There are two types of controllers...

[Michael Schwartz]

Did I say deny a request for nothing other than SOP? No. What I said was I'm going to assign you SOP and if that doesn't work, then we work on accommodating your request. I'm not going to waste frequency time to figure out what you want. I'm going to give you what you should get then you will advise me if you want something else.

I did not intend to imply you did. I was specifically addressing a thought process that widely exists in the community here. Going back to my original post the problem isn't that the controller doesn't always see what the pilots wants to do (that would be ludicrous). The issue I was instead getting at is that once a pilot makes his request known it is rejected for no other reason that what was stated above.

You mentioned that controllers on the network aim to efficiently and realistically provide service (not your exact words). I completely agree with this. It should be known that pilot requests both usual and extremely abnormal are a constant in the real world. If you aim for realism you should be ready for them. I have witnessed far more strange requests and deviations in the rw than VATSIM. In my experience such abnormal requests are quite uncommon on VATSIM. I think that is the reason why so many issues occur when a situation comes up that ventures outside of standard procedures and what most VATSIM pilots do.

Personally these unusual situations are what make the work exciting and fun. Doing the same thing over and over again can get monotonous. Abnormal requests shake things up. Something as simple and usual in the rw like pop-up IFR could be considered an abnormal request on VATSIM.

To attempt and connect this back to what Shane was getting at...even with unusual situations, pilot requests, etc., less words is usually more.

[Dhruv Kalra]

To attempt and connect this back to what Shane was getting at...even with unusual situations, pilot requests, etc., less words is usually more.

This. The problem with being overly verbose on frequency when it’s quiet is that when it gets busy many controllers on here aren’t equipped to resort back to clear, concise transmissions.  You see this during events where the traffic may be largely manageable, but the controller is down the tubes because he/she can’t keep the frequency in check.

[Kyle Sanders]

“Practice makes perfect” no... it doesn’t.
Practice makes habit.

If you practice with bad technique, you are going to use muscle memory to resort back to those bad techniques when you are in the dumps with traffic.

Utilize the slow times to take a few extra seconds to think about each transmission prior to keying up that mic so you say it correctly with the fewest amount of words.

Then, come event time, you are set up with GOOD habits.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

I'm going to be the Air Traffic Controller, You're going to be the pilot. (We're not Air Traffic Suggesters)

And the pilot will be the Pilot in Command.

§91.3   Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

[Dhruv Kalra]

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.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

To attempt and connect this back to what Shane was getting at...even with unusual situations, pilot requests, etc., less words is usually more.

So long as you use the appropriate words to convey the message.  Effectiveness conveyance and communications is more critical than brevity for the sake of brevity.

[Shane VanHoven]

I'm going to be the Air Traffic Controller, You're going to be the pilot. (We're not Air Traffic Suggesters)

And the pilot will be the Pilot in Command.

§91.3   Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

I agree. But then again nobody is really arguing that. And the whole point of this thread has nothing to do with who is the final authority for the airplane.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

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.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

I'm going to be the Air Traffic Controller, You're going to be the pilot. (We're not Air Traffic Suggesters)

And the pilot will be the Pilot in Command.

§91.3   Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

I agree. But then again nobody is really arguing that. And the whole point of this thread has nothing to do with who is the final authority for the airplane.

Sure, but Bartles made a point of it with his statement and emphasis, so while non-germane to the OP, it's germane to the ongoing conversation.

[Shane VanHoven]

To attempt and connect this back to what Shane was getting at...even with unusual situations, pilot requests, etc., less words is usually more.

So long as you use the appropriate words to convey the message.  Effectiveness conveyance and communications is more critical than brevity for the sake of brevity.

"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.

[Dace Nicmane]

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?

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.

The first thing I imagined, I've seen controllers follow real world runway flow even though the wind has changed in favor of the opposite runway and they don't change it in real world because of the traffic levels. So if the pilot isn't comfortable with the 10 kts tailwind, why not give the opposite runway? Or another case, where the wind is calm. But I agree that in most cases pilot should be able to comply with routine instructions. I once read about a case where a group flight requested a runway that would result in 30-40kts gusting tailwind "for fun". Now that's something I'd not support.

[Kyle Weber]

With the voice lag and codec we have, give me the instructions and comms in the fewest words possible.  Every time.

[Dhruv Kalra]

With the voice lag and codec we have, give me the instructions and comms in the fewest words possible.  Every time.

It’s ok, our CPDLC implementation rate is at 100% already. Just use text 

[Ryan Barnes]

I can understand extra words in transmissions. But take your new VATSIM pilot who doesn't read much if any prior to logging on to the network, may not use charts, or has old navdata, and some people want them to be able to understand taxi instructions like "Runway 15L, taxi via NB NE WW." Sometimes long transmissions like "Runway 15L, turn left the first taxi way then proceed ahead to pass 8 taxiways then hold position."

[Ryan Geckler]

I can understand extra words in transmissions. But take your new VATSIM pilot who doesn't read much if any prior to logging on to the network, may not use charts, or has old navdata, and some people want them to be able to understand taxi instructions like "Runway 15L, taxi via NB NE WW." Sometimes long transmissions like "Runway 15L, turn left the first taxi way then proceed ahead to pass 8 taxiways then hold position."

Then they should ask for progressive taxi. There's a reason we don't do it normally - it takes too much time.