[How the heck do I start?]

No, the VATOCE ATO is closing just because it doesn't get a lot of people using it.

Pilot ratings are helpful (and I recommend that everyone should do at least the first two ratings because they're super straightforward and give you the basics of connecting and using the network along with flight basics), but they will only help you out so much. Depending on where you do your rating, it may also not be helpful for flying in Australian airspace (e.g, the American ATOs are great for flying fundamentals and general VATSIM usage, not so much for Australian procedure).

I recommend that you jump on and have a listen to some traffic on the network, then have a go a fly a simple flight yourself. Listen to what other people are saying and doing, then adapt it for your use - the old adage monkey see monkey do will help you out 9 times out of ten. If in doubt, ask for help from a controller or another pilot, or use google. Have an idea of what you want to do for your flight, and approach it as you would a RL flight - work out your flightplan (either visual or via navaids or waypoints), work out what kinds of procedures you may need to fly and who you may need to talk to, likely weather runways etc. Then go and do it!

 

Go ahead and find an ATO to do P1 and P2 with any available ATO if you're enthusiastic, and then do the others if you really want to pursue that. Many of the best pilots on the network will have few or no pilot ratings on VATSIM, so it's entirely up to you if you find taking those useful.

[How the heck do I start?]

Hi Warwick,

Welcome to VATPAC.

There is such a thing as overthinking it before you jump on - if in doubt, find a busy airport, login with whatever you like, and just listen to the frequency for a bit. When you're ready to do it yourself, find something a bit quieter with a controller and do a simple short flight from A to B. This tutorial will give you oodles of information about flying tubeliners in Australian airspace on the network (it's a little outdated on a couple of things but for the most part still really good). Plus there are also others for different kinds of flights on the VATPAC website. Then there's always Youtube, which has plenty of VATSIM video going around.

Most important thing to remember, really, is this : don't accept a clearance you don't understand. IF you don't understand, or generally if you're not sure what you should or shouldn't be doing, ask a controller,  we will be more than willing to help you out, and would rather take some time to explain than have to try and explain when you've already busted your departure clearance and are heading towards another aircraft

But if you keep it simple, concentrate on flying your aircraft accurately, and keep in communication with the controllers (if any) for the airspace you're in, you can't go far wrong starting out. Jump in!

 

[Using Euroscope with Audio for VATSIM]

The links for the 1911 sector files and Euroscope updater seem to be broken for me, showing a 404. Is it just getting smashed, or is it something else?

[Reading Airspace Charts]

If you're flying IFR, you'll be in 2 way comms with ATC even when in Class G, and you need to keep them informed of changes in track or level in order to receive a traffic service, but you won't require a clearance.

As for the steps etc, you can look at the VTCs. They're probably the easiest to understand depiction to use. If you're using something like Little NavMap, that may well also depict the steps depending on your sim.

But basically, if there's no ATC online, there's not really any CTA. You can more or less do what you like. If there's ATC online you can always feel free to ask where the limits of there coverage are, or check their controller info and look at this to see the sectors.

EDIT: Peter just beat me to it

[My First Long Flight, and what I learned:]

In reality if you were flying an IFR cessna into sydney in that situation, they would probably have you on a segregated track rather than the STAR for exactly that kind of reason - mixing a slow single prop into jet traffic that's at least two to three times as fast is a hard thing to do! A lot of the arrivals into major airports are designed for RPT traffic flows and noise abatement, neither of which are going to apply to you.

In terms of unicom, there are not really any rules. Even transmitting on unicom is going to be often unnecessary (especially without transmitting time estimates) unless you're within a couple of minutes of another aircraft or are in the circuit with others. In general, just transmit your intentions and wait and see if anyone else responds. If they're planning on a different runway to you and are ahead/a jet, probably fly that runway.

"yssy tfc, cessna ABC inbound sydney from the north estimate threshold 16r time 35."

"yssy tfc, voz123 inbound from the SW 34L, estimate threshold time 30."

"yssy tfc, ABC will track for downwind 34L, looking for traffic to follow in"

You'll rarely hear anything like that on unicom though, you're lucky for the most part if people are even monitoring the freq.

Realistically, you would not ever be flying into Sydney with zero ATS, so at a certain point realism needs to go out the window

[My First Long Flight, and what I learned:]

If traffic is light, no harm asking as a Cessna for the most into the wind runway to land on if it's not already being used. No noise abatement to worry about, you can probably turn a short final, short landing roll to vacate, and worst comes to worst and you get denied, you're no worse off than you were before!

 

Technically, cause the cross was more than you can fly in accordance with the 172s max, you could require it anyway.

