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.
By Tim Simpson 1339557
#535608 With modern powerful servers, higher end home PC's, and high speed internet almost universally available, to the ranges really impact things negatively? I can see a decade ago when all of the equipment, and the internet speeds would pose a challenge, but is that still the case today?

Just curious if the tight range restrictions are a holdout from the past, or if they are a necessity even with todays advanced equipment. As they are now, I think they are reasonable ranges for each position, but was just interested in the technical aspect of it.
By Norman Blackburn 870575
#535614 Hi Tim,

Whilst it is true that technology has developed over the past decade, there are still great parts of the globe who don’t enjoy the same advances that you and I do.

Dial up and satellite connections, with users paying for every byte of information up or downloaded still are a reality. An increase in range can and does affect these people.

In any event, with the upcoming changes in codec will come some other changes which will impact this element of our hobby.