Routes with DEP/transition only

[Charan Kumar]

Consider the following rte:

SKW5737
KSFO-(REBAS3 CIC)-KCIC

What should be the clearance?

When there is no waypoint after the last fix, I tend to use Direct. So can I say:

SKW5737, Cleared to Chico airport, REBAS3 departure, Chico transition, Direct, maintain 5k....

or should I say:
SKW5737, Cleared to Chico airport, REBAS3 departure, Chico transition, then as filed, maintain 5k...
(Which wouldn't make much sense as there is nothing filed)

or would it be:
SKW5737, Cleared to Chico airport, REBAS3 departure, Chico transition, maintain 5k....

This is an example where the VOR is right over/vicinity of the airport. Does that affect the clearance given? And how? For Eg: Would the clearance for the following be different from the above:

SKW5738
KSFO-(PORTE3 AVE)-KSBA

And do airports location, read as in within our airspace or outside our airspace, contribute to the clearance (and how)?

Thanks for your time!!
Charan

[Mike Fries]

Since the clearance limit is the airport and the Chico transition is for the VOR you have it right. "SKW5737, Cleared to Chico airport, REBAS3 departure, Chico transition, Direct, maintain 5k...." Same applies for the KSBA example.

Unless there is a LOA in place between centers you really are only responsible to make sure the routing is correct for your centers appropriate exit fixes. For example you don't care what arrival into KEWR someone files, if its wrong it will get amended somewhere down the line. All you care about is that they file for LIN and not MOD OAL, etc...

[Jonah Zieske]

As the DEL/GND station manager, I would have expected you to know this one..but Mike is right.

[Tucker Emerson]

As the DEL/GND station manager, I would have expected you to know this one..but Mike is right.
Really Jonah?

[Tyler Milligan]

Really Jonah?
I know right

[Charan Kumar]

Mike, thanks for the clarification. Will this clearance also be true, meaning can you use ...direct..., even if the last point is a fix and not a VOR? One of the KSFO-KMRY routes is EUGEN5, so can we issue clearance as
Cleared to KMRY, EUGEN5 departure, direct, maintain 5k...

Tks!!

[Jonah Zieske]

charan, I am sorry for my comment earlier...something happened today and I was really on edge and angry...I apologize for my disrespect.

[Lucas Dziesinski]

Charan,

You only say "direct" at the end if there aren't any "waypoints" at the end of his FP. So like a pilot from KSQL - KSJC only filed "OSI" it would be "woodside direct".

If a pilot filed.. EUGEN5 SHOEY MR to KMRY, you would still say.

Cleared to the Monterey Airport, EUGEN5 Departure, SHOEY Transition, then as filed.....

[Charan Kumar]

Lucas,

I understand the clearance if the FP was EUGEN5 SHOEY MR, I found a FP on flightaware that said only KSFO-EUGEN5-KMRY, in which case SHOEY transition is not involved and hence my qn. I agree that the route may have been wrong or just filed before correction, I was just using it as an example.

Jonah, no worries...its cool!!

[Justin Snapp]

As the DEL/GND station manager, I would have expected you to know this one..but Mike is right.

You should know that Charan asked these questions because they came up when he was instructing me. I have found that in my time as a TA and then as a course instructor at Stanford that when you have to answer students questions you suddenly find yourself considering new things, and looking at things differently. Even if it is something you understand on your own part. The mutual confusion of the student and instructor is extremely valuable as it leads to ever clearer understanding on the part of both. In this case I think it will lead to improved training materials and standardization. (Which if I understand correctly is Charan's newly undertaken endeavor.)

It seems to me that controllers are inherently perpetual instructors (to each other and more fundamentally to pilots) and should be constantly seeking to identify these areas of potential confusion.

[Steffen Franz]

Charan,

You only say "direct" at the end if there aren't any "waypoints" at the end of his FP. So like a pilot from KSQL - KSJC only filed "OSI" it would be "woodside direct".

If a pilot filed.. EUGEN5 SHOEY MR to KMRY, you would still say.

Cleared to the Monterey Airport, EUGEN5 Departure, SHOEY Transition, then as filed.....

is SHOEY really a transition? I know SNS and BSR are, but I was in the opinion, that a transition needs to be a VOR? as far as my uneducated guess goes.

[Charan Kumar]

is SHOEY really a transition? I know SNS and BSR are, but I was in the opinion, that a transition needs to be a VOR? as far as my uneducated guess goes.Ha ha, that thing always got me. But yeah, SHOEY is a valid transition (listed on the chart so). And there are many transitions around non-VOR types.

Here's (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1006/00360CARDS_C.PDF) one!!

