[FUN] Share your funniest moments at VATSIM!

[Stephen Sculley-Beaman]

[quote name="AALxxx: Allrighty then Ohare Tower we're lookin for IFR to Las Vegas...gonna go get lucky

AALxxx: is this thing on?

ORD_TWR: AALxxx only if you promise to bring me some of your winning

ORD_TWR: AALxxx standby clearance on request

AALxxx: No way dude...Ill bring you a showgirl but the dough is mine and we're stdg/by xxx

ORD_TWR: AALxxx roger that! Make it a blonde or brunnette and we're even

AALxxx: lol

ORD_TWR: AALxxx you are cleared as filed via the ord1 departure' date=' IOW, and then as filed. climb and maintain 5000,expect flight level 340 five minutes after departure, and you are the lucky winner of squawk code 3101, see you dont have to go to vegas to be a winner!

AALxxx: ok AALxxx copies clrd to LAS via ORD1.IOW 5k initially 340 in 10 Dep is own nav UNICOM and we're so happy with 3101 words cant convey our feelings thans so much sir

ORD_TWR: Roger that I knew you would enjoy your prize, altimeter 2979, advise ready to taxi

 

[/quote]

This guy has been hanging around ord lately and I dont want him to leave! god this guy is the only reason i remain sane! or at least partially

[Jim Machintosh 880828]

[Jim Johnson 814050]

 

Me: "Delta 1123 heavy, turn right heading 180 for traffic, break, Cactus 7283, turn left heading 080, vectors downwind, break, El llamamiento del avión, el Enfoque de Phoenix, buenas noches, yo no proporciono el control del tráfico aéreo los servicios en español, arrepentido señor, break, US Air 323, radar contact, turn right heading 360, vectors ZEPER, climb and maintain 7000, expect higher in 5 min... etc."

 

Not to detract from the funniness, but please don't use "break" that many times in one transmission. As a pilot, I wouldn't even begin to know how to do a readback on that

[Jim Machintosh 880828]

Four aircraft instructions in a high traffic area is not uncommon. It may just seem longer with all that Spanish!

[Andre Koch 852831]

As a pilot, I wouldn't even begin to know how to do a readback on that

Pretty simple: The last pilot who was addressed answers first, then the one before him and so on. The first pilot answers last. You should come and fly at a busy airport in Europe like EGLL or EDDF, four instructions in a row are rather normal there at peak times.

[Andras Kiss 888081]

Isint it the other way around? Thats how ive seen it in the US

[Jim Machintosh 880828]

Isint it the other way around? Thats how ive seen it in the US

 

No Andras, its always the last instruction thats the first to answer. ie) Controller 1, 2, 3, 4 Pilots 4, 3, 2, 1

[Martyn Bourner 870325]

Pah you should see the R/T we use at small aerodromes in the UK, the only time we say "break" is when we've dropped our biscuits

 

Just kiddin!

 

Martyn

[Jim Machintosh 880828]

[Terry Kocher 919807]

Well the most traffic I've controlled while doing the Atlanta Approach was during my OJT (on the job training), had a group flight from CLT, about 5 guys crammed in all on the Macey arrival, which had 3 normal arrivals from the south coming out of the Lagrange and Sinca Arrivals - somehow managed to get through that mess, my instructor said I didnt do too bad

 

I know this is nothing (I saw Los Angeles last weekend) but it was the most I had controlled. Can't wait until I do a Approach during a TGIF event...can't wait.

[Peter Larsen 885332]

Terry you do the Macey Arrival for real .

that is one busy arrival and i should think only the best get that one.

[Jim Johnson 814050]

Four aircraft instructions in a high traffic area is not uncommon. It may just seem longer with all that Spanish!

 

Yes, that is uncommon. I have never heard a real world controller in the US EVER issue more than two instructions using the "break" command. The correct format is Instruction 1, break, Instruction 2. Then it is readback aircraft 2, followed by aircraft 1. Again, having listened to many busy controllers (LAS, LAX, etc), I have never heard 4 instructions without a pause... it's bad form.

