vATIS v2?

[Gerardo Rodriguez]

I know VATSIM has regulations against multiple ATISes by a controller, but I think it's time these get evaluated, furthermore a V2 of vATIS would be nice for Terminal/Enroute controllers to have multiple ATIS up and select the flow of each airport when working topdown. If a local controller comes to relief the position, the ATIS frequencies for those positions could be turned off by just a click.

They way I thought of it was to have profiles per airport (i.e. EAST ILS, EAST VISUAL, NORTH VISUAL, etc) and just be drop-down menus per airport. The software would have the frequencies (similar to how AFV works with multiple frequencies) and you can just hit TX for the airports you'd like an ATIS working. 

Maybe I'm going out of line, but I envision something like this to be extremely useful, specially for facilities who have 1 major airport but have a moderate traffic flow to other airports inside the airspace.

[Tim Wong]

I think that will be a problem because VATSIM doesn't allow us to have multiple connections to the network at the same time. 

[Gerardo Rodriguez]

4 minutes ago, Tim Wong said:

I think that will be a problem because VATSIM doesn't allow us to have multiple connections to the network at the same time. 

But we already have a dual connection which is the control position and the ATIS position. All I'm saying is to add further exceptions to this multiple ATIS connections. 

[Joshua Jenkins]

6 minutes ago, Tim Wong said:

I think that will be a problem because VATSIM doesn't allow us to have multiple connections to the network at the same time. 

I don’t see how Gerardo’s suggestion is any different from the current exception granted to controllers for an ATIS.

edit: lol Gerardo beat me to it by a couple seconds

Also I agree with Gerardo. It would be neat to see this rule revised for and a version of vATIS put out to allow for multiple ATIS’s. That is, unless there is a clear reason to NOT have this rule changed that I’m just not thinking of.

Edited May 27, 2021 at 01:30 AM by Josh Jenk

[Tim Wong]

Image I would be online as a controller in different regions (Atlanta, London, Sydney). Wouldn't it be cool to have worldwide ATC coverage? However, would you accept to be number 20 for a clearance? 

This can be applied to pilots, too. Imagine me flying with different callsigns in the three areas mentioned above. Just because I am too busy with flight A during final approach, I keep missing the calls from controllers of flight B and C 

[Shane Friedman]

2 minutes ago, Tim Wong said:

Image I would be online as a controller in different regions (Atlanta, London, Sydney). Wouldn't it be cool to have worldwide ATC coverage? However, would you accept to be number 20 for a clearance? 

This can be applied to pilots, too. Imagine me flying with different callsigns in the three areas mentioned above. Just because I am too busy with flight A during final approach, I keep missing the calls from controllers of flight B and C 

I think you might've misinterpret the point here. Gerardo is just talking about ATISes. The weather reporting stations that provide Departure and Arrival runways, approaches, NOTAMs and such. His idea is to allow 1 controller to put up say the ATL ATIS, the CLT ATIS and whatever other airports reside under their coverage. Provides pilots more information at the airports under the control of one person. He is not suggestion expanding the coverage of a single person, rather giving more information to the pilot and adding a layer of realism to flying by getting an ATIS at a controlled airport. Nothing to do with oversaturation of the controller or even staffing more than one facility, just about multiple ATIS connections.

[Nicholas Camperos]

3 minutes ago, Tim Wong said:

Image I would be online as a controller in different regions (Atlanta, London, Sydney). Wouldn't it be cool to have worldwide ATC coverage? However, would you accept to be number 20 for a clearance? 

This can be applied to pilots, too. Imagine me flying with different callsigns in the three areas mentioned above. Just because I am too busy with flight A during final approach, I keep missing the calls from controllers of flight B and C 

Hello Tim. I agree with what you are saying, having a controller working multiple regions would be quit crazy, but I don't think this workload effect would matter as much if you are just operating multiple D-ATIS in the background. I believe the suggestion is just a way for enroute or tracon controllers to be able to run multiple ATIS frequencies at a time (providing weather and NOTAM information as necessary for the facility), contrary to the current implementation where one center controller working an airspace by him or herself can only provide one ATIS service for one airport. 

[Joshua Jenkins]

2 hours ago, Tim Wong said:

Image I would be online as a controller in different regions (Atlanta, London, Sydney). Wouldn't it be cool to have worldwide ATC coverage? However, would you accept to be number 20 for a clearance? 

