A perturbing incident

[Jim Davey]

I have to chuckle at the original post (and follow up whining).

Reroutes are a fact of real world aviation.

Example from yesterday, IFR from ILG to FDK. Filed routing was direct DQO (Dupont, on the field) V166 EMI, direct (EMI transition on the FDK ILS 23 approach).

Clearance received on the ground holding short ready to go (mind you, I had a 5 second "Prepare to copy")

"Skyhawk xxxx, hold short runway 1 at taxiway ALPHA. Cleared to FDK, on departure turn left 330 vectors to V166 to BELAY, V378 to Baltimore (BAL), direct Frederick (FDK) maintain 2000, expect 6000 in 1-0 minutes, departure frequency xxx.xx, squawk xxxx"

This is after I had received a different (as filed) clearance 5 minutes prior, with different frequencies and codes, and had it all programed into the GPS (gotta love the route flipping features!) with my original route which would have kept me out of the DC cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B airspace...

So, now I have an additional 30 miles to fly, even though going to BAL is taking me out of my way, going straight into the DC cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B.

Takeoff, climb to 2000, wait for PHL traffic to clear so we can go higher, then "Skyhawk xxxx, climb and maintain 6000, proceed direct Frederick"....

Reroutes are a wonderful thing... and I do think they figure out the most inconvenient routing

[Stephen Keskitalo 977981]

So many are missing the point.

 

Unlike the real-world, a VATSIM LoA is a guaranteed reroute when using a real-world flight plan. I agree that reroutes are realistic, but not when they always preclude the use of a real-world flight plan. In the real-world, if I file the flight plan that I showed in my first post, I'll be able to fly it without being rerouted at least some of the time. On VATSIM, there are no exceptions for this realism, and therein was my complaint.

 

What it comes down to is, who will have to sacrifice realism, the pilot or controller. It seems that there can be no exceptions made to allow for realistic flight plans which conflict with unrealistic, out-of-date LoA's.

 

The issue is resolved, it's beyond the capabilities of VATSIM to allow realistic flight plans because of LoA's. Nothing can be done about it, so just let this thread die.

[Ian Elchitz 810151]

I've always considered that the preferred traffic flows, standard routes, and LoA's on Vatsim as well as the standard procedures that are followed in their own style within each facility on Vatsim helps to enhance the reality of the system - by in a sense creating OUR OWN REALITY.

 

Perhaps in the real world a certain procedure is handled a certain way, yet on Vatsim a facility handles that a different way - consistently. In my opinion - this creates our own reality. This is how they do it real world - this is how we do it on Vatsim.

 

An example perhaps: At ZLA (virtual) we handle all of our Ventura departures on the San Marcus transition (VTU5.RZS) the same way. Aircraft stay on runway heading and are climbed to 13k - handed off to center who then turns them on course - usually direct RZS. We skip VTU completely even though it is depicted on the chart (there are exceptions for props and altitude but that's a side note).

 

I have no clue if this is how they do it in the real world. This is simply the way that WE (virtual ZLA) do it - and have done it for at least the past 7 years. Anyone who controls or flies in ZLA and has done that procedure knows that's how it goes. At this point - it no longer matters how it's done in the real world, because this is how we do it in OUR REALITY - and thus we have created our own reality.

 

So, I'm not really all that concerned about what route so and so filed on Flightaware or what re routes occur in the real world - we'll do our best to accomodate your wishes while at the same time keeping the traffic flowing safely and expiditiously based on the LoA's which are OUR realities - and thus yours too.

 

If you want true reality then you know what to do.

[Jim Davey]

Agreed Ian.

Stephen, the problem with looking up these "real" flight plans is:

A) They're not the actual route flown probably 50% or more of the time

B) VATSIM has worked out ways to make the system work with the limited staffing that are available.

You want realistic? Spend your $79 for your intro flight and take it from there...

Otherwise, stop whining and just accept the fact that occasionally it's not all about you, it's about what works with the resources available.

[Gerry Hattendorf 935415]

Okay, from RW experience, consider this.

