ARTCC Consolidation

[Rahul Parkar]

E,

 

You mean this one?

 

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=51619&start=30

 

Read Stephen Faison's response, the combined TRACON is now no longer used on VATSIM (Or at least it shouldn't be according to the SOPs)

 

Cheers!

Rahul

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

thanks Rahul, thats a 2 year old post tho. not sure whats changed since then. its listed on the ZJX website as proposed so maybe its being done a s trial?

[Rahul Parkar]

When did you check the website and see it as proposed, I don't see it there?

 

Cheers!

Rahul

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

http://www.zjxartcc.com/?p=17

 

unless im looking at an old website (possible?)

[Rahul Parkar]

That SOP is for the Jacksonville ATCT (Tower and Approach) positions,

 

Also if you read it, there is no statement regarding Orlando or the control of Orlando when F11 is offline.

 

Cheers!

Rahul

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

no idea what the controller was talking about then regarding controlling orlando airspace, maybe he meant another place, no clue, maybe he didnt read it either or misunderstood it thats why i left it to Dan to clarify as i have not looked into any of that, just going by what the controller said

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

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.

 

Look at Europe at midnight UTC. How many of the FIRs are lit up EAST of the GMT line on a Wednesday night? None. It's hard to find a Europe VACC after midnight UTC (local all the way to +3), so that point is not even a reasonable one.

 

If pilots really wanted ATC, then it's common knowledge to fly during the more peak hours locally. Creating "mega Centers" is most definitely not the answer. The pilots that generally fly in VATUSA don't know that when they sit on the ground at SNA, for example, to call up LAX_APP for top down coverage or to even check to see is LAX_APP has combined with SNA SAN etc into a larger So Cal Departure/Approach.

 

How on earth can you justify this? There has been only 1 person in this entire thread that supported it beside you.

 

 

Huh?? What in the world does Europe have to do with any of this? My point is that we can expand coverage at time when coverage normally doesn't exist, and actually offer services to pilots. What's wrong with that? We shouldn't do it because it's not realistic? Oh my! That's terrible!

 

The only issue you guys are citing is realism. That's it. No, it's not realistic. Are there going to be issues with people not knowing who to call at first? Of course! It would take some getting used to. But so what?

 

 

There has been only 1 person in this entire thread that supported it beside you.

 

Perhaps the two people supporting the idea are actually looking at it objectively, and aren't concerned with running a mini-FAA 24/7. Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily support running things like this all day long. But what would be the issue with "combining up" after say 9PM local, when coverage starts to go away? Is it really as big a deal as you guys are making it?

 

So the problem is that there isn't enough people to provide adequate en-route services across VATUSA. Am I understanding that correctly?

 

If so, then wouldn't it seem logical to try to determine exactly why that is? Is it because lack of instructors? Lack of new students? Morale? Inefficiencies in the training process? When you really step back and look at it, what is the core issue(s) that we are dealing with here?

 

The issue is that in most places on VATSIM, it takes longer to get checked out to the center level, than it does being certified in the real world. It takes people years to get signed off, and by that point, most people have already gotten fed up and left.

[Kyle Rodgers 910155]

The only issue you guys are citing is realism. That's it. No, it's not realistic. Are there going to be issues with people not knowing who to call at first? Of course! It would take some getting used to. But so what?

 

Perhaps the two people supporting the idea are actually looking at it objectively, and aren't concerned with running a mini-FAA 24/7. Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily support running things like this all day long. But what would be the issue with "combining up" after say 9PM local, when coverage starts to go away? Is it really as big a deal as you guys are making it?

 

For what it's worth, I think I made a pretty objective post earlier, citing nothing FAA-wise, simply pros and cons related directly to VATSIM. Nowhere in there did I cite realism.

[Matthew Bartels]

The only issue you guys are citing is realism. That's it. No, it's not realistic.

 

If not protecting realism, then what is the mission of the network? As Andrew correctly pointed out earlier, VATSIM mission statement.

