VATUSA Forums
General => The Control Room Floor => Topic started by: Don Desfosse on September 02, 2013, 12:12:41 AM
-
Folks, there was an issue that came up tonight that I thought I'd address.
Background: An enroute controller allegedly declined to give a shortcut to a pilot because he could not coordinate with a controller from the adjoining ARTCC, because no one from the adjoining Center was online.
I think it is silly not to give a shortcut based on the fact that an adjacent ARTCC is not online. Granted, I don't mean "proceed direct the other side of the country", but a VOR in an adjoining ARTCC's airspace, particularly one that your guys might have on the scope, is not a reach.
The correct procedure for marking the flight strip, of course, if presented with (hypothetical example)
SEA J90 MWH HIA RAP FOD J94 PMM J70 ALPHE J70 LVZ LENDY6
and you're going to clear the person direct FOD would be to modify the strip to say
..FOD J94 PMM J70 ALPHE J70 LVZ LENDY6
Even if the adjoining Center came online and your CTR controller forgot to coordinate the shortcut, they'd see that the aircraft is currently direct FOD and then see the rest of the cleared route.
My main message is that there are some VATSIMisms that we need to try to accomodate to keep the network a reasonably fun place to be. Although it's true that the RW won't have "ZXX is offline..." there are things we can do to make VATSIM a more inviting place to fly by bending reality just a tiny bit to fit our VATSIM reality that are not a big deal and are acceptable.
We won't have aircraft to control if we don't have enough judgment to be flexible, within reason, to accommodate simple stuff.
-
And exactly what's wrong with clearing direct the other side of the country ?
The only thing I'll do in addition to this personally, is throw in a Fix/Radial/Distance of the closest major VOR to the plane when I issue the shortcut along with timestamp the flight plan with the amendment. In the r/w, HOST/ERAM throws in this info automatically, but VRC's .rsb VOR <asel> function makes it easy enough.
So in Don's example above, if I clear a guy direct FOD and he's 55 west of ONL, I'll do ./.ONL275055..FOD.J94.PMM.J70.ALPHE.J70.LVZ.LENDY6/KZMP[TIME]
-
So the following would be incorrect?
"DAL123 Atlanta Center radar contact, climb and maintain FL380 direct LAX VOR"
Seriously though I typically say when asked for a shortcut, " IND_CTR offline so I am sure he won't care, direct IIU approved"
-
So the following would be incorrect?
"DAL123 Atlanta Center radar contact, climb and maintain FL380 direct LAX VOR"
Seriously though I typically say when asked for a shortcut, " IND_CTR offline so I am sure he won't care, direct IIU approved"
Nothing stopping you from doing it, but it would ideally be to something on his flight plan. If ZLA wants him via TNP.SEAVU2 down the line, they'll fix it. That being said, I'll usually stop short of clearing direct destination in that case. I'll more often do "Direct TNP, SEAVU2 arrival, maintain FL380". That way their STAR and descent is intact.
-
Nothing stopping you from doing it, but it would ideally be to something on his flight plan. If ZLA wants him via TNP.SEAVU2 down the line, they'll fix it. That being said, I'll usually stop short of clearing direct destination in that case. I'll more often do "Direct TNP, SEAVU2 arrival, maintain FL380". That way their STAR and descent is intact.
And this is exactly what we do in the reverse. Assuming the flight plan was filed correctly (read: decent routing and transition to a STAR is specified), we won't know what type of crossing restriction a STAR will have, let alone SOPs needed to meet that crossing restriction without either pulling up that chart, or finding that SOP on the sector's site (if it exists at all). Consider the following route:
KLAX HOLTZ9.TRM DRK J6 ZUN ACH TCC J6 PNH SYO FSM MEM.KOLTT1 KATL
If I at Los Angeles Center wanted to give this flight a shortcut, I don't know if there is a crossing restriction at MEM unless I pull up the chart. I also won't know if there is an SOP in place to have them at a certain altitude prior to transitioning onto the STAR. I also wouldn't know if there is an LOA in place that dictates a crossing restriction. So I wouldn't try to clear them directly to the transition on that STAR.
If the adjacent sectors were up and running (in this case, ABQ, FTW, and MEM), I'd APREQ as far as I could go before the STAR. Otherwise, In this case, and if I get the APREQ approved, I'd clear them to FSM as soon as I practically could. If they weren't up, I'd do the same, if the pilot can accommodate and is practical for me.
BL.
-
Curious....
What prevents us from giving a vector direct next NAVAID/FIX outside our airspace without actual clearance to that which is not in our jurisdiction if the pilot has made a request for a shortcut?
EXAMPLE: "Fly heading xxx". Once the aircraft has reached the limits of your ARTCC airspace, either hand-off to the next ARTCC with an amended flight plan, or the ususal phrase of "XXXX, you are leaving my airspace, XXX CTR not on- line at this time, freqency change approved" (etc.). Chat or call to next controller before handoff might be a good courtesy as well.
-
Curious....
What prevents us from giving a vector direct next NAVAID/FIX outside our airspace without actual clearance to that which is not in our jurisdiction if the pilot has made a request for a shortcut?
EXAMPLE: "Fly heading xxx". Once the aircraft has reached the limits of your ARTCC airspace, either hand-off to the next ARTCC with an amended flight plan, or the ususal phrase of "XXXX, you are leaving my airspace, XXX CTR not on- line at this time, freqency change approved" (etc.). Chat or call to next controller before handoff might be a good courtesy as well.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]4-4-6. DIRECT CLEARANCES
b. EN ROUTE. Do not issue revised routing clearances that will take an aircraft off its flight plan route past the last fix in your facility's airspace, unless requested by the pilot or operational necessity dictates.[/quote]
However, it must be noted that plain and simple this conversation dictates on common sense (oh no did I just use that term on a VATSIM discussion board ). What time of day is it, What day of the week is it. How busy is the NAS. Are there any events taking place nearby (especially at the destination airport or other airports along their route). What airport are they going to. Is that a large hub and busy airport. Is it a satellite field of a large hub and busy airport. These and more are all factors to consider when answering this question.
For example when working ZID I will give "direct to" clearances all the time. Probably 10 times more than when controlling ZTL. It all just came down to how the airspace was designed and how tightly compact that section airspace is they are flying through. Also that ZID saw a lot more en route traffic where ZTL is heavily populated with arrivals and departures.
-
However, it must be noted that plain and simple this conversation dictates on common sense (oh no did I just use that term on a VATSIM discussion board ). What time of day is it, What day of the week is it. How busy is the NAS. Are there any events taking place nearby (especially at the destination airport or other airports along their route). What airport are they going to. Is that a large hub and busy airport. Is it a satellite field of a large hub and busy airport. These and more are all factors to consider when answering this question.
For example when working ZID I will give "direct to" clearances all the time. Probably 10 times more than when controlling ZTL. It all just came down to how the airspace was designed and how tightly compact that section airspace is they are flying through. Also that ZID saw a lot more en route traffic where ZTL is heavily populated with arrivals and departures.
Thanks for locating that section. I looked for it before I posted the above, but missed it. Another piece of it is the note at the bottom of the section. I like your interpretation.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]NOTE−
Nothing in this paragraph must preclude a controller from
issuing a routing clearance that conforms to a letter of
agreement or standard operating procedure within their
own facility or between facilities, is required to maintain
separation or comply with traffic flow management
initiatives.[/quote]
-
I asked this very question to the RW ZFW when we visited there. Late at night they will actually clear a DFW dep aircraft bound for O'Hare direct ORD. If another ARTCC is offline on vatsim, I will certainly look at that option of clearign and aircraft direct for a shortcut.
-
I asked this very question to the RW ZFW when we visited there. Late at night they will actually clear a DFW dep aircraft bound for O'Hare direct ORD. If another ARTCC is offline on vatsim, I will certainly look at that option of clearign and aircraft direct for a shortcut.
If you could get hold of them again, ask them why and what their rationale is for clearing the O'Hare flight direct to ORD. That could effectively cancel their STAR. If we did that here and ZAU isn't on, the pilot would reach ORD and do what? Saying "not my responsibility, outside my airspace" isn't a really good solution, because it would be ZFW that created the problem.
RW has the failsafe that ZKC and ZAU are always up and running; we don't have that luxury.
BL.
-
If you could get hold of them again, ask them why and what their rationale is for clearing the O'Hare flight direct to ORD. That could effectively cancel their STAR. If we did that here and ZAU isn't on, the pilot would reach ORD and do what? Saying "not my responsibility, outside my airspace" isn't a really good solution, because it would be ZFW that created the problem.
RW has the failsafe that ZKC and ZAU are always up and running; we don't have that luxury.
BL.
R/W the rationale is that the aircraft will be just issued a "cross xx miles SW of ORD at/maintain 10,000" and be worked in non-STAR. That late at night, most airports in the Midwest that see arrivals from all directions will run everyone direct and vector. The issue there, as stated by Brad above, is that online we don't have controllers on to provide further instructions, and most VATSIM pilots aren't smart enough to do lost comms procedures and go direct an IAF.
-
R/W the rationale is that the aircraft will be just issued a "cross xx miles SW of ORD at/maintain 10,000" and be worked in non-STAR. That late at night, most airports in the Midwest that see arrivals from all directions will run everyone direct and vector. The issue there, as stated by Brad above, is that online we don't have controllers on to provide further instructions, and most VATSIM pilots aren't smart enough to do lost comms procedures and go direct an IAF.
More so than that.. If given "cleared direct ORD". Which ORD? The airport? The VOR? It's akin to "Cleared Direct Chicago". Which Chicago? Which airport in Chicago, as there are at least 4 airports named "Chicago": Chicago O'Hare, Chicago Midway, Chicago Executive, and Chicago Gary. Again, the real world won't have this problem, but telling them 'cleared direct ORD' or 'cleared direct Chicago' can create a lot of confusion..
BL.
-
You guys crack me up with this "real world" this, and "real world" that. This is NOT the real world, this is VATSIM. Not granting a short cut based the adjoining CTR not being online is absurd if the pilot requested it. I've offered shortcuts and the pilot declined saying they just wanted to fly the route they filed for. Fine with me. We need to accommodate the VATSIM pilots, most of which have no "real world" experience.
-
You guys crack me up with this "real world" this, and "real world" that. This is NOT the real world, this is VATSIM. Not granting a short cut based the adjoining CTR not being online is absurd if the pilot requested it.
Wow Scott...I'm certain most will agree the condescending comment really adds a lot to the discussion. Personally, thank you so much for calling those who may have a different opinion as yours "absurd."
-
Folks, before this devolves any further.... We are on the same team, working toward the same goal -- have fun enjoying a hobby that helps others have fun enjoying our hobby.
I think we can all agree that, as a simulation, we are attempting to simulate the real world as much as practical, given boundaries and limitations of our network, traffic, volunteer nature, etc. I think we can all agree that emulating a reasonable amount of realism, while giving reasonable flexibility and allowances for the various VATSIMisms, is a good and smart thing to do. Yes, it's gray. Yes, it's squishy. Yes, it's a matter of interpretation, and your mileage may vary based on the leadership/culture in place at each ARTCC. But the key is to attempt to emulate the real world, within reason, and yet keep it fun and inviting for people to want to participate. It's like walking on a razor blade, and the line is blurry.
That said, let's do the best we can to work TOGETHER to be reasonable, respectful and have fun.
-
You guys crack me up with this "real world" this, and "real world" that. This is NOT the real world, this is VATSIM. Not granting a short cut based the adjoining CTR not being online is absurd if the pilot requested it. I've offered shortcuts and the pilot declined saying they just wanted to fly the route they filed for. Fine with me. We need to accommodate the VATSIM pilots, most of which have no "real world" experience.
... And the reasonable "far-left" viewpoint comes out of the woodwork. /sarcasm
Yeah, we get it. It's not the real world. But instead of making it a free-for-all sandbox, a lot of people here try to make it a valuable, semi-realistic (at the very least) experience that creates a learning environment that those without real world experience can take something positive away from. Educate. Allowing everyone to just do what they want without attempting to educate (hence the reason Don posted this) does no favors for anyone, especially if you find yourself on this side of the scope. If you just allow pilots to run you over with every little request, might as well stop referring to this as "air traffic control" and just call it "air traffic suggestion" and hope and pray your separation (or lack thereof) just magically "works" and doesn't create a massive CF for others down the line to have to clean up.
Most would agree, we are attempting to simulate reality as much as practical. There's nothing wrong with what anyone has said here. It's mostly educational debate that gets you thinking about things a little differently... Think outside the box a little.
-
... And the reasonable "far-left" viewpoint comes out of the woodwork. /sarcasm
Andrew, I agree with what you are saying, I'm just getting a little sick of the "real world" thing. I have plenty of experience in the real world on the flying side, and believe me, what most of the VATSIM pilots think of the real world is "out there" to say the least.
And if you refer back to the OP
"I think it is silly not to give a shortcut based on the fact that an adjacent ARTCC is not online. Granted, I don't mean "proceed direct the other side of the country", but a VOR in an adjoining ARTCC's airspace, particularly one that your guys might have on the scope, is not a reach."
That's all I'm trying to say also.
-
Scott,
I, too, have a good deal of experience flying r/w. What I found interesting is that you scoffed at the mention of my bringing up that there's absolutely nothing wrong with direct destination airport during a low-traffic environment. Aircraft (yes, even the tubeliners that everyone on VATSIM is so fond of flying) go direct destination every day into smaller class C/D fields that don't have SID/STAR procedures, and also into Class B primary airports late at night on the mid-shift, which incidentally is the only time most of us issue said shortcut. Said procedure simply requires the pilot to (gasp!) PLAN A DESCENT ON THEIR OWN and maybe be a bit proactive in requesting an approach or planning self-vectors if there's no controller online, which would be the same whether or not he's on a STAR. Unfortunately, that requires a bit of situational awareness, which is sorely lacking not only on the network, but also within the pilot population for which I'm responsible for training at my real job every day.
If it's a REASONABLE pilot request, I have no problem turning it down. I have no problem leaving a guy who is unable or unwilling to re-program on his flight plan either. I just find it funny that we're the ones always being taken to task about not accommodating pilots, when there's very little most pilots on the network are willing to do to accommodate a controller.
-
You guys crack me up with this "real world" this, and "real world" that.
I'm just getting a little sick of the "real world" thing.
Who are "you guys" and who is making you "sick"? I do not see one post in this thread of a person saying they would not issue a direct to clearance. Where is it? Am I blind? The only post saying that someone said they would not was in Don's OP about a controller who probably is not even reading this thread anyways.
"I think it is silly not to give a shortcut based on the fact that an adjacent ARTCC is not online. Granted, I don't mean "proceed direct the other side of the country", but a VOR in an adjoining ARTCC's airspace, particularly one that your guys might have on the scope, is not a reach."
That's all I'm trying to say also.
As I read all of these posts it looks as if everyone in here was in agreement with this. So instead of making you sick and cracking you up. Please reread the post and see that everyone in here so far has agreed with this.
-
Folks, before this devolves any further.... We are on the same team, working toward the same goal -- have fun enjoying a hobby that helps others have fun enjoying our hobby.
I think we can all agree that, as a simulation, we are attempting to simulate the real world as much as practical, given boundaries and limitations of our network, traffic, volunteer nature, etc. I think we can all agree that emulating a reasonable amount of realism, while giving reasonable flexibility and allowances for the various VATSIMisms, is a good and smart thing to do. Yes, it's gray. Yes, it's squishy. Yes, it's a matter of interpretation, and your mileage may vary based on the leadership/culture in place at each ARTCC. But the key is to attempt to emulate the real world, within reason, and yet keep it fun and inviting for people to want to participate. It's like walking on a razor blade, and the line is blurry.
That said, let's do the best we can to work TOGETHER to be reasonable, respectful and have fun.
Guess I should have locked it after I posted about not devolving any further. I had more faith in the community. Oh well; lesson learned.