Request for Clarification on Priority Policy

[Curley Bryant]

Can we please get the VATUSA policy looked at and changed then, so we can get our student controlling? I notified VATUSA3 of the discrepancy almost 3 weeks ago, and have heard nothing in return. Meanwhile, our student is forced to sit idle and can't control for half a month because of OUR mistake. Not good...

 

Bryan,

 

My opinion is that it should be by the Order 7110.65. But if we did it the way I wanted it, then everyone who flys a B747 with the Virtual President of the USA on it would have priority. There are pros and cons either way we go! We will probably keep this same policy, just define it a little more.

[Ian Elchitz 810151]

You guys appear to be stuck in the weeds. You don't need to quote any .65 or go dig up any subsection paragraph A mumbo jumbo to figure this out - just use common sense.

 

The purpose of the policy is to prevent troublemakers from causing problems in busy airspace simply because they are impatient. We often have people declare emergencies, fly as lifeguard, fly as air force one, or go VFR in dicey conditions when they can't get IFR clearance and then immediately call for SVFR.

 

In all cases this is a ruse to jump to the front of the line. The policy was put in place because the onus on Vatsim is for people to enjoy themselves and respect each other - while at the same time we strive for realism.

 

If someone asks for SVFR and the request appears to be valid - I'd always give it to them along with some priority. However, if their request ended up negatively impacting the experience of others (including myself) I'd simply end the priority, or break whatever .65 rules I needed in order to get things back on track.

 

I'm not saying everyone who does priority flights is a troublemaker - most of them aren't, yet I do remember WHEN this policy was put in place by VATUSA and thus I recall the intentions and situation behind it, because I was the person who asked for it.

 

Once again - the intention of the policy was to prevent trouble not cause it. As for the examination question - at one point there was VATUSA training material which clearly outlined the fact that priority was to be first come first served so that everyone was treated equally on the network. The qualifying part of the question is "On the Vatsim Network".

[Nate Johns]

Ian,

 

The way you describe your take on the SVFR policy is SO funny because that's EXACTLY the intent of the purpose of the SVFR rules.

 

I mean, look at the very first statement of the SVFR Priority section in the .65 (7-5-2.a).

 

SVFR flights may be approved only if arriving and departing IFR aircraft are not delayed.

 

This perfectly sums up what you said in a couple of paragraphs.

 

Understand, I'm not attacking, just stating that the docomeent we are in heat about already substantially covers the argument you made regarding a call to SVFR flight (as rare as it is both real world and on VATSIM).

 

For the people that are missing questions on the VATUSA exam because they actually understand what SVFR is and it's purposes and priority, I think there is a flaw in the system that needs to be rectified. Not a change to how VATSIM at large treats the priorty of Air Force 1 over N12345 IFR C172 flying in to PHX.

 

~Nate

[Mike Cassel 849958]

Can we please get the VATUSA policy looked at and changed then, so we can get our student controlling? I notified VATUSA3 of the discrepancy almost 3 weeks ago, and have heard nothing in return. Meanwhile, our student is forced to sit idle and can't control for half a month because of OUR mistake. Not good...

 

Bryan,

 

My opinion is that it should be by the Order 7110.65. But if we did it the way I wanted it, then everyone who flys a B747 with the Virtual President of the USA on it would have priority. There are pros and cons either way we go! We will probably keep this same policy, just define it a little more.

 

Curley,

 

In my original post, I stated that the policy as a whole was a very good one, and I completely agree that pilots flying with Lifeguard or Air Force One or any other callsigns the special list in the .65 should not get any special treatment like they do in real life, as that would be very problematic on the network. However, I had always read it in my years on the network not to be about operational stuff such as this, and when I saw that VATUSA was asking a test question on this, and apparently interpreting the policy in a manner different than I and many other people would interpret it, I felt I needed to ask if this too was being changed.

 

The policy can probably be clarified without too much trouble, but in the mean time, VATUSA should probably pull the test question, p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] the student who missed by one thanks to this question, and let him get on the network? Is that in any way unreasonable?

