VATUSA Forums
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Matthew Blauser on October 04, 2017, 06:46:26 PM
-
I was flying into Martha's Vineyard the other day. I was low and slow VFR in a Cessna 172. I had chosen VRD26 (redwood-26) as my callsign for the flight. During the flight I got a PM from Center. He had some "suggestions" for me regarding my callsign. In the PM the controller let me know that, while not prohibited by Code of Conduct, using an airline callsign for my flight was not "realistic". He further informed me that some might find my use of the callsign "silly".
Starting with his second assertion regarding the "silliness" of my callsign, how does the VATUSA community feel about that? Is it "silly" for me to use an airline callsign flying VFR in a C172?
Looking at his first assertion regarding the "realism" of my callsign, I'd like some help from the community on that point. I'm thinking I don't agree with him, but I'd like some feedback.
Are there realistic situations where a light piston plane on VFR would still be entitled to use an airline callsign? I'm really asking because I'm not clear. I can imagine some situations where this might happen, and want to check with people. Is "airline" and VFR mutually exclusive or are they sometimes compatible?
For example, a "mom and pop" company flying sightseeing tours, or doing for-hire small scale charters. I am thinking that either of these could be realistic situations where a light piston plane flying VFR would be entitled to an airline callsign. Is that correct?
Are sightseeing tours or for-hire private charter required to file IFR? Would they be entitled to an airline callsign? In either case I don't think the equipment is a factor.
Now, all of that aside, I'm going to say that controllers messaging pilots about their choices regarding the "realism" or "silliness" of their callsigns is not in line with my expectations. I'm also going to say that I don't think it makes for a friendly and inviting environment.
Matthew
Fort Worth, Texas
-
It's non of our business what your callsign is unless it's offensive (profanity, AAL11, etc).
-
Might want to tell that to the bush companies up here in Alaska... I know 40-Mile Air based out of Tok, AK (6K8) with the certificate and identifier of MLA would love to have a discussion about small aircraft using an "airliner" callsign... seeing as how they use Stationairs, Cubs, etc.
The type of aircraft doesn't make or break use of callsign. It is VERY common in Alaska to have tiny aircraft with non-tail number callsigns. It matters as to the type of flight and certification of the company, not the type of aircraft doing it.
The companies I see that do VFR and IFR flying using their identifier:
Wright Flyer Air Service (WRF)
Warbelows (WAV)
Frontier Air (FTA)
40-Mile Air (MLA)
Ryan Air (RYA)
Lynden Air Transport (LYC)
Ravn Flight (RVF)
Bering Air (BRG)
Hageland Aviation (HAG)
etc. and that's just for Fairbanks, AK (PAFA) realworld.
-
The companies I see that do VFR and IFR flying using their identifier:
Wright Flyer Air Service (WRF)
Warbelows (WAV)
Frontier Air (FTA)
40-Mile Air (MLA)
Ryan Air (RYA)
Lynden Air Transport (LYC)
Ravn Flight (RVF)
Bering Air (BRG)
Hageland Aviation (HAG)
My personal favorite for VFR and IFR flying: University of Oklahoma "Crimson" (OUA) ;)
Boomer!
That being said, OU operates a fleet mainly made up of small Piper aircraft, so you won't see me using this callsign when flying my 737. On the other hand, there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone wanting to do that if they chose to do so (I can't tell you how many times I've seen a Southwest Airlines C172 on the ground at Dallas Love) - it's all up to you as the pilot how "realistic" or "unrealistic" you want to be. Chose your favorite callsign and enjoy your flight, Captain.
-
The question is not about whether you're entitled to using an airline callsign for your flight, it's the particular callsign you selected. Air Carriers are certificated based on the aircraft they operate and if they wish to add aircraft to their operations, they need to add it to their operating certificate. Currently, Virgin America exclusively operates Airbus 319, 320, and 321 aircraft. That's where the argument of "unrealistic" comes into question.
The kind of operations they perform (IFR or VFR) are determined by company SOPs and varies from airline to airline. There definitely are airlines that operate VFR. In the Cape Cod area specifically, Cape Air (KAP) frequently operates under VFR if the weather permits.
Now, are you bound by the Code of Conduct to fly realistic callsigns? No. Callsigns are not enforceable like Toby said so long as they are appropriate.
-
As the controller who attempted to provide some honest, helpful feedback, I'm happy to explain my position.
Flying as VRD (Virgin America) in a C172...as a pilot who flies general aviation aircraft (including a P28A) under an airline callsign on a daily basis, I very much understand that the use of an airline callsign isn't in and of itself unrealistic. However, I'm sure we can all appreciate that it's not realistic (but not necessarily a problem) for someone to fly a C172 for Virgin America.
