Abnormal Situations

[Jacob Singer]

Hello everyone!

This is my first post on the POSCON forums. I'd like to start with a suggestion. On legacy networks such as VATSIM and IVAO, you're prohibited from simulating an emergency, no matter how big or small it can be. I personally think that although there shouldn't be unnecessary screaming for an unrealistic emergency, I think abnormal procedures should be taken into account if you want to make this as real as it gets. I've had a small issue in which I needed to return to an airport (not an emergency) and the approach controller on VATSIM yelled at me despite having three planes (including me) in his airspace. So what do I conclude to? I think abnormal situations should be simulated in POSCON. Do you agree with me? Please vote using the poll provided.

 

Take care!

Jacob Singer.

[SquawkModeCharlie]

ATC should accommodate where possible but still retain the right to refuse abnormal situations.

Otherwise if ATC is forced to deal with abnormal situations people will abuse it and troll to cause problems.

You wouldn't like to be put into a holding pattern or forced to divert because ATC had no choice and had to deal with an abnormal situation.

Edited August 4, 2018 by SquawkModeCharlie

[michael l. (1013913)]

@SquawkModeCharlie You make a good point. What would stop everyone from declaring an emergency? Even though it would be nice.

[Anders m. (1013825)]

6 hours ago, Jacob Singer said:

On legacy networks such as VATSIM and IVAO, you're prohibited from simulating an emergency, no matter how big or small it can be.

Uhm, that's not true at all... I wouldn't know about IVAO, but on VATSIM you CAN simulate emergencies. However, the ATC MAY make you cancel it or disconnect.

 

"Simulations of emergency situations are not forbidden. However, air traffic controllers have the right to deny the simulation of an emergency and pilots must stop the emergency if requested to do so. If the pilot is unable to stop the emergency, the pilot must log off the network. It is strictly forbidden to simulate real world aviation accidents and tragedies, hijacking situations, or other illegal or criminal operations under any circumstances."

 

Personally not a big fan or emergencies so I like to keep them away, but that's from waay earlier when they were usually performed by 13 year olds not knowing anything whilst screaming mayday into their mics pushing away everybody else... Luckily it is usually a bit better these days

[Jacob Singer]

Hello everyone!

 

I really appreciate the feedback. You all bring up fantastic points. I've not had many, but just the one example I listed as an "abnormal" situation on VATSIM. I totally agree that there will be abuse if you allow maydays left and right, but I should try and rephrase what I'm saying here. At least in my personal experience, I was never even brought back to an airport. I didn't scream mayday like a little girl, but the controller refused. There was no traffic he had to maneuver for me. So either I had a bad controller or VATSIM controllers aren't trained for abnormal procedures.

 

I don't think this would be a feature I'd use unless I really needed it. I just don't want to be told to disconnect if there was no traffic in the area and I wanted a non-emergency diversion of any kind. I think it wouldn't be so smart to let people declare engine fires in JFK every 10 minutes. All in all, I think controllers should be taught how to deal with simple abnormal procedures such as a diversion, but it should then be at discretion of the controller for anything more serious than a non-emergency diversion.

 

Please let me know of your feedback, I really appreciate you guys!

Jacob Singer.

[Rob Shearman Jr]

Jacob -- I agree with you that if the facts are as you describe, there's no obvious reason the controller in question shouldn't have been able to accommodate your emergency.  But also we're only getting your side of that story.  I don't agree that you can use that solitary example to claim what VATSIM controllers are or aren't trained for.

To bring the conversation back to PosCon, my opinion is that a policy similar to VATSIM's on abnormal procedures (allowable with right-to-refuse by ATC) would be a good idea.

[RichardMcDWoods]

I very much agree with Rob.

However, we are eventually going to have CPDLC and pilots will be able to request diversions by text message. Being prepared to handle them would be good, but always with the proviso that the controller must be permitted to refuse them if he wants.

[Sven Snowwhite]

On IVAO Emergencies are allowed, but in certain circumstances (event / exam / training) the emergency might be declined to be handled.

 

As an CTR ATC I handle emergencies as followed: 

- If the pilot simulates the emergency correctly, I try to help him as best as I can, no matter how much traffic I have.

- but if I get the feeling that the emergency is fake (like 2 engines on fire and still flying as if nothing was wrong or even flying an go around) then I tell the pilot to continue his emergency on Unicom. I have not the time nor the energy to take care of a fake emergency.

