Hi mate, I really feel sorry for your experience in Hong Kong.As one of the VATSIM Controllers in Hong Kong, and 4 years of controlling, I think this controller has not been well-trained as we are usually told not to use negitive words like "Stop your movement" while controlling...The circuit for Hong Kong should be 1500 ft and we usually dont ask pilots to do a steep turn in such a small distance from touchdown.... But you should ask for ILS Approach if you want to use,as all our VFR flights expect for Visual Approach...While All flight from STAR expect for ILS Approach.... Although I know you are not intented to have a compliant for our controllers...And it was happened long time ago...We are trying to improve our controllers' training and also our quality... Please feel free to have any comments for our services so we can improve and know what we have to do in order to provide better service...Thanks for your help and we are looking forward to seeing you flying in Hong Kong Airspace.Regards,Gary LawController 3 in VATSIM Hong Kong FIR

A couple of months ago (about when this thread first started), I just started getting into VATSIM flying. I was flying around in the states somewhere and ran across a VERY impolite, rude and abrupt controller. He was not only rudely scolding pilots for mistakes, he was talking to a mate over voice saying stuff like "I can't believe these pilots, how useless, etc". It didn't phase me (I just thought ####-get a life!), but he was so bad, it prompted another pilot to PM all the pilots on the freq (who were from various parts of the world) and apologise on behalf of all Americans!I did write his name and location down, but I have since lost it :-(Darren

What a controller like that needs... is a rather outspoken REAL LIFE airline pilot to be the target of his chewing out... The controller might think twice about jumping up and down about little pilot mistakes, once a few real airline pilots give him a bit of his own back ;) :-bluegrabI like to give controllers some real life, but odd, requests. Usually VFR in C class airspace, or overflying a primary. Or IFR pickup out of a non-controlled airport (MBZ) when already airborne, and any number of less than usual excersizes in aircraft of varying size. Keeps me on my toes and them too. Cessna 172's can be such a pain to controllers, and it takes quite some skill on their behalf to controll them properly when they mix it up with the heavys, but not playing by the heavy's rules.Because I fly private GA in real life I can always manage those procedures reasonably well in my local area. If a controller makes mince meat of me on an IFR airliner flight, I can get them back later in something a bit smaller }( :-bat :-saeThat said in my travels all the controllers Iv had are usually quite helpfull. The worst thing that a controller has done to me is point out I made a mistake... which is also a good thing. Usually in my case I realise I made the mistake around the time the controller does, but some pilots may not untill the controller points it out. I guess there are more sensitive ways to do it, but I think the most time efficent way is the best. Simple "xxx you were cleared to do A, but you have done B, Instruction A is limited to A only and does not include B," to pretty it up more would make it a big deal. Usually after that a controller may need to reclear you to do something else to keep his flow working. Or else he may just let you get away with it.Yesterday when flying I heard a new pilot request airways clearance (first contact of Ground ATC of the flight, on the ground at the gate) the controller cleared him via the SID and Runway and Initial Climb and Squawk code etc etc, and the reply the pilot gave him was "Roger, cleared for takeoff". Tower was quick to reply "Negitave not cleared for takeoff, remain clear of the runway, that was your ATC clearance only"An obvious mistake like this needs to be dealt with quickly as possible to avoid a situation like what happened at Tenerife when two 747's collided on a runway http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-pa1736.shtml And some pilots may feel irritated by the controllers 'snappyness' in his reply, and thus be offended. However the intent of the controller is just to maintain the standard flow in the communications, and make sure the pilots involved are handled in a quick and timely manner, but understand the limitations of the specific clearances involved.

>Yesterday when flying I heard a new pilot request airways>clearance (first contact of Ground ATC of the flight, on the>ground at the gate) the controller cleared him via the SID and>Runway and Initial Climb and Squawk code etc etc, and the>reply the pilot gave him was "Roger, cleared for takeoff".>Tower was quick to reply "Negitave not cleared for takeoff,>remain clear of the runway, that was your ATC clearance only"Yep it is obvious that some pilots just have no idea. This is understandable, given that no training is required to use VATSIM. Here is a guide on what to say and when. It is written for Australia, but I use these procedures on VATSIM and have had no problems. As far as I can tell, it mostly complies with ICAO guidelines anyway.This is the 'bible' for Civil Aviation ops in Australia.Click on AIP Book, then Enroute and read 1.1 http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/public...s/aip.asp?pg=10Note that there is no Class B airspace in Australia.Other items of interest on that link above are ERSA, which lists all aerodromes in Australia and the DAP, which lists all the Departure and approach Procedures in Australia.

