Should MSF VA flights be REQUIRED to contact known ATC ?

[Kalo]

That being said ATC will never be something mandatory in the server, As I am sure, there are other servers out there that make ATC mandatory and that is what i will move on to. No point voting for something the ATC Admins dont even see happening. I just cant see how ATC can work in a busy airspace with even 1 guy not talking to you, but maybe it can...

Eddie I appreciate everything you have done for our ATC division and thank you for taking time to organize and teach ATC events. However making ATC mandatory would go against one of the founding principles of msFlights.net

How often has this actually happened? I can't imagine this would be a daily occurrence.

I'd say VA flights should not be required to contact ATC. Our Virtual Airline and server are pretty laid back and I don't like the idea of forcing people to contact ATC. However I would encourage VA pilots to contact ATC IF they feel like it. Re-routing around VA pilots could be good practice for ATC controllers. Just pretend the VA flyer is "Air Force 1". lol jk.

On the other hand I'm sure some people that fly for the VA would enjoy taking a flight that arrives in ATC controlled airspace.

If a VA pilot seems to be intentionally antagonizing ATC airspace and is using a VA flight as an excuse, please let one of the moderators know and we will handle it.

[KLM]

As a Controller i had to vote yes for this...but as im seeing im sure it will do no good...

As stated to me so many times over the past few weeks...."This is a Freeflight server and always will be, We work around the pilots, they dont work around us"...That being said ATC will never be something mandatory in the server, As I am sure, there are other servers out there that make ATC mandatory and that is what i will move on to. No point voting for something the ATC Admins dont even see happening. I just cant see how ATC can work in a busy airspace with even 1 guy not talking to you, but maybe it can...

ATC will never be something mandatory here. Wish you the best in finding a home where you are comfortable.

[Spartan0536]

As a VA pilot and manager I usually try to fly into ATC zones just for the immersion, but that is just my preference. I did vote NO however, not all VA pilots want to fly with ATC and sometimes ATC can really mess up your landings if you are using a different scenery (rarely happens but it does happen from time to time). I believe that if a VA pilot is going to fly into a known ATC area it should be THEIR COURTESY to notify ATC but NOT a requirement, some pilots like myself are using single monitor and ALT+Tabbing can cause FSX to crash the flight from time to time and that's just not worth it. Here is how I view this....

1. Pilot started flight there was no ATC and in mid flight ATC shows up at destination airport, the pilot is absolutely NOT required to contact ATC at all, ATC MUST handle this aircraft as UNCONTROLLED, and advise other aircraft operating with ATC accordingly.

2. Pilot started flight with ATC known at departure/arrival location it should be the pilots prerogative to contact ATC and let them know of his/her intentions. Again this is NOT forced, more or less I view it as a courtesy action as you most likely will know if ATC is operating in your vicinity, prior to starting the flight.

3. Any pilot who is a nuisance (ex. buzzing the tower repeatedly, causing constant traffic issues deliberately, or spams FSX chat or teamspeak with inappropriate or demeaning/defamatory remarks) should be removed from the FSX server and an admin be contacted to speak with the individual regarding their behavior.

Can you please answer me this? Why if there is a pilot flying in without contact can you just not put him number 1 in line and move everyone else behind? I highly doubt our va pilots are buzzing your airports or doing crazy things. Everything they are doing is being recorded for the va. Why would they ruin a va leg just to mess with you? They come in and maybe go out. Why is this such a problem? Just treat them as uncontrolled and give them priority and in no time they will be on the ground or out of your airspace.

The way I see it is that its just common courtesy. All I ask is the transponder code, its one mouse click. However with people we don't know, I will be honest, I don't know everyone here, its hard to tell who is doing a VA flight and who has just decided to be a jerk and not talk with ATC but fly at an ATC airport.

[XJJohnsonX]

Can you please answer me this? Why if there is a pilot flying in without contact can you just not put him number 1 in line and move everyone else behind? I highly doubt our va pilots are buzzing your airports or doing crazy things. Everything they are doing is being recorded for the va. Why would they ruin a va leg just to mess with you? They come in and maybe go out. Why is this such a problem? Just treat them as uncontrolled and give them priority and in no time they will be on the ground or out of your airspace.

[WarHawK]

My vote is no, not sure why it's set as yes, I may have refreshed in a different tab.
Treat VA pilots as a public person.

The end.

[Eddie117]

As a Controller i had to vote yes for this...but as im seeing im sure it will do no good...

As stated to me so many times over the past few weeks...."This is a Freeflight server and always will be, We work around the pilots, they dont work around us"...That being said ATC will never be something mandatory in the server, As I am sure, there are other servers out there that make ATC mandatory and that is what i will move on to. No point voting for something the ATC Admins dont even see happening. I just cant see how ATC can work in a busy airspace with even 1 guy not talking to you, but maybe it can...

[Splithorse]

Is there a default squawk code? Is it 2200? As long as I don't have to adjust the number or click on a button I'm fine with it.

1) No
2) No
3) No

No surprise there.