 

It's especially bad form on VATSIM, because if you do that, you're going to windup with something like this:

 

Controller: "AAL123, XXX, break UAL456, YYY, break, N123AB, ZZZ, break DAL789, ABC"

 

All four pilots: "SCREECH!!!"

 

All four pilots, plus controller: "blocked"

 

Two pilots: (you might catch half of a readback)

 

 

You can see where this is going. By the time you sort out the mess you caused by issuing a chain of 4 instructions, you could have just as easily (and more quickly) issued each instruction and waited for a readback, or done 2 at a time if you really feel the need to use "break".

 

We teach our students that "break" is used when you as a controller fail to plan accordingly. I worked a very busy position during last weeks TGIF flyin and I used the break command exactly once during a 4 hour shift. It's not necessary, and I'd really love to see people stop using it as a crutch because it leads to endless blocked transmissions and you lose control of your radio, which is something controllers never want to have happen.

[Aaron Flodin 878523]

Would have to agree with Jim here. We both work some very busy airspace in ZLA, but i have never heard any controller use break between 4 instructions. I mean if you think about it from just a planning standpoint. We are supposed to plan ahead for every aircraft that we have, when we get behind the sector, thats when things start to go crazy. If you really need to give 4 aircraft crucial instructions in the space of 15-20 seconds, you should probably re-evaluate the sector and what everyone is doing....

 

 

Blue skies,

 

AF

[Ian Elchitz 810151]

I agree with both of you. I find too many controllers say the word break as often as they take a breath. It's a sure sign of someone who is in over their head (ie - getting their butt kicked).

[Jim Machintosh 880828]

I would have to disagree, personally, I don’t use "break" much, but I have heard a 4 instruction command in the real world in Florida, I've also heard it in SoCal. I've only used it twice on VATSIM. It's definitely not bad form, it’s perfectly acceptable. Real pilots would find this easy to understand, fly your given instruction, and then readback in order. (I usually keep a tally of instructions on a scratchpad, if I hear "break") VATSIM is obviously different, as there are many new pilots.

 

For this particular situation, as some of you may know, Scottsdale lies below the PHX Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] Bravo, and at the time, not only did I have a steady flow of PHX arrivals and departures, I had to deal with SDL...clearances, taxiing etc. Not hard work, but it sure adds to workload when you have to deal with other traffic.

 

It's definitely not a "failure to plan accordingly." Unexpected, unplanned things happen, things that are out of your control as a controller. How do you know if it was the first or second time issuing an instruction to a certain aircraft? What if I had given an instruction 30 seconds prior to one of those aircraft, and he didn’t respond? Issuing the instruction over is the correct thing to do. In ZAB, at PHX we have some obstructing terrain to worry about. On VATSIM, with new pilots and text pilot, who type out the readback before executing the instruction, you never know what will happen. After making a scan of the scope, to find out that a pilot hasn’t flown the correct course, you have give an instruction to another aircraft and then re-issue the same instruction to the aircraft that hasn’t followed instruction initially. It can build and build like this. I’m sure you understand what I’m talking about.

 

Note: This is my opinion, there is no need to tear me up for it! I'm sure Mr. Johnson is a respectable person in the airline/aviation industry that can also shead some insight on this matter.

[Keith Smith]

Opinions obviously differ on this one...but let's look at the 4 instructions issued with breaks..

1) a turn for traffic

2) a turn onto the downwind

3) something in Spanish to a guy on the ground

4) rdr contact and a turn on course.

 

I know hindsight it 20/20, but I would've issued #1, waited for response...issued #2, waited for response, issued #4, waited for response, issued #3.

 

I would've used 'break' if I had two transmissions which were absolutely time critical and needed to go out right away. Unless #2 and #4 were about to enter an area of higher terrain, I wouldn't consider them time critical. #3 certainly didn't appear to be time critical.

 

I'm curious, what actually happened after you issued the instructions all at once? Did #4 respond, then #3, then #2, then #1? I'd be floored if there wasn't at least some confusion or blocking that ensued.

 

My observation is that some controllers have a queue of commands they want to get out (which shows GOOD planning), but then try to empty that queue by issuing all the instructions at once with 'breaks'. I'm not saying that's what happened here, just a general observation.