 

If you request an IFR clearance, 90% of the time you will get a clearance that follows established departure procedures, and standard departure gates, even if you wanted 'direct'. The reason, NORDO (lost comms). If you study a SID some have lost comm procedures to fly to some fix thence via..

 

What's happening here is the controller is covering all bases, in case you can''t communicate with ATC, as at least me know since the last transmission you acknowledged a "lost comm" route, and ATC would work traffic around you.

 

Just like real world, after you have established contact with ATC, unless traffic is a factor (which is only known by some Tracons or Center), they will offer you "direct to..." to help you.

 

So don't get upset if your "direct KLAX-KBOS" is amended by local controllers, were just doing our job, and also giving you a backup plan if you did go NORDO.

[Jim Guyett 922733]

So many are missing the point.

 

Unlike the real-world, a VATSIM LoA is a guaranteed reroute when using a real-world flight plan. I agree that reroutes are realistic, but not when they always preclude the use of a real-world flight plan. In the real-world, if I file the flight plan that I showed in my first post, I'll be able to fly it without being rerouted at least some of the time. On VATSIM, there are no exceptions for this realism, and therein was my complaint.

 

What it comes down to is, who will have to sacrifice realism, the pilot or controller. It seems that there can be no exceptions made to allow for realistic flight plans which conflict with unrealistic, out-of-date LoA's.

 

The issue is resolved, it's beyond the capabilities of VATSIM to allow realistic flight plans because of LoA's. Nothing can be done about it, so just let this thread die.

 

The problem is, you are missing the point. You are so determined that what you see on flightaware is the gospel of flight routing. It is not, what people have tried to explain to you, but you have ignored, is that those routes are hardly ever flown in the real world. I have to wonder if you fly in the real world at all, and if you do, do you tell the controller on receiving an amendment that you are correct, not them, because you saw it on flightaware? Followed by informing the controller that you will be contacting the FAA with your complaint about their non-compliance with real world flight routing filed by pilots on flightaware?

[James David Perry 975084]

So many are missing the point.

 

Unlike the real-world, a VATSIM LoA is a guaranteed reroute when using a real-world flight plan. I agree that reroutes are realistic, but not when they always preclude the use of a real-world flight plan. In the real-world, if I file the flight plan that I showed in my first post, I'll be able to fly it without being rerouted at least some of the time. On VATSIM, there are no exceptions for this realism, and therein was my complaint.

 

What it comes down to is, who will have to sacrifice realism, the pilot or controller. It seems that there can be no exceptions made to allow for realistic flight plans which conflict with unrealistic, out-of-date LoA's.

 

The issue is resolved, it's beyond the capabilities of VATSIM to allow realistic flight plans because of LoA's. Nothing can be done about it, so just let this thread die.

 

The problem is, you are missing the point. You are so determined that what you see on flightaware is the gospel of flight routing. It is not, what people have tried to explain to you, but you have ignored, is that those routes are hardly ever flown in the real world. I have to wonder if you fly in the real world at all, and if you do, do you tell the controller on receiving an amendment that you are correct, not them, because you saw it on flightaware? Followed by informing the controller that you will be contacting the FAA with your complaint about their non-compliance with real world flight routing filed by pilots on flightaware?

 

I don't think he ever mentioned about him flying in the real world...

[Stephen Keskitalo 977981]

My first post was on the wrong track, and I didn't know as much about the difficulties of rewriting LoA's when I first posted. But, if you read my subsequent posts, you should have seen the point I was trying to make, which I will restate, below.

 

I'll go through this point by point in the hopes that this will finally be laid to rest.

 

1) Flight-aware is what has been filed by IFR aircraft in the real-world.

 

2) Filed-flights are quite often modified.

 

3) Filed flights are flown "unmodified at least some of the time." If this wasn't true, then pilots or airline dispatch would not continue to file these plans, since being rerouted takes up time.

 

So, I was only asking that I be allowed to fly the real-world IFR at least some of the time, as opposed to always being rerouted by a controller based on an LoA.