 

 

VATSIM is an online community created for enthusiasts of flight simulation and air traffic control. 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.To further these goals, members of VATSIM must comply with the following Code of Conduct. This Code sets forth how members are expected to conduct themselves

 

I highly doubt that any real world flight in the midwest at 2100 is talking to "Fligh[Mod - lovely stuff]ch" Above FL230.

 

While we're at it, if you are not simulating policies and procedures used in the real world, there is much less of an educational aspect to it. Many pilots and prospective controllers look to this network to get a head start or brush up on their real world procedures. If one were to turn this into m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive dot flinging, then this network has 0 value in teaching concepts that could be applied to the real world.

 

This is where the network will end up.... http://youtu.be/6TlNOwwQQJk

 

 

If the founders et al were to modify this mission statement, just come out and say we do not want to simulate policies and procedures used in the real world. Then I will know the exact direction the network is heading, and my decision to participate will be extremely easy to make.

Edited March 1, 2012 at 08:16 PM by Guest

[John Muenster 1149119]

For starters 9pm local time is in the middle of prime staffing hours, at least in most of the places I've ever seen. You might have better luck with that argument using 0100-1200 or something like that. Not a lot of connections during those hours.

 

My reasons for being anti super center do have a lot to do with realism, but there's other things as well, which many have pointed out and you either overlooked or chose to ignore. Controller quality, more stress on an already depleted training staff, and a big one in my eyes is the pilots. I personally would rather be on 22.8 than a CTR for an ARTCC that I'm only flying over (if I'm departing or arriving at one their airports than I'm glad to have them). Basically because its not needed with our daily traffic levels, so you'll either see an influx of flights at FL240, or a number of pilots that disconnect upon entering en-route airspace, which I typically do that way I don't have to stare at the plains constantly as they p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] me by. Who wants to sit on one guys frequency for four hours and to feel like you have to be paying attention at all times when in reality you will probably only be talked to twice (if an overflight).

 

I would like to see a poll of the pilots out there, Would you like to sit on one controllers frequency for an endless amount of hours during your flight?

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

Matthew, if we want 100% realism, then let's start dividing the ARTCCs up into the 40 or so individual sectors, running 5 or 6 local positions all the time, etc. We do not need 100% realism 100% of the time. It's a silly notion. Sometimes we depart from realism slightly to allow for more coverage, hence 1 controller covering center, one covering approach, 1 covering tower, etc.

 

John, I listed that time as an example. It can be moved to whatever. I can [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ure you, however, that 9 o'clock last night wasn't any "prime staffing hours". Let's look at right now even. Two centers online, and about 60-70 aircraft. A West Coast combined center, and we just added 29 aircraft receiving service, who would otherwise be on UNICOM. I fail to see the issue with that. How could that possibly be a bad thing?

 

I would like to see a poll of the pilots out there, Would you like to sit on one controllers frequency for an endless amount of hours during your flight?

 

Do we really need another poll? There have been all sorts of polls (including the latest one on AVSIM) in which pilots state they don't fly online because there is a lack of coverage. Pilots want more coverage. That doesn't mean staffing 30 towers or 10 approach positions. That means more enroute coverage, so 100% of their flights, or close to it, are covered by ATC. Being switched to UNICOM is exactly why they choose to fly offline, or try VATSIM or IVAO and then leave.

 

The people who took the poll made it VERY clear why they don't fly online. I'm not really sure we need another poll to tell us what we already know. It takes controllers 2-3 years to certify here on VATSIM. Accordingly, we have a lack of Center controllers, and a lack of coverage.

[John Muenster 1149119]

Pilots want more coverage. That doesn't mean staffing 30 towers or 10 approach positions. That means more enroute coverage, so 100% of their flights, or close to it, are covered by ATC. Being switched to UNICOM is exactly why they choose to fly offline, or try VATSIM or IVAO and then leave.