VATSIM is really a two-edged sword for me. The quality of the controller varies greatly by region. I have had an encouter a few weeks ago where i have been vectored right into a mountain by a Center and the only excuse I got was "I don't show any terrain in my system". Well, if he would have looked at the STAR, he would have known.I also started controlling on VATSIM, but the entire experience so far has been rather frustrating. Upon reaching S1, you 'might' be lucky to get cleared to work a clearance delivery position. Well, the position I was assigned to was ALWAYS occupied, while other positions in the ARTCC were constantly empty. You get the message.Also the training of VATSIM controllers varies greatly by ARTCC, but the entire process is painful, complicated and bloated.Personally, I do prefer IVAO by far. Their community is much more friendly and flexible, so controller can pretty much control where there's a need for controlling. Of course, a supervisor is almost every time present to oversee things and to make sure that you know what you're doing. On top of that, IVAOs software beats VATSIMs. Their website is clear and tells you what you need to be doing to accomplish your goal.

>I also started controlling on VATSIM, but the entire>experience so far has been rather frustrating. Upon reaching>S1, you 'might' be lucky to get cleared to work a clearance>delivery position. Well, the position I was assigned to was>ALWAYS occupied, while other positions in the ARTCC were>constantly empty. You get the message.I will agree with you on this point.It wasn't always like this. The so called "restrictive ratings" imposed a couple of years ago is stupid to say the least.(That's my opinion, but I'm sure many will agree)For example as a student you may be able to act as Approach controller, but not as center controller, while in real life the to get to control the approach you are on top of the line having gathered valuable experience from acting as center controller, tower, ground control etc.The responsibilities of an approach controller require far more experience that that of center. 2-4nm seperation instead of 10-20nm, constanst vectoring and automatic 'brain' calculations to predict the position of each aircraft, lots more 'squeezed' aircraft into a smaller airspace. Approach is difficult and in my opinion should require at least a senior student, not to say a contoller1, rating.Unfortunately, until the BOG or whoever responsible don't think about this false decision and correct it, the most common results are the one you describe of the whole ARTCC/ACC being empty of controller otherwise capable of providing service, and in the worse case, capable controllers leaving VATSIM as they never find the position they like.George DorkofikisAthens, Greecehttp://online.vatsimindicators.net/811520/1704.pnghttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/betaimg.jpg

Hello,first of all I would appriciate it if you could sign your post with your name. Making accusations out of anonymity does not look very good.You said:>I also started controlling on VATSIM, but the entire experience so far has been rather frustrating. >Upon reaching S1, you 'might' be lucky to get cleared to work a clearance delivery position. >Well, the position I was assigned to was ALWAYS occupied, while other positions in the ARTCC were >constantly empty. You get the message.As you said the process varies by ARTCC. So your statement can

It is not an "accusation", mereley my own personal experience. I am at the NYARTCC and was assigned to KPHL. Well, with me were about another 2-3 new co-controllers, so the position was always occupied. I raised my concerns to my NYARTCC 'mentor' and never heard anything back. KPHL gets maybe 1-2 deliveries per hour. Meanwhile the bigger airports in the NYARTCC are dead-empty and the ARTCC policy is that you cannot control any other airport until reaching S2 with follow-up training. I was also told that after that I would have to work month as ground and then *maybe* by the end of the year as tower.I am willing to spend my free time controlling, but NOT if I am locked into a position and when it is expected from me to wait for hours and hours, just to have the excitement of maybe one delivery, while the neighboring airports buzz with traffic.Come on: Clearance, ground and tower is really easy - it pretty much spoiled the entire VATSIM experience for me. I moved to IVAO where friendly people guided me through the entire process. I presented myself to the ARTCC directors (EDFF/EDMM) and can control every airport in my and the neighboring ARTCCs, just not in the 'core' hours where you have to have a certain rating to control certain airports. When I started, some fellow controllers even switched to my channel to welcome me and give me tips. So, even in the 'non-core' hours, I can take the tower at busier airports, like EDDM, EDDS or even EDDF. Never had one complaint.Speaking of VATSIM training: When you start you career, you have to sign up with VATSIM, sign-up for the division and then have to signup for the ARTCC. All with different passwords - different website layouts and different training schedules, requirements and rules and regulations that you don't realize when you sign-up. I started at NYARTCC and it took me two weeks to get a response. There is no form, no nothing to signup. You have to wade through this badly-designed website to hopefully be able to find someone in charge that you have to email and almost *beg* to get started.This ARTCC layout leaves room for a great discrepancies when it comes to flexibilty and quality of the service. And, yes, I also have to say this: That we do it for fun and in out free time. I enjoy doing it. So, why would I want to subject myself to an over-bloated organization where the ARTCC director seems to be able to arbitrarily set the rules? So, that I can sit behind my computer for hours controlling dead-end airport where there is nothing to control at all? I don't think so.Also, my ARTCC has a private forum where every opportunity is being taken to bash other controller who *dare* to move to another ARTCC. Ever think of controlling for another ARTCC or for a fly-in? Forget it. You're pretty much locked into your ARTCC, at least in my case. Guest controllers seem to be generally frowned upon in VATSIM. Why? I don't know.As a pilot, it is not better: I tried a few times to re-activate my orphaned pilot account on VATSIM and sent a few email to the appropriate e-mail addresses on the website. Never heard anything back. So, I created a new one. Within 2 weeks, I received numerous emails over the course of a few days from the VATSIM (get this...) "fraud department". I really almost peed in my pants. Ultimately, they disabled my 'new' account without even asking me and re-activated my old one.>>> COME ON! This is a complimentary service supporting a flight simulator, not the IRS or UNO!! I almost felt like a criminal. Some people seem to have forgotten about that. <

