Clarification on VATSIM COC Section B Sub Section 4

[Paul Dobear]

Unlike most vatsim pilots who prefer IFR commercial traffic a majority of the flying I do on the network is VFR in GA aircraft with no flight following.

I need some clarification on the VATSIM COC Section B Sub Section 4.

B. Pilot's Conduct
4.  Except while on the ground prior to making initial contact with ATC or upon request of ATC, a pilot should not squawk standby. A pilot should not squawk standby while flying to his destination, even when there is no appropriate Enroute air traffic control available.

The way I read this as it is written that a GA pilot flying VFR in the class G/E airspace with negative flight following can be on the squawk code 1200 MODE A, and not be breaking the rules as long as he is  (A. Not IFR.  B. Not receiving flight following. C. Clear of the Mode C veil at any class bravo airspace D. Clear of any controlled airspace DELTA/CHARLIE.)

That being said I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the times I have been VFR in the Class G or E airspace squawking 1200 MODE A and had Approach/Center controllers ding dong me with a contact me telling me I need to be MODE C.

Can a brother get some clarification.  Am I right, or does the phraseology of the VATSIM COC need to be changed?

Questions, Comments, Gripes and Complaints are welcome.

V/r

-Paul DoBear.
PD

[Matthew Kosmoski]

Unlike most vatsim pilots who prefer IFR commercial traffic a majority of the flying I do on the network is VFR in GA aircraft with no flight following.

I need some clarification on the VATSIM COC Section B Sub Section 4.

B. Pilot's Conduct
4.  Except while on the ground prior to making initial contact with ATC or upon request of ATC, a pilot should not squawk standby. A pilot should not squawk standby while flying to his destination, even when there is no appropriate Enroute air traffic control available.

The way I read this as it is written that a GA pilot flying VFR in the class G/E airspace with negative flight following can be on the squawk code 1200 MODE A, and not be breaking the rules as long as he is  (A. Not IFR.  B. Not receiving flight following. C. Clear of the Mode C veil at any class bravo airspace D. Clear of any controlled airspace DELTA/CHARLIE.)

That being said I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the times I have been VFR in the Class G or E airspace squawking 1200 MODE A and had Approach/Center controllers ding dong me with a contact me telling me I need to be MODE C.

Can a brother get some clarification.  Am I right, or does the phraseology of the VATSIM COC need to be changed?

Questions, Comments, Gripes and Complaints are welcome.

V/r

-Paul DoBear.
PD

That is my interpretation of the CoC as well.  In the spirit of realism, I personally disagree with the Mode A/C requirement when not required pursuant to 14CFR, anyways (at least in the US).  If we want to simulate "realism," then dealing with primary and mode a targets is part of the story.  To try to be all-realism and not want to deal with VFR traffic doing what VFR traffic does is picking and choosing, and we all know you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

[Paul Dobear]

That is kind of how I look at it too Mr. Kosmoski.

I sure would appreciate some input from the VATUSA team.

[Daniel Hawton]

No where does it specify squawking VFR.  It just says you "should" squawk at all times in the air.  You could squawk 1111, 1200, 7000 (VFR code in Europe), etc.  B4 does not limit you.

One thing to keep in mind, VATSIM has ruled that "should" doesn't follow standard English rules nor the definition of "should" in the aviation world.  Per VATSIM President Kyle Ramsey, you MUST/SHALL squawk at all times in the air.  That's the requirement of the Code of Conduct B4.

There is no way to squawk only Mode A on VATSIM.  You're either Mode 3A/C, or stand by.

[Paul Dobear]

Section B Subsection 3

A pilot must at all times check for appropriate air traffic control coverage for the airspace he is crossing at any given time. If there is an appropriate air traffic controller available or upon request to make contact with an appropriate air traffic controller, then the pilot should immediately contact such controller.

I don't see anything about transponders in B-3

So is this a written policy, or just something someone said one time, and if it is policy can you show me where you found it? I would like to take a gander.

[Daniel Hawton]

Meant 4.  The one you pasted above.  My old sup brain from my days as a sup defaulted to 3 because that was the section of B I seemed to find infractions on the most.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

Does anybody find it a little strange that VATUSA can change the definition of a common word in the English language, that even find itself used with the common definition in the legal world... but not here?

The internet can be a funny place.

[Mark Hubbert]

B. Pilot's Conduct
4.  Except while on the ground prior to making initial contact with ATC or upon request of ATC, a pilot should not squawk standby. A pilot should not squawk standby while flying to his destination, even when there is no appropriate Enroute air traffic control available.

A pilot should not squawk standby while flying to his destination, even when there is no appropriate Enroute air traffic control available.  That seems self explanatory to me.  The other thing is the reference to "The Spirit of Realism".  There will always be some things that are not exact as our real world counterparts.  Besides what is the big deal of being in Mode C?  Is it really that hard to do?  Does it really take away from your flying time? 

[Don Desfosse]

Why is VATUSA being blamed for anything?  These are VATSIM's rules and interpretations, not VATUSA's.

I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the times I have been VFR in the Class G or E airspace squawking 1200 MODE A and had Approach/Center controllers ding dong me with a contact me telling me I need to be MODE C.  Can a brother get some clarification.  Am I right....

Well, Either you can't count or you don't have any fingers or toes... Daniel is correct.  There is no provision on VATSIM for any aircraft to squawk Mode A. 

I sure would appreciate some input from the VATUSA team.

VATUSA input:  Follow the VATSIM Code of Conduct.

