Special Provision for Voice CTAF ( NYC SFRA Event )

[Ed Tomlinson 1014292]

The FAA recently announced rules for the new NYC SFRA ( Hudson River and East River Exclusion zones ) effective November 19, 2009.

 

There are now six mandatory self-reporting points for both Transient and Local operations in the Hudson River Exclusion Zones.

 

Typing those announcements ( aircraft type, current position, direction of flight, and altitude ) at the six mandatory reporting points while maintaining VFR separation, minimum safe altitudes, proper altitude for range of operation, and lateral and horizontal distance from the boundaries of the zone is a painful deterrent and an unnatural act at best; Typing being the operative word here, and not the topic of my flying skills.

 

 

1) First topic is:

I believe a special VATSIM provision for Voice CTAF channel 123.05 in the NYC SFRA would enhance the realism of VATSIM, further the enjoyment of simulated flight in these scenic areas, eliminate a serious cockpit distraction for safe VFR flight in the Exclusion Zones, and perhaps attract pre-flight practice from a new audience of RW pilots.

 

2) Second related topic is:

I think an excellent Promotional Event could be planned around such a scenic area involving Transient and Local operations in the NYC SFRA, Bravo transition flights, and the surrounding complex airspace, which would benefit our membership experience.

 

I would like to read constructive discussion and feedback of both these ideas.

 

What say you?

 

 

References:

FAQ/Policies – UNICOM

AOPA Article

FAA Online Training course

FAASafety

Skyline Bravo Transition Route

New York ARTCC SFRA Mandatory Briefing Item

Edited December 11, 2009 at 02:00 AM by Guest

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

So the deaf and hearing impaired members on the network...how would that work in this area of airspace?

[Ed Tomlinson 1014292]

So the deaf and hearing impaired members on the network...how would that work in this area of airspace?

There are actually two parts to your question. I am not insensitive in this matter.

 

All pilots in the SFRA would be tuned to 123.05. Texting would not be precluded on 123.05, therefore all pilots would receive text reporting points.

 

As to the second part of that question, I will give it further thought.

Edited November 22, 2009 at 12:42 AM by Guest

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

Ahhhh, reading again, I missed the first part of your question as well Ed. Other places on VATSIM have tried (or have done on their own) using CTAF frequencies other than 122.8. I believe for simplicity purposes, the BOG decided that 122.8 would be the only UNICOM frequency on VATSIM, if I remember correctly. If an exception would be made for one area, I suppose the argument would be that it should be made for all areas. There is nothing particularly special about the Hudson SFRA.

 

If it's a voice-only frequency, put into place to avoid having to type in the busy airspace, I still don't understand how deaf/hearing impaired would receive those messages, unless all pilots were using both voice and text, which defeats the whole purpose.

[Ed Tomlinson 1014292]

To be certain, Bryan, this is not a suggestion for a voice-only frequency.

 

Now with respect to deaf and hearing impaired members, I would pose the answer to the second nature of the question lies in the form of investigating another question.

 

“How would creating a dedicated voice/text channel on 123.05 for an SFRA be any different of an experience than creating a voice/text channel for LAX_GND/TWR/APP for someone hearing impaired?”

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

main issue is people online get complacent. if theres a voice channel, many wont bother to use text at all. so the unintended result is people only using one or the other instead of both. go to areas where there is a voice channel and see how many of them are repeating on text, wont see many doing it.

[Richard Gerrish]

main issue is people online get complacent. if theres a voice channel, many wont bother to use text at all. so the unintended result is people only using one or the other instead of both. go to areas where there is a voice channel and see how many of them are repeating on text, wont see many doing it.

 

other issue is the hearing impaired won't be able to see the traffic call outs of the pilots using Vox. that, to my understanding at least, is why 122.80 is txt only.

[Ed Tomlinson 1014292]

main issue is people online get complacent. if theres a voice channel, many wont bother to use text at all. so the unintended result is people only using one or the other instead of both. go to areas where there is a voice channel and see how many of them are repeating on text, wont see many doing it.

