Jump to content

ARTCC Consolidation


Recommended Posts

i can think of plenty of things not done in the real world that we've had to adapt in our virtual.

How do we (the community) have to adapt this? I cannot see it.

 

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

Funny, I don't see them (i.e. the folks that actually matter) voicing an open forum to the community about a substantial change...I just see, how did you put it:

 

plenty of useless dribble

It's unnecessary.

Logan Gloss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 356
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

 

Surprise, surprise...

 

Good thing the Grade-A meat of the division has been so well informed of the plans well before it becomes an official policy huh? No reason to get feedback from any of them or anything.

 

Ernesto, You appear to be in support of the apathy that is destroying VATUSA: Complacency instead of education. And on top of that, no visible leadership or communication to help standardize any of it. This is just another step in a very poor direction on a multitude of levels...

Andrew James Doubleday | Twitch Stream: Ground_Point_Niner

University of North Dakota | FAA Air Traffic Collegiate Training Initiative (AT-CTI) GraduateGPN_Horizontal_-_Tertiary.thumb.png.9d7edc4d985ab7ed1dc60b92a5dfa85c.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard it was a high sector, like Eurocontrol sectors, controlling FL240 or above. But hmm...

 

But, where does the madness end? It will probably end up across the remainder of the division before you know it...

Andrew James Doubleday | Twitch Stream: Ground_Point_Niner

University of North Dakota | FAA Air Traffic Collegiate Training Initiative (AT-CTI) GraduateGPN_Horizontal_-_Tertiary.thumb.png.9d7edc4d985ab7ed1dc60b92a5dfa85c.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it ironic, We come up with vSTARS based at realism at the TRACON level and yeah, let's make this more realistic, and then the next thing I here, Let's combine En-route airspace.... What's wrong with this picture?

 

Heh, Maybe it's time I hang up my boots and leave. Before this gets messy.

 

Here's something to chew on, If this goes through, the people you drive away will be the more experienced people here, the people you drive away will more likely be the guys who have spent a long time exacting their craft here on VATSIM, and some of those exacted it in the RW as well. What will eventually happen is that the quality of training will decline as these members leave in search of something more realistic, or just pack it in all together.

 

Do you want that?

 

Cheers!

Rahul

Edited by Guest

Rahul Parkar

"On second thoughts Nappa, catch it, catch it with your teeth" -- Vegeta

Professional Nerd. (Professionally not professional)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

It works in VATEUD because there are often gaps in staffing, not because it's done in real world. In real world, Eurocontrol does not cover all of Europe.

 

There are no "supersectors" in the Middle East, South East Asia or Australia, yet they have been implemented in VATSIM because there aren't enough controllers.

 

For you to say "do NOT apply ICAO or other standards" and say that you want to do things the "FAA"-way is contradictory. Last time I checked, the ICAO is a UN organisation of which the US/FAA is a key player. If you don't want to go ICAO, you have to let go of the alphabet airspace cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ification, separation standards, phraseology and more that you use today. Believe it or not, the US is very compliant with ICAO standards. Did you know that the UK has 5 wake turbulence categories, whereas the US uses the ICAO ones with minor variations? Did you know that the US uses more cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]es of airspace than most countries? Some countries specify approach clearances with approach type rather than chart title as recommended by PANS-ATM.

 

Blasting the ICAO as something foreign and invasive only makes you seem bigoted, immature and with a complete lack of sense of the global scale of aviation.

David Zhong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for realism too. But is there ever a time when coverage might be more important than realism? Take a quick look at the network now...midnight PST. There are 3 ARTCCs currently staffed in VATUSA, and around 28 pilots online in the US. Three of those pilots are currently receiving ATC services.

 

Sure, those pilots could choose to fly in one of those 3 ARTCCs, but obviously they don't want to. They want to fly their current flights and routes for whatever reason, VA, personal preference, etc.

 

What would be so wrong with these 3 controllers providing services (even top-down services) to a larger coverage area...even the entire United States? Is it better for these pilots to get no ATC services for the sake of 100% FAA realism, or would we rather be providing ATC services to these folks?

 

I don't know yet what I think about having these super centers being open all day, or when things are busy, but after a certain point in the night, what difference does it make?

Bryan Wollenberg

ZLA!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this is basically just about volume, not quality? Both of these are problems. It seems to me the VATUSA quality problem should be addressed before the volume issue.

I thought we were working on the quality problem with the new training system, but that appears to be going in the direction of the least common denominator. It's sad to see the volume issue will be solved by combining m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive swathes of airspace and putting people on position who likely have no area knowledge, let alone local knowledge.

Regards,

 

Matthew Spencer (SP)

vZBW Training Administrator emeritus

1088911.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for realism too. But is there ever a time when coverage might be more important than realism? Take a quick look at the network now...midnight PST. There are 3 ARTCCs currently staffed in VATUSA, and around 28 pilots online in the US. Three of those pilots are currently receiving ATC services.

 

Sure, those pilots could choose to fly in one of those 3 ARTCCs, but obviously they don't want to. They want to fly their current flights and routes for whatever reason, VA, personal preference, etc.