 

It doesn't matter anyway, because if I want to fly the route that badly, I can just wait for the controllers to leave. This way, everyone's happy. So, please, just drop leave this alone.

[Ernie Alston 812154]

So, I was only asking that I be allowed to fly the real-world IFR at least some of the time, as opposed to always being rerouted by a controller based on an LoA.

It doesn't matter anyway, because if I want to fly the route that badly, I can just wait for the controllers to leave. This way, everyone's happy. So, please, just drop leave this alone.

 

Hmmm seems to conflict the intention of being on vatsim if you're waiting for controllers to leave before flying.

 

But you do make a good point, LoA or not a good portion of flights on vatsim will depart without ATC clearance wit their filed route just due to the lack of available staffing.

 

I do think when you look down in an entire FIR/ARTCC and see only 2 planes, this insistence on observing LoA's over approving a so-called non-standard route is just being plain in-flexible.

 

Regards.

Ernie Alston.

Albuquerque ARTCC

Vatsim Supervisor.

[Stephen Keskitalo 977981]

Hmmm seems to conflict the intention of being on vatsim if you're waiting for controllers to leave before flying.

Not really, it's the virtual air traffic simulation network, after all. Nothing about controllers or ATC in the title.

 

I do think when you look down in an entire FIR/ARTCC and see only 2 planes, this insistence on observing LoA's over approving a so-called non-standard route is just being plain in-flexible.

And yeah, I was the only aircraft flying that route at the time (and I think the only one inbound to that destination at the time too). I could understand having to fly according to an LoA with a few more planes inbound to that destination, but if controllers can't be flexible, that's okay with me. They can't stay logged in forever.

 

Anyway, let's just leave this alone now. The whole situation leaves me with a bad taste and I really regret my initial post, which I admittedly worded poorly and I realize that I brought most of the hostility on myself. But yeah, this is settled, if I absolutely must fly my route, I'll just wait for them to leave.

Edited August 9, 2007 at 02:58 AM by Guest

[Jim Guyett 922733]

And yeah, I was the only aircraft flying that route at the time (and I think the only one inbound to that destination at the time too). I could understand having to fly according to an LoA with a few more planes inbound to that destination, but if controllers can't be flexible, that's okay with me. They can't stay logged in forever.

 

Anyway, let's just leave this alone now. The whole situation leaves me with a bad taste and I really my initial post, which I admittedly worded poorly and I realize that I brought most of the hostility on myself. But yeah, this is settled, if I absolutely must fly my route, I'll just wait for them to leave.

 

Who is being inflexible and unrealistic here? The controller for following the policy of the ARTCC or you stomping your feet saying I will just pack my plane up and stay home if they won't let me fly the way I want to? It has been explained to you how flight plans are constantly changed in the real world, sometimes to accommodate the pilot, sometimes to accommodate traffic flow, weather, the controller, whatever, but the fact remains it is the controllers airspace. If you want to fly where you like go VFR and stay out of controlled airspace. It’s a shame that a controller gets beaten up because he followed the procedures set forth by his ARTCC and the other ARTCC's involved in the LOA.

[Dan Everette]

Hmmm seems to conflict the intention of being on vatsim if you're waiting for controllers to leave before flying.

Not really, it's the virtual air traffic simulation network, after all. Nothing about controllers or ATC in the title.

 

Stephen,

 

If you just want to fly what you want, when you want, where you want with no regards to real world procedures that are being simulated by Air Traffic Control, why are you on this network? Just ramp your AI Traffic up, and use MSFS ATC. All you'll have to do is speak your reply out loud to yourself while pushing the particular number on the keyboard as you respond to "ATC". That should fit the bill as to what it seems you are looking for.

[Anthony Atkielski 985811]

If you're flexible about altitude, you can just file VFR and fly the same route. With the exception of a few areas of controlled airspace, this lets you fly any route you want, no matter what pretend LoAs ATC is slavishly observing.

 

And I worry about the notion of "our own reality." I don't want a contrived reality that is the product of someone's imagination. I want something that emulates real life. That's why ti's called simulation, and not fantasy.

