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.