Controller Client Updates

[Jonas K. (1013467)]

On 4/11/2018 at 4:22 AM, QUIG said:

Something that does not now appear to exist, for any client, and would be a fantastic tool for sector file builders/editors would be a decent sector file editing tool.  I would give you the right arm of my first born son for this!  (Not really )

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.

[Jonas K. (1013467)]

On 3/28/2018 at 6:33 PM, Andrew said:

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.

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.

On 2/1/2018 at 4:07 AM, juliandemille said:

I know this is a bit annoying, but I don't have anything particular in mind. My main concern is something that looks more modern and has a UI that doesn't need a 500-page manual. Controllers would love that.

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.

[Tim S]

On 11/19/2017 at 9:44 PM, Andrew said:

Yes, our ATC training will be similar to VATSIM, except more standardization across the board.

 

The VATSIM training model is a looooong road, and can take over a year to progress through all of it.  Have you considered a site run "POSCON academy" that graduates you with the basic tools to operate as ATC, and then allows you to move directly into the ARTCC of your choice, to start controlling, while learning on the job? 

Currently, VATSIM ARTCC's, try to operate like real world air traffic control.  They have the airspace carved out like the real world, along with pages on top of pages of SOP's, and hundreds of pages of LOA's, most of which gets ignored by the majority of controllers once they move out of training, BUT, has to be learned during training.  Have you given any thought to simplifying the airspace, the intra-facility procedures, and the inter-facility procedures, to streamline controller training, and get more ATC involved?

I think you have a real chance here to do what VATSIM failed to do.  VATSIM tried to make controller training easier with global ratings, but failed that, by giving the ARTCC's too much control.  You have the ability, I think, to create a smoother path for ATC participants, which will mean more controllers, which will mean more ATC online at any one time, which will attract more pilots to the network.  If you mirror VATSIM's controller training, and setup, you will, I believe, be  left with spotty ATC coverage, and that will give no incentive for people to fly on the POSCON network. 

Tim

Edited June 8, 2018 by Tim S
spelling

[Burak T. (1011944)]

15 hours ago, Tim S said:

The VATSIM training model is a looooong road, and can take over a year to progress through all of it.  Have you considered a site run "POSCON academy" that graduates you with the basic tools to operate as ATC, and then allows you to move directly into the ARTCC of your choice, to start controlling, while learning on the job? 

Currently, VATSIM ARTCC's, try to operate like real world air traffic control.  They have the airspace carved out like the real world, along with pages on top of pages of SOP's, and hundreds of pages of LOA's, most of which gets ignored by the majority of controllers once they move out of training, BUT, has to be learned during training.  Have you given any thought to simplifying the airspace, the intra-facility procedures, and the inter-facility procedures, to streamline controller training, and get more ATC involved?

I think you have a real chance here to do what VATSIM failed to do.  VATSIM tried to make controller training easier with global ratings, but failed that, by giving the ARTCC's too much control.  You have the ability, I think, to create a smoother path for ATC participants, which will mean more controllers, which will mean more ATC online at any one time, which will attract more pilots to the network.  If you mirror VATSIM's controller training, and setup, you will, I believe, be  left with spotty ATC coverage, and that will give no incentive for people to fly on the POSCON network. 

Tim

Agreed, and it should be somewhere between VATSIM and IVAO.

[aeroniemi]

I think a global academy might be a bit difficult to do, because procedures are very different in different countries. In reality, the people doing their aTC training in the UK learn the European (Eurocontrol) procedures first, then the modifications used for the UK. So it might be possible to have like a EUROCONTROL/FAA/ICAO set of training, and then specialise later

[Jonas K. (1013467)]

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.

[Tim S]

I understand what you're saying, but I think you are missing the point just a bit.  Local differences are there in the real world because real lives are at stake.  These many, many local details don't have to be there in simulated ATC.  The pilots would never know the difference, and the ATC learning curve, and advancement would be improved.   There's really no need to mirror the real world from the ATC side.  You'll never match the quality of a real FAA controller, doing it as a hobby.  The way VATSIM events break down after about 1 hour is a prime example.

