Should MSF VA flights be REQUIRED to contact known ATC ?

[Storm]

Two out of three.

1. Yes, file a flight plan so you're visible, AND
2. Yes, squawk a unique transponder code* so you're identifiable, BUT
3. No, making contact with ATC should not be mandatory.

* If the pilot specifies a different squawk code in their flight plan, then let them use that. If they do not, let them use an agreed code such as 2200.

Since the poll was an AND of all three requirements, I have had to vote no. The reasoning is as follows:

• Unlike in real life, ATC is not necessary for the safety and expediency of flight in FSX. Thus ATC is a personal choice: to take part, or not to take part.
• Filing a flight plan and squawking a code can be done entirely with FSX with no need to launch Teamspeak. By contrast, ATC contact requires Teamspeak, either voice, or text chat, or both, which may not be possible or convenient for the pilot.
• How about a bit of reciprocation here?
  • Aware ATC needs no more information to route other aircraft around a VA flight other than flight plan and squawk. How hard is that?
  • If a pilot finds ATC in FSX does not add to their enjoyment or that it takes away from their enjoyment, why is it the pilot's responsibility to wait until their chosen route is uncontrolled? Why, instead, should it not be a controller's responsibility to learn how to manage these scenarios?
  • Does managing those scenarios take away from a controller's enjoyment? I doubt it. Does it call for a higher level of competency? Probably. Would the exercise of a higher level of competency bring a higher level of enjoyment? Very possibly. So why not learn how to do it?

Having ATC contact with VA would just add to the positive experience, to the virtual reality of the flight.
I have flown non-VA and come into ATC airspace. About 50nm out I announced my existence and intentions. When ATC found out I was finishing a 300+nm flight, they were excited an unexpected aircraft had entered their space, aside from the pilots hanging there. I got the royal treatment.
I will vote "Yes" for conformity, but we should be doing it because we want to.

My response to this question may be a little too ambiguous for some, but here it is.

If the ATC can provide sufficiently high quality and consistent ATC service to the vast majority of VA pilots, without causing problems for them, I would vote yes.

If however the quality of ATC operations is more highly variable than desired, I would vote no.

I suspect there is an assumption that ATC as it currently stands is up to the task. IMHO we should first validate and document this assumption before implementing this proposal.

-Coast

I don't think the issue is talking with and using ATC, because I totally understand that there are pilots who want nothing to do with it at all. The issue is should it be required to 'advise' ATC that you will be no contact moving though there airspace. ATC will work around 'non-participating traffic', they do it in the real word and we do it in FSX. However, I handle uncontrolled traffic and non-participating traffic differently, uncontrolled traffic I will clear someone to land regardless of if they are on the runway, I will tell traffic to go right though them. The reason being is that they are disrupting the system. With non-participating traffic, such as VA flights, I will give them the right-of-away, assuming that they will do the right thing. They aren't going to sit on the runway in a 747 and be an @$$ about things because ATC is active. Currently it is very hard to do this in practice because as of now VA traffic don't identify themselves as VA, so at the moment everyone is uncontrolled who is not talking to tower (note: members that I know get the right-of-away because I know they will be proper and handle themselves).

[Coast]

My response to this question may be a little too ambiguous for some, but here it is.

If the ATC can provide sufficiently high quality and consistent ATC service to the vast majority of VA pilots, without causing problems for them, I would vote yes.

If however the quality of ATC operations is more highly variable than desired, I would vote no.

I suspect there is an assumption that ATC as it currently stands is up to the task. IMHO we should first validate and document this assumption before implementing this proposal.

-Coast

[KLM]

Having ATC contact with VA would just add to the positive experience, to the virtual reality of the flight.
I have flown non-VA and come into ATC airspace. About 50nm out I announced my existence and intentions. When ATC found out I was finishing a 300+nm flight, they were excited an unexpected aircraft had entered their space, aside from the pilots hanging there. I got the royal treatment.
I will vote "Yes" for conformity, but we should be doing it because we want to.

