ARTCC Consolidation

[Logan Gloss-Ivory 812647]

I've heard VATUSA is planning on combining the ARTCCs into five facilities.

 

What's the deal with that?

 

Is this where we're going:

[Christopher Mauro]

wut.

[Daniel Hawton]

Horrible idea.

 

I see the EuroCenter idea working because Europe has a number of small FIRs with little to zero controllers [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned (Slovenia comes to mind). So EuroCenter works out. In the US, it doesn't make sense. Beside Guam, we have no [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned areas that regularly lack coverage.

 

HORRIBLE idea.

 

In VATUSA, pilots already have a hard enough time figuring out who to call.. now add in an unrealistic, uncharted ATC position and our pilots are going to go bonkers. At least if they see ZLA as the airspace they are in, they know to look for LAX_CTR. But "West Coast Center"??? Totally unrealistic, very arcade-ish. I really hope this "idea" doesn't actually happen.

[Matthew Spencer]

I had heard rumblings about it, but hoped it was just another bad rumor.

What's the deal with this? Why now?

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

are you talking about the super center idea? they arent merging ARTCC's, just enroute airspace, least thats where the idea was when i last saw it

 

the idea is to provide constant enroute service. look at the online map now, you'll see whole swabs of closed/uncontrolled centers. the aim was to have more services available. obviously they wont be giving much/if any service to the folks on the ground below them

Edited March 1, 2012 at 03:47 AM by Guest

[Andrew Wolcott 814793]

...they arent merging ARTCC's, just enroute airspace...

 

Erm, what is the difference?

[Matthew Spencer]

are you talking about the super center idea? they arent merging ARTCC's, just enroute airspace, least thats where the idea was when i last saw it

But a super center is a terrible idea as well. I wouldn't want to work ZFW and ZHU, with all those arrival procedures, without knowing what I'm doing. Enroute is a whole lot more than "Roger, climb and maintain FL***," "Leaving my airspace," as anyone who has worked an enroute position of course knows.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

center = enroute

 

nothing else

[Kyle Rodgers 910155]

I like how they're all referred to as centers, properly, except N90, which is a TRACON. Good job on that fail.

 

And no. Stupid idea.

[Matthew Spencer]

center = enroute

 

nothing else

Right, but you understand that enroute is more than just talking to airplanes, right?

Edited March 1, 2012 at 03:54 AM by Guest

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

But a super center is a terrible idea as well. I wouldn't want to work ZFW and ZHU, with all those arrival procedures, without knowing what I'm doing. Enroute is a whole lot more than "Roger, climb and maintain FL***," "Leaving my airspace," as anyone who has worked an enroute position of course knows.

 

yep last i remember people will have to get an extra certification to control the super center, its not going to be there for just anyone to jump on without knowing how to handle it

 

center = enroute

 

nothing else

 

Right, but you understand that enroute is more than just talking to airplanes, right?

 

i sure hope so, otherwise i've been wasting way too much of my time on here

[Matthew Spencer]

But a super center is a terrible idea as well. I wouldn't want to work ZFW and ZHU, with all those arrival procedures, without knowing what I'm doing. Enroute is a whole lot more than "Roger, climb and maintain FL***," "Leaving my airspace," as anyone who has worked an enroute position of course knows.

 

yep last i remember people will have to get an extra certification to control the super center, its not going to be there for just anyone to jump on without knowing how to handle it

 

center = enroute

 

nothing else

 

Right, but you understand that enroute is more than just talking to airplanes, right?

 

i sure hope so, otherwise i've been wasting way too much of my time on here

It still seems like an absolutely horrible idea though.

Even if you just make it high side, high side enroute still has to set somewhat of a sequence for the low side, and they still have to understand and apply good practices and understanding of procedures into all of their overlying airports.

And if you take that part of it out, then what's the point? Just so pilots have a person to talk to? We already have an epidemic of people who disappear from the frequency after six minutes of transmissions that don't concern them, what will happen when they're on the same frequency talking to "Midwest Center" for 1500 miles?

And I pale to think what the certification process will be, versus what it should be, considering the amount of traffic the position will handle and the number of STARs and potential trouble areas it will encomp[Mod - Happy Thoughts].

[Nate Johns]

High altitude controlling in VATUSA (and I am explicitly qualifying this for VATUSA) is fundamentally boring, except for high profile events where alleviating frequency congestion and providing solid in-trail spacing is paramount.

 

Low altitude is where departure clearances, approach clearances, terrain, towers, runways are... all the "meaty" stuff. Where the work really happens.

