Jonas K. (1013467)

@Sidiclei Dasilva

Definitely. Measurement of wind and other meteo data is highly standardized. E.g. the wind values given for take-off and landing clearances are mean values of the last 2 minutes (not 100% about the exact number, but it's definitely not the measurement taken right now). You find some details in skybrary (https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Wind_Velocity_Reporting), a very helpful reference for a lot of questions regarding professional aviation. Details about meteo services and measurements can be found in ICAO Annex 3.

An option for instant radio transmission replays would be a great feature. So if you don't understand something or are unsure, you can quickly listen to the replay again, like in real life. And did I mention already to include telephone functionalities? So controllers can phone each other instead of typing text message. Of course, also these phone transmissions should be available for a replay, it might be helpful from time to time.

@buraktiftikci There is no such concept on VATSIM currently. Be careful to not mistake a traffic management concept (what we are talking about here and which is discussed to be somehow introduced to POSCON, but could also be a POSCON-wide approach) for VATEUD (the hierarchic superior management level above local vACCs in VATSIM) or EuroControl vACC (a special vACC within VATSIM providing upper area control in Europe's FIRs in case no local CTR station is online).

TSAT time is just calculated backwards from the CTOT with a fixed time depending on departure runway and actual parking positon of the aircraft. So it would need to be defined as a bunch of parameters (taxi time from any (group of) parking position(s) to any runway). Additionally, the system would need to be able to detect the actual parking position (or a specified region of groups of parking positions having which are assigned the same taxi times).

No such times are simulated on VATSIM.

Just don't aim to eliminate holdings (as the Eurocontrol system is often used to) at all! Otherwise, pilots will struggle even more to fly them properly. Some delays, either on ground or in the air is part of the fun such a networks offer, isn't it. I could imagine, and I think this was already briefly touched by Andrew, that an expected delay for a certain flight or airport can be displayed. But the pilot should then be able to decide whether he takes into account some delay or if he wants to ammend his plan. To conclude, I think a system dealing with delay should be more informative rather than regulative. The valuable piece of information on the ATC side would be expected average delay (for push, before threshold, overall ground movements, holding), so he can inform pilots accordingly.

In my opinion, it doesn't matter what type of add-on you fly. As long as you are familiar with the procedures and can handle the situation kind of professional. When you argue that emergencies occur all the time in RL, keep in mind that those pilot are also always trained for such situation. Hence, the training should be linked to any kind of permission for emergencies. You can always deactivate the failure model. Just because you fly an A2A aircraft doesn't mean you can handle abnormal situations adequately.

I was thinking more about no en-route service and possibly none at the destination aerodrome. So the case when there can be no en-route delay because there is no controller online for doing it. And then the same controllers have to deal with this traffic as VFR, which is probably even more time consuming? Unless in real life, there probably won't be a FIS service online at all times ... Sure, but traffic numbers and patterns differ quite a lot. This cannot be compared. And I don't think if you have online day at ZZZZ, that pilots are really interested to fly to the nearby airport ZZZX. And neither are they interested to "simulate" an hour of delay. It will still be a hobby and for pleasure, don't destroy that. In VATSIM, there are also lots of city pair events. A traffic pattern you can't really see in real life (so many aircraft flying the same pair behind each other) and has a high potential that delays will be issued. Again, I want to point out that you cannot work with the same methods when you don't have the same starting position. You have to be careful to not restrict traffic too much. Otherwise ATC and pilots will get bored and angry. I would also suggest to give a certain decision power about the acceptance rate to the controller in charge, so he can prevent unnecessary traffic restrictions.

The pilot intending to do an after-work flight? A delay of 1 hour? Never! By the time he would be allowed for departure, his time is half up and he won't have sufficient time to complete his leg. Delay may be acceptable during events where high traffic is obviously expected. But even then 1 hour is quite extensive. How are you gonna deal with non-staffed airspaces? How are you going to deal with different controller capacities? The range on current networks is quite wide. How will different landing concepts (and linked to it different capacities) taken into consideration?