 

What would be so wrong with these 3 controllers providing services (even top-down services) to a larger coverage area...even the entire United States? Is it better for these pilots to get no ATC services for the sake of 100% FAA realism, or would we rather be providing ATC services to these folks?

 

I don't know yet what I think about having these super centers being open all day, or when things are busy, but after a certain point in the night, what difference does it make?

 

 

But if the 3 controllers were on the super centers, then the pilots wouldn't be receiving full service. They'd descend below FL240 or whatever altitude then get handed off to unicom. Personally, I'd rather have the top down coverage at my destination than enroute along the way.

Steven Caffey (SY) ZLA Controller

"A mile of highway gets you one mile, but a mile of runway can take you anywhere."

1099774.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... Let's get something straight. One of the m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive problems I notice (as well as many others in this thread) that plagues the division right now is the lack of standardization between the 22 ARTCCs... They all do things differently, quality is vastly and, in some cases, noticeably different from one place to the next in many cases. You end up with places that think it's normal to vector an aircraft to a 20 mile downwind with zero planes ahead, places that can't even vector aircraft for certain types of approaches correctly, or any number of other phraseology problems that go unnoticed (mostly because the instructors there don't know any better or don't care)... Then you've got places that are highly standardized in training and very organized with a quality-oriented roster of controllers.

 

Here's some food for thought. Most of the guys that are responding and reading this thread are the ones that actually have great programs in place and a solid ARTCC in terms of standardization, organization and quality. Do you think any of these guys are going to be volunteering to work these new super centers? Outside of a very select few, probably none of them. Why? Because they all hate the idea for a multitude of reasons...

 

So now you're making this quality issue a bigger problem because management from the other lesser quality-oriented facilities will recommend and put up under qualified controllers onto these positions and will very likely provide a sub-par and fairly poor service to pilots. This in turn does nothing to resolve the poor pilot quality the division faces either (another issue that has taken far too long to address). Which in turn could be disastrous during events or other busy periods from a controller coordination standpoint (another issue facilities face already that isn't being addressed). It's degrading thinking about it all really... The problems aren't being addressed in the proper order at all. It's a**-backwards, frankly. Once again, this is a horrible idea for a multitude of reasons I've only just begun to touch upon...

Andrew James Doubleday | Twitch Stream: Ground_Point_Niner

University of North Dakota | FAA Air Traffic Collegiate Training Initiative (AT-CTI) GraduateGPN_Horizontal_-_Tertiary.thumb.png.9d7edc4d985ab7ed1dc60b92a5dfa85c.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if the 3 controllers were on the super centers, then the pilots wouldn't be receiving full service. They'd descend below FL240 or whatever altitude then get handed off to unicom. Personally, I'd rather have the top down coverage at my destination than enroute along the way.

 

There's nothing to say we can't allow them to provide top-down coverage, particularly at times of the night like I mention. It's just the current proposal that specifies FL240 and above. In fact, NOT providing top-down services, could possibly be in violation of the GRP, specifically 4.1.

 

I realize that adds a layer of complexity, but with the levels of traffic at these times of the night, how complex can it really be? I would love to be able to take a flight at midnight anywhere in the US, and receive full ATC coverage.

Bryan Wollenberg

ZLA!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I've read the thread and I think there are a few misconceptions appearing as to what perhaps as you call them, these super centres might do. Let us go to Eurocontrol and have a quick look as to whats its purpose is.

 

There are large areas of Europe that have very little control or perhaps they might just have twr and Appraoch on in a country and little above that, the UK is a different kettle of fish and I will come to that in a short while. So, little control above a certain level but a lot of pilots flying about. The concept of Eurocontrol was put together to at least offer those pilots a level of control at least and Eurocontrol only comes into effect above FL245, the Eurocontrol controllers do cover large areas but only as stated above fl245, when traffic goes below that FL then they are either handed to the appropriate controller or advised to go to Unicom.

 

The Uk for a long time resisted having a Eurocontrol Sector over the UK, (I can't remember what the objection was) so for a period of time we had the ludicrous situationw here traffic would be with eurocontrol reach our borders and be placed on Unicom, then once going past the UK going back to Eurocontrol. All rather silly if you ask me.

 

Anyway recently a trial took place regarding Eurocontrol Islands covering the UK and eventually the trial was fully adopted. I will freely admit that the objections some had where very much the same as your comments in the past posts, and yes some controllers moved on to other networks, because of the strentgh of feeling about Eurocontrol, but several months down the line and to be honest no one gives a a hoot and in the end pilots get a service and in my mind that is more imnportant than anything else.

 

There has been no degradation in standards and moreover Eurocntrol controllers don't extend there responsibilities downwards as some thought might happen. It has been a win win situation.

 

Anyway thats my perspective but I am only one member, so it is my personal view.

 

Just having read Andrews post Iw ill agree that if you have problems across the 22 ARTCC's then you have to get that sorted, but regards underqualified controllers being put up , the way to get past that is to ensure that the criteria for "siper sector" controllers is adhered to rigidly.

