4.01 what is Oceanic?

[Sean Harrison]

6.05(d)Oceanic Control Endorsement
6.05(d)(i) An Oceanic Control Endorsement allows a properly rated controller to operate the
Oceanic Airspace to which the endorsement applies.
 

however in 4.01 “the four categories” doesn’t seem to allow for Oceanic unless we include it in CAOC 4.01(d).  Am I missing the definition of Oceanic Airspace?

[1341101]

4 minutes ago, Sean Harrison said:

6.05(d)Oceanic Control Endorsement
6.05(d)(i) An Oceanic Control Endorsement allows a properly rated controller to operate the
Oceanic Airspace to which the endorsement applies.
 

however in 4.01 “the four categories” doesn’t seem to allow for Oceanic unless we include it in CAOC 4.01(d).  Am I missing the definition of Oceanic Airspace?

Oceanic airspace is considered CAOC.

[Ryan Parry]

Oceanic is considered a CAOC but in 5.02(a)(iv) Enroute Controller (C1) it lists "enroute control, oceanic control, and CAOC". It seems Oceanic needs to be better defined, either separately or within the definition of CAOC and then applied consistently throughout the policy.

[1341101]

1 hour ago, Ryan Parry said:

Oceanic is considered a CAOC but in 5.02(a)(iv) Enroute Controller (C1) it lists "enroute control, oceanic control, and CAOC". It seems Oceanic needs to be better defined, either separately or within the definition of CAOC and then applied consistently throughout the policy.

Agreed. More thorough definitions for this, as it really does affect us, oceanic staff, as to what we can or cannot do as per GCAP.

[Sean Harrison]

Also going to be interesting how an S1 can log on as radio for oceanic.

[1341101]

1 hour ago, Sean Harrison said:

Also going to be interesting how an S1 can log on as radio for oceanic.

What you mean by that, is potential S1s acting as "radio operators" for oceanic stations. If and when GCAP goes into effect, we do plan on potentially having a program for ratings lower than C1 (not sure if we are allowed to limit this above S1, preferably this should be limited to S3s who have a lot of experience with radar control and overall controlling on the network), where such controllers will be trained for the "radio operator" position. Actually, we asked for a similar thing before - for S3s to be able to help us out on Oceanic during CTP, as a lot of it is more documentation/paperwork/handling the radios, but as per the current GRP, due to it being a "special centre" or a special overland FSS, this was limited to C1+. Now, these operators will NOT be able to simply log on without an actual oceanic controller alongside and this can be adjusted and planned out accordingly for big events, such as CTP. 

The radio operator will be handling the frequency. Whilst before, each sector that one controller controlled was covered by one controller only. Both the frequency, any sorts of coordination, the actual providing of separation, etc. With radio operators, we get the opportunity for two controllers to operate one sector and split the afore-mentioned responsibilities - one radio operator taking care of the frequency and one actual certified Oceanic controller, taking care of the actual handling of oceanic operations, separation, clearances, etc. This will allow an efficient flow of operations and will decrease frequency congestion and controller workload as well.

This can especially be significant for CTP (the only event I can think of that ever has split delivery stations). Previously, a controller would staff a sector that could be covering up to 4 (usually 2 or 3) NAT tracks on one station. Without going into too much detail, we do struggle with staffing up controllers for CTP, due to the fact that some of us live in places where it would be nighttime during CTP, a lot of others are too busy staffing up their local departure or arrival airport, so you're not left with many available controllers.

I have an idea which, if we have enough "radio operators", will allow us to open individual stations for pretty much every NAT track. The way it could work, is, although the radio operators only handle communication and relay everything to an actual oceanic controller who could be working on many things at once, instead of one controller covering up to 4 NAT tracks, you could have 4 stations manned by radio operators, all of whom relay messages and report to one single controller, who can manage the separation and flow of operations through such operators.

This logistical workaround will majorly reduce controller workload and will also provide a lot of great realism for both controllers and pilots, will definitely make controllers' lives more interesting and less "hectic" and will also allow people with lower ratings (S3s in particular), to experience what enroute and semi-procedural control is like. This will also make controlling roster planning much easier, as we now have more overall controllers available and a position won't be as dependant on a controller as it used to be in the previous yearas. I see this as a win-win-win scenario and is one of the things I am truly passionate about from within GCAP and if we are ever able to implement this, I would be nothing but very excited to work on implementing such a system!

 

 

Edited July 22, 2021 at 09:27 PM by 1341101

[1341101]

I made this low-quality diagram on Paint to show what I mean: https://prnt.sc/1ehdh8c

[Cody Newman]

6 minutes ago, 1341101 said:

low-quality diagram on Paint

This gets me right in my soul!    
Thank you

[Sean Harrison]

Ok, I just don’t see it.  You have obviously thought it through and happy with it.