[XJJohnsonX]

Alot of the ATC badges are good about seeing uncontrolled aircraft and treating them as uncontrolled. Ive hopped into a aircraft and flown into controlled airspace and the majority of the controllers are good about moving pilots around so they will not run into each other while having no contact with me. If we do give kick powers to certified controllers it should be known if you come accross someone flying in with no contact then you treat it as uncontrolled and move people around. Long story short if someone is just flying in and out that doesnt have contact and isnt causing prolems no action should be taken.

[Karl]

My perspective on this is simply from that of an observer. I have some idea about the nature and frequency of the problem that this poll/discussion is addressing. As I understand the issue, any proposed mandatory use of ATC would likely create many more issues than it resolved.

[HawgDawg4life]

If you want a couple of other what if scenarios,

What if you start a nice, long cross country flight and during the flight an ATC session is spawned at your destination airport?

What if the ATC session is somewhere in the middle of your nice, long flight, say LAX to DFW. Should the VA pilot then, after checking in Teamspeak for ATC sessions, break out the ol' sectional to make sure that these ATC sessions aren't along the way? not to mention where to contact ATC. Speaking of which, is there a standard distance from the ATC controlled airport that contact must be made, or is it going to be different based on Class C airspace?

The people doing ATC use fsopen's flight strips, would then the VA pilots be required to install the FSOpen application to file plans?

There are a lot of questions that I didn't even pose here that will be asked over and over again by the VA community.

[Wingman]

To Coast's valid point, msFlights.net ATC is very much a variable -- not a constant -- both in its availability and quality. I would vote Yes in a perfect world or even one wherein perfection was sought through strict regulation. I voted no, however, considering the reality of the environment in which we operate.

Also, in agreement with Storm's point of reciprocation, the onus is equally on the controller to seek enjoyment in operating within the reality of an open online virtual aviation simulation platform.

I fear (feel) that some endorsed/badged controllers are not fully aware of this responsibility and I am making every effort to coach and correct where applicable.

Last night, I flew incognito into a controlled airport just to observe the reaction of the controller and other participants. I used every resource available to me without directly contacting ATC or filing a flight plan, and I landed without incident, keeping greater than 10 miles distance to all traffic at any point in my lengthy approach. I then taxied back and departed without ever being on the same taxiway as anyone else. The controller acted mostly the way I would have hoped and expected; he called my tail number twice and in-game name once (in his TS channel), and made no apparent attempt to get me kicked. The only other thing he could (and perhaps should) have done was attempt to communicate via in-game text chat. Granted, I probably wouldn't have seen it if it weren't for the fact that I was looking for it.

If I flew like an exemplary VA pilot and he controlled like an exemplary controller, we're all good.

[HawgDawg4life]

No kidding... we have the issue of people flying the VA flights not wanting to participate in ATC and ATC wanting to kick these people out of the session so in response we make the VA guys contact ATC. I dont know if you have looked lately, but most of the time ATC is so far down the list you cant even see it without scrolling down. I think this is a great option for someone who likes both ATC and the VA, but for those who want nothing to do with ATC, this is a discouragement to fly VA.

Wouldnt it be more simple to have everyone flying the VA to Squawk 2200 and tell ATC if they see such a squawk to treat them as uncontrolled aircraft knowing that if they were there to "buzz" people, that they wouldnt be getting a very good VA rating.

Honestly, I realize it has been a while since I flew the VA, but under these conditions, you will probably wont see me flying VA at all. I have no interest in ATC and I know that there are a lot of people who share my opinion. Forcing them to just stop in to let the ATC know that they are in "their" area seems a little like we are telling people how to use our server and we have never done that in the past.

This solution doesn't solve a damned thing, it shifts the burden from one group of members to another. It is an inconvenience, either way, either for the guy flying the VA or for the ATC. Currently the burden is on the ATC and what we are talking about is shifting the burden to the VA pilot.

Additionally, I put to you that there is usually one or two ATC people that the inconvenience is on at any one given time. By shifting the burden, you have no idea how many pilots can feel the burdened at once.

I recant that an ATC session was thrown up at LAX within a few minutes of the LAX airport being released to the VA, and in response to the release of the hub. How many pilots, who may or may not have filed a flight plan in FSX in the past, would have been required to do so that day?

This solution, in my opinion, is extremely weighted in the favor of the person who chooses to do ATC.

[Waterman981]

I think this is simple enough. Keep the contact (#2) simple. "Hey guys, I'm flying a VA flight into XXXX." That's all you need to say. You don't need to take instruction from them, heck you don't need to be formal with them. Say that simple line politely and change rooms to wherever you want to be.

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.

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?

I just noticed this

After a meeting at the weekend we are asking all VA pilot that are flying VA routes on our server into or out of an Airport that is under ATC that they please do one (1) of the following.


1) Using the FSX chat window file a flight plan.
!F [ICAO_from [ICAO_to] [IFR OR VFR] [Altitude] [Remarks] eg. !F KLAX KSEA VFR 10000 VA Flight

2) Make contact with ATC in TeamSpeak and just let them know you are flying a VA route.

3) Set your transponder squawk code to 2200

- Oz Flyer

Bob, did you mean what you posted or what Oz Posted?