Obtuse ATC Callsigns

[Ryan Geckler]

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.

 

You're the one that scoured the regulations to try and tell us that we were doing something wrong.

[Ryan Geckler]

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....

 

So because there's multiple people online providing services for pilots and you aren't sure who to preset a frequency for is causing you to not fly into those events? Seriously?

[Shane VanHoven]

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....

 

That's like saying you will no longer golf at a particular golf course because they give you a free golf cart, but the golf cart isn't numbered so you're not sure which one to use for free.

[Jeff Turner]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion guys....

 

That's mine... it's nothing against ZMP - It's all events for me...

[Dhruv Kalra]

We’ve tried it both ways. Geographic and numbered sector callsigns. It honestly doesn’t change the success rate of pilots checking on with the correct sector (if at all). I’m with Don on this. Call any of the ones in your list, give him position off a VOR and your altitude, and the literal worst case you’ll get is “contact Minneapolis Center on 1xx.xx.” If you get attitude from a controller for doing exactly that, by all means file feedback with the facility and I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ure you it will be addressed.

[Steven Perry]

http://accomeap-project.com/

 

Does Accomeap address this situation? Or have the ability to do so in the future?

[Matthew Bartels]

Accomeap has this ability, and the correct sector splits for all ZMP Sectors, Minor TRACONS, and Minneapolis Approach sectors have been sent for inclusion once Accomeap 2.0 is released. We just missed the cutoff for the current version of accomeap.

[Richard Gerrish]

ZLA also has en-route and App sector maps available. I'd hazard a guess that most of VATUSA has them its just a matter of finding them on their sites.

[Roger Curtiss]

I am amazed at the way messages get distorted. I never said nor implied that I was reluctant to participate in event flights because of this circomestance. Such

Based on the responses that correctly interpreted my post I understand why the callsigns are set up in this way and I will never mention it again.

[Brad Littlejohn]

Something to think about here, especially for a bit of perspective.

 

A lot of this stems from back at the time when we as ATC, for bandwidth constraints, Pilot and ATC app constraints, and general readability for the pilots, were restricted to having a 4-line Controller Info, where one of those lines was the voice channel being used. So we were severely limited in how much we could put as far as what areas we were controlling in the Controller Info. That made it hard for us regardless, and that still has carried over to where we are now.

 

If we put too much in the Info to tell you what areas we are controlling, the pilot doesn't have that much time to read it before it goes away, and they tell us to shorten it. If we shorten it, we get told that the pilot doesn't know where to go, and gets confused by which controller to contact. Either way, neither pilot or ATC get what they want.

 

Now, whether that limitation is lifted or not is a different story, but we do have those constraints, especially for bandwidth, and still need to work with that. Putting those sectors up on a site works, but again, it is up to the pilot to study those, especially for planning where they are flying, and being aware of that before they even submit their flightplan. How many pilots are doing that? (this is a rhetorical question, not accusatorial.)

 

Again, onus for that may be on the pilot, and forethought = forewarning, and that helps for planning purposes throughout the pilot's flight.

 

BL.

[Maius Wong]

In an attempt to make things a bit easier, I've implemented a map for ZMP's airspace (click here) and I plan to have the APP splits up tomorrow. Hopefully this should alleviate some of the concerns that our pilots have raised here.

[Don Desfosse]

A very nice tool, Maius, thank you.

[Robert Shearman Jr]

In an attempt to make things a bit easier, I've implemented a map for ZMP's airspace (click here) and I plan to have the APP splits up tomorrow. Hopefully this should alleviate some of the concerns that our pilots have raised here.

That is outstanding. I would only suggest including a link to it in the drop-down menu under "Pilots" as it did take me a minute to figure out how to find it without the direct URL. Otherwise, it's perfect. Now if we can only manage to convince the rest of VATUSA to publish the same thing, LOL...

[Sean Harrison]

Thank you Maius for the effort in [Mod - Happy Thoughts]isting members. Very helpful.