ARTCC Consolidation

[Ryan Guffey 956726]

The problem with this thought is what's the real point of putting this into use when there will be a very limited number of people that actually benefit from it anyways?

 

The number is higher than you think...quite a bit higher than you think.

 

I'm just not seeing it.... There are no pilots at night to speak of and this is a Saturday/ into Sunday. This also shows the perfect example of pilots fly what route they want and not where ATC is. Enroute ATC is not that high of Vatsim pilot's priority list. If it was, you would see both of those center sectors full of pilots maximizing their ATC experience at this extreme time of the night/morning.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hi Ryan, hi all!

This also shows the perfect example of pilots fly what route they want and not where ATC is. Enroute ATC is not that high of Vatsim pilot's priority list. If it was, you would see both of those center sectors full of pilots maximizing their ATC experience at this extreme time of the night/morning.

This is simply not true! You are taking the wrong conclusions out of this picture and from your experience. The problem that I personally have with ATC in the USA is, that it simply is not predictable! You see a few stations online and start planning your flight. After about 10 minutes you are ready (route taken from simroutes, required fuel calculated, route imported into Active Sky for correct enroute winds, flightplan filed...) and connect to VATSIM. Unfortunately one or the other ATCOs that had been online just a few minutes ago, simply disconnected, destroying the experience! Pilots want to fly online with ATC. Since they cannot be sure that any station will not close after being online for a mere 15 minutes, because "the controller got bored", they revert to flying just any route with complete disregard to ATCOs online.

 

There is only one remedy to this severe problem: you need to be online for at least one hour, preferably two hours at a time, once you have logged in. You also need to pre-book your activity through VATBOOK! Here in Europe this works like a treat, because pilots know where and for how long they can expect ATC and there is not a single reason why it should not work for you as well in the USA or anywhere else in the world. Of course, you will need to invest quite some effort in the beginning: you need to make some advertising for VATBOOK and for the fact that you are using it from now on. Pilots need in the USA need to be made aware of the existence and of the reliability of this tool. Logging off well before the end of your booked session is a big no-no. If it happened regularly, the reputation of your ARTCC and of VATBOOK would suffer a lot, because pilots cannot trust you or the booking-tables.

 

If you want to improve your game, you need to invest time into this hobby. Staying online for 15 or 20 minutes at a time does have the contrary effect: pilots will connect because they expect some level of service. If you then disconnect they remember this negative experience and will not come back to that place.

[Ryan Guffey 956726]

Hi Ryan, hi all!

This also shows the perfect example of pilots fly what route they want and not where ATC is. Enroute ATC is not that high of Vatsim pilot's priority list. If it was, you would see both of those center sectors full of pilots maximizing their ATC experience at this extreme time of the night/morning.

This is simply not true! You are taking the wrong conclusions out of this picture and from your experience. The problem that I personally have with ATC in the USA is, that it simply is not predictable! You see a few stations online and start planning your flight. After about 10 minutes you are ready (route taken from simroutes, required fuel calculated, route imported into Active Sky for correct enroute winds, flightplan filed...) and connect to VATSIM. Unfortunately one or the other ATCOs that had been online just a few minutes ago, simply disconnected, destroying the experience! Pilots want to fly online with ATC. Since they cannot be sure that any station will not close after being online for a mere 15 minutes, because "the controller got bored", they revert to flying just any route with complete disregard to ATCOs online.

 

There is only one remedy to this severe problem: you need to be online for at least one hour, preferably two hours at a time, once you have logged in. You also need to pre-book your activity through VATBOOK! Here in Europe this works like a treat, because pilots know where and for how long they can expect ATC and there is not a single reason why it should not work for you as well in the USA or anywhere else in the world. Of course, you will need to invest quite some effort in the beginning: you need to make some advertising for VATBOOK and for the fact that you are using it from now on. Pilots need in the USA need to be made aware of the existence and of the reliability of this tool. Logging off well before the end of your booked session is a big no-no. If it happened regularly, the reputation of your ARTCC and of VATBOOK would suffer a lot, because pilots cannot trust you or the booking-tables.

 

If you want to improve your game, you need to invest time into this hobby. Staying online for 15 or 20 minutes at a time does have the contrary effect: pilots will connect because they expect some level of service. If you then disconnect they remember this negative experience and will not come back to that place.