I have always thought of VATSIM as a learning tool, and I really enjoy trying to be as helpful as I can to others. So, in that regard, I have the following alises set up for these situations:
Hello, my name is Evan. I'm a controller at ZBW and have some feedback for you based on your flight thus far. I am a big believer in the power of VATSIM as a learning tool. Would you mind if I shared a pointer for next time with you? Feel free to reply at a good time to talk (doesn't have to be immediate).
Your callsign isn't a valid airline or general aviation callsign. Airline callsigns in the United States begin with three letters, followed by the flight number. For example: AAL123. General aviation callsigns use the letter "N", then 3 numbers, then three letters (for example, N331KB). While not required, I would encourage you to use a realistic callsign while you are flying on the network. Feel free to ask if there are any other questions.
I believe you replied to the message saying that VRD26 was easier for you to remember. I said that was no problem, NOT against any CoC, and just thought you might want to know that some might find the use of VRD26 for a C172 a little silly. My intention was to give a bit of information in the event that you were new to the network.
I apologize if my attempt to help and provide some additional information came across as belittling, rude, or as unsolicited. I was simply trying to help.
I have used the alias combination I quoted above about 5 times since I implemented them 2 weeks ago. In 4 out of 5 cases, pilots have had unusual callsigns and have thanked me for the information, as they weren't aware of an appropriate GA callsign to use on the network and had just guessed at one. Two of them were using their child's birthdate. They didn't know what else to use. You were the 5th case. I'd be interested to hear how any of the other controllers here at VATUSA feel.
Again, as I felt I stated to you, I (and the VATSIM CoC) have no problem with anyone using any callsign, as long as it isn't offensive. I was just hoping to provide some new information that sadly proved to be less-than-helpful.
-
VRD26 for a C172 a little silly.
If your intent was to educate and inform then I suggest that words like "unrealistic" and "silly" are a very poor way to initiate that conversation.
I apologize if my attempt to help and provide some additional information came across as belittling, rude, or as unsolicited. I was simply trying to help.
Based on your usage of words like "unrealistic" and "silly" I struggle to understand how you thought I would take this any other way.
You say that your intent was to share information, but after I indicated I was perfectly happy with my callsign you continued with the conversation. (as per your own representation of the conversation)
If your intent was to educate and inform, what were you informing me of? Not informing me of CoC. Not informing me of VATSIM policy. Informing me of "realism"? Realism according to whom? By what standard are you determining what is "real enough"? Is there a listing of acceptable callsign and aircraft pairings that I can reference? Is this realism policy something that is written down somewhere, or is it just according to the current controller's whims on that particular day?
VRD is a real code. Redwood is a real callsign. C172 is a real aircraft. By what authority does a controller get to decide that the combination of those three is "unrealistic"? Do you have access to all the Virgin records to prove that they never-ever owned or flew a C172? You don't think its possible that ol' Richard charged a C172 to the company account and took it for a spin one day?
I had invested a lot of time combing the Wikipedia pages and picking out realistic callsigns that I thought were interesting. The fact that I put together that VRD was callsign "redwood" was something that I was proud of.
Given that context I hope you can see how someone flippantly dismissing it as "unrealistic" and "silly" in just a few lines of text might provoke a reaction.
Consider for a moment if I had been flying a C172 VFR with a callsign for an airline that closed 10 years ago. Would that have triggered you to shoot off a PM as well? "That airline has been closed for 10 years, that's unrealistic, that's silly..."
If I want to fly aircraft or routes from 20 years ago are you going to say that its silly? If I'm flying a 747-300 are you going to swoop in and tell me "oh, no.. that airline only actually flies 747-200s"? I will tell you right now, letting me fly any commercial jet is completely unrealistic. Even counting all the sim time I don't have anywhere near the required hours!
Based on all the gradations of "realism" I don't think that any controller should be using their position to express their personal opinions about realism while in the sim. If you express an opinion about realism in the forums I can choose not to listen. When a controller PM me in the sim I don't have any choice, I'm forced to listen. And if they use that position to push their own personal views on realism that aren't supported by any policy then they are over-stepping.
I've actually decided to rotate out the VRD callsign in favor of RVR for Raven Air. Now if you feel the need to research which aircraft you would find "acceptable" to pair up with this callsign then you go right ahead. If you post it here to the forums I might even take a look.
Matthew
Fort Worth, Texas
-
Your callsign isn't a valid airline or general aviation callsign. Airline callsigns in the United States begin with three letters, followed by the flight number. For example: AAL123. General aviation callsigns use the letter "N", then 3 numbers, then three letters (for example, N331KB). While not required, I would encourage you to use a realistic callsign while you are flying on the network. Feel free to ask if there are any other questions.