[Mark McCoy 823112]

I'm in agreement with the majority here. Other controllers and ATMs have posted the reasons why VATSIM isn't able to simulate every little nook and cranny of flying online within the scope of realism as it pertains to new procedures, etc.

 

Stephen, you sound like a great guy with a fair amount of knowledge and experience to offer the network as a pilot, but I am leaning towards the consensus that an attitude adjustment is probably the best course of action before any others are taken. That said, I challenge you to follow the advice of David Klain (page 1 of this thread) and join the network on a volunteer basis of some sort, and work to help change things from the inside out. If you feel as strongly about this as your posts indicate, it would seem the best and most proper way to effect that change, even on a microcosmic scale. If I had a nickel for every time I've heard a person rant about something they had no physical desire to help change, I'd be R. Abromovich by now.

[Stephen Keskitalo 977981]

Can we lock this yet? This issue is resolved.

 

You guys continue to reiterate that you agree with everyone else, that's great. But I've already stated that, unlike when I first posted, I now understand the limitations of VATSIM and I've declared what actions I'll take. What you continue to reiterate will have no further effect on me. My mind is resolved on this matter.

 

I have no interest in being a controller. I explored that option and it bores me. Please stop suggesting that route. As I've already said, there is no amount of volunteerism on my part that will resolve this specific issue.

 

I will not stay and listen to you people demand that I be flexible, when you ([Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming that most of you are controllers) aren't willing to do the same. It's hypocrisy to tell me to be flexible, when you won't allow even the tiniest flexibility or exceptions when it comes to routing.

 

I will, and do, accept reroutes at least 90% of the time, probably more. But if I feel that my route is more realistic and that the controller is being too rigid in adherence to an LoA (such as during a period of very low traffic), then I'll fly my route when the controller leaves. I could just choose to never accept a reroute, and wait for the controller to leave in all cases, but I don't and won't do this, because I am flexible. I'm not the infelxible villain that some of you are trying to paint me as. If you reread my first post, you'll see that I did accept the reroute, but in future situations, under the same circomestances, I won't.

 

I cannot understand why some of you continue to keep this thread alive over an issue that is not going to change based on what you post here. Go ahead and post if thats what you insist on doing, but I will do as I will, regardless.

 

Oh, before I go, I'll respond to some of you. Especially those who are flinging baseless accusations.

If you want to fly where you like... stay out of controlled airspace.

And that's what I said I'd do in such a situation where I wanted to fly without being rerouted, admittedly not in those exact words, but close enough.

 

It’s a shame that a controller gets beaten up because he followed the procedures set forth by his ARTCC and the other ARTCC's involved in the LOA.

Please tell me where I have "beaten up" any controller. If you look at my past posts, I have not been hostile to any specific controller. Keep your baseless accusations to yourself, please.

[Mark McCoy 823112]

Wow, I can't even begin to break that reply down. You really need an attitude adjustment, Steve. Lets not forget that these "hypocrites" have spent countless thousands of hours training to be the best they can be, sitting at the scopes and keeping the iron apart -- both experienced and greenhorn -- often with little traffic to speak of while the pilots get to have all the fun just so people like you and I can fly with the full realism of ATC.

 

Oh right, and it's 110% volunteer. But of course, go ahead and point fingers and stomp your feet. After all, it makes perfect sense to tear these poor fellows apart because you didn't get your way.

[Stephen Keskitalo 977981]

Wow, I can't even begin to break that reply down. You really need an attitude adjustment, Steve.

The only thing wrong with my attitude is that I'm sick of folks like you dragging this out unnecessarily.

 

Lets not forget that these "hypocrites" have spent countless thousands of hours training to be the best they can be, sitting at the scopes and keeping the iron apart -- both experienced and greenhorn -- often with little traffic to speak of while the pilots get to have all the fun just so people like you and I can fly with the full realism of ATC.

 

You're not even focusing on the issue! The experience level and hours that controllers have has no relation to this discussion.

