new idea Idea of Eurocontrol on POSCON

[George B.]

Hello all,

I have been thinking and want to suggest if others would like to help me back an idea of having a Eurocontrol position on POSCON. What I mean by this is not to have a position like Vatsim, controlling every square inch of europe converted into 6 callsigns controlling roughly 6 sectors, I mean to be able to have some sort of collaborative decision making system which allows skilled air traffic controllers who get mentored on this CDM system to manage the airspace above Europe and other areas in order to maintain an efficient and fast moving flow of aircrafts through the appropriate secotrs. I want to stress if this did go ahead that the position to be only used for events that take place over a large amount of airports which large amounts of aircrafts are predicted to be flying through the European airspace. I feel like this would allow the network to expand in other areas of decision making and planning rather than just controlling a CTR, APP, TWR, GND, DEL or any other positions. This idea would invite the capability to perform and give accurate slot times and also predict how an event will run. A good idea of when this could be used is for an equilivent event of 'Cross the pond'.

I hope you take the time to read this suggestion as I think it would make the network stand out from competing networks.

Kind Regards,

George Barlow

Edited July 31, 2018 by georgebarlow

[Andrew Heath]

George,

This is an excellent idea and is totally feasible under our system. The servers are designed so that sector data can be housed on the server and we can analysis flight paths to determine which sectors a plane will fly through as soon as a flight plan is filed.

Expect to hear more about this and other developments in the coming months

Thanks for your support!

[Jonas K. (1013467)]

I understand the wish and also thought about such a system already. But because traffic flows on virtual flight sim networks differ from real life traffic flows, the Eurocontrol CDM concept can't be transfered without adaptions. The main issue is the time at which the required information to introduce restrictions would be available. I expect pilots to file their flight plans earliest 1 hour before departure, a probably only shortly before they depart. This makes it impossible for any system to compute the future traffic situation in advance. Because not all related flight plans are available at that time. Therefore, any simulation of automated slots and calculated take-off times doesn't make much sense.

What can be done and also could be of help is short-term traffic number analysis. En-route controllers may be interested in the expected numbers of aircraft within the next few hours. But you have to be aware that the only measure he can take to reduce the workload, if it gets too high, is to restrict departures in his own FIR. In any case, if you introduce any kind of CDM, some pilots will have to wait. And this is probably not that popular, especially if they just want to do a short after-work flight.

I think the best one can do is support the controllers with appropriate tools to take away the cognitive load of organising traffic, so he can concentrate in controlling it. Such tools may be sequencing support (on ground: target departure sequence, check that a suitable number of planes is at the holding point, but not too many, support to plan push/taxi and departure intervals; in the air: approach sequence including speed management and wake-turbulence separation considerations) and mid- and long-term conflict detection.

[George B.]

1 hour ago, Jonas Kuster said:

I understand the wish and also thought about such a system already. But because traffic flows on virtual flight sim networks differ from real life traffic flows, the Eurocontrol CDM concept can't be transfered without adaptions. The main issue is the time at which the required information to introduce restrictions would be available. I expect pilots to file their flight plans earliest 1 hour before departure, a probably only shortly before they depart. This makes it impossible for any system to compute the future traffic situation in advance. Because not all related flight plans are available at that time. Therefore, any simulation of automated slots and calculated take-off times doesn't make much sense.

What can be done and also could be of help is short-term traffic number analysis. En-route controllers may be interested in the expected numbers of aircraft within the next few hours. But you have to be aware that the only measure he can take to reduce the workload, if it gets too high, is to restrict departures in his own FIR. In any case, if you introduce any kind of CDM, some pilots will have to wait. And this is probably not that popular, especially if they just want to do a short after-work flight.

I think the best one can do is support the controllers with appropriate tools to take away the cognitive load of organising traffic, so he can concentrate in controlling it. Such tools may be sequencing support (on ground: target departure sequence, check that a suitable number of planes is at the holding point, but not too many, support to plan push/taxi and departure intervals; in the air: approach sequence including speed management and wake-turbulence separation considerations) and mid- and long-term conflict detection. 

I completely agree but as I stated I don't think this system should be used on a general basis and as an example, for events that go over the atlantic like Cross the pond. And if you are familiar with cross the pond you would recognise that flightplans are finalised the day before and obviously on the day confirmed so from a planning point of view we should already have the data to be able to organise routings the night before the event which allows a team of controllers to decide on how we plan on getting all the aircrafts through the sector efficiently. Individual countries will have different requirements for their sectors, and you are correct in saying that we should work on tools to maximise sector throughput. By combining those tools with a air traffic flow control management system would ensure a enjoyable and delay-minimised (not delay-free) experience for both controllers and pilots.

[Jonas K. (1013467)]

So you are more looking for a slot simulation tool then. Because CDM takes place every minute and is actually designed to prevent airspace and airport overload. But this is exactly what events like the CTP are trying to manage. So it's a bit contradictionary. I've been part of this event already a few times as event organizer of a participating airport. Believe me, the biggest mess is created by these slots. Because the departure times are already fixed, which is again exactly the oposite of how it should be. Then there are often delays and pilots don't really care about their time, many non-event pilots. It's always a mess. And the problem finally is that especially the throughput over the atlantic is too low. So, when you are an arrival airport and you are well staffed, it's quite a relaxing time.

So maybe think again of what you are exactly looking for. I'm curious to hear.

[Andrew Heath]

@Jonas Kuster

We are designing a system that encourages pilots to pre-book their flights through various incentives.

