Topdown ATC

[aeroniemi]

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])?

[Andrew Heath]

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.

[aeroniemi]

Using CPDLC as a structured text system I think will be very helpful for new pilots, as they'll still feel part of it, but be more restricted to the "right way" in how to give the info to ATC

[Wong B]

seem ivao atc client have a very big update (ivac2)

[Liesel D. (1011906)]

On 4/23/2018 at 1:10 AM, benson wong said:

seem ivao atc client have a very big update (ivac2)

I find it interesting how IVAO designs their controller client. It seems to favour something ease of use and a clean UI over a realistic one; something I usually don't see in the VATSIM community. Perhaps it's just a community preference over there.

[aeroniemi]

I tried controlling with ivac2 a while ago, but didn't have much success figuring it out. also java

[Wong B]

yes quite clean  ui 

Edited April 27, 2018 by benson wong

[Lukas Svaton (1012163)]

As a Ivac2 DP member. I must say, Creating an FIR on IVAC2 must be a very simple task. This depends to the access of RL datasources such as AIP etc. With XML its pretty easy to code as you dont really need to understand XML as i would use a pre defined method. This makes it easier for me. Currently for IVAO i am developing the sectors for WSJC | DGAC and UGGG FIR

On 4/26/2018 at 4:09 PM, aeroniemi said:

I tried controlling with ivac2 a while ago, but didn't have much success figuring it out. also java

Yet again you do have a point. The usage of IVAC2 is initially complex but as you put more hours into it, it becomes easier to use.