veselko (1018510)
-
Posts
34 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Blogs
Docs
Posts posted by veselko (1018510)
-
-
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.
-
6 hours ago, Maher A. said:
Thanks @Veselko C.! I found an old video by NATS on YouTube. Seems very detailed. I wonder how much has changed since this video was made.
For anyone reading: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJTjwW5ZYas&
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.
-
12 hours ago, Maher A. said:
I did know about position reports and that there are no radars for controllers, that's why I wanted to know more about their procedures in depth.
Your answer gives me a clearer vision on how things are going, so thank you @Veselko C.!
I still want more details though
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.
-
1
-
-
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).
-
56 minutes ago, Zachary W. said:
I can address a few of these concerns. The whole point of POSCON is to not repeat the mistakes made in previous networks. ATC training will be more streamlined than in the past but will still feature the same high standards of quality control. ATC training will not be easy but will not require as much human intervention as the past.
POSCON's leadership structure is more centralized leading to a smaller division "staff" footprint. Ownership and control of training is maintained at the highest level but training duties for specific ARTCC's will be implemented.
As of right now the training footprint is still being developed. Once we have a need to start training controllers there will be more information that is released.
Edit: More clarification
Agree with you 100%.
No need for wasting resources(people) for doing nothing.
We need to be as centralised as possible.
-
12 minutes ago, HyeonSeok L. said:I agree with you.I think it is better to hire an instructor or examiner for each division.
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.
-
1
-
-
On 9/28/2019 at 5:13 PM, Rob S. said:
I think it's also important to keep in mind that, as I understand it, division staff on POSCON will be minimal compared to that of the other major networks. Much more of POSCON's leadership and administrative structure will be centralized. So coming up with unique callsigns for each division may be unnecessary when so few people will be given them.
And... it also might be the case that when a staff member is on the POSCON network flying or controlling, they would just use a normal aircraft or ATC callsign. Speaking about VATSIM, I can't recall a time when I saw a staff member connected to the pilot/ATC network with their staff callsign actually performing some staff-related role where it was critical that everyone knew they were staff. Seems to me to be just another form of elitism.
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.
-
On 9/24/2019 at 1:18 AM, HyeonSeok L. said:
Please freely tell me the division code you want.
The POSCON staff will like the Division-specific call sign you said.
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.
-
11 hours ago, Andrew said:
I feel that the controllers of the area, will all be tested on the same network administered standardized training.
As the network progresses, the local ARTCC's/FIR's will have control on "in area" training.
Such as exams and check outs.That's good.
-
4 hours ago, Rob S. said:
You don't really pilot an Airbus. You just give it suggestions.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Daan L. said:
Obviously you were trained with people who were older, because they have more experience in real life. However, on the internet, age does not equal experience. It all depends on your rating and how long you've been doing this. E.g. a 16-year-old who has been doing this for 3 years has more experience than a 50-year-old who just signed up.
I appreciate you responding to my comment. I hope you'll be able to assist when POSCON launched!
Agree.
Also, as I sayed I'll help when POSCON will be lunched.
-
15 hours ago, Daan L. said:
My two cents:
@veselko (and @Tim S ) I'm not sure why you find 20-year-old instructors with no real ATC experience a problem..? Good luck finding a veteran real-life controller who is willing to spend time on (virtual) air traffic control networks when he/she isn't working. The training staff is (almost) entirely made up out of volunteers who got (almost) all of their knowledge from previous instructors. You don't need real world experience to control (or fly) on online networks.
[Waiting an entire year for (one?) training session seems a bit excessive.]
- Length of time to go from student to controller is far too long, typically 12 to 18 months, and even as long as 2 years in certain ARTCCs.
- All hands on training has to be scheduled with a training controller, and there are no self study tracks that allow on the job opportunities without meeting with a training controller. This results in unnecessary training delays, and causes trainees to lose interest.
- Very little, if any, opportunity to control any meaningful airspace during training. You become a ground or tower controller, and you can control a small airport that sees 2 aircraft in 6 hours. This is a result of lack of knowledge of how humans learn, and how to put learned material into practice.