This can be applied to pilots, too. Imagine me flying with different callsigns in the three areas mentioned above. Just because I am too busy with flight A during final approach, I keep missing the calls from controllers of flight B and C 

Also something that’s worth adding is that multiple ATISes actually DECREASES congestion on a frequency as it removes the need for a controller to provide weather for an airport where as of right now they can’t provide an ATIS for.

[Gerardo Rodriguez]

2 hours ago, Tim Wong said:

Image I would be online as a controller in different regions (Atlanta, London, Sydney). Wouldn't it be cool to have worldwide ATC coverage? However, would you accept to be number 20 for a clearance? 

This can be applied to pilots, too. Imagine me flying with different callsigns in the three areas mentioned above. Just because I am too busy with flight A during final approach, I keep missing the calls from controllers of flight B and C 

I guess my question is, why are you quoting controller/pilot workload on this? As Josh said, it actually would relief controller workload by providing up-to-date ATIS information for towered fields. The only "workload" would be the controller setting up the multiple ATISes before starting to work the frequency. As a pilot you can access the text version of the ATIS by just clicking.

My suggestion is aimed towards giving pilots more information before reaching the controller, thus relieving the controller from looking up the weather and setting everything up beforehand and pilots having in-sim up-to-date weather. 

[Tim Wong]

Maybe I said it in a wrong way. What I actually mean is that VATSIM prevents people have to multiple connections.  It's not about workload rather than connections you make. If you don't set a limit, people will do that on their own 

Edited May 27, 2021 at 10:44 AM by Tim Wong

[Nicholas Camperos]

Perhaps the best way to pull this off then would be to set a new limit so that the developers of vATIS (or any other brave initiative taker to create their own ATIS software) can create such a tool.

I am sure there are limitations with the VATSIM servers in regards to how many connections can be made. Therefore, the amount of controller connections a controller can make should obviously remain at one, but if they can allow the ATIS programs to connect under multiple connections, I don't know, a maximum of 4 or 5 connections, then it would be a great way to implement software that allows multiple ATIS frequencies to run at a time.

But, this might not even be necessary. I, personally, am not too educated about the structure of the VATSIM network. I do know that the Audio for Vatsim client allows us to have multiple frequencies open, transmitting and receiving on every one. Would something be stopping a new or modified client to transmit on multiple frequencies? 

At VATSIM's current state, it does not seem very possible to make something like this work. This thread would be far more efficient in the vATIS forum section so that the creator of the program can provide input on the possibility of doing such a thing with the current product. If the case is that vATIS just isn't built that way, and it won't ever be, that leaves the way for anyone else to create their own ATIS program that can achieve the same thing! (Working with the VATSIM development team I'd assume to overcome any limitations.)

[Robert Shearman Jr]

Reaching into the dusty neurons of my brain, I think one of the initial goals of the overall AFV project was to start implementing server-side ATIS to where controllers wouldn't even need to host their own -- they'd just need a means to read what runway config was being advertised so that they could operate the airport accordingly.  Since that never materialized and AFV development seems to have hit an elongated pause, I'd love to see the rules amended to allow one controller to broadcast multiple ATIS messages.  In ZDC it is often the case that one person working DC_CTR or PCT_APP is providing services for IAD, DCA, and BWI simultaneously -- and is only allowed to set up an ATIS at one of them at a time.  Sure would be nice to allow them to broadcast runways-in-use at all three, allowing pilots to plan their arrivals better without having to ask the controller which direction the airport is operating in.

[Ross Carlson]

I'm all for this. After all, it's very common for a top-down controller to be providing tower services at more than one airport, and ATIS is a big part of providing tower services.

[Charan Kumar]

Many pilots also check in with an ATIS even when it’s not provided by the controller, it would help give them something that’s actually available 😄. Great idea!!   

[Gerardo Rodriguez]

15 hours ago, Tim Wong said:

Maybe I said it in a wrong way. What I actually mean is that VATSIM prevents people have to multiple connections.  It's not about workload rather than connections you make. If you don't set a limit, people will do that on their own 

But VATSIM already allows one controller connection and one ATIS connection. The only thing they would have to do is add that you could connect multiple ATIS connections (AND NOT CONTROLLER CONNECTIONS). 

We're not talking about breaking the rule of multiple position connections, the purpose of this is adding information and a bit more realism to the network.