Mateusz Zymla Posted July 23, 2021 at 08:03 AM Posted July 23, 2021 at 08:03 AM (edited) Hello, I've just come across this section, and definition of "Flight Service Station": Quote Flight Service Station A Flight Service Station (FSS) is an Air Traffic Service that provides information and services to aircraft before, during, and after flight but is not responsible for giving control instructions, clearances, or providing separation. This information can include weather, NOTAMs, active runways, and other pertinent aeronautical information. Previously, FSS were designed to provide basic information services overseas and low-volume traffic to give an ATC services (like: Africa's/Asia's FSS positions). As we know, FSS had possibility to set the biggest possible visibility range because of that. According to this definition, now FSS would become more of what's in Europe known as "Flight Information Service"/"Radar Information Service" with stations called "Information" (like "Warszawa Information", "Langen Information", "Praha Information" etc.) These stations provide following ATS: information service, and alerting service (which, obviously does not apply on VATSIM) in uncontrolled airspace. With the new definition, quoted above, it seems that these "FIS" services could become "_FSS", is that right? Edited July 23, 2021 at 08:04 AM by Mateusz Zymla Mateusz Zymla - 1131338 VATSIMer since 2009, IRL pilot rated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1341101 Posted July 23, 2021 at 08:05 AM Posted July 23, 2021 at 08:05 AM 1 minute ago, Mateusz Zymla said: Hello, I've just come across this section, and definition of "Flight Service Station": Previously, FSS were designed to provide basic information services overseas and low-volume traffic to give an ATC services (like: Africa's/Asia's FSS positions). As we know, FSS had possibility to set the biggest possible visibility range because of that. According to this definition, now FSS would become more of what's in Europe known as "Flight Information Service"/"Radar Information Service" with stations called "Information" (like "Warszawa Information", "Langen Information", "Praha Information" etc.) These stations provide following ATS: information service, and alerting service (which, obviously does not apply on VATSIM). With the new definition, quoted above, it seems that these "FIS" services could become "_FSS", is that right? Correct. The definition of FSS is changed within GCAP and FSS will now basically mean a FIS, as you described. Stations that were previously defined as FSS (special centres, such as ASIA_FSS, EURW_FSS, CZQX_FSS, etc.) will now be defined as CAOCs, as defined in the policy. C1-rated controller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateusz Zymla Posted July 23, 2021 at 08:10 AM Author Posted July 23, 2021 at 08:10 AM Thanks David for your immediate response. I will ask few more here to avoid creating new topics: 1. Can we expect login suffixes to change? 2. Ground Metering - do I understand correctly, it's like "slot control/planning controller" as we used to do, when we simulate slotting/timing during biggest events? Mateusz Zymla - 1131338 VATSIMer since 2009, IRL pilot rated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1341101 Posted July 23, 2021 at 08:18 AM Posted July 23, 2021 at 08:18 AM 7 minutes ago, Mateusz Zymla said: Thanks David for your immediate response. I will ask few more here to avoid creating new topics: 1. Can we expect login suffixes to change? 2. Ground Metering - do I understand correctly, it's like "slot control/planning controller" as we used to do, when we simulate slotting/timing during biggest events? 1. I believe not quite, since the changes will be very hard to implement on the technical side, but using things such as _I_FSS or other "mid" suffixes would probably resolve this. 2. Yes. C1-rated controller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateusz Zymla Posted July 23, 2021 at 08:20 AM Author Posted July 23, 2021 at 08:20 AM 1 minute ago, 1341101 said: 1. I believe not quite, since the changes will be very hard to implement on the technical side, but using things such as _I_FSS or other "mid" suffixes would probably resolve this. 2. Yes. so CAOC's keep logging as _FSS? Mateusz Zymla - 1131338 VATSIMer since 2009, IRL pilot rated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1341101 Posted July 23, 2021 at 08:22 AM Posted July 23, 2021 at 08:22 AM 1 minute ago, Mateusz Zymla said: so CAOC's keep logging as _FSS? Not 100% sure on this one, probably CTR... @Matthew Bartels? C1-rated controller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Dowling Posted July 23, 2021 at 07:09 PM Posted July 23, 2021 at 07:09 PM I would imagine that currently, given the FSS callsign is the only one allowing the range needed for the CAOC's. It would have to remain the same for the time being until the tech folks have had sufficient time to enable the changes that are needed. On that I would imagine more input from the tech folks would be needed for a realistic answer. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1341101 Posted July 23, 2021 at 08:26 PM Posted July 23, 2021 at 08:26 PM 1 hour ago, Philip Dowling said: I would imagine that currently, given the FSS callsign is the only one allowing the range needed for the CAOC's. It would have to remain the same for the time being until the tech folks have had sufficient time to enable the changes that are needed. On that I would imagine more input from the tech folks would be needed for a realistic answer. Phil Actually, FSS can be a technical problem, as we have seen a lot more crashes and bugs due to the forced increased range on FSS, hence the reason for the use for CTR callsigns during CTP. Not sure if you know, but we've actually worked on a little something to try and fix this issue and there will be quite some updates at 2108 with our sector packages. But yeah, I personally see increased FSS range as more of an issue, the way it works right now on the network. C1-rated controller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Dowling Posted July 23, 2021 at 08:29 PM Posted July 23, 2021 at 08:29 PM 1 minute ago, 1341101 said: Actually, FSS can be a technical problem, as we have seen a lot more crashes and bugs due to the forced increased range on FSS, hence the reason for the use for CTR callsigns during CTP. Not sure if you know, but we've actually worked on a little something to try and fix this issue and there will be quite some updates at 2108 with our sector packages. But yeah, I personally see increased FSS range as more of an issue, the way it works right now on the network. David. To be fair, as I understand it from Andrew. The issue there is more of a client issue than a network issue. But that is beyond the scope of this post. Back to the point of the post. I am sure there will be some suffix changes, but it will need to wait for the servers et al to be adjusted accordingly. Phil 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateusz Zymla Posted July 23, 2021 at 08:45 PM Author Posted July 23, 2021 at 08:45 PM 15 minutes ago, Philip Dowling said: David. To be fair, as I understand it from Andrew. The issue there is more of a client issue than a network issue. But that is beyond the scope of this post. Back to the point of the post. I am sure there will be some suffix changes, but it will need to wait for the servers et al to be adjusted accordingly. Phil I'm in touch with Andrew regarding software related topics and can confirm, euroscope gives up when certain amount of radar targets are shown. Mateusz Zymla - 1131338 VATSIMer since 2009, IRL pilot rated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts