Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Board of Governors
1 hour ago, Lee Sacharin said:

Just out of curiosity, are controllers restricted from being /T only?  Can I operate a position...any position, as a controller and designate it as /T only for all who wish to participate in the airspace which I would control.  

In a word: no controllers are not restricted from being text only. As I mentioned a little further up the thread, I know of at least one deaf controller who is text only and very good indeed!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Vice President, Pilot Training

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I appreciate the opportunity that /t afforded to those with limited means over the past 20+ years, but with the recent increase in traffic and major technical advances, there's really no reason to kee

Something I would be curious to know: how many of those controllers posting here that text is “too workload intensive” go firing off unsolicited text PDCs to pilots when it starts getting busy? S

Discouraged by whom? A small group that use the network and feel inconveniced by its use?

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Lee Sacharin said:

Just out of curiosity, are controllers restricted from being /T only?  Can I operate a position...any position, as a controller and designate it as /T only for all who wish to participate in the airspace which I would control.  

If so, I would counter that it can and will change the experience for all in a negative sense.  A version of CPDLC only (i.e. text) airspace without the option to channel to voice.  This question isn't really directed toward enroute oceanic since I brought in CPDLC.  The example is for your typical DEL, APP, Enroute, Class I land-based areas.

If the option to control is restricted to voice capable from the controller side, then I would argue there is a unfair discriminatory bias.  

 

I've never seen or heard of controllers being restricted FROM being /T. If we have, then that is a major problem. As far as being restricted from being /T only, the answer to that should also be no. As we as controllers should always be able to accommodate /T, it has never been stated to my knowledge that we are required to accommodate /V or /R. In short, if you wanted to control as /T only, there hasn't been any underlying document saying that you can not do that.

BL.

Brad Littlejohn

ZLA Senior Controller

27

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm even aware of an /r controller -- a gentleman whose hearing was absolutely fine but who spoke with a voice synthesizer.  One day his voice synthesizer was on the fritz so he was hearing pilots call in by voice and was sending instructions by text.  Not common, but, wasn't an issue once I figured out I had to temporarily move my Pilot Client window where I could see it.

Cheers,

-R.

fvJfs7z.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not suggesting that controllers use text as primary (or sole) service.  In fact just the opposite as voice is the way to go these days for all the reasons and discussion thus far.  Just wanted to ensure the field of play is level should one desire that route.  While I know it's not on the verge of change, I personally believe the network should be "V" only and have the text capability as a supplement for both parties (pilots/controllers).  Exceptions should be granted to operate T only for those who require it based on need.  Of course that requires some special delineation and process to implement and I know Vatsim is not considering controls and restrictions. 

I do wish things were more equal...similar to other discussions on how much training a controller requires vs how little a pilot requires to operate on this network.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Lee Sacharin said:

I'm not suggesting that controllers use text as primary (or sole) service.  In fact just the opposite as voice is the way to go these days for all the reasons and discussion thus far.  Just wanted to ensure the field of play is level should one desire that route.  While I know it's not on the verge of change, I personally believe the network should be "V" only and have the text capability as a supplement for both parties (pilots/controllers).  Exceptions should be granted to operate T only for those who require it based on need.  Of course that requires some special delineation and process to implement and I know Vatsim is not considering controls and restrictions. 

I do wish things were more equal...similar to other discussions on how much training a controller requires vs how little a pilot requires to operate on this network.  

 

Once again, one person's luxury may be a dream for another. Case in point: The above controller who has to use a text synthesizer (read: find other avenues to possibly to go /V just to accommodate those who could take /V for granted and prefer /V because of convenience). That isn't leveling the field of play; it is making those who may not have a choice on /V to go out of their way to accommodate others because they can't (or may not want to) handle anything else besides /V. That is the problem. The saying "walk a mile in their shoes" comes to mind; but I may be biased; I wish I could give my eyes so my wife (who has been blind since birth) could see the world as the rest of us do.

BL.

 

  • Like 3

Brad Littlejohn

ZLA Senior Controller

27

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...