 

First. In VATUSA, it IS true. VATUSA is completing different than Vatsim Europe. My experience of 6 years on Vatsim and seeing so many changes says I am right. Ask Doubleday. He pulls 4-5 shifts all of the time. When I controlled in ZME I would easily pull 2-3 hour shifts and hardly see any traffic. Here is how it works. Pilots fly to the airports they want to fly to regardless of who is online. Like people have said before in this thread, pilots in Europe take this hobby much more serious than pilots in the US. That's Obvious from any VATUSA controller standpoint. At ZLA we have a booking system. Does it matter? No not really. Its for the pilots to know when ATC is going to be online, but do they use it? I doubt it. As a pilot too, I never go to the ARTCC's website for any information. There is nothing there I need to complete a flight so what is the point of going there. Ive invested WAY too much time in Vatsim. I really don't feel like spending more time online than what I do. The only reason I am still here is to keep my skills sharp for when I get back to the states from Germany and can pick up where I left off with my COM. Bottom line is. You don't understand how VATUSA works. Its not Europe. Pilots would rather fly to say JFK or LAX with no ATC than fly to SLC with say Center and APP online.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Ryan,

 

that is your point of view and your experience. Europe and the USA are not that different from each other at all! It is all about perception and habits. If you offer pilots some piece of mind ("ATC will be active enroute and at my destination because they have booked their positions and I can trust them"), then they will gladly accept it. Do you think that pilots overhere are different? Maybe they are, but mainly in that way that we have educated and conditioned them to also consider VATBOOK's information for their flightplanning. This is a fact.

 

So, please don't tell me that I do not understand the USA because I only know Europe. We used to have similar problems here (a long time ago) and we have changed it. It is up to you to accept my piece of information and my suggestions. If you don't want to that, this is your choice.

 

Please, please, please stop thinking in black or white. There are many shades of grey in between, there is no ultimate truth. What is true for aviation in the real world is also true for our virtual world of aviation.

 

Where in Germany do you live? If you are in Kaiserslautern or similar, why don't you pop in to one of our regular VATSIM gatherings in the area.

[Ryan Guffey 956726]

Im sorry I just don't agree at all about VATBOOK helping. I know what I know from what I see and have been told by other pilots. Pilots are more interested in flying to a certain airport. I'm the same way. If I want to fly CDG-FRA I will, regardless of ATC. I understand what you are saying about VATBOOK, but for VATUSA it won't work plane and simple.

 

I live in Kaiserslautern. I have looked at coming to one of them, but I haven't seen any posts lately. If one was at FRA I would gladly come.

[Andreas Fuchs]

We normally meet at Karsruhe, almost the same distance. I have a room for guests which you can use if you would like to stay overnight. We regularly vote about the gatherings at our local forum: This was out last large meeting in December http://board.vacc-sag.org/39/48397/ and the last one we held just a week ago.

 

I will PM you for our next meeting!

[Daniel Hawton]

Ryan,

 

that is your point of view and your experience. Europe and the USA are not that different from each other at all! It is all about perception and habits. If you offer pilots some piece of mind ("ATC will be active enroute and at my destination because they have booked their positions and I can trust them"), then they will gladly accept it. Do you think that pilots overhere are different? Maybe they are, but mainly in that way that we have educated and conditioned them to also consider VATBOOK's information for their flightplanning. This is a fact.

 

So, please don't tell me that I do not understand the USA because I only know Europe. We used to have similar problems here (a long time ago) and we have changed it. It is up to you to accept my piece of information and my suggestions. If you don't want to that, this is your choice.

 

Please, please, please stop thinking in black or white. There are many shades of grey in between, there is no ultimate truth. What is true for aviation in the real world is also true for our virtual world of aviation.

 

Where in Germany do you live? If you are in Kaiserslautern or similar, why don't you pop in to one of our regular VATSIM gatherings in the area.

