CPDLC for FSLabs Airbus

[Matt Bernard]

Hello all, first post here so go easy on me. If you are not yet aware FSLabs has released their new A321 add on module. This includes a very good recreation of the CPDLC system for flight deck to ATC communications. I realize that the add on is less than 48 hours old at this point but I want to make controllers aware of it so that they can look into integrating it into your systems. I am not a Vatsim controller but can really see the potential this has for reducing the workload for controllers. In the couple of flights I have done I have yet to run across a controller that knows what I am talking about when I mention CPDLC. Below is a link to the Hoppie ACARS page for what is needed on the controller side. Thanks and I look forward to learning how this all works with you all in the future.

 

https://www.hoppie.nl/acars/prg/atc/

[Kirk Christie]

CPDLC is more benifical where a response from the pilot is not required right away, noting that PDC is an ACARS feature rather than a CPDLC feature.

 

There are some VATAIM divisions that have CPDCL in their controller software.

 

As Fslabs 321 is the first DLC aircraft to come out with it, it will take some time for it to become popular.

[Andreas Fuchs]

All pilots and controllers can use PDC and CPDLC. There is a guide for starters that covers all basics, including installationd and setup.

 

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=69970

[Simon Kelsey]

I think it's important to note that whilst Hoppie has been around for decades and CPDLC has been a 'thing' in real life for some time now, as far as VATSIM is concerned this has always been quite 'chicken and egg' -- because to get the best out of it really it needs to be properly integrated on both the ATC and pilot sides.

 

Until recently few pilots used it because there was no proper integration on the pilot side. Because there was little demand from pilots, few controllers used it because with little integration on the ATC side they were stuck using the standalone Hoppie ATC client which just means you have to do everything twice. Because few controllers used it there's historically been little incentive for aircraft addon developers to integrate it... and so on.

 

Now FSLabs have integrated Hoppie in to the A321 (and I believe Aerosoft are also working on it) there will be a bit more impetus for development on both sides given that we now at least have a standard of sorts to work with. For enroute CPDLC I know plugins such as Topsky which properly integrate with the ATC workflow in Euroscope make CPDLC genuinely workload-reducing for controllers and presumably with a bit more development/adaptation for other areas and clients it will start to become more useful and widespread.

 

Likewise with PDC -- in real life in most places the system runs and issues clearances entirely automatically with no ATCO input which obviously would be a m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive workload saver, but we're not quite there with the software on VATSIM; I wouldn't have thought that would be impossible though -- Euroscope certainly at the moment can largely [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign SIDs/runways/squawk codes etc with little or no controller input, and if a PDC plugin which perhaps had the ability to check at least the first part of the flight planned route against a database for validity could be developed it should be possible to just set that running and leave it to issue clearances -- obviously if the route fails to validate or it's otherwise a non-standard clearance 'revert to voice' can be sent.

 

Lots of possibilities and hopefully we will start to see them taken advantage of more if the ball can be got rolling!

[Andreas Fuchs]

Yeah, for PDC there's a great plugin for Euroscope, called "vSMR". Issuing a clearance through it definitely saves a lot of time compared to a voice clearance with the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociated feedback.

[Kirk Christie]

(and I believe Aerosoft are also working on it)

 

For CPLDC I have to be perfectly honest not really decided. I am not at all happy with the Hoppie route. Absolutely nobody at any of the ATC groups I spoke likes it, support is fragmented. All ATC groups tell me they are working on SDK's.

 

Not sure what ATC groups he spoke to.

[Andreas Fuchs]

VATSIM provided Aerosoft with information that Hoppie is here to stay and that it will be supported as a stable platform.

[Paul Stassen 1472995]

Is

Edited December 29, 2019 at 12:25 PM by Guest

[Andreas Fuchs]

This page http://www.hoppie.nl/acars/system/log.html shows you all the stations that are logged on to the Hoppie server.

[Peter Lund]

For the first time I tried CPDLC, but unfortunately it didn´t work well.

 

With EURM I could send a notification to logon which he replied to but was never received at my end.

The same has just happened with EKDK, but I was able to receive PDC from APP.

[Andreas Fuchs]

There's a possibility that Hoppie's server needs some adjustment to carry the load of the many connections now.

[Kirk Christie]

they keep on sending voice messages even when they have the capability of CPDLC.

 

CPDLC is not designed to replace normal VHF communications.

 

It takes a couple of seconds to say, Climb to FL330 via VHF, with CPDLC you have to select the aircraft, select from a list of instructions, enter that instruction, push send, wait for a response.

[Richard McDonald Woods]

I wonder why most of the real world is implementing CPDLC?

[Simon Kelsey]

I wonder why most of the real world is implementing CPDLC?

 

To reduce R/T loading, primarily. Many busy sectors in real life are R/T time limited rather than controller or airspace capacity limited.

 

Text also increases the reliability and reduces the ambiguity of messages. In modern aircraft it is often possible for the pilot to uplink an altitude or route clearance direct to the FMGS or FCU, thus reducing/eliminating input error (pilot hears and reads back correct clearance but inputs the wrong value).

 

It takes a couple of seconds to say, Climb to FL330 via VHF, with CPDLC you have to select the aircraft, select from a list of instructions, enter that instruction, push send, wait for a response.

 

But with VHF you still have to update the tag/flight strip, as well as giving the instruction, right?

 

With CPDLC you simply update the tag to an [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned altitude of FL330 as you would have to anyway and the rest (the transmission of the instruction and the acknowledgement from the pilot etc) happens automatically. Even better, whilst that's all happening in the background you can be working on another aircraft instead of focussing on listening for a readback.

 

There are concerns on the pilot side around the loss of SA from hearing other transmissions which is one of the reasons why it is not used in the terminal area, but otherwise it's a great workload-saver all round...

[Andreas Fuchs]

CPDLC is not designed to replace normal VHF communications.

At some point in the future it will replace VHF as the primary means of communication. They will have to find more reliable and speedy means to transmit the data, but it will happen.

[Torben Andersen]

I wouldn't mind using CPDLC as controller sitting on an enroute position alone, but not so sure, when it comes to APP. And as VATSIM uses top-down controlling I often control both the enroute part (EKDK_CTR) and the app (EKCH_APP). It is probably a question of routines, but I am a bit reluctatant to implement it pt.

 

regards

Torben

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hi Torben,

 

as APP you have no use for CPDLC, because messags in this environment are time-critical. The only use as APP would be using a plugin like vSMR to issue PDC to aircraft on the ground, if you cover the airfield top-down. Even as CTR you could offer PDC through vSMR at one airfield of your choice while using TopSky to provide enroute CPDLC services.

[Richard McDonald Woods]

At present there is much apprehension about CPDLC.

Only when fully available will pilots and ATC be able to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ess its application.

I have long wanted to see its implementation. I hope that it will be welcomed

[Andreas Fuchs]

We are still looking for a coder who volunteers creating a stand-alone CPDLC plugin for X-Plane and a cockpit gauge for FSX/P3D so all pilots can use it inside their flightdecks, regardless of the aircraft that they are using.

[Torben Andersen]

Hi Torben,

 

as APP you have no use for CPDLC, because messags in this environment are time-critical. The only use as APP would be using a plugin like vSMR to issue PDC to aircraft on the ground, if you cover the airfield top-down. Even as CTR you could offer PDC through vSMR at one airfield of your choice while using TopSky to provide enroute CPDLC services.

 

I understand that - it's more a question of politics/implementation. If I'm the sole controller in Danish airspace manning EKDK_CTR, there are 4 kinds of trafic, I must handle:

1. Enroute through Danish FIR

2. Arrivals into Danish airports

3. Departures going out of Denmark

4. Local trafic within Denmark

 

CPDLC could be offered to 1 (and perhaps 3 over a certain FL).

2, 3, and 4 probably not

3 and 4 could get PDC

 

My concern is more, if pilots are aware of this - and offcause the pt relative small number of flight concerned (planes having CPDLC installed).

On a clearly enroute facility such as _FSS (Upper controls such as EUR sectors and OCAs), CPDLC is a more obvious choice.

 

I can easily see a situation, where some pilots want to use CPDLC (because they now have the possibility), but are denied according to the beforementioned categories - while they experience other pilots, who get the service. If the pilot is not aware of this, some 'situation' might occur. So it is more a question on finding some common ground here.

 

Torben

[Andreas Fuchs]

I don't think that a pilot in his right mind would be angry about receiving radar vectors to final via CPDLC... I never ever had this here on VATSIM and I have been offering CPDLC/PDC for a couple of years now with quite a few happy customers.

 

Have you tried vSMR? Issuing a PDC through it is piece of cake, no more talking, just two mouse clicks and then wait for the pilot acknowledging it.

[Richard McDonald Woods]

Hi Torben,

Perhaps your confusion is about where CPDLC is used. Pre-departure clearance (PDC) is an ACARS function, not a CPDLC function.

CPDLC is a facility used during non time critical, en route segments of flight, and therefore is not aimed at DEL, GND, DEP or ARR controllers.

 

You are correct to say that CPDLC may be used in your case 1. An increasing number of European flights are conducted in this way.

 

In your case 3, ACARS PDC may be offered by GND controllers, or those acting in that role.

 

In your case 2, CTR controllers, whether using CPDLC or voice will, as at present, ask the pilot to start voice comms with the ARR controller. Conversely, a DEP controller may request that the pilot use CPDLC on leaving his airspace.

 

It is not clear what you envisage for case 4.

 

In addition, CPDLC offers the ability for automatic handoff from an en route controller (termed the current data authority CDA) to his equivalent (the next data authority NDA) in the adjoining FIR shortly before the flight enters that airspace. If there is no controller on duty, the current controller will ask the pilot to contact 122.800, as now. This raises an important opportunity for VATSIM. An AI function, when there is not a controller on duty, could simulate one by responding appropriately to pilot requests during flight through that FIR.

 

I hope that this explanation helps