Obtuse ATC Callsigns

[Roger Curtiss]

Here I go again...

I am presently flying from CYYZ to MSP for FNO. Time is 0024z. There are 5 active CTR positions:

MSP_05_CTR

MSP_11_CTR

MSP_13_CTR

MSP_17_CTR

MSP_7_CTR

 

and 3 APP positions:

MSP_H_APP

MSP_I_APP

MSP_S_APP

 

I would like to be proactive and preset the likely CTR freq but I have not a clue as to which that would be. Now granted, to their credit the controllers are sending 'Contact Me' messages before entry into the airspace. But why do we insist on using these meaningless designators instead of inserting something useful such as a cardinal area designator and/or high/low so it would be MSP_NE_CTR or MSP_NH_CTR or even MSP_NEH_CTR, etc.

 

Same with the APP positions- perhaps geographical area and an F for Final App.

 

It is only an issue on initial call- the handoffs and transitions are pretty smooth after that- and this is not a slam against ZMP ATC-this happens in most instances where there is a multitude of ATC. It just seems like it would simplify things somewhat for the pilots and reduce the number of redirects when a pilot calls the wrong initial freq or the chat messages when they ask which one would be proper.

 

FNO and other events are quite busy enough for ATC without putting an extra workload on everyone that could be partially resolved with simple and logical ATC callsigns.

[Ryan Geckler]

Isn't that the whole purpose of the contact me?

[Bradley Grafelman]

something useful such as a cardinal area designator and/or high/low so it would be MSP_NE_CTR or MSP_NH_CTR or even MSP_NEH_CTR, etc.

Perhaps... except you'd still have some pilots not realizing what "NH" means. Plus, as soon as a sector splits or combines up with another, the helpfulness of that indicator starts to diminish (and perhaps even start to become misleading).

[Sean Harrison]

Welcome to the VATSIM pilots would of confusion. But hey it’s up to the pilot to call the controller..... as we have been told over and over again.

[Joshua Black]

Controllers should really include the area(s) that they cover in their “Controller Info” area if it’s not already obvious in the call sign itself. It’d save a lot guessing.

[Alex Ying]

This topic has come up before on the VATUSA forums before as well, not much agreement there in the discussions I've seen.

 

The main issue I see is that how much more helpful is it if you see *_EH_CTR vs *_7_CTR? Sure, if your'e coming from the east, you'll probably want to call *_EH_CTR, but what about if you're coming from the south? Where's the E/W cutoff line? Also, high-low splits vary depending on the area and sector. A high sector may have a floor of FL210 in one part and FL240 in another part, and so on.

 

Same goes for approach. Sometimes you'll see more descriptive subsector names (like NY_CAM_APP for arrivals over CAMRN or NY_RBR_APP for arrivals over ROBER), but there's no corresponding LENDY subsector. In fact, the LENDY arrivals into JFK switch between CAM and RBR depending on the runway configuration. I think other places also run into the character limit for callsigns so they're even less able to apply descriptive subsector names than NY.

 

The last point is something someone else already brought up, shift changes. Sectors get split and recombined during events. Suppose EH, EL, WH, and WL were all online and then WH closes and is combined with EH (but you as a pilot don't know this). If you're coming from the west and at cruise, who do you call?

 

As far as I've seen, many subsector names are aligned with real world sector numbers or names. It makes it easy on the ATC side to see immediately who has what sector if you're familiar with the sectors. Instead of having to go to a table and remember does the actual 05 or 11 sector belong to E or N or whatever. I've also seen where the splits are ad-hoc and E in one event isn't necessarily E in another event.

 

The overall point here being that I personally don't see that much of a benefit even if you switch to more geographically obvious callsigns because it's still a guessing game unless you already know the sectors anyway. On top of that, there's the callsign character limit so you can only add 2 letters anyway for a ***_[sector]_CTR or ***_[sector]_APP anyway.

[Randy Tyndall 1087023]

As Sean pointed out, though, the onus is on the pilot to contact ATC, per the CoC, Section B Pilot's Conduct, Number 3, not the other way around...

 

But hey it’s up to the pilot to call the controller..... as we have been told over and over again

 

So if you don't know which one to call, -05,-11,-13,-17, or -7 and just pick one, you have a roughly 80% chance of calling the wrong one, but if you don't call the controller gets upset, but if you do call and get the wrong one, the controller may get upset with 80% of pilots calling him or her when they should be calling her or him instead, so you don't call, which gets a Sup involved, which....ah, it's a vicious circle.