 

I'm no longer demanding "full realism" like I was in my first post. I only demand a compromise once in awhile. Such as during low traffic periods. If exceptions to LoA's can't be made in such situations, then I won't fly with ATC. It's as simple as that. Stop convoluting this issue.

 

But of course, go ahead and point fingers and stomp your feet. After all, it makes perfect sense to tear these poor fellows apart because you didn't get your way.

Who am I pointing my finger at? Stop this nonsense. Just another baseless accusation and deflection from the issue.

 

I'm no longer demanding "full realism" like I was in my first post. I only demand a compromise once in awhile. Such as during low traffic periods. If exceptions to LoA's can't be made in such situations, then I won't fly with ATC. It's as simple as that. Stop convoluting this issue.

 

I'm not stomping my feet, I'm drawing a line in the sand. And you're not even reading what I'm saying so there's no point to this.

 

 

Someone please lock this thread.

Edited August 9, 2007 at 05:03 AM by Guest

[Mark McCoy 823112]

You win. This definitely has ceased to be a productive discussion.

 

In the future, don't post a topic and expect people to simply "see your way" and then throw a tantrum when they don't. It's a FORUM, Steve.

[Stephen Keskitalo 977981]

You win. This definitely has ceased to be a productive discussion.

 

In the future, don't post a topic and expect people to simply "see your way" and then throw a tantrum when they don't. It's a FORUM, Steve.

I agree my original post was wrong-minded, but all of my subsequent posts have been focused. I'm not throwing a tantrum. I'm making my intentions known. I'm telling you how I feel about this issue, and people like you are talking about things which don't even relate to that issue.

 

I will think more carefully before I make new threads. But you have to understand that I was not fully informed about the complications of crafting LoA's when I first posted. If I had been aware of the difficulty of resolving conflicts between LoA's and real-world flight plans prior to posting, my original post would have been worded much differently.

 

I admit that my first post was wrong, but it is also wrong for you people to only focus on that and fail to see how my position changed in my subsequent posts.

 

Do you understand my frustration at this point?

[Mark McCoy 823112]

Nope, I'm afraid I don't. This isn't your personal blog, Steve. The attitude of your replies speaks louder than the core of the words written. As the old wise man once said, "you win more flies with honey than vinegar."

[Stephen Keskitalo 977981]

Nope, I'm afraid I don't. This isn't your personal blog, Steve. The attitude of your replies speaks louder than the core of the words written. As the old wise man once said, "you win more flies with honey than vinegar."

Congratulations Captain Obvious. Your keen powers of perception have lead you to the conclusion that a forum thread is, in fact, not a personal blog. If you believe that I think this is anything other than a forum thread, then that's your problem, not mine. Also, I prefer to be addressed as Stephen, but if you won't grant me that courtesy, then I shall continue to refer to you as Captain Obvious, champion of the apparent.

 

Don't place yourself above me. Your replies and those of a few others have been just as belligerent as, if not more so than, mine have been. You and your hollow adages are not valuable contributions to this discussion.

 

If you insist on continuing this conflict, I think that we should continue it with DCRM, and not in this thread.

 

Oh, and before anyone starts quoting the CoC "Members should, at all times, be courteous and respectful to one another," allow me to cite a few examples of those who have broken this rule against me.

I have to chuckle at the original post (and follow up whining).

Otherwise, stop whining

Jim Davey, even if you perceived me as "whining" it was neither courteous nor respectful for you to declare this. You offended me. I should have said so earlier, but didn't catch it as I've only skimmed through some of the postings, including yours.

 

You win. This definitely has ceased to be a productive discussion.

 

In the future, don't post a topic and expect people to simply "see your way" and then throw a tantrum when they don't.

Again, even though you may perceive my behavior as childish, it was discourteous for you to declare that I threw a tantrum. I personally believe that I kept my behavior in check until you provoked me, Sir Marcus.

 

Truly, two wrongs don't make a right, but everyone has limits to their patience and I'm quite a bit past mine.

 

I hope this thread is locked soon.

[Norman Blackburn]

I hope this thread is locked soon.

 

Granted.