Unable to fly due to unrealistic ATC assignment rules

Hi,

in some regions there is an unrealistically large amount of traffic relative to the number of controllers, and it is impossible to do any flight. For example, Rotterdam with VFR is unplayable on the network (around UTC1800), however, in real life, it is pretty easy to fly VFR flight there almost anytime. The problem is that Schiphol APP takes over Rotterdam airport, and it will not allow VFR traffic, because it handles Schiphol airport’s Approach. This is not only unrealistic, but also makes it impossible to fly around North Netherlands region with VFR.

I am guessing that this is a problem also in other regions, and the arbitrary and completely unrealistic rules on the VATSIM network (for example assigning Schiphol APP as Rotterdam TWR) makes joining entirely impossible sometimes.

Suggestions.

  • Either disallow controllers to control airspaces which they have no control over in real life if the traffic is too much, or
  • split up the network, so that it is possible to fly at the busiest places where there are unrealistically few amount of controllers relative to the pilots.

It is extremely frustrating: unrealistic VATSIM rules make it impossible to even start the engine. I suggest changing these rules, and with time, it will become even worse as more players will be on the network.

1 Like

Did you contact the APP controller and did they not allow you to depart VFR? If true, this should not happen.

Otherwise: depart such an airport offline and connect to the network only when you are outside controlled airspace.

1 Like

Did you contact the APP controller and did they not allow you to depart VFR? If true, this should not happen.

It just that they didn’t have any time to respond to “lower priority traffic” (VFR at a smaller airport). I’m not blaming them, because as far as I understand, this is the rule, that APPROACH and CENTER are responsible for airports which are below them if there is no dedicated ATC for that airport.

Is this not the rule? If there is an airport under CENTER or APPROACH airspace, then they are the only ones who can give out permissions if there is no dedicated airport ATC (for example TWR)? If this is not the rule, how do you handle this situation, you just take off, without even contacting them (because they’re busy, they’ll not even respond to an initial call)?

depart such an airport offline and connect to the network only when you are outside controlled airspace

I thought you cannot connect while flying. Am I mistaken?

For reference: Finding ATC .

Related topic: When VATSIM stops being fun .

If they are too busy to handle a secondary airport, they should either drop all services there to not inconvenience anyone flying from it, or they could provide you with an abbreviated clearance to grant you permission to startup, taxi and depart on own discretion and report back airborne, or similar. Refusing service at an airport that is not busy is not the best service. Possibly the controller in question was overwhelmed with traffic to and from EHAM…

Yes, you can. Just make sure you are not inconveniencing anyone. If you connect to the network below and outside controlled airspace (for example in airspace GOLF and ECHO no ATC clearance is required) and remain there, no damage is done. It’s another thing to depart offline from a super busy airport and then connect to the network a few miles out from that airport - that would be super rude, as you will be interfering with other traffic…

I am a bit confused now. Didn’t you suggest just few months ago to change the rules to reduce top-down coverage to solve exactly the same problem here?

If they are too busy to handle a secondary airport, they should either drop all services there

I agree, but how would we achieve that? I believe because of the top-down rule, it’s forbidden to start flying at such an airport. And they’re not going to grant any permission there, because they’re extremely busy: sometimes cannot even handle an initial call, because it’s just constant communication for 20 minutes. They’ll not look at a chat in such busy times, and there is no time to even ask for any permission in voice, because then there is parallel communication (blocking), and they’ll give priority to airliners in the air.

I do believe that the controller adheres to the rules if they don’t even acknowledge any communication in this case, because there is a priority, and there are top-down rules. The only way to solve this problem is to change the top-down rules slightly.

connect while flying. Yes, you can.

I don’t think this is the solution. It’s even better then to not connect at all, if the only other option is to connect halfway through the flight.

Even then, you cannot guarantee that there is an uncontrolled airspace on the route. What if the airspace is still the responsibility of the tower? In that case APPROACH or CENTER 's responsibility to control that part, and that would probably be frowned upon, even if there is no aircraft in the vicinity of that airport.

Also, isn’t this the official rule: Getting Started ? It specifically asks you to connect while being at a gate or stand.

Yes, I did. But apparently with “GCAP” controllers cannot do this anymore, or have I misunderstood this? In theory an ATCO should logoff when he’s unable to call in reinforcement to reduce his traffic load and if not possible, log off. I do NOT agree with ATCOs having to log off when their sectors become saturated, but rather reduce the service level. Just as common sense dictates it. In the specific situation of Holland where EHAM regularly experiences high levels of traffic, but EHRD does not, one way would be to tell at least VFR traffic in EHRD to depart on own discretion, remain clear of controlled airspace (once leaving the EHRD airspace) and that’s it. It’s a compromise in this game that we are playing, where we TRY to simulate ATC and piloting stuff.

Why? Why should a pilot abandon an online flight, just because ATCO does not have time to provide service? We are here for fun and enjoyment (within certain boundaries).

Look at the map, stay outside controlled airspace. Airspace GOLF and ECHO are never ever controlled, in ECHO there may be IFR traffic under ATC control, but VFR pilots are not required to make contact. IFR traffic has to avoid VFR traffic and vice versa.

apparently with “GCAP” controllers cannot do this anymore, or have I misunderstood this?

