Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Board of Governors

Since VATSIM operations are essentially all radar-based why do we use position reports as the basis for oceanic ATC? Since the aircraft are easily observed with data blocks would it not be much easier to control as we do in domestic airspace?

Roger Curtiss

VATGOV12

VP-Virtual Airlines & Special Ops

r.curtiss(at)vatsim.net

 

810159.png810159.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because we try to simulate ATC in the real world. That was the obvious answer. But you got a point. We ought to have a system/tools, which are closer to real life than the radar client(s) we are using in the domestic FIR. An idea of such a tool could perhaps be developed by looking at the tools shown in the video

On the other hand it is much work to start developping for the relative few sim pilots, who crosses into OCAs. But at CTP it could be handy. But newer technologi like ADS-B might mean that the use of our radar clients perhaps is not so far off. So perhaps you got a point.

 

regards

Torben Andersen, VACC-SCA Controller (C1)

Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of the North Atlantic, Space Based ADS-B is already in operation so controllers now already have a “pseudo-radar” picture to work from.

 

 

I don’t see any reason why those areas using Space Based ADS-B can’t be simulated as such on the network.

Trevor Hannant

Link to post
Share on other sites
Since VATSIM operations are essentially all radar-based why do we use position reports as the basis for oceanic ATC? Since the aircraft are easily observed with data blocks would it not be much easier to control as we do in domestic airspace?

 

Euroscope has the ability to install radars in the sector file and an option to have non radar areas, chances are that the person on Oceanic, can't actually see where you are.

Kirk Christie - VATPAC C3

VATPAC Undercover ATC Agent

Worldflight Perth 737-800 Crew Member

956763

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, I’ve been doing it wrong. I thought we were suppose to have the sector window minimised for oceanic.

 

You're not,

 

I use vNAS's Oceanic tools v3 when I do Shanwick, it has a seperate, outside of Euroscope GAATs Map which moves the a/c data block on it based on position report timings and a position report system.

 

I only use euroscope for the text box.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When CPDLC is available within the larger aircraft, we shall reduce the need for oceanic position reports

 

How do you figure?.

 

CPDLC provides position reports on a text basis instead of the use of HF/VHF to send them via voice.

 

And who wants to sit on a position on VATSIM sending text messages to each other?.

 

The occasional text pilot is one thing an entire position using only text, no thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In an ideal world, our Oceanic Tools would automatically interpret and insert the data from CPDLC POS REPs. All the ATC needs to do then is to identify potential issues and try to resolve them. Like in the real world. I had the pleasure of visiting Oceanic ATC in Prestwick and there are literally to controllers doing all the stuff of the Atlantic east of 30W - and this is only possible because of CPDLC and because of Shanwick Radio (who are a separate unit and simply do the radio communication between pilots and ATC).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Gander sector files are engineered so that there are no radar zones. Aircraft locations are displayed through Euroscope's S-Mode feature, and are considered to be inaccurate at best. Therefore it is not viable to rely on them when one controls the airspace. For that, position reports are necessary to maintain the required separation.

Andrew Ogden | I3
Gander Oceanic OCA Chief
VATSIM Web Developer

Visit us: https://ganderoceanic.com
Contact: [email protected] 

431466725_bannersmall.png.dd3c45679f76aeb32af4d6ff6fb9854a.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

We actually have implemented pseudo ADS-C at ZWY. Like the OP said, we have all the data available to us at the client side from VATSIM, so simulating ADS-C reporting is trivial. Especially for heavy event traffic, this lets the controller actually provide air traffic control service, rather than just taking position reports non-stop. Things like re-routes, deviations, ADS-B ITP, and ADS-C CDP can be implemented by the controller. Greatly increases capacity and reduces controller workload providing an all-around better experience for everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And who wants to sit on a position on VATSIM sending text messages to each other?.

 

The occasional text pilot is one thing an entire position using only text, no thanks.

 

Plus one.

 

It is amazingly contradictory to me that we seek and desire the best quality voice quality possible, after coming from text only with some voice _V_ and now a quantum leap on the door step. Yet, we strive for removing as much radio traffic as possible and desire CPDLC etc. Do we go full circle.

 

Confused.

Sean

C1/O P3

spacer.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yet, we strive for removing as much radio traffic as possible and desire CPDLC etc. Do we go full circle.

 

 

Yes. Absolutely.

 

I don't know if you've ever worked a CTP on an oceanic position, but the less I have to talk, the better. It is absolute chaos when everyone is on voice.

Ryan Geckler - GK | Former VATUSA3 - Division Training Manager

VATSIM Minneapolis ARTCC | FAA Miami ARTCC 

Cross the Pond Planning Team

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Since the aircraft are easily observed with data blocks would it not be much easier to control as we do in domestic airspace?

 

Most modern non-radar ATC systems display aircraft "positions". These "positions" are predicted based on last radar position, flight plan data, pilot estimates, (low quality) ADS-B and ADS-C. This is great for situational awareness but cannot be used for separation in the sense that radar and high quality ADS-B is used. Controllers cannot measure 5 miles between two symbols and call it a day because the rule book requires a procedural separation standard.

 

Aside from vertical separation (which we all know and love), most traditional procedural separation standards are based on either time reports (actuals and estimates) and distance reports to navaids and RNAV fixes. Traditionally, the controller must obtain these reports from the pilot. The separation standard is only achieved if the controller meets the criteria using the pilot reports. With CPDLC, this reporting can become semi-automated and minimise transmission delays [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociated with HF (controllers don't operate HF radios, the messages are relayed by a HF radio operator) and data entry errors.

 

With the advent of ADS-C in the Pacific/Indian and now the proliferation of this into the Atlantic, radar-like separation (albeit at 30 miles for RNP4 and 50 miles for RNP10) can be used in non-radar areas for participating aircraft.

 

All of that is to say, most divisions simulating non-radar airspace adopt procedural separation requirements which means that position reports need to be obtained even if we can "see" the aircraft.

David Zhong

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yet, we strive for removing as much radio traffic as possible and desire CPDLC etc. Do we go full circle.

 

 

Yes. Absolutely.

 

I don't know if you've ever worked a CTP on an oceanic position, but the less I have to talk, the better. It is absolute chaos when everyone is on voice.

 

Ryan..you are so right!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...