 

Luckily ATC is very kind to send out those "not required" contact_me messages.

 

Randy

[Roger Curtiss]

Okay. Thanks for the responses. I will put this one to rest and not let it bother me anymore...publicly!

[Camden Bruno]

Short and suite response: Airspace is far too complex to rely on a simple "N" vs "NE", etc. in order to determine which controller you should be contacting. Airspace isn't a perfectly divided square (or in the case of a TRACON, it's not always a perfect circle as many people think).

 

Why not simply wait for the contact me rather than likely contacting the wrong controller (because you can't determine exactly where the sector boundary is), forcing that controller to figure out where you are and who you should be talking to? Often times creates more work for controllers if pilots start guessing.

 

I understand your desire not to have to rely on a contact me, but it's typically not practical.

 

Controllers should really include the area(s) that they cover in their “Controller Info” area if it’s not already obvious in the call sign itself. It’d save a lot guessing.

Doable for a TRACON sector (i.e. New York Approach sectors often state which airports they're covering). But how would this be done for a Center sector? "I control FL240 and above from [insert lat/long] to [insert lat/long] "

[Roger Curtiss]

My thinking was to lessen the workload for the controller and not have him have to send out that message but it really is not that much effort so I should not worry about it.

 

Besides, we are all missing the best solution to this-have full ATC coverage everywhere so you are not blindly entering airspace without having been told whom to contact.

[Camden Bruno]

Besides, we are all missing the best solution to this-have full ATC coverage everywhere so you are not blindly entering airspace without having been told whom to contact.

What's the starting pay?

[Joshua Black]

 

Controllers should really include the area(s) that they cover in their “Controller Info” area if it’s not already obvious in the call sign itself. It’d save a lot guessing.

Doable for a TRACON sector (i.e. New York Approach sectors often state which airports they're covering). But how would this be done for a Center sector? "I control FL240 and above from [insert lat/long] to [insert lat/long] "

 

Use an airport within their sector? Or a VOR perhaps? Or specify a STAR/SID that they are responsible for? An altitude range if applicable? Or even something simple such as “Everything North of KPHX and west of KABQ.”

 

At least Pilots have something to go off, and can begin the process of elimination at best.

[Don Desfosse]

Short story is look for the controller info... controllers should be broadcasting which area they control in their controller info.

 

Next suggestion is always call a controller, even if you don't know exactly which one to call. Always much better for you to call someone and have the controller tell you something along the lines of "for that area, contact XXX_CTR on xxx.xxx". Please, please, please do not rely on the controller to send a contact me. It is a crutch, and they are not required to.

 

Finally, I completely agree with the sentiment that as a norm, geographic designators (e.g. N, S, E, W, NW, SW, HN, LS, etc.) are a heck of a lot easier and more descriptive than _7_, _72_, _J_, etc. Yes, when controllers combine, it may not be perfect, but it's certainly better and you have a better shot at contacting the right guy based on a geographic callsign than something that would essentially be nonsensical to a pilot.

[Daniel Hawton]

Finally, I completely agree with the sentiment that as a norm, geographic designators (e.g. N, S, E, W, NW, SW, HN, LS, etc.) are a heck of a lot easier and more descriptive than _7_, _72_, _J_, etc. Yes, when controllers combine, it may not be perfect, but it's certainly better and you have a better shot at contacting the right guy based on a geographic callsign than something that would essentially be nonsensical to a pilot.

 

It might be easier until _NE becomes _SE and cannot change their callsign because traffic flow required reconfiguration. Or what about if another controller logs in and takes the border and _NE/07 becomes an internal sector? Now _NE isn't on the border? Using geographic designators can get confusing pretty quickly during airspace reconfigurations... which is far from an uncommon thing during events in VATUSA (which is good, because that means there are controllers to help).

 

Most airspaces don't have logical N/S/W/E or even NE/NW/SW/SE divisions. If you follow airways and charted arrival/departure routes, you can't always cleanly divide airspace that way.

[1275389]

To add to onto this discussion. Perhap having a general sector split map available to pilots combined with information in the controller description is the best way to go about this. You could also included relavent covered arrivals/airports.