 

Andreas,

 

As a visitor of Germany, and US, I can tell you it actually IS true. The way ATC works in the US versus Europe is a complete 180. The way pilots act in the US is a complete 180. The number of invalid flights I have seen in the US is 10x higher than what I see in Europe (I have seen 1...). Pilots in the US stick to the FS flight planner, whereas EU pilots seem to use vroute, simroutes, charts, preferred routings, etc. to find good routes. I have seen pilots file airways that don't even exist anymore, SIDs and STARs that don't exist anymore (this is a DAILY occurance), pilots who don't look at an airport diagram to go to the correct runway (very obvious when a runway has changed numbers due to magnetic variation differences and pilots going "Uhh, there is no runway 8 here!"). It's a fact.

 

Also, the number of texters here in the US is really high. I've logged on with the intent to control a minimum of 4 hours, but after 30 minutes the level of incompetent pilots have driven me offline. Pilots continually request to "step away from the cockpit" for anywhere from 2 minutes to a request I heard of 45 minutes. 1 pilot even asked me if he could step away for 15 minutes when he was 15 miles from a crossing restriction on a STAR he FILED.

 

So sir, with all due respect, I must disagree with you and invite you to come control on this side of the pond to see it for yourself. It really is a completely different situation over here. Unlike Europe and Germany, the US isn't unified, we don't have pilot training offered at a divisional or regional level.. and things like this need to change before we look at anything else.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hi Daniel,

 

I promise you that "our" pilots here in Europe used to be the same, or at least very similar. It took us a couple of years to get rid of the "request to shutdown engines" after arriving at destination. And as an active vATC here in Europe/Germany, I regularly do see invalid flightplans etc.. It is not perfect here, either. The most important thing is that you keep on asking pilots to get their routings at vroute, simroutes etc. if you "catch" one with a completely outdated routing. Don't do this on frequency, but have an ALIAS ready to send via private message. Ask them to prepare their next flight with this information. If only 2 out of 5 pilots did this, you could get a positive surprise.

 

Again, I believe you, Ryan and the others 100% that you have the above mentioned problems. But I have a different point of view as to why this is and - most important - the chances of getting this corrected.

 

It is hard work, we know that. It took us....10 years to get where we are now. You have to be positive and go for it, we do it on a daily basis as well.

[Daniel Hawton]

Hi Daniel,

 

I promise you that "our" pilots here in Europe used to be the same, or at least very similar. It took us a couple of years to get rid of the "request to shutdown engines" after arriving at destination. And as an active vATC here in Europe/Germany, I regularly do see invalid flightplans etc.. It is not perfect here, either. The most important thing is that you keep on asking pilots to get their routings at vroute, simroutes etc. if you "catch" one with a completely outdated routing. Don't do this on frequency, but have an ALIAS ready to send via private message. Ask them to prepare their next flight with this information. If only 2 out of 5 pilots did this, you could get a positive surprise.

 

Again, I believe you, Ryan and the others 100% that you have the above mentioned problems. But I have a different point of view as to why this is and - most important - the chances of getting this corrected.

 

It is hard work, we know that. It took us....10 years to get where we are now. You have to be positive and go for it, we do it on a daily basis as well.

 

But that is an issue that should/needs to be addressed prior to introducing another layer of unnecessary complexity to our already complex airspace. So this idea, imho, needs to be at least temporarily shelved until we fix the primary cause of most ATC headaches (and if this happens, you will see more controllers sticking around as the main reasons I have seen people vacating VATSIM in the US is because of the pilots makes this VOLUNTEER "job" stressful and pointless) here in the US.

 

The continual push toward this without fixing the main problems will just drive away more controllers and will leave us with fewer to actually staff anything.

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

I'm just not seeing it.... There are no pilots at night to speak of and this is a Saturday/ into Sunday.

 

You just happened to pick a slow night. I could just happen to pick a day when there was no ATC online and say, "Look, VATUSA never has any staffing!" Start looking every night and taking the averages.

 

From what I have seen, the average around midnight and later is anywhere from 20-30 aircraft, with 3 ARTCCs online. In the daytime hours prior to any real staffing (off-peak), the average is around 60-70 aircraft, with 5 towers, 1 approach, and 2 grounds online. That's from a little over a week of looking at random off-peak times. That's a lot of pilots who could potentially be receiving some form of ATC.

 

Online now are well over 120 aircraft, with 3 ARTCCs staffed. While 11:45 on a Saturday morning isn't exactly off-peak, that's a heck of a lot of aircraft that could potentially benefit from such staffing, is it not?

