Mode C Transponders

[Robert Shearman Jr]

VATSIM COC requires that pilot's not squawk standby.

COC A.B.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."

If that is indeed the rule, the word "should" means that it is recommended, not required.

Here we go again with the "should" vs "shall" business.

https://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=74306&p=515691

[Ryan Parry]

From the linked Vatsim thread posted by Kyle Ramsey (emphasis mine)....

SUPs don't go looking for these, they respond to calls from ATC. If ATC doesn't call then there is no problem; if they do then there might be if the pilot refuses to cooperate when given an instruction to put in a VFR code, because at that point they are now violating the part that says they must comply with ATC and Supervisor instructions.

So, in other words, if ATC is ok with it then it is fine. Just check first. Simple.

[Owen Bliss]

VATSIM COC requires that pilot's not squawk standby.

COC A.B.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."

If that is indeed the rule, the word "should" means that it is recommended, not required.

I seccond this.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

VATSIM COC requires that pilot's not squawk standby.

COC A.B.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."

If that is indeed the rule, the word "should" means that it is recommended, not required.

I seccond this.

While I fully agree with you from a policy-compliance language perspective, there are plenty of places where they've documented an interpretation otherwise, effectively creating a precedence of s/should/shall/g on matters like these.  As with anywhere else, interpretive precedence often carries more weight than the letter of the law.  You could go argue this to them, but the same interpretation has held fast for years, and continues to be held.  About the only way you'd be able to make any meaningful change on that front is to work your way to the top.

For what it's worth, I dislike the mode-c everywhere rule (and I'd never wallop a pilot for it), and I dislike a number of the other rules that are mandated from above, but they're the rules we agreed to when we sign up.  So long as they persist, we have already agreed to be bound by them.  I don't even wallop non-responsive pilots unless they actually create a problem, and even then, I do my hardest to work around them.  Simple mistakes don't always deserve the ban hammer, especially if they're not actively detracting the fun of the others online.

[Matt Bromback]

Owen,

Situations like this happen from time to time, and it could really be about anything, this one is about transponders. My advice to you is turn this into a teaching moment not just for yourself, but the controller also. It is very easy to get caught up in the moment and get defensive or try to argue your point, but at the end of the day was it worth it? You received a 48hr ban for not hitting a single button? I mean come on dude!

I have been sent contact me messages many many many times before where I was flying VFR and the controller thought he needed to talk to me. What did I do? I contacted them!! If it was a ARTCC I was familiar with I would kindly hop on the TS, find the controller, and have a nice conversation about what I was doing. 99% of the time the controller learns a lot from it, and supervisors aren't called. If you are not familiar with the ARTCC just simply file some feedback for that controller for the ARTCC staff to review, in the meantime comply with the contact me requests to be on your way.

See my point? It's kinda silly in the grand scheme of things.

[Owen Bliss]

Owen,

Situations like this happen from time to time, and it could really be about anything, this one is about transponders. My advice to you is turn this into a teaching moment not just for yourself, but the controller also. It is very easy to get caught up in the moment and get defensive or try to argue your point, but at the end of the day was it worth it? You received a 48hr ban for not hitting a single button? I mean come on dude!

I have been sent contact me messages many many many times before where I was flying VFR and the controller thought he needed to talk to me. What did I do? I contacted them!! If it was a ARTCC I was familiar with I would kindly hop on the TS, find the controller, and have a nice conversation about what I was doing. 99% of the time the controller learns a lot from it, and supervisors aren't called. If you are not familiar with the ARTCC just simply file some feedback for that controller for the ARTCC staff to review, in the meantime comply with the contact me requests to be on your way.

See my point? It's kinda silly in the grand scheme of things.

I agree with you, it's silly. However, It's not as if I was protesting not turning on my transponder. I was just forcibly removed and banned from the network within 60 seconds of the Supervisor contacting me. I had no time to react. The supervisor was abusing his powers to say the least but, thats old news.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

I was just forcibly removed and banned from the network within 60 seconds of the Supervisor contacting me. I had no time to react. The supervisor was abusing his powers to say the least but, thats old news.

Any progress or status updates on following up with supervisors@vatsim.net?

[Owen Bliss]

I was just forcibly removed and banned from the network within 60 seconds of the Supervisor contacting me. I had no time to react. The supervisor was abusing his powers to say the least but, thats old news.

Any progress or status updates on following up with supervisors@vatsim.net?

Unfortunately, no. The incident took place nearly 6 months ago, and I never received a formal response from Tim Barber. It was kind of just shaken off, and forgotten about. It's not a huge deal since it was never listed on my action log.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

I was just forcibly removed and banned from the network within 60 seconds of the Supervisor contacting me. I had no time to react. The supervisor was abusing his powers to say the least but, thats old news.

Any progress or status updates on following up with supervisors@vatsim.net?

Unfortunately, no. The incident took place nearly 6 months ago, and I never received a formal response from Tim Barber. It was kind of just shaken off, and forgotten about. It's not a huge deal since it was never listed on my action log.

Supervisor actions don't get documented in your VATUSA action log.  Did you email Tim Barber directly or supervisors@ as instructed?  I've never seen something brought to supervisors@, no matter how silly, get shaken off without so much as a response.

[Chris Hadden]

Not sure if you still remember the name of the SUP, but I would get in contact with Tim about it.  And I am no supervisor, but from what I hear, you should receive an email from the sup explaining what happened and why you were suspended with what the individual broke within CoC. We have to hold them accountable too, something like that can't just slip by without any light. If you can't get in contact with Tim, search higher. (VATGOV8, or 1+2)

[Kaylan Fullerton]

Matthew,

As far as that goes, I was flying a Piper Cub around a class delta airport in the SLC airspace. The Controller that 'walloped me' at the time was live streaming (not with my knowledge) and assumed that my intent was to mess with him. After the incident occurred I found a clip of the conversation he had with one of his friends (which was the supervisor that popped me). The controller was heard saying over the stream and I quote, "“Sign on to get this guy to go away and to make him stop flying the pattern." The supervisor logged onto a center position that he was not certed for and sent me a "ContactMe" message. I forgot to switch back to the tower freq after he abruptly signed off, and I was then kicked from the network then I received an email stating that I am being banned for 48 hours for Not squawking mode C when airborne, and Failing to contact controllers when asked to. To sum it up, the controller was working against me because I was flying a non mode transponder equipped A/C. It's not a big deal. I just feel like it's a stupid rule.

Owen,

While I hope you do not stop seeking a proper resolution to this, I would like to apologize for the negative experience on behalf of ZLC. ZLC only has one Mode C veil in the entire ARTCC and two Class D fields that lie within it. Judging by direction of this post so far, it seems clear you knew that you were clear of it (the veil that is). Our guys know that the CoC requires Mode C, but they also are taught when (and when not) it is "realistically" required. Most of my controllers (not all apparently) have no issue and enjoy the challenge of simulating such an environment for you.

The part I find quite embarrassing (if accurate) is the whole "get this guy" statement. While he was "technically" within his right to require you to squawk Mode C, it's actions like that drives good pilots further and further away from my ARTCC or even worse this network. I can't speak for the other 21 facilities, but if you ever find yourself in ZLC again, please provide me and Kyle (DATM) with this feedback so we can crush this at the source. I would like to believe we are your first line of defense for stuff like this. Our feedback form on our site is the best way to get that to us. Without you (the pilot), there is no point to being a controller so your experience on the network is equally as important to us.

With all that like most have already stated, I would seek resolution regardless of how long it has been. Chances are unless said individuals are identified, things like this become trends.