Air Traffic Controller Discussion With a Global Perspective
By Oliver Gruetzmann 961224
#458554
Adam Lagoda 827397 wrote:However, if station Bremen A serves as B as well (to provide ATC on all areas of ATC zone which is more-or-less rectangular with width twice as big as height), it's quite usual for them to set up another visibility point over eastern Germany, and that's most likely causing the problems.
Usually this shouldn't happen. We do have the combined EDWW_CTR for that purpose.

What Station does 123.925 interfere with (just interested)?
By Adam Lagoda 827397
#458901
Oliver Gruetzmann 961224 wrote:Usually this shouldn't happen. We do have the combined EDWW_CTR for that purpose.


I know it shouldn't. I also know it does (last Warsaw Overload an example).

I also did some tests with both E and W, and it takes a lot of movement to the east (or to the west from Poland) to interfere. That's why I opted for leaving things as they are, and asked my fellow controllers to check once we have that sort of interference again, to see if it's a problem of setting vis1..4 to the East.

Adam
By Jon Story 1357003
#500042 I wonder if there's a combination of technical and education solutions that could be used here?

Rather than strictly enforcing the range, which could raise objections in some circumstances, eg when supervising a student (I'm not a controller, so these specifics are a little beyond me)... why not lightly enforce it.

By which I mean: automatically set the "correct" range when connecting, and then allow it to be specifically over-ridden by the user. Currently it appears we're just asking the user what range they would like and then accepting that, but this solution would allow the correct range to be applied by default to the vast majority of users. For the few who do need to change the range for some reason, that option will still be available to them: for the rest, it will automatically be set and they're unlikely to ever change it deliberately.
By Josh Glottmann 1275389
#500060
Jon Story 1357003 wrote:...they're unlikely to ever change it deliberately.

I'm sure many would.
If I could have a 1500 mile vis range and my computer and network could handle it, why not? More dots = more fun.

Regarding training a student, it's not too often any mentor/instructor would need to use an obnoxious range. What ground student's instructor need to see planes 150 miles over? I can't think of a situation where a controller needs a super large range except maybe for the Socal/Norcal TRACONs in the US... but even that can be avoided by setting multiple visibility centers.
I honestly think it is completely fine how it is now, no need to fix something that isn't a problem. Plus "automatically setting it" means that clients such as VRC (and technically ASRC which both haven't released an updated in years) would need to be updated.