[Question on Flaps]

3 hours ago, Nicholas Naumovski said:

Hi Bryan,

You are correct with flaps used to move slower without stalling. Full flapped landing is generally not needed for airline planes (unless necessary) if your dealing with windy conditions, I would advise you to not use full flaps as it limits your motion if needed to combat wind and windshield

Regards

 

It depends entirely on the aircraft in use. Airbus operators will pretty much always use full flaps unless there's some abnormal condition that requires otherwise. 737s will usually use flaps 30, though. Really depends on what you're talking about.

I think 172 is usually full flaps as 'normal', but you can get away with less, especially if you have more runway to deal with. More flaps generally means slower speeds, weight on the gear earlier and a shorter landing roll. In any case, I wouldn't be dropping all my flaps until I was on short final and knew I could glide to the runway regardless of the winds.

[Sydney TMA Instructions]

Yeah, my understanding is that the BK8 is available when Tower is either closed or open (as you point out, this is explicit in ERSA), and afaik there's no heading assigned to aircraft on departure from the Tower. in this scenario (I've never heard one) They just sit on 290 and 3000 ft until the handoff when they'll be given direction from the TCU. 

Of course, it would be required if there was a visual departure in play. The LIs seem to be assuming that the SID can't be used HN so that might explain the requirement you point out. Tbh, though, I'm not sure if BK8 is a "radar SID". at least as I otherwise understand it, because it does not specify an assigned heading and asks the aircraft to maintain a single track (290) on departure, as opposed to say SY1 which specifies a turn to an assigned heading shortly after take off. I don't have RL experience with the procedure tho, so just my thoughts and my reading of ERSA and from listening to clearances given to IFR on the BK departures.

[Marshall Islands]

Where's the bottom chart from? Is that Jeppesen?

Yeah, I did see mention of the Class D in the TPP, but not the echo. I suspect it's a 700 ft E transition step, but I haven't seen it documented anywhere so don't know.

[Marshall Islands]

I'm trying to find dimensions for the military airspace (even indeed they actually have CTA) but having a bit of trouble there. The only other CTA I can find is the standard CTA belonging to Oakland which usually goes down to FL055. It appears Oakland provides this approach service via ARINC/CPDLC only, as there's no radio coverage. The freqs and basic information for all Marshall facilities can be found in the Charts Supplement Pacific from the FAA. This appears to be confirmed by looking at the en route charts for PAC

 

PKMJ charts can be found though here, can't find anything current for the military field though, it's not available through the TPP on the FAA site. I've tried looking for an equivalent to our Designated Airspace document but no dice so far, but again, apart from the military airspace that seems to exist, the only CTA is Oakland. It's possible that despite having an approach controller there's no associated CTA, but I can't find that out.

I'm not sure what controller services could actually be offered in line with real world use. Seems like the only one is the military one, but I don't really know enough about USAF procedure. I have a sneaking suspicion it's like approach controllers on some of the smaller UK positions - basically only giving an approach service within a few miles of the airport to give joins. I'd certainly think they only give that service below the Oakland airspace. I reckon the rest of the service to Marshall Islands would be whatever standing procedures we have with VATUSA regards to offering Oakland services.

[Marshall Islands]

Might not be relevant for VATSIM use, I do see it's listed under VATOCE, but IRL isn't the Marshall Islands a US territory? If so, would seem it would be controlled by an American ARTCC (I'd guess whatever it is that runs out of Hawaii) and thus run under FAA rules?

EDIT: Looking into it further, seems they are an associated state, but given their charts are FAA ones and are found om Flightaware as with all US charts, seems the US at least do their airspace planning. Interesting enough, the international airport (not the one Bailey is talking about above, which is a military CTR operated by the US military) itself is a CTAF and the controlled airspace only starts above 5000 ft. I have no idea who controls that as no other FIA or other frequency is listed on the chart apart from the CTAF freq. I suspect there's no VHF and you'd be using CPDLC for clearances into CTA to other destinations, maybe to Oakland?

[Would this work?]

Basically every service that would be provided by SY CTR can already be provided by any other TCU or en route unit covering that airspace. The trouble is getting more than one VFR aircraft operating independently of another in the same airspace, in order for that service to actually be provided.

[Would this work?]

You'd apply the existing non standard policy. It would require approval by a senior staff member or C/I3, and you'd probably have to justify why that position should be opened and coverage not extended to CTA aircraft (i.e you'd probably be in a situation with an enormous number of OCTA aircraft and an enormous number of CTA aircraft already being given service by another approach controller). If it was otherwise quiet, you'd probably be better off jumping on Approach and extending coverage to as many people as possible, either in or out of CTA.

