Ok , perhaps I'm playing devil's advocate a touch, but I have to put this out there. First and foremost, I'm gonna raise my hand and call myself out as one of the pilots who screwed this up. I went direct HUNDA on the ILS25L following SEAVU and got called out for it, then vectored to intercept the localizer outside of range (going through it again because out of range) before I got a clearance for the visual. A proper hot mess. All completely my fault, no doubt. I'm not here to say otherwise. But I would like to point out the reason I messed up, since there is I think more nuance here than just "read the **** charts". I have been around Vatsim for years, and logged 500+ hours flying, 300+ controlling, and am a C1 rated controller. Far less than many to be sure, but hardly new to things. I had the charts up, on a second monitor while flying. I was looking at the ILS25L plate, but personally was under the impression that it wasn't necessary to fly the entire approach since we so very infrequently do on Vatsim. I was under the (false) idea that an approach clearance basically allowed me to go to any point prior to the FAF. I have since actually looked it up and realized my error, the difference lies in being vectored to the final approach course vs flying the entire approach from an IAF. I was unaware this was something I needed to look up, until I realized there was something I did not know. My point however, is if a 500 hour pilot can make this mistake while looking at the chart, perhaps we're pushing the limits of what we can reasonably expect on the network. I have neither the time nor the disposable income to pursue an instrument rating IRL. If I did, I probably wouldn't be flying here.
On the flip side of this as a controller, I go into an FNO *knowing* that this kind of mistake is going to happen all night long, and regard my responsibility as a controller to adapt accordingly. Surely this mistake didn't just start happening during the event. Frequent controllers of this airspace must have known that this was a common mistake, and likely to be a problem. If that had been me, I perhaps would have been assigning headings off the IAF's as opposed to just giving cleared approach. (eg: instead of "At SEAVU, cleared ILS 25L" I might have done something like "Depart SEAVU heading 245 (or whatever it actually is, I don't have a protractor handy) cross <Whatever fix is appropriate> at or above <some altitude> cleared ILS 25L"). While I get that this does take a touch more time on frequency, and isn't what you would hear in real life; it takes the routing out of the pilots hands. Regardless of what they're flying or how their FMC is programmed, I know that the vast majority can twist a heading into the autopilot and engage heading hold. I know reasonably well at that point what they are going to do. Plus, this is easily followed by even the simplest of default aircraft with no navdata or even no RNAV at all. And yes, I know, there are still going to be pilots that don't actually know where SEAVU is or mess up the turn, but those pilots are going to mess it up no matter what I say, and at least (I hope) it will be a shorter list. Heck, this is why we seem to default to vectors to final in the first place, right? I'd bet the time taken on frequency to give slightly more verbose clearances is offset by the number of pilot mistakes I won't have to fix.
Maybe it's just a difference in perspective, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect pilots on Vatsim to perform to the same standards as actual instrument rated pilots. I would pose the question of a pilot flying into perhaps their first serious event on the network, who is given instructions that leave them thinking "Cool, I can do that!" and smoothly getting to their destination vs. getting grilled by a controller on frequency and disconnecting, or called out in the forums: Who had the better experience? Which one is going to stick around and listen and learn, and (hopefully) improve? Which one is going to become the basis for the next generation of controllers, and how are they going to handle the same situations when they are on the other end of the scope? Are they going to give the same instructions they hear on LiveATC because "That's what the *real* ATC does!" or "The SOP says so" without regard for the situation, or are they going to realize that maybe by changing things up a bit they can make things a whole lot easier both for the pilots as well as themselves, and improve everyone's experience?
And I strongly disagree with the attitude I all so often hear that if a pilot is new or less skilled they should avoid events entirely. Not in your post specifically, but anyone who has spent any amount of time hanging out with controllers has heard this time and time again. This is precisely the kind of gatekeeping and exclusivity that I think we all ought to be working hard to eliminate. To every single person on Vatsim I ask: What would you have done in this situation on your first few dozen flights online? Would you have perfectly understood the subtleties of the situation? Do you think you should have been barred from participating in events as a result?
So, to answer your questions:
-Most Vatsim pilots will mess this up. Are you one of them? Yes, until last night, I was.
-Was I unsure of how to fly the clearance I was given? No, I didn't realize it differed significantly from what I was accustomed to. I lacked that knowledge. I wasn't unsure, I was uneducated.
-Can I fly assigned headings, altitudes and airspeeds with a 100% success rate? Yes, I can.
-Can I disconnect the A/P and hand fly assigned headings, altitudes and airspeeds? Yes, I can, and do if I realize the airplane is doing something I did not expect. In this case, it did exactly what I told it to do (in error, but unknown to me at the time)
-You have no excuse for not having the chart: I did have the chart.
-It was embarrassing the number of pilots who messed up their routing. I am not embarrassed at all. In fact, I am willing to out myself in a public forum, not as being a terrible pilot or a child of the magenta; but as someone who learned something new that they did not previously know, and who will not make the same mistake again. As someone who is simultaneously thankful for the learning opportunity, and disappointed by the attitudes that seem to run rampant questioning anyone who would dare fly into an event and *gasp* make a mistake!
You are a real world IFR pilot, and air traffic controller. I am not, nor will I ever be, either of these. I applaud your dedication to your career, but understand that your career is merely my hobby. I will never *ever* be able to operate at the levels of knowledge, skill and proficiency that you posses. I simply lack the ability to put that level of time into something which is for me, just a way to relax and unwind. I'll probably catch some heat for this, but at the end of the day we're playing make believe airplanes on the internet. It's a game. Games are supposed to be fun. So maybe just a bit less worrying about exactly what actual certified professional controllers and pilots do, and a bit more having fun.
