Euro Control and SELCAL

[nayan mehta]

Hello All,

 

I recently was flying through Euro control east and just wonder is possible for an aircraft to use SEL CAL on any Euro Control position?

 

Many Thanks Nayan Mehta

[David Saunders 818672]

i do all the time as in theory this is no more than a FSS stations and saves your ears from useless speak, so get a selcal check and hey presto sit back and relax those ears

[Pedro Diogo 985361]

Hi Neyan,

 

Whilst it is technologically possible for every controller on VATSIM to use SELCAL, the EuroCenter vACC ("Eurocontrol") provides radar services, and IS a radar position. The historical reason we use FSS suffixes is simply to extend our radio range so we can cover as many areas as possible. Being with EURM_CTR, for example, is the same a being with EBBU_U_CTR, for example.

 

If you want to be away from the flight deck for any length of time up to thirty minutes, please speak to the controller and I'm sure he/she will agree to it; what you have to bear in mind is that when we're providing radar services (to sometimes 40+ pilots) we may need to call you at short-notice to vector, climb or descend you.

 

Hope this helps. Should you need any further [Mod - Happy Thoughts]istance please let me know.

[David Saunders 818672]

Maybe not routing everything from border to border and against opposite airway directions then this may not happen for you to give such short notice instructions,

 

Just an oberservation whilst flying through 99% of EUR* sectors.

[nayan mehta]

Hello,

 

Thanks for your help all! understood now

 

Many Thanks Nayan Mehta

[Johan Grauers]

Maybe not routing everything from border to border and against opposite airway directions then this may not happen for you to give such short notice instructions,

 

Just an oberservation whilst flying through 99% of EUR* sectors.

Note that I'm not a eurocenter controller. But if you can't give directs and shortcuts (and plan ahead to avoid conflicts), then what's the fun of ACC? At least I try to give everyone a shortcut if I can, sure it sometimes means I have to throw in an extra vector or two but that's part of the fun

 

Just my thoughts

[David Saunders 818672]

But if you can't give directs and shortcuts (and plan ahead to avoid conflicts)

 

Just my thoughts

 

 

This doesnt happen

[Johan Grauers]

Which one of them, or perhaps i's just that both doesn't happen at once that's the problem?

[Daniel Eamon Brennan]

But if you can't give directs and shortcuts (and plan ahead to avoid conflicts)

 

Just my thoughts

 

 

This doesnt happen

 

Or then again, just unsubstantiated drivel as per: "Just an oberservation whilst flying through 99% of EUR* sectors."

 

How about some of my unsubstantiated drivel: what about all the conflicts and technical losses of separation in the London area? 96.28% of which caused by controllers not giving directs.

 

Perhaps you would want to write to the IAA and Portuguese aviation authority who also employ "free routing" and, border-to-border directs with your concerns?

 

Then again, this is the omniscient and, omnipresent being who oversees every single EUC vACC controller during every EUC sector session to obtain such statistical data.

So there's never any conflicts or, tactical routings for safe and expeditious flow of traffic in the real-world?

[Peter Ingerslev Nielsen]

Relax all, pls..

 

A simple question was asked by a member.. no need to go into a debate..

 

And just for info Euro Control positions can give as many directs as they want to or feel the need to at any time.

[Michael Benson]

Perhaps you would want to write to the IAA and Portuguese aviation authority who also employ "free routing" and, border-to-border directs with your concerns?

 

Not really relevent to the point Dave is making. Border to Border directs within a single states airspace is very different to giving directs of 1000miles plus over several states airspaces. It becomes even less relevent when you are unable to co-ordinate these directs with relevent units who may only come online well after the time the direct has been given.

 

It's also interesting that Eurocontrol (the real one) is currently doing a lot of research into adherence to filed plans Vs random directs.

 

So there's never any conflicts or, tactical routings for safe and expeditious flow of traffic in the real-world?

 

It's different giving a direct for expedition when the route has been checked, co-ordinated with relevent units, etc; Vs clearing everything direct the last waypoint in your airspace and then having to take further action to resolve a conflict that has been made.

[Daniel Eamon Brennan]

Perhaps you would want to write to the IAA and Portuguese aviation authority who also employ "free routing" and, border-to-border directs with your concerns?

 

Not really relevent to the point Dave is making. Border to Border directs within a single states airspace is very different to giving directs of 1000miles plus over several states airspaces. It becomes even less relevent when you are unable to co-ordinate these directs with relevent units who may only come online well after the time the direct has been given.

 

It's also interesting that Eurocontrol (the real one) is currently doing a lot of research into adherence to filed plans Vs random directs.

 

So there's never any conflicts or, tactical routings for safe and expeditious flow of traffic in the real-world?

 

It's different giving a direct for expedition when the route has been checked, co-ordinated with relevent units, etc; Vs clearing everything direct the last waypoint in your airspace and then having to take further action to resolve a conflict that has been made.

 

 

So what I think you're saying is: no-one should give directs if the next (supposed) unit is offline? Is that correct? If that's the case, then in the VATSIM context, that's just ridiculous.

[David Saunders 818672]

What we are saying Danial is EUR* covers multiple FIR's - Agreed

 

therefore giving a direct from EUR* boundary to the other end when in fact they may cover 3 or 4 FIRS or even more and those FIR may appear is incorrect,, I dont have a problem with giving directs this moves traffic agreed, but give from one FIR boundary to the other side and if necessary from there boundary to the other side that way at least you are working those upper FIR's as if they were there as everybody keeps telling us you are there to cover if they are not there so control there airspace and there traffic, and if those FIRs come online it must be easier to handoff as expected rather than try to then coordinate etc,

[Daniel Eamon Brennan]

What we are saying Danial is EUR* covers multiple FIR's - Agreed

 

therefore giving a direct from EUR* boundary to the other end when in fact they may cover 3 or 4 FIRS or even more and those FIR may appear is incorrect,, I dont have a problem with giving directs this moves traffic agreed, but give from one FIR boundary to the other side and if necessary from there boundary to the other side that way at least you are working those upper FIR's as if they were there as everybody keeps telling us you are there to cover if they are not there so control there airspace and there traffic, and if those FIRs come online it must be easier to handoff as expected rather than try to then coordinate etc,

 

I see, now I'd be prepared to agree: as I too disagree with say, EURW picking up a tag by the North East of Italy and then clearing it dct. to SITET for example.