[FNG Logging in]

I hear you. EA is, I personally find,  chaotic compared to how Australian arrivals work. With the exception of Sydney, in an ideal world you wouldn't need to touch an aircraft as an approach controller, you'd simply step them down, clear them for the relevant approach and make sure nothing went wrong. Maybe put some speed control on for spacing as aircraft of different types slow on approach. Of course 'ideal' rarely happens in the real world because of the volume of traffic, and it often doesn't happen on VATSIM because we're here to have fun not make sure people don't die  The US is different as iirc most of the RL major airports have arrivals that require vectors to final. In Australia only Sydney has that.

And yeah, people seem to prefer flying from Sydney to Melbourne rather than the other way around I think. No idea why, I tend to fly the other way because the approach into Sydney is more interesting. But it does mean the ground on Melbourne is fairly quiet as people tend to taxi and then log pretty quickly on arrival. 

[FNG Logging in]

The reality is that most of the pilots and controllers on VATSIM are hobbyists, and everyone has jobs, school, families, etc. The number of movements online is a drop in the ocean of what happens daily in the real world. Outside events you will struggle to find anywhere (not just in Australia) that has a continuous mass of traffic. Even in places like the UK with multiple iconic global airports in close proximity, outside events you may have a bunch of pilots but not a lot of ATC,  especially depending on what local time it is there. I've flown in to Heathrow, SFO and JFK on VATSIM with maybe a handful of other planes around and no sequencing required on my part. It happens.

Certainly Australia is probably a little more quiet than some places outside the events, but you'll find if you look at vatspy or something similar that at any given time (and certainly during evening times in Australia) most of the rest of the world is a ghost town relatively speaking.

In any case, you shouldn't expect to find yourself in sustained traffic situations like you'd get in EA, just because the whole point of ATC is to create a flow and orderly sequence to traffic well in advance at the enroute (or even departure!) phase, and not have to deal with the kind of last minute chaos EA provides  The aim of RL and VATSIM ATC and EA's ATC are not necessarily identical.

Having said that, MRM does throw up some fun sequencing chaos for approach controllers, as I'm sure some will attest to.  

[SIXS gone at YPJT - update local instructions?]

No worries. As I said, the LIs spell out the procedure. In RL, the Class D procedures are abbreviated when communicated, which is probably why the table seems unfamiliar. But from a quick glance back at ERSA, the LI does match the actual ERSA procedure aside from the update to the two new VRPs.

[SIXS gone at YPJT - update local instructions?]

Nice William, thanks for keeping us in the loop on the wild West!  

Sixs South is fair, and I'm sure Ops will get to it as time allow (I haven't checked, perhaps the new VRPs are in the current AIRAC anyway?). I'm personally not sure when LIs maybe up for a review.

I'm not quite sure of the difference you're pointing out with the rest. The LIs generally don't give a script for clearances or phraseology, but merely the procedure to be used. You're quite right, you'll usually not get ANY kind of explicit clearance into Class D aerodromes because it is implied by an acknowledgement of callsign from the Tower when you identify yourself. RL pilots are expected to understand the procedures via ERSA, and that's how the implied clearances work.

Problem is pilots (and controllers!) on VATSIM will not always know, and reasonably don't need to instantly know, ERSA procedures and sometimes may need a more specific instruction. A pilot may not be sure where to track from Boatyard or 2RN or whatever, and may be expecting to be told a leg to join, for example. 

LIs are a way of explaining what is going on for controllers, but are not necessarily prescriptive about comms. Even in RL, while abbreviated clearances are the norm, that doesn't mean you couldn't issue a regular airways clearance or ask for one. It's all ultimately about making sure pilot and controller both understand what is going on.

I'd personally encourage anyone flying or controlling anywhere in Aus to quickly glance at ERSA for where they are, but our LIs exist to distill the important information down and make it usable for controllers in the division.

Have I understood your issue with the second part right of your post?

[When to use VOR radials at Procedural Fields]

10 hours ago, Tristan Garratt said:

Righty, Again, what would be the phraseology for the visual departure?

This is all mostly in the Tower moodle, but  it works essentially the same as if you were controlling a visual IFR in an approach context. If you don't require the aircraft to make a specific turnout on departure, you just issue the takeoff clearance. If you want them to turn out in a certain direction, you would say something like "make left turn, cleared for takeoff", which is saying they must turn out in that direction to establish on track within 5 nm. If you want them to turnout a certain distance from the DER, then you would issue that, etc. 

If you need to issue a heading, you must append visual after the instruction, because you are taking nav responsibility on dep from the pilot, but you need them to retain obstacle clearance responsibility until they get to the MVA, MSA or LSALT, whichever is lower. So "turn right heading 045 visual, cleared for takeoff.." You probably aren't going to be issuing a heading in a non-radar procedural environment, however.

