There are two types of controllers...

[Matthew Bartels]

Hey Kosmo if you’re looking for other regs to cherrypick, perhaps take a gander at 91.123, or maybe your FAR/AIM doesn't open that far.

The original intent of this thread was to suggest that perhaps how we phrase instructions and clearances on the network could stand to be a bit more concise. Everyone decided to run with the content of the two transmissions rather than the format, and here we are. Open eyes, see past trees, observe forest.

Ouch.  Back to the ad hominem.

I didn't say you deviate without talking, but the pilot is the final authority, not the controller.  If you demand they do something dumb, 91.3 is what matters.  91.123 is what explicitly calls out emergency authority.  And an emergency is anything that is necessary to complete the flight safely... even if it conflicts with your control.

I think we are circling around the same point. No one is arguing that the PIC is the ultimate authority for the safe operation of the aircraft, even more so in an emergency when he can wipe himself with the entire set of regulations.

The argument is that outside of an emergency situation while the PIC still maintains full authority over the safe operation of the aircraft and its passengers, He is still bound by every single other regulation in the book. So that includes 91.123b. Meaning that while the PIC can still unable an ATC instruction, he can only do so if it is contrary to the safe operation of his aircraft. So the PIC would have to defend his decision to not comply with ATC in the name of safety and he can't just hide behind 91.3. If he could, why would pilots get phone numbers and violated for noncompliance of ATC instructions?

Regardless, the PIC is God discussion is off topic. So I'll hang up and listen about concise phraseology. If we're simulating real world operations, then yes less is usually more.

[Don Desfosse]

I'd want the controller, at least 98% of the time, to issue standard phraseology first.  If the controller realizes that the pilot is blatantly clueless in need of assistance and the controller needs to dumb it down assist the pilot, then, fine, assist the pilot.  But please, let's teach the right way and ALSO teach folks how to react to abnormal circumstances and be helpful (and teach the pilot the right way, workload permitting).  We can do both things here.  The OP is correct that standard phraseology should be used as a default, but we should also be savvy enough to recognize when there is a soul out there worth saving and try to save the soul (no, I'm not going to engage in a conversation on how to determine if the soul is worth saving....). 

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. 

[Sean Harrison]

Well said Don.  That’s seems to sum up nicely.

[Ira Robinson]

I'd want the controller, at least 98% of the time, to issue standard phraseology first.  If the controller realizes that the pilot is blatantly clueless in need of assistance and the controller needs to dumb it down assist the pilot, then, fine, assist the pilot.  But please, let's teach the right way and ALSO teach folks how to react to abnormal circumstances and be helpful (and teach the pilot the right way, workload permitting).  We can do both things here.  The OP is correct that standard phraseology should be used as a default, but we should also be savvy enough to recognize when there is a soul out there worth saving and try to save the soul (no, I'm not going to engage in a conversation on how to determine if the soul is worth saving....). 

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

Controllers are taught proper phraseology for a reason. If it didn't matter it wouldn't be taught.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

"Runway 15R, taxi southbound in SC, and before too long, make a right turn onto RA. Then taxi on RA for about a mile before turning right on WB. Once you make the right turn on WB, continue straight for a little less than a mile before turning left on WW. Once you're on WW,  hold short of 15L and expect to cross the runway."

"Runway 15R, taxi via SC, RA, WB, WW. Hold short of runway 15L."

Which one would you prefer? Since it seems like more words are better, even though more words don't convey more information any more effectively than the clear and concise second option (which is verbage that the pilot is expecting, by the way).

****DISCLAIMER: I used an IAH example because I couldn't think of any other airport that has so many taxiways. I am not singling anyone out, nor do I want to start a discussion about proper taxi routes at IAH airport.

I take no offense.  We have a lot of taxiways lol.

But you'd be surprised how often we have to resort to the verbose, as progressive is a very very common request at IAH on VATSIM.

But please, let's teach the right way and ALSO teach folks how to react to abnormal circumstances and be helpful (and teach the pilot the right way, workload permitting).  We can do both things here.

Frankly, I think this hits the nail on the head.  Additionally, I would add teaching people how to identify abnormal circumstances before they get out of hand.

Nobody dies on VATSIM if an instruction gets delayed a few seconds, anyhow.  Education is one of the tenants of the network.  If we fail to help others learn, we're undermining the whole reason we're here.

[Toby Rice]

Looks like I’m late to the party! Why’d I not get an invite?

I (try to) work traffic safely and efficiently, in that order. I also want to get pilots where they’re going expeditiously while utilizing as little energy as possible per aircraft so that I can divide my stamina and attention levels between all the aircraft I’m working. “As little Energy as possible” does not mean that I’ll be lazy or complacent, but instead that I’ll only exert what energy is needed to accomplish the goal. Many times there are too many airplanes flying around for you to be overly focused on one or two.

With that, I’m going to default to “Skyhawk 654 AL, runway 20R, taxi via B, K.”

