Pilots Checking in airborne when a controller pops up

[Brad Littlejohn]

Simple, you do it again. We don't run out of codes after the first [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignment. Open FP, hit [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign, "Callsign123, squawk 4567 FL380". If both guys are on the same level or someone disagrees with my mode C verification, I might start dragging positions into the mix. Also keep in mind, while this has been going on, we have already noted the route of each aircraft and know roughly along what path they will be flying. If one is flying north to south and one is flying east to west, for example, I'll already have an idea which primary target close to either track is who.

 

Mode A was invented for this, I still don't understand the obsession with positions. Pop-ups, aye. Planned enroute? Makes no sense.

 

Why? Because it eliminates the problem to begin with. When they give you their position relative to your airspace, you know for a fact that the target you see as well as the beacon code they squawk provides you with positive radar separation, eliminating you from having to go through the whole entire process again to make sure that you have the right aircraft.

 

Why go through the entire rigamarole again when you can eliminate the problem at the beginning with a position report along with their flight level when they check in from popping up.

 

If this were planned enroute and the pilot was handed off to you, you wouldn't require this, as positive radar identification was already given by means of the handoff. In that situation, the pilot would only need to check with their callsign and flight level.

 

And honestly, sorting out two guys by re[Mod - Happy Thoughts]igning codes rather than have them trying to figure out what's close to their magenta line is also a timesaver, many will have no idea how to even figure that out.

 

EDIT: I missed that you specified the same level in my reply above, but the point stands. Understand that our controller tools shows us entry and exit points, toggles FP overlays easily, and have many other smart functions that makes mixing up two people at each end of our airspace pretty far fetched. If it does happen, those same tools will quickly reveal the mistake as well.

 

Again, the problem isn't trying to correct the mistake after it happened; the problem is avoiding the mistake completely to begin with..

 

BL.

[Andreas Fuchs]

I give up, you are right.

[Andrew Ogden]

In New Zealand, the local phraseology aims to eliminate any chance of mistakes like these happening. The phraseology goes as such:

 

(Callsign), overhead (waypoint) at (altitude).

 

Radar identification can only happen if the aircraft is +/- 200ft of his reported altitude, and +/- 10nm of his reported position as shown by the tag position. This way, there is less chance of anybody making a mistake, and in events like Cross the Ditch, these kind of reports are crucial to the success of the event. I made a point to memorise all of the entry and exit waypoints so that I know exactly where an aircraft is when he calls up.

[Andreas Fuchs]

But Andrew, you cannot compare this to the US or other large countries. In New Zealand you only have like 30 waypoints in total, don't you?

[Andrew Ogden]

Yes, I see where you're coming from, but the New Zealand airspace is just as large as any other ARTCC or vACC airspace, if not larger, just we get a few less aircraft. Entry and exit waypoints aren't that difficult to memorise, and it will help if the enroute controller knows the most important ones, then he can instantly find an aircraft when he calls up at a specific altitude and position.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Ok, probably got lost in translation: my previous posting contained at least traces of irony! I know the NZ's airspace is huge and that there is a good number of waypoints. If an ATCO is online on a regular basis, he or she should know the majority of them, probably even have them displayed partially.

 

In VATSIM's Europe we have some huge sectors that provide upper area control exclusively, they are part of EUC VACC: https://euc-vacc.org/

 

 

They encomp[Mod - Happy Thoughts] several countries each and there are hundreds, if not thousands of waypoints and VORs that can be used as reference. So, if I do not know the waypoint that a pilot is reporting, there is no other efficient way than using the "find-function".

[Andrew Ogden]

Ok, probably got lost in translation: my previous posting contained at least traces of irony!

Ahh! I see it now!

In VATSIM's Europe we have some huge sectors that provide upper area control exclusively, they are part of EUC VACC: https://euc-vacc.org/

 

They encomp[Mod - Happy Thoughts] several countries each and there are hundreds, if not thousands of waypoints and VORs that can be used as reference. So, if I do not know the waypoint that a pilot is reporting, there is no other efficient way than using the "find-function".

Yes, I am aware of that. I guess that is almost the same as me extending six sectors in New Zealand. I still find it challenging to remember at least some of the thousands of fixes and VORs, so the .find function is my best friend, especially controlling oceanic where it is impossible to remember all of the coordinates and waypoints.

[Alexander Cohrs]

Without diving too deep into this discussion, couldn't we just agree that we have different (real world) procedures on both sides of the Atlantic and that any absolute statement like "pilots who don't report their position on initial call should not be in the air" are... well... at least kind of misleading? That may be true for the US (can't judge), but it's definitely incorrect for other parts of the world.

[Sean Harrison]

It was posted by a senior member in the Pilot forum, not the USA so don’t we have to follow the instruction. I’ve been told several times that if a member holding a position makes a statement on the forum then it is as good as being in the CoC.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Sean, only for you, only for you...