[Jonas K. (1013467)]

I also made the experience that pilots simulate emergencies just for their fun, but they have actually no clue how to react in such a situation. At least on VATSIM, abnormals are part of the training and as a controller in Switzerland, I handle emergencies any now and then. However, if it becomes obvious that the pilot didn't think further than just announcing any type of problem, I refuse to handle. So the rule for an ATC to do so is quite a good one, I would say. He can react flexible in different situations and also according his experience.

It could also be an idea to ask pilot who wish to simulate emergencies, for additional qualifications like some theory test and broaden their understand of abnormal situations. Because when a pilot reports fire and then asks for a holding to burn fuel, he didn't really get it, if I can say that. And this is just one examples of many such situations I had. Also manual flying should be a topic in this context. Because many pilots can't fly a large plane manually and heavily deviate for clearances when their autopilot isn't working (possibly due to a simulated degradation) although it would be perfectly possible according the simulated degradation.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Jonas Kuster

[Rob Shearman Jr]

Yeah, it's hard to tell whether the "emergency" is a request for a legit situation simulation, or just someone attention-starved crying out "look at me!  look at me!"

[Andrew Heath]

We will probably keep the VATSIM policy in regards to emergencies.

Remember though on POSCON, pilots will be able to leave feedback about a controller that goes into a moderation cue. So in the case of that ATC that only had 3 airplanes and refused the emergency, on POSCON, if the pilot leaves bad feedback, then a moderator is forced to evaluate whether the controller could have handled the emergency or not. If the moderator decides he could have, then the controller may lose POSCON points.

[Andrew Cofone]

Here are my two cents...... I fly mostly A2A aircraft which if you are not familiar with A2A, their planes feature full wear and tear and damage.  I can be flying along one minute and the next I could have an engine fire (not often but it happens).  Here is my suggestion since 3rd party developers are starting to implement damage and failures and that’s what most people are flying. I don’t think anyone really flies default aircraft online, maybe a few people.

proposal:

Emergencies are permitted if a flight plan is filed and in the flight plan it states the aircraft you are flying is capable of failures. This doesn’t mean you will have a failure just let’s ATC know that it is a possibility.  I believe PMDG has failures modeled and so does the just flight GA line, plus all A2A planes. By filing a flight plan it will cut most of the trolling.  Those that call emergency without a flight plan are subject to getting kicked or whatever.  Emergencies occur in the real world all the time allowing the possibility of them in the sim makes it the most realistic experience. If anything, try it for a bit and if it becomes troll city you can always change it.

[Jonas K. (1013467)]

In my opinion, it doesn't matter what type of add-on you fly. As long as you are familiar with the procedures and can handle the situation kind of professional. When you argue that emergencies occur all the time in RL, keep in mind that those pilot are also always trained for such situation. Hence, the training should be linked to any kind of permission for emergencies.

You can always deactivate the failure model. Just because you fly an A2A aircraft doesn't mean you can handle abnormal situations adequately.

[aeroniemi]

Indeed, from my experience, when things go wrong, be it because I messed up my fuel pump configuration or because someone was trying to play angry birds with my engines, this is the best time that can be had, if both the pilot and controller are understanding of the situation (it's happened quite a few times to me, sometimes i'll just press the reset button on the failures, or handle it as is possible - generally dependent on my understanding of controller performance)

[Andrew Cofone]

My point is that if I fly the Airbus a319 professional there will not be any unexpected emergencies along the route such as engine fires or failures because the plane does not have them modeled. It’s simple flown as filed.  If I’m flying an A2A c182 there is a chance that the engine catches fire or if I’m flying the Connie a passenger gets sick and needs to divert.  I’m not looking to cause problems with controllers but if I have an emergency while flying I’m going to deal with it. If it means diverting or making an emergency landing somewhere then so be it.  I like as real as possible and I tend to fly my sim that way.

[Andrew Heath]

The issue becomes when your emergency affects the enjoyment of others. There are many people who have their emergencies set to a higher occurrence rate than others. Also different add-on developers have different standards than others. For example, one add-on developer may throw an engine failure at you more often than another. In the real world, I have only had 2 engine "issues" and neither of them resulted in a failure.... I have 7000+ flying hours in jets, turbo-props, and props.

In the real world, emergencies happen everyday, but the difference is maintenance technicians and pilots are all trying to do everything in their power to prevent emergencies from happening. In the FS world, there is no standard... some people have them turned all the way on high and some turned all the way off.

I think the best course of action is to simulate it like VATSIM. If the controller cannot handle your emergency, and you think they were absolutely capable of handling it, then you need to leave them bad feedback which will ultimately hurt their overall POSCON ranking.