Evan, if I can suggest one small modification that might help this be better received: consider substituting the word "realistic" for the word "valid." Calling something "not valid" suggests that the pilot is doing something against the rules. Also, instead of "While not required, {...}", perhaps "You may fly under any callsign you choose, but in case you wanted to use something more realistic in the future, those guidelines might help." -- and as with your suggestion to Matthew, you're free to accept or ignore mine as you see fit. :-)
That being said, in the bigger picture, I don't see anything sinister about a controller seeing something unrealistic being done, politely suggesting an alternative, but ultimately accepting whatever level of realism the pilot chooses to employ. Controllers, you'd do the same if the pilot filed "KJFK DCT KMIA" or requested a VFR arrival into an airport under IMC, correct? I'm not sure why this is being seen differently.
-
{many excellent points about what is or isn't "realistic"}
Matthew, I see where you're coming from; you make lots of solid points. Not to try to get inside Evan's head, but I think what it may boil down to is a question of whether a pilot on VATSIM is intentionally bending realism, or doing so because they don't know the difference. And to be clear, either is still completely acceptable and in no way "invalid". But I don't see harm in a polite, tactful attempt to educate based on a perceived knowledge gap, and if you as the pilot respond "no thanks, I'm fine doing what I'm doing," there's no harm in that either.
-
Matthew,
Since I did not see it pointed out, you could even make up your own "airline callsign", just make sure to put in the RTF (radio telephony, "callsign"). Then you can use whatever you want and since it is purely fictional to call it "silly" or "unrealistic" would be bombastic at best. A lot of us do this to make our own airlines to operate as charters, regularly scheduled carriers, cargo carriers, or even combinations thereof.
Plus you can have fun with the callsign.
The three I use:
PCT - Potomac Air Charters, "Potomac" (Even though the German government recently registered this as "Pollution Control", aircraft controlling pollution?!)
PXE - Potomac Express, "Red Tape"
PXC - Potomac Air Cargo, "Pork Belly"
See the humor in the last two.
Others you may see online:
MET "Metro"
Anyone else remember any?
Lastly, nothing wrong with using historic callsigns with historic aircraft on historic routes. It can be quite enjoyable, especially for de-hubbed cities here in the States (STL & PIT come to mind for TWA & USA respectively).
-
Others you may see online:
MET "Metro"
Anyone else remember any?
I see CXA "Canadian Express" and PAY "Pacific" quite a lot. Those are pretty popular virtual airlines.
VRD is a real code. Redwood is a real callsign. C172 is a real aircraft. By what authority does a controller get to decide that the combination of those three is "unrealistic"? Do you have access to all the Virgin records to prove that they never-ever owned or flew a C172? You don't think its possible that ol' Richard charged a C172 to the company account and took it for a spin one day?
Gonna refer to my earlier reply on the "realism" for this one lol...
Consider for a moment if I had been flying a C172 VFR with a callsign for an airline that closed 10 years ago. Would that have triggered you to shoot off a PM as well? "That airline has been closed for 10 years, that's unrealistic, that's silly..."
If I want to fly aircraft or routes from 20 years ago are you going to say that its silly? If I'm flying a 747-300 are you going to swoop in and tell me "oh, no.. that airline only actually flies 747-200s"? I will tell you right now, letting me fly any commercial jet is completely unrealistic. Even counting all the sim time I don't have anywhere near the required hours!
I deal with people who fly TWA B747s, Continental B737s, Northwest B757s, US Air A320s, or some other disbanded airline on historic routes all the time. I'm happy to handle them. My recommendation would be get off your high horse, take constructive criticism, and move on :)
Based on all the gradations of "realism" I don't think that any controller should be using their position to express their personal opinions about realism while in the sim. If you express an opinion about realism in the forums I can choose not to listen. When a controller PM me in the sim I don't have any choice, I'm forced to listen. And if they use that position to push their own personal views on realism that aren't supported by any policy then they are over-stepping.
There is absolutely no harm in a controller attempting to politely educate based on a perceived knowledge gap. The pilot has the equal right to respond saying they respectfully decline the assistance or suggestion. I take pride in helping newer pilots on the network learn their way around the aviation industry and the VATSIM network because I was there once! I remember being unsure which airline to fly and where and what controllers to contact. Previous controllers helped me along and VATSIM helped me become a better pilot in my earlier stages. Now I try to do the same. Pilots usually receive the constructive criticism in a positive way.
-
Informing me of "realism"? Realism according to whom? By what standard are you determining what is "real enough"? Is there a listing of acceptable callsign and aircraft pairings that I can reference? Is this realism policy something that is written down somewhere, or is it just according to the current controller's whims on that particular day?
