Air Traffic Controller Discussion With a Global Perspective
By Zain Khan 1345074
#530778 Some good advice for the newer controllers here, and I can say it's good, despite myself sometimes going outside ATC jurisdictions to help in the past.

So basically rejecting clearances to fly is not a breach of VATSIM CoC and CoR?
By Kenneth Haught 1067681
#530784 Some very good tips. I would however caution against denying a clearance unless you are saturated with traffic. You may consider me a "power hungry supervisor", however there are actually two rules which could be considered to be broken by a controller withholding clearance because of a perceived pilot inability to fly "correctly". The first is Code of Conduct section A10 which states
Since this is a learning environment, there are times when a pilot may encounter a new air traffic controller who is in the process of learning his airspace and/or general air traffic control procedures. The same may be true of the controller who may find himself issuing ATC to a pilot flying online for the first time. Everyone should remember to exercise patience and courtesy to these new pilots and controllers.


The second is found in the very article in the Code of Regulations you quoted in your video, just a couple lines down. That is Article 6.03(c), which states
The use of the VATSIM.net network by any member or individual to engage in any
action or conduct which blocks, interferes with or otherwise prevents any other
member(s) of VATSIM.net or individuals from logging on to and/or enjoying the
VATSIM.net network. This rule does not apply to Administrators, Supervisors or other
individuals specifically designated by the VATSIM.net Board of Governors or this
Code of Regulations who are acting within the scope of their authority;


So while you're correct that you can, and should, handle other traffic that is appropriately filed, and who are in more critical stages of flight than requesting clearance, If you've got a whole buncha free time I'd strongly recommend chatting with the pilot via PM to see if you can help them figure out a workable route. I'd go so far as to say that even if you can get them a mostly navaid-navaid route, it should be permitted even if it's not technically "local policy".

If you're busy, of course it often is better to keep them on the ground while they resolve the problem, this is also a great time to raise a supervisor yourself so that we can have a chat with them and offer informational sites where they can find a better route, or learn the correct procedures (or you can do the same via private message!). Be prepared when a supervisor responds though to articulate why what the pilot is requesting isn't possible, and help us help them with finding local procedures, charts, etc.
By nebojsa milosavljevic 817731
#530801 As a pilot and not ATC ,i understand the frustrations sometimes that both pilots and atc face.I have helped fellow pilot's via private chat to start flying .
I remember the old day's when i started,i would find a busy atc center park my self and just listen.You can learn a lot.
People don't want to take time to read manual's and learn.I don't know about atc, but pilots can fly off line to learn a few basics before coming online. Unfortunately some of us don't have patience and it does come up online.

Nebojsa
By Mats Edvin Aaro 1227980
#530911 I second Kenneth’s post!

I just want to add: if you’re overloaded with traffic and there is someone who clearly has NO clue, there’s nothing wrong with pinging a supervisor for assistance. We’re not there just to ‘ban’ people, we are actually there mostly to help. :) Of course it depends on the supervisor’s workload, but know that we’re there and can help!
By Dean Kinch 1298310
#530938
Mats Edvin Aaro 1227980 wrote:I second Kenneth’s post!

I just want to add: if you’re overloaded with traffic and there is someone who clearly has NO clue, there’s nothing wrong with pinging a supervisor for assistance. We’re not there just to ‘ban’ people, we are actually there mostly to help. :) Of course it depends on the supervisor’s workload, but know that we’re there and can help!


To further this, as in real world. Controllers are there to vector pilots and assist to their flight when required. Simply fogging off a pilot is certainly the wrong attitude. As in real world, you should help him/her in anyway you can. Teach yourself to engage with 'difficult' individuals by teaching/helping them.
Iv heard this sort of problem so many times. Vatsim controlling does not relate to real world at all and we should really be doing something to help change that. After all, we are all here to replicate real world right?

Help yourself by helping others, goes both ways. Pilots to controllers and controllers to pilots.
However, to twist this. Again as in real world. If a fully loaded controller encounters a 'difficult' pilot. Ask, yourself what would they do. If its busy and full airspace. They would likely turn them around and decline their presence. So if you're not overloaded, certainly try your best to help each other.
By Tom David 1256094
#530970
Mike Lehkamp 1396931 wrote:
Tom David 1256094 wrote:Here's my 5 step guide:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E19lr795zYo


Nice and intuitive video. Now make one for pilots who deal with incompetent controllers. :wink:


The only option we have i'm afraid is to vote with our disconnect buttons
By Steven Perry 810054
#530993
Tom David 1256094 wrote:
Mike Lehkamp 1396931 wrote:
Tom David 1256094 wrote:Here's my 5 step guide:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E19lr795zYo


Nice and intuitive video. Now make one for pilots who deal with incompetent controllers. :wink:


The only option we have i'm afraid is to vote with our disconnect buttons


Not true! You could provide feedback to the facility. Or you can tactfully provide feedback directly to the controller.

20+ years later, I still distinctly remember being coached by pilots when I gave 90° localizer intercepts, squawk codes with 8s and 9s in them (before auto assigned codes), and vectored someone into a mountain when I tried controlling away from my home area in the Great Plains. The 5 minutes of extra effort they made yielded decades of much better controlling for themselves and thousands of other pilots. Thank goodness they did not "vote with their disconnect buttons".
By Mike Sweeney 811317
#531006 Agree Andreas and Kenneth.

New members, or with little experience or knowledge, can introduce challenges/cause frustration, and the role of ATC is not flight instruction
... but a less adversarial approach would be constructive, and include some ATC-pilot teamwork.

e.g. a request for progressive taxi does not automatically mean that the pilot has not 'bothered to obtain an airport ground chart.'
The request enables a controller to ensure a smooth (and accurate) flow of ground traffic.
A punitive response from ATC, or no response ... not how it works.
By Andreas Fuchs 810809
#531010 ....and you cannot deny a flight/flightplan. If you encounter an interesting flightplan route, such as "GPS DCT", then ATC can still instruct headings or other means of directional control until such pilot has left the airspace. As a first step, however, it would be more appropriate if an ATCO could possibly point pilots with special flightplans to resources like "vroute" or "simbrief" or even provide them with a realistic route and ask if they would agree to use it. I do it on a regular basis and pilots gladly accept those plans, unless their AIRACs arer from 1995 :D
By Tom David 1256094
#531014
Andreas Fuchs 810809 wrote:....and you cannot deny a flight/flightplan. If you encounter an interesting flightplan route, such as "GPS DCT", then ATC can still instruct headings or other means of directional control until such pilot has left the airspace. As a first step, however, it would be more appropriate if an ATCO could possibly point pilots with special flightplans to resources like "vroute" or "simbrief" or even provide them with a realistic route and ask if they would agree to use it. I do it on a regular basis and pilots gladly accept those plans, unless their AIRACs arer from 1995 :D


How about: no