Jump to content

Strengthening the controller-pilot bond


Recommended Posts

With the advent of ever more comprehensive ATC packages e.g. PF3, it is likely that the attraction to pilots of online ATC from VATSIM will lessen. To counteract this I believe that we need newer facilities to attract and keep pilots using VATSIM ATC.

A realistic implementation of CPDLC would, I blieve, make using VATSIM far more attractive to pilots. Further, when no en-route controller is on duty, its implementation could provide simulated CPDLC facilities so that the pilot is always being 'actively' controlled worldwide.

Whilst the controller end if a CPDLC implementation would have to be developed within VATSIM control, the pilot end could be developed by any vendor wishing to abide by the VATSIM determined interface. This would open up a competitive element to its provision. One option could be the provision of a GUI pluggable to any aircraft simulator developer to incorporate into their product.

A recent poll has shown a significant proportion of pilots would welcome the realisation of a real-world equivalent CPDLC.

What do you think

Cheers, Richard

You are the music, until the music stops. T.S.Eliot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck retaining controllers by driving pilots towards a text based communication system.

 

When we started using text-based clearances (PDCs) at Boston, it was a godsend for controllers, especially during events when pilots would step all over each other trying to get clearances. I imagine CPDLC would bring similar benefits, not to mention realism.

 

Besides, correct me if I'm wrong, but it would mainly be used for enroute control for changing flight levels, reroutes, speed changes, etc. We'd still use voice for the more "fun" controlling, such as vectoring for approaches, takeoff/landing clearances, etc.

Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy

Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CPDLC is already offered thirdt party. The first and foremost technical advancement VATSIM needs network-side is a voice protocol from this decade.

 

Modernization instead of extras please.

Ryan Geckler - GK | Former VATUSA3 - Division Training Manager

VATSIM Minneapolis ARTCC | FAA Miami ARTCC 

Cross the Pond Planning Team

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't imagine the presence of or lack of CPDLC is what is causing attrition or retention of users on the network. This is pretty opinion based and lacks empirical basis. I, like others, can think of several other factors that impact the end user experience on the network.

 

A strategy to study the current pulse of the membership would be a good start to understanding why people are here, and why people leave. I do believe VATSIM does hold a director of marketing in their upper ranks. A survey as to what attracts people to the network, as well as what detracts people from the network based on a fixed set of questions, not necessarily opinions, would go a long way.

 

As any survey goes, however, one cannot take the results of the survey and say, well there it is. The results should be made public for discussion. Secondary to that, an action plan should be implemented to address adherence to what is working, and improvements for what is not.

 

We all have opinions on why things are the way they are, but it should be the unanimous findings that prompt action.

 

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I'm flying a Cessna C182 on a VFR pattern at what should, in real life, be a CTAF, I'd rather be able to tune the CTAF frequency, and hit either my push-to-talk and talk, or at least press an Alias and send out a CTAF/Unicom broadcast on 122.80 and the actual CTAF frequency where different at the same time.

 

I've never seen a Cessna C182 with a CPDLC or ACARS integrated into the GTN650...

 

Remember, Vatsim isn't just an Airliner simulator for Airbus/Boeing

 

CTAF.jpg

 

 

Photo of some aircraft at Byron/Ballina airfield which is in cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] G airspace, CTAF only. It's not "just GA aircraft"

 

Ballina-Byron-Airport-1.jpg

qfafin.png

Trent Hopkinson YMML. www.youtube.com/musicalaviator WorldFlight 2002,2008,2009, 2011, 2012, 2013 & 2015

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck retaining controllers by driving pilots towards a text based communication system.

 

When we started using text-based clearances (PDCs) at Boston, it was a godsend for controllers, especially during events when pilots would step all over each other trying to get clearances. I imagine CPDLC would bring similar benefits, not to mention realism.

 

Besides, correct me if I'm wrong, but it would mainly be used for enroute control for changing flight levels, reroutes, speed changes, etc. We'd still use voice for the more "fun" controlling, such as vectoring for approaches, takeoff/landing clearances, etc.