 

I just don't see the point in being on someones frequency while they work traffic a thousand miles away. I would so much rather be guaranteed DEL/GND-APP for every arrival and departure I fly on the network than en-route services. Especially en-route services where one guy covers half the continent to make it work... but that's just me.

[Matthew Bartels]

Where did I ever say we need 100% realism? If we had the staff I'd be all for opening every sector. But even the real centers consolidate within their own facility when traffic warrants.

 

However this is a shear departure from realism. You would not see ZMP consolidating with ZAU.

 

As far as coverage goes. What benefit is there to providing service to flights above 230. The controller may speak to you at max 4 times? It's one thing to work the center top down. But even on real flights, the controller only talks to you a select few times. It dosent seem worth it for such a small interaction.

 

Let's look at it for what it is. Another m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive attempt to get all those damn realists out of VATSIMs side. It's gonna work too. Consider my resignation effective the date and time this takes effect.

[Rahul Parkar]

Whoa Whoa whoa,

 

So they want more coverage, this is the answer, but it only answers the En-route part of their wishes?

 

Don't you think they want more coverage in the terminal areas of flight rather then En-route?

 

En-route is widely accepted to be the more "boring" part of a flight (This is from what I have seen heard and experienced)

 

@Matt, I'm with you on that one, Your resignation won't be the only one.

 

Cheers!

Rahul

[Andrew Wolcott 814793]

There is actually a thread regarding this proposal in the VATUSA ATM/DATM forums. To show that realism is not the only issue being discussed I am reposting my initial reply to the thread in the VATUSA forum:

 

After sitting on this topic for the last week without replying I thought it was time to add my two cents.

 

First and foremost I want to address the issue of the ARTCC Staff not being notified of the intial "testing." I find that this practice to be a blatant lack of respect for the facilities involved and the staff that were chosen to oversee the day-to-today operations of their respective facilities. Perhaps ATMs/DATMs would be more open to the idea had a simple notification gone out notifying them of the intent. The idea that a founder can do whatever he pleases without notification violates CoC A.1, "Members should, at all times, be courteous and respectful to one another." I believe founders are technically members as well, unless there is some docomeent somewhere that places the founders in a group separate from "members," and excluding the founders from CoC.

 

Now, for the heart of the matter.

 

I like others do not feel this proposal to be sound. First in it's initial testing and second in it's general inception. I will attempt to address the SOP an order that is sequential to the outline of the "SOP."

 

Objective/General Description:

First, I do not like the idea of the proposed center owning FL240 and above. I think these altitudes require a more in depth knowledge of local procedures, airspace and LOAs than what would be absolutely needed. If I were to institute the proposed super center, I would rather it be in the mid-level stratum, say from FL300 and above. I think the general idea is to have aircraft in the enroute phase of flight talking to ATC, and to allow ATC to provide enroute separation. When I think enroute I think cruise. Either way, I think this be an unrealistic approach to the matter either way as the real world FAA does not combine ARTCCs in this manner. However, if there were a lesser of two evils, FL300 and above would be it.

 

Airspace Coverage:

The outline of the chosen airspace should be chosen based on the service areas of the real FAA, as depicted in the picture below. The current design does not conform to the current real world service areas. Alaska and Hawaii would be exempt.

 

Qualifications:

I do not understand why a controller working the proposed Super Center would need to be a member of one of the underlying facilities. While I may be familiar with the ins and outs of ZMP, I am not familiar with the internal workings of the other ARTCCs beyond any current LOAs ZMP has in place with the surrounding facilities. Of course I am playing devil's advocate by pointing this out. A controller should be able to check out on the Super Center, by use of a written exam and practical exam (OTS). This would bring the standard in line with other "Special Centers" such as Oceanic FIRs. Any C1 rated controller can be checked out at an Oceanic facility, and the same should hold true for the Super Centers. Make them "Special Centers." In that vein, the Super Center(s) should be run just as the Pacific Oceanic Area is run, as a coordinate effort amongst ARTCCs. Delegating training to the ATM of the controller's home ARTCC is a bad idea as training standards, as they currently stand, are not standardized across the board. Also, why 250 hours? The VATSIM Oceanic Endorsement only requires a C1, 50+ hours as an ATC and 25+ hours on a CTR position.

