Oceanic checklist ------

[Howard Taylor 1050869]

HI.

An easy one I am sure.

On the "Cross the Pond" Transatlantic Radio Ops Checklist.

Could someone please explain (item 7) TMI

Thanks

Howard

[David Saunders 818672]

TMI - TRACK MESSAGE IDENTIFIER

 

IE today is

 

TMI 68

 

Today we have the 68 day of the year 2010

 

this shows that you are using todays NATTRACKS for your route instead of filing

 

PIKIL 57/20 58/30 59/40 59/50 PRAWN YDP

 

as your route you could actually file

 

PIKIL NATB YDP

[Howard Taylor 1050869]

Thanks for a quick reply David.

[Stephan Boerner 945550]

as your route you could actually file

 

PIKIL NATB YDP

And if the controller used EuroScope, he would actually prefer if you filed it like

PIKIL 57N020W 58N030W 59N040W 59N050W PRAWN YDP

because neither the route with NATB nor the one with the slashes can currently be correctly p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]d by EuroScope. Especially during an event like CTP, it is very problematic if you have to amend every single flightplan to match the correct format.

[Stuart Duncan]

as your route you could actually file

 

PIKIL NATB YDP

And if the controller used EuroScope, he would actually prefer if you filed it like

PIKIL 57N020W 58N030W 59N040W 59N050W PRAWN YDP

because neither the route with NATB nor the one with the slashes can currently be correctly p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]d by EuroScope. Especially during an event like CTP, it is very problematic if you have to amend every single flightplan to match the correct format.

 

Stephan,

 

Oceanic is non radar. Essentially, ES or VRC becomes a medium only to speak to pilots. I'd hazard a guess that most OCA controllers use VRC. I'm still new to ES, but the route error ES would generate would be well beyond any ES users.

 

Ironic part - "Euroscope - power of control" - Only if the pilot gives you control it seems

[Stephan Boerner 945550]

Yes Stuart, you are right and wrong in one post

 

Oceanic is non radar. VRC is not capable of non radar, so using VRC you can only cheat. EuroScope is different, because EuroScope is capable of simulating a real non radar environment, but to do that, it needs to know the complete flightplan including the NAT track. Otherwise the flightpath can not be calculated accurately. So whoever wants to do real oceanic instead of just pretending to, should not use VRC

[Stuart Duncan]

So, you're accusing all OCA controllers who use VRC of cheating?

 

Ultimately, if my OCA clearance is issued because of a controller writing down my details and working things out in his/her head or reading it from the ES screen makes no difference to me, nor, would I be able to tell the difference.

 

It is wrong, however, to expect pilots to file a FP in a certain manner (90% of VATSIM Pilots do it - PIKIL NATB PRAWN) because of a design flaw in what is still the lesser used of the 2 clients.

 

Perhaps something for the next update? Where ES can understand things like NATB, 50/30, 5030N, etc.

 

David uses ES, and he himself suggested the shorthand method.

 

Not a dig at you, or ES, but being an ES user doesn't automatically make you better at providing a service or remove your ability to be flexible.

[Stephan Boerner 945550]

So, you're accusing all OCA controllers who use VRC of cheating?

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I just state the fact, that VRC is not capable of displaying less than the real radar position with the callsign. And by the way, during my Oceanic training, the instructor used the term "cheating" himself, so cool down and don't bully me around, just because you don't agree with what I say.

Ultimately, if my OCA clearance is issued because of a controller writing down my details and working things out in his/her head or reading it from the ES screen makes no difference to me, nor, would I be able to tell the difference.

Never said that ...

It is wrong, however, to expect pilots to file a FP in a certain manner (90% of VATSIM Pilots do it - PIKIL NATB PRAWN) because of a design flaw in what is still the lesser used of the 2 clients.