Well, realism according to a real-world airline pilot. As stated several times, there is no "realism policy" and nowhere did Mr. Reiter express that there was.
As I stated in my email response to your feedback, the first time I flew on this network, I connected as DEL032. I mistakenly believed that callsign was for Delta Airlines. A controller private messaged me informing me of the fact that Delta flew under "DAL", and I appreciated the information. Most want to simulate realism, and we like to educate pilots in case they are unaware of the nature of their callsign (or other information).
We've sent these types of messages to dozens and dozens of people over the years. You are the only one who has had such a negative reaction, gotten so offended, and thrown such a temper-tantrum over it. Doesn't that tell you something?
I had invested a lot of time combing the Wikipedia pages and picking out realistic callsigns that I thought were interesting.
Again, for the sake of education, I highly suggest against using Wikipedia as an official source of information.
Based on all the gradations of "realism" I don't think that any controller should be using their position to express their personal opinions about realism while in the sim. If you express an opinion about realism in the forums I can choose not to listen. When a controller PM me in the sim I don't have any choice, I'm forced to listen. And if they use that position to push their own personal views on realism that aren't supported by any policy then they are over-stepping.
The reality is that the majority of people on this network are interested in being realistic, hence why they're here and not on a random gaming multiplayer server like the ones we all see on YouTube. With that said, we all offer our opinions constantly - in regards to realism and a lot of other subjects. That is what makes us a community. We are a collection of individuals with common interests who venture online to make contact with each other, discuss, and simulate (which implies realism) real-world air traffic control and pilot procedures. This entire forum is primarily comprised of discussion filled with opinions, and hundreds of opinions are shared via private message each day over the network, as that it our primary form of communicating with one another while connected.
You don't think its possible that ol' Richard charged a C172 to the company account and took it for a spin one day?
Well, if he did, I'm sure he'd be smart enough not to use the "VRD" callsign, or else it'd be pretty obvious that he was taking advantage of the company's account for personal benefit :P
Controllers, you'd do the same if the pilot filed "KJFK DCT KMIA" or requested a VFR arrival into an airport under IMC, correct? I'm not sure why this is being seen differently.
Exactly. Great point, Rob.
--
Overall, Chris said it best in his last paragraph above. This seems to have been blown out of proportion, as you have taken it far too personally and fail to see the benefit of sharing such information.
-
Matthew,
Honestly it is no big deal what callsign or code you use for your flight. The idea is to have fun. I have dealt with Evan Reiter on various projects and I have found Evan to be very professional and willing to help out where he can. I truly believe that he was attempting to do just that in this case. His choice of words may not have been the best which could be argued I imagine but non the less the intent I believe was positive. Given that he responded back to your post to offer his viewpoint and offer some sort of explanation speaks volumes to me of his character. I truly hope that your next flight will be one that is truly enjoyable and if there are any ATC online controlling, it is my hope that your presence online will make their session equally as enjoyable. Blue Skies Captain
-
Others you may see online:
MET "Metro"
Anyone else remember any?
I see CXA "Canadian Express" and PAY "Pacific" quite a lot. Those are pretty popular ones.
All 3 of those are VAs. ;) MET and PAY simulate commercial aviation operations CXA I've seen for years but never looked at.
-
Others you may see online:
MET "Metro"
Anyone else remember any?
I see CXA "Canadian Express" and PAY "Pacific" quite a lot. Those are pretty popular ones.
All 3 of those are VAs. ;) MET and PAY simulate commercial aviation operations CXA I've seen for years but never looked at.
He can be a VA of one (or pi).
-
Others you may see online:
MET "Metro"
Anyone else remember any?
I see CXA "Canadian Express" and PAY "Pacific" quite a lot. Those are pretty popular ones.
All 3 of those are VAs. ;) MET and PAY simulate commercial aviation operations CXA I've seen for years but never looked at.
He can be a VA of one (or pi).
Didn't say he couldn't, just pointing out all 3 of those are already established VAs so using those identifiers could be misleading/confusing (especially if uses them with a different RTF, as some controllers don't necessarily read remarks on FPs unless they don't recognize the callsign)... so if he uses MET as Meteor he'll likely get called Metro by a few controllers.
-
Well.... This is an interesting top, especially because there was a complaint, and then a couple of alibis from the controller in question and his boss to try and justify the controllers actions...
Had I received this message I wouldn't have taken it in a positive manner either. Sometimes is better to just suck it up and say sorry, and use it as a learning experience. I'm not a real world controller and never will be for their my knowledge will not be to the level a real world pilot or controller. Some forget this I think.
