Chris Smith Posted November 19, 2007 at 06:28 PM Posted November 19, 2007 at 06:28 PM Pilots are sheep, ATC tells them what to do, and they do it, or they die. Nate, is that all I am to you as I fly around your airspace on the VATSIM network ?! I'll take my business elsewhere - I thought this wasnt a dictatorship! Horrumph! Baaaaaa Otherwise, nice metaphor Chris Smith Hundreds of Real-World Airlines and Routes for you to fly at http://www.ndbair.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Littlejohn Posted November 19, 2007 at 07:19 PM Posted November 19, 2007 at 07:19 PM Maybe there could be a code or something to put in flight plans for pilots who want "as real as it gets" ATC, with no mercy. If the code were not there, they'd get the extra breaks that you mention. Then you'd have the best of both worlds, provided that it's not too difficult to track who wants "strict" ATC and who doesn't (but I suspect the number of pilots asking for strict ATC would be quite small). The only thing I see wrong with this is that it goes against the biggest core principle that VATSIM was founded for, which was the use of real world procedures (this includes both pilots AND ATC). If one didn't want that, IVAO is where they should head to. It is our adherence to procedures that are as real as it gets (because we are using/adhering to real world procedures as close as we possibly can) that is why we have the numbers that we do. In short, if you don't want real stuff, IVAO is the place to go. BL. Brad Littlejohn ZLA Senior Controller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Carlson Posted November 19, 2007 at 07:23 PM Posted November 19, 2007 at 07:23 PM 2.) Stating "Descend at pilot's discretion" and "cross XYZ at" is redundant. It's either one or the other. There is an exception, at least on VATSIM. The ZBW LOA with Montreal FIR states that certain arrivals on the PLB STAR are to be descended to 11,000, and they must cross ABCOT at or below FL230. The clearance is "Descend at pilot's discretion, maintain 11,000, cross ABCOT at or below FL230". I believe this is so that the flight stays out of Montreal Center's airspace and can be handed directly to Montreal Terminal, while still being at pilot's discretion, but I'm not 100% sure if that's the reason for it. I have no idea if this LOA item comes from the real world or not, but it is an example of how a pilot's discretion descent can have a crossing restriction. Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Cassel 849958 Posted November 19, 2007 at 07:47 PM Posted November 19, 2007 at 07:47 PM Ross, that phraseology is perfectly acceptable, becuase in this case those two are not the same clearance. What is being issued there are two seperate clearances, one a restriction to cross ABCOT at or below FL230, and the other to allow a PD descent to 11000. What is being criticized is using descend at PD and cross at for the same clearance, which is redundant at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Johns Posted November 19, 2007 at 08:00 PM Posted November 19, 2007 at 08:00 PM 2.) Stating "Descend at pilot's discretion" and "cross XYZ at" is redundant. It's either one or the other. There is an exception, at least on VATSIM. The ZBW LOA with Montreal FIR states that certain arrivals on the PLB STAR are to be descended to 11,000, and they must cross ABCOT at or below FL230. The clearance is "Descend at pilot's discretion, maintain 11,000, cross ABCOT at or below FL230". I believe this is so that the flight stays out of Montreal Center's airspace and can be handed directly to Montreal Terminal, while still being at pilot's discretion, but I'm not 100% sure if that's the reason for it. I have no idea if this LOA item comes from the real world or not, but it is an example of how a pilot's discretion descent can have a crossing restriction. I suppose I should have been more careful to qualify my case with my given example. More precisely, stating to both descent at pilot's discretion and issuing a crossing restriction for the same fix simultaneously is wrong. Your stated example appears to be appropriate because it is two separate clearances. Incidentally, and totally just FYI (because I was curious and know nothing about your guys' airspace), checking the real ZBW/CZUL LOA, I see that it states: D.2.2 Clear Montreal Terminal arrivals via V91 or appropriate STAR, to descend to 11,000 feet MSL. No mention of a FL230 crossing restriction, unless for VATSIM purposes, forcing pilots down to FL230 or below helps meet those restrictions at NAPEE (AOB 8,000 or 14,000 depending on arrival runway), which I could totally understand for reasons that need not be stated. Sooo... yes, sorry I wasn't more specific in my qualification. ~Nate Nate Johns "All things are difficult before they are easy." - Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Carlson Posted November 19, 2007 at 08:22 PM Posted November 19, 2007 at 08:22 PM More precisely, stating to both descent at pilot's discretion and issuing a crossing restriction for the same fix simultaneously is wrong. I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume you meant "for the same altitude simultaneously", but I know what you mean. I also see what you and Mike mean about two separate clearances in my example ... both would make sense if delivered separately, which is not true of the "descend at PD to cross fix at xxxx" instruction. (Though I'd be surprised if a clearance like "cross FIX at or below FLxxx" is ever used by itself, without an actual target altitude. Is it?) Incidentally, and totally just FYI (because I was curious and know nothing about your guys' airspace), checking the real ZBW/CZUL LOA, I see that it states: D.2.2 Clear Montreal Terminal arrivals via V91 or appropriate STAR, to descend to 11,000 feet MSL. No mention of a FL230 crossing restriction Yeah, I'm not sure why the VATSIM LOA has that extra restriction. As I mentioned my guess is that it is so that the arrivals will stay out of CYUL center airspace and can go straight to Montreal Terminal without any pointout or coordination with Montreal center, but I'm not sure. Maybe one of the CYUL guys can chime in here, or I'll ask next time I see them online. Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Catherwood 903683 Posted November 19, 2007 at 11:44 PM Posted November 19, 2007 at 11:44 PM "continue as filed" is a dangerous thing for a controller to say. Why, you ask? (I think it was Dan Everett that brought this up some time ago): Say a pilot files KSFO-KLAX, but files it fix-by-fix the KLAX-KSFO route backwards. SFO Clearance/Delivery catches the error, and amends the FP to the proper routing and the pilot accepts. No TWR/DEP/OAK CTR are online, so the pilot then goes to unicom. He contacts LAX_CTR, who is online, on the correct routing. LAX_CTR radar identifies him, and says "continue as filed". The pilot is being told to resume is totally incorrect route and proceeds direct RZS VTU. A valid phrase might be "Cleared to KLAX via last routing cleared" per 7110.65 4-6-2-b-2b KZSE C3/Facilities Administrator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin A. Martin Posted November 21, 2007 at 03:41 PM Posted November 21, 2007 at 03:41 PM my question is, and sorry if this has already been posted, but can you tell a pilot to "Proceed on course". I hear this all the time in the real world, as well as "Resume on nav", "Approved as requested", "Proceed as requested" etc.... So, I would [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume Proceed on Course is okay, but I am not sure. Thanks, JM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Carlson Posted November 21, 2007 at 04:29 PM Posted November 21, 2007 at 04:29 PM my question is, and sorry if this has already been posted, but can you tell a pilot to "Proceed on course". I hear this all the time in the real world, as well as "Resume on nav", "Approved as requested", "Proceed as requested" etc.... So, I would [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume Proceed on Course is okay, but I am not sure. I'm not sure about IFR, but that phrase is often used at least for VFR in the real world. For example, if tower gives you a heading to fly after takeoff, then switches you to departure, departure may use "proceed on course" to cancel the tower-[Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned heading and allow you to turn on course. Though more often, I hear "turn left on course" or "turn right on course". Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin A. Martin Posted November 21, 2007 at 05:21 PM Posted November 21, 2007 at 05:21 PM Yeah, I hear that often when I fly, so that's why I asked. Thanks Ross! JM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Wilber 831268 Posted November 24, 2007 at 02:42 AM Posted November 24, 2007 at 02:42 AM Geez guys, it's JUST a hobby. Very few of us are professional controllers. So what if we say something that isn't lifted squarely out of the manual? This kind of [Mod - lovely stuff]ola keeps newbies so uptight, they can't possibly p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] an OTS, so they just throw in the towel and don't even try. After all, why take this kind of verbal whipping just to have some fun in the evening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Wilber 831268 Posted November 24, 2007 at 02:48 AM Posted November 24, 2007 at 02:48 AM "continue as filed" is a dangerous thing for a controller to say. Why, you ask? (I think it was Dan Everett that brought this up some time ago): Say a pilot files KSFO-KLAX, but files it fix-by-fix the KLAX-KSFO route backwards. SFO Clearance/Delivery catches the error, and amends the FP to the proper routing and the pilot accepts. No TWR/DEP/OAK CTR are online, so the pilot then goes to unicom. He contacts LAX_CTR, who is online, on the correct routing. LAX_CTR radar identifies him, and says "continue as filed". The pilot is being told to resume is totally incorrect route and proceeds direct RZS VTU. A valid phrase might be "Cleared to KLAX via last routing cleared" per 7110.65 4-6-2-b-2b Please Owen, Do you really think your scenario is a worry? So what if a pilot happens to be directed to waypoint that he/she wouldn't normally be directed to? Are the SUP's going to disconnect both of them? Relax people, I say again -- it's just a hobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Carlson Posted November 24, 2007 at 03:47 AM Posted November 24, 2007 at 03:47 AM Brian, to each their own. To some VATSIM controllers, striving for realism is what the hobby is all about. Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Atkielski 985811 Posted November 24, 2007 at 07:33 AM Posted November 24, 2007 at 07:33 AM I should hope that all VATSIM members are striving for realism. Otherwise they could all play on one of the many other online game networks. Dismissing something because simulation is "just a hobby" or "just a game" runs counter to the whole idea of simulation. If the fact that simulation is not reality prevents you from taking it seriously, you're a gamer rather than a simmer. A key distinguishing feature of serious simulation is that you accept things that correspond to real life, whether they are entertaining or not. It is the rigor with which one adheres to the real-life aspects of the simulation that makes simulation satisfying for serious simmers. Crashing, for example, is a very unpleasant experience for the serious simmer, even though nothing is actually damaged and nobody actually dies. Telling a simmer that it's just a game is like telling a photojournalist that his pictures are just numbers in a computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin A. Martin Posted November 24, 2007 at 03:28 PM Posted November 24, 2007 at 03:28 PM I agree, Anthony. I don't feel that the realism should be as strong as the real world, for it is a hobby, but if you want to play around and crash planes into mountains, there are other OFFLINE games for that. We need to make it realistic, because a lot of controllers here are training for the real-world, as are some pilots. I agree with both points that we can't take it to the extreme real-world controllers and pilots take it, but it's not "just a hobby". Take care, JM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Catherwood 903683 Posted November 24, 2007 at 04:40 PM Posted November 24, 2007 at 04:40 PM Please Owen, Do you really think your scenario is a worry? So what if a pilot happens to be directed to waypoint that he/she wouldn't normally be directed to? Are the SUP's going to disconnect both of them? Relax people, I say again -- it's just a hobby. All it takes is one pilot taking the controller for their word in heavy traffic while the controller moves on to other traffic to create a conflict and mess up a their groove. SUPs have nothing to do with it - it's all about reducing the controller's workload KZSE C3/Facilities Administrator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Gibson 937127 Posted November 25, 2007 at 09:41 PM Posted November 25, 2007 at 09:41 PM What I would say is that as long as everyone is trying to do their best to keep everything realistic and not harm anyone else's simulation, then it shouldn't be too big of a deal. But when stuff like this happens, controllers can always improve on ways to reduce their workload. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts