Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Lee Sacharin

Pages: [1]
The Control Room Floor / Re: Pilot Expectations, cont...
« on: July 10, 2021, 09:46:45 PM »
A ton of good ideas presented, hopefully not all on deaf ears.  As a online controller (who does not fly the network at all...but does IRL) I have an appreciation for the use of certification, continued training and learning, feedback, and testing.  With all that in mind, the need for annual checking should be included in any environment.  This concept is (for Vatsim) should not be limited to pilots but controllers as well. 

We check an individual to whatever the level (C1, S3, etc.) and never recheck/test them for competency again.  While some do an excellent job, others develop poor habits and deviate from taught standards with no return to square 0.  Does your ARTCC have 'undesirables' or persons who simply need some level of instruction/training whereby they are called out on concerns?  Apply the same logic to future 'rated' pilots here in Vatsim.  They enter the IFR world without any bi-annual requirement...never learning again without checking or feedback.

I understand the difficulties in keeping up with staff to instruct new members without the task of a annual (or bi-annual) review/check.  Increase the work to include the pilot-world and things become even more daunting.

Easy to point out problems and areas that are lacking....viable and achievable solutions, that's where the real talent is.

One issue is a lack of standard or preferred (order) method on how LLCalls should be handled.  Depending on the ARTCC (and the controller), some have Discord, others TS, and some facilities with both.  Many ARTCC's do not share their login's with Tier1 neighbors or locally have a process where that info is published for easy use.  Of course there is private/atc chat functions and we all know the pros/cons of each.  In a more perfect world (that's what we strive for...) global guidance would dictate policy and method (i.e. use (1) client intercom, (2) TS, (3) Discord, (4) Private Chat, (5) ATC Chat...or whatever the order may be. 

What is the set route function on some plans?  If listed it show a 0 or 0,1 or 0,1,2 etc.  The option is not listed on all fltplans

News / Re: Memphis Hires New Training Administrator
« on: May 15, 2020, 09:31:03 AM »
Congrats Brogan!

The Control Room Floor / Re: Direct Requests
« on: April 01, 2020, 09:14:00 AM »
I took a rough look at the fixes others have posted and most are around 1000nm give or take.  Its not a limiting number or anything and of course the US is only so wide...but I think the concept of giving directs is a good thing overall.   As a night flyer (more so than day that is...) I appreciate the directs that are given, except when specifically planned to avoid/advantage of wind or weather patterns.  To keep on thread topic, I wish Vatsim/Vatusa had some global guidance to further clarify and provide a uniform approach to the topic (remaining subject to the controller on duty as to if/what/where a clearance is given).  But then again there are numerous areas whereby uniform policy should be's just something that's not done for some reason or another.

The Control Room Floor / Re: Direct Requests
« on: March 29, 2020, 09:21:13 PM »
Not real sure what the GNSS capability of a/c performance has to do with clearing (or filing) to fixes or en-route waypoints.  Remember, for continental operations (not remote or oceanic) aircraft operate on RNP-2, so the GNSS component for this discussion comes to play only on arrival and approach operations.

I doubt most (if not all) Vatsim artcc's have LOA restrictions or discussions regarding en-route directs.  With that in mind, I try to apply what makes sense.  I do not believe in clearing someone 1000nm downrange to a long distance fix, and rarely have I seen this IRL.  Clearing aircraft (on vatsim) to a known fix in the next artcc or subsequent following artcc is far enough.  Additionally, a C1 should have a little knowledge of major airspace around the country and the en-route structure.  In other words, if heading to the west coast, you should know there are fixes/vor where airways or arrivals begin and avoid restricted/military airspace (don't clear direct to LAX!).  Same applies to the NE airspace, etc.  There is a difference when the destination is MSP, ATL, MIA, JFK, SFO, vs OMA, AMA, BOI, etc.   

It is an interesting discussion though...

The Control Room Floor / Re: ACARS - CPDLC
« on: December 25, 2019, 10:38:50 PM »
Obviously it adds an element to oceanic ops that can provide another level to the experience on the flight deck and controller side.  For domestic operations....I can understand what RR eluded to regarding juggling another client in ones background that is not functional directly with Vatsim.  Very difficult (for me..) to determine who has the on-board capability and is using it.  With rapid changes in domestic en-route operations, particularly near airspace boundaries, I think voice service is the only way to go.  After all, how many people have advocated the elimination of 'text pilot' with the newest system capabilities?  Perhaps a more robust domestic CPDLC product, integrated within common/approved clients, could be somewhere in Vatsims distant future and serve as the text replacement.

The Control Room Floor / ACARS - CPDLC
« on: December 24, 2019, 10:13:12 PM »
Has anyone been requested or inquired about the use of ACARS CPDLC via (another) 3rd party client during the enroute phase of US operations?  I was asked by a few separate pilots if I was CPDLC capable and utilizing that service.  I have found the client that was referred to for review.  I don't know if it is acceptable (or restricted) since it is not listed in Vatsim's policies for approved clients. 

I am not promoting for them, just inquiring with the brain-trust on here.  This is the link to their homepage.

The Classroom (Controller Tips) / Re: Responding to Guidance
« on: September 04, 2017, 06:19:23 PM »
[quote author=Reuben Prevost link=topic=7154.msg31659#msg31659 date=1503602082

I was explaining to a group of aircraft how the "heavy" designation is not necessary in enroute airspace. Both of these pilots were VATUSA Instructors (I didn't know at the time) and it seemed as if one of the Instructors was upset that I had given the explanation. I went on to explain that we all make mistakes and that I wasn't trying to be rude. I think that the situation concluded positively, so kudos to the Instructors.

Just a point of clarity, and I wasn't there for the conversation, so some of this may have been covered.

Enroute.."Heavy" may be omitted except for the following:
- communicated with a Terminal facility
- communications when the Enroute Controller is providing approach services (which is often!)
- communications when separation may be less than 5 miles via LOA or procedure
- when providing traffic advisories

While not required, pilots should make their initial call to a enroute center with the 'heavy' callsign; subsequent communications do not need to be prefixed with 'heavy'.  All terminal phase operations require the heavy callsign with all communications.

I *think* this is all the thread, I reserve the right to be mistaken :)

Pages: [1]