In reality though, 90% of pilots won't check, care, or even call and they'll just wait for a contactme. During an event, I just expect that they are ready to respond to the contactme if they can tell they are entering someone's airspace soon.

[Robert Shearman Jr]

90% of pilots won't check, care, or even call and they'll just wait for a contactme.

Then do it for the 10% who will

[Don Desfosse]

In reality though, 90% of pilots won't check, care, or even call and they'll just wait for a contactme. During an event, I just expect that they are ready to respond to the contactme if they can tell they are entering someone's airspace soon.

I would much rather we encourage pilots to contact any sector with a proper contact, including callsign, location from a VOR or airport, and altitude. They could also add, like I do, something along the lines of, "Not exactly sure who to contact." With that, any controller should be able to either quickly point the pilot toward the correct controller or begin radar service.

 

Pilots should note that I suggested VOR or airport for a reason -- with thousands of waypoints in the average ARTCC/FIR, I don't know any controller that would know them all. Much more likely to get quick identification and service when using a VOR or airport.

[Sean Harrison]

This may be a VATUSA thing is it?

 

I thought sectors were defined and published and can’t be modified as required so that the was some standard. In my neck of the woods, it’s policy that you must only provide full coverage in a published sector, that is you can’t sub-divide. Seems to work because there is information freely available to pilots, visitors and controllers on what each sector (callsign) covers. The only time a non-standard sector can be opened is with prior approval from the board, and even then the sub sector is published 24/7 as a standard.

 

Must do some reading of the VATSIM policy and see if it mentions what a controller can do in regards a sector.

 

VATSIM GRP

5.3 Notwithstanding paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2, it is acceptable for Divisions to introduce Standard Operating Procedures to provide guidance to Controllers in respect of local arrangements such as runway configurations, clearance altitudes, handoff procedures etc. Such SOPs must be approved by the Division Director and must be published on Division/Facility websites for all controllers and pilots to read.

 

Can’t find anything else at the moment. But there must be more, because what stops extending of sectors?

[Ryan Geckler]

This may be a VATUSA thing is it?

 

I thought sectors were defined and published and can’t be modified as required so that the was some standard. In my neck of the woods, it’s policy that you must only provide full coverage in a published sector, that is you can’t sub-divide. Seems to work because there is information freely available to pilots, visitors and controllers on what each sector (callsign) covers. The only time a non-standard sector can be opened is with prior approval from the board, and even then the sub sector is published 24/7 as a standard.

 

Must do some reading of the VATSIM policy and see if it mentions what a controller can do in regards a sector.

 

VATSIM GRP

5.3 Notwithstanding paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2, it is acceptable for Divisions to introduce Standard Operating Procedures to provide guidance to Controllers in respect of local arrangements such as runway configurations, clearance altitudes, handoff procedures etc. Such SOPs must be approved by the Division Director and must be published on Division/Facility websites for all controllers and pilots to read.

 

Can’t find anything else at the moment. But there must be more, because what stops extending of sectors?

 

I can't believe that you're trying to make this non-existent problem into one.

 

Like really?

[Shane VanHoven]

This may be a VATUSA thing is it?

 

I thought sectors were defined and published and can’t be modified as required so that the was some standard. In my neck of the woods, it’s policy that you must only provide full coverage in a published sector, that is you can’t sub-divide. Seems to work because there is information freely available to pilots, visitors and controllers on what each sector (callsign) covers. The only time a non-standard sector can be opened is with prior approval from the board, and even then the sub sector is published 24/7 as a standard.

 

Must do some reading of the VATSIM policy and see if it mentions what a controller can do in regards a sector.

 

VATSIM GRP

5.3 Notwithstanding paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2, it is acceptable for Divisions to introduce Standard Operating Procedures to provide guidance to Controllers in respect of local arrangements such as runway configurations, clearance altitudes, handoff procedures etc. Such SOPs must be approved by the Division Director and must be published on Division/Facility websites for all controllers and pilots to read.

 

Can’t find anything else at the moment. But there must be more, because what stops extending of sectors?

 

I'll just leave this here: https://minniecenter.org/docomeents

 

That page is open to the public, and anyone with cognitive ability should be able to look up the appropriate docomeent that clearly defines the ZMP center split. OP said in his original post that ZMP was sending contactmes before the boundary. How much time does it honestly take to tune a new frequency? Like 6 seconds? You're on autopilot at 30,000 feet... I'm having trouble seeing the issue.

