Defining a SECTOR within another SECTOR

[David Walsh 811659]

Hi guys,

 

I'm working on a .ese file for New Zealand and it is coming a long quite nicely. I'm liking Euroscope a lot - congrats to the development team!

 

I have a question regarding defining a self contained sector that is completely enclosed by another sector.

 

I have this diagram to explain the problem

 

http://www.box.net/shared/cfa4g15l0f

 

The sector I have defined within the boundaries of BAY_AATMA (Orange) is the Auckland TMA. As you can see it is completely enclosed by the BAY sector (defined by BAY_NAK/BAY_OH and NZZC).

 

I was testing ES today with another controller where I was working BAY and he was working Auckland TMA. Even though the sector ownership showed that he owned Auckland TMA and I owned BAY, the airspace bound by BAY_AATMA was still being displayed on my scope as being owned by me. It made a big mess of the posting of flightplans too.

 

How can I define the BAY_AATMA airspace such ES will recognise that when Auckland TMA is online with BAY, that BAY no longer owns the airspace within the airspace defined by BAY_AATMA?

 

Cheers,

 

David Walsh

VATNZ

[Stephan Boerner 945550]

Maybe you should post your definitions ...

 

Make sure the lower sector is defined first in the ESE, and that the owners are entered in the correct order.

Maybe there was nothing wrong at all. I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that Auckland doesn't reach all up to the top of BAY, so you still had some levels of airspace above Auckland. Then it would have been perfectly correct that this area was displayed as your airspace, as it was your airspace, above Auckland.

[David Walsh 811659]

;NZ AREA RADAR+OH TERMINAL
Christchurch_Control:Christchurch Control:126.000:AC:A:NZCH-A:CTR:-:-:5101:5200:S037.00.16.679:E174.48.49.072
;
;AUCKLAND/BAYS TMA
;
Auckland Approach:Auckland Control:129.600:AA:A:NZAA:APP:-:-:5051:5077
Auckland Departure:Auckland Control:124.300:AD:D:NZAA:DEP:-:-:5051:5077
;
; Area Sectors
;

;BAY Sector (BAY)
SECTOR:BAY:2500:60000
OWNER:AC
BORDER:NZZO1:BAY_OH:BAY_NAK

;
; TMA Sectors
;

;Auckland TMA (AATMA)
SECTOR:AATMA:1500:60000
OWNER:AA:AD:AC
BORDER:BAY_AATMA

 

The TMA has the same vertical extent as BAY does.

[David Walsh 811659]

I had the TMAs defined after the Area sectors so I switched it around but that still didn't solve it.

 

Any other ideas from the floor?

[Stephan Boerner 945550]

And you are sure you reloaded the file after you changed the order?

 

By the way, I am not sure how arrival and departure share the airspace, but maybe you need to split that sector to have it correctly recognized for both controllers.

[David Walsh 811659]

I'm positive that it was reloaded.

 

I guess I also want to make sure that it is possible to do what I want to do within the parameters of ES.

 

Take the following: I create a circular sector, A, radius 50nm and owns from 0-FL600 and then I create another circular sector, B, which has the same centre and radius of 100nm and owning 0-FL600.

 

If B owns A when A is not online; if A comes online, I should see a big hole in the middle of B's airspace (that is non-shaded) which tells me A is there - correct?

[Stephan Boerner 945550]

correct, and if you defined DISPLAY for the border, you should also see the borderline highlighted.

 

Another difference between the TMA and the BAY sector is, that TMA goes 1000ft below the BAY sector, but that shouldn't result in the sector being highlighted, as it should not be covered either.

 

You can send me the sct/ese combination if you want. I will then have a closer look.

[Oliver Gruetzmann]

correct, and if you defined DISPLAY for the border, you should also see the borderline highlighted.

 

Are you really sure about that?

 

Guess it should highlight the whole sector but display the necessary handoffs.

 

So the bigger sector will always see the whole area highlighted if you don't split sector A (larger) so it does not contain any part of sector B (smaller).

 

Just define two sectors and put the smaller one first in the ESE file will not make any difference in display. The only thing you can see is defined handoff lines, but no "hole" will appear.

[Stephan Boerner 945550]

Of course, if he defines a DISPLAY for TMA area, the border of TMA would be highlighted.

 

Guess it should highlight the whole sector but display the necessary handoffs.

 

So the bigger sector will always see the whole area highlighted if you don't split sector A (larger) so it does not contain any part of sector B (smaller).

 

Just define two sectors and put the smaller one first in the ESE file will not make any difference in display. The only thing you can see is defined handoff lines, but no "hole" will appear.

That's just what I wold him after having a look at the whole file. Even though there is no "sector" für BAY left in the area of TMA, as TMA uses the whole level-band available for BAY, ES can not split the sectors itself, so for correct highlighting, they need to be defined without overlapping areas.

 

It looks like the file is working just as it is supposed to.

[David Walsh 811659]

Hi guys,

 

After defining the TMA's ahead of the Area sectors, the FDPS functions started to work properly so that was all good.

 

I understand how the whole thing works now in terms of a sector within another sector and that the TMA will not be displayed as being owned by another sector using the current layout.

 

Thanks very much for your help, I appreciate it