Reality vs. Accomodating VATSIMisms

[Don Desfosse]

Folks, there was an issue that came up tonight that I thought I'd address.

Background:  An enroute controller allegedly declined to give a shortcut to a pilot because he could not coordinate with a controller from the adjoining ARTCC, because no one from the adjoining Center was online.

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.  

The correct procedure for marking the flight strip, of course, if presented with (hypothetical example)
SEA J90 MWH HIA RAP FOD J94 PMM J70 ALPHE J70 LVZ LENDY6

and you're going to clear the person direct FOD would be to modify the strip to say
..FOD J94 PMM J70 ALPHE J70 LVZ LENDY6

Even if the adjoining Center came online and your CTR controller forgot to coordinate the shortcut, they'd see that the aircraft is currently direct FOD and then see the rest of the cleared route.

My main message is that there are some VATSIMisms that we need to try to accomodate to keep the network a reasonably fun place to be.  Although it's true that the RW won't have "ZXX is offline..." there are things we can do to make VATSIM a more inviting place to fly by bending reality just a tiny bit to fit our VATSIM reality that are not a big deal and are acceptable.

We won't have aircraft to control if we don't have enough judgment to be flexible, within reason, to accommodate simple stuff.

[Dhruv Kalra]

And exactly what's wrong with clearing direct the other side of the country ?

The only thing I'll do in addition to this personally, is throw in a Fix/Radial/Distance of the closest major VOR to the plane when I issue the shortcut along with timestamp the flight plan with the amendment. In the r/w, HOST/ERAM throws in this info automatically, but VRC's .rsb VOR <asel> function makes it easy enough.

So in Don's example above, if I clear a guy direct FOD and he's 55 west of ONL, I'll do ./.ONL275055..FOD.J94.PMM.J70.ALPHE.J70.LVZ.LENDY6/KZMP[TIME]

[Adam Smith]

So the following would be incorrect?

"DAL123 Atlanta Center radar contact, climb and maintain FL380 direct LAX VOR"

Seriously though I typically say when asked for a shortcut, " IND_CTR offline so I am sure he won't care, direct IIU approved"

[Dhruv Kalra]

So the following would be incorrect?

"DAL123 Atlanta Center radar contact, climb and maintain FL380 direct LAX VOR"

Seriously though I typically say when asked for a shortcut, " IND_CTR offline so I am sure he won't care, direct IIU approved"

Nothing stopping you from doing it, but it would ideally be to something on his flight plan. If ZLA wants him via TNP.SEAVU2 down the line, they'll fix it. That being said, I'll usually stop short of clearing direct destination in that case. I'll more often do "Direct TNP, SEAVU2 arrival, maintain FL380". That way their STAR and descent is intact.

[Brad Littlejohn]

Nothing stopping you from doing it, but it would ideally be to something on his flight plan. If ZLA wants him via TNP.SEAVU2 down the line, they'll fix it. That being said, I'll usually stop short of clearing direct destination in that case. I'll more often do "Direct TNP, SEAVU2 arrival, maintain FL380". That way their STAR and descent is intact.

And this is exactly what we do in the reverse. Assuming the flight plan was filed correctly (read: decent routing and transition to a STAR is specified), we won't know what type of crossing restriction a STAR will have, let alone SOPs needed to meet that crossing restriction without either pulling up that chart, or finding that SOP on the sector's site (if it exists at all). Consider the following route:

KLAX HOLTZ9.TRM DRK J6 ZUN ACH TCC J6 PNH SYO FSM MEM.KOLTT1 KATL

If I at Los Angeles Center wanted to give this flight a shortcut, I don't know if there is a crossing restriction at MEM unless I pull up the chart. I also won't know if there is an SOP in place to have them at a certain altitude prior to transitioning onto the STAR. I also wouldn't know if there is an LOA in place that dictates a crossing restriction. So I wouldn't try to clear them directly to the transition on that STAR.

If the adjacent sectors were up and running (in this case, ABQ, FTW, and MEM), I'd APREQ as far as I could go before the STAR. Otherwise, In this case, and if I get the APREQ approved, I'd clear them to FSM as soon as I practically could. If they weren't up, I'd do the same, if the pilot can accommodate and is practical for me.

BL.

[David Macfarlane]

Curious....  

What prevents us from giving a vector direct next NAVAID/FIX outside our airspace without actual clearance to that which is not in our jurisdiction if the pilot has made a request for a shortcut?

EXAMPLE: "Fly heading xxx". Once the aircraft has reached the limits of your ARTCC airspace, either hand-off to the next ARTCC with an amended flight plan, or the ususal phrase of "XXXX, you are leaving my airspace, XXX CTR not on- line at this time, freqency change approved" (etc.). Chat or call to next controller before handoff might be a good courtesy as well.

[William Lewis]

Curious....  

What prevents us from giving a vector direct next NAVAID/FIX outside our airspace without actual clearance to that which is not in our jurisdiction if the pilot has made a request for a shortcut?