EDIT: Just to follow up Brett's post and Zach's post in that other thread, I suspect part of why clearances are often given on the radial is because a dct from the airport to the first waypoint may be a slightly different track to one that runs from the VOR to the first fix, and thus means you could not apply sep standards based on the radials if needed.

For instance, an RL clearance from AS:  "VOZ1741, cleared to Darwin via the AS 346 radial, Scoti, flight planned route, visual departure, climb to 7000". Because the airport itself is offset slightly from the VOR, a clearance via scoti planned route would be a different track (or rather, would cut through multiple tracks). You can see this if you plot the tracks on an enroute chart (or something like Skyvector). This ensures you can apply a longitudinal standard if needed. I haven't listened to enough other RL freqs, so not sure if this would always be needed, e.g YDPO, which has an RNAV fix directly overhead and no radio navaid.

[When to use VOR radials at Procedural Fields]

Quote

Hi all! I was just talking to another member, and we came upon the topic of giving Radials to aircraft, rather than following a Sid.

My understanding is that the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

I assume we're talking Class D procedurals mostly here. In places like Launceston the SIDS are essentially just glorified radial intercepts with climb gradients and turns to guarantee obstacle clearance in IMC. In other cases, you might want to give an aircraft a different radial to depart on in order to provide lateral separation from another departure, allowing both to climb unimpeded if you can't apply a more convenient standard.

I have yet to see a lateral standard meaningfully used on VATSIM, as most of the time other standards, including vertical or visual ones, are more useful and effective.

Quote

At what point do you give radials to departing aircraft, and how do they help over, lets say, tracking direct to a waypoint, or circuit departure instruction then flying direct.

There's nothing really stopping you in VMC (technically also by day, but VATSIM ) just giving an IFR aircraft visual departure as David already said, which, if accepted by the pilot, then puts the onus on them to depart visually to establish on flight planned track within 5nm of the aerodrome (and that outbound track will be on a radial anyway for aerodromes with VORs).

If you then need a report based on distance and position to a navaid, you can always ask that anyway  Circuit departure would be more usual for VFR so you can easily integrate other arrivals. Even then, nothing in particular stopping you just letting a VFR turn straight out on the departure as well, if you know you're not going to turn them out into another arriving aircraft.

I'm not 100% on this, but I believe IRL most of the relevant standards for longitudinal and latitudinal standards allow for GNSS to be used instead of DME. In other words, pilot reports using distances and tracks to and from positions based purely on GNSS are a substitute for using data derived from radio navaids like VORs and DME. 

[Tower View Euroscope Vpilot (?)]

3.2 (the one linked to on the page you linked from 2014) is not the latest version. You need to use one of the 3.2 beta clients. Confirm you are using the one Ben O'Leary linked above?

[Tower View Euroscope Vpilot (?)]

Iirc there's a specific version or better of 3.2 (I think it might have been beta r12) you need to use, otherwise it won't send the model data onwards. Looks to me like ES isn't passing the type codes to vPilot, so sounds to me like you're using a wrong version. What version of ES are you using?

[New ATC radio transmissions]

Legend. Thanks mate!

[New ATC radio transmissions]

Thanks Cam! That's interesting if that's the case. I know I've heard it occassionally on radios here but haven't seen it in an ICAO document (again, I haven't got access to anything recent). Any links to where you found out about it?

[New ATC radio transmissions]

8 hours ago, Cam Tyson said:

ICAO have had this set in place for quite some time now so its good to see it being inplemented in Australia. 

That's what I mean though. Unless there's been a change by ICAO in the last year or two (which is possible, I haven't read a recent Annex 10), this is a change away, not toward, ICAO, at least as of the set radiotelephony standards as of at least 2017. The UK, and I think the wider EU, have had this phraseology for yonks now, and adopted it against the ICAO standard.

Although if ICAO have changed the standard recently, that would explain why we're changing now. Though it would be a case of ICAO changing to meet the EU standard, rather than the other way around.

EDIT: Actually, having read the full entry from the the briefing, it says this:

Quote

This is in line with International Civil Aviation Organization recommendations.

So I guess that means ICAO have made a recent change. Annex 10 isn't publicly available, so I have no idea when the change was actually made. Doesn't seem to have been promulgated. Pronouncing each digit was definitely the standard a couple of years ago at least, cause I can still find older docs with that standard.

[New ATC radio transmissions]

Is it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't what we had before the icao standard, but "flight level two hundred" is a UK idiosyncrasy (maybe it also belongs to some other jurisdictions as well)? 

TBH, the new way makes more sense to me because it makes whole number levels more distinguishable from other levels, and in the UK also from flight levels Fl 100 and down.