I fully understand your point and I agree to this and never would blame our dear VATSIM ATC fellows for the matter, that actual navdata is not free.
I already wrote that all of my questions are satisfying answered. Yes, now when I am stepping more into my hobby I need to invest into that subscription even when I don’t have as much time for it as other simmers.
Hi. European charts are available free of charge in .pdf format and are of course easy to display on any screen. Here you can also find airways country by country. Eurocontrol is in charge of this, after registering. EAD Basic - EUROCONTROL
And for upper or lower airways you’ll also find them accessible free at skyvector.com
It isn’t. Right now, if a pilot comes along with outdated nav data and you tell them to disconnect because of that, they would be well within their rights to call a supervisor on you who would then most likely tell you to figure something out but that you can’t refuse service to them.
The new rule makes a complete 180 on that by essentially saying you can’t use the network at all (or, depending on local flight planning rules, at least not for IFR flying) if you don’t have the latest nav data which for many people will mean that they can’t use the network unless they pay for a Navigraph subscription.
Those procedures exist, though, and I would expect the vARTCC to have procedures for those and to train their controllers to accommodate that (and frankly, if a controller struggles with traffic climbin and descending on opposite tracks, they should simply not be controlling any position where this is occasionally or even regularly required - and after all, such structures are very common particularly in the enroute environment, so it’s not like this is anything unusual).
On top of that, you are not allowed to file the RNDRZ2 in any case, and the LARKK1 (as well as the CRESO5) is perfectly flyable even with a very outdated AIRAC (presuming there have been no significant additions of conventional nav aids in the last few years) as it is defined completely conventionally; the only differences between the LARKK1 and the CRESO5 are that the former requires you to have DME on board (standard equipment in pretty much any aircraft) and that the latter is the only option out of the three you mentioned that is available for non-jet aircraft.
The problem really isn’t the occasional pilot with outdated nav data, it is (of course) that controllers can’t be expected to know all former procedures and (crucially) that it is not possible to accommodate outdated nav data in some situations - one day I may have five aircraft on frequency and can just put you on vectors, but the next I might have 25 aircraft on frequency and don’t have capacity to vector you around (and even then, it may still be possible to put you on a conventional procedure, if the airport still has one).
Hence my suggestion to leave the decision up to ATC. They will know if they can currently accommodate the outdated nav data or not. That way, the burden also wouldn’t be placed on the controller - it would still be on the pilot (after all, they would be the once facing a potential “too busy to accommodate old nav data, please disconnect”), but chances are high that if they don’t pick the busiest airport pair through the busiest airspace they can still complete their flight without bigger issues.
The issue here is that you assume that ATC would tell them to disconnect, in which we would not. One thing you (and most pilots) have to realize is that a flight clearance is an agreement: something that has to be negotiated for what the pilot should have available to them as well as what ATC has to follow via SOPs and LOAs. We are to negotiate those clearances to something both pilot and ATC can agree upon. If those go along ATC’s SOPs and the pilot can do it, then we are good. They are not absolute on the controller’s end, as long as they conform to those SOPs.
Prime example. If we at KLAX have to, by both SOP and LOA, route aircraft to KDEN via the SKIII or TBARR STARs for RNAV-capable aircraft, we will do that, because we have that LOA in place between ZLA and ZDV. If you are not RNAV, by what you have posted above, we should be telling you to disconnect because your FMS/FMC/MCDU can’t accommodate those STARs because it is not RNAV-capable…
However we have in that same LOA the ability to route aircraft to ZDV via the POWDR STAR, which accommodates for non-RNAV aircraft. So instead of trying to clear you via SKIII or TBARR, we route you through POWDR, which you would be able to do. We would reissue your clearance for that, and off you go. We would NOT tell you to disconnect because you can’t do something you believe we are forcing you to do, especially when pilots will still have other means to be able to navigate on the network with data that is current for them to use. Not every means of navigation requires something like RNAV to navigate, so pilots, should also know how to fly those conventional ways without having to rely on everything RNAV, as those procedures, as long as they are published, are still available to use.
