where does the traffic go?

[Dustin Robbins 887494]

Just to throw this out here... but it doesn't help when VA's get shut down that have a major hub in your airspace [e.g. Northwest, FedEx]. We saw much more traffic from these guys when they were still an entity and not individual guys who decide to do a NW leg. I am aware that virtual NW does exist to some extent, but traffic did take a big hit when these guys went down. Memphis without NW and FedEx = ghost town.

[Anthony Atkielski 985811]

There does seem to be a widespread worship of airlines on VATSIM. I'm not sure why. Real-life airline pilots have to fight off drowsiness or read magazines on many flights simply because most of the flight is flown by computer. A three-minute take-off followed by four hours with the FMC in control followed by a ten-minute landing doesn't sound like much fun to me. When I fly big iron, I tend not to fly anything longer than an hour or so, even in a 747-400 (terribly expensive to operate, but money is not a problem in the virtual realm).

 

I do fly GA a lot, in my precious Baron 58, mainly. I often fly very short flights. LAX to VNY is fun for me, even though it's barely fifteen minutes. It's realistic, too, as GA aircraft rarely fly transcontinental routes (or anything longer than the "bladder interval"). I also fly VFR a lot in GA aircraft. Sometimes it's IFR in low visiblity, sometimes IFR in clear weather, sometimes VFR but with careful navigation by navaids, sometimes casual VFR just looking out the window. Sometimes it's autopilot, sometimes it's hand-flown (especially if the flight is very short). It's all fun. I don't know why so few people are interested in flying small aircraft, at least occasionally. I'm sure that most VATSIM members, like me, have a full fleet of aircraft to choose from, from Jumbo Jets to Piper Cubs.

 

GA aircraft also make very short flights practical. That is, you can spend half an hour or an hour flying and stay with the same ARTCC, so if you have one person online as center, you're covered for the flight (and he has more to do instead of just having you for two minutes before handing you off to the void).

 

Flying VFR gives you lots of flexibility, and you can still interact with ATC. You don't need your route worked out in advance, you just need a general plan and a chart. You can do Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B transitions and flight following, and you can talk to ATC at towered airports.

 

I think one problem is that there's a lot of overhead surrounding a flight, at least if you're doing it like real life. If you have some routes already set up, you might be ready to taxi in a few minutes. If you don't have a route for where you want to go, it might take 30-40 minutes to work one out ... and this is true even for VFR, at least if you want to plan your VFR flight safely. If you take too long to get ready, that one controller you saw online might disappear by the time you call for clearance or taxi. And if you want to fly in an unfamiliar area, you might spend an hour choosing and planning a route, and looking at charts to get familiar with the area before venturing into it. An hour is a long time for ATC except in really busy areas, it seems.

 

The solution for many pilots, I suspect (including myself), is to fly in familiar areas over and over. If you know an area well, there are zillions of little flights that you can plan and execute, especially as a GA pilot. You have the routes, you can be ready to go quickly, and you don't need a lot of ATC online because you may stay with the same Center for the whole trip. I have many dozens of routes set up in flight plans and as GPS plans, all set to fly; and many of them can e modified in a few minutes for different departures and destinations with similar routing. This very strongly encourages a pilot to fly in the same area over and over again. And this is pretty realistic, too, as real pilots tend to do the same thing--they certainly don't move from Juneau to London from one flight to the next.

 

I don't think that looking things up to see which ATC positions are staffed is a solution. It should be more like having certain popular regions staffed as often as possible, so that a pilot has a good chance of finding some ATC in a particular place at a particular time. Rather like real life, where you pick up the microphone and somebody always answers.

 

As for isolated airports having special ATC to encourage diversity, that's fine, but you need a lot of ATC for that. The reason you have a controller there for three hours with only a flight or two is that the controller only talks to a flight for two minutes or so at take-off or landing (if it's airport control), whereas the pilot has to plan the flight, take-off, fly it, land, etc. So the pilot might be online for an hour or more and yet the controller will only get a few minutes of interaction out of that flight. Here again, if there were more GA, with pilots staying in the local region, you could have more traffic. When you have lots of GA pilots flying short hops in the same ARTCC, a single pilot can provide vastly more traffic for a given controller, and the overall traffic density rises greatly. When I'm flying a GA aircraft, I can make half a dozen flights in two or three hours and be under the same Approach or Center the whole time, so I get lots of flights, take-offs, landings, and so on, and the controllers in the area get lots of traffic from me (and whoever else is doing the same thing). Of course, if everyone wants to fly 767s from San Francisco to New York, this doesn't work.