Curious about the user acceptance ...

So you are more looking for a slot simulation tool then. Because CDM takes place every minute and is actually designed to prevent airspace and airport overload. But this is exactly what events like the CTP are trying to manage. So it's a bit contradictionary. I've been part of this event already a few times as event organizer of a participating airport. Believe me, the biggest mess is created by these slots. Because the departure times are already fixed, which is again exactly the oposite of how it should be. Then there are often delays and pilots don't really care about their time, many non-event pilots. It's always a mess. And the problem finally is that especially the throughput over the atlantic is too low. So, when you are an arrival airport and you are well staffed, it's quite a relaxing time. So maybe think again of what you are exactly looking for. I'm curious to hear.

You can only nominate one.

I also made the experience that pilots simulate emergencies just for their fun, but they have actually no clue how to react in such a situation. At least on VATSIM, abnormals are part of the training and as a controller in Switzerland, I handle emergencies any now and then. However, if it becomes obvious that the pilot didn't think further than just announcing any type of problem, I refuse to handle. So the rule for an ATC to do so is quite a good one, I would say. He can react flexible in different situations and also according his experience. It could also be an idea to ask pilot who wish to simulate emergencies, for additional qualifications like some theory test and broaden their understand of abnormal situations. Because when a pilot reports fire and then asks for a holding to burn fuel, he didn't really get it, if I can say that. And this is just one examples of many such situations I had. Also manual flying should be a topic in this context. Because many pilots can't fly a large plane manually and heavily deviate for clearances when their autopilot isn't working (possibly due to a simulated degradation) although it would be perfectly possible according the simulated degradation.

I understand the wish and also thought about such a system already. But because traffic flows on virtual flight sim networks differ from real life traffic flows, the Eurocontrol CDM concept can't be transfered without adaptions. The main issue is the time at which the required information to introduce restrictions would be available. I expect pilots to file their flight plans earliest 1 hour before departure, a probably only shortly before they depart. This makes it impossible for any system to compute the future traffic situation in advance. Because not all related flight plans are available at that time. Therefore, any simulation of automated slots and calculated take-off times doesn't make much sense. What can be done and also could be of help is short-term traffic number analysis. En-route controllers may be interested in the expected numbers of aircraft within the next few hours. But you have to be aware that the only measure he can take to reduce the workload, if it gets too high, is to restrict departures in his own FIR. In any case, if you introduce any kind of CDM, some pilots will have to wait. And this is probably not that popular, especially if they just want to do a short after-work flight. I think the best one can do is support the controllers with appropriate tools to take away the cognitive load of organising traffic, so he can concentrate in controlling it. Such tools may be sequencing support (on ground: target departure sequence, check that a suitable number of planes is at the holding point, but not too many, support to plan push/taxi and departure intervals; in the air: approach sequence including speed management and wake-turbulence separation considerations) and mid- and long-term conflict detection.

Hi Alex Your question was answered already back in 2017. Just use the search function ...

No need for it. The video is public available on the POSCON Facebook page. No need to have an account to access the media there.

@Tim S I think you are a bit underestimating the expectations of pilots. They don't buy detailed airport sceneries and update their databases regularly just to get the same type of service everywhere, but to add realism. And I guess most ATC wish the same, otherwise they wouldn't ask to build a client with the look and functionality of a real life system. A generic client would then be perfectly fine. I agree that it is a tricky thing to break down real life procedures to a level enthusiasts can work with. But I believe that you only can learn from those. I disagree with your statement about the learning curve of ATC. If they have only very basic procedures for everywhere, there will be no evolution and skill improvement. This is not my general experience. You might want to visit an event of VATSIM in Switzerland. I imagine you would be pretty surprised ... But to conclude the findings from the discussion, independent what will be the direction of development, the ATC client should provide tools to support ATC in high traffic situations. Such tools may be: traffic prediction (so that you at least know that a lot of traffic is coming) electronic coordination (partly available in EuroScope from Gergely, can be extended) holding management sequence management and calculation support I agree with @aeroniemi that any tactical flow management is most probably not appropriate for a network as POSCON. However, the option to propose routings with ATC may be extended to include also the expected delay. A pilot may then also choose a route depending on the expected dealy.