[1011342]

I hope you'll consider that every argument is two-sided and any individual pilot does not often have the true picture of the entire airspace covered by the controller.  Just because a pilot thinks the controller should have been able to handle it, doesn't mean the controller truly should have been able to.  I truly hope a controller's rating isn't affected solely by a pilot report; rather, both sides of the issue/argument is reviewed and adjudicated before any controller's rating is affected.

[Corey Shird]

The big thing missing in vatsims case is that if you want to as a controller learn how to deal with an emergency, you have to do it yourself as it is not taught whatsoever in the training. I had to use CAP413 to learn. Maybe that could be different here where as a tower controller and above you get taught basic mayday procedures?

[Andrew Heath]

@donpilot

All feedback goes to a "pending" status when submitted by either a pilot or a controller. We have a new role called a "Moderator" that will review feedback before they give it to the receiving party. The Moderator will have tools to fact check feedback for its accuracy and worth.

[caochau]

10 hours ago, Andrew said:

@donpilot

All feedback goes to a "pending" status when submitted by either a pilot or a controller. We have a new role called a "Moderator" that will review feedback before they give it to the receiving party. The Moderator will have tools to fact check feedback for its accuracy and worth.

Is the moderator recruited by division or HQ? Maybe similar to vatsim DCRM? SUP? if is by division How many people can they recruit by division ? What experience should they have?  Maybe changing the name to the division coordinator would be better? 
 

[Andrew Heath]

12 hours ago, caochau said:

Is the moderator recruited by division or HQ?

Recommendations will be accepted from the division, but ultimately they are appointed by HQ.

12 hours ago, caochau said:

Maybe similar to vatsim DCRM? SUP?

There are similarities, but it is definitely a different role.

12 hours ago, caochau said:

if is by division How many people can they recruit by division ?

Too early to tell.

12 hours ago, caochau said:

What experience should they have?

Preferably, real world experience such as airline pilot or real world ATC.

12 hours ago, caochau said:

Maybe changing the name to the division coordinator would be better? 

Why?

[Noah B.]

While the letter of VATSIMs rule is fine, in my experience as an ATC on VATSIM, the sentiment passed on was to only handle emergencies so as long as it didn't affect other pilots enjoyment. This is where we may have diverging views and need discussion and clarification. Say I was on TRACON and a departure had engine failure on takeoff, requiring vectors to join the approach sequence. Fine. Do I force aircraft already sequenced into a holding pattern for a few minutes to accommodate the emergency? Would it affect other's enjoyment? Some would love the unpredictability and having an experience they don't normally do (being taken off an approach and put in a hold), others would be frustrated, just wanting to finish their flight without interruption.

I think that emergencies can bring a greater sense of realism and enjoyment for everyone. It's part of the deal that when you log into an online environment, things aren't in your control and you have to be flexible. So I think ATC should provide priority to emergency aircraft, even if it adversely effects other planes. I do not think we can extend this line of reasoning to shutting down a runway for more than a few minutes because an airplanes is unable to taxi. At that point everything is grinding to a halt and we would need to some way to deal with that.

ATC having right of refusal solves a lot of the potential problems, but I think we should make sure that we specify that if ATC is letting the emergency happen, which they should if the pilot is a non troll, that the plane be given priority even if it causes other pilots delay and inconvenience.

[Andrew Heath]

On 9/8/2018 at 3:55 AM, Noah Berks said:

if the pilot is a non troll

How does one determine that in an objective way?

I have been controlling on VATSIM a long time and most of my time has been spent controlling in troll central... New York... so admittedly I am bias. As a result of my experiences, what I can say with a certain fact is that the percentage of emergency occurrences in the online environment is much higher than in the real world. The main reason for this is pilot error... i.e. "my autopilot failed" when in fact the user just failed to know how to operate it correctly,  or "we are stalling" because the user tried to climb too high, too early in their flight.

Ultimately we are trying to simulate a realistic environment, and when emergencies are being declared at a much higher rate than the real world, then we are failing to simulate the real world correctly.

What I can promise is that we will use stastical analysis of the number of emergencies declared over the first year and, if those numbers do not match the occurrence rate in the real world, then we will change our policy.

But for now, I am not sure anyone can convince me that having a policy other than VATSIMs is a good idea.

[1011342]

And for that I thank you

[Jay W. (1016093)]

On 8/4/2018 at 1:11 AM, SquawkModeCharlie said:

ATC should accommodate where possible but still retain the right to refuse abnormal situations.

Otherwise if ATC is forced to deal with abnormal situations people will abuse it and troll to cause problems.

You wouldn't like to be put into a holding pattern or forced to divert because ATC had no choice and had to deal with an abnormal situation.

Maybe you should be rewarded for being patient in the hold and diverting? After all, this network isn't meant for the light-hearted.