By Josh Jenk 1383451
#535593
Ben Stevenson 956216 wrote:I disagree here, as a controller if i'm providing a clearance and the SID the pilot should be flying differs from the one they filed, i'm not going to just assign them the proper SID and then go "not my problem". I'd check with the pilot that they are indeed able to accept the new SID before assigning it and either they will accept it or i give them a vector SI


Europe is quite different from the US/Canada in various procedures. Although, I do have to say it shocks me how little responsibility DEL takes for ensuring a complete routing when the route is modified.
By Andreas Fuchs 810809
#535599 Why does it shock you? DEL is only responsible for the departure clearance, the rest he/she would have to coordinate with an enroute controller. During the absence of such a controller you can enquire with DEL what you are supposed to do after the end of the cleared SID, if it does not connect directly with your filed (=merely requested!) route. If the controller is experienced enough and has enough time on his/her hands, this service will be provided. Otherwise you can make some quick research yourself, there are sooooo many sources of good information available for free to us: SkyVector, vroute, FlightAware to name just a few.

And why should a controller ask a pilot whether he can follow another SID instead of the filed/requested one? If you can follow SID A, why shouldn't you be able to follow SID B? If not, the pilot in question can still enquire with ATC and report that he is unable.
By Josh Jenk 1383451
#535618 Ok let me just clarify something real quick: I'm not a real world pilot or controller right now so anything I say is purely from my own research over the last 4.5 years I've been on flight sims. Alright now to answer your question:

Andreas Fuchs 810809 wrote:Why does it shock you?

I primarily fly in North America (and control at CZVR) so it has been reinforced numerous times that the delivery controller (or whoever is giving the intial clearance) will always, always make sure an amended route connects back to either the filed route OR the clearance limit (the destination). As others have stated already this removes any ambiguity in the event of a loss in communications between the controller and the pilot. Now earlier you did say:
Should we have lost COMMS, we would have used what we get paid for the big bucks: common sense.
However, on VATSIM we all know not everyone has that common sense. So although I do understand the way Europe handles the departure clearances, it still makes more sense to me to have it done the North American way. It just prevents that one "oops" from ever happening. Both IRL and on VATSIM.

Andreas Fuchs 810809 wrote:DEL is only responsible for the departure clearance, the rest he/she would have to coordinate with an enroute controller.

Again going back to my S1 training at ZVR, one of DEL responsibilities is to make sure the aircraft have the correct routing to safely depart said airport. With that being said it makes sense to me (and it's what we do at Vancouver) that the correct departure routings for aircraft are either defined in an SOP or coordinated between controllers when they first log-on and/or at a runway change. This would make it a lot easier for DEL controllers as they don't have to talk to the enroute controllers nearly as much (thereby reducing workload). Just a thought :D

Andreas Fuchs 810809 wrote: During the absence of such a controller you can enquire with DEL what you are supposed to do after the end of the cleared SID

In that case, would it not save time to take 5 extra seconds to connect the amended route back to the filed route?

Andreas Fuchs 810809 wrote:And why should a controller ask a pilot whether he can follow another SID instead of the filed/requested one? If you can follow SID A, why shouldn't you be able to follow SID B? If not, the pilot in question can still enquire with ATC and report that he is unable.

Not everyone is flying the most advanced aircraft addon with the most current AIRAC cycle. A pilot could have SID A but maybe SID B came out in the most recent cycle which he doesn't have yet. Also if you were loading a SID into the default FSX GPS for example you may have all the waypoints for SID A in FSX's database but a couple waypoints from SID B may not be in FSX's database because it is too new.

Cheers,
By Alasdair Whyborn 1341821
#535628 This is a common issue in a lot of European airports due to there being somewhat ambiguous restrictions in what SIDs and other routes can be used by what aircraft flying where.

In Zürich the DEL controller on an average VATSIM night will spend a substantial amount of time reclearing aircraft via correct routings, my training there has been to give the pilots one of the valid routings whenever possible. IF the pilot happens to be unable to fly the correct routing it is the job of the controller issuing the clearance to ensure that ALL the relevant stations are knowledgeable of the aircraft flying on a non-standard routing.

An example:
1. SWR123 files ZUE T164 PSA to EDDF, FL240. (Not valid routing because of altitude restriction in ZUE SIDs)
2. DEL controller reclears SWR123 via DEGES Z1 LOKTA T164 TEDGO T163 PSA, FL220.
3. If SWR123 unable, request from LSZH_APP a ZUE departure (above the normal level restriction) and advise LSAS_CTR of traffic departing LSZH on T163.
4. Clear SWR123 via ZUE or other departure negotiated with LSZH_APP

Never is it ok to clear SWR123 a DEGES departure in front of ZUE T164 PSA routing, and any deviation from the standard DEGES Z1 LOKTA T164 TEDGO T163 PSA for FL160-220 must be negotiated with the relevant controllers.

If the controller workload dictates that the aircraft must fly the standard routing and the aircraft is unable to accept said departure, the aircraft will not be allowed to fly the route.