 

If the special provision sought for the voice/text channel 123.05 were approved and created, there would be no issue of complacency or non-compliance because either would be permitted.

Edited November 22, 2009 at 02:28 AM by Guest

[Ed Tomlinson 1014292]

main issue is people online get complacent. if theres a voice channel, many wont bother to use text at all. so the unintended result is people only using one or the other instead of both. go to areas where there is a voice channel and see how many of them are repeating on text, wont see many doing it.

 

other issue is the hearing impaired won't be able to see the traffic call outs of the pilots using Vox. that, to my understanding at least, is why 122.80 is txt only.

Richard, this is the very difficult nature of the second question posed,

“How would creating a dedicated voice/text channel on 123.05 for an SFRA be any different of an experience than creating a voice/text channel for LAX_GND/TWR/APP for someone hearing impaired?”

[Brendan Samson 1070087]

“How would creating a dedicated voice/text channel on 123.05 for an SFRA be any different of an experience than creating a voice/text channel for LAX_GND/TWR/APP for someone hearing impaired?”

 

Ed, I do not disagree with you about having a voice frequency, but if there is a text only pilot at LAX, the controller will type up all of the information that pilot needs to safely fly around.

 

Without a controller, the text only pilots on the frequency you where proposing would allow them to make position reports, but not receive them.

[Ed Tomlinson 1014292]

Ok Brendan, good point for my second question, and well taken for controlled airspace/movement areas.

 

Hmmm, since this provision is about a very specific SFRA area in VFR airspace, I'll have to re-phrase this. See-and-avoid should apply here I think.

[Brendan Samson 1070087]

See-and-avoid should apply here I think.

 

To play the devil's advocate, there are pilots who are unable to see other traffic, the BoG has though this through before.

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

And for another question Ed, what makes the Hudson SFRA any more special than a SFRA or airport or whatever anywhere else that uses its own CTAF frequency? Of all the places on the entire VATSIM Network, what makes the Hudson area so special that an exemption of this nature should be made?

[David Accetta 882776]

And for another question Ed, what makes the Hudson SFRA any more special than a SFRA or airport or whatever anywhere else that uses its own CTAF frequency? Of all the places on the entire VATSIM Network, what makes the Hudson area so special that an exemption of this nature should be made?

 

Well, there is the real world events part of it.

[Ed Tomlinson 1014292]

And for another question Ed, what makes the Hudson SFRA any more special than a SFRA or airport or whatever anywhere else that uses its own CTAF frequency? Of all the places on the entire VATSIM Network, what makes the Hudson area so special that an exemption of this nature should be made?

Bryan, You mean the fact that it's a popular sightseeing flight corridor featuring a National Monument icon such as the Statue of Liberty isn't special enough?

 

Dave, No .... mention of real world events is not even a factor.

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

Bryan, You mean the fact that it's a popular sightseeing flight corridor featuring a National Monument icon such as the Statue of Liberty isn't special enough?

 

Special enough to get its own exemption on VATSIM? I'm not sure. That's not really for me to answer. All I'm saying is that there are tons of airports, and flight corridors, and special areas throughout the world all using their own CTAF frequencies. 122.8 was decided to be the VATSIM-wide UNICOM for simplicity sake, instead of having pilots trying to find which frequency is used in which corridor, airport, etc. And of course, what happens with the pilots who don't about this special corridor and its special frequency? They just make their broadcast on 122.8?

[Ed Tomlinson 1014292]

Bryan, you raise a number of good points. I'm certain I don’t share the experience to have all the answers that would satisfy. That is the purpose of having intelligent discourse here. I would like to seek workable solutions that would appeal to leadership and membership at large. I remain optimistic there are some unturned possibilities that are out there somewhere.

[Ed Tomlinson 1014292]

The crux of the voice problem seems to boil down to this . . . voice reporting being, in essence, “unannounced traffic” for the hearing impaired.