 

Come to think of it, maybe getting more traffic and more ATC is very closely linked to promoting more general aviation instead of airlines. In the real world, there are a lot of little planes out there.

[Ernie Alston 812154]

Theres a fair amount of pilots out there who prefer either the default FS9 ATC or an ATC add-on like Radar Contact

over Vatsim. One would think most would prefer real people providing realistic ATC services over something

computer generated. But those pilots know they will get ATC services from these programs, on Vatsim getting

ATC service is basically a [Mod - lovely stuff]shoot so many of them just avoid it.

 

In some ways I think these ATC generating programs are bigger competitors to us than the other online ATC services.

 

The ironic thing is, as far as destinations are concerned, it kind of does parallel the real world.

If you think about it, There are more real world aircraft operations per day on average at LAX and LAS than

IAH, MEM, and SEA. LAX has 1781, LAS at 1696, IAH at 1650, MEM has 1076, and SEA has 931.

 

You're right Brad, in real life just as on Vatsim the popular destinations tend to have the higher traffic

numbers. I think however Corey is right that the traffic on Vatsim is very disproportionate. On your list MEM

is getting about 60% the flights LAX is getting. On Vatsim these days I'd say the MEM/LAX ratio is maybe

closer to 5%.

 

Really staffing on Vatsim it comes down to Controllers having planes to work, and we have a few areas where the CTR

controller can staff for say 4 hours and work less than one airport movement per hour. Very few controllers will

continue to staff a position regularly with such a low amount of traffic.

 

Just to throw this out here... but it doesn't help when VA's get shut down that have a major hub in your

airspace [e.g. Northwest, FedEx]. We saw much more traffic from these guys when they were still an entity

and not individual guys who decide to do a NW leg. I am aware that virtual NW does exist to some extent,

but traffic did take a big hit when these guys went down. Memphis without NW and FedEx = ghost town.

 

I definitely agree, I think every ARTCC should have at least one active Virtual Airline that calls that

ARTCC its home.

 

The people who create Virtual Airlines don't take this into consideration at all when they designate their hubs.

So usually when a new VA is started based in the US they seem to always put their main hubs in the same 3 or

4 locations. Leaving several ARTCC's with almost no regular Virtual Airline activity within their boundaries.

 

The case regarding Northwest can be also made for ZMP, ZMP is not very active without a Northwest VA making

regular flights to its KMSP hub.

 

Regards.

Ernie Alston

Albuquerque ARTCC

Vatsim Supervisor.

[Nicholas Bartolotta 912967]

Just thought I would add my two cents from the "northern" ARTCC...

 

Initially starting off at Anchorage, I was pleasantly surprised to find how the traffic situation was up there. When you think of ZAN, I know at least I used to think of a silent frequency, with a target transitioning on an afternoon trans-pacific flight with only several exchanges in a four-hour period.

 

However, my first time on the scope, I encountered something totally unexpected...a lot more traffic then I had bet on! The traffic varried from pilots in their Piper Cub's bush flying around the glaciers, to heavy cargo 747's preparing for overnight hauls to Asia. Over the months now, I've spoken a lot to pilots about why they choose to fly up in Anchorage, and the overwhelming response has been, "it's so much fun to fly here, but we don't come up much because there is never ATC!"

 

I'll look on ServInfo before signing on and see no one is flying though. But in under 30 minutes of me signing on, I easily will have 4-5 aircraft, flying diverse flights as I described above. That might not sound like a lot of aircraft, but when every one is flying into a different airport, and half of them are into airports you never even knew where in Alaska...it keeps you busy! The airports they're flying into aren't major ones, even Anchorage doesn't stack up (with the exception of cargo flights, Anchorage is the #3 busiest cargo airport in the world), but the vast majority of the pilots say they would fly in Anchorage a lot more if there was only more ATC coverage.

