Dot Break Command

[Matthew McEwen]

Dear friends,

In our ATC clients, we have the .break command to alert adjacent controllers that we are on break - i.e. not accepting handoffs, about to close, or going AFK for a short moment.

Once the .break command is used, the controller is highlighted in the ATC's controller list as being on break. I was wondering if there would be value in making this highlighted state also visible to pilots in their pilot clients, that way pilots might know not to call at that very moment, or at least have an idea why they are not receiving a response to their call (especially on, say, a 30-60 second bathroom break).

I wanted to start this discussion because I've had this idea in the back of my mind since I became a VATSIM ATC about 8 years ago, and now I would like to hear your thoughts on this as well.

Thank you for your time,

Edited October 3, 2022 at 03:40 PM by Matthew McEwen
more specific

[Ruijie Zhang]

Its a great idea, but may require a bit of work on the pilot client side and may involve quite a bit of effort since there are multiple clients after all

[Matisse VanWezer]

The command can be read by plugins and is also part of the network protocol. It's something I've also wondered for a long time. 

By design however, the .break command was intended to request a relief (as per Euroscope documentation). Nevertheless, I don't think anyone uses it this way because heck, if you are not online how will you notice? If we could repurpose it to show pilots we're going offline it might work.

However, I don't think it's necessary (at least here in Europe). Usually, pilots only call in after having received a contactme anyway. The only people this might be handy for are those that are not online yet and are looking where (not) to fly. But I wonder if the time between activation and log off is currently (can change!) long enough for those pilots to notice. 

Personally, I would love it for Euroscope/Topsky to throw me a confirmation box on whether I would really like to hand over a plane to a controller in break status.

[Matthew McEwen]

1 minute ago, Matisse VanWezer said:

Personally, I would love it for Euroscope/Topsky to throw me a confirmation box on whether I would really like to hand over a plane to a controller in break status.

I would love that!

[Mathias Jacobs-Anseeuw]

9 hours ago, Matisse VanWezer said:

Personally, I would love it for Euroscope/Topsky to throw me a confirmation box on whether I would really like to hand over a plane to a controller in break status.

I'd rather prefer if the controller using the command would disappear as the next controller to hand over to.
In our case, for example, if EDGG_CTR uses .break, but EDDF_APP doesn't, our next sector in the tag should automatically become APP.

But that said, we'd probably also need a distinction between someone taking a 2 minute break to grab a drink or whatever, and someone who intends to log off in the next 5 - 10 minutes. That would require a new command, most likely.

[Matisse VanWezer]

13 hours ago, Mathias Jacobs-Anseeuw 116 said:

I'd rather prefer if the controller using the command would disappear as the next controller to hand over to.
In our case, for example, if EDGG_CTR uses .break, but EDDF_APP doesn't, our next sector in the tag should automatically become APP.

But that said, we'd probably also need a distinction between someone taking a 2 minute break to grab a drink or whatever, and someone who intends to log off in the next 5 - 10 minutes. That would require a new command, most likely.

I'm not sure if I agree. A pop up would leave you with the choice: perform hand off anyway, send to unicom/send to next station. It would be a simple heads up informing you that they are closing, in case you missed their break status/ATC chat announcement. You would also get a chance to communicate with said sector about his intentions (whether he still takes new traffic or if another station will take over/the position will get relieved by another controller). It all depends on how you, and everyone around you, uses the break command. Blindly handing over to the 2nd next controller could lead to confusion for all three sides. 

I also do not think that a 2-minute break requires a dot break, nor a new command. Simply inform pilots on your frequency of your absence and if new ones call in, they usually let them know that you are taking a short break. 

 

Edited October 6, 2022 at 08:48 AM by Matisse VanWezer

[Thimo Koolen]

Unfortunately, even when using .break and saying in the atc-chat that you're logging off within 5-10 minutes and don't want further handoffs, there's still plenty of controllers that don't see it and still give handovers.

[Dustin Rider]

Whenever adjacent facilities close around me, those controllers typically post something on the ATC channel. Even if I miss that and make a handoff, they'll usually decline the handoff (at which point I figure it out) and coordinate with me. I don't really see the use of a pop-up saying "Are you sure you want to do that?" when I can just see if the handoff took or not.

[Matisse VanWezer]

8 hours ago, Dustin Rider said:

Whenever adjacent facilities close around me, those controllers typically post something on the ATC channel. Even if I miss that and make a handoff, they'll usually decline the handoff (at which point I figure it out) and coordinate with me. I don't really see the use of a pop-up saying "Are you sure you want to do that?" when I can just see if the handoff took or not.

We use silent handoffs, meaning that the next controller only takes the tag when the pilot calls in on frequency. If I go offline, I still decline handoffs as fast as possible but it's usually too late. 

[Dustin Rider]

11 hours ago, Matisse VanWezer said:

We use silent handoffs, meaning that the next controller only takes the tag when the pilot calls in on frequency. If I go offline, I still decline handoffs as fast as possible but it's usually too late. 

Oh, I see! That's kinda crazy to me, but now I have a better understanding of where you're coming from.