For me I think they would need to be an “Non-Radar Radio Operator” not just a radio operator.

[Thomas Hawke]

Have you considered the VatSys  program?   it seems to mimic   ATOPS pretty well.   and  employing a bunch of "Radio Operatiors" honestly sounds, less than glamorous.    As a former real world Oceanic Controller, I would probably want a way to get position reports, and pass control instructions to airplanes,  I assume Selcal would do that?

 

[1341101]

6 hours ago, Thomas Hawke 1416153 said:

Have you considered the VatSys  program?   it seems to mimic   ATOPS pretty well.   and  employing a bunch of "Radio Operatiors" honestly sounds, less than glamorous.    As a former real world Oceanic Controller, I would probably want a way to get position reports, and pass control instructions to airplanes,  I assume Selcal would do that?

 

Could you elaborate on this, I don't quite understand. Do you mean the VatSys ATC software that could work for oceanic control?

SELCAL is a useful tool, both IRL and is simulated on VATSIM here as well in case oceanic controllers want to get in touch with the pilot, who may have their HF tuned down. Let me know!

[Thomas Hawke]

Yes, I have it setup for the Pacific Ocean, but just to look at it.    I'm sure people use it for either the Pacific of Atlantic.  

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/atop/

 

Edited July 23, 2021 at 10:55 PM by Thomas Hawke
adding picture.

[1341101]

4 hours ago, Thomas Hawke said:

Yes, I have it setup for the Pacific Ocean, but just to look at it.    I'm sure people use it for either the Pacific of Atlantic.  

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/atop/

 

I see what you mean. I'm sure it's used in places like in the Australian oceanic stations, but we will have to stick to Euroscope for this one because we currently use and are still heavily developing a plugin called "vNAAATS" which replicates the real-life North Atlantic System used by Gander and Shanwick controllers. As this is a realistic tool that we have already spent so much time developing (I say we, mainly Andrew Ogden, our FIR Chief), there won't be much point in switching to another software that doesn't support vNAAATS. 

[Matthew Bartels]

I'm working on language to further clarify this but I'm not really seeing where the confusion lies.

VATSIM already have defined the Oceanic Control Areas such as Gander, Shanwick, New York Oceanic, Houston Oceanic, Oakland Oceanic, etc..

Oceanic Control applies to someone operating those positions. So how do we make this more clear?

[1341101]

22 hours ago, Matthew Bartels said:

I'm working on language to further clarify this but I'm not really seeing where the confusion lies.

VATSIM already have defined the Oceanic Control Areas such as Gander, Shanwick, New York Oceanic, Houston Oceanic, Oakland Oceanic, etc..

Oceanic Control applies to someone operating those positions. So how do we make this more clear?

Matt,

Perhaps it is unnecessary to consider Oceanic sectors such as Gander and Shanwick, etc. (excluding the recently-crated NAT_FSS, which covers both consolidated) as CAOC, but rather as normal oceanic control areas, as defined under 3.03, which does fall under enroute? Afterall, most of these still only cover one (oceanic) FIR (with said exclusions of NAT_FSS, which could perhaps act as a CAOC of Oceanic?).  

Edited August 14, 2021 at 09:15 PM by 1341101

[1341101]

@Matthew Bartels Gonna bump the above. What do you think?

[Liesel Downes]

Not to be rude, but we require a response on this. We take just as long as any other vACC to develop policy here.

[1341101]

@Matthew Bartels Bump again. What do you think of my above comment on August 14th?

[Matthew Bartels]

Again. Where is the confusion? I’m having a very hard time seeing it.

The defined oceanic sectors are oceanic airspace. Those fall under enroute as you have stated, they wouldn’t  be CAOC and would require an oceanic endorsement.

Certain large groupings of oceanic such as combining Gander and Shanwick could be designated as a CAOC, but the individual sectors themselves are not.

So please tell me what clauses here are conflicting that are causing so much confusion. 

[Matthew Bartels]

Quote

Enroute Control

The Enroute Controller is tasked with monitoring and separating aircraft during any portion of flight not otherwise referenced in this document. This includes the cruise portion as well as approach and departure services to aerodromes not serviced by an Approach Control or Tower Position in the real world.
 

Quote

Oceanic Control

A special subset of Enroute Control, Oceanic Control positions provide separation services via radar, surveillance, or procedural techniques to aircraft operating in defined Oceanic Control Areas.
 

Based on these two definitions already in the document. It states that Enroute is any portion of flight  not otherwise referenced in the document.  We go forward to state that Oceanic is as special subset of Enroute Control. We do that to allow for it to be a separate endorsement, as well as, not count towards VC limits. But because we say it’s a special subset of Enroute, to me that means it falls under the umbrella of Enroute. 

So again, let me know how we can firm this up.