Anyhow, just a thought.  If there aren't more controllers on POSCON than VATSIM or IVAO, there won't be more pilots on the network.  It just doesn't have to be that hard to become an ATC.  The difficult mirroring of the real world is a choice, and it doesn't have to be that way, and can still provide a believable experience for the controller, and the pilots.

Tim

[aeroniemi]

The issues that most facilities experience during events is due to:

• Event-level traffic for lots of airports is rare, so controllers don't get much practice in high-workload enviroments
• There's not much "software support" for high traffic load:
  • If you look at VATSIM's cross the pond event, the real world system would struggle or have broken down by the point of over 1000 planes crossing within a few hours from and to a few airports
  • Real-world ATC use CPDLC, and have cross border planning capabilities (in my view by far the most important factor)
  • Real facilities impliment off block times based on predicted delays along the whole route, which isn't really feasable in a situation where people can just show up and fly something

[Tim S]

7 hours ago, aeroniemi said:

The issues that most facilities experience during events is due to:

• Event-level traffic for lots of airports is rare, so controllers don't get much practice in high-workload enviroments

Exactly!  This happens because it's just a hobby, that people participate in a few hours a week.  Nobody at VATSIM, or IVAO, should be expected to perform at such a high level.  That's why, in my opinion, if you simplify things, then baseline service quality goes up, and even peak events will be handled in a better fashion, because the less complicated procedures between centers, approach, departure, and local control, will have built in efficiencies.

Yes, some hardcore VATSIM/IVAO controllers will turn their noses up at this approach, and not participate, but, you will also have a lot more people that will embrace the concept, and enter the world of ATC because of it.

POSCON needs pilots to succeed.  To attract pilots, POSCON needs more ATC online, at any one time, than VATSIM or IVAO, to attract those pilots.  If ATC services on POSCON do not exceed what is offered on VATSIM and IVAO, all that will happen is the online ATC community will be fractured for a third time, and the pool of pilots and controllers, will be split again.  That, will not benefit anyone.

Tim

[Ryan S. (1011255)]

I think POSCON will draw in pilots with some of the key features that separate it from the other networks. VATSIM will have a difficult time drawing in people when it loses to things like a faster server update rate, a good controller client that can emulate real world systems better, not being kicked from the network for grabbing a bite to eat, etc.

Even if POSCON only meets half of the features they list on the front page, its a promising start and I think people will realize the potential. Yeah, right now it's a lot of talk, but everything that's been done so far is paving the way for a network to cater to both pilots and controllers. I like to think of POSCON like Amazon, and how Amazon disrupted retail. POSCON will disrupt the online flight sim community, its not a matter of if, but when.

[Tim S]

@1369362 I do agree that VATSIM and IVAO are ripe for the picking.  They are both very rigid in their policies, and outdated in their technology.  A newcomer, who can fix a lot of the recurring gripes people have about online flying, will prosper I believe.

Tim

 

[Jonas K. (1013467)]

19 hours ago, Tim S said:

Local differences are there in the real world because real lives are at stake.

@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.

 

19 hours ago, Tim S said:

The way VATSIM events break down after about 1 hour is a prime example.

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.

[Tim Barker]

On 6/9/2018 at 8:42 PM, Tim S said:

The way VATSIM events break down after about 1 hour is a prime example.

The problem with VATSIM events is you have all the traffic going between two or three city pairs. That doesn't happen in the real world. ZAU sees around 6000 planes a day in the summer but not all of them are landing at ORD or MDW. It is a mixture of planes going to different places in ZAU and overflights. Frequency congestion is a real issue as well. Real world sectors are at a maximum of 15 to 30 planes (depending on the size of the sector) on any one given frequency at a time as well.

[Jonas K. (1013467)]

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.

Edited September 4, 2018 by Jonas Kuster

[Andrew Heath]

@Jonas Kuster

While the idea of instant replays is great, it is highly unrealistic thus we cannot in good conscience implement it. We will have a way of replaying voice and radar history, but it won't be instantly available to everyone.

As to your second point, yes there will be realistic landlines simulated.