By Dace Nicmane 1313735
#512013 The way I understood the problem from the original post was that the ATC asked the pilot to descend to his/her original level because that's what he/she'd filed. For example, the pilot filed FL330, then climbed to FL350 in uncontrolled airspace or with another ATC, and then asked for FL370 from MSP_CTR, but was told to descend to FL330 because that's what the flightplan says. That, however, sounds extremely unlikely.

Stacy Krahn 907079 wrote:He didn't want me to make another scheduled step climb coming up because he wanted me back down to my original flight level.
By Dace Nicmane 1313735
#512117 What I find most likely is that the pilot didn't request the climb and started to climb on his/her own. It's actually an easy mistake to make because it seems logical you have to fly what you filed, both the route and altitude. Just like with STARs where people think they're required to descend as the chart says and don't realize they need a separate clearance for that.
By Robert Shearman Jr 1155655
Dace Nicmane 1313735 wrote:most likely is that the pilot didn't request the climb and started to climb on his/her own.

That was my read on it as well. Is that different in ICAO versus FAA environments? The pilot says this took place within KZMP so a specific request for the new altitude would need to be verbalized, regardless of how it was filed. Is that also true outside the US?

As far as the shortcut, though, I'm still at a loss as to how a 6000+-hour pilot doesn't know that's common practice, both VATSIM and real...
By Nick Warren 813047
Stacy Krahn 907079 wrote:
Andrew Ogden 1336925 wrote:sorry to be going on about this, but I've been thinking about it for a long time, and once they get a good client I'll be switching over to pilots edge, at least I know they have real world experience or have been trained at it.

Oh to know when to pull the recording from when you get cleared "direct" on Pilotedge. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Maybe the biggest thing you need to take time to visit, is your attitude. From your assertion that you disconnect when you haven't gotten your way, and will continue to do so, to your general demeanor in this discussion. I pretty much have come to the conclusion that you just feel that it's really all about you. You posted a statement in this forum, which was very politely and constructively addressed even by those with "real world experience". Yet because it wasn't what you wanted to hear, you disconnected yourself from the discussion as you do during your flying experience. I don't know how old you are, but I can tell you how old your acting. So, bye
By Sean Harrison 870618
#512271 Taking several of the arguments provided above, does this imply that you would prefer us to submit a FP like KMIA DCT KLAX?

That then is the shortest possible route to save time, fuel, and hassle. As a controller and a pilot when I see a flight plan KXXX DCT KXXY I think about the issues and extra work load.

I have posted about this before, but I still don't understand why (apart from a separation tool) ATC think that a pilot doesn't want what they filed. If I wanted to fly the shortest route I'd file that.
By Bradley Grafelman 1242018
Sean Harrison 870618 wrote:If I wanted to fly the shortest route I'd file that.

And because it makes it immensely difficult (if not impossible) to predict separation (maybe that changes if NextGen comes to VATSIM :lol: ), you'd likely not receive a clearance for it. If, however, you plan a sensible route, various controllers along the way can look ahead within theirs and neighboring sectors once you're airborne and see if MOAs are cold, separation exists, etc. and then remove unnecessary bits of the route (based on LOAs, navigational capabilities, etc.). I wouldn't expect the DEL controller on the ground at KMIA to predict the future and know whether airspaces and MOAs are clear such that a DCT clearance makes sense, nor would I expect Albuquirky Center to be able to immediately and accurately picture how "KMIA..DCT..KLAX" bisects their sectors when they see that flight strip.

Wanting the easiest/most-direct path doesn't mean an intelligent pilot will plan it.
By Nick Warren 813047
Sean Harrison 870618 wrote:Taking several of the arguments provided above, does this imply that you would prefer us to submit a FP like KMIA DCT KLAX?

No, that actually doesn't work in your behalf, but as a terminal controller, once you're airborne, and traffic permitting, I'm may be inclined as a friendly and expiditious gesture to give you direct to the first waypoint outside of my airspace. I'd encourage to listen to LiveATC, especially later at night and you would see how commonplace this is. With enroute controllers the "direct to" can and will extend even further. Is it because you feel you've invested so much time entering waypoints? Is it because you really wanted to see the Grand Canyon from the air that makes this inconvenient? There is a cool one word statement afforded to all pilots for any circumstance. Ready for it..."unable"
By Sean Harrison 870618
#512360 With respect there is a huge difference between "unable" and "prefer not to".

I'm a C1/O, and it is my personal belief, I cannot understand why Controllers need to "recleared direct... then planed route!" I honestly cannot see why, unless it is for separation, sequencing etc.

I see it the same as going to a salesperson at any shop, asking for something, and the salesperson saying "sure, I'll give it to you without.....". What the?

As mentioned it is just one of the strangest most unbelievable things I have every experienced. I know it happens in the real world, but on VATSIM I'm not paying for fuel, or have timetables that I get penalised if I don't keep. BUT even if I did, wouldn't I say "request track shortening!"

Please don't get upset, it is something that I cannot see any sense in. I guess though if given "recleared direct Xxxxx, then planned route!" Is the preferred response "unable!" even though it is a lie.
By Nick Warren 813047
#512369 Unable is just unable. In real life, could I make a LAHSO landing? Probably; but do I necessarily want to chance it depending on the circumstances? So I'll either accept the instruction or say "unable". It's perfectly acceptable. I guess, if it feels better, then you can say, when cleared direct, "If able, request planned route." In most cases, there isn't any more reason to deny that request than there is clear someone direct. It's to the pilot's benefit. :D
By Andreas Fuchs 810809
#512389 Hi Nick,

in this context "unable" means that you are technically unable to follow an instruction, or weather or fuel burn (max landing mass at destination). If you do not want to use a shortcut because you just don't want to, then rather use the phrase "request to follow filed route". ATC will understand this and not think "bloody noob has no idea about his/her FMC" ;)