6 hours ago, aeroniemi said:

On VATSIM/IVAO, CTR positions cover everything from enroute down to delivery. That's effective in some cases as it allows coverage throughout the whole system with only one controller, but in many cases means that enroute controllers don't get to focus on their main job, the enroute bit, and instead have to worry about large numbers of airports, which degrades service throughout the system. Is the intention to do this also, have a hybrid model (maybe have some CTRs cover top-down, some just their own airspace, [and maybe aerodrome cover top-down too])?

Top-down coverage is good, if handled correctly. We believe the key is to provide tools that lessen the stress of top-down service for both pilots and controllers.

POSCON will be providing an automated DCL/PDC interface (contained within the ATC Client) that will allow clearances to be completely automatic if the controller/facility chooses to operate it in that fashion. Using the automated clearance system, the only thing a controller will need to do is occasionally amend a clearance when the automation does not produce the desired result. This new tool will require a lot of work from the facilities to set up, but once they have it properly configured, it should lessen the amount of communication it takes for a pilot to get from the gate into the air.

An additional tool to help a top-down controller is automatic cluttering/decluttering based on the controller's zoom level within the ATC client. This is actually fully functional already and will be demoed at FSExpo.

Finally, CPDLC. The CPDLC system will provide an easy interface for both pilots and controllers to interact via text. While this is by no means a final decision, we are starting to lean towards using CPDLC exclusively for text-only pilots. Since most messages sent via CPDLC are "canned responses," we expect this will provide a significant amount of relief for all parties involved.

32 minutes ago, Relja12 said:

Serbia please

 

A little teaser for you all, enjoy.

 

 

@mingli Nope, it is not a high priority item.

3 minutes ago, mingli said:

only support vatsim and ivao ? how about other network 

Yes, we will support the Chinese network FSC Center as well.

Like VATSIM and IVAO, we will only support rating transfers for limited time.

4 minutes ago, mingli said:

need translator?

Yes, that would great. We are not quite ready for that yet, but do me a favor and submit your application and make sure you specify you want to be a Chinese translator.

 

Yes, we will support multiple languages, including Chinese.

22 hours ago, mingli said:

is that have any chinese interface as well ? 

What do you mean by "Chinese interface"?

21 hours ago, 2000Nic said:

Dutch division

 

@QUIG What do you mean by "graphic" sector file editor? We have some sector file editors in the works, yes.

@QUIG Yes flight strips are being added and sector file tools are being developed.

1 hour ago, chpmerlin said:

Hello!

I wondered whether a client capable of facilitating approach procedural (i.e. non-radar) could ever be considered for airports that have that position in real life? It is a very different skill from approach surveillance (radar), as it involves relying on pilots reporting at certain points, and time-based separation to be applied through holding and estimated times at certain fixes. The client would need to provide the controller with the flight progress strips for each arriving / departing aircraft, with the ETAs for certain points, which the controller could either print - or indeed drag around the screen - as the aircraft arrives at each point.

I'm not suggesting this be a priority - just an interesting idea to consider down the line :)

 

Cheers,

Caspian

Hi, thanks for your suggestion.

I actually think this will be entirely possible. FEs will be a be able to configure their sectors to be "radar" or "non-radar", at least that what is planned.

6 hours ago, aeroniemi said:

On the subject of pilot clients, lots of ESP sim users I've spoken to don't like the fact that if you'e got only one screen, you have to keep alt-tabing between your pilot client and sim, whereas with the current old-generation ones for IVAO and VATSIM you have it built into your view of the simulator, so you only need one app open, and no need to tab between them. Will that be possible with the new clients?

The new pilot clients are considered "headless" meaning we have designed them to operate in the background. Any interaction you will need with the pilot client user-interface can be accomplished through a web page. The advantage to this is that, if you have an add-on aircraft such as the Flight Factor A320, you can access the pilot client directly in the cockpit (see the video below). If you are using a phone or tablet, you can access the pilot client from there as well. While this doesn't completely eliminate the need for alt-tab, it does allow other options for the pilots to choose from. If a simmer wants to have a completely immersive VR experience, they would have to use an add-on that supports web page browsing in the cockpit.