However, it is not unfeasible to keep data up to date and current, because it is equally unfeasible for we as ATC to keep old charts available because we physically do not have the access to them, while pilots do physically have the means to update.
Additionally, there is this: Pilots are worried/complaining about needing something like Navigraph to keep their data current. Unfortunately, the only thing they are looking at when they see Navigraph is a SUBSCRIPTION. There are other options that Navigraph offers for just getting the navigational data without needing a subscription. I have had access to Navigraph since 2006, which was the last year that DAFIF data was offered for free. Since then, Navigraph has offered a data-only option, where it is no more than $12-$15/year, and can be used on a per-needed basis, without a monthly subscription. I’ve been on that the entire time, which still works to this day, and is available on their site. That is an alternative option which should be looked into, because again, that isn’t as much as a full subscription, let alone a drop in the pan compared to the hardware to run a sim, let alone the cost of a sim on its own.
BL.
So to sum it up: you have options to still work with pilots who don’t have the latest nav data (in this case: just clearing them via the conventional arrival). The compromise I proposed would allow pilots with outdated nav data (or who can’t put the RNAV procedure into their FMS for another reason) to at least attempt the flight and if the potential additional workload would be too high (e.g. during a busy event), controllers would still have the option to tell the pilot to disconnect - as opposed to outright prohibiting these pilots from flying.
And frankly, here in Central Europe, despite the five busiest airports on the network right being next door, our traffic levels generally being quite a bit higher than what you normally see in the US, and conventional IFR being largely impossible, we usually still find some solution to work around outdated nav data or other issues preventing pilots from flying a current procedure. With that in mind, I really wonder why this seems to be such a problem for controllers in less busy and less complex airspaces with published procedures that can easily accommodate such cases (then again, someone who hasn’t controlled on the network since 2012 is probably not very representative of the current controller population of these places).
Oh, and maybe it’s also worth mentioning that there are places where sector files only get updated very sporadically (with controllers simply being told to reference the latest charts instead of their sector files) and even where the vACC provides an update for every or almost every AIRAC, you will still regularly come across controllers who have not updated their files for some time, so the “controllers always use the latest nav data” argument is certainly also not entirely valid; and on a side note: why is there nothing about using the latest nav data in the ATC section of the CoC?
A nav-data only subscription is still a subscription. I don’t know the current price in dollars, but, as I mentioned before in this thread, the nav data only subscription costs 29.79€ here in the EU - with the current exchange rate, that would be 32.98$.
We also need to consider that computers are commonplace nowadays and most people will not buy dedicated PCs just for flight simming; almost everyone will also be using their computer for school, work, other games, etc. as well. On top of that, even current sims like XP12 or MSFS2020 (or the upcoming MSFS2024), let alone older sims (which can also be obtained for much cheaper) can be run on relatively cheap hardware if you don’t mind having to reduce the graphics settings a bit. On top of that, a simulator and the hardware to run it are are natural technical requirements to participate in the network, but the requirement to always use up to date nav data which, for the most part, cannot be obtained without additional, recurring costs, is entirely constructed.
And frankly, telling people “just add this thing to your bills, it’s nothing” is such a privileged argument. Middle class citizens in North America and large parts of Europe are among the richest, most well-off humans to ever exist, many people in other regions can only dream of living the life we’re living and having to worry about money as little as we do.
Indeed, we are very priviledged. But if you can afford a computer and an internet connection and a flightsim, don’t tell me you can’t afford once a year to update your nav database. That I feel hard to believe, But granted, I could be wrong.
Unfortunately, it is still not being understood.
B14 is not stating that a pilot would be prohibited from flying on the network. In that section that is no where to be stated. Again, it states:
B14. Pilots must be able to follow IFR procedures based on current charts and navigational data.
It does NOT state that a pilot would be disconnected from the network or prohobited from flying because they do not have current navigational data. It does state that you must be able to follow IFR procedures based on current charts and navigational data. If your navigational data is not up to the current month’s cycle still allows you to use the same current procedures in use, you have no problem. If your navigational data is 6 months out of date, and a chart is updated, with that chart only being updated with a crossing restriction, you have no problem. Excellent case in point: HOOVR8 at KLAS:
The only difference with this change is an altitude restriction at SOOSN, where previously there isn’t one.
