FJDG - British Indian Ocean Territory

[Sean Harrison]

Does the British Indian Ocean Territory belong to any VATSIM Region/ARTCC?

 

I've emailed people at VATSAF as I thought it may be under Mauritius, however their web links seems to have been re-diverted to non flight web sites.

 

I have created a .sct2 file for the area, and tested it.

 

Without it being an active zone under any facility I'm hoping it is open to control with the appropriate qualification.

 

I'd be happy to take it on as a micro_artcc if nobody owns it.

[Johnny Coughlan]

I'm going to sit back and watch with interest to see how this plays out and who will claim ownership.

 

if you've tried and nobody has given you a straight answer then let's see.

 

As I find it hard to believe that there is an airport on this network that someone doesn't 'own' but I could be wrong and for your sake I I hope I am, as I'm always on the hunt for a place not yet touched by 'bureaucracy'.

[Sean Harrison]

Well it is not opened regularly and sits on the boundary of Australia, Male, Mauritius. Given that it gets more traffic than ATC I think it wouldn't hurt.

 

APP

2003 0.6hrs

2004 3.5hrs

2009 4.0hrs

2015 4.0hrs

 

TWR

2003 0.3hrs

2009 3.7hrs

2016 1.9hrs

 

GND

Never

 

ACFT MOVEMENTS

2017 20

2016 >100

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

pretty sure i remember it being controlled by the US Air Force/Navy, so any of the virtual USN's or AF's might have an agreement with VATSIM if they have ATC commands like vUSAF used to

 

it does fall under the Mauritius FIR according to the info though.

[Adar Polachek]

I've controlled Diego Garcia Tower before. It's within the lateral boundaries of the Mauritius

FIR.

Brisbane, Male, and Mauritius hand off to Tower directly. The tower covers 200nm out, up to FL245. Non-radar approach services are available within 100nm of the airport.

There used to be information about all the procedures on the USA DOD website which was removed from the web a while back.

[Matthew McEwen]

Despite being in FIR Mauritius which is under VATSAF in the VATAME region, British Indian Ocean Territory is actually under the VATSIM Asia region according to the VATSIM CoR.

 

That being said, we (VATSAF) actually do have a sectorfile which covers the area in the form of our Mauritius sectorfile.

 

I'm not sure a Diego Garcia vACC would really pan out too well haha, just on the basis that Diego Garcia only two ATS positions - Ground and Tower. There's also no controlled airspace [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociated with Diego Garcia - Tower provides mandatory FIS within 200 miles of NKW TACAN up to FL245.

[Sean Harrison]

Thanks Matthew,

 

I'll contact mr Stefopoulos in Asia about doing official controlling there.

 

P.S. Do you know what the current active Vatsaf web site address is?

[Matthew McEwen]

Officially it is http://www.accsaf.net, but that website isn't being developed further; it will be replaced shortly.

[Sean Harrison]

Given that in real life the FJDG TWR handles all traffic WI 200Nm BLW FL245, would VATSIM give some dispensation to the usual rules of ATC Range. IE TWR <50Nm APP <150Nm range.

 

I've been using FJDG_APP with a range of 200Nm, as I don't think FJDG_TWR at 200Nm would be un-noticed.

[David Zhong]

A position like this should be considered an en route position, despite the "Tower" callsign. In VATPAC, we have a similar situation with some of our Pacific Island positions that perform procedural en route, procedural approach and aerodrome control as a single position.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

does the procedural tower in GRP even apply to this situation since the tower would not be limited to providing approach services? or if it comes to it, have a procedural tower and a second position for FSS

[Sean Harrison]

S4.6 of the GRP

 

To achieve adequate radar coverage, the Controller may utilize multiple visibility points in their Controller client. A Procedural Tower controller may not exceed the maximum visibility settings for a Tower Controller.

 

Not sure that any TWR callsign can exceed 50Nm visibility reading that, regardless of procedural or otherwise.

[David Zhong]

Procedural tower restrictions would not apply if it is deemed to be an en route position because the restrictions only apply to S2.

[Sean Harrison]

Procedural tower restrictions would not apply if it is deemed to be an en route position because the restrictions only apply to S2.

 

Forgive me David, I don't understand what you are saying.

 

Are you saying that FJDG_TWR can be opened with a vis of 200Nm if the controller holds >S2?

[Sean Harrison]

Update

 

VATASIA do not claim it as active, they have therefor p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ed it onto VP Regions for comment.

[David Zhong]

Sean, what I am saying is that, for example, "Port Vila Tower" controls a portion of airspace some 500NM x 250NM and when I was at VATPAC, we deemed this position to be an en route position, requiring a C1 rating and with the login name of NVVV_CTR, despite the radio callsign of "Tower". This was because in reality, it was a combined procedural en route, procedural approach and tower position and therefore it is would not be appropriate for an S2 or S3 controller to operate the position.

[Sean Harrison]

Thanks, now I understand your suggestion.

 

On the Vila thing, VATPAC only has NVVV_APP and _TWR as standard positions. So ATM they only have BN-TSN_FSS above and then APP and TWR.

 

There needs to be some Pacific/Indian Ocean docomeents written I think to clarify things.

 

Thanks for the explanation.

[David Zhong]

Yes there were some old docomeents that were dug up and republished around the time I was leaving so not sure what they ended up doing with it all.