 

And as for center = enroute "nothing else," I guess the tens of thousands of airports to which ARTCCs alone provide approach control service don't count for anything.

 

The people that have cooked up the mega center idea want large swaths of airspace to babysit overnight to feel like kings of their virtual airspace. It will not enhance the quality of control, only create an illusion that more airspace is controlled than actually is.

 

It's all to create an illusion, and will simply not enhance a pilot's experience on the network in a meaningful way.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

And as for center = enroute "nothing else," I guess the tens of thousands of airports to which ARTCCs alone provide approach control service don't count for anything.

 

im aware of that bud, i was clarifying what the centers would be covering in our case, enroute only, nothing else.

 

spec's wise. ive not seen anything yet as to what altitudes they'd cover or how the LOA's will work with the ARTCC's themselves, im [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming there will be LOA's involved. we had this between Havana and Kingston, where Kingston would cover the enroute traffic over Havana when they were offline.

 

this actually works in other areas very well, not sure why we seem to think VATUSA is anything special, other then the large swafts of airspace instead of the tiny airspace's found in europe.

[Andrew Wolcott 814793]

And as for center = enroute "nothing else," I guess the tens of thousands of airports to which ARTCCs alone provide approach control service don't count for anything.

 

im aware of that bud, i was clarifying what the centers would be covering in our case, enroute only, nothing else.

 

spec's wise. ive not seen anything yet as to what altitudes they'd cover or how the LOA's will work with the ARTCC's themselves, im [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming there will be LOA's involved. we had this between Havana and Kingston, where Kingston would cover the enroute traffic over Havana when they were offline.

 

this actually works in other areas very well, not sure why we seem to think VATUSA is anything special, other then the large swafts of airspace instead of the tiny airspace's found in europe.

 

Simple reason not to do this:

 

FAA does not do it.

As found in the Preamble to the VATSIM CoC: "One of the main goals of VATSIM is to create an environment which is fun and, at the same time, educational and a realistic simulation of procedures followed by pilots and air traffic controllers everyday around the world."

 

Emphasis mine. It works in VATEU because it mirrors real world procedures (EuroControl).

 

Do NOT apply ICAO or other standards just because it works somewhere else. We do things in VATUSA the way the FAA does them. THAT is what we simulate.

[John Muenster 1149119]

In the infamous words of Airplane, "Surely, you can't be serious?"

 

If this is serious its a sad, sad day...

Edited March 1, 2012 at 04:25 AM by Guest

[Andrew Wolcott 814793]

In the infamous words of Airplane, "Surely, you can't be serious."

 

If this is serious its a sad, sad day...

 

No comment...

 

Because I agree.

[Nate Johns]

A founder wants this, so, yes, it is serious.

[Daniel Hawton]

And it'll be the day many walk away from VATSIM as it moves yet further away from simulation and closer to arcade.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

Simple reason not to do this:

 

FAA does not do it.

As found in the Preamble to the VATSIM CoC: "One of the main goals of VATSIM is to create an environment which is fun and, at the same time, educational and a realistic simulation of procedures followed by pilots and air traffic controllers everyday around the world."

 

Emphasis mine. It works in VATEU because it mirrors real world procedures (EuroControl).

 

Do NOT apply ICAO or other standards just because it works somewhere else. We do things in VATUSA the way the FAA does them. THAT is what we simulate.

 

im not sure whether to laugh or if you really are serious? and i mean that in a very respectful way. i can think of plenty of things not done in the real world that we've had to adapt in our virtual. oh wait, here's the top one, the popular "contact me's"

 

this is just another example of adapting to our virtual environment. theres plenty of useless dribble (erm sorry "realism") regarding procedures to program (woops did it again, "teach") controllers

 

either way, doesnt matter what you or I think about it if you dont voice it to the folks that actually matter.

[Daniel Hawton]

Simple reason not to do this:

 

FAA does not do it.

As found in the Preamble to the VATSIM CoC: "One of the main goals of VATSIM is to create an environment which is fun and, at the same time, educational and a realistic simulation of procedures followed by pilots and air traffic controllers everyday around the world."

 

Emphasis mine. It works in VATEU because it mirrors real world procedures (EuroControl).

 

Do NOT apply ICAO or other standards just because it works somewhere else. We do things in VATUSA the way the FAA does them. THAT is what we simulate.

 

im not sure whether to laugh or if you really are serious? i can think of plenty of things not done in the real world that we've had to adapt in our virtual. oh wait, here's the top one, the popular "contact me's"

 

this is just another example of adapting to our virtual environment. theres plenty of useless dribble (erm sorry "realism") regarding procedures to program (woops did it again, "teach") controllers

 

either way, doesnt matter what you or I think about it if you dont voice it to the folks that actually matter.