I'm not sure how things go at your ARTCC, but it takes time to work through the ratings. If everyone could get their C1 rating in less than a month, the quality of ATC would rapidly degrade; there's a reason why it takes some time to get through your ratings. I feel like one year is a very reasonable time to get from S1 to C1. Moreover, there actually are self-study tracks, most ARTCC's will give students a SMT (self monitored training) certificate once they've shown a reasonable level of proficiency.If newbie controllers would work major, class B airports during training sessions, things might (and often) go wrong, causing an unpleasant experience for the pilots. We want students to have a good grasp at what exactly they're doing, and what is expected from them before they're allowed to control larger airports.
- Little understanding of the human learning process by the people creating training material, and especially by the very young people that are the majority of VATSIM trainers in any given ARTCC. Most 16 and 17 year olds do not have the ability to teach a subject that they themselves only have a rudimentary grasp on.
All instructors hold at least a C1-rating which means that they do understand the subject they're teaching. Age shouldn't matter and even if it did, good luck filling a training team with only 30+ year olds because they usually don't have the spare time like younger folks have, it's impossible to do on VATSIM and I am willing to say it's impossible to do on POSCON. This would only cause longer waiting times.
- The airspace in real life is complicated for a real air traffic controller that works the system as their full time job. VATSIM has slowly moved to try and replicate the real airspace system, to the point where most VATSIM center controllers do not fully understand it, especially when it comes to LOA's, VFR operations, and most low use SOP's.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say; first you say that the real airspace system is complicated and air traffic controlling is a full-time job, but then you're surprised that center controllers do not fully understand their entire airspace? Obviously they have to look things up from time to time, especially when it's a low use SOP or special restricted airspace. Mind you, it's VATSIM and we're not real world controllers. All the center controllers I've met knew perfectly well how to handle VFR operations (whatever that may be).
They knew about ATC and the airspace system from being involved in VATSIM, but there was no real world connection.
Once again, if you'd require controllers to have some sort of real world connection or educational background, there would be no controllers left. More controllers is exactly what you're advocating for.
Comparing air traffic controlling to Fortnite would be comparing apples to oranges, not fair. There's no experience required in a game like Fortnite, but pilots do except some level of experience when you're providing them air traffic control services.
Training just takes some time. I got my S1 rating within 3 training sessions. My ARTCC recommends controllers to wait at least 30 to 40 hours before continuing training, to make sure there is proficiency at the said position before moving on. It takes even more time to get familiar with your airspace when working TRACON or en-route positions. You would surprised to hear how many people fail OTS exams because they're not proficient at a lower position.
In conclusion, I don't think POSCON should blatantly copy the training programs from other networks, and there for sure is room for improvement, but it should not compromise the quality of the ATC or realism.
There is reasin why I don't like yunger trainers. When I was trained in military in Yugoslavia, people that were teaching us were much older then we were. Typical difference in age was like 30 to 40 years. Also some trainers on VATSIM are missing experience and knowledge how to teach people. I understand you don't need to be ATC in real life to be VATSIM ATC, but you should know how real life ATC work.
I think that ATCs on poscon should be trained how to fully understand airspace and SOPs and trainers should be teached how to teach others. I understand that there aren't many real life ATCs and former ATCs on POSCON, but as former ATC I think I can give my comment to thing related to air traffic control.
Also , I have a lot of free time as I am retired and I' m ready to help all members of POSCON to become good ATCs. I hope that POSCON will have goid ATC training model and members will like it.
Also I applied for job in POSCON and I hope they will choose me because of my real life experience.
-
1
-
On 8/18/2018 at 6:41 PM, Andrew H. said:
You misunderstand the concept of Eurocontrol, this is not how it work works in the real world.
In the real world, Eurocontrol is a central authority that controls traffic management.
True, but if we want something similar to VATSIM Eurocontrol, then it would work like ATC in upper airspace.
That would be good.
-
This is actually great idea.
First, you could have big control sectors(like VARSIM) for upper airspace. Also, at the beginning, there won't be really heavy traffic, so this center could also cover from ground. Then as POSCON develops, there will be more and more traffic, then this center will control only upper airspace.