Matthew, I'd recommend looking at a PTO organization much better source of information about flying on the network.
-
Well, Tony, were we supposed to simply sit in silence and not engage in the discussion? Whether or not his messages were justified clearly differs based on opinion (which, since you're a controller, you're apparently not supposed to be able to express ;)). From what I can tell, it's only you and Matthew who think the messages were flat out unjustified. Could wording be changed? Yes, and we'll certainly take that feedback into consideration and make those changes for the future to avoid further forum threads like this one. However...
Hello, my name is Evan. I'm a controller at ZBW and have some feedback for you based on your flight thus far. I am a big believer in the power of VATSIM as a learning tool. Would you mind if I shared a pointer for next time with you? Feel free to reply at a good time to talk (doesn't have to be immediate).
Your callsign isn't a valid airline or general aviation callsign. Airline callsigns in the United States begin with three letters, followed by the flight number. For example: AAL123. General aviation callsigns use the letter "N", then 3 numbers, then three letters (for example, N331KB). While not required, I would encourage you to use a realistic callsign while you are flying on the network. Feel free to ask if there are any other questions.
If you are telling me that if you received the messages above that you wouldn't have taken them in a positive manner, I believe that's a you problem (especially taking into consideration the bolded portions). As we've stated multiple times, most pilots love these types of messages, as they are usually unaware and looking to improve their knowledge-base, skills, and realism. These types of messages are all in good heart to promote pilot education, realism, etc. The pilot doesn't have to change their callsign, and could continue to fly around as ABCDEFG for all we care. But (the majority of the time) there's no hurt in reaching out. Personally, if anything, the primary reason I'd be reaching out is because when I see "VRD" on the scope, I automatically associate that with an Airbus series aircraft. Just as if I saw a "JBU", I'd automatically think E190 or A320/321. So realism also can avoid confusion in certain circumstances.
Also, for the sake of clarity, Tony, he already is in VATSTAR's ATO* program.
If you read the topic in full, there was already an apology made:
I apologize if my attempt to help and provide some additional information came across as belittling, rude, or as unsolicited. I was simply trying to help.
I don't see anything further to apologize for, nor do I think "sucking it up" in these situations is the solution. It's okay to have a discussion and voice separate opinions. Sometimes it leads to an agreement, or a better understanding of each individual's perspectives and outlooks on a given situation.
-
Others you may see online:
MET "Metro"
Anyone else remember any?
I see CXA "Canadian Express" and PAY "Pacific" quite a lot. Those are pretty popular ones.
All 3 of those are VAs. ;) MET and PAY simulate commercial aviation operations CXA I've seen for years but never looked at.
He can be a VA of one (or pi).
Didn't say he couldn't, just pointing out all 3 of those are already established VAs so using those identifiers could be misleading/confusing (especially if uses them with a different RTF, as some controllers don't necessarily read remarks on FPs unless they don't recognize the callsign)... so if he uses MET as Meteor he'll likely get called Metro by a few controllers.
True. I was just pointing out that there was precedent for him to pick whatever he wants if he wants something easy to remember. However the caveat that if its in use already muddles things is important to note too.
-
Well, Tony, were we supposed to simply sit in silence and not engage in the discussion? Whether or not his messages were justified clearly differs based on opinion (which, since you're a controller, you're apparently not supposed to be able to express ;)). From what I can tell, it's only you and Matthew who think the messages were flat out unjustified. Could wording be changed? Yes, and we'll certainly take that feedback into consideration and make those changes for the future to avoid further forum threads like this one. However...
Hello, my name is Evan. I'm a controller at ZBW and have some feedback for you based on your flight thus far. I am a big believer in the power of VATSIM as a learning tool. Would you mind if I shared a pointer for next time with you? Feel free to reply at a good time to talk (doesn't have to be immediate).
Your callsign isn't a valid airline or general aviation callsign. Airline callsigns in the United States begin with three letters, followed by the flight number. For example: AAL123. General aviation callsigns use the letter "N", then 3 numbers, then three letters (for example, N331KB). While not required, I would encourage you to use a realistic callsign while you are flying on the network. Feel free to ask if there are any other questions.
If you are telling me that if you received the messages above that you wouldn't have taken them in a positive manner, I believe that's a you problem (especially taking into consideration the bolded portions). As we've stated multiple times, most pilots love these types of messages, as they are usually unaware and looking to improve their knowledge-base, skills, and realism. These types of messages are all in good heart to promote pilot education, realism, etc. The pilot doesn't have to change their callsign, and could continue to fly around as ABCDEFG for all we care. But (the majority of the time) there's no hurt in reaching out. Personally, if anything, the primary reason I'd be reaching out is because when I see "VRD" on the scope, I automatically associate that with an Airbus series aircraft. Just as if I saw a "JBU", I'd automatically think E190 or A320/321. So realism also can avoid confusion in certain circumstances.