Hello Patrick,thanks for signing your posting. I noticed you also posted in the central VATSIM forum which IMHO is also a good way. While I don

Hello Martin,I read your post with great interest as it reflects my throughts almost completely.I would like to comment on one thing though. Those restrictive ratings.As you said a TWR position can be very stressful if no ground or delivery is around. I can tell you from experience, that even if you do have ground and delivery, during a fly-in the TWR position is the most demanding and stressful one. Sometimes even more than the Approach or director itself!Do you then think it's logical to allow S1 controllers to be able to connect as TWR/GND/DEL/APP but NOT as center controllers?As I said on my earlier post, the center position is perfect for new controllers as it's not that stressful. Yes, the area of responsibility is larger, there may be many aircraft departing or arriving to multiple airports within the FIR, BUT according to the rules of VATSIM the center controller is not responsible to provide approach/departure vectors to all the airports in the FIR. Older controllers may do that as they see and feel fit, but a new controller can very well gather experience from a nice busy enviroment without the stress of having too many flights squeezed into a small airspace like a TMA.In my opinion, the restrictive ratings should be reconsidered and redesigned. New controllers are afraid to control in VATSIM for exactly those reasong Patrick has mentioned!As for the 'in-server' restrictions of IVAO. I was not aware of that. BUT VATSIM software ALSO have 'in-server' restrictions that do not allow a S1 for example to connect as a center controller!!!So, if it's an ARTCC/ACC matter, how this is controlled when ASRC doesn't let you connect to restricted positions?George DorkofikisAthens, Greecehttp://online.vatsimindicators.net/811520/1704.pnghttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/betaimg.jpg

>Hello Martin,Hi George!>As you said a TWR position can be very stressful if no ground>or delivery is around. I can tell you from experience, that>even if you do have ground and delivery, during a fly-in the>TWR position is the most demanding and stressful one. >Sometimes even more than the Approach or director itself!I tend to disagree. It can be stressful - but I bet: When it gets stressful for TWR with a GND below him, the APP controller is already near the collapse :):):).>Do you then think it's logical to allow S1 controllers to be>able to connect as TWR/GND/DEL/APP but NOT as center>controllers?Yes, definitely, for a very simple reason: A basic rule (OK, I can speak specifically only for my vACC, but it think it

Ah,i forgot one more argument why it makes sense to start as TWR/GND: The learning of ASRC. As we all know ASRC is a very powerful tool, but not easy to learn. It

Okay, now let me take this example: I am looking at VATSIM ServInfo now at 1500z at EDDF. Two departures, two arrivals - all in-flight. Now, let's assume I have been doing EDDM at 2000z with about 10-20 activities per hour. Tonight, I plan to log in and see that EDDM is occupied, while EDDF is not. Why am I not able to do EDDF at this point? It really doesn't make any sense. This is what I meant by overbloated regulations and controller frustration. I never disputed that there should be no rules and that newbies should be able to do APP/CTR or even TWR without the proper training.Again, to compare to IVAO: Their restrictions are in place from 1700z until maybe 2300z and only on the high-volume airports. Would I do APP with S2? No. But at least I'd be able to do TWR anywhere in the region.BTW, I am German (Gruess Dich), originally from EDDM, now at KPHL ;-)

Hello Patrick (und speziell f

Hi Martin...Here's the reference I am talking about.A center controller is not obliged to act as twr/app or any such is not able to...http://www.vateud-td.org/manual/atc/Center.aspQuoteWhen you first plug in as a CTR controller, you may be shocked to discover that there is more to a center than that main airport, such as MEM, which you have become so familiar with. Aircraft from other airports in the area will be calling for clearances, and you will be expected to provide navigational help to those landing at those smaller airports. This complicates your job, because you have to be able to zoom in and out, and scroll to more than one area on your display.How much service should you provide? If you are busy, or new, or both, do not act as Approach control/Tower. If you decide to fill these multiple positions, do so with caution.UnQuoteGeorge DorkofikisAthens, Greecehttp://online.vatsimindicators.net/811520/1704.pnghttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/betaimg.jpg