Again however I disagree with the concept in it's current form, and will provide a proposal below to the only way I believe this "Super Center" would work.

 

VRC Setup Details:

I like others believe an evaluation needs to take place to ascertain which frequencies may be used so as not to cause conflict with other frequencies in the adjacent and underlying facilities due to the radio range of the Super Center(s). Also, some ARTCCs prefer to use Euroscope and only provide files (Sector/POF) which support either ES or VRC. As such, who is responsible for the sectorfile/POF setup? Should each Super Center be [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned an FE, or will this be a function of VATUSA? Again, I would propose that each Super Center be setup as a Special Center such as the Oceanic Areas.

 

Another area that needs to be taken into consideration is Beacon Code Allocation. This should be done in accordance with the VATUSA Beacon Code Allocation Plan.

 

As for use of Quick Look, I do not understand why it's use would be mandatory. After all, any aircraft within the filters, but being worked by an "underlying facility" would still show. If the underlying facility owns SFC-UNL there is no need for the controller to quick look traffic within that facility.

 

Now, for what I consider to be the Pros and Cons:

 

Some pros could possibly be increased area of coverage for pilots, meaning they have an opportunity to fly longer distances while under the control of ATC and benefit from the use of positive control and initial sequencing. Other than that I do not see any long term benefits to this proposal.

 

The cons include the following:

Oversight of the Super Center: Who has operational control and who is/are the ultimate decision maker(s).

 

Coordination with opening/closing underlying facilities could become a daunting task while working such a large portion of airspace. If a controller is working a large amount of traffic in one portion of the airspace, and XXX Center opens, what is the priority, transfer of airspace or working the traffic? This could potentially become a nightmare. Eurocontrol actually owns the airspace above the underlying FIRs, not the entire SFC-UNL, at least to my knowledge.

 

Letters of Agreement: Having these Super Centers will only be possible, and will work best when LOAs that are currently in place for adjacent facilities are adhered to. As others have pointed out, certain routes require that aircraft are at specific altitudes, such as traffic landing MSP from ZAU over ALO be at or below FL320. This allows these MSP landers to be funneled under eastbound enroute traffic and traffic landing C90.

 

Pilots: Pilots already are unsure about which airspace they are currently in. Adding another layer of confusion will hinder what we seek to do, and that is provide efficient service. Too much time will be spent by the pilot trying to figure out of he/she is in ZMP airspace or ZMW airspace. As many pilots do not take advantage of VatSpy or other traffic situation programs/displays this will in turn place an unnecessary burden on the controller(s) to ensure pilots contact the correct facility. This goes back to the argument of CoC B.3 and pilots feeling it is not their responsibility to contact the controller(s). In this regard, I feel this proposal is attempting to place a band-aid on a perceived problem, that of ATC coverage. I feel that instead of focusing on such a one sided train of thought, that being servicing the pilots, resources would be better spent on developing and requiring mandatory pilot ratings. I am of the bunch that feels too much has been given to the pilots and ATC is always the one who must take the brunt of what the founders think is fair. This proposal only helps to solidify my thinking on the subject.

 

Realism: The real world FAA does not combine multiple ARTCCs into one. Thus, as outlined in the Preamble of the VATSIM CoC, we should strive to promote an environment that is a "realistic simulation of real world aviation." Putting these Super Centers into place would be a step backwards in regards to this.