If your navdata has SOOSN, you would have nothing to worry about.
This makes me wonder if you have flown in the USA over the past few years, especially when we have had airspaces completely rewritten from scratch to accommodate continuous descent into our busiest airports: cases in point:
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/nas/metroplex
From that, a lot of our airspaces were rewritten, making the navigational data used by pilots not be up to date, which they would need to be able to fly into those airports. Even with non-RNAV equivalent routes, even the navigational data for those routes needs to be current to be able to get into and out of those regions. I don’t know when the last time Central Europe has had such a rewrite, but apparently it hasn’t for a while, otherwise you would have experienced the same issue there.
I must sincerely apologize. I did not know that I must always have my time on a volunteer network. I apologize to every pilot and controller for my absence due to having to deal with a significant other who is blind, and has suffered from multiple submassive pulmonary embolisms, leaving her all but completely immobile (picture a blood clot the size of a grapefruit escaping through to your pulmonary artery), including nearly losing her life trying to pick up our children from their schools and collapsing on the school’s parking lot. Apparently that isn’t as important enough to control on the network to be representative of the current controller population, despite having taken part of a few metroplex rewrites myself. But all of that can easily be rectified by assistance with my situation. So please let me know at your earliest convenience of your arrival here to help out so I can get back on the scopes again. I’ll be more than happy to pick you up.
This sounds like an issue with that VACC and the facility engineers for those VACCs not keeping their data up to date, or the managers of those VACCs not making sure that their controllers keep that data up to date. One may complain about FAA land because for some reason they believe that Europe is better, but we are able to keep our data updated, and haven’t had such a problem in the 20+ years I have been on this network (funnily enough, making me representative of the controller population on the network). Perhaps those VACCs need to make sure that their controllers are up to date, because they wouldn’t be “as real as it gets” from using outdated data themselves.
Again, I’ve had access to Navigraph since 2006, when the last free DAFIF data was released. I was able to use that access to purchase the latest AIRAC data each time I needed it, which lasted longer than a year, without having to repurchase that access unless I needed it. The same happens with that navdata-only subscription, which is why that isn’t much of an issue. That is not a subscription in the sense that you see today where you have to pay for it monthly, as you use the navdata-only purchase ad-hoc; when you need it.
I’m a Linux Systems Administrator by profession, and have been one since the mid-1990s. No-one talked about buying dedicated PCs or building them exclusively for flightsimming. I surely don’t build mine for that sole purpose, as I do a lot of my personal work (finances, compositions, processing, etc.) on the same machine I use for simming and ATC. Again, you just spelled it out; if they have the means to purchase or build their own machine, let alone the means to purchase other games or things they use on that computer, that says a lot about how much discretionary money they have for this. Besides; with most pilots filing via Simbrief, that tells you how much access they actually have to discretionary funds, especially if they get their charts from there.
I was doing this as a starving college student living in Las Vegas; not only just in one of the biggest tourist traps in the world, but during the time when it was also the most depleted: during and after 9/11, which as you know when the entire aviation industry collapses from that incident, taking down with it the entire area’s economic driver (tourism), everyone all but lost their jobs there and moved elsewhere to find work. Additionally, as that was also after the .com collapse as well, IT workers were severely impacted where most of them couldn’t even get jobs at grocery stores or home improvement stores because there was no demand for even those positions. What I did was prioritized what was important to me, which was at the time, a roof over my head, food on my table, and at the time, the means to control and fly on the network. All of this with barely making a mid 3-figure income per month.
Not knowing where anyone comes from in any type of upbringing, especially with how discretionary this hobby is, it is very rich to call a certain group of people privileged when one is also enjoying those same privileges themselves. A reconsideration of this statement is definitely in order.
I’ll leave the last word to you on this, and end my participation in this thread, because apparently the only thing left to do is agree to disagree, because there are many reasons justifying this change in the CoC; it primarily comes down to reasons that you haven’t been able to understand.
BL.
1 Like