[Lucas Dziesinski]

EUGEN5 without a transition would bring you to EUGEN, then from EUGEN you'd go "direct" to your next "waypoint".

So EUGEN5 Departure, direct, since you go direct to KMRY after you fly the dep to EUGEN.

This is what I was taught being an instrument student, but I could be wrong on the ATC side ;)

[Chris Virgilio]

Charan, David, Adam White, and many more had a great discussion with me on TS tonight. We discussed all sorts of ATC topics and how they translate to VATSIM. Look for some great changes and additions to the Ground Control syllabus provided by Charan soon.

I think that controllers getting together to talk shop is a wonderful way to learn our hobby, and encourage everyone to hop on TS and learn!

[Justin Snapp]

I think that controllers getting together to talk shop is a wonderful way to learn our hobby, and encourage everyone to hop on TS and learn!

I very much enjoyed listening and learning this evening.

[Mike Fries]

that example route KSFO EUGEN5 KMRY is weird i thought the FAA computers would only accept KSFO EUGEN5 EUGEN KMRY. you could read it either "Eugen5 departure direct" or "Eugen5 departure, eugen, direct"

you can say direct after a fix ex: QXE142 KSMF SAC MOD MOD216 LICKE KSJC

"...modesto two-one-six radial, licke direct"

speaking of that route, why the heck can't they just fly the CAPO3 arrival?

[Charan Kumar]

LOL ... looks like either someone is reading the chart wrong or they just want to overfly Modesto to look for new property!!

Thanks a bunch for the clarification.

[Chris Virgilio]

Here's some late breaking news to add to the discussion. While working on maps today and doing other things, I turned LiveATC on in the classroom and we listened to KSFO Clearance Delivery for a good 2 hours, at least. Every single time they gave an SFO8 departure, they clearly said "San Francisco Eight departure, radar vectors Linden."

So now I'm back in the "radar vectors" camp. I think there are a lot of good reasons to say it. Mike, any thoughts here? There's been a lot of talk in the past about the 7110 saying not to use it. Charan and I did a great deal of digging through the 7110 last night, and we came up with absolutely nothing specifically addressing either Pilot Nav SIDs or Radar Vectored SIDs. The only thing listed is "Departure, (transition)." Technically, there is nothing incorrect about saying "SFO8 depature, radar vectors Linden." So what do we think here, guys? There's obviously the possibility that all the controllers I heard say that are all checked out already and don't give a crap what the book says, also.

[Charan Kumar]

Chris, if we bring r/v back in, then it will be used for a lot more than just SFO8 I would think. Also, I remember discussing the fact that "radar vectors Linden" wouldn't make much sense when there is no departure services, in which case, SFO8 departure then as filed is the most appropriate. Training Students to give clearance in one way when departure is online vs offline (when no specific requests have been made by departure) was something we did not want to do and hence we decided to stay with SFO8 departure then as filed.

The r/w Clrnc/Del controllers have an undue advantage over our GND/DEL students, that is always having their Departure controllers online and available :D

[Justin Snapp]

As a present DEL/GND student this is of prime importance to me...

It seems to me that maybe it is ok then to have the option though to state "radar vectors to" in the clearance in cases where (1) it makes sense (as in real controllers within ZOA presently do it) and (2) there is a radar (norcal, center) online. I have been meaning to start listening to OAK liveatc clearances as part of enjoying my ground training.

What about hybrid departures with pilot nav followed by radar vectors? For a departure like Logan 4 (airnav) (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1006/00058LOGAN.PDF) at KBOS, one concern about perhaps saying "radar vectors to..." might be that pilots would wrongly interpret that to mean just fly runway heading (or whatever else they feel like) until they get some vectors.

I certainly think the advantage of informing vatsim pilots to expect radar vectors is big when their is no other real procedure to the departure. (Less so real world pilots who are superbly trained.) On the other hand, when there is a big event and the controller is far more worked than any real world clearance controller would be, the option of omitting "radar vectors to" seems good (and reasonable) as well to me.

Clearly we need virtual-NTSB to fly in here and do a study to determine best practices for clearances to minimize pilot deviations from route. ;)

[Chris Virgilio]

Here is my big, overarching, philosophy. Obviously it will differ from everyone else's. Any training decisions we make should promote the following:

1. Promote great controller situational awareness (Controller IQ)
2. Promote great pilot situational awareness (Pilot IQ)
3. Be as true to real world procedures as possible, while being tailored to the unique reality that is VATSIM

I think that introducing a conditional situation where a controller will have to be aware of whether an aircraft will be operating in a radar or non-radar environment is good because it will encourage them to learn, think critically, and grow. Put these things together and VATSIM becomes a more rewarding experience to all involved. Will we always get it correct? Probably not. But there's a feeling of accomplishment that occurs when a controller/pilot learns a more intricate facet of aviation and how to apply it.