It is wrong however, to ignore such an issue. I don't blame any pilot for filing a different formate, but I will not keep quiet when someone asks a related question. If the pilot knows about the issue, he can descide for himself what he wants to do. 90% are doing it is never a good justification, because life is change, and with further development, change is inevitable.

Perhaps something for the next update? Where ES can understand things like NATB, 50/30, 5030N, etc.

Already being worked on, in any possible formate.

David uses ES, and he himself suggested the shorthand method.

And I informed about the problem, related to it. By the way, my guess would be, that he does not use professional mode. With Easy-Mode the wrong route does not really matter. (just a guess)

Not a dig at you, or ES, but being an ES user doesn't automatically make you better at providing a service or remove your ability to be flexible.

I never said that either. There is a difference between realism and "better service". I used VRC myself for oceanic in the past, so I am well aware of how you work using VRC and pen and paper, but that has nothing to do with providing better or worse service.

[Joshua Black]

So, you're accusing all OCA controllers who use VRC of cheating?

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I just state the fact, that VRC is not capable of displaying less than the real radar position with the callsign. And by the way, during my Oceanic training, the instructor used the term "cheating" himself, so cool down and don't bully me around, just because you don't agree with what I say.

 

Actually, I, as well as many other people from Gander OCA will use the filters feature of VRC. Using filters, if configured properly, will not show aircraft callsigns OR targets. I do that, and that is how I teach my students. Sure, I tell them that they can "cheat" for the first time signing on so it's a bit easier, but once I clear them to control on their own, I tell them to use filters if possible. Besides, most of the time we're looking at spreadsheets, not VRC. (Unless I'm checking PM's and what not)

 

EDIT: And if I may add... there isn't really a right and wrong way of filing a route/NAT. If you wish to file PIKIL NATA YDP that's fine. If you wish to file PIKIL 57/20 58/30 58/40 58/50 PRAWN YDP that is also OK. Controllers shouldn't care how it's filed as long as it's filed. They both mean the same thing. If one wants it filed like

 

PIKIL 57/20 58/30 58/40 58/50 PRAWN YDP

 

just because it can be plotted on their scope, then IMO they aren't a true flight service specialist as they aren't SUPPOSED to have radar. The pilots can file it how THEY want it filed. It is perfectly OK however to use radar if you feel like you need to use one. But the one thing that makes this position so much different than any other is because of it's non-radar environment making it one of a kind.

[Stephan Boerner 945550]

just because it can be plotted on their scope, then IMO they aren't a true flight service specialist as they aren't SUPPOSED to have radar. File it how YOU want to file it. It is perfectly OK however to use radar if you feel like you need to use one. But the one thing that makes this position so much different than any other is because of it's non-radar environment making it one of a kind.

Well ... using ES in pro mode, you don't have radar. You just have (in principle, not yet completely accurately modeled) the same system that the real life oceanic controllers are using, which is not pen and paper but a system that does display the radar screen based on the estimates the pilots report. Just to give you an impression about flight service specialists ...

 

Just because we all originally learned that when using VRC we can filter (with a filter you can never completely filter out the radar response, you always have the dot) out the screen and then can "realistically" work pen and paper does not mean that is actually realistic.

 

But it is very interesting, how a hint about how a flightplan is p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]d is picked up to justify the own way of controlling. The question would be why? You don't have to convince me, that your using VRC is somehow accurate, not cheating or what so ever. I don't care how you do your oceanic controlling. But why do you care, if a pilot would file his flightplans in a way that would actually be ES compatible and could therefore save an ES controller some work? That would not harm you in any way, would it?

[Joshua Black]

Just because we all originally learned that when using VRC we can filter (with a filter you can never completely filter out the radar response, you always have the dot) out the screen and then can "realistically" work pen and paper does not mean that is actually realistic.

 

No. If you have it set up correctly, even the dot will not show up. Trust me, I JUST tried.

 

Considering I'm writing form my iphone, I will respond to this a bit in detail later.

[Anthony Lawrence]

Trust me, I JUST tried.