[Alex Long]

Many facilities do have published maps of their sectors. Some prefer to keep them to only their controllers and staff, also. I know Accomeap is trying to help remedy this problem with their availability to sectorize the map so pilots can see which sector they are about to enter. I know it's been mentioned about another client it may be coming to, also. The best source here on VATSIM is to check the controller information, or make an educated guess if no other information is available. It would be nice if each controller gave a general geographic description of where they cover, and possibly what SIDs and STARs to make it easier for pilots. Sometimes even that can be hard to keep up with, during events like VATUSA FNOs where sometimes people move between sectors and it's easy to forget to update that information as people move around. I personally don't mind when a pilot calls me and gives me a DME distance and direction from a VOR, or a nearby airport, or which SID/STAR they are on and I can direct them to the correct controller. It only takes moments to do.

[Don Desfosse]

Sean, you can't find anything because there isn't anything. And citing a Global Ratings Policy? That is aimed toward folks attempting to earn a rating. This entire thread is about callsigns for multiple sectors when the amount of traffic involved creates span of control issues requiring the opening of multiple sectors as an operational necessity. In your neck of the woods? In your neck of the woods your busiest event sees about 10-15% of the traffic as in my neck of the woods. For this thread, dealing with size of events in folks' neck of the woods, size matters, and mine is bigger. So I suggest you don't poke your nose obliviously where it doesn't belong. I don't generally poke at individuals, but I agree with the previous comment; you seem to be trying to poke a fight based on irrelevant statements and arguments, and frankly the only purposes that serves is to promote negativism and to embarr[Mod - Happy Thoughts] yourself. I respectfully suggest you don't need to do either.

[Shane VanHoven]

Sean, you can't find anything because there isn't anything. And citing a Global Ratings Policy? That is aimed toward folks attempting to earn a rating. This entire thread is about callsigns for multiple sectors when the amount of traffic involved creates span of control issues requiring the opening of multiple sectors as an operational necessity. In your neck of the woods? In your neck of the woods your busiest event sees about 10-15% of the traffic as in my neck of the woods. For this thread, dealing with size of events in folks' neck of the woods, size matters, and mine is bigger. So I suggest you don't poke your nose obliviously where it doesn't belong. I don't generally poke at individuals, but I agree with the previous comment; you seem to be trying to poke a fight based on irrelevant statements and arguments, and frankly the only purposes that serves is to promote negativism and to embarr[Mod - Happy Thoughts] yourself. I respectfully suggest you don't need to do either.

 

Don, I love you

[Sean Harrison]

Sorry for adding to someone else’s thread, it appears to be a sore point. Try relaxing and not taking things so seriously it might make your life longer.

[Jeff Turner]

Here I go again...

I am presently flying from CYYZ to MSP for FNO. Time is 0024z. There are 5 active CTR positions:

MSP_05_CTR

MSP_11_CTR

MSP_13_CTR

MSP_17_CTR

MSP_7_CTR

 

and 3 APP positions:

MSP_H_APP

MSP_I_APP

MSP_S_APP

 

I would like to be proactive and preset the likely CTR freq but I have not a clue as to which that would be. Now granted, to their credit the controllers are sending 'Contact Me' messages before entry into the airspace. But why do we insist on using these meaningless designators instead of inserting something useful such as a cardinal area designator and/or high/low so it would be MSP_NE_CTR or MSP_NH_CTR or even MSP_NEH_CTR, etc.

 

Same with the APP positions- perhaps geographical area and an F for Final App.

 

It is only an issue on initial call- the handoffs and transitions are pretty smooth after that- and this is not a slam against ZMP ATC-this happens in most instances where there is a multitude of ATC. It just seems like it would simplify things somewhat for the pilots and reduce the number of redirects when a pilot calls the wrong initial freq or the chat messages when they ask which one would be proper.

 

FNO and other events are quite busy enough for ATC without putting an extra workload on everyone that could be partially resolved with simple and logical ATC callsigns.

 

Agreed Roger, one of the many reasons why I don't fly Friday Night Ops since we introduced it... Actually another reason why I do not fly on the network as much anymore....