Also, for the sake of clarity, Tony, he already is in VATSTAR's ATO* program.
If you read the topic in full, there was already an apology made:
I apologize if my attempt to help and provide some additional information came across as belittling, rude, or as unsolicited. I was simply trying to help.
I don't see anything further to apologize for, nor do I think "sucking it up" in these situations is the solution. It's okay to have a discussion and voice separate opinions. Sometimes it leads to an agreement, or a better understanding of each individual's perspectives and outlooks on a given situation.
If I had received it, I'd likely have taken it poorly, too, but only as a result of the wording. When I was a newbie on the network, I didn't want any trouble with controllers, because I thought they were the police (I didn't know any better). Who wants to get in trouble with the (perceived) authorities? so I'd have also faked a positive attitude about it at the time.
For me, it's about the wording, not the intent. I do find that many pilots really do want to learn and are receptive to truly constructive feedback, but they don't like being talked down to, like most human beings.
And for the love of FSM, please remember to do this via PM and not in the open. :-) Sounds like this was PM, but I think we just need a general reminder.
-
Appreciate the input, Matthew. The wording will be altered. It was indeed in a PM, but that is definitely a good reminder. Definitely not something appropriate for the frequency.
Best,
-
Appreciate the feedback. Like I said previously, I think these discussions are extremely productive and healthy for the network. Of course, we all want to have fun when we're flying or controlling on the network. I like to think that having fun also includes an element of learning. Feedback from many people I've controlled over the years has been positive toward hints like these and I plan to continue using them.
I really think it's better we get things out in the open and address things between and with pilots and controllers rather than holding long-standing grudges that make people so set against one group or another that the smallest slight, whether intended or not, becomes cause for a pilot to disconnect or a controller to issue penalty vectors.
As someone who is always open to feedback, improving, and making things better for the future, I have modified my alias for callsigns to read as follows. I think that softens it nicely and hopefully makes it more clear that a reply, or a change in behavior, isn't necessary (but rather that my intention is to help). Feedback from anyone who feels that the language could be improved further is more than welcome to make those suggestions too.
Your callsign isn't (in my view) a realistic or common airline or general aviation callsign. Airline callsigns in the United States begin with three letters, followed by the flight number. For example: AAL123. General aviation callsigns use the letter "N", then 3 numbers, then two letters (for example, N331KB). The network permits pilots to connect and fly with any callsign of their choosing. However, in case you wanted to use something more realistic in the future, I'm hopeful this information might be helpful.
-
Your callsign isn't (in my view) a realistic or common airline or general aviation callsign. Airline callsigns in the United States begin with three letters, followed by the flight number. For example: AAL123. General aviation callsigns use the letter "N", then 3 numbers, then two letters (for example, N331KB). The network permits pilots to connect and fly with any callsign of their choosing. However, in case you wanted to use something more realistic in the future, I'm hopeful this information might be helpful.
I think that expresses it very nicely, Evan, and I hope that your efforts will be seen as the constructive assistance they are intended as, from here forward.
-
I mean first of all, my flight school uses the callsign AVL (SkyVentures). And we file as AVL### depending on which airplane we are flying. Most of them are Cessnas, so I really don't see why the controller should care about this..
-
I think it's been made clear why controllers might care about this, and what their intentions are when giving feedback. This thread is almost two months old, and came to a nice conclusion.
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion, but I don't see any reason to re-start this conversation. Just about everything has been said.
Regards,
-
I was not aware that some flight schools use their own call signs, therefore I found the last post by Prithvisagar to be rather interesting and informative.
If there would be a necessity to close a thread, there are people in positions with the keys allowing them to do it. Until such point, the friendly, polite discussion of various aviation related topics, also this one, should be welcomed and supported.
-
If people wish to revive a thread for the sake of sharing interesting information, I honestly see no reason to suggest that it not be restarted.
I understand your wish to protect the ARTCC and its staff you have been chosen to lead, but the decision when a thread should be or is closed lies solely with the VATUSA staff, not anyone else.
-
OK, gentlemen....
-
Probably worth noting that other organizations have callsigns as well. Not just actual airlines and flight schools. The Civil Air Patrol is a great example of a fleet of single engine Cessnas flying under the CAP callsign rather than calling up with their tail number.