 

My point is, in Anchorage's case, "if you staff it, they will come" really brings on a new meaning.

[Anthony Atkielski 985811]

I find it interesting that some ARTCCs have traffic even when there are no controllers online. This implies that something else attracts pilots to certain areas beyond the availability of controllers.

 

Maybe it's also matter of being where the other pilots are. There's no much point to flying in an area where there are no aircraft and no controllers. And if there is a choice between an area with one tower staffed but no other aircraft, and an area with no ATC but twenty other aircraft, perhaps pilots tend to choose the latter.

[Brad Littlejohn]

I find it interesting that some ARTCCs have traffic even when there are no controllers online. This implies that something else attracts pilots to certain areas beyond the availability of controllers.

 

A good point. A good place to start with this is to ask the pilots and VAs what draws them to fly to where they fly, and why. Then, following that, ask them if they would opt for another field, such as , should there be ATC available, and if ATC weren't available, and why.

 

Pilot survey, perhaps?

 

Maybe it's also matter of being where the other pilots are. There's no much point to flying in an area where there are no aircraft and no controllers. And if there is a choice between an area with one tower staffed but no other aircraft, and an area with no ATC but twenty other aircraft, perhaps pilots tend to choose the latter.

 

Another good point, which means there has to be some amenity that a given field in a given sector offers that another given field in either the same or another sector doesn't, such as proximity to another field, dangerous approach, etc. Once again, a good thing to ask pilots/VAs, to get their input. From there, we could start to figure out what they like, and what we can do to entice pilots to fly to somewhere else outside their comfort zone.

 

BL.

[Blake Gray 841141]

Does it have to do with how ATC act towards pilots? Some pilots like me dont have the time to brush up and seem to get on at spur of the moments; hopefully with my VA restarting I can change that and have a regular schedule like I did in the midwest; I flew often around KMSP; the staff there were very amiable, helpful, and courteous; this was a couple years ago.

 

Atlanta always seem to give me problems, especially with the runway changes awhile back; but the controllers there were running a tight ship; too tight for my tastes. I live in Maine and only have limited time to fly in the day so I fly missions in the midwest and to the west coast. I had trained ATC with a few ARTCC and some werent so amiable and helpful; when I did succeed for the little time I was there it helped me as a pilot; ALOT!

 

I havnt been around here for awhile and hope to fly again so I have to start from scratch learning who the best ATC controllers are so I can learn BUT have fun doing so. ATC is the backbone here and if there were a basic ATC program for pilots that would be kool and help traffic flow maybe?

 

Mr Gray, CEO-WAE

[Alex Ferrari 887554]

Your're right Keith, but its no accident the ARTCC's with the most popular destinations tend to

have some of the largest rosters. .

 

That also backfires though. I have prior ATC experience with other networks and have been unable to get into Delivery even for about 2 weeks.

 

I'll gladly control ZME, ZOB, ZJX or any other "less attractive destination" if given the chance. A slightly faster promotion process would benefit several ARTCCs I beleive as taking exams and waiting for clearance tends to be a major factor in controllers losing interest and going somewhere else, continue flying only or getting ATC Simulator 2 (me ).

This is a hobby and we do it when we have the time to spare but even my wife questioned the exam taking and weeks of waiting just to simply have some fun controlling and providing a service.

I know of at least 3 pilot/controllers in the same position and several from my past networks who dont come to VATSIM BECAUSE of this. I myself am losing interest rather quickly since I havent been "allowed" to man even DEL at any major or minor airport.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[Alex Bailey 969331]

Alex,

 

There are many factors to take into consideration for the delay, and I apologize. Right now ZMA is without a DATM and TA, so I am left to handle every single matter myself. Ask any other ATM, it is rough to take upwards of 30 emails a day, especially when we have over 40 students who all need tests and training. We ask for your patience, but we are doing the best we can do with the network in its current state. Not only that, but we have a shortage of instructors across the board AND we have to implement a new policy which requires a complete overhaul of the entire ARTCC.

