"Limited Services"

[Ryan Barnes]

Hello VATUSA community. One thing I have noticed throughout VATUSA is controller remarks along the lines of "Services limited due to realistic vERAM Simulation." As a FE, I was wondering what services were being limited based of using vERAM.

[James Hiscoe]

Radar coverage below certain altitudes is the thing that strikes me as most likely to be what they're referring to. I'm not sure what else they could mean.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

Radar coverage below certain altitudes is the thing that strikes me as most likely to be what they're referring to. I'm not sure what else they could mean.

Even then, we're still obligated to do top-down, so what's really limited?  Non-radar itself isn't "limited"

[Dhruv Kalra]

Radar coverage below certain altitudes is the thing that strikes me as most likely to be what they're referring to. I'm not sure what else they could mean.

Even then, we're still obligated to do top-down, so what's really limited?  Non-radar itself isn't "limited"

Can’t provide radar services like traffic advisories or vectors to final approach course if you don’t have radar coverage.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

Radar coverage below certain altitudes is the thing that strikes me as most likely to be what they're referring to. I'm not sure what else they could mean.

Even then, we're still obligated to do top-down, so what's really limited?  Non-radar itself isn't "limited"

Can’t provide radar services like traffic advisories or vectors to final approach course if you don’t have radar coverage.

So long as we are ensuring that our ERAM profiles can provide top-down approach services for when there is no underlying controller, even if it includes adding the additional radar sites to ensure you have full TRACON coverage, then we should be fine.  Simply denying services because you only want to include the enroute radar sites that *may* be missing the terminal coverage seems like a cheap out that only hurts pilots.  If you have folks on underneath that fill the terminal void, no problem.

If the only exceptions are places that wouldn't otherwise have radar coverage regardless, I'm on board.  No need to give everybody vectors to final :-)  Like I said, non-radar is still full service, even if a different kind of service.

[Nolan Danziger]

I don't think anyone is advocating for not having full radar coverage where it's realistic. I believe that real world enroute radar is supplemented by TRACON radars where applicable. What we're implying when we say that we're limited by realistic radar coverage is that we won't be able to give you full radar coverage to the ground if you're going into an airport in BFE. If you're going into a TRACON or up-down you'll be fine...

[Dhruv Kalra]

I don't think anyone is advocating for not having full radar coverage where it's realistic. I believe that real world enroute radar is supplemented by TRACON radars where applicable. What we're implying when we say that we're limited by realistic radar coverage is that we won't be able to give you full radar coverage to the ground if you're going into an airport in BFE. If you're going into a TRACON or up-down you'll be fine...

Spot on.

[Meg Bruck]

What we're implying when we say that we're limited by realistic radar coverage is that we won't be able to give you full radar coverage to the ground if you're going into an airport in BFE. If you're going into a TRACON or up-down you'll be fine...

What you're implying by "realistic radar coverage" may not be what every controller is implying by saying "service is limited" because of vERAM. Unfortunately, this is open to interpretation.

As Kosmo said, non-radar is still a service which should be provided to aircraft on the ground or below radar coverage. Just because a controller is using vERAM does not mean that s/he can say "you're below my radar, taxi your discretion, call me in the air" to an aircraft at a Class D. I've heard controllers say that.

I'd worry that some controllers are using vERAM's limitations as an excuse not to provider service at all below 5000', except for at the majors.

[James Hiscoe]

The only understandable reason to use it as an excuse is if they're unfamiliar or uncertain of how to provide services or instructions or clearances outside of radar coverage. Otherwise they're acting in bad faith. I'm not sure which is more likely, probably the former if anything I'd hope.

I don't see ground movement or clearance delivery as something one would typically refer to as "non radar" though. Non radar to me describes things involving airborne or soon to be airborne aircraft without radar service. The glossary in the 7110.65 seems to agree. One doesn't even need to use top down mode to issue taxi instructions so its hard to see it as an excuse to not do top down tower cab service at least prior to departure even if somehow the people in question were unaware they had that feature in vERAM.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

The only understandable reason to use it as an excuse is if they're unfamiliar or uncertain of how to provide services or instructions or clearances outside of radar coverage. Otherwise they're acting in bad faith. I'm not sure which is more likely, probably the former if anything I'd hope.