While we may not simulate it, there are also LOAs with specific facilities for some flight schools to use abbreviated callsigns with their local tower and/or approach facilities, even if they don't have a formal radiotelephony designator. Purdue, for example, isn't registered with the FAA, but has an arrangement with LAF tower to use a "Purdue" callsign that doesn't have anything to do with the tail number.
-
Hopefully by now I have made clear that I'm well aware that GA aircraft in some scenarios use callsigns and that the question of callsign use by GA aircraft was never in question. At work, we use a callsign for the Navajo and King Air aircraft we operate on sched/charter flights. It's actually one that isn't in the FAA's database (even though I've tried to get it in there), so we throw most controllers for a loop when we first check in.
Just in case others might not have scrolled back to the original posts on this thread, my intention to the OP was to mention that using callsigns such as "Redwood" and "American" when flying a Cessna 172 might be considered by some members to be unrealistic. I did that because, in my experience, lots of new VATSIM members connect without knowing an appropriate callsign to use. The other day, a user connected as "11231990" thanked me for letting him know how callsigns were formulated; turns out, he was using his daughter's birthdate because he didn't know what else he should connect as.
I wish more controllers took it upon themselves to politely, respectfully, and privately share tips with pilots who appear to be newer. When I first found out there was a way to pair the GPS to the autopilot in FSX so I didn't have to sit there adjusting the heading bug by 1 degree increments to follow the yellow line, it was an incredible moment for me. There are lots of folks who have spent a ton of time in single player where callsigns don't matter. They might see "N501F1" on their Citation Mustang and think that's what to use. I don't fault someone for not being 100% sure what to use and making their best guess.
Since the original post, I've updated the aliases I use for feedback and have been using them regularly with a tremendous amount of success. In fact, we're expanding the program to be used across our ARTCC. Again, the purpose isn't to lecture, or condescend; it's to present a welcoming and friendly environment that includes a little bit of learning with it.
Right after this thread "ended", I took screenshots of some of the times I made suggestions for callsigns. As you can see, the feedback I get to these is generally positive.
(https://i.imgur.com/dLMOLmx.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/vHXFbmm.png)
Since this thread, I've enjoyed hearing Matthew (OP) fly in our airspace using a charter operator callsign. I'd welcome him back flying VRD26 again. The point is, I was trying to share a bit of helpful information that I thought he might appreciate. If he, or anyone else, might prefer to be left alone, all they need to do is ignore my offer for help.
Hello, my name is Evan. I'm a controller at ZBW and have some feedback for you based on your flight thus far. I am a big believer in the power of VATSIM as a learning tool. Would you mind if I shared a pointer for next time with you? Feel free to reply at a good time to talk (doesn't have to be immediate).
-
Evan, I want to thank you for the positive manner in which you approach trying to educate our members, especially our newer ones. You've gotten some good feedback and have refined your alias and approach in such a way that it's clear for everyone to see that you are truly trying to help in a beneficial way. I hope all that you contact continue to receive your pointers in a kind and constructive manner, and I thank you for your work in making our network more realistic, stronger, and hopefully keep more hair in our controllers' heads!
-
It may be worth noting that three numbers and three letters actually isn't a valid tail number in the US. Tail numbers can be any of the following:
- One to five numbers (N12345)
- One to four numbers followed by one letter (N1234Z)
- One to three numbers followed by two letters (N123AZ)
N1-N99 are reserved for the FAA, though.
https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/forming_nnumber/
-
Matthew,
I think that was a simple typo since the example provided just after falls within acceptable callsigns. Regardless, good catch and handy information, thanks for the pointing that out - we'll make sure to fix that in the alias.
Best,
-
Yeah, that was a typo that has since been corrected. But thanks for pointing it out. I really wish I could use bullets in a PM on VATSIM! Would make it a lot easier to convey.
-
Yeah, that was a typo that has since been corrected. But thanks for pointing it out. I really wish I could use bullets in a PM on VATSIM! Would make it a lot easier to convey.
The day is coming? Rich text in PMs? ;D
-
Yeah, that was a typo that has since been corrected. But thanks for pointing it out. I really wish I could use bullets in a PM on VATSIM! Would make it a lot easier to convey.
The day is coming? Rich text in PMs? ;D
Hah! Let's add that to the wishlist after the other modernization efforts :-)
-
Matt,
File what you want and be happy. It's a game and most of us won't say a word.
Do what you do.
-
It's a game
:-X
-
It's a game
:-X
(https://i.imgur.com/Zr0YI7L.jpg)
-
Matt,
File what you want and be happy. It's a game and most of us won't say a word.
Do what you do.
Is that directed at me? About what?
-
Is that directed at me? About what?
I believe it's directed at the original poster, whose name is also Matthew :)
-
Matt,
File what you want and be happy. It's a game and most of us won't say a word.