Therefore, I like the idea of saying "radar vectors" when there is radar service available and not saying it when there isn't. It might take a little extra teaching and a little extra learning, but isn't that what we're here for? Haha.

Justin - I nominate you to oversee the virtual-NTSB project. Have a proposal on my desk by the end of the day... :-)

[Steffen Franz]

Therefore, I like the idea of saying "radar vectors" when there is radar service available and not saying it when there isn't. It might take a little extra teaching and a little extra learning, but isn't that what we're here for? Haha.

leaves too much room for interpretation and discussions about when its right or wrong to say what. Something we keep concerning ourselves about for a while. Since this is a public discussion i wont go into more details.

[Chuck Barlow]

Changing phraseology based on whether a departure controller is online opens a can of worms. What about the initial climb instruction and "expect (final) 10 minutes after departure"?

[Chris Virgilio]

We change phraseology based on whether or not a controller is online all the time. "Oakland Center is not online. Radar services terminated, frequency change approved." Controllers should know the difference.

Also, "expect (final) 10 minutes after departure" isn't poor phraseology for no controller online. Technically they will be unable to contact departure and will be expected to climb to their final altitude. Whether they wait 10 minutes to do this or not is up to them.

[Charan Kumar]

Can one of our mods break this off into its own thread. The original qn has already been resolved.

[Justin Snapp]

We change phraseology based on whether or not a controller is online all the time. ...

Also, "expect (final) 10 minutes after departure" isn't poor phraseology for no controller online. Technically they will be unable to contact departure and will be expected to climb to their final altitude. Whether they wait 10 minutes to do this or not is up to them.

I agree that adapting phraseology to whether or not there is a radar controller online is not overly burdensome, and the advantage of adapting the phraseology in terms of clarity conveyed is non-trivial.

I have always assumed the lost-comms departure procedure is the safest departure that should be flown when there is no radar service being provided. (Not that pilots will bother when they know that no one is looking, and their plane is virtual.) In principle when radar services are offline ground controllers should clear pilots to climb at the safest time based on known SID and STAR arrangements. (This is not something the real world would have to worry about of course.) That might mean they should climb directly, or that they should be given a climb restriction of 10 minutes at their initial assigned altitude.

[Charan Kumar]

I vote for "SFO8 departure, then as filed".

When no controllers are online, this basically means that the pilots turn on course when they want.
When controllers are online, the chart does say expect radar vectors to initial fix, so the pilot should wait for vectors from the controller.

I am not against the idea of training controllers to issue clearances based on availability of departure svcs, but it will lead to the following conditional clauses for PV:

When dep is offline, saying both "SFO8 dep, then a/f" and "SFO8 dep, r/v LIN, then a/f" will have to be accepted. When dep is online, not including "r/v" in the phraseology will cost the student points. If that will not be the case, then it can be ignored, but I think this is the situation that we are trying to avoid.

[Mike Fries]

Or don't issue the SFO8 departure at all when no radar controller is online.

[Justin Snapp]

Or don't issue the SFO8 departure at all when no radar controller is online.

That makes sense to me, that we would want to issue a pilot nav clearance when radar is offline. Of course if a pilot insists on SFO8 then we have to allow them to file and be cleared with that?

[Chris Virgilio]

Without a radar position, direct to their first fix would make the most sense to me.

[Mike Fries]

Without a radar position, direct to their first fix would make the most sense to me.

thats what I was thinking, it always felt weird to me as tower to clear them via radar vector when no DEP is online. "Cleared to XXX airport via Linden then as filed"

AT LAX we had the PERCH9 departure which is here http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1007/00237PERCH.PDF

the clearance we gave was "Perch 9 departure, DINTY, then as filed" no radar vector. I think since the chart says "then via radar vectors" its not needed in the clearance as with SFO8 but I don't believe there is anything wrong with saying it honestly.

[Michael Mund-Hoym]

I think we are going a bit far with this. As far as I am aware of, there is nothing in the VATSIM or VATUSA documentation prescribing that we have to change phreaseology depending on if certain positions are manned.

Also restricting radar vectored departures to only be used when the associated APP or CTR controller is online is in my oppinion a poor decision. The most commonly used DPs out San Francisco and Oakland (SFO8 and OAK5) besides the large amount of hybrid departures out of the bay (SKYL3, NEUVO5, LOUPE1...) require vectors of some sort.