 

Now, my thoughts on the only way to realistically implement something of this nature:

The only option I see that would work would be a total redesign of the function of how VATSIM works in regards to callsigns and frequencies. I would argue that the model which Pilot Edge uses would be the basis for which I would develop from. What do I mean? Pilot Edge uses a system that allows controllers to man a position that may oversee multiple frequencies. Controllers work traffic in a manner as if one single controller is in fact multiple controllers/positions. Controllers have the ability to transmit on multiple frequencies, and can instruct a pilot to contact XYZ Approach on xyz frequency. When that pilot changes frequency he may still be talking to the same person, but that person will now identify themselves as a different position.

 

I would envision this to work on VATSIM that ZMW Center would call themselves either Minneapolis, Kansas City, or Denver Center depending on the location of the aircraft, and that this controller would in fact be transmitting on 3 frequencies.

 

I would go into depth here how this should work, but the reality is that a major rewrite of the VATSIM network code and structure would have to take place in order for my idea to work. Seeing that there has been little emphasis placed on updating the core structure of the network and the server/client capabilities to reflect today's technology, I see no point in going beyond the point of scratching the surface.

 

While some may argue having one controller working multiple centers as I describe to still be unrealistic, at least on the face of it, meaning how the pilot interacts with ATC, this would have the appearance of multiple controllers/centers being online and would be closer to being realistic than the current proposal.

 

In the end, I must say that I have no desire to see a VATUSA super center, or multiple VATUSA super centers put in place and I believe the founders should look elsewhere to address the issue of ATC coverage. I also feel that more emphasis should be placed on pilot quality so that the imbalance between controller competency/quality and pilot competency/quality may be restored to a level that is fair.

 

Also, I ask that next time something like this is proposed, address the matter first with the facility staff involved so that you do not alienate them further. Keep in mind that the possibility exists for facility staff to resign in large numbers, or for seasoned and experienced controllers to leave VATSIM altogether when proposals such as this are put in place without the consent or nod of approval from said controllers. I fear that reality, and also see where such a thing would only exacerbate the perceived ATC coverage problem this proposal is attempting to address.

 

After all, flies are caught more readily with a single drop of honey than with a cask of vinegar, and this proposal in it's current form and implementation is reeking of vinegar.

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

I just don't see the point in being on someones frequency while they work traffic a thousand miles away. I would so much rather be guaranteed DEL/GND-APP for every arrival and departure I fly on the network than en-route services. Especially en-route services where one guy covers half the continent to make it work... but that's just me.

 

I don't either, to be perfectly honest, but that's what the pilots want. They very clearly cite the lack of ATC coverage as the reasons they choose to fly offline, leave VATSIM, etc. If departing from realism slightly is going to increase the pilot activity, how could it possibly be a bad thing?

 

Similarly, ZAU, Oakland, and possibly a couple others (I don't recall specifically) tried opening positions where one controller covered multiple tower positions. You're never going to find 1 controller covering 5 or 6 towers in the real world, but on VATSIM, is it really a terrible thing?

 

I understand the arguments regarding realism. I get it. I'm all for realism too, but if we can increase coverage when coverage otherwise might not exist, with just a slight departure from realism, I don't see how it could be a bad thing. Again, I'm not suggesting at all that we run these supercenters all day long, when other center coverage might exist. The proposal in question does, as far as I'm aware. But does it really matter at midnight, if a few controllers are providing coverage over a huge chunk of airspace? Maybe it does, but I certainly don't think so.

[Rahul Parkar]

Seeing as I haven't seen the full proposal.

 

What happens if XXX is working Mid West Center and Minneapolis Center logs on, Who owns what and where?

 

Edit : We keep talking about the midnight thing, We all know there are some real power hungry people out there, who would try and even disrupt events by logging on to the super center and attempting to cause problems, hence why I ask my question.

 

Cheers!

Rahul

[Kevin Rush 1212482]

Advantages:

-More coverage for pilots

-More traffic for controllers

-More control for centers where the adjacent center has the initial descent

 

Disadvantages:

-More training for controllers, in an already slim C1 pool

-More SOPs to remember

-Traffic could easily become too much to handle

-Top down services would suffer, in the above case

-Logistics of training would be a mess

-Logistics for the progression of controllers would be a mess

-Requirements of controllers is yet defined

(If I'm part of N90, can I control ZDC airports only, or am I required to control others now?)