 

Keith

[Terry Kocher 919807]

What happened happened...nuff said,

 

Lets get back on topic please? I love reading funny moments on VATSIM. Always entertaining.

[Jim Machintosh 880828]

let's look at the 4 instructions issued with break

 

Oh, I guess I should have mentioned that the examples I used were not the actual instructions. I forget what the actual instructions where, I just used these as general instructions to surround the spanish. I believe, from my memory (which isnt that good ) the situation was as follows:

 

For those who really want to know try to picture:

1 westbound departing turbojet (off rwy 25R I believe) climbing through 6,200 for 7,000 on a heading of 140.

1 eastbound arriving turbojet (to land rwy 25L, just about enter left downwind) descending through 7,000 for 4,000. Traffic #1 was off his left shoulder, about 9-10 o'clock, and 2-3 miles.

1 clearance request in Scottsdale

1 random Spanish guy not in my airspace

 

From what I can remember, this is how it happened. "Phenix Approach, EJAXXX, with you on the ramp in Scottsdale. Request IFR to Teterboro." Then, Spanish man asking for service in Spanish.

 

(These two transmissions were back-to-back, so my radio was blocked in those few seconds. I needed to give instruction for traffic.)

 

 

"EJAXXX, standby. Break. DeltaXXX, turn right heading 180, vectors traffic, expedite descent, 4,000. Break. SWAXXX, traffic is Boeing 767, 12 o'clock, 3 miles, descending through 7,100 for 4,000, report in sight. Break. No hablo espanol senor." (or something along thoughs lines)

 

Again, my bad, I should have mentioned that I was just giving an example instruction in my original post.

 

Back to all the funniness (sp?)!!

[Jim Johnson 814050]

For those who really want to know try to picture:

1 westbound departing turbojet (off rwy 25R I believe) climbing through 6,200 for 7,000 on a heading of 140.

1 eastbound arriving turbojet (to land rwy 25L, just about enter left downwind) descending through 7,000 for 4,000. Traffic #1 was off his left shoulder, about 9-10 o'clock, and 2-3 miles.

1 clearance request in Scottsdale

1 random Spanish guy not in my airspace

 

From what I can remember, this is how it happened. "Phenix Approach, EJAXXX, with you on the ramp in Scottsdale. Request IFR to Teterboro." Then, Spanish man asking for service in Spanish.

 

(These two transmissions were back-to-back, so my radio was blocked in those few seconds. I needed to give instruction for traffic.)

 

"EJAXXX, standby. Break. DeltaXXX, turn right heading 180, vectors traffic, expedite descent, 4,000. Break. SWAXXX, traffic is Boeing 767, 12 o'clock, 3 miles, descending through 7,100 for 4,000, report in sight. Break. No hablo espanol senor." (or something along thoughs lines)

 

Ok, example or not, my point still stands. Let's take a look at this traffic scenario piece by piece. Moderators, feel free to break off the "break" discussion to another post so we can continue it without disrupting the funnies.

 

Now, a couple of things about the scenario. We have two sets of traffic using what Keith was talking about, critical and non-critical. They are as follows:

 

Critical would be the two jets on an intercept course and converging altitudes. Non-critical would be the clearance request and the pilot outside of your airspace. Let's look at the critical situation first:

 

I have a hard time figuring this one out. It looks to me like you turned a departing turbojet in front of an arriving turbojet. Why was that departure even on a 140 heading? It's possible this is SOP, but most flows are designed specifically so that traffic will not automatically converge (so if the radio fails they don't hit each other). One way to resolve this situation before the "break" became necessary would have been to keep the departure on runway heading (or a departure heading) and then turned behind the downwind arrival.

 

However, since the two were already converging, it would have been more expeditious to only issue the two critical instructions. The non-critical transmissions could be separated and issued later for clarity. The "tapes" would then look like this:

 

EJAXXX: "On the ramp at Scottsdale, requesting IFR clearance"

ABC123: "(Spanish transmission)"

PHX_APP: "DALXXX turn right heading 180 for traffic, expidite descent to 4000, BREAK, SWAXXX traffic is a 767 12 o'clock, 3 miles, 7,100 descending 4,000 report in sight"

SWAXXX: "Traffic in sight" (or whatever)

DALXXX: "Left 180, expidite to 4"

([Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming you didn't need additional instructions to un-do the deal)

PHX_APP: "EJAXXX, clearance on request standby"

EJAXXX: "Standby"

PHX_APP: "(Spanish response)"

ABC123: "(another Spanish response or whatever)"

 

That method of handling the scenario would have allowed you to instantly focus your attention on the deal that was occuring between DAL and SWA, saving the non-priority traffic for later.