 

As a visitor of Germany, and US, I can tell you it actually IS true. The way ATC works in the US versus Europe is a complete 180. The way pilots act in the US is a complete 180. The number of invalid flights I have seen in the US is 10x higher than what I see in Europe (I have seen 1...). Pilots in the US stick to the FS flight planner, whereas EU pilots seem to use vroute, simroutes, charts, preferred routings, etc. to find good routes. I have seen pilots file airways that don't even exist anymore, SIDs and STARs that don't exist anymore (this is a DAILY occurance), pilots who don't look at an airport diagram to go to the correct runway (very obvious when a runway has changed numbers due to magnetic variation differences and pilots going "Uhh, there is no runway 8 here!"). It's a fact.

 

Honestly, I don't think it's because the people in Europe are inately more willing to plan their flights properly, get the proper routes, charts, etc. It's because for years and years (and even today), you don't have the right route or charts in Europe, you simply don't fly. I could care less if the Europe folk want to jump down my throat for that one; it's 100% true. If controllers in the US were ever found to be denying service because a pilot didn't have a chart or proper route or didn't know how to fly the plane, we would be absolutely crucified. But in Europe, that attitude has been prevalent for years, and has been allowed to exist on the network for years. The pilots know it, and magically learned to plan their routes properly, get the right charts, etc., if they wanted to receive service. It's being fixed, but it still happens over there regularly.

[Ross Carlson]

The pilots know it, and magically learned to plan their routes properly, get the right charts, etc., if they wanted to receive service. It's being fixed, but it still happens over there regularly.

 

When you say it's "being fixed", what do you mean?

[Callum McLoughlin]

In VATUK's RTSs (our equivalent to ARTCCs) the controllers are taught to advise but accommodate. No controller is permitted to prevent somebody from flying in the UK due to a dodgy flight plan. The standard practice is the controller shows the pilot the "proper" version and asks if they can fly it, if "yes" then they often get told where they get find it for themselves, next time.

 

We've also recently set ourselves up as an ATO (as a Division) and are working hard to bring in new guys and show them the right way to participate. That does not mean we dictate ultra-realism, we teach the bare minimum required of us and hope the student asks to know more. Most of the time, they do.

 

Perhaps those who are moaning about pilot standards, (I've been there too, you know!!!) should take a leaf out of my book and approach Gary with a proposal to become a Division staff member and produce a VATUSA ATO.

 

You don't like something? Do something about it. Being a forum warrior won't change squat.

[Daniel Hawton]

Honestly, I don't think it's because the people in Europe are inately more willing to plan their flights properly, get the proper routes, charts, etc. It's because for years and years (and even today), you don't have the right route or charts in Europe, you simply don't fly. I could care less if the Europe folk want to jump down my throat for that one; it's 100% true. If controllers in the US were ever found to be denying service because a pilot didn't have a chart or proper route or didn't know how to fly the plane, we would be absolutely crucified. But in Europe, that attitude has been prevalent for years, and has been allowed to exist on the network for years. The pilots know it, and magically learned to plan their routes properly, get the right charts, etc., if they wanted to receive service. It's being fixed, but it still happens over there regularly.

 

Not saying charts are mandatory.. but heck, they can't even FLY their plane correctly. Look at Kevin Copeland's response he made today about pilots flying through his airspace without contact me's. They can't even figure out that "Hey, IAH is controlled by HOU CTR" as they took off without saying a word to him. Things like this need to be fixed, period. Pilots in the US routinely are OFP. And this is one of the bigger problems.

 

The "super centers" aren't going to help a majority of the pilots. They'll leave "super center" and go to UNICOM to either A) talk to no one else for the fun part of their flights, or B) sit on UNICOM for a few minutes to have to run through the same procedures of radar identification they went through before they sat with 1 controller for several hours.

 

Let's fix the issue with pilots FIRST. Europe did it, why can't we? I have seen European controllers accommodate those without charts, so that's not the issue. The issue is when we have traffic and tell a guy "Turn left heading 270, vectors for sequencing. Descend and maintain 4000." and have to call them 2+ times before we finally get a response from them. Now our sequence is gone. OR, we tell them, they acknowledge right away, and begin turning several minutes later. Watch time lapse videos of events on YouTube between European events and US events. You'll see a lot more aircraft being pulled off approach and circled back around than you will in Europe. Flying into Boston last night, I heard a bit of stress from Center trying to get pilots to do what's instructed. Some couldn't even say their ground speed when called.