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

Ian and Curley,

 

If the intent of the policy is to avoid having to give priority to Air Froce 1, Lifeguard flights, Military flights, etc., then that's how the policy should be worded.

 

"Special use callsigns/flights (e.g. Air Force 1, Lifeguard flights, Military flights, etc.) will be given no priority while flying on the VATSIM network." That's it; that's all you need. That's basically what 5A states in the VATUSA policy anyway.

 

Then you can at least leave the rest in place, or maybe even add a clause about IFR having priority over VFR/SVFR. As the policy stands now, any time you deny pattern work because you're getting your rear end handed to you during an event or something, is a violation of VATUSA policy. That's my interpretation anyway, of a true first-come first-served no priority system.

[Nate Johns]

Ian and Curley,

 

If the intent of the policy is to avoid having to give priority to Air Froce 1, Lifeguard flights, Military flights, etc., then that's how the policy should be worded.

 

"Special use callsigns/flights (e.g. Air Force 1, Lifeguard flights, Military flights, etc.) will be given no priority while flying on the VATSIM network." That's it; that's all you need. That's basically what 5A states in the VATUSA policy anyway.

 

Then you can at least leave the rest in place, or maybe even add a clause about IFR having priority over VFR/SVFR. As the policy stands now, any time you deny pattern work because you're getting your rear end handed to you during an event or something, is a violation of VATUSA policy. That's my interpretation anyway, of a true first-come first-served no priority system.

 

I would not support a VATSIM-wide statement of IFR priority over VFR, simply because that would be unfair to the pilots who do want to fly VFR during events and the like to airports where IFR traffic is in/out of. As well, that's not how the system's set up (as I understand you know). That is a separate issue from the IFR vs. SVFR priority.

 

Having not read through all the text of the CoRs or SOPs or Use Policy and all that jazz, I don't feel qualified to inject opinion regarding statements to be made. Right now, however, I think there is a preponderance of evidence that some portion of the long-standing VATSIM "no priority" policy needs to be clarified and updated.

 

~Nate

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

I would not support a VATSIM-wide statement of IFR priority over VFR, simply because that would be unfair to the pilots who do want to fly VFR during events and the like to airports where IFR traffic is in/out of.

 

While that's true, I can tell you (just like real world) that it's the first thing to go when I get busy. While I certainly wouldn't want to deny a VFR guy from flying an event, there's just no way I can keep up with 5 or 6 guys in the pattern during a major event, or even during plain old high-traffic periods. So whether we explicitly state that IFR has priority over VFR or not, that's just the way it is. Same goes for practice approaches, etc. Separation of IFR traffic will always (and should always) have a priority over providing VFR services.

[Nate Johns]

Bryan,

 

Fair enough, but you again make a distinct and separate point. Providing radar services to VFR aircraft is an additional service that is not optional, workload permitting. Now, before I get chewed for saying something I know you've already heard a million times by now, hear me out.

 

I feel that right there is enough to justify denying VFR aircraft ATC services. Maybe it needs pointing out or otherwise explicit mention. However, the distinction between "priority" and "additional service" must remain clear.

 

So, while in real life, there are obviously plenty of towers to cover the little guys wanting to do pattern work, with a single controller often working multiple towered airspace along with all other IFR traffic, I agree, just because some guy calls up at Sticks, NE airport wanting some VFR pattern work, I feel like this should be treated as an "additional service" on the network. Not optional, but required, workload permitting (basically meaning if you aren't swamped by IFRs, given the VATSIM environment).

 

However, the distinct and separate point is that the PRIORITY of service is still first come first served should an aircraft request service that you can and/or choose to provide, with the stipulation that IFR does in fact have priority over SVFR aircraft out of necessity, given the rules of ATC and separation.

 

~Nate

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

Hi Nate,

 

Yeah, I completely agree with your points. I think we were confusing a couple different priorities there. But yep...makes sense to me.

[Frode Skibrek 989663]

Air Force One, will always get put to the back of my line! Seriously though, are there any pilots who aren't complete newbies who actually use that one?

I like to fly A1 quite often. It puts me in a higher level of "must shine". But i dont expect any special handling from atc....THAT would just be rude. However, i expect a red carpet on the stand and a cup of coffe on arrival

[Thomas Flanary 835147]

. A VFR aircraft, for the most part, will usually be denied entrance into a Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B airspace unless you go in at off-peak hours or the controller is really nice. .

 

Wait what?

 

I fly in central florida and have been in the Orland and Tampa Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B many times and never had difficulty getting in. If I was all ready on flight following when i was told to contact orlano appoach they cleared me into the bravo without me even having to ask.

 

Off topic, but me too. I've never been denied. And the one time I flew around the Tampa cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] Bravo, they said I didn't need to, and that I was causing more trouble for myself.

[J Jason Vodnansky 810003]

IMHO, which I know means exactly squat

 

The 7110.65 is NOT VATSIM's rule book. VATSIM may reference it, but I would think that if a VATSIM policy, and the 7110.65 conflict with each other, then the VATSIM policy wins.

 

Seems pretty simple to me. If THAT is the case, seems like the test question is accurate, just needs a different reference.

 

Too many people seem to think VATSIM is governed by the same rules that the REAL controllers are governed by, when it clearly is not the case.

 

Just my thoughts,

Jason Vodnansky

[Mike Cassel 849958]

Here's the Recap for those of you just tuning in:

 

 

This thread was started way back in January 2008, almost a year ago. It died in Feb 2008, and the underlying, rather small technical issue that prompted this thread was resolved when the VATUSA3 job changed hands, as the test question at the start of the thread is no longer in use. This thread was revived again this month to talk about Air Force One, as if there weren't enough threads on that already, and apparently the issue of VFR/IFR priority, which was also not the point of this thread.

 

 

 

Please let this thread rest in peace.

[Nate Johns]

Indeed... necroposting at its finest.

 

~Nate

[Dan Everette]

Indeed... necroposting at its finest.

 

Actually, it takes too much common sense, raw intelligence, and time to click the search button, type in the query and find the hundred threads that have already been discussed to death about any particular topic. So rather, people will just dig up 11 month old threads, or better yet waste everyone's time with a new thread.

 

That's the VATSIM forum at its finest.

[Fred Clausen]

That's the VATSIM forum at its finest.

 

That's any forum.

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

 

Actually, it takes too much common sense, raw intelligence, and time to click the search button, type in the query and find the hundred threads that have already been discussed to death about any particular topic. So rather, people will just dig up 11 month old threads, or better yet waste everyone's time with a new thread.

 

That's the VATSIM forum at its finest.

 

Please review this post in light of the Founder's message of a few weeks ago.

[Dan Everette]

 

Actually, it takes too much common sense, raw intelligence, and time to click the search button, type in the query and find the hundred threads that have already been discussed to death about any particular topic. So rather, people will just dig up 11 month old threads, or better yet waste everyone's time with a new thread.

 

That's the VATSIM forum at its finest.

 

Please review this post in light of the Founder's message of a few weeks ago.

 

Reviewed.

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

 

Actually, it takes too much common sense, raw intelligence, and time to click the search button, type in the query and find the hundred threads that have already been discussed to death about any particular topic. So rather, people will just dig up 11 month old threads, or better yet waste everyone's time with a new thread.

 

That's the VATSIM forum at its finest.

 

Please review this post in light of the Founder's message of a few weeks ago.

 

Reviewed.

 

And do you find the statements made to be in alignment with what the Founders ask of us, or not? I ask because my view is it is not in alignment with the founders intent and thus the reason I called you out on it.

 

To put a finer point on it, it would be in this forum's best interest if you didn't do any more posts like this one.

 

And, we're all done here.

 

Thanks,