 

Now I still maintain that the situation never should have happened because your departure was 6.2 and your arrival was at 7.1 with 3nm separation. Had you been in a real radar facility (or if the CA was working properly), you would have sounded a CA as soon as you lost 1000 feet of vertical sep between the two planes.

 

Please don't take this as me ragging on you specifically. I've seen this loss of separation stuff happen quite a bit on VATSIM, and I've had my own students do it before. The point of this post is to help newer controllers see how one scenario can be looked at from many different perspectives and show another possible solution.

 

I still maintain that "break" should only be used in emergencies when you have run out of every other option available to you... and I still beleive (as I've shown in this case) that lack of prior planning leads to the "break" command being used. I don't care if you're a VATSIM S1 or a real world controller with 30 years experience. If I hear a stream of "breaks" coming over the frequency then I know you are behind your traffic, which is not a good place to be.

[Grant Christensen 810317]

The problem with to many break instructions would be as had been described by others, and, if the aircraft you gave the first instruction to could not comply, they would have to wait until you had given out and received three more communications before they could tell you so, maybe taking a minute or more factoring in pilot responses, talking over one another etc.

 

Just my $0.02AU worth

[Logan Gloss-Ivory 812647]

Unfortunatly I don't have any GREAT stories, the only ones I find enjoyable are in certain situations that you had to have been there for but some of the most interesting discussions (conversations) I've heard where held on UNICOM back a year or two ago when I would fly...

 

Think that's bad, can you imagine the supervisors taking part in them!

 

Good to know we all have a good time online

[Kyprianos Biris]

Few years ago I had a FS newbie friend first time trying a flight with voice comm's.

 

As he entered my airspace and started exchanging comm's he was slowing down , could not control the deceleration, stalling from cruise altitude and then after me suggesting him to take corrective action, he was managing to regain control and climb up to cruise and regain speed.

 

This kept heppening for about 15 minutes with cycles of the same phenomenon repeating all of the time.

 

He was saving the aircraft each time as it was on its dive to destruction.

He insisted that this was happening for the firts time that day that he tried the voice communication.

 

After talking with him through his cockpit to try to figure out what each vital flight control was doing I found out he was deploying SPOILERS every few seconds.

 

I ask him: why do you deploy them ?

He replies "I don't ! , oops here they go again ..."

What on their own ?

Yes, oops they just came in !

What, again on their own ?

Yes. oooh out they go again !

 

After a while I found out he had set the Push to talk key for his voice client as the spoilers key !!!!!

 

After we found out about it we could not stop laughing for a long time

[Andreas Fuchs]

Good one!!!

[Jim Machintosh 880828]

@Jim I agree with you in that the situation could be handled in many ways. As for the heading of 140 off the runway, its part of the TFD2 SID. Again, that departure was a new pilot, who, instead of flying rwy heading, or a heading 240 as published, decided to cut some corners, and as a result, created this problem. I understand your point, lets put this to rest.

 

@Kyprianos

[Dan Zollner 856370]

I think mine was probably when I used a phrase from one of those aviation humor sites for the first time.

 

CHI_V_CTR: "Airliner 123, turn left heading 090, proceed direct Keeler when able, then as filed, c/m FL240."

Airliner 123: ......... (Nothing)

30 seconds go by...

CHI_V_CTR: "Airliner 123, SIMON SAYS, turn left heading 090, proceed direct Keeler when able, then as filed, c/m FL240."

Instantly....

Airliner 123: "Turn left heading 090, direct Keeler, leaving 13000 for FL240, Airliner 123."

 

I couldn't stop giggling, and quite a few of the other pilots on the channel thought it was rather humorous as well. I can't remember the pilot's callsign, but he was a DAL out of KORD if I remember correctly.