veselko (1018510)

That would be the most obvious, but ther's also possibility that these planes would only show for atc and not for pilots.

For me, bot planes are the best idea implemented in POSCON. First thing actually to catch me was realistic simulation of radio. The second are bot planes. This is really good because even in smaller divisions when there aren't too many pilots, you can still enjoy beeing ATC. On legacy networks you would usually just seat and watch the screen. And don't forget to hope somebody will fly. This is the how would I say that, game chainging idea. Whole new perspective opens just by implementing this. Maybe this could also be randomized, so you get airplanes from different airports... This will also help POSCON be even more realistic, you could have realistic traffic as it is. For example you wouldn't have 1 plane per hour in Zagreb. I can only speak about airports mostly in Croatia and ex-yu countries, because this is my area. Untill 1995. I worked as military ATC and I have big experience in this area. But unfortunatly I don't know that much about other countries.

They use HF a bit less because of CPDLC. Also, in Gander OCC they started using ADS-B. I don't think there're a lot more differences.

If you are interested in procedures exactly for some ocenaic control center, I suggest you to read their AIPs. NATs are one of the most famouse tracks. They are used in North part of Atlantic ocean. There are also tracks like these on Pacific ocean. They are called PACOTS. These airways are chainging because of winds(jet streams at high altitude). When you fly even higher(like Concorde), then this doesn't affect you, wind there are not chaingig that often. That's why Concorde used defned trackes SM, SN, SO, SP. But you don't need to use these tracks, because you can fly on random route(your own route). In North Atlantic airplanes are separated by 10 min per waypoint, 10 minutes nobody is allowed to pass the same waypoint that any airplane did before. Separations there are really big. Also, compared to continental procedural control, they have more traffic, so they can't just use flight strips. There are special computer programs used to detect possible collisions. Also, usually it's not possible to change FL or speed a lot in oceanic airspace because of this. Then when you come to other side of ocean, domestic ACC will radar identify you and you can descend to your destination. Maybe @Andrew H. as pilot might know a bit more.

There are few diffreneces, that are realted to technology that is currently in use. First ATCs don't have radars(you can't put radar in ocean), so pilots need to be able to provide position reports. But there is new system ADS-B that automaticly will send location of plane to ATCs directly. Also, ATCs ca only provide procedural control(no radars). Related to communication, you use HF radio, not VHF(different frequency, more static). Also you should like long haul flights, one of the shortest transatlantic flights is EINN-CYQX, still like 4 hours, maybe less, or use Concorde(complex procedures, no supersonic overland). Related to flight plane, you can use NAT tracks(valid only for specific time) or randome route(your own route). As far as I know, today CPDLC is main way of communication for pilots, mostly they don't use HF. Also, you have SELCAL, if you need HF(so you don't have to listne to static constantly).

Agree with you 100%. No need for wasting resources(people) for doing nothing. We need to be as centralised as possible.

Correct. We can always find few people per division that are able to do this exams. I think they should be choosen by their relation to aviatioin in real life. Currently working or former pilots and air traffic controllers should have priority. Then second priority high ranked members of POSCON or other similar networks(IVAO and VATSIM). Third place all others. I don't want that we repeat the the same error as IVAO and VATSIM. They let nearly every division director, training coordinator to be trainer and examiner. I think that here we don't need trainers, we only need examiners. People are always able to read documentation. This exams would just cehck their proficiency at various tasks realted to air traffic control. This way we won't have waiting lists for training and exams. Waiting time will be minimal.

Do you really think there is need of human examiners for ATC training? Test with questions and multple answers can replace people most of the time, but still computer can't examine how efficient controller you are. How many examiners will be really needed on POSCON? My personal opinion as former ATC is that humans can't be replaced. Theory can be tested by computer evaluated tests, but efficiency and ability to control airplanes in airspace, that's resevrd for people. By using this way, we would maybe shorten time needed for training to get higher rating, because only for exams you would need people, training could be just theory and practice on ATC position.

That's really good. It would be even better when system like this would be implemented in POSCON, so after you enter flight plane, its automaticly checked.

That's the exact reason to give them callsign, just because there are only few of them. They should be choosen according to strict rules so only the most experienced people(other networks/real life) will get it.

Maybe just let every division choose for them. Jast as old latin proverb sayes Varietas delectat, we'll be happy with some differences between divisions(no exact format of call sign).

POSCON is unique network, it requires unique names and callsigns.

That's good.

Yes, but during my edzcation I learned a lot about systems in different generations of airplanes, but I didn't learn to pilot airplane. My son is pilot in Croatia Airlines. He flyes A319, usually LDZA-LDSP. He is 40 and he's going to become captain. Also, @Andrew H. agrees with me and he's Boeing pilot.

I think that you should know local SOPs, but testing/training is just wasting time. You could maybe just do test like questions with multiple answers that are auto validated.