 

Wycliffe

Wycliffe Barrett: C3 Controller

atc5o.png

"if god meant for us to fly, he would have given us tickets" Mel Brooks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see where a super sector top down could be a good thing in the hands of controllers on top of their game and willing to learn/work with the local sops for the vast treks of airspace they would be running.

 

FL240 and above at least they've got a bit of coverage but get too much traffic going with a sub par controller and things could get nasty....same could be said for a single artcc center but at least with that there's hope for training staff to correct issues.

Richard Gerrish

Developer, STM Applications Group

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What this does, is make a mockery of all those controllers who put in so many hours of their lives to learn the intricacies of their air spaces. It invalidates the process. Especially if you let them provide Top Down... So Joe Shmo from Z Who Cares can work arrivals into DTW, MCI, ORD, MSP, IND, CVG, etc with Zero Training?

 

You better bet that would tick off plenty of people.

 

This adds zero complexity. It's just asinine.

 

As a pilot, I would love full service from takeoff to touchdown, but I want it from a competent controller who has been thoroughly trained on how to operate his airspace. Anyone who tells me that someone working a supercenter knows every minute detail about each airspace is lying. The quality will go into the toilet. I'd rather be on unicom than have Bubba sling me across the country.

 

It's becoming increasingly clear that VATSIM is not welcoming to those of us that want to Simulate Air Traffic Control. We are here to cater to every pilot's whim and be damned if we want to do anything that even touches on realistic. What a shame. The network that attracted MITRE. Now the zone, although they won't admit it.

You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

Forever and always "Just the events guy"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What this does, is make a mockery of all those controllers who put in so many hours of their lives to learn the intricacies of their air spaces. It invalidates the process. Especially if you let them provide Top Down... So Joe Shmo from Z Who Cares can work arrivals into DTW, MCI, ORD, MSP, IND, CVG, etc with Zero Training?

 

You better bet that would tick off plenty of people.

 

This adds zero complexity. It's just asinine.

 

As a pilot, I would love full service from takeoff to touchdown, but I want it from a competent controller who has been thoroughly trained on how to operate his airspace. Anyone who tells me that someone working a supercenter knows every minute detail about each airspace is lying. The quality will go into the toilet. I'd rather be on unicom than have Bubba sling me across the country.

 

It's becoming increasingly clear that VATSIM is not welcoming to those of us that want to Simulate Air Traffic Control. We are here to cater to every pilot's whim and be damned if we want to do anything that even touches on realistic. What a shame. The network that attracted MITRE. Now the zone, although they won't admit it.

 

I would hope that some training would be required if they went the top down route....if not i wouldn't be surprised if there was a m[Mod - Happy Thoughts] exodus to other hobbies ect. Do I think that they would just say go for it...nope not without a fight from vatna and usa i would hope. But FL240ish and abovea competant center controller should have little to no issues with that so long as they had a good list of hand off points for the various centers they would work beside.

Richard Gerrish

Developer, STM Applications Group

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What this does, is make a mockery of all those controllers who put in so many hours of their lives to learn the intricacies of their air spaces. It invalidates the process. Especially if you let them provide Top Down... So Joe Shmo from Z Who Cares can work arrivals into DTW, MCI, ORD, MSP, IND, CVG, etc with Zero Training?

 

Who said anything about zero training? Perhaps I missed that somewhere.

Bryan Wollenberg

ZLA!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any training program would be insufficient to provide quality control to the vast number of airports involved. To be able to provide the realistic experience most pilots look for, you might as well certify as a visitor at each ARTCC.

You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

Forever and always "Just the events guy"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be able to provide the realistic experience most pilots look for, you might as well certify as a visitor at each ARTCC.

 

Sounds good to me! I don't think that would be a terrible requirement at all. You want to have a 5-ARTCC supercenter, the endorsement requires VC status at all the ARTCCs. I don't have a problem with that.

Bryan Wollenberg

ZLA!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any training program would be insufficient to provide quality control to the vast number of airports involved. To be able to provide the realistic experience most pilots look for, you might as well certify as a visitor at each ARTCC.

 

that might what they would have to do if it was decided to go Top Down

 

But for a high enroute only....

 

drats BW beat me to it

Richard Gerrish

Developer, STM Applications Group

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What this does, is make a mockery of all those controllers who put in so many hours of their lives to learn the intricacies of their air spaces. It invalidates the process. Especially if you let them provide Top Down... So Joe Shmo from Z Who Cares can work arrivals into DTW, MCI, ORD, MSP, IND, CVG, etc with Zero Training?

 

 

It wouldn't be top down if my understanding of it is correct read my post of the explanation of Eurocontrol, which is only down to FL245 and then onto enroute and lower controllers, the practice is if there is no lower control below fl245 then pilots go to unicom.

 

Your creating demons and monsters where there are none.

 

Wycliffe

Wycliffe Barrett: C3 Controller

atc5o.png

"if god meant for us to fly, he would have given us tickets" Mel Brooks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...