 

I hope you don't become discouraged by the delay, but I promise that if you just let it run its course you will move faster than ever before with your promotions. I will get you all set up at my earliest convenience, most likely within the next couple hours, and put my other work on hold. I'm just trying to create a balance and I do apologize.

[Alex Ferrari 887554]

Alex,

 

There are many factors to take into consideration for the delay, and I apologize. Right now ZMA is without a DATM and TA, so I am left to handle every single matter myself. Ask any other ATM, it is rough to take upwards of 30 emails a day, especially when we have over 40 students who all need tests and training. We ask for your patience, but we are doing the best we can do with the network in its current state. Not only that, but we have a shortage of instructors across the board AND we have to implement a new policy which requires a complete overhaul of the entire ARTCC.

 

I hope you don't become discouraged by the delay, but I promise that if you just let it run its course you will move faster than ever before with your promotions. I will get you all set up at my earliest convenience, most likely within the next couple hours, and put my other work on hold. I'm just trying to create a balance and I do apologize.

 

Oh no no no. I 100% understand the issues @ ZMA right now. On the contrary I applaud you for being able to take care of everything as a single person having had 2 people apparently step down. Again, dont get me wrong my post wasnt referring as the "waiting time" (besides the 1st sentence which was more of a ice breaker than anything else), my post referred to the entire procedure as a whole. Whether you are a high school student, college student or working professional, the entire study these 10+ pages and take an exam and then take another exam, and then take a supervised exam just seems a bit too much for something that, bottom line, is a hobby and a GAME. Again, Ive been very lucky when it comes to gaming because my wife usually enjoys all the games I enjoy and plays with me (lucky eh?). for the 1st time she actually questioned the entire procedure and refused to be part of it. she'll take her turn @ ATC Simulator2 instead.

Thats my point mainly. Again Alex Bailey, I sincerely apologize if my post seemed like a shot @ a certain ARTCC. I dont think I mentioned anything regarding my personal ARTCC at all. I was questioning the need for such a process. Thats all.

[Karen Dunbar 1002434]

To get back to the "Where Does the Traffic Go" question, there is already survey data that has a bearing on this question. In the VATSIM Member Services/Docomeent library, there is a report on the VATSIM 2006 member survey. I won't try to summarize that report here, but anyone interested in these questions ought to look this report over.

 

In the VATUSA pilot survey in June, there was a "forced choice" question comparing five different factors that seem to be important to pilot choice of where to fly. In order of importance, they were "ATC is available frequently", a tie between "I fly in the area where I live" and "I have easy access to the charts", then "There is a lot of traffic there" and lastly "I know the procedures".

 

I hope this information sheds some light on a few of the questions raised in this thread.

[Ernie Alston 812154]

In the VATUSA pilot survey in June, there was a "forced choice" question comparing five different factors that seem to be important to pilot choice of where to fly. In order of importance, they were "ATC is available frequently", a tie between "I fly in the area where I live" and "I have easy access to the charts", then "There is a lot of traffic there" and lastly "I know the procedures".

 

Its also worth it to look at the responses from those who choose not to fly.

 

In the Vatsim survey one of the main reasons listed for not flying online was 'lack of ATC where the pilots want to fly'.

 

It was also one of the main reasons listed from people who stated they tried vatsim and did not like it.

 

If asked I'm sure this similarly would be the one of the main reasons people don't control online (ie not enough pilots flying where they control).

 

 

If we want more pilots we need better ATC coverage, if we want better ATC coverage we have to give the controllers in the less popular areas enough traffic to keep them online.

 

 

Regards.

Ernie Alston

Albuquerque ARTCC

Vatsim Supervisor.

[Anthony Atkielski 985811]

Which resolves to: VATSIM needs more members (and the members need to be serious simmers, not gamers).

[Karen Dunbar 1002434]

Which resolves to: VATSIM needs more members (and the members need to be serious simmers, not gamers).