 

Considering I'm writing form my iphone

 

Do we have a VRC App available?

 

Regs,

A...

[Joshua Black]

Trust me, I JUST tried.

 

Considering I'm writing form my iphone

 

Do we have a VRC App available?

 

Regs,

A...

 

If only there was

 

I meant just prior to posting my first post. I left right after destined for Montana's for dinner!!! And apologies for leading this topic off track. It might just be better to close this topic and start a new one. We'll see...

[Gunnar Lindahl]

To be honest, I have never operated Oceanic without a radar on VATSIM. There are too many new pilots who will not call you and who need [Mod - Happy Thoughts]istance; if you can't see them you can't help them. Obviously I never use the radar for anything other than checking that everyone who should be with me, is.

 

During CTP, I would never dream of going non-radar. Although we are getting better, we still have the bottleneck at Oceanic Delivery meaning that some aircraft slip through the net and enter the track w/o clearance (through no fault of their own). I, as the track controller, then need to pick them up and I can't do that if I don't know they're there. Again, that's the only thing I use the radar for.

 

Just my $0.02.

[James O Grady 904153]

VRC is not capable of non radar, so using VRC you can only cheat. EuroScope is different, because EuroScope is capable of simulating a real non radar environment, but to do that, it needs to know the complete flightplan including the NAT track. Otherwise the flightpath can not be calculated accurately. So whoever wants to do real oceanic instead of just pretending to, should not use VRC

 

It might be capable of simulating non-radar, but it doesn't have the interface or anything close to it that the real Shanwick radio operators have, so how you can claim that ES is any more realistic than VRC? The best program I've come across by far is VAToceanic, which has a similar interface to the one used by real Shanwick radio operators. It utilises VRC, but I'm sure if the developer decided to finish the program and code it further, he could adapt it to utilise EuroScope also. But its irrelevant really what client you use because the only thing you use the client for when using VATOceanic is to communicate with pilots and to have a reference of their position. So given the choice between an ES oceanic plugin, and VAToceanic, I'd take VAToceanic any day. But granted, an ES oceanic plugin would obviously be a step-up from VRC on it's own.

[Colm Fitzgerald 1037650]

Then you have the people who file NATB and the NATB they are using is quite old, and much confusion is aroused. Personally I prefer if the entire NAT is in the flightplan itself.

[Joshua Black]

Then you have the people who file NATB and the NATB they are using is quite old, and much confusion is aroused. Personally I prefer if the entire NAT is in the flightplan itself.

 

That's why you verify that they have the correct TMI when you issue the clearance. If they have anything BUT the current TMI, get them to read out their planned route and amend their flight plan accordingly. (Just from my personal experience.)

[James O Grady 904153]

Then you have the people who file NATB and the NATB they are using is quite old, and much confusion is aroused. Personally I prefer if the entire NAT is in the flightplan itself.

 

That's why you verify that they have the correct TMI when you issue the clearance. If they have anything BUT the current TMI, get them to read out their planned route and amend their flight plan accordingly. (Just from my personal experience.)

 

Same, but I wouldn't get them to ammend their flightplan(too much h[Mod - Happy Thoughts]le), I just issue their clearence as a random routing if they're using an old NAT.

[Joshua Black]

Then you have the people who file NATB and the NATB they are using is quite old, and much confusion is aroused. Personally I prefer if the entire NAT is in the flightplan itself.

 

That's why you verify that they have the correct TMI when you issue the clearance. If they have anything BUT the current TMI, get them to read out their planned route and amend their flight plan accordingly. (Just from my personal experience.)

 

Same, but I wouldn't get them to ammend their flightplan(too much h[Mod - Happy Thoughts]le), I just issue their clearence as a random routing if they're using an old NAT.

 

I mean me amending their flight plan to match what they have programmed in their FMS or GPS or whatever they're using. So if they have an old NATB, I remove it from their flight plan and insert each way point manually.