 

If you keep stressing your volunteers, they will leave. This isn't a paid job, we're not volunteering to endure unnecessary stress. So what's the big problem with VATNA/VATUSA working on fixing the lack of piloting? I've seen this issue brought up SEVERAL times over the years, and no one from VATNA/VATUSA responds as to why the region/division aren't doing like VATEUD, etc. to offer training for pilots. They skip over the issue to put the blame back on the controllers, like we're at fault because a good number of VATUSA pilots can't fly their plane in a reasonable manner.

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

When you say it's "being fixed", what do you mean?

 

There are people in place in Europe now who are trying to get rid of that practice.

 

No controller is permitted to prevent somebody from flying in the UK due to a dodgy flight plan. The standard practice is the controller shows the pilot the "proper" version and asks if they can fly it, if "yes" then they often get told where they get find it for themselves, next time.

 

Of course it's not officially permitted, but it happens, and has been happening for years. As a recent example, we (VATUSA) was absolutely blasted because a busy student controller denied a pilot's request to take off on the opposite runway as to what was in use. It was noted how this happens in VATUSA all the time, how the controllers are not accommodating, etc. etc. To make a long story short, I did 3 random test flights in Europe, at completely random non-busy, non-major airports. Two of the controllers had no aircraft besides me. One had 1 other aircraft. In 3 out of 3 flights, I was denied services because I didn't have the VFR charts on board. Completely denied any kind of services, not allowed to take off, etc. In 2 out of the 3 situations, I was denied the ability to take off on a non-in-use runway, even though there was absolutely no traffic anywhere.

 

Needless to say, that issue was dealt with, but that's what has been going on for years. The "gamer" pilots have probably left or have been suspended for "causing trouble", leaving people who know that they have to have charts, file the appropriate route, know how to fly their plane, etc., or they get no service.

 

So what's the big problem with VATNA/VATUSA working on fixing the lack of piloting? I've seen this issue brought up SEVERAL times over the years, and no one from VATNA/VATUSA responds as to why the region/division aren't doing like VATEUD, etc. to offer training for pilots. They skip over the issue to put the blame back on the controllers, like we're at fault because a good number of VATUSA pilots can't fly their plane in a reasonable manner.

 

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. In any other pilot training thread, you guys say it's not our (VATUSA/VATNA) responsibility to handle pilot training. Now you want it to be our responsibility. Which is it? Let me know if ZJX would like to become an ATO, and I'll see that it happens. In the past, however, ARTCCs haven't wanted to participate in pilot training. They say it isn't their responsibility. When have I ever put the blame on the controllers for pilots not being able to fly their plane?

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

It's a good thing VATSIM is working out to stamp out the practice of making sure people know what they're doing. If they didn't, we'd be at risk of drowning in a wave of competence.

[Ross Carlson]

When you say it's "being fixed", what do you mean?

 

There are people in place in Europe now who are trying to get rid of that practice.

 

Gotcha ... wasn't sure if you were talking about the controller practice of denying flight, or the pilot practice of filing with bad routes.

 

Needless to say, that issue was dealt with, but that's what has been going on for years. The "gamer" pilots have probably left or have been suspended for "causing trouble", leaving people who know that they have to have charts, file the appropriate route, know how to fly their plane, etc., or they get no service.

 

When you put it that way, it's *really* hard to see it as a bad thing. Obviously, I get what you mean ... we can't be that exclusive ... it turns away newbie tire-kickers that may very well turn into great pilots.

 

However, I think it does highlight the fact that there is a middle ground between being blindly accommodating and complete intolerance. I think the pilot training program is a worthwhile first effort, but unless there is any sort of enforcement, I don't see it making a big enough dent in the issue to be worth continuing long term.

 

I wish we could have some sort of probationary period during which tire-kickers could try out the network, make typical newbie mistakes, and hopefully learn (by controllers pointing them to the right learning resources using a standard set of text aliases) and then come back as a much better pilot. If they're still making the *same* mistakes after the probationary period, they have to earn the appropriate pilot rating before being allowed to fly again. Just thinking out loud ... not sure how feasible the idea is.