A set of standardized training sessions (mostly theory courses) is a good idea for sure to learn the basics. But don't underestimate the local differences, which make aviation also a very interesting place to learn. There is usually a reason for local rules. They are not just invented, but maybe depend on the available systems, the terrain situation, the airport layout and the expected traffic volume. If you disregard those differences, I personally wouldn't see any advantage in this network compared to a single-player ATC simulation game you can buy. And although there are local procedures documented, a deep knowledge in your airspace and how certain problems and situation shall be handled are best known by local people. Of course there needs to be kind of a critical number to keep the training cylce alive. But I believe that local people, maybe with some connection to RL operations, are the best ones to transfer knowledge with a high motivation. And this is what a network and a community makes standing out from a simple computer game you buy in a store. Not respecting local procedures that are written down is not my experience in VATSIM, at least where I am active as ATC. But if the airspace and all inter-unit procedures are simplified, there is no reason to establish local groups (clubs). Why would you want to invent your own world of aviation? The training length is often a topic for discussions. But there is a trade-off between quality and quantity, and there are limited ressources available. Sometimes, the expectations are also quite out of range. When someone is controlling a few hours a week, becoming a center controller within a few months is just a overestimation of the own capabilities. What can help here is a centralized provision of the general training material like basic facility duties, the handling of the ATC client, phraseology or coordination, but also system support for theory exams and so on. Additionally, one might think about basic tools of a quality management system. A good reputation of a controller could be a contributing factor to indicate the readiness for further training stages. And such feedback may be collected through standarized reports by other members. This could help to reduce the number of wasted ressources (because training is provided for people not ready or not willing to contribute back to the network again) and therefore in fact increase the efficiency of training and so also improve the waiting times for members who really are interested in training to contribute to the network with online time later on.

There is definitely the "european" version of the SGMCS missing. A system widely used is the NOVA 9000 from Indra. It is customizable and so every airport may have the look a bit different. But there are essential functionalities like RIMCAS. The plugin vSMR for EuroScope is simulating some of these functions. However, as it is widely used and also makes the screen look "nice", this could be an attracting factor for users to join POSCON. TopSky is for sure also a system to be considered. Although I'm not familiar with it (Switzerland is one of those places where an in-house developed system is the most suitable solution), I know a number of ANSPs are using that system.

This is something available currently to the VATSIM network through GNG. It does a lot of things automated, actually everything that can be found in the ARINC dumps that data providers as LIDO/Jeppesen create for real FMC systems. Strip handling is definitely something that is underestimated in the current networks. I don't talk about the display of strips and their look. In my opinion, the most important thing missing is synchronization of flight strip sequences between controllers, so that approach and departure sequences can be established without the need of text or voice communication, but simply by displaying the same order of strips to all controllers. Maybe another topic to cover are squawks. At least in VATSIM, this is currently done by a definition in the sector file refering to the station providing the squawk. That's probably the correct approach for local squawks. But squawk ranges are sometimes probably more dependent on the airport or a region. And than there is the use of non-discrete codes like 1000 for mode-S equiped aircraft. I've not seen yet a good solution for this yet. So, my suggestion would clearly be that the network server determines the squawk and provides this information back to ATC. Short, a central organized squawk assignment. There should be the possibility to exclude some ranges which are locally used or have another specific use. But this shouldn't be a problem as there are 4096 codes in total to be distributed. When the network is reaching this number of pilots online, one can start think about solutions for this ... But it would also be a smart approach to determine whether a squawk like 1000 can be assigned as the rules can be defined on the server and are not required to be determined by ATC evaluation or a plugin.

I can help with sector files.

No really a graphical editor, but at least a very useful graphical display of the sector database is part of the GNG tool used to create sector files for VATSIM.