 

I get what you're saying Ross and we in Ireland too use PDC's during busy periods.

 

I'm m not anti-text pilots, I'm anti encouraging the use of text based communications before we've fixed the chronic voice issues first. As stated by others we need a modernization of it.

 

Yes I know you can use aliases and keyboard shortcuts but some people are drawn to VATSIM because it is voice based, yet the technology is lagging behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Board of Governors

There are a lot of things going on that are causing attrition, however one of the largest ones for controllers is pilot quality.

 

This is supposed to be fun for the controllers too, but when encountered with 80-90% bad pilots over the course of a few sessions, it becomes un-enjoyable for the controller. Since it takes a heck of a lot longer to get new controllers on the scopes than pilots we've seen a m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive decrease in ATC Staffing. When have less ATC staffing, then traffic levels diminish. Diminishing traffic levels give less incentive for controllers to get online and stare at blank scopes. See the catch 22 here?

Matt Bartels
VP: Marketing & Communication
## vpmkt (at) vatsim.net
Facebook Twitter Instagram
VATSIM Logo

Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own and not representative of the official opinion of the VATSIM Board of Governors

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the advent of ever more comprehensive ATC packages e.g. PF3, it is likely that the attraction to pilots of online ATC from VATSIM will lessen. ..........

A recent poll has shown a significant proportion of pilots would welcome the realisation of a real-world equivalent CPDLC.

What do you think

 

I disagree with your opening [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ertion. Even the title, controller-pilot bond, raises issues for me.

 

Sure there are some members who whilst controlling provide a less than enjoyable environment, but that is the individual. Controlling by it's nature can attract people seeking authority, rather than providing a service. One way to impact this, is to ensure ATC Training Directors closely monitor attitudes and behaviours of their students. VATSIM should also have a global system where they monitor Regions/Divisions/ARTCCs.

 

Everyone who connects to the servers, does so as an individual firstly, whether they are controlling or flying, or even observing. The Supervisor network is supposed to monitor all activity not just members flying. More online time for supervisors would help in my opinion.

 

I fly and control on the network, and I hate the whole 'them and us' attitude. If numbers are declining because of interactions between those online, then that should be dealt with by a Supervisor IMHO.

 

I agree that VATSIM should conduct a strategic survey regularly, and engage more regularly on forums. Each position advertised appears to me to include a statement that must be able to interact on forums, however IMHO members seem to drop their forum activity once obtaining a position of authority. They become observers, rather than remaining in the community.

 

There are lots of little things that could make us better, but no-one seems to ask on a strategic level.

Sean

C1/O P3

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck retaining controllers by driving pilots towards a text based communication system.

 

There are a ton of text based ATC sims out there too, Inuse VATSIM mainly because of the voice aspect.

 

I not hating on CPDLC btw.

 

 

CPDLC is only practical in the enroute and preflight phases of flying, there is no way it would be used to replace radio Comms in the TMA and ADC environment.

Kirk Christie - VATPAC C3

VATPAC Undercover ATC Agent

Worldflight Perth 737-800 Crew Member

956763

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I'm flying a Cessna C182 on a VFR pattern at what should, in real life, be a CTAF, I'd rather be able to tune the CTAF frequency, and hit either my push-to-talk and talk, or at least press an Alias and send out a CTAF/Unicom broadcast on 122.80 and the actual CTAF frequency where different at the same time.

 

I've never seen a Cessna C182 with a CPDLC or ACARS integrated into the GTN650...

 

Remember, Vatsim isn't just an Airliner simulator for Airbus/Boeing

 

CTAF.jpg

 

 

Photo of some aircraft at Byron/Ballina airfield which is in cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] G airspace, CTAF only. It's not "just GA aircraft"

 

Ballina-Byron-Airport-1.jpg

 

KTEX event recently was CTAF operations although the frequency was monitored unlike ( correct me if i'm wrong ) the Vatpac CTAF frequencies.

 

So yeah away from CPDLC there're other things and correctly said CTAF isn't GA only.

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...