[NOTAM] TFR Super Bowl Event

[Richard Ruminski]

VATUSA TFR NOTAM

 

Issue Date: February 1, 2008 at 0200 UTC

 

Location: Albuquerque Center, Phoenix Sky Harbor Int'l Airport (KPHX) Phoenix, Arizona

 

Beginning Date and Time: February 03, 2008 at 0000 UTC

(February 02, 2008 at 1700 MST)

 

Ending Date and Time: February 03, 2008 at 0600 UTC

(February 02, 2008 at 2300 MST)

 

Reason for NOTAM:

Temporary Flight Restriction for Special Event Traffic

 

Type: Special

Pilots May Contact: VATUSA Albuquerque ARTCC Staff

 

 

AFFECTED AREAS -

 

Airspace: Phoenix Sky Harbor Int'l Airport (KPHX)

Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B Airspace Surface Area (See Graphic Below)

 

 

 

 

Altitude: From the Surface up to and Including 3,000' MSL

 

OPERATING RESTRICTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS -

 

No pilot may operate in the area covered by this NOTAM under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) except as described below.

 

Due to expected IFR traffic volume during the times specified above, VFR aircraft may not arrive, depart, or conduct itinerant operations (e.g., Touch-and-Goes) at KPHX.

 

Pilots wishing to make use of the VFR Transition Routes as depicted on the Phoenix Terminal Area Chart (see http://www.skyvector.com ) may do so, however, they shall remain clear of Phoenix Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B airspace until making direct contact with Phoenix Approach, establishing radar identification, and receiving explicit clearance to enter Phoenix Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B airspace.

 

Aircraft flying VFR Transition Routes shall, to the best of their ability, comply with the route procedures published on the Phoenix Terminal Area Chart (TAC) can expect ATC instructions to maintain VFR at 3,500' MSL when southbound, or 4,500' MSL when northbound.

 

edit: set link correct by 841181

[Anthony Atkielski 985811]

Obviously ZAB has decided to trade realism for the game zone. Not to worry, I'll stay well clear of Fantasyland.

[Ross Carlson]

Obviously ZAB has decided to trade realism for the game zone. Not to worry, I'll stay well clear of Fantasyland.

 

Keep on making rude and uncalled for statements like that, Anthony, and I'll leave you with no choice but to avoid the event.

[Edward McCoy 904185]

Obviously ZAB has decided to trade realism for the game zone. Not to worry, I'll stay well clear of Fantasyland.

 

Keep on making rude and uncalled for statements like that, Anthony, and I'll leave you with no choice but to avoid the event.

 

I don't really ever say anything in these forums. Just more or so lurk. I think everyone that uses this forum on a regular basis is a bit fed up with comments like that from him. It's soon getting to the point where someone from the top needs to do something.

[Fred Clausen]

Obviously ZAB has decided to trade realism for the game zone. Not to worry, I'll stay well clear of Fantasyland.

 

To be honest Anthony. I think we'll be better off without you tomorrow.

 

Edit: After looking over the CoC, I'm pretty sure Anthony's behaviour violates CoC A(12). While I appreciate Ross stepping in and reprimanding Anthony, it's clear based on my silent (to this point, anyway) observations that Anthony has it out for ZAB, his conduct on this forum is unacceptable and it demands real action from the figures in authority.

[Alex Bailey 969331]

I would recommend for this topic to be split and/or locked to prevent further discussion of the matter. Then appropriate action, if any, can be taken.

Edited February 2, 2008 at 05:20 AM by Guest

[Nicholas Bartolotta 912967]

Not to worry, I'll stay well clear of Fantasyland.

 

Nice! That means less of a line for the roller coaster!

[Darryl Roach 988606]

Apparently Anthony hasn't seen all the FAA NOTAMs and rerouting instructions that have been active all this week and will be through the weekend in anticipation of Super Bowl traffic. This plan is nothing more than what's really going on, so "Fantasyland" is an ignorant statement. That was quite uncalled for, but from his previous history I'm nowhere near surprised.

[Alex Bailey 969331]

To contribute to the original post -

 

http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_7_6849.html

 

There's the real TFR. Realism? I think so.

[Andrew Doubleday]

[Mod.: Use of religious figure's name removed -GSM (800006)] ... I think its wonderful VATUSA released a NOTAM on this... wish we could have more of them for m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive events... really wonderful idea indeed.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

AJ

[Gary Millsaps 830104]

I would recommend for this topic to be split and/or locked to prevent further discussion of the matter. Then appropriate action, if any, can be taken.

 

As it appears the "troll" will be staying under the bridge, I'm leaving the topic open for now...for real questions, input or whatever.

[Keith Smith]

Obviously ZAB has decided to trade realism for the game zone. Not to worry, I'll stay well clear of Fantasyland.

 

Explain. And make it good.

[Tom Seeley]

 

Explain. And make it good.

 

Come on Keith ... you can have one, or the other, but not both!