It’s clean, standard, and legal. Experienced controllers are able to hear the differences between experienced and competent pilots and the more difficult pilots. If I evaluate that a pilot is likely to be less-than-competent based on his initial contact or first few transmissions, I might consider to ammend those taxi instructions (or what have you) to something that more closely resembles plain English:

“Skyhawk 654 AL, runway 20R, taxi via taxiway B and K.”

Almost the same thing, just slightly more user friendly to a new pilot since it helps specify and emphasize the instructions.

If the pilot requests progressive taxi, I’ll use whatever phraseology is necessary to allow full comprehension from the pilot. The FAA 7110 has this stuff called “non-standard phraseology” which allows controllers to use their best judgement to determine how to communicate when specific verbiage is not published for whatever situation.

At the end of the day, remember why ATC exists. Customer service is important, but airplanes not crashing into terrain or each other is more important. Don’t waste time on frequency if you don’t have to. Use your frequency time wisely. The busier you are, the tighter your phraseology should be. But hey, if you’re working the graveyard shift at a class D tower and that one guy wants patterns, who cares... just be smart.

[Kyle Ekas]

We are providing a service.  ATC exists to serve pilots, not the other way around :-)

i've heard multiple times where a pilot may request runway 17 but if 30L is the norm than that request would be denied even if traffic permitted. If traffic permits and a pilot wants a opposite direction approach or departure why not grant it?

These two quotes right here are prime examples of the pilot bias that has been growing within the division over my 12 years on the network and why senior controllers are leaving in droves.

These quotes completely ignore the fact that the controller has put hours of study into basic theory, procedures, and technique for no pay. They have done so out of a desire to learn Air Traffic Control and be able to practice that skill on VATSIM. A controller derives his enjoyment from working his airspace efficiently and providing a realistic simulation of procedures followed by pilots and air traffic controllers everyday around the world.

In layman's terms, a controller want's to work his airspace the way it is supposed to be worked! That's what is fun for them.

So yes, I'm going to use proper phraseology when I control. No, I'm not going to give you your choice of runway immediately nor acquiesce to your ridiculous deviation request right off the bat regardless of if I have 1 airplane or 100 airplanes. I'm going to assign per my SOP and if that doesn't work, we will find a mutually beneficial way of getting you from A to B and I'll use my best judgement if we need to deviate from Plan A and find a way that works.

I'm going to be the Air Traffic Controller, You're going to be the pilot. (We're not Air Traffic Suggesters)
I'm going to move you as expeditiously through the NAS as I can. You're going to follow my instruction unless it causes a safety issue or is not possible, then it's your responsibility to say unable and we find another way.
I'm going to enjoy providing Air Traffic Services to pilots on VATSIM. You're going to enjoy flying on VATSIM with ATC.
I won't control if it's not enjoyable. You won't fly with ATC if it's not enjoyable.
I can't provide ATS unless you fly. You can't have ATS unless I control.

See, it's a two way street. We're in this together and we both need to derive enjoyment from it for the network to survive.

+1M

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Cole Connelly]

Like Toby, I'm also a little late to the party guess we're still stuck on Honolulu time.

Sorry if this opinion has already been iterated in this post, but it is one I strongly believe.

It's VATSIM

At the end of the day when you break it down to the bare bones, this network doesn't exist without pilots flying on the network. The moment we have no pilots we are no longer Air Traffic Controllers or Air Traffic Suggesters, we are Air Traffic guys sitting behind a computer looking at a blank and virtual radar display with no traffic to control. Our goal is to ensure that we are providing a realistic but enjoyable network.

I do understand your opinions that we are not customer service representatives, but I inherently think that is incorrect. VATSIM Controllers need pilots to be able to control; however, pilots do not need VATSIM to fly, it's simply a service they use because it is enjoyable. The moment the service becomes unenjoyable, they will be onto the next bigger brighter service.

I can tell you from my experiences I would much prefer flying with a control who understands what the reality of the network as is and provides a realistic and ENJOYABLE experience, rather than a controller who is controlling as if this is his final practical exam for his radar class at ERAU or UND who doesn't give a darn about the pilots.

If you are more concerned with how many quotations you recited out of the 7110.65 on frequency rather than the enjoyment of the pilots on the network, it's time for you to get called up to The Show and apply for the FAA.

We are volunteers for the pilots plain and simple.

Realism and instruction are important and I understand their great value to the network. However, nothing should ever take a backseat to the people that allow us to be able to use that realism and instruction.

[Kyle Ekas]

We are volunteers for the pilots plain and simple.

From my point of view, I don't volunteer my time to the pilots, I volunteer it to my ATC hobby. If you want to view it that way, by all means, but I don't. Others have also attempted to imply that opinions similar to yours are the only lens by which to view the network through. I reject that completely.

Again, if you want to view what you do as "servicing the pilots", go ahead and do that, but that's not how I view it and others shouldn't attempt to foist their more accommodating/servicing view of things onto others as if their way is the only way to view things.

