Reality vs. Accomodating VATSIMisms

[Andrew Doubleday]

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.

[Scott DeWoody]

... 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.

[Dhruv Kalra]

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.

[William Lewis]

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.

[Don Desfosse]

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.