[Daniel Hawton]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. In any other pilot training thread, you guys say it's not our (VATUSA/VATNA) responsibility to handle pilot training. Now you want it to be our responsibility. Which is it? Let me know if ZJX would like to become an ATO, and I'll see that it happens. In the past, however, ARTCCs haven't wanted to participate in pilot training. They say it isn't their responsibility. When have I ever put the blame on the controllers for pilots not being able to fly their plane?

 

I never said a division. In the UK, RTS' don't do pilot training. In Germany, Berlin's RTG doesn't do training. In the US, Zxx shouldn't do training. The division as a whole should do it, or even the region. VATEUD, for instance, does it. Why can't VATNA do it? Why can't VATUSA do it? There is no reason it cannot be done as a whole.

 

You complain because it takes "so long" for us to make C1s (even though they never request training as I indicated before), but then you right now are telling us to add to our load and make our instructors also train pilots. Fewer C1s, aye.

[Callum McLoughlin]

RTS' don't do pilot training

 

Almost. Pilot Training is done in it's own RTS. In essence, we have a pilots ARTCC.

[Rahul Parkar]

I think Dan is trying to say SERTS doesn't do Pilot training specifically, Nor does SCONI, etc.

 

It's separated from the controller's RTS' and done as a divisional initiative, One that you have led very well I may add.

 

Cheers!

Rahul

[Callum McLoughlin]

I think Dan is trying to say SERTS doesn't do Pilot training specifically, Nor does SCONI, etc.

 

It's separated from the controller's RTS' and done as a divisional initiative, One that you have led very well I may add.

 

Cheers!

Rahul

 

Exactly, but long term it won't be the Division intimately running it. It should be self sufficient.

[Callum McLoughlin]

By the way, if any of the VATUSA division staff members want to use VATUK's P1 training model, just let me know. It isn't designed to be "hands off" though, we use it to build our community so every member who goes through it has contact time with a mentor. It was designed on purpose that way, later ratings will require the student to be a lot more self sufficient.

 

All it needs is somebody who's committed and a team who's willing to help do most of the leg work.

[Daniel Hawton]

By the way, if any of the VATUSA division staff members want to use VATUK's P1 training model, just let me know. It isn't designed to be "hands off" though, we use it to build our community so every member who goes through it has contact time with a mentor. It was designed on purpose that way, later ratings will require the student to be a lot more self sufficient.

 

All it needs is somebody who's committed and a team who's willing to help do most of the leg work.

 

That requires someone from our division/region to run it. And I personally don't see that happening, sadly.

[James Barnaby 1067268]

That's a lot of pilots who could potentially be receiving some form of ATC.

Clearly you must not have read my post or you have strange opinions on things. You would rather have say.. 8 people have almost no ATC interaction but at least some

over 3 people with actual hearty ATC interaction. That doesn't mean we have increased quantity of interaction. Quantity over Quality?

 

If there's center online I would probably fly. If a super center was the only thing online I have NO REASON, AT ALL to fly online when I would spend close to nil. The only people who really benefit from this are pilots who would rather fly a route without ATC than a different route with ATC. I don't think a person who you don't talk with or interact with would draw pilots there anyways.

 

During "off-peak" hours ATC will have less interaction. What you European people need to really really consider is SCALE. Things are a lot more dense in western and central Europe than they are in America.. and the ZMP ARTCC itself is larger than about the entirety of western and central mainland Europe combined. Now imagine three times that size. Compare it to the size of each of your FIRs and then to the Eurocontrol positions. If you don't think scale matters than we could have one super-super center position that controls the entire continental United States with no problem.

Edited March 3, 2012 at 10:40 PM by Guest

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

from a talent pool of several hundred even a thousand?

 

thats sad.

 

(did i mention i hate doom and gloom? )

 

remember it doesnt HAVE to be a "controller" that runs it or even staff's it. there are plenty of pilots that can more then likely fill the roll without touching controller [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ets if thats a worry.

 

think outside the bun

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

In fact the pilot rating program was designed specifically NOT to scavenge scarce controller resources at all.

 

But every checkride requires a minimum time with VATSIM ATC. that's one of the sneaky secrets of the whole gig, it was designed to provide ATC with more blips who would be good community members.

 

But I digress; this thread is about the reasons why something different for ATC structure won't work in the USA.