I am not sure. Could you provide references why do you think so, whenever we’re talking about rules? The current GCAP version 1.1 4.6 (d) says the following.

If a controller finds themselves overloaded by traffic, they are permitted to provide a
reduced service to pilots controlled top-down. In extreme cases, withdrawal of top-
down control from an airport may be required; however in such cases controllers
should consider whether logging onto a smaller/split Position might be more
suitable.

So, they are permitted to reduce the service, and withdrawal of service might be required. I am not sure how strong this is, seems like a recommendation rather than an obligation. Yes, you’re right, it might have been better to drop the “top-down” rule in this case.

So, you think that it’s an obligation, and then I should just text the controller, that they should drop their service according to GCAP 4.6 (d), and then I should just start flying? Because they’ll not care to even respond to anything spoken or written.

Why? Why should a pilot abandon an online flight, just because ATCO does not have time to provide service?

Maybe I don’t quite understand you. My assumption is/was that it’s up to the controller whether someone can fly. If they don’t respond because they control realistic amount of traffic in a multiple positions which are controlled by 20 people in real life, then you cannot fly. So if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that even in this case it is possible to do things without permission.

Look at the map, stay outside controlled airspace.

It is not always possible. For traffic circuits, or flights inside the control zone, you cannot fly outside a controller airspace. And I do not want to change my route just because of the issues with the unrealistic nature of the rules in the game. Now, if it’s about real life rules, like a VFR flight is not allowed to a busy airport like EHAM, it’s totally fine, and completely expected. But we’re not talking about that.

I think we agree on things, we have the same suggestions for GCAP. I still don’t understand in this case how to interpret GCAP: is this an obligation, or recommendation, to drop service in this case?

You have understood that quite correctly, but on the same day that GCAP became effective, the BoG amended GCAP by adding 4.6(d) which reintroduced the option to reduce the service level or even withdraw topdown coverage for certain positions entirely. However, this change was not communicated at all with the community… :person_shrugging:

To my knowledge, Rotterdam Approach is a subsector of the Amsterdam TMA sector group, so splitting it off without having it being covered by another controller would likely not make a lot of sense.
Another problem here is that controllers obviously also want to have their fun. If positions are so small that they see barely any traffic or if any traffic they see will exit their airspace again after a few minutes, that is usually not a lot of fun and will result in the position simply not getting staffed. Likewise, technical limitations of at least the ATC software used by most, if not all European vACCs mean that controllers can’t easily remove their coverage of certain positions.
It’s also worth noting that overload situations rarely last more than 15-20 minutes (the only issue is that the “higher” a position, the more frequently they occur), so often it is sufficient to simply wait a bit until things calm down.

Yesn’t. ATC can deny traffic permission to enter airspace class D or higher, for IFR technically also to enter airspace E, but doing so also requires sufficient reason - too much traffic definitely qualifies for that, but then again, just because Schiphol Approach is drowning doesn’t mean that there is anything going on in the Rotterdam CTR, so ATC may be fine with letting you depart the CTR on Unicom. It’s not something you can know, though, so you should at least contact ATC and see what they say.

This is ultimately a growing issue for the network as the ever rising amounts of traffic require increasing competency on both the pilot and ATC side (especially in busy and/or complex airspaces such as essentially all of central Europe), the controller distribution isn’t seeing any real changes, VATSIM wants to keep its topdown system, etc.
The best solution - in my opinion - would be to take steps that encourage controllers to provide broad staffing instead of heavily focused staffing (i.e. instead of having two APPs, two TWRs, three GNDs, and a DEL at one airport, rather distribute these controllers throughout three or four airports), particularly when it comes to TWR. And I’ve said it before: VATSIM Germany had a perfect solution with their S1 minor program which unfortunately no longer really works under GCAP (and, in fact, increased the amount of airports where especially the TWR position is usually only under topdown coverage from a radar controller), but oh well…

Thanks for looking it up. What you quote from GCAP is indeed the permission for ATCOs to reduce the top-down-service. Would it be possible that some virtual ATCOs are interpreting this incorrectly, thinking that they can simply traffic calling from secondary airports, instead of downgrading those airports (and others that fall under their control) to takeoff and landing clearances only, for example?

We are talking about VFR pilots, specifically. Normally they will leave the airport control zone and then disappear into uncontrolled airspace. If an ATCO is not able to provide ground services at such an airport, then he should drop the airport and allow the pilot(s) to depart on their own or operate on own discretion on the ground and report ready for departure only.

We were not talking about these cases, obviously. And even for these cases ATC can tell those pilots to operate on their own discretion until such time that IFR traffic will become active at this airport.

I think that the current version of GCAP is giving controllers enough power to take a decision and use common sense for secondary airports. This is not an obligation, but a permission. They only need to admit to it and allow it to happen instead of being on a power-trip (“this is my airspace, I decide how I run it”), inconveniencing pilots (customers).

1 Like

Thanks for pointing this out, good to know! Maybe the word needs to be spread to all vACCs to make them aware that they have this powerful option on their hands, instead of unknowingly disappointing pilots.

edit: typing error

I think I remember we had a conversation along these lines back in March… There was a recommendation for improvement to the draft GCAP to give controllers more flexibility on how to handle situations where they could not handle traffic levels, that was brought up to the BoG the first week of February. There was significant support and significant discussion on how it should be worded, and the added 4.6d wording was incorporated into the draft GCAP on 20 February. As you pointed out in March, this update was not effectively communicated to the community. Region VPs flowed it down, divisions and subdivisions should have flowed it down, but we now know that wasn’t 100% done and/or effective. It was a miss, which we took responsibility for, and have since discussed the need to ensure we do better communicating such important changes to the community in the future. So not quite “on the same day”, but there should have been a much wider communication to the community, not just relying on flowdowns, and based on the feedback and suggestion, we got smarter and should do better going forward. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Hi,

Did you leave controller feedback on the link provided in the controller information?
Due to the airspace we can not remove EHRD from EHAM APP easily due to conflicting and overlapping routes (departures from EHRD conflict with arrivals from EHAM and vice versa). So splitting them is not going to happen.

I agree that a simple VFR clearance takes 10 seconds (if you are a well prepared pilot and know what you are doing, i.e. familiar with the pre-defined VFR routes). So in that case either give the VFR clearance, or scale down to EHAM TWR if it becomes too busy. But the latter is the hardest part to convey to controllers: knowing your own limit.

We have plenty of eligible controllers that can open positions on the smaller airports such as EHRD. However, in practice almost everyone wants to control the bigger airports and as soon as they allowed to they will go there and never go back… In the very near future, EHRD will become a training airport, so more ATC is expected then. Will it attract more traffic permanently? Not sure, it is not a given.

So my recommendation is to fill in the feedback form and mention the controller’s ID, so our training department can steer when necessary (only when it is a re-occuring obervation though).

Hi Niels,

we are talking about VFR departures and arrivals during the absence of IFR traffic - they do not need extensive or any control during times when EHAM_W_APP and/or EHAA_W_CTR are working at their capacity limits. A simple “depart on own discretion, runway XY in use, QNH ABCD, remain clear of controlled airspace” is sufficient during such times.

Oh but it is very simple: M arrival QNH xxxx . So we expect the pilots to know this.
All departures and arrivals are in the AIP charts since we are dealing with controlled airspace (class C and A) at EHRD

Okay, fine, but why could the OP not depart VFR from Rotterdam? Some controllers seem to have the capacity to provide service, while others deny it. The latter is wrong, they should allow them to depart on own discretion (if circumstances permit, e.g. no IFR traffic at the time).

I feel like we’re talking about different things here. My experience is that there are even times when you don’t even have time to say more than one word for 15-20 minutes. After initial call, the controller told me: expect an unforeseeable amount of delay due to traffic.

Unfortunately I don’t really know how often this happens, because usually I fly IVAO, and just recently started on VATSIM. It happened to me only once, so this might not be representative, but I assume that it’ll get worse and worse with time as more people join VATSIM, and there will be less controllers relative to the number of pilots.

The question is: what does the pilot do when the controller doesn’t even answer you after an initial call, because they are busy with other traffic? The question is not what should the controllers do in this situation, and with the current rules, because the rules give them the right to stay in position, and never answer.

Thanks. I don’t remember anymore, but it doesn’t matter as long as it doesn’t happen more than 2-3 times.

I didn’t recommend to change the airspaces. I recommended multiple other things. One of them is to follow the recommendation of GCAP 4.6 (d): they should reduce their service temporarily (restrictions to top-down), and say, that in this case they’re not responsible for smaller airports. This would be completely legal to VATSIM rules, and even realistic. Also, I think we shouldn’t leave this up to the controllers. As the example shows, they will not always reduce their service (restrictions to top-down): maybe GCAP should force controllers to reduce their service temporarily, it shouldn’t be a suggestion.

By the way, I think the controllers at EHAA/EHAM positions do an excellent job! Almost always they answer, and know the rules very well, and very professional (even at high loads). So I’m not trying to bash them. I’m trying to find a solution how to fly as a pilot at smaller airports when the controller has to deal with completely unrealistic rules and amount of traffic (relative to the number of controllers).

I don’t know, hence I requested to fill in a feedback form with the controller’s ID.

1 Like

What should a pilot do in such a case? Unfortunately, the answer is wait. Clearances are at the bottom of the list when you also have moving traffic that require vectors. Should that wait be 20 minutes? I don’t know. Maybe try to call in again with a very short message when the frequency is quiet. Do you still get ignored? Try calling in a supervisor.

The wording in GCAP is a recommendation, but not forced, so it remains at the discretion of the controller to determine what to do. It also is temporarily, as the top-down principle overrules it.
So I still encourage you to fill in the controller feedback, then we may be able to nudge the ATCO in question and make them realise they need to do something.
To be fair, it only takes a few clueless pilots that require your full attention when on APP making top-down a very hard task. Radio etiquette is unfortunately still a mystery to quite a large portion of pilots, so maybe it was just a wrong time / wrong moment scenario. I do encourage you to try again in the (near) future.