[Rey Lopez 883899]

Make sure the pilots read the 40 page SOP though...

[Anthony Atkielski 985811]

Explain. And make it good.

 

I have the real NOTAMs in front of me, and no part of the imaginary VATSIM NOTAM matches any part of the real-world NOTAMs.

 

1. The real NOTAMs concern circular areas centered on the stadium at which the Super Bowl will be held, with radii of 2 nm, 10 nm, and 30 nm. The VATSIM NOTAM is very vague as to coverage ("Phoenix," "Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B").

 

2. The real NOTAMs apply at different times from the make-believe NOTAM.

 

3. The real NOTAMs restrict operations other than approved commercial flights, emergency services, law-enforcement, etc., within the 2 and 10 nm zones. The pretend NOTAM restricts VFR.

 

4. The real NOTAMs allow flights within the 10-30 nm area as long as they are in contact with ATC and have a squawk and FP, with no restrictions on VFR. The pretend NOTAM restricts VFR.

 

5. The real NOTAMs don't restrict operations at Sky Harbor at all. They certainly don't prohibit VFR. The pretend NOTAM wipes out VFR at KPHX.

 

So the pretend NOTAM has no basis in reality; it is totally unrealistic. The preferences of controllers are being disguised as a NOTAM. What I extract from the pretend NOTAM is:

 

1. At KPHX, everybody wants to play with big iron. VFR isn't big iron, so it isn't allowed, no matter how significant VFR traffic is in real life.

 

2. Controllers are either unwilling or unable to deal with VFR traffic. Since 99% of a controller's time is spent on IFR traffic, the argument that VFR is disruptive doesn't hold water. Especially since VFR is much rarer on VATSIM than it is in real life. So the real reason is probably that controllers don't know how to handle VFR traffic. For what it's worth, I've encountered controllers who are seriously clueless when confronted with VFR traffic. Excluding VFR traffic just because they don't know how to handle it isn't going to get controllers the practice they need to be able to handle VFR competently.

 

3. VATSIM (or at least this part of VATSIM) is trying to discourage VFR flight. Given that most of the private pilots on VATSIM are PPLs without an instrument rating and so fly VFR regularly for real, trying to lock out VFR doesn't sound very welcoming. A few PPLs might like to slip on the Captain's uniform and pretend to be airline pilots now and then, but at least as many are going to be interested in flying the same aircraft they fly in real life, and if VFR isn't allowed, that's not going to be possible.

 

4. Someone seems to be making a connection between IFR and big iron, and between VFR and small, slow aircraft. Anyone can fly IFR or VFR, though.

 

In short, it's as if a big sign were posted over Phoenix saying "VFR PILOTS NOT WELCOME - PLEASE FLY SOMEWHERE ELSE."

 

The most disruptive and time-consuming pilots I've encountered on VATSIM have invariably been IFR in big jets. Some of them can't even fly in a straight line. VFR flights, in contrast, are a cake walk: all they have to do is follow a few simple rules, and they don't require vectors or much in the way of clearances or other attention. Locking them out of an event reeks of a strong prejudice, or perhaps a desire to conceal some sort of deficiency. It seems that VFR pilots are being treated as second-cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] citizens, even though many of them are real-world pilots and handle their aircraft well, while a significant population of gamers, in their homemade hats and gold braid, are being given preference even though they can barely type a flight plan into a FMS and stumble around in the air like elephants in an airborne china shop.

 

Prohibiting VFR for a fly-in sets a very worrisome precedent. So does replacing real-world rules (such as real-world NOTAMs) with make-believe ones. When simulation loses touch with reality, it becomes gaming.

[Alex Bailey 969331]

You obviously don't know what happens during a huge fly-in such as a Superbowl event on VATSIM. VFR is restricted because of the problems it has created in the past. Do you honestly think the real world controllers will allow VFR into/around the stadium or Sky Harbor? The answer is most likely no, atleast not in the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B.

 

VFR traffic is always on a "workload-permitting" basis, so it is not unrealistic to restrict VFR aircraft from a Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B during a fly-in (it is usually restricted from the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B when there isn't any special event going on at all). It is due to the amount of traffic and separation that is needed. In the past we have seen VFR pilot purposely cause problems near the airport of the fly-in.

 

Try understanding the reasoning behind it rather than insulting ZAB.

[Benton Wilmes]

AFFECTED AREAS -

 

Airspace: Phoenix Sky Harbor Int'l Airport (KPHX)

Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B Airspace Surface Area (See Graphic Below)

 

 

 

 

Altitude: From the Surface up to and Including 3,000' MSL

 

 

Just an FYI Anthony, the TFR does not effect the ENTIRE cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B. Look at the affected areas (there are 2 mentioned) - Phoenix Sky Harbor Int'l Airport (KPHX) and the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B Airspace Surface Area. Apparently that is not explained well enough for the likes of yourself but that means NO VFR allowed at KPHX and NO VFR allowed in the cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B airspace in the areas where the bravo goes down to the surface (basically right next to KPHX). Another explaination is in the picture, the shaded area on the eastern and western sides of KPHX and just north and south of the airport. That area also says 90-SFC on the Bravo charts. So you can't fly VFR at KPHX or in the Bravo airspace mentioned from the SFC to 3000 ft.

