Jump to content

You're browsing the 2004-2023 VATSIM Forums archive. All content is preserved in a read-only fashion.
For the latest forum posts, please visit https://forum.vatsim.net.

Need to find something? Use the Google search below.

VATSIM Map showing different controllers to VATSpy - probably noob question ;)


Dave Twilley
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dave Twilley
Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm super new to this, so maybe i've misunderstood something.

Last night I connected for my first flight, I checked map.vatsim.net and it showed a big circle around Gatwick airport which went out past Luton, when the mouse was placed in this circle it told me it was controlled by Gatwick Approach.

I was planning on doing a circuit flight from Luton, but after a while it was clear this wasn't the right controller.  I checked VATSpy and it showed the circle smaller and showed another circle around Stansted for Essex Approach which was covering this airport (top down from A).  I contacted both via private message and Essex Approach confirmed it was him and not Gatwick Approach.

What have I missed here, I didnt see the Essex Approach controller on the map.vatsim.net at all!

I eventually contacted Essex Approach who provided ground and tower services for Luton and I had a nervous, mistaken filled but safe circuit flight around Luton!  The chap was very helpful 🙂

Edited by Dave Twilley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Dave Twilley changed the title to VATSIM Map showing different controllers to VATSpy - probably noob question ;)
Andreas Fuchs
Posted
Posted (edited)

Hi Dave and welcome to the gang!

As you have noticed, applications like VATspy may be a bit more accurate. By the nature of how those websites and applications are programmed (=what type of ATC-station they show to cover what piece of airspace) it is not always easy to determine who's actually doing what. Your key to success will be to read the "controller information" (sometimes referred to as "controller ATIS") as they usually state what airspace and what airports they are responsible for. It's a matter of getting used to this and implement this into your normal workflow.

Edited by Andreas Fuchs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave Twilley
Posted
Posted

thanks, that's what i thought.  Tell me, if someone is covering a wide area and I pop up on a small towered air field and contact them for ground services and they've got to find airport charts for a field nobody has taken off from before, would they get annoyed at having to do this?  Should I stick to the main/large airfields, I can imagine having a busy airspace and having someone pop up wanting ground taxi instructions for a field they've never heard of would be quite frustrating.

I think this happened yesterday while i was listening to Gatwick Approach which showed it extended out past Heathrow and someone wanted Heathrow tower services as there wasnt a tower controller online and they were directed to Unicom instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andreas Fuchs
Posted
Posted (edited)

Rather call and ask if they serve your airport or not. They won't get mad, except maybe if you are the 5th pilot calling from Paris asking London Control for services.... 😉

Edited by Andreas Fuchs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave Twilley
Posted
Posted

yeah i'd never do that, this was was close by and the map was ambiguous, guess thats to be expected 🙂

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trevor Hannant
Posted
Posted

On most VATSIM maps, the APP positions will simply show a circle of fixed radius round a position's centre (i.e the airport it actually controls) rather than the actual area it covers (it's very rarely ever a circle!).  As Andreas says, check the controller information for more details on where it's actually controlling as you may get an approach position that actually covers two airfields, for example, based on you flying in the UK - SOLENT APP covers traffic to Southampton and Bournemouth to some extent, as does EGAA_APP for EGAA and EGAC however the controller info should say this.

Trevor Hannant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share