The altitude assignment "Expect FL XXX 10 mins after departure" as CV mentioned stays in effect regardless if the APP/CTR controller is online. Main reasons why planes are altitude restrcited initially is to clear them from certain arrival streams. We dont simulate the SFO initial IFRs climbs anyhow and just go with 5000. The pilot by default without being in radio contact should climb to his filed altitude, which btw is a default "lost comms" procedure for IFR flight. (if no higher altitude, i.e. MEA or expected has been given to the pilot)

[Chris Virgilio]

Good knowledge, Mike. The point about expecting an assigned altitude 10 minutes after was merely an example of phraseology that is sort of silly, regardless of the lost comm procedures. Of course aircraft will lose communications because there is no one there for them to talk to.

The point is that Radar Vectors are precisely what they are, RADAR vectors. If there is no radar controller online, there are no radar vectors to be had. Why then pretend that there will be? Just clear the aicraft to Denver via Linden then as filed.

[Steffen Franz]

The point is that Radar Vectors are precisely what they are, RADAR vectors. If there is no radar controller online, there are no radar vectors to be had. Why then pretend that there will be? Just clear the aicraft to Denver via Linden then as filed.

hence "cleared to xxx airport, SFO8 Departure then as filed" as we do it already.

[Chris Virgilio]

hence "cleared to xxx airport, SFO8 Departure then as filed" as we do it already.

We're not even talking about that bit anymore. :)

[Lucas Dziesinski]

I think, "San Francisco Eight Departure, then As Filed" is the best thing to do.

The reason why we have departure/arrival procedures in the first place is to provide an efficient flow of traffic with somewhat adequate separation, to have aircraft remain clear of obstacles and terrain, and to have a general idea of "who is going where" regardless of weather factors really..

You can't really have someone go "direct" to their first fix after departure because that could be a hazard to other traffic and especially terrain. If you look at every SID reallly it has some information about minimum climb gradients, such as on the SFO8 off of 1L/R they require a 500' per NM to 3000'. There are lots of little details on terminal plates that almost no one except real instrument students/pilots pay attention too. This departure requires that minimize climb gradient to avoid traffic and terrain. (Keeping in mind the minimum climb gradient for turbojets us usually with half there thrust.)

We want an aircraft to fly a departure out of the airport, regardless if departure is online to at least guarantee a small portion of terrain, obstacle, and traffic clearance. By having an aircraft fl the SFO8 they way more "safe" and "better off" then having them go direct to their first fix. By saying "SFO8 Departure then as filed" this covers both having radar online or offline.

If radar is online, they would follow the departure and do whatever radar tells them to do (usually get them on course when they are clear of traffic/t&o right?) If radar is offline, almost all VATSIM pilots would fly the departure, then once it ends, go direct to their first fix (kind of like radar would do, except the difference between having them go direct right away and later is giving a small guarantee of traffic/t&o clearance.)

Just my thoughts..., I don't see the need to change the phraseology again. Depending on if your a loose or strict constructionist determines how you interpret the 7110.65. 4-3-2 c. 4. a. says either..

(SID name and number) DEPARTURE.

(SID name and number) DEPARTURE,
(transition name) TRANSITION.

This is what I use and feel is appropriate.

[Chris Virgilio]

We aren't discussing the validity of SIDs in general here, we're talking about what is and isn't appropriate in the radar and non-radar environments, respectively. In a radar environment, it is appropriate to say "SFO8 departure, radar vectors (enter fix here)". In a non radar environment it's not appropriate to say anything about radar vectors that a pilot will never recieve. In fact, a ground controller can't even issue any sort of instructions once the aircraft is on the rwy, so there isn't even an guarentee that two aircraft departing simultaneously won't collide. That's what the local advisory frequency is for. That's where separation is done, not in issuing SIDs.

[Lucas Dziesinski]

I am not really talking about the validity of a SID either. If a SID wasn't valid, we wouldn't have it, or it would be FDC'ed.

I understand the two "environments" what you are trying to do is have two phraseology's depending on the type of "environment" the aircraft is in, at least that is what I am understand from you.

What I am saying is that why go through the trouble of having two when we can stick to just ONE that covers both radar and non-radar environments, and on top of that it is in the 7110.65.

[Charan Kumar]

Would accepting both be ...ummm...acceptable? We will be training only for SFO8 departure, then as filed as that is close enough to 7110 and is already in use and suits both situations of the controllers being online/offline. But if the student includes radar vectors, then well and good, we will advise when would be appropriate/best to use it. We have to keep in mind that we do have visiting controllers and we will accommodate their training too. While we have to do our best to be close to 7110, we also have to remember what our r/w folks do, albeit their situation is way different.