 

There is no point in having a TFR up around the stadium because this is NOT real life and there aren't thousands of peoples lives at stake over at the football stadium. In my experience, most major events always have those 1 or 2 people that want to just fly around the area and either intentionally or not, they end up screwing with the traffic flow and causing major problems. This TFR will hopefully prevent that so we can actually have a well ran event with no "idiots" trying to screw everyone up coming into KPHX.

[Brad Littlejohn]

On top of that, I can guarantee you that VFR aircraft were prohibited in a good given mile radius of any football stadium over the past 8 years for the Super Bowl. I challenge you to find us a TFR that did not have that. As Benton mentioned, it does is no good to have a TFR over the actual stadium here unless you plan on running a Super Bowl simulation network with sim half time shows and sim wardrobe malfunctions. But even with that, you'd cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ify that as 'gaming'. So we are doing what is the next best for our pilots while holding the one big thing that is happening: a TFR over the area in which the event is held. You can't even give ZAB props for even doing that! You just criticize.

 

Secondly, If you really want to get to simulation vs. gaming, we at ZLA easily could have had this MITRE event or any other event featuring Las Vegas this past week. You would have complained about it too, because of the TFR that was in place at that time, and us not implementing it or implementing some other TFR (and by your right, calling us 'gamers') because of Air Force One being there and the relevant TFR prohibiting VFR and General Aviation traffic (regardless of VFR or IFR) not being able to enter or leave the Las Vegas area for 18 hours prior to USAF1's arrival to 18 hours after USAF1's departure. That would have kept you and your precious Baron let alone any Gen. Av. flight out of the area for the duration of the event.

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

Third, What gives you the right to basically lambast an entire sector here, because something that they've implemented doesn't meet your standards? Nate works at ZAB. He would know what is going on in his sector, both here and the real world better than you and your 15 years of flightsim experience. Not once in your time here have you offered ZAB any suggestion on what they should do for an event. Not once have you offered them any positive feedback (at least here) on any job they are doing. As Benton mentioned, it does is no good to have a TFR over the actual stadium here unless you plan on running a Super Bowl simulation network with sim half time shows and sim wardrobe malfunctions. But even with that, you'd cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ify that as 'gaming'. So we are doing what is the next best for our pilots while holding the one big thing that is happening: a TFR over the area in which the event is held. You can't even give ZAB props for even doing that! You just criticize.

 

In fact, over the past two years, we have had to spend a lot of time correcting you and the wild [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umptions you have about ATC (referring to pilots as 'sir', etc.), aviation in general (RNAV vs. non-RNAV, GPS hacking, etc.), among other things. With all of that, while you claim these corrections are 'personal attacks', your credibility is shot, and peoples' patience are running thin.

 

How about practicing what you preach. If you don't like it, don't fly in it. Don't go anywhere near the event. While you're at it, if any event on this network doesn't meet your standards, don't fly in them either. It's almost to the point where nothing on this network meets your standards. What do you do then? don't fly on the network at all? (that is a rhetorical question. Should you answer that, you may shatter some controller's hopes. )

 

In short, no-one is forcing you to fly on this network, just like no-one forces us controllers to control. We do it because we want to. If you don't like it, you don't have to be here. The event, and all other subsequent events will run wonderfully without your input.

 

BL.

[Michael Scott 970177]

ZOB RPA is enroute as we speak

[Peyton Sullivan 956345]

General Aviation guys, don't let all of this scare you. It is way easier then it sounds. Let me clear it all up for you.

 

- You can't fly into or out of KPHX (Gneral Aviation)

- You CAN fly VFR into or out of any other airport in the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] Bravo at any time

 

Just remain in contact with ATC

 

I will be working PHX_B_APP which will be dealing with all arrivals into and out of all the satellite airports around KPHX.

 

VFR traffic is always welcome, because here at ZAB we want you to have the most realistic experience possible.

 

West and East transitions will be in affect as stated.

 

Don't be afraid to ask questions.

 

 

Hope this helps

[Greg Marcoux 980029]

Anthony,

 

I've found these to be striking images to change someone's behaviour who tends to be problematic.

 

 

This is why we are all here and enjoy Vatsim.....

 

 

 

 

and not for this.....IMAGES REMOVED; POLITICAL CONTENT IS INAPPROPRIATE HERE - KWR 810181

[Alberto Molteni 915217]

...sim half time shows and sim wardrobe malfunctions.

 

LMAO! Well played.

[Darryl Roach 988606]

Greg gets the honorary Iron Mic award for the month. Bravo!