 

To be honest, there are nights in ZDC alone, where I'll be on center and beg the first person who jumps in Teamspeak to jump on even a single Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B Tower to lighten my load. Imagine someone who logs in on NY_CTR, alone, and has to deal with a ton of traffic in N90 (the current, real N90, not this super...thing...), and now has to deal with PCT, among other TRACONs.

 

In its defense, there are some nights that I wish I had control out into neighboring ARTCCs in order to properly sequence/space traffic into my own ARTCC, but that isn't enough for me to want to combine anything. If anything, the one I'd want to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume while on DC_CTR is CLE_CTR, and in the new combination, I can't (if CLE_CTR is offline, and the pilot doesn't enter the proper expected crossing restrictions manually for the ROYIL/WZRRD into the idiot box, they're insanely high when they hit ZDC).

 

Everyone always told me to pay attention to history, because it's better to learn from others' mistakes instead of learning them yourself:

 

[Mod: Removed. We don't need that kind of comparison here thanks. NB 870575]

 

Furthermore, I hate Center already. Most of the time I'm on, it's because it has the most visibility and I do it because it's better for my ARTCC. Now I'm going to be forced to deal with all of the problems of the other ARTCCs? Just for clarification, I mean that in terms of, here at ZDC, our problem areas between us and the pilots are the departure out of DCA; the arrivals into BWI from the northeast, IAD/DCA from the west, and RDU from the south. Now I'll be forced to pick up the problem areas of the EWR8 and the KND1 departures, among the rest? No thanks.

 

Again, I also object to the idea my ARTCC is going to be named after a TRACON.

 

I'm new and admittedly don't have the depth of experience to draw on here as I am just an S2. However, that may give me the ability to be less biased or jaded in my view of things. [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming the above list of advantages and disadvantages is valid, it is clear that the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages.

 

When checking into VATSPY it would appear that either control centers are way understaffed or that the staff that is there is dividing their time between controlling and flying or staff doesn't have as much time to control, burned out, whatever. Why complicate what appears to be a system in need of a breath of fresh air with all of the disadvantages listed above? Remember, VATSIM is asking people who want to be controllers to study, work with mentors, have them look over your shoulder, critique your work, get signed off, etc. in order to simply participate. It is necessary for the ATC side to work but, THAT is a lot of structure for something that is supposed to offer a level of enjoyment.

 

It would seem to me that there is a need to somehow make controlling just as attractive as flying. More events? More coordination with all of the centers so that all would be manned certain hours each evening? One big blowout once a month? Perhaps. How interesting it would be if all of the centers and major airports were manned at one time? It would be interesting to see how many pilots would come out for that. But you would have a problem with controllers that are pilots and would want to fly in that kind of environment. There go you ATC numbers for staffing. Controlling needs to be just as attractive as flying. I admit that I am at a loss as how to do that. Maybe others have ideas.

 

But one thing is for certain . . . The more burdensome this becomes and the more FUN that is taken out of it, the fewer people you will have to show up and particpate, and that hurts everybody, controllers and pilots alike.

Edited March 1, 2012 at 09:43 PM by Guest

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

What happens if XXX is working Mid West Center and Minneapolis Center logs on, Who owns what and where?

 

Minnie Center should own all their airspace, surface to unlimited, just as they would now, with the supercenter taking the rest of the unmanned airspace.

 

 

Edit : We keep talking about the midnight thing, We all know there are some real power hungry people out there, who would try and even disrupt events by logging on to the super center and attempting to cause problems, hence why I ask my question.

 

 

Like I said, I'm not really for opening these during prime time, when other staffing is available. Any decent proposal (IMO) would not allow these things to be opened, say, Saturday afternoon.

