Clarification request……. I was preparing my flight to depart Newark KEWR with no ATC online. Made my intentions known on CTAF after 20 minutes preparing flight. Looked up real world Atis and noticed 22L was the active departing rwy in real world, so I planned to use it as well. I’m fully aware that 22R is usually the departing rwy in Newark.
So as I entered 22L for departure, I hear from another pilot on the ground that 22L is not used for departure per Vatsim SOP. Where can I find the SOP regarding this! At the same time Newark GND comes online and I’m holding on rwy 22L. I made contact with the ground controller and asked about the 22L vs. 22R rwy departure. He instructed me to depart from 22R, so I taxied over to 22R for departure per his instructions (no big deal).
Was I wrong for trying to use real world ATIS information to make my decision to depart from 22L and can I do that if no ATC is online and real world traffic is departing rwy 22L in real world. The way I understood departures and arrivals, it didn’t matter as long as you make your intentions known to coordinate with other traffic.
In my opinion there is nothing preventing you to use 22L for departure, when ATC is offline and you’re communicating your intentions on CTAF. While the normal use of rwys are 22L for landing and 22R for departure, there are IFAIK nothing in the rules of conduct that prohibits you to use 22L for departure. That being said, it is naturally good to stick with the SOP, but I havent seen it being mandatory anywhere. SOP stands for Standard Operating Procedure. Not mandatory. The mere fact that KEWR has SIDs for 22L implies, that 22L can be used for takeoff.
Could have been that 22R was closed and they used 22L for departure. When no ATC is available i will use real world atis for airport information where available.
ATC procedure SOPS are for ATC not pilots. Pilots can reference the briefings in the charts to see whats prefered.
Other pilots should not interject, if they want to control the traffic then log in as ATC, back seat ATCing is not acceptable. As a controller I cant tell pilots what to do in uncontrolled airspace so why do we accept pilots that do the same thing.
Ground does not control the runways and can only provide an advisory not instructions.
This!!! 100% Other pilots need to stop telling others what to do. We aren’t even talking about someone departing on 4r while this guy uses 22L. We are talking about 22L or 22R.
As PIC you should always read the info on the airport, e.g. taxi Pages on Navigraph. You Will find many airports have preferentiële runways, until certain tailwind conditions. E.g. LSZH 14 for landing until 10. Other have details specifiek on special dedicated Pages at the local vatsim, mostly info for pilots. Dutch vac links to actual runway utilization, but ATC may choose differently.
This is the problem. WHY would Vatsim Atc choose differently. I had this happen a few times. If all real world information is giving you the use of a runway, why would Vatsim Atc choose differently.
Over the weekend I have done a couple of flights in to and out of LSZH.
Saturday I was arriving before 9am LT, and the wind was below -5 so I landed on 34 per chat 10-1P, all the other traffic all used 14. My simbrief had planned 14.
Sunday I departed LSZH around 3am LT, per chart 10-1P1, I chose runway 32 with a tail wind of -2 knots, 3 other planes departed 16, my simbrief had also chosen 16.
Simbrief needs to eleminate the runway in the flight planning process. Pilots just load everything from their departue port SimBrief is useful for planning, but many pilots treat its runway assignment as gospel. In reality, charts + ATIS + ATC instructions always take precedence.
As ATC I have heard countless times a pilot state they entered their arrival based off what simbrief gave them. This shows why it’s dangerous to “auto-load” the SimBrief runway — you end up disconnected from the local procedures and ATC expectations.
The preferential runway mode at Sydney is Land 34L, Take off 16L, but that is a very inefficent runway mode when VATSIM traffic is high. Also doing oppisite direction runway operations requires more work by the controller, to pass traffic when aircraft are similetaneiouslly departing and arriving. Newley minted S1/S2’ may struggle with this, and elect to use the single direction option.
No ATC = Pilot discretion. Full stop. (VATSIM or IRL)
Just listen on the frequency to not depart against a landing / taking-off aircraft, and clearly announce your intentions for the same matter.
(Smart pilots policing an airport or the airspace should be reported, imo).
This is a perfectly normal situation that happens in the real world at un controlled and controlled airports, there are multipule airports around the world that run this mode even with ATC it was happening at KSAN just the other day.
What you should have written is, listen to the frequency, and give way to traffic regardless of what they are doing. In the oder of priority, traffic in the air has priority over traffic on the ground. If some one is landing on the opposite direction to what you want to take off, sit there and wait for them to do so, people seem to lack patience on VATSIM.
ATC doesn’t choose departure runway, the PIC does. There seems to be a mentality among some Vatsim pilots - from what I read on this forum anyway - that ATC is the one in control of their airplane and they have to do as they’re told. That’s certainly not how it works in reality.