##########################################################################

Discussing what I wrote above, is still totally off topic from what Shane originally posted. I'll just go ahead and say, yes, I would rather have the shorter and concise phraseology over more words. I don't think that means I "don't give a darn about the pilots" either. I think it just means I like to do things a little more by the book than you do Cole, and you know what? In the grand scheme of things, that is probably just fine. You can have your version, and I can have mine.

Also, quoting you here,

it's simply a service they use because it is enjoyable. The moment the service becomes unenjoyable, they will be onto the next bigger brighter service.

I don't think any part about using concise phraseology or performing the duties that, under normal circumstances, a controller would perform on the network, constitutes an "unenjoyable" experience on the network. However, even if it did I have no control and nor do other controllers, over what or when or if pilots decide to fly. If they decide the network is not for them, that is their prerogative, not mine.

*********************************************DISCLAIMER:
This obviously does not mean I don't want them to fly on the network. I would be more than happy for as many pilots as practical fly on the network if that is what they so desire.

K

[Shane VanHoven]

If you are more concerned with how many quotations you recited out of the 7110.65 on frequency rather than the enjoyment of the pilots on the network, it's time for you to get called up to The Show and apply for the FAA.

If everyone who had aspirations of doing this professionally left for the FAA, the remaining controllers would be the people who have no interest in being good. Day to day ops would be very enjoyable for pilots, and when Friday nights came around, disaster would strike week after week. You'd be surprised how many of us work for the FAA and come home from our jobs with the goal of helping make this network better.

[Matthew Bartels]

If you are more concerned with how many quotations you recited out of the 7110.65 on frequency rather than the enjoyment of the pilots on the network, it's time for you to get called up to The Show and apply for the FAA.

If everyone who had aspirations of doing this professionally left for the FAA, the remaining controllers would be the people who have no interest in being good. Day to day ops would be very enjoyable for pilots, and when Friday nights came around, disaster would strike week after week. You'd be surprised how many of us work for the FAA and come home from our jobs with the goal of helping make this network better.

Not to mention those of us who would love to go to the big show, but life had other ideas. So this is as close as we're going to get.

[Matthew Kramer]

I want to add that though Shane's original point is strictly about being a better controller by utilizing proper phraseology (and you will be a better controller by doing so, if for no other reason than you'll free up your own time to focus), being professional over voice instills confidence in pilots flying and by virtue of that should increase their own enjoyment.

The lesson here is be concise because it's good for you, good for the pilot, and good for the network. You'll learn a lot and become a better controller. You can still be accomodating, and should try to be, but accommodating isn't the same as giving a TED Talk over frequency. You can, and should, be brief.

[Mark Hubbert]

Gentlemen,
There are a lot of valid points that have been made in this thread.  I think we can all agree on the following:

Pilots on the VATSIM network usually want to be controlled
Controllers want to control airplanes.

Pretty simple if you ask me.

I think that we can also agree that as a controller, you would think that most people want to be as good as they can be and use proper phraseology or at least very close to it.  I agree, less talk is better but less talk that is clear and concise is absolutely the best.  But we have to realize that there will be times when a little more talk perhaps may be necessary.

I view people like Shane as very important to this network.  The guys that do this sort of stuff for a living truly know how it works and how it is done, they are somebody that most of us could and should look up to.  My job is to try and create an environment where the people who look up to guys like Shane can have better access to guys like Shane.

Conceding this is a volunteer network but regardless we should do our best to do as good of a job when we are online as we can.  Whether you are flying or whether we are controlling.  Yes there has to be some give and take and while we are not running a grocery store the word customer service comes into play when a controller does a good job and does everything that he is trained to do to mitigate an aircraft's departure and arrival to an airport.

On the flip side, I think the word customer service should apply to pilots as well.   I think that pilots should strive to become better pilots.  Learning their airplane, learning procedures. learning how to properly program their FMC are all parts of this.  The issue at hand is there is nothing that requires them to learn these things. 

[Kyle Ekas]

Conceding this is a volunteer network but regardless we should do our best to do as good of a job when we are online as we can.  Whether you are flying or whether we are controlling.  Yes there has to be some give and take and while we are not running a grocery store the word customer service comes into play when a controller does a good job and does everything that he is trained to do to mitigate an aircraft's departure and arrival to an airport.

On the flip side, I think the word customer service should apply to pilots as well.   I think that pilots should strive to become better pilots.  Learning their airplane, learning procedures. learning how to properly program their FMC are all parts of this.  The issue at hand is there is nothing that requires them to learn these things.

A fair point.

K

[Matthew Kramer]

I agree Mark, but want to clarify that I think the analogy of Customer Service in the original post was meant more as a cue to cut down on extra words, not behave sternly. It absolutely behooves controllers to be kind and understanding, and there is phraseology we can utilize to do so effectively and concisely.

"Delta 123, thank you for flying through my airspace today. I see you're flying a little to the right off course, I think the best thing would be for you to fly heading 250 and maintain 3,000 for now while we figure this out."

Versus:

"Delta 123, fly heading 250 maintain 3,000, are you flying with a default GPS?"
"Affirmative"
"Delta 123, no problem, fly heading 180 climb and maintain 9,000."