EXAMPLE: "Fly heading xxx". Once the aircraft has reached the limits of your ARTCC airspace, either hand-off to the next ARTCC with an amended flight plan, or the ususal phrase of "XXXX, you are leaving my airspace, XXX CTR not on- line at this time, freqency change approved" (etc.). Chat or call to next controller before handoff might be a good courtesy as well.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]4-4-6. DIRECT CLEARANCES
b. EN ROUTE. Do not issue revised routing clearances that will take an aircraft off its flight plan route past the last fix in your facility's airspace, unless requested by the pilot or operational necessity dictates.[/quote]

However, it must be noted that plain and simple this conversation dictates on common sense (oh no did I just use that term on a VATSIM discussion board ). What time of day is it, What day of the week is it. How busy is the NAS. Are there any events taking place nearby (especially at the destination airport or other airports along their route). What airport are they going to. Is that a large hub and busy airport. Is it a satellite field of a large hub and busy airport. These and more are all factors to consider when answering this question.

For example when working ZID I will give "direct to" clearances all the time. Probably 10 times more than when controlling ZTL. It all just came down to how the airspace was designed and how tightly compact that section airspace is they are flying through. Also that ZID saw a lot more en route traffic where ZTL is heavily populated with arrivals and departures.

[David Macfarlane]

However, it must be noted that plain and simple this conversation dictates on common sense (oh no did I just use that term on a VATSIM discussion board ). What time of day is it, What day of the week is it. How busy is the NAS. Are there any events taking place nearby (especially at the destination airport or other airports along their route). What airport are they going to. Is that a large hub and busy airport. Is it a satellite field of a large hub and busy airport. These and more are all factors to consider when answering this question.

For example when working ZID I will give "direct to" clearances all the time. Probably 10 times more than when controlling ZTL. It all just came down to how the airspace was designed and how tightly compact that section airspace is they are flying through. Also that ZID saw a lot more en route traffic where ZTL is heavily populated with arrivals and departures.

Thanks for locating that section. I looked for it before I posted the above, but missed it. Another piece of it is the note at the bottom of the section. I like your interpretation.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]NOTE−
Nothing in this paragraph must preclude a controller from
issuing a routing clearance that conforms to a letter of
agreement or standard operating procedure within their
own facility or between facilities, is required to maintain
separation or comply with traffic flow management
initiatives.[/quote]

[Tim Farrell]

I asked this very question to the RW ZFW when we visited there. Late at night they will actually clear a DFW dep aircraft bound for O'Hare  direct ORD. If another ARTCC is offline on vatsim,  I will certainly look at that option of clearign and aircraft direct for a shortcut.

[Brad Littlejohn]

I asked this very question to the RW ZFW when we visited there. Late at night they will actually clear a DFW dep aircraft bound for O'Hare  direct ORD. If another ARTCC is offline on vatsim,  I will certainly look at that option of clearign and aircraft direct for a shortcut.

If you could get hold of them again, ask them why and what their rationale is for clearing the O'Hare flight direct to ORD. That could effectively cancel their STAR. If we did that here and ZAU isn't on, the pilot would reach ORD and do what? Saying "not my responsibility, outside my airspace" isn't a really good solution, because it would be ZFW that created the problem.

RW has the failsafe that ZKC and ZAU are always up and running; we don't have that luxury.

BL.

[Dhruv Kalra]

If you could get hold of them again, ask them why and what their rationale is for clearing the O'Hare flight direct to ORD. That could effectively cancel their STAR. If we did that here and ZAU isn't on, the pilot would reach ORD and do what? Saying "not my responsibility, outside my airspace" isn't a really good solution, because it would be ZFW that created the problem.

RW has the failsafe that ZKC and ZAU are always up and running; we don't have that luxury.

BL.

R/W the rationale is that the aircraft will be just issued a "cross xx miles SW of ORD at/maintain 10,000" and be worked in non-STAR. That late at night, most airports in the Midwest that see arrivals from all directions will run everyone direct and vector. The issue there, as stated by Brad above, is that online we don't have controllers on to provide further instructions, and most VATSIM pilots aren't smart enough to do lost comms procedures and go direct an IAF.

[Brad Littlejohn]

R/W the rationale is that the aircraft will be just issued a "cross xx miles SW of ORD at/maintain 10,000" and be worked in non-STAR. That late at night, most airports in the Midwest that see arrivals from all directions will run everyone direct and vector. The issue there, as stated by Brad above, is that online we don't have controllers on to provide further instructions, and most VATSIM pilots aren't smart enough to do lost comms procedures and go direct an IAF.

More so than that.. If given "cleared direct ORD". Which ORD? The airport? The VOR? It's akin to "Cleared Direct Chicago". Which Chicago? Which airport in Chicago, as there are at least 4 airports named "Chicago": Chicago O'Hare, Chicago Midway, Chicago Executive, and Chicago Gary. Again, the real world won't have this problem, but telling them 'cleared direct ORD' or 'cleared direct Chicago' can create a lot of confusion..

BL.

[Scott DeWoody]

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.

[Fred Michaels]

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.

Wow Scott...I'm certain most will agree the condescending comment really adds a lot to the discussion. Personally, thank you so much for calling those who may have a different opinion as yours "absurd."

[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.