 

Have you ever heard this?

ATC “…report traffic in sight”

Pilot “…I have them on the TCAS, (crystal ball, yada yada)”

 

Of course, this is simply an improper response, BUT nonetheless insightful …

 

In the cockpit we have technologies which provide “TCAS like” information already, for example:

TIS

TIS-B

and ADS-B explained here.

 

There are both portable and instrument panel Traffic Information solutions like,

this active and cooperative traffic and collision-warning system,

and the G1000 which will also display Traffic Information Services (TIS) alerts.

 

 

In the area of an NYC SFRA, one possible work-around for the “unannounced traffic” problem for the hearing impaired would be a likewise existing visual solution provided by FSInn Radar, VATSpy, DLMN, or other similar alternative traffic display software.

[Ed Tomlinson 1014292]

OP Refresh:

#1) creating support and approval for a CTAF voice/text channel on 123.05.

#2) hosting a VATSIM Event featuring the NYC SFRA, Skyline Bravo Transition, and other surrounding controlled airspace.

 

No one has yet discussed Idea #2.

The primary emphasis intended here is featuring #2, with an underlying basis of #1.

 

First, there must be some expressed interest and support for an SFRA Event. But, I believe an SFRA Event will only draw interest and attraction so long as there is voice/text support. Why, because, with 10-30 pilots in the SFRA, an SFRA Event:

 

* Quickly looses its appeal with all those pilots creating a m[Mod - Happy Thoughts] wall of scrolling text to have to monitor and read while flying (each reporting 6 mandatory points, possibly several other optional landmarks as well ).

 

* Is less manageable in the cockpit with that much required texting in such a short distance while flying.

 

* For pilots with a hearing impairment could utilize an existing visual traffic display software.

 

* Without voice support sorely misses the mark and falls well short of the potential of becoming as close to "as real as it gets” of simulating a spectacularly filled, challenging, scenic airspace, and real-world procedures.

[Norman Blackburn]

* For pilots with a hearing impairment could utilize an existing visual traffic display software.

 

Ed,

 

Do you have options for X-Plane pilots? Also, whilst they wouldn't be in the immediate area, what to of those who use PS1?

 

VATSIM as you can see caters for more than just the MSFS pilot.

[Brendan Samson 1070087]

The Lower Hudson is probably up in the top 10 busiest airspaces on VATSIM, and maybe the most dangerous.

[Ed Tomlinson 1014292]

* For pilots with a hearing impairment could utilize an existing visual traffic display software.

 

Ed,

 

Do you have options for X-Plane pilots? Also, whilst they wouldn't be in the immediate area, what to of those who use PS1?

 

VATSIM as you can see caters for more than just the MSFS pilot.

Norman, I do not follow why using X-Plane would preclude using VAT-Spy, DLMN, or even QuteScoop ( I seem to recall this works for Linux and MACs even ) for a visual traffic display.

 

Also, I don't understand the second reference to PS1. What is that?

[Norman Blackburn]

Ed,

 

All of the traffic tools mentioned utilise a delayed feed; that is to say it isn't showing information for now. Having been flying since the 1980's I know that those few minutes of a delay can mean a lot.

 

A tool for the purpose you state needs to work in real time and in conjunction with the user's simulator hence my asking if you are aware of anything that works with simulators other than MSFS.

[Ed Tomlinson 1014292]

Norman,

 

I have no knowledge of the feed limitations.

 

Can they the delay be re-adjusted solely in VAT-Spy for example, or is it a further design constraint of the VATSIM network? Perhaps I do not full comprehend why this functionality must be integrated into the Simulator/Client layer.

 

Are you tacitly implying that the MSFS w/ FSInn Radar is more real-time?

[Ross Carlson]

VATSpy, Servinfo, etc all get their data from a text file that is generated once every 2 minutes by the VATSIM data server. Tools that are built into the sim such as TIS gauges get their data in real time using the same position data that are used to actually display other aircraft in the sim world. This position information is updated every 5 seconds.