 

There are a number of other possible conclusions. Here are some examples:

 

1. We need the current members to show up more often and fly more (begs the question of why they don't now, but there are a lot of possible answers to that particular question), OR

2. We need to be more helpful and welcoming to new members and help them learn the rules and etiquette of this virtual space, OR

3. We need to demonstrate that professionalism, maturity and helpfulness to other members is what gets you respect on this network, OR

4. The "simmers" need to educate the "gamers" about the reasons why it is ever so much more rewarding to "simulate" than to "game" on VATSIM.

 

I'm sure there are other possible conclusions. Take your pick or choose them all.

 

I hope someone will start a thread about "Why Simming is More Fun than Gaming" or something like that. I don't fly, so I'll leave that to you pilots.

[Charles Rizzi 810637]

a bit too much for something that, bottom line, is a hobby and a GAME

 

Alex (Ferrari) - Welcome back. I was sorry to see you drift away when you first started training with me. Can't wait to get started again.

 

FWIW you can't forget that unlike ATCsim or whatever "game" one might play the dots on a controller's screen here are real people. They have certain expectations and things they need to have happen for them to consider it "fun" and come back (over and over again which is what everyone is asking for in this thread - no fun they don't come back).

 

We had a network with almost no rules, tests or training (not even controller ratings at one point) - that was SATCO about 1999 or 2000. It was mostly an open game room compared to what you see here now. Some of those on that network quickly figured out that if you wanted to draw traffic to your sector you could do that by making the service pilots got "as real as it gets" - hard core simulation not the arcade version they were getting on most of the network. It then almost became a race as to who could do it more real faster and that's how we got to this point where pilots are now so accustomed to the professionalism in the ATC that they get that almost nobody even remembers what the "old days" were like.

 

All along there have been endless (and I mean endless) heated discussions in this forum about how real is too real, how do we get more pilots, how do we get more controllers etc. etc. The problem we found in the past is that this just isn't that much fun as a "arcade game" - nobody to blow up, no ramps to jump, no other guys to crash into etc. etc. When I first flew in SATCO a controller (untrained/untested) thought it would be "fun" to fly me around in circles at 4000ft over 100nm from my "destination" (like he cared) in my FS98 737 - think I was amused? Think I ever went back to that sector?

 

Without the "hard core as real as it gets" professionalism we really don't have anything unique to offer pilots. As you point out we become just another one of a thousand video games that people play for a few weeks till they get bored and move on to the next thing. The only problem is most of those games you pay for. Here we operate with a 100% volunteer staff so if most everyone disappears in three weeks to be replaced by the next group of newbies we don't make more money by selling more game copies - we disappear because there's nobody to build for the future because it's just boring to play after a short while.

 

I'm sorry to see that most of the people who learned this lesson the hard way have moved on and aren't around to share the history of how this network got to where it is anymore.

 

Best all,

[Ernie Alston 812154]

Which resolves to: VATSIM needs more members (and the members need to be serious simmers, not gamers).

 

We are getting new members we just are not retaining them, that's the problem.

 

 

Regards.

Ernie Alston

Albuquerque ARTCC

Vatsim Supervisor.

[Anthony Atkielski 985811]

How do you know we are not retaining them? Are they explicitly cancelling their memberships?

[Ernie Alston 812154]

How do you know we are not retaining them?

 

By the number of concurrent or active members, from my own observations it has remained basically the same the past few years.

 

According to Vatsim we get over 100 new members each day, if so, that's over 3000 new members a month. A reasonable estimate might

be that Vatusa gets conservatively maybe 10% (probably more) of the new membership or 300 new Vatusa members a month.

 

Yet the participation levels in Vatsim/Vatusa remain pretty much the same.

 

It basically means we seem to retain just enough new members to make up for the small number of existing members we lose through normal attrition.

 

IOW we are not growing.

 

Regards.

Ernie Alston

Albuquerque ARTCC

Vatsim Supervisor.

[Charles Rizzi 810637]

we just are not retaining them, that's the problem.

 

Yes agree completely. I've been involved in controller training since 2001. I'd roughly estimate 80% of the individuals that come into it are only interested in trying it out or in just playing the "game" for a short period of time until they move on to something else. They are not interested in a "as real as it gets" simulation game and we can't really retain them because it's just not that exciting a "game" to play for them. Because of the inherent nature of what we do here they will move on no matter what we do. The 20% or so who are really interested in and turned on by a "serious" simulation experience we can retain (and often for a long, long time). IMHO that's where the focus should be.