[Rahul Parkar]

Bryan,

 

Thank you for clarifying those points for me.

 

It's nice to see that we at least agree that they shouldn't be opened during prime time.

 

Cheers!

Rahul

[Andrew Wolcott 814793]

Just throwing this out there...

 

Draw up an agreement with your neighboring ARTCCs to allow your center rated controllers to work the adjacent ARTCC airspace FL240 and above. Have it be an LOA between participating facilities.

 

I'm not sure how it would be decided that ZOB gets ZAU over ZMP, but I would rather keep this agreement between ARTCC staff.

 

There are nights that I'm working MSP_CTR and CLE_CTR is open, but CHI_CTR is closed. I'll have an overflight through ZMP landing in DTW that I could just keep on frequency.

 

But, if a ZAU controllers sees me tracking in ZAU airspace, that may not be agreeable to him/her. But, if we had an LOA between us to allow for tracking targets FL240 and above when the other center is offline..

 

Again... not exactly realistic, not exactly easy to implement and of course fraught with complications, but I think it would be better than AmeriaTroll. (added for those with a sense of humor)

[John Muenster 1149119]

Similarly, ZAU, Oakland, and possibly a couple others (I don't recall specifically) tried opening positions where one controller covered multiple tower positions. You're never going to find 1 controller covering 5 or 6 towers in the real world, but on VATSIM, is it really a terrible thing?

 

Like AW's post in the VATUSA forum, and a few others here I think the best way to handle this, be it one person working TWR, APP, or CTR for multiple airports/ARTCCs the only way to do it is to change to the network to allow that controller to TX over multiple frequencies and have the airports/ARTCCs under his control show up separately in programs like VATSpy as well as pilot clients (to avoid confusion & essentially allow multiple connections for ATC). There's a network out there that works similar to this and it seems to work really well. I have no idea how to do something like that, but I think that would be the way to go

 

And Brian I'm not sure if your question was directed at me or not, but if you recall I proposed the idea of a super TRACON a few pages back, so no I personally don't think thats a terrible thing, as long as its done right (basically, like that other network).

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

And Brian I'm not sure if your question was directed at me or not, but if you recall I proposed the idea of a super TRACON a few pages back, so no I personally don't think thats a terrible thing, as long as its done right (basically, like that other network).

 

Not specifically directed at you, just in general. Unfortunately, you're going to get people saying that the super TRACON idea, or multiple tower idea isn't realistic either, so it shouldn't be used. After all, one controller doesn't control 5 towers in the real world, nor does one controller control multiple TRACONs. I can [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ure you, that idea is no different than one controller covering multiple centers. But if it's not 100% realistic, it's not something we want here...apparently.

 

I like the multiple towers, I like the super TRACON, etc. Using your own super TRACON idea, you can see how just a small departure from 100% realism can result in increased coverage, increased services provided to the pilots, etc. I honestly can't see how people could possibly see that as a bad thing.

[Harold Rutila 974112]

There's no evidence to suggest that this position is in demand by pilots. As I said in the staff forum, do a survey of active USA pilots, then get back to us with the results. Seeing that Denver Center, outside of events, becomes "Denver Breaks Facilitator," I don't see any advantage to a multi-ARTCC high altitude center. By break facilitator I mean that I just approve pilot breaks from the computer screen, and then take note when they say they're back in the deck. That and the fact that most pilots just want to go to UNICOM so they don't have to maintain a listening watch for 2 hours in my airspace, I can't see those pilots wanting to maintain a listening watch of Midwest Breaks Facilitator for 4 hours. They'll file below the controlled airspace floor or just not connect at all.

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

I mainly participate on VATSIM as a pilot. Personally, I dislike this idea, in it's current presentation. Most of the time I don't have much of a desire for en-route ATC. Traffic doesn't usually call for it, and there aren't any procedures I'll need vectors for. ATC is primarily fun and desirable at the approach and departure ends of the flight.

 

I'd support TRACON consolidation, though.