Second, Eurocontrol in real life validates flight planes, this is not that relevant to POSCON, because again there isn't a lot of airplanes flying.
-
1 hour ago, Andrew said:
Understood, and good point. Flying an Airbus is basically flying a computer, Boeing takes a little more of actual pilot skills. haha
That's exactly what I wanted to say.
That's why I think that well trained pilot+Boeing is safer then Airbus.
-
15 hours ago, Andrew said:
I think this is a good idea, it has already been implemented, but a good thing to implement.
On 8/22/2019 at 9:10 PM, Thibault D. said:This is why such questions always relate back to the debate of automation vs manual flying ability.
And i guess both options will be separate until we can safely say technology can take over what a human brain would have to do, in emergency responses, checklists, quick analysis and reaction times and much more that we cannot yet automate. But at that time, the world of pilots will not be the good world where we can still fly planes.
Back to reality, we cannot assume that TCAS should not be merged with autopilot due to a chance it could fail. Fail safes should always be built to prevent disasters (while not talking about Boeing and its MAX).
I guess its simpler to maintain both separate and let the pilot handle the advisory, but could change in the future, depending on plane configurations (more automation or maintain certain manual controls to keep attention to safety)
This is starting to look like debates when I was yunger.
When I joind military, I was trained to become air traffic controller, but I also learned a lot about systems in aiplanes.
There were really boring debates about automatics in airplanes.
When first Airbus airplanes started to fly, they were highly automated, somtehing that I really dislike.
I think that in case of any problems with computers, pilot should be able to have full control of airplane(not case with newer Airbus).
Here in Croatia we had one crash in 1976 cause by ATC error. There was mid-air collision of 2 airplanes naer Vebovec.
Today we can analyse this crash and say TCAS would prevent it, but we can't know that.
If you would have even 1 problem like TCAS sending signal to autopilot to turn to new heading, you would come on collision course with other airplane, which would cause chain reacion out of control of ATC, he would just sit and observe.
-
14 minutes ago, Andrew H. said:
Because you can set them in PMDG doesn't mean they are supported in P3D. I think they are there for ascetically purposes in the case of PMDG. Perhaps someday we could integrate directly with PMDG and avoid P3D altogether.
That would be realy good.
But in case it's not possible, you can always select frequency on dedicated radio interface like in video, so I hope HF, VHF and UHF will be used on POSCON.
As far as I know, this will be the fisrt network to use different frequency ranges.
Also I hope we won't see text only pilots or ATCs, thats highly unrealistic(except of controller-pilot data link).
-
1 hour ago, Andrew H. said:
They support these ranges? Since when?
On 8/25/2019 at 4:26 PM, JB3DG said:Any chance these could be supported? P3D now allows for the regular COM radios to reach these ranges.
I don't know exactly if it is supported in P3D, but it's supported in FSX, if and only if you have add on aircrafts(mostly payware).
I know that you can set HF frequency in PMDG aircarfts(777 and 747 that I have), but this is not related to any multiplayer networks.
-
I just applied.
As former ATC I have big experience and I can halp you as member of staff(working on training materials or training other members).
I'm ready to learn new things.
-
It depends on multiple factors: landing weight, weather(wind, temperature, rain...), runway conditions(wet, dry), runway length(where you want to vacate runway, or full runway), airport altitude, airline...
If you are heavy, you need bigger force to stop you(air resistance from flaps, slats and air brake, brakes, thrust reversers), if you have tailwind, you will have bigger speed, again you need bigger force to stop in the same runway length. If runway is wet, traction is lower, so you will need to use alternative methods to slow down(thrust reversers, flaps, slats, air brake) because brakes won't produce force as big as on dry runway(you would need longer runway). On higher altitude airports you need higher approach speed to maintain lift, again bigger force needed. Also every airline can establish individual procedures. In some countries just as @Andrew H. sayed, it's prohibited to use reversers in case it isn't really needed for safe landing.
bot planes
in General Discussion
Posted
That would be the most obvious, but ther's also possibility that these planes would only show for atc and not for pilots.