win win, (freedom) not a controlling mandate with penalties. 

[Andrew Crowley]

I like the idea, but it goes even farther than what I was suggesting.  All I'd really like is for more controllers to post their expected "online until" times. I mean, it's no kind of mandate - just like when vatsim pilots file flight plans. We all know that things will sometimes come up and a pilot will have to disconnect before finishing their vatsim flight. It happens. 

But more often than not, the flight plan is a useful way for controllers to tell what a pilot plans to do.  It would be nice for pilots to have an equally usable way to gauge a controller's plan.  Not days or hours in advance or anything, but when they actually log on - just like when pilots file a flight plan. 

Edited April 18, 2022 at 01:30 AM by Andrew Crowley