Couple of things I also noted while listening to r/w controllers is, they do say ten minutes after departure, instead of one zero minutes, and they do say, Cleared to KLAX via PORTE departure whereas 7110 doesn't include the words via.

In CV's defense, we already do train on "departure offline" vs "departure frequency 135.65" based on radar availability, so conditional clearances are very much in use :)

Last but not least, anybody saying SFO8 departure, LIN transition can expect a remark in the training note :D.

[Mike Fries]

yeah the 7110 doesn't include "via" in clearances with a SID but they do in an example later on "“Cleared to Reynolds Airport via Victor Ninety‐one Albany, then as filed. Maintain six thousand.”"

[Charan Kumar]

Exactly, via has a specific meaning in the clearance :) Yet our r/w controllers use it. I heard KBOS clearing BAW140G via LOGAN4 then as filed. I guess they are not really very consistent and we should embrace both. Training wise, we will just train SF08 dep, then as filed.

Chris??

[Mike Fries]

What if someone files KSFO-KSEA SFO8 SAC LMT.... what is your clearance then as you need to amend his FP SFO8 dep, then as filed won't cut it

[Charan Kumar]

Good point. Again this also leads to the same qn on whether to say "radar vectors RBL" or "direct RBL" during an amendment based on the availability of departure services.

The reason I sided on the SFO8 dep as filed for initial clearance is becoz it is already in use. I am ok with either phraseology. VATSIM is a sim environment where we pretend a lot (99% at the least) and there is some reality, dep offline, no further radar svcs available etc which may not be true to r/w aircraft...so saying 'radar vectors' during a clearance even when dep is offline should not be a problem.

So let's pick a side, give some take some and call some shots to finish this discussion :D

[Mike Fries]

haha ok for SFO8 dep as filed should be taught as long as student understands it is a vector SID and they know how to read a full route clearance

[Charan Kumar]

Deal...now all I have to do is convince Chris ;)

[Lucas Dziesinski]

+1. I wouldn't let any student progress if they couldn't identify the types of departure procedures and how to read a full route anyway haha.

[Chris Virgilio]

Let's do this, and Mike I'll need your help here. Tomorrow, let's check the SFO SOPs and see what they say about issuing SFO8 departures. If they list specific phraseology stating "SFO8 Departure, radar vectors Linden" or something of the sort, that's what we go with. I understand everyone's argument for just saying then as filed, but there has to be a reason these controllers still say radar vectors. We'll find out, or maybe there isn't a reason at all.

On a similar note, I took a good look through the NCT SOPs today and have access to the latest documentation on airspace boundaries. They have a full listing of lat/lon that make up the boundaries, and these could be used to put into a sector file quite easily. Having up to date boundaries for Nor Cal could be a big deal.

[Mike Fries]

Let's do this, and Mike I'll need your help here. Tomorrow, let's check the SFO SOPs and see what they say about issuing SFO8 departures. If they list specific phraseology stating "SFO8 Departure, radar vectors Linden" or something of the sort, that's what we go with. I understand everyone's argument for just saying then as filed, but there has to be a reason these controllers still say radar vectors. We'll find out, or maybe there isn't a reason at all.

I'm pretty sure there is no specific phraseology in there

[David Carman]

Yea, IIRC, there's no phraseology in it.

[Lucas Dziesinski]

What does Adam think?

[Chris Virgilio]

Well I suppose "then as filed" will have to do for now. We'll see if we can find any more info. I'll give some of the SFO Tower guys a shout and see what gives.

Charan, I think you're good to go as far as updating the phraseology.

[Charan Kumar]

roger doger...I will also put in the note about the full clearance during amendment :)

Tks for the gr8 discussion!!!

[Charan Kumar]

Now, sorry to wake this thread up again. I have been following a discussion (http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=49643&p=363749) on VATSIM forums and having used the VATUSA training material a lot myself, I wanted to do my best to link it in as many areas as possible. It has many examples, even audio and video examples.

http://www.vatusa.net/training/tiki-index.php?page=Issuing_Clearances

As you can see, the abbreviated clearances section clearly gives examples of "radar vectors" in the phraseology. It also gives many variations and examples of other types some of which I had planned to document, but it is already so nicely done on the website. My intention was to use the VATUSA training website to be consistent with the material, obviously there is a difference on what we decided and what is there on the website, and this particular page had escaped my attn for which I apologize.

So...qn for TA and all others. Is it ok to re-align our training material to this page? And what happens to our decision on radar vectors phraseology?