It has been a hot minute since I have been on these forums, but figured since I've been doing a lot of flying and have noticed a trend, I'd ask the opinions of the VATUSA corps. Lately there has been a lot of ATC online which has been really great. In a few cases when I get to cruise, evaluate winds and timing, I ask for something more direct down the line. In almost every circumstance, I am told to standby for coordination. In some cases, if the next center is offline, I am just told unable. In all of these situations, I am deep inside the center airspace (so the handoff hasn't already occurred) and it is not direct destination or any other clearance that would violate an LOA.

I have been controlling on VATSIM (off and on) for 13 years, and I have been a real-world ARTCC controller since 2015. All of that said, this trend is a little perplexing to me. I don't recall ever doing or being taught to coordinate direct clearances in any case other than when an LOA exists with the adjoining facility in my years doing this hobby, and that is also true irl. Most of these cases are just between centers that I am overflying. Is this something being taught at various places as SOP, or is it just being done as more of a courtesy? I have noticed it in at least 5 ARTCCs spread out around VATUSA, so it's not isolated to one area or one controller. Curious on everyone's thoughts!

Justin Martin

Tom,

IIRC, wasn't there a VATUSA enforced rule made a few years back that required all ARTCCs to include all vital ARTCC information (i.e. SOPs, LOAs, Sector files, etc) accessible to the public? I may want to view a sector file of an ARTCC without necessarily joining that ARTCC, why can't I? The other issue is visiting controllers/transfers almost always wish to view the sector file and what an ARTCC has to offer prior to placing the request. To me it seems every ARTCC should make sector files, etc, public information.

JM

Congratulations, Pan!!

JM

As others have said:

**OPINION ALERT**


It appears to me that alot of people are taking what Jason is asking out of context.  I'm reading this as he is asking if a question of policy is asked on this or anyother forum, and is answered by someone who is put in a position of authority over him, would said answer be, for lack of other terms, admissible, let's say in a DCRM inquiry?  I don't read this as him attacking any specific policy, but referencing policies that have come under question here or in other forums.  Look at his first post....the one that started this thread.

And before anyone starts throwing stones at me, Jason and I AREN'T "BUDS", I don't know Jason from Adam, I just think he is presenting some interesting questions, and I am hanging around to see the answers.  And sometimes posting my opinions.  

The problem is that he doesn't actually want an answer. He's doing everything in his mind to prevent a reasonable answer. All he's doing is bringing up something, and when it's answered just saying he doesn't believe it. He's trying to get the public to see flaws in leadership, and all he's doing is making him look crazy. I agree that the questions brought up originally were not bad questions, but it's his attitude. Bryan is obviously trying to give a straight, respectful answer, but G-d forbid any answer be good enough for The Great Vodnansky.

JM

Jason, was that really called for?

The rumours have been controlled, per your request, but taking a parting shot at VATUSA in the process isn't really cool, and outright immature.

You have your answer; let's move on and be civil about it.

BL.

+1

Bump...

Try 4-3-4 Departure Procedures. Even in the clearance delivery portion, all of the examples say "maintain", NOT "climb and maintain".

One example given is:

Cleared to Reynolds Airport; David Two RNAV Departure, Kingham Transition; then, as filed. Maintain niner thousand. Expect flight level four one zero, one zero minutes after departure.

Another:

Cleared to Reynolds Airport via Victor Ninety‐one Albany, then as filed. Maintain six thousand.

And finally:

Cleared to Missoula International Airport, Chief Two
Departure to Angley; direct Salina; then as filed; maintain
one seven thousand.

JM

Brad,

One question, and I think that this topic has been debated before but, you give the instruction "maintain 5000".  How can an aircraft maintain 5000 when they are currently on the ground, don't they have to get there.  I wouldn't give that instruction like that as a radar controller it wouldn't make any sense.

Just wondering.

This is an interesting topic. From what I teach and from what I've always done, the correct phraseology would be, "maintain 5000" and NOT "climb and maintain 5000". Here's the reason: let's say you are departing an airport that has a pretty complex SID. You were cleared via the SID, and told to maintain, let's say, 10000. If you tell the aircraft to climb and maintain 10000, it cancels the altitudes on the SID... the aircraft does not need to comply with restrictions. If you said maintain 10000 in the clearance, he will climb and meet restrictions until he reaches 10000. Now, seeing how I've never really had to deal with SIDs like that, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that if you tell an aircraft to "climb and maintain" as a DEP controller and you still need them to meet restrictions, you need to say so specifically.

Hopefully that makes sense and I was at least in the ballpark with my answer...  

JM