 

Best all,

[Ross Carlson]

By the number of concurrent or active members, from my own observations it has remained basically the same the past few years.

 

 

IOW we are not growing.

 

At least in terms of network connections, we've been steadily growing over the last few years. Take a look at this graph:

 

http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?t=16313

 

This graph shows the number of connections to the network, which doesn't necessarily translate into actual flights completed, but I imagine the two are relatively directly proportional. Draw your own conclusions, though.

[Luke Kolin]

At least in terms of network connections, we've been steadily growing over the last few years. Take a look at this graph

 

I don't think that steadily growing is the only interpretation of that graph - one could argue there was a long plateau before SB3 came out, and we're in another plateau, or at least area of very slow growth. If you replace that single sloped line with two lines, one before the SB3 launch and one starting 30 days after, you'll end up with much flatter lines.

 

I'd be more curious to see the number of distinct IDs used to connect to the network as a pilot or ATC in any given 30 day period, and potentially cross-reference that to the total number of members.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

[Luke Kolin]

The 20% or so who are really interested in and turned on by a "serious" simulation experience we can retain (and often for a long, long time). IMHO that's where the focus should be.

 

I think there's an erroneous [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umption in the statements you made. While I don't disagree with you on the 80% number (or at the very least some 'significant' percentage) regarding people who join and quickly move on, I don't believe it's accurate to say that everyone who stays is interested in "as real as it gets".

 

I've learned over the years that there are significant variations in the level of reality VATSIM members strive to achieve, and it's unrealistic to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that everyone wants things just like in the real world. After all, it's a simulation and by definition unreal. Most of the operations that I do would be completely illegal in any First World nation.

 

One other thing you shouldn't discount is that VATSIM and IVAO are the two best multi-player environments out there, and light years better than FSHost. Just the other day one of our pilots asked me if I could modify our ACARS client/server infrastructure to be a multi-player environment. He indicated that he enjoyed flying with other pilots, but there were circomestances where he and others would prefer to fly in a group without ATC. I'm not suggesting that these pilots are a majority, but they do exist and may be more numerous than people think.

 

Not everyone has the same minimum level of reality, and that's important to remember.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

[Ross Carlson]

If you replace that single sloped line with two lines, one before the SB3 launch and one starting 30 days after, you'll end up with much flatter lines.

 

Hrm ... it looks to me like it's trending upward after the SB3 release. Definitely quite flat before SB3, though.

[Ernie Alston 812154]

If you replace that single sloped line with two lines, one before the SB3 launch and one starting 30 days after, you'll end up with much flatter lines.

 

Hrm ... it looks to me like it's trending upward after the SB3 release. Definitely quite flat before SB3, though.

 

Participation does tend to peak in January. I believe those are the 2 peaks showing on the chart after SB3.

 

That last part may be the holiday season peak more than an upward trend. It should go down shortly after that.

 

If that turns out to be true, then overall its pretty flat.

 

Regards.

Ernie.

[Karl Meier 1025707]

I am a RW private pilot who has recently discovered Vatsim, and am in the process of getting my system and resources ready to go fly on the network. I liked the comments from Anthony Atkielski on August 30. My preference is to fly GA, and at present I am not really much interested in flying big iron. I do it on fsx once in a while for something different, but I always come back to GA. I like the shorter flights, and bigger variety of aiports to fly into. I also prefer flying into a variety of airport sizes and environments. I also like the greater realism on vatsim than on other networks.

 

It seems to me that much of vatsim caters to the big iron or airline types. However, I believe the same network is well suited for GA, and perhaps encouragement of participation by GA types would inprove the number of pilots in a given controler's sector.

 

I must say though that when contemplating where to try my first (and likely subsequent) vatsim flights, I will look to see what controllers are online when selecting my departure/destination. If there is not likely to be controller/pilot interaction, I could do that just as well on fsx offline.

 

Finally, I have on interest in the ATC side myself, but due to RW job and time constraints, my participation on that side likely will be limited.