 

Contact mes aren't required. They're an optional tool. We aren't here to teach pilots how to fly as has been stated numerous times by numerous supervisors and above. So I am within my right to .wallop, and let the supervisor educate the pilot on how to look for ATC. Top down, well, if you're really busy then treat it as uncontrolled airspace. You'll be radar only. From the sounds of it, you're taking your bad experiences and blanketing them across all of VATUSA, supporting the turning of VATSIM into an arcade game. EDIT: And we were trained in our home ARTCCs. If anything, we know the procedures better than anyone else... even if someone gets on a megaCenter, they are never going to learn all of ZFWs, ZHUs, ZTLs, ZJXs and ZMAs procedures.

 

The use of these "mega" Centers is not going to be advantageous in any form. Pilots in the US are very different creatures than they are in Europe. In Europe, you put a pilot on a SID and 9 times out of 10, they execute it to the T. Initial altitudes are adhered to. Etc. And the SIDs are more complex there than they are here. Here, pilots get to choose their SIDs and then can't adhere to them. If pilots can't even fly what they file, this will confuse the heck out of them.

 

These mega Centers are going to be useless. EuroCenter works for Europe because many FIRs/VACCs have little to zero coverage. We don't have that issue here in the US. It's not going to be beneficial. If anything, it's going to drive MORE people from VATUSA. And as everyone knows, the people who really care about simulation are already walking away because of how much of an arcade game this is turning in to. Turn ZHU, ZFW, ZJX, ZTL and ZMA into one giant "Dixie Center" and I guarantee you're going to have a good number of people just completely give up on this "arcade game" and move off to either other networks or give up on aviation completely.

 

This is turning a great simulation hobby into an arcade game. I refuse to support it and I am crossing my fingers that this doesn't ever materialize.

[Gavin Bernard 1026637]

I can see what the end result is targeted towards, but I do not think the execution will live up to that goal. Personally I think it is a rather silly idea and will lead to much more confusion than already exists. It will also take forever to implement, such as the training system VATUSA is also working on. I don't see either of them taking off into anything productive. Sometimes combining things doesn't work well....

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

From the sounds of it, you're taking your bad experiences and blanketing them across all of VATUSA, supporting the turning of VATSIM into an arcade game.

 

what bad experiences? thats called reading more into it then needed, not good. i dont support turning this into an arcade game, if thats how you look at it, you are entitled to that position. but not what i support at all. what i dont support as well is the blind application of real world procedures without accounting for our own levels.

[John Muenster 1149119]

im not sure whether to laugh or if you really are serious? and i mean that in a very respectful way. i can think of plenty of things not done in the real world that we've had to adapt in our virtual. oh wait, here's the top one, the popular "contact me's"

 

this is just another example of adapting to our virtual environment. theres plenty of useless dribble (erm sorry "realism") regarding procedures to program (woops did it again, "teach") controllers

 

either way, doesnt matter what you or I think about it if you dont voice it to the folks that actually matter.

 

I believe a lot of us here are serious, as am I. For everyone who points out things we do that aren't realistic (contact me's, etc.) those are technical limitations of the network, consolidating ARTCC's is NOT a compromise that makes our network less realistic due to technological limitations, that much I know. Why this would even be proposed, well that stumps me.

[Daniel Hawton]

From the sounds of it, you're taking your bad experiences and blanketing them across all of VATUSA, supporting the turning of VATSIM into an arcade game.

 

what bad experiences? thats called reading more into it then needed, not good. i dont support turning this into an arcade game, if thats how you look at it, you are entitled to that position. but not what i support at all. what i dont support as well is the blind application of real world procedures without accounting for our own levels.

 

I've read a numerous number of your posts. And overall, that's the general consensus I have come up with from reading your posts.

 

It's not blind application of real world procedures to leave the ARTCCs alone. There is absolutely no reason to combine these sectors. Pilots are already confused enough. Now add a layer of arcade on top and pilots are going to be completely lost. As evident in not even an hour of this posting the number of negative posts about it. From what I've heard (I didn't want to be first to post this on the VATSIM forums), with the exception of 1 or 2 ARTCCs /NO/ ARTCC is supporting this in VATUSA. There are 22 ARTCCs, that means 20 are overall against.

 

There has to be some line where VATSIM says "Oh, the members don't want this so maybe this really isn't a good idea." But I could be wrong.