Improper use of airline callsign?

[Daniel Hawton]

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.

[Tony Jeppesen]

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. 

[Camden Bruno]

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.

[Rick Rump]

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.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

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.

[Camden Bruno]

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,

[Evan Reiter]

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.

[Robert Shearman Jr]

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.

[Prithvisagar Shivaraman]

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..

[Camden Bruno]

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,

[Michael Mund-Hoym]

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.

[Michael Mund-Hoym]

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.

[Don Desfosse]

OK, gentlemen....

[Matthew Kosmoski]

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.

[Evan Reiter]

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.





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).