Do what you do.
Is that directed at me? About what?
At the OP I would guess, albeit a bit delayed...
-
It's a game
:-X
I know I'm in the minority, but I agree with that point. Given that to play is to, "engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation," I find it hard to argue otherwise :-) That being said, how we choose to "play" the game is up to us, and we choose a fairly realistic manner to play.
-
Is that directed at me? About what?
I believe it's directed at the original poster, whose name is also Matthew :)
Yeah, I was kinda confused by the timeline. Quotes for context are often a good thing!
-
I know I'm in the minority, but I agree with that point. Given that to play is to, "engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation," I find it hard to argue otherwise :-) That being said, how we choose to "play" the game is up to us, and we choose a fairly realistic manner to play.
I absolutely agree, it's about being happy and enjoying yourself. As stated numerous times throughout the thread, our messages are simply offerings incase someone is attempting to simulate realism (which, I think, most are).
My ":-X" wasn't because I disagree with Byron's point, rather that I can't stand the word "game" when referencing a simulator. Then again, I guess it depends on how you "play" it.
Overall, like Byron said, do what makes you happy and, if you're trying to make it "as real as it gets" then we'll be there to offer advice on how to do so. :)
Happy holidays, gents!
-
Gents,
While I don't disagree with some of the things that you have stated in the thread. I do believe it's a game. I have been on this network for quite some time and have noticed the steady decline in pilot participation do to the "realism." We can all make this as realistic as we want or don't want. Somethings (IE: 7 Digit Callsigns) need to be followed; however we don't need to make it to the point pilots don't want to participate. As the controller...Control your phraseology, actions, and airspace as realistic as you can, but pick and choose your battles. The VRD callsign would not have bothered me one bit. As long as Matt was enjoying himself and reciveing good ATC, that is all that matters.
-
I know I'm in the minority, but I agree with that point. Given that to play is to, "engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation," I find it hard to argue otherwise :-) That being said, how we choose to "play" the game is up to us, and we choose a fairly realistic manner to play.
I absolutely agree, it's about being happy and enjoying yourself. As stated numerous times throughout the thread, our messages are simply offerings incase someone is attempting to simulate realism (which, I think, most are).
My ":-X" wasn't because I disagree with Byron's point, rather that I can't stand the word "game" when referencing a simulator. Then again, I guess it depends on how you "play" it.
Overall, like Byron said, do what makes you happy and, if you're trying to make it "as real as it gets" then we'll be there to offer advice on how to do so. :)
Happy holidays, gents!
Fair enough, because it's all about having fun. Perhaps my differences with folks who get offended by the use of game in these contexts has more to do with the liberal definition of game more than anything else.
So long as bourbon is not prohibited on network, I think I'll stay happy ;-)
Speaking of which, I think we need to come up with a VATUSA holiday drink.
-
I know I'm in the minority, but I agree with that point. Given that to play is to, "engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation," I find it hard to argue otherwise :-) That being said, how we choose to "play" the game is up to us, and we choose a fairly realistic manner to play.
I absolutely agree, it's about being happy and enjoying yourself. As stated numerous times throughout the thread, our messages are simply offerings incase someone is attempting to simulate realism (which, I think, most are).
My ":-X" wasn't because I disagree with Byron's point, rather that I can't stand the word "game" when referencing a simulator. Then again, I guess it depends on how you "play" it.
Overall, like Byron said, do what makes you happy and, if you're trying to make it "as real as it gets" then we'll be there to offer advice on how to do so. :)
Happy holidays, gents!
So long as bourbon is not prohibited on network, I think I'll stay happy ;-)
Speaking of which, I think we need to come up with a VATUSA holiday drink.
Excellent point. Is it 1700 yet?
Cheers
-
Somethings (IE: 7 Digit Callsigns) need to be followed;
But the tail number on my RW airplane is only 6, including N... :(
https://photos.app.goo.gl/SFKcTTS7QdgdOSaZ2
Excellent point. Is it 1700 yet?
Cheers
Holiday week, I expect my boss to cut us loose sometime soon! :D
-
Somethings (IE: 7 Digit Callsigns) need to be followed;
But the tail number on my RW airplane is only 6, including N... :(
YEAH YEAH YEAH!! You know what I mean!
https://photos.app.goo.gl/SFKcTTS7QdgdOSaZ2
Excellent point. Is it 1700 yet?
Cheers
Holiday week, I expect my boss to cut us loose sometime soon! :D
-
YEAH YEAH YEAH!! You know what I mean!
Lol, yes I do. Sometimes I have trouble not being at least a little bit of a pain in the rear :-)
(that's what the bourbon helps with ;-))