Does anybody find it a little strange that VATUSA can change the definition of a common word in the English language, that even find itself used with the common definition in the legal world... but not here?

The internet can be a funny place.

See my comment above.  Unless I'm missing something, VATUSA isn't changing and hasn't changed anything, and does not deserve that comment.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

Why is VATUSA being blamed for anything?  These are VATSIM's rules and interpretations, not VATUSA's.

Does anybody find it a little strange that VATUSA can change the definition of a common word in the English language, that even find itself used with the common definition in the legal world... but not here?

The internet can be a funny place.

See my comment above.  Unless I'm missing something, VATUSA isn't changing and hasn't changed anything, and does not deserve that comment.

You're right -- that was my mistake.  I meant VATSIM but was typing VATUSA by mistake

[Matthew Kosmoski]

B. Pilot's Conduct
4.  Except while on the ground prior to making initial contact with ATC or upon request of ATC, a pilot should not squawk standby. A pilot should not squawk standby while flying to his destination, even when there is no appropriate Enroute air traffic control available.

A pilot should not squawk standby while flying to his destination, even when there is no appropriate Enroute air traffic control available.  That seems self explanatory to me.  The other thing is the reference to "The Spirit of Realism".  There will always be some things that are not exact as our real world counterparts.  Besides what is the big deal of being in Mode C?  Is it really that hard to do?  Does it really take away from your flying time?

I only mention the realism bit because that's usually the argument I read/hear as justification for all kinds of other things that ought to receive VATSIM-ism considerations due to the limitations of what we're doing.

Regarding difficulty:  Not particularly, but sometimes you wind up with a pilot client that bumped the button by mistake, hit the wrong hotkey, or something else particularly simple and stupid, and you wind up with yourself in standby.  Before you notice it, you wind up with a controller screaming at you on freq.

Perhaps it has more to do with the over-controlling tendency we often see.  Or people thinking they're the police of something.  I dunno.

[Paul Dobear]

Hopefully VATSIM can clarify this in their next edition of the COC.  Not gripping or complaining, just stating that it could be worded a little better to avoid confusion, and misinterpretation.

Thanks for all the input.  Keep up with the good work staff.

Thanks for what you do.

-Paul
PD

[Mark Hubbert]

I only mention the realism bit because that's usually the argument I read/hear as justification for all kinds of other things that ought to receive VATSIM-ism considerations due to the limitations of what we're doing.

Regarding difficulty:  Not particularly, but sometimes you wind up with a pilot client that bumped the button by mistake, hit the wrong hotkey, or something else particularly simple and stupid, and you wind up with yourself in standby.  Before you notice it, you wind up with a controller screaming at you on freq.

Perhaps it has more to do with the over-controlling tendency we often see.  Or people thinking they're the police of something.  I dunno.

I think it is important to understand that the Founders of VATSIM seek and desire a networ where all can participate regardless of real world experience etc.  It may not lend itself completely to those who truly want to immerse in a ultra-realistic environment but truly can still enjoy the online experience with maybe a bit of compromise.  With regards to a controller screaming at you, there are ways to deal with that as well.  Controllers should not be screaming at anybody nor should pilots.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

I only mention the realism bit because that's usually the argument I read/hear as justification for all kinds of other things that ought to receive VATSIM-ism considerations due to the limitations of what we're doing.

Regarding difficulty:  Not particularly, but sometimes you wind up with a pilot client that bumped the button by mistake, hit the wrong hotkey, or something else particularly simple and stupid, and you wind up with yourself in standby.  Before you notice it, you wind up with a controller screaming at you on freq.

Perhaps it has more to do with the over-controlling tendency we often see.  Or people thinking they're the police of something.  I dunno.

I think it is important to understand that the Founders of VATSIM seek and desire a networ where all can participate regardless of real world experience etc.  It may not lend itself completely to those who truly want to immerse in a ultra-realistic environment but truly can still enjoy the online experience with maybe a bit of compromise.  With regards to a controller screaming at you, there are ways to deal with that as well.  Controllers should not be screaming at anybody nor should pilots.

Mark - I just want to preface this with the fact that I know you and I see eye to eye on more things around here than I do with most, so I don't want to come off as argumentative.  I'm just frustrated with the doublespeak I hear out of some "leadership" about these topics.  They get beat to death with comments that sound like what you're saying, but the results that are more reminiscent of the elitism and unrealistic-realism I'm concerned with.

Regarding the founders trying to ensure ease of access:  I know that, you know that, but we see a trend of making it difficult for people "not in the know."  For example, sector naming.  How do I know if X, Y, or Z approach is North, West, or East?  Or if 12, 21, 14, or 41 center is high/low, east/west, etc?  I've heard controllers get mad at (and yell at -- there's too much yelling on this network these days) pilots for not knowing their internal symbology and nomenclature.  It's a bit ridiculous.  I'm going to have to cite the good ol' days as a time when the network was more accepting, when you could read a controller's name and know exactly where he was when de-combined.  (eg HOU_E_APP, HOU_W_APP, HOU_W_CTR, HOU_E_CTR, toss an H/L in there if there's a high/low split... or allow numbers up there since it's less likely for that controller to be the initial contact for a pilot)

[Ira Robinson]

Matthew, you make some good points, although I don't know that we can simplify it by saying things were better in the old days. That comparison has become all too common and all too easy to make, and is solely dependent on your own experience.


But to the point regarding controller and pilot behavior, unfortunately, we can't teach good manners and we can only preach common sense. So you do the best you can with what you have.