When it comes to items like choosing a departure runway, ATC does not tell you which runway you’re using. They can tell you which runway they would PREFER you to use, but it’s 100% the pilots’ authority to accept or refuse that runaway assignment. You can use any open runway you would like for “operational necessity”, and your personal judgement is a completely acceptable reason for invoking that phrase - you don’t have to justify it to anyone. That’s your airplane, not the controller’s.
Now. If you insist on a runway that is contra-flow at a busy airport, this does mean you’re going to be waiting a long time until a gap exists to get you out. Controllers are not obligated to rearrange the flow or delay dozens of aircraft just to get you out. So insisting on a different runway than everyone else on Vatsim during a busy time could certainly be expected to delay you.
But I’m guessing EWR wasn’t that busy at the time of the OP’s experience. And a ground controller certainly has no authority to “assign” a runway. You tell HIM which runway you’re using, and since there was no one online functioning as tower, you then depart from your runway of choice when it is safe (simulated) and non-disruptive to others to do so. Let’s face it, how many aircraft are taking off and landing in an airport like EWR on the network during uncontrolled times? 5 tops? You wouldn’t be waiting very long.
I would like to stress, that as in real life, ATC and Pilots are partners, who are working together to make the aviation world spin. So while the pilot do have the right to refuse a certain runway, there should be a very good reason to do so - e.g. safety. So I would suggest, that pilot (as they normally do) adhere to the suggestion from ATC on which runway to use. And if unable, seek a solution in coorporation with ATC. As you rightly mention, if insisting in your choice of rwy, major delay may occur. But my main point here is, do not see eachother as “foes”, but “friends”. I think we agree on that.
One thing’s for certain here: Other pilots does NOT have any saying in this. Policing by other pilots is a huge NOGO. Friendly suggestions/advise, however, should be received as exactly that. Perhaps a pilot is unaware of what rwy is normally being used for TO at an airport. So I see nothing wrong in trying to be helpfull. But that’s it. The PIC is the pilot-in-command.
It is no wild West where the PIC can do whatever. It is good practice for any PIC to get acquainted with the rules and NOTAMS of the airport. There are both on VATSIM and in the real world regulations to adhere to e.g. noise abatement procedures. The PIC is allowed to request / use another runway, when there is ATC this should be in discussion with ATC. Important however, the ICAO rules on this aspect (from Annex II rules of the air): “The PIC shall be responsible for the operation of the aircraft in accordance with the rules of the air, except that the PIC may depart from these rules in circumstances that render such departure absolutely necessary in the interests of safety”. I have asked for another runway e.g. when the crosswind was too high, and in that case the PIC has the last word as it is about safety. In each case ATC agreed.
Well… Kind of. They’re partners until there is a disagreement, in which case it has to be remembered that only one person is actually in command of the aircraft. Where that airplane goes is not a democracy; there’s only one person making the final decision. Naturally, safety will be the driving factor in this - what else would be?
When able. Again, the PIC will make that determination. If operational necessity dictates the use of another runway, that is at the PIC’s discretion - and what constitutes “operational necessity” is ALSO at the PIC’s discretion.
ATC (in real life and on Vatsim) is responsible for ensuring that aircraft don’t conflict with each other. If a pilot chooses a different runway than “standard” but there’s no conflict, ATC will approve it in reality. Thus, there’s no real justification for a Vatsim controller to insist a pilot use 22R vs 22L at EWR in this scenario, as there was obviously not enough traffic on a non-event day at an uncontrolled EWR for a takeoff on a parallel runway to create a conflict. Further, a ground controller’s responsibility and authority is to prevent conflicts on taxiways. In this scenario, the departing aircraft was already at his departure runway; he didn’t need the services of the ground controller at all. I’d probably have just politely informed the ground controller that I wasn’t requesting taxi clearance anywhere, and since no higher level of ATC was online I was switching to CTAF, have a nice day.
Overall we are in agreement, except one point: ICAO rules specificly state “safety”, not “operational”. In practice, when a flight breaks the noise abatement procedures at Brussels airport fines start at €700 up to €62000. For repeated infractions e.g. use of the non preferential runway there have been fines of €12-18000 per violation. These fines were given for infractions because of non-safety reasons.
I can work with any pilot departing or arriving on a rwy that may not be the normal rwy for departure or arrival.
I just ask for notification of what you are doing. So many pilot’s out there give no notification of any kind at all,that is my problem.
I understand if there are no aircraft around, but when at airport and there are aircraft there ,SAY or TEXT your intentions.