I see it like this, option 3 is the easiest (I would do all three if I didn't feel like flying with ATC), if you cant go and add 1 number to the default transponder code because you have such an anti-authoritative* attitude about it, then then fly in single player for that leg. Just make it part of the "checklist" before you take off on an VA flight. You don't have to talk to anyone, you can do whatever you want but at least this way when I am controlling I can work traffic around you knowing that you are going to be
A. Transitioning though my airspace
B. Landing at the airport or airport within my airspace
C. Departing at the airport or airport within my airspace
With the transponder code I know what to expect one of the above.

My point is, its so easy to change the transponder code just do it every flight, even if you are not even near ATC. You make it a habit and you don't run in to the issue that AK was talking about.

I personally would not classify this as 'contact', I would classify this as just being courteous. The reason being is because in most cases its single VA pilot v. 10+ positively controlled aircraft and a controller.

*Anti-authoritative- its a attitude that is most commonly found in high time airline pilots and air force pilots who have so much experience(hours) they feel the rules/orders/standard operating procedures don't apply to them.

[ak416]

May I clarify, ak. ATC contact would ONLY be required of VA pilots when knowingly planning a flight into map-published ATC controlled airspace. If this communication would be not virtual airline pilot -acceptable, VA pilots should avoid controlled airspace ONLY and be welcomed to fly any other non controlled route.

In that case I would agree that it makes sense, so long as the same respect is shown to the pilots - if someone is doing a VA Route from CYYZ to KBOS and the tower is at TNCM during departure but decide to move to KBOS during flight or a new controller comes on and wants to control that airspace, the pilot flying the VA route should not then be required to use ATC and have priority over the airspace.

[Novawing24]

I wholeheartedly agree that this should be a requirement.

We are a community full of many diverse interests and ways to enjoy our hobby. We are built on a platform of mutual respect and enjoyment. Part of being a member of this fantastic community is to acknowledge that while some may prefer being behind the yoke some prefer guiding those yokes through virtual skies.

Whilst some of us may not normally partake of the excellent ATC activities that occur within our community it is vital that if what pilots are doing merges even if only briefly with controllers that their activities are respected and acknowledged.

Even on uncontrolled airspace group flights we all advise of our positions and approaches, so is it really that unrealistic that we do they same in VA runs?

And if you do not wish to be involved the VA has dozens upon dozens of routes that would not cross paths with the ATC's that would be operating and there is always Free Flight offline.

Novawing24

[Jcom]

I do believe it should be a requirement. After talking to Oz Flyer, he said, you would only be required to go talk to the ATC if you were flying a VA Route and flying into/out-of their airspace.

This makes sense seeing that you have to contact ATC if you are in their airspace! It's just like a random pilot that is flying in our server, come into ATC airspace, and not contact them...

[ROBERT DUNN 2]

May I clarify, ak. ATC contact would ONLY be required of VA pilots when knowingly planning a flight into map-published ATC controlled airspace. If this communication would be not virtual airline pilot -acceptable, VA pilots should avoid controlled airspace ONLY and be welcomed to fly any other non controlled route.

[ak416]

I don't think it should be a requirement, no. Some people have no interest in using the ATC services, and I don't think opting out of that should prevent them from flying with the VA. Hell, our highest ranked pilot for the first 6 months after the VAs inception had never even visited our Teamspeak.

[ROBERT DUNN 2]

See my post # 3 here:


http://msflights.net/forum/showthrea...ull=1#post8098

[ROBERT DUNN 2]

I frame the poll's question in this way:


Should MSF virtual airline flights be REQUIRED to initiate contact with known ATC controlers in the following manner:


1) File a flight plan using the FSX chat window .


2) Make contact with known ATC in TeamSpeak, say your intentions and identify yourself as an MSF virtual airline flight.

AND

3) Squak 2200 at ATC's request.