 

On 4/3/2018 at 2:11 PM, Dellanie Byron said:

Hello Andrew/Poscon team,

I've been watching from a distance, and I am somewhat curious to the nature of the relationship of Poscon and X-Plane, and your intentions for the platform. As a user, I think it's fair to say that we have been rather disgruntled by the rather lacking support and innovation from vatsim and ivao. I don't suppose there is anything you can share with us as of yet? (with respect to development schedules and current reserved features.)

Mark Ellis of X-Camera is doing our X-Plane pilot client. He already has all the back-end code completed; we expect great things from his client! Personally, I am an X-plane user so I got your back :-D

6 hours ago, aeroniemi said:

I've done some research into iTEC (interim technology for european control according to NATS, or interoperatability through european collaboration) and have found that it's made by Indra systems, and available for other ANSPs to purchace on contract, likley for rather large sums of money. Their contact details are [email protected] , perhaps it's worth asking them if something could be agreed on (although i'm skeptical you'll be able to get any actual software for security reasons, they might part with some user manuals or something)

I've also contacted some of my ATC friends to see if they'd be able to assist

Thanks for your help, user manuals is all we are looking for!

For pilot Moderators, the hiring priority will be real world pilots.

For ATC Moderators, the hiring priority will be real world ATC.

There will be a minimum age for a Moderator. For now that age is 18, but we may increase it later on.

Experience as a supervisor on another network will be a huge plus, but is by no means a requirement or a guarantee you will get hired here.

Additional requirements may follow, as I said the position is not something we have fully decided on yet, the above are preliminary considerations.

 

17 hours ago, Runway37 said:

Switzerland (Swiss Division) Please :)

 

31 minutes ago, NerissaT00 said:

as we know some vatsim or ivao training time are extremely long if they already at some position are student (solo) is that able for him to upgrade to the poscon 

for example at the vatsim their ratting is APP/DEP(S3) but he is a students as  CTR (solo ) so is that they can transfer to ctr as poscon network ? because some vacc or artcc a lack of enough instructor

Only full ratings will transfer, no solo ratings.

Anyone can apply to be a moderator, but again we are not hiring for that position yet.

The two roles of Moderators are the following: moderating feedback and supervising network activities.

• When moderating pilot/controller feedback, Moderators will be limited to region.
• When Moderators are acting as supervisors, they will be global.

I hope this makes sense.

6 hours ago, aeroniemi said:

Most of the non-US clients are very strongly proprietry, developed by ANSPs like NATS or companies like Thales, so finding good documentation will be near-impossible. Having said that, there are going to be a whole host of controllers our there that have experience using the software, so maybe getting them onboard might be helpful. I for one would really like to see the UK's AC (enroute) software, known as iTEC (a really nice looking and easy to use piece of software, with great coordination traits) or EXCDS (a combined canadian-UK flight strip system)

Actually, the US ATC hardware/software is also highly proprietary. Unlike other free organizations, we would be willing to pay those companies for that information though. Not sure if this is an option?

The other option you suggested (getting controllers with experience to help) is definitely another possibility, but these controllers need to be put in touch with me. I really can't seek them out at this time. Are you able to to refer them to me?

Thanks!

 

10 hours ago, lamson878 said:

vietnam  thanks

 

On 3/27/2018 at 7:55 AM, EoinAviation said:

Will ERAM be the only simulated ATC client? Or will there be other simulations for systems such as Thales' TopSky, Lockheed Martin's Skyline, or is it more of a generic client with plugins like EuroScope.

The road map calls for the following clients, or user-interfaces, depending on how we decide we tackle it (one client or multiple).

• ERAM
• STARS
• ASDE-X
• ATOP
• A new version of EuroScope

The only unknown here is how EuroScope will be redesigned. Right now, we are planning to port over the existing features of ES, but it is kind of up to those who have more experience with controlling outside of the USA. If you are looking for NEW user-interfaces or clients, then you need to make those requests now and ideally provide us with the proper materials to design those UIs/clients.

I hope that answers your question.

 

On 3/24/2018 at 12:40 PM, lamson878 said:

vietnam cambodia laos 

Please choose one.

On 3/7/2018 at 3:10 PM, Janek said:

Latvia, perchance? :)