I want to begin by saying that I'm not an ATC, real or virtual. But I have been flight simming as pilot, virtual not real, for some time. I only started flying online a few months ago and I have been thoroughly impressed by the professionalism and courtesy of the Vatsim ATCs. I just want to let any of the ATCs following this tread know that I, and a great many others, appreciate the time you take to provide Air Traffic Control for all the virtual pilots.I think everyone should try and remember that most of these people are not real ATCs any more than most of us are real 767 pilots. However, we all strive for the most realism we can achieve from our simulators.See you online!

>IRL it's common to inform ATC of, for example, when one is >leaving FL for FLxxx, or when one has levelled off at >assigned altitude, or when one is approaching FL and is >expecting a higher FL soon. Leaving altitude has to be reported to ATC in the form of "leaving 6000 for 4000". Reaching a target altitude only has to be reported when the controller requests that, usually because of no radar coverage or simply a broken mode C indication. Reporting "now level at 4000" when waiting for further clearance is rude.-FDj

Well, my conception of what is rude in this world is then slightly different. I don't see anything rude in that. Remember, ATC is there to do a _job_ like the pilots are there to do theirs. I see no point in fawning ATC or atcos. The main goal is to get the job done.cheers,Tero

well I added an ALIAS command a LONG TIME AGO.shut $aircraft - no need for position reports you are Radar Contact Richard GreenVATUSA4Events and VA Director

>Leaving altitude has to be reported to ATC in the form of >"leaving 6000 for 4000".Actually this is not the correct form. It's common, but it's wrong. Are you at 6004 ft descending to 4000? Or are you at 6000 ft descending to 44000? OK, I know that's not possible, but "to" and "for" should never be used when talking about altitudes, because it's easily mistaken for, you guessed it, two and four. Instead you should say "leaving 6000 descending 4000" or "FL215 climbing FL330".Also, this doesn't have to be reported always, of course. It's when you have a climb/descent clearance on pilots discresion that you need to tell ATC before leaving your altitude. (Because otherwise you'd of course leave your altitude when you have received the instruction.)Martin767 fetishistIt's a lot like life and that's what's appealing

It's rude because it clogs up the frequency, and if ATC is doing their job it's totally redudant.Of course common sense tells us that if you have been stuck at a low altitude for several minutes waiting for further climb clearance, and there's no traffic in the area, it can't do any harm to tell ATC.Martin767 fetishistIt's a lot like life and that's what's appealing

No, actually they are not. Sure, there are certain reports that are required (like vacating an altitude) but I didn't say anything about that. In fact, of the ones you cite, ONLY vacating an altitude is an appropriate report.Leveling at an altitude, reaching a fix (enroute, unless it's a clearance limit) and all of the other thousands of things people online tend to report are NOT reported in real life if you're in radar contact. If I pulled some of the "reporting" stunts I hear online in real life, ATC would probably arrange for some guy with big muscles and a large stick to meet me at my destination and teach me to be quiet.I'm not normally one for posting credentials. However, it may help to show that I'm not talking from a random orifice here. I hold an FAA Commercial Pilot Certificate with a multitude of ratings. I also hold a Flight Instructor Certificate with ASE, AME, IA and Glider ratings, teach regularly, and have 1900hrs over the years, most of it cross-country on an IFR flight plan.

Wow! The beast got woken up here....I forgot to add one thing in my reply and I hope my freinds at VATSIM-ATC will forgive me...Never exceed the altitiude assigned by the ATC...ignoring an instruction is the quickest way to p-off a perfectly good controller.What you can do is very politely state "ACA856, level xxx000 and looking for higher" ONLY if you feel you have been forgotten about. This is a polite nudge to alert the controller that he may have forgotten about you. If there is a better way to "prod" the controller, I await correction.As stated by others, there is a lot going on you as a pilot are not aware of. I would also suggest this "prod" would only be used in an area where you -know- the traffic is very light and there can be no reason you can find to be kept at a low altitude.I am sure I will get grief for my "prod" suggestion, but sometimes it is necessary for the newer controllers as a reminder.Tally HoRob.

"random orifice" Now that is funny!!!!!ACA856 - aka - Radar Identified Orifice ;-)

Richard,Well now I know why there's a disagreement here about the procedures used.And I have checked this to be correct (IRL), so don't bother arguing it...In Finland you are _required_ to report reaching your assigned altitude, this is especially important in fields with only TWR position available.Also it's required to report leaving FL, but there need not be the level you're climbing/descending to in the message:"FIN7725 leaving FL390"It is also polite (yes, polite, not rude, I don't know why we Finns have a different take on this!) to report approaching assigned FL if there is not a lot of traffic.Swedes are commonly giving clearances such as "report outer marker inbound" and "report final track", but these are not commonly used in Finland.Where does this leave us? Well, different countries have different procedures and even regulations about how to do things.I do not respect the attitude of "I know all" , nor do I think that anyone who gets immediately ###### at someone who "says something that's not 100% right" should control in VATSIM. In real life yes, there it is crucial to keep the flow going, but VATSIM is both about FUN and REALISM. And with the kind of attitude that is too judgemental, the fun part is left out.cheers,Tero