Controller Attitude

[V1-Simulations]

So some of you may have heard of me, some may have not. Anyway I am an experienced airline pilot who enjoys Flight Simulation and all it has to offer. So much so I created my own channel for X-plane 11. During my most recent live stream event I got into a "reprimand spat" if you will over a visual approach into KOAK. This is not the first time I've been "reprimanded" by PE controllers, so it is of no shock to me it happened yet again. However its time to say something about it. As a paid for service the attitude at which controllers speak with CLIENTS on the network needs to be addressed. I was an instructor for half a decade before working my up into the major airlines and I have never witnessed/been apart of arrogance and un-professional conduct with as much frequency as I hear in PE, even when teaching non English speaking RW students to talk on the radio. Here is a link to a fun "case study" if you will about professionalism. My personal thoughts on the scenario are towards the end of the video. I am not trying to personally attack anyone here, but its time to shed some light on the "culture" of the PE environment. I get messages and comments frequently about how simmers want to use PE but refrain from or quickly uninstall the software due to experiences like mine. The BEST way to teach someone is with respect and dignity, that of both the instructor and student.

Regards,
V1-Simulations

[Keith Smith]

The ceiling that you showed in the video was BKN100, so the controller was not expecting you to be in IMC, and wouldn't have been aware that you were in IMC until you mentioned it. His plan was to set you up for a visual and as a result, it's unlikely he was prepared to issue a vector to the ILS when you were 2.7nm from the FAF and not actually on the localizer.

ATC is required to have you intercept the localizer 3nm outside of the FAF unless specific conditions are met. Even then, 1nm outside of the FAF would be the closet. That would mean that the controller would have to realize in a split second that the "inside 3nm but outside 1nm" option was on the table, leaving 1.7nm to familiarize himself with the approach, issue you a vector to join while still allowing you enough time to respond and make the turn.

There is zero chance that I would've issued the approach clearance either. The controller was correct to push back on that, and to push back if he felt that you were self-authorizing the use of the ILS.

If you and ATC aren't on the same page about the plan and the current conditions, things can break down. The extent to which they break down varies based on a lot of things. You changed the plan at the last second, the controller likely didn't feel like he had any time to handle the approach as you were requesting it.

We can review in more detail and discuss privately if you are truly interested in resolving it. I've sent a PM with more detail.

[Dean33]

I am not a professional pilot but I have flown regularly as a simmer on Pilotedge for 3 years and feel the need to comment on this thread.
The controller, in this case, is one of the most experienced long term controllers. He can sometimes be a little more critical than others when things go wrong (which they do) but I have never, ever felt unfairly criticised or belittled by him (or any other controller).
We pay for professionalism and expect it. In my experience, the controllers do their very best and at some peak times it is astonishing to hear them juggling across a number of varied positions.
What jumps out to me on this video (as an amateur) are the following points:
1) Surely earlier than the point in the video the pilot should have realised a visual approach would become awkward with the cloud coverage (which the controller can't see) and could have requested an ILS approach much earlier.
2) Equally, at the point, he requested this from the controller he asked for an approach clearance. Surely, he should have requested vectors for an ILS. In simple terms “ Sir, we are still IMC, can you help us with an ILS approach”. That would have framed the situation for the controller allowing him to give a ’connected’ logical response. This might have been ‘yes – vector and cleared’ or ‘no – vector around to facilitate a fresh approach’ or ‘no - go around’. Sorry, these examples are not ‘technical’ but you get the gist?
3) Later when the pilot ‘self cleared’ himself for an ILS is clearly an example of a non-standard procedure (dare I say amateurish?).
4) I fail to see how this classes as a ‘reprimand spat’ and I certainly can’t understand why the pilot complains about the controller’s attitude. I can hear no hostility or arrogance either, as claimed by the pilot toward the end of his video. To then say this is an increasing experience on the P/E network is ridiculous sensationalism.

[V1-Simulations]

response in PM

[Les Parson]

I am not a professional pilot but I have flown regularly as a simmer on Pilotedge for 3 years and feel the need to comment on this thread.
The controller, in this case, is one of the most experienced long term controllers. He can sometimes be a little more critical than others when things go wrong (which they do) but I have never, ever felt unfairly criticised or belittled by him (or any other controller).
We pay for professionalism and expect it. In my experience, the controllers do their very best and at some peak times it is astonishing to hear them juggling across a number of varied positions.
What jumps out to me on this video (as an amateur) are the following points:
1) Surely earlier than the point in the video the pilot should have realised a visual approach would become awkward with the cloud coverage (which the controller can't see) and could have requested an ILS approach much earlier.
2) Equally, at the point, he requested this from the controller he asked for an approach clearance. Surely, he should have requested vectors for an ILS. In simple terms “ Sir, we are still IMC, can you help us with an ILS approach”. That would have framed the situation for the controller allowing him to give a ’connected’ logical response. This might have been ‘yes – vector and cleared’ or ‘no – vector around to facilitate a fresh approach’ or ‘no - go around’. Sorry, these examples are not ‘technical’ but you get the gist?
3) Later when the pilot ‘self cleared’ himself for an ILS is clearly an example of a non-standard procedure (dare I say amateurish?).
4) I fail to see how this classes as a ‘reprimand spat’ and I certainly can’t understand why the pilot complains about the controller’s attitude. I can hear no hostility or arrogance either, as claimed by the pilot toward the end of his video. To then say this is an increasing experience on the P/E network is ridiculous sensationalism.

As a former air traffic controller and airline ATC department manager, I must agree 100% with Dean33's comments. As a former controller at JFK and LAX Towers, I found nothing inappropriate about the controller's professionalism or tone. In my experience, this episode would not have been a significant incident. The PE controllers I have experienced are extremely professional which adds to the realism and immersion.