I don't see ground movement or clearance delivery as something one would typically refer to as "non radar" though. Non radar to me describes things involving airborne or soon to be airborne aircraft without radar service. The glossary in the 7110.65 seems to agree. One doesn't even need to use top down mode to issue taxi instructions so its hard to see it as an excuse to not do top down tower cab service at least prior to departure even if somehow the people in question were unaware they had that feature in vERAM.

Those are GRP items, so they should be taught be demonstrate proficiency in nonradar procedures before being issued ratings.  I know it's rare in most places, so I hope we at least have our folks in a place to remember how to look it up when they forget.  Not knowing isn't an excuse to cop out.

[Dhruv Kalra]

As Kosmo said, non-radar is still a service which should be provided to aircraft on the ground or below radar coverage. Just because a controller is using vERAM does not mean that s/he can say "you're below my radar, taxi your discretion, call me in the air" to an aircraft at a Class D. I've heard controllers say that.

I'd worry that some controllers are using vERAM's limitations as an excuse not to provider service at all below 5000', except for at the majors.

The only controller to date in whose info that I’ve seen the “service limited by accurate radar coverage simulation” statement isn’t doing this. If people are copying that without knowing what it means then it’s been misconstrued on both the controller and pilot ends of things.

I’m a firm believer in NOT advertising what Radar client you’re using or any descriptors to that effect. If someone requests a radar service that we can’t provide due to lack of radar coverage, I just respond with “unable due to radar coverage” and offer alternative options. Usually it’s requests for radar vectors to approaches for which we don’t have a centerline depicted or VFR flight following in areas where the radar might not pick up an aircraft below 5500-6000. We field these sorts of requests in the real world™ every day. No reason why they can’t be handled just as succinctly on the network.

[James Hiscoe]

Those are GRP items, so they should be taught be demonstrate proficiency in nonradar procedures before being issued ratings.  I know it's rare in most places, so I hope we at least have our folks in a place to remember how to look it up when they forget.  Not knowing isn't an excuse to cop out.

Its not an excuse, but its at least a comprehensible explanation. I'd sooner expect that confusion than someone deliberately copping out of a service they know how to provide. But I think this speculation at this point has lost sight of the total absence of examples to suggest something more than what Dhruv has described is going on with the 'one known person'. I also agree about how its pretty easy to navigate these limits without making a point of discussing it or warning pilots.

[Joshua Borges]

The only controller to date in whose info that I’ve seen the “service limited by accurate radar coverage simulation” statement isn’t doing this. If people are copying that without knowing what it means then it’s been misconstrued on both the controller and pilot ends of things.

I’m a firm believer in NOT advertising what Radar client you’re using or any descriptors to that effect. If someone requests a radar service that we can’t provide due to lack of radar coverage, I just respond with “unable due to radar coverage” and offer alternative options. Usually it’s requests for radar vectors to approaches for which we don’t have a centerline depicted or VFR flight following in areas where the radar might not pick up an aircraft below 5500-6000. We field these sorts of requests in the real world™ every day. No reason why they can’t be handled just as succinctly on the network.

Dhruv is spot on. No where does "service limited by accurate radar coverage simulation" say that the controller will not talk to a pilot unless they are at a major airport.  VATSIM pilots often forget that, although some radar clients let you cheat (yes Im lazy and use VRC), controllers that use realistic modes will have to deal with real world problems often times. 
I've had to put in my comments something to the effect of "I operate in realistic mode, I cant automatically find you" because pilots forget that by only calling me with their altitude doesnt give me their position.  Then pilots get angry that I cant find them.  Normally I am all for learning and flexibility on the network, but this is one of those times where pilots on VATSIM dont understand or get it and a controller having that comment should help pilots understand that.  We shouldnt stifle controllers approach to realism in this case due to pilots lack of understanding.  In this case I think the controller is proactively letting pilots know ahead of time that the controller operates realistically and pilots can expect limited services in certain areas.  Good on the controller.
In VATREAL radar coverage has limits.  I cant tell you the number of times in VATREAL I've had controllers tell me "radar contact lost" because I am flying around mountains.  You cant vector someone without radar.  Yes there are still services, but not those.  Its like trying to give a VFR pilot a vector below the MVA......you just cant do that.