UK Upper Sectors......

[Johan Grauers]

Ben (et all)

VATSPY & Servinfo – how many pilots use thie to find out who to call….. it needs to be updated to show the sectors accurately!!!!!

Tis a mute point (from a mute here), Vatspy will show accurate areas within the UK (EGTT) FIR if they are so written but Servinfo is dead in the water for pilots with regard to this as the FIRs are hard-coded in the program and cannot be further split for subsectors.

 

Ill crawl away again back under my stone and leave you blokes to thrash the rest out

Servinfo (and vatspy for that matter) is NOT hardcoded and FIRs can be updated. The new servinfo file will in Sweden now display our south AOR (ESMM), right now it only displays all of Sweden as one big sector.

 

So it's definitly doable, it's just a question of editing the right files (which can be a mess but it's possible).

[Martin Bergin 931070]

Ben (et all)

So it's definitly doable, it's just a question of editing the right files (which can be a mess but it's possible).

 

It is doable, the only issue would be somebody logged in as EGTT_CTR - unless a station is a UIR then it cannot own more than one FIR, so would not show up as owning all N, W, C or S sectors. A similiar problem would arise with S banboxing C - this wold not show up correctly either.

[Dave James 1018738]

.

Edited February 20, 2011 at 04:59 PM by Guest

[Johan Grauers]

Ben (et all)

So it's definitly doable, it's just a question of editing the right files (which can be a mess but it's possible).

 

It is doable, the only issue would be somebody logged in as EGTT_CTR - unless a station is a UIR then it cannot own more than one FIR, so would not show up as owning all N, W, C or S sectors. A similiar problem would arise with S banboxing C - this wold not show up correctly either.

 

Unless you tweak it by coding 4 FIRs and then one big FIR covering all of them, once again using Sweden.

 

All of Sweden is designated as ESAA fir. We don't have a position called ESAA control but anytime ESOS control signs on the automaticly is given all of ESAA fir.

 

In the south of ESAA we have ESMM fir, it is coded as a separate FIR. So when ESMM signs on they are given that FIR but not all of ESAA.

 

So what you could do is keep the current EGTT fir, then you program 4 subsectors, one for W, S, C and N respectivly. Then the subsectors get their own fir, and when EGTT signs on it gets the current EGTT fir.

 

It takes a lot of lines in the files, but it is a workaround

[Martin Bergin 931070]

While workable the one real issue is that only one FIR can own an airport - not a huge issue unles the large sector logs on.

[Martin Bergin 931070]

While workable the one real issue is that only one FIR can own an airport - not a huge issue unles the large sector logs on.

[Johan Grauers]

Now you lost me, can you elaborate "own an airport"?

[Michael Pike]

None of the sub sectors would log on while EGTT_CTR was on. So that's not a problem. I agree we need a map that shows the coverage accurately if that is possible. The sectors are under trial at the moment so I guess it won't happen until after they've been finalised.

[Dave James 1018738]

.

Edited February 20, 2011 at 04:59 PM by Guest

[Michael Pike]

OK. But Ben's suggestion included new sector names. Johan held out the prospect of a solution to this age-old problem. Maybe we need to think about designing sector login names in the context of what can be done with existing mapping facilities.

[Ben Sargeaunt-Thomson 8348]

Hello guys,

 

To answer a few points….

 

The setup I proposed kept the upper only system, but allowed the top down setup as well. This seems to be what people are so keen to have included…… although as Michael H, Nayan Mehta and others have pointed out, you then end up with an overloaded frequency, and pilots waiting for ages to get clearances etc. You see the point is that a lot of us have controlled top down, and to be honest do not really want it to be included again. However the younger generation appear to want this to return, as they probably think it makes them a better controller. It doesn’t. The aim is to provide a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic….. not see how many planes you can have on the frequency in an attempt to over load yourself. If you are saying that the existing setup is not fun, then enroute control is not for you! Also the point raised repeatedly that on Stats in late 2008 there was little traffic so we need to change…..to me holds no weight at all, especially given the traffic I have experienced in recent weeks.

 

So that’s the way its going….. with this multiple setup. You will have combined sectors, and then try for events to split, it gets confusing for adjacent sectors as they are not sure who’s covering what depending on the bandboxing…. Etc….

Also as I have said many a time, positions used “only” for events do not work. As an example again I point you to LL_S….. and the coordination needed to do the APP correctly. It was clear from the Openskies, that members did not have the skills required to operate in this split configuration.

As I have said before, and I feel like I keep on repeating myself…. This setup has been used before, and did not work!!!!! So why do you continue to push for a system that has a proven track record to fail?????

 

The loss of the London TMA, which I now see is being pushed for, and a floating Clacton sector that C or S controls depending on traffic flows…….Are to be frank, some of the craziest and ridiculous idea I have seen banded around. You want to split like the real world, into real sectors – then let me ask you this, why do THEY split vertically…… well because it’s the best way to do it. Look at Maastricht for example, providing a service in northern Europe above FL245…they have a vertical split above FL245 into upper and lower sectors. You can also pick out the London examples.

 

GRP. I have now read this docomeent. I guess whoever came up with it was an administrator, rather than a user…… but anyway. The setup I proposed does not fall foul of GRP. The sector can be designated a “special” or whatever it is… like the Euro sectors. The lack of intermediate approach may still exist, but I would argue grandfather rights.

 

Training, Gunnar I think raised the issue that students under GRP have to be competent or not to get there C1. They can not be allowed on Upper sectors without it. Well on reading the GRP……interesting docomeent, it appears that the division is already in breach of GRP, and every C1 rating that has been issued since its introduction has not met the GRP requirements of being competent in enoute procedural control……. that is to name 1 of at least 4 points I found that a C1 should be competent in to get the rating! So compliance with GRP I don’t think would be too much of a problem.

 

Anyway, I tried to find a solution that compromised the need that people perceived to have the High level sectors cover top down again. It appears that the powers in charge appear to be close minded on this discussion, and will push on regardless…..

 

I hope at least that the issues raised regarding VATSPY and Servinfo….plus the need for graphical LoAs are taken on board….

 

Kind regards,

 

Ben

[Dave James 1018738]

.

Edited February 20, 2011 at 04:59 PM by Guest

[Dave James 1018738]

.