This should change things significantly if the program gains traction with pilots.

[aeroniemi]

The best thing that could be done in the case of CTP and similar is to make it so that any pilot to "book" or rather simply state to the computer when they'd like to fly, then let it actively define slots in real time rather than saying that planes should depart at a set time defined weeks before (or at strange hours the day before) - that'd allow for much better real time and long term planning than is ever possible from a defined slot system

[George B.]

8 minutes ago, aeroniemi said:

The best thing that could be done in the case of CTP and similar is to make it so that any pilot to "book" or rather simply state to the computer when they'd like to fly, then let it actively define slots in real time rather than saying that planes should depart at a set time defined weeks before (or at strange hours the day before) - that'd allow for much better real time and long term planning than is ever possible from a defined slot system

I understand what you are saying but I don't agree with letting the user decide the time to fly. I personally believe the way CTP works at the moment is very effective, you have a list of real world flights with their callsigns and are able to book one of them from one airport on one side of the atlantic to the other. When people start choosing the time they want to fly the realistic side to CTP starts to decrease as thats not when the real flights would depart. And I disagree with the idea that it would allow for better planning as the idea of planning should be working out an efficient flow of aircrafts with the information provided, if anything it would make it worse.

[Andrew Heath]

@georgebarlow

@aeroniemi

Our version of CTP will be a bit of both. You will be able to pre-book from a list of real world flights/slots ahead of time (this system will actually always be running, even outside of CTP). If you choose your departure time the day of you are subject to delays which, unlike VATSIM, will be strictly enforced. The delays will be created and managed real-time by automated systems that are analyzing airport/airspace capacity and overhead flow.

[Jonas K. (1013467)]

48 minutes ago, Andrew said:

The delays will be created and managed real-time by automated systems that are analyzing airport/airspace capacity and overhead flow.

Curious about the user acceptance ...

[Andrew Heath]

@Jonas Kuster

You think that people will not accept a delay? We considered this when we first started putting our design ideas on paper. We were thinking that there will be two types of ground delays:

• Optional Delay: In this case, we are going to incentivize the delay as much as possible. Example, you have a 1 hour airspace delay on the ground at LZSH going to KPHL. You have the option to accept the delay on the ground (you will receive points for your compliance) or you can depart and you will be subject to possible enroute delays with no point value attached.
  • I am making up the numbers here, but I assume this would be in effect when an airspace or airport was forecast to reach 100% capacity.
• Mandatory Delay: This delay of course is compulsory. I am not sure whether we would give points for your compliance or not, probably not.
  • Again, making up the numbers, but I would assume this would be in effect when an airspace or airport was forecast to reach 110% capacity or more.

 

[Jonas K. (1013467)]

4 hours ago, Andrew said:

You think that people will not accept a delay?

The pilot intending to do an after-work flight? A delay of 1 hour? Never! By the time he would be allowed for departure, his time is half up and he won't have sufficient time to complete his leg. Delay may be acceptable during events where high traffic is obviously expected. But even then 1 hour is quite extensive.

How are you gonna deal with non-staffed airspaces?

How are you going to deal with different controller capacities? The range on current networks is quite wide.

How will different landing concepts (and linked to it different capacities) taken into consideration?

[Andrew Heath]

@Jonas Kuster

First off, a one hour delay in the real world is not at all uncommon. If we want to be as realistic as possible, then delays have to be expected and accepted. If time is a limitation for a pilot, there will always be locations to fly that are not affected by delays such as a satellite to the primary field (e.g. KMDW instead of KORD). Additionally, unlike the real world, fuel costs are not an issue with FS. So, in the case of an airspace delay, taking a longer route around the congested airspace is also a feasible option.

Second, in your example of an after-work flight, I believe we have covered this with the idea of "optional delays" where the pilot has the option to comply. In the case of mandatory delays, we can tailor the system in such a way that those should only be activated when an event is occurring.

2 hours ago, Jonas Kuster said:

How are you gonna deal with non-staffed airspaces?

The pilot client will inform the pilot of the delay through a status message allowing him/her to accept or reject it, if the delay is optional. If the delay is not optional, the system will simply not issue an IFR clearance or squawk code, which will be automatic when ATC is offline through PDC/CPDLC. After that, the pilot has two options: they can either depart VFR or they can file a flight plan to a different airport.

2 hours ago, Jonas Kuster said:

How are you going to deal with different controller capacities? The range on current networks is quite wide.

Good question. We have some ideas of using the controller's points score to help the system determine a proper airspace/airport operations rate. This will obviously take a lot of testing and tweaking.

2 hours ago, Jonas Kuster said:

How will different landing concepts (and linked to it different capacities) taken into consideration?

That's easy, we just use information published by the FAA and other international AIPs to determine the airport capacity based on the configuration. These capacities can be further reduced based on the amount of controllers staffing an airport/airspace as well as those controllers' ability.

[Jonas K. (1013467)]

1 hour ago, Andrew said:

The pilot client will inform the pilot of the delay through a status message allowing him/her to accept or reject it, if the delay is optional. If the delay is not optional, the system will simply not issue an IFR clearance or squawk code, which will be automatic when ATC is offline through PDC/CPDLC. After that, the pilot has two options: they can either depart VFR or they can file a flight plan to a different airport.

 

8 hours ago, Andrew said:

you can depart and you will be subject to possible enroute delays with no point value attached

I was thinking more about no en-route service and possibly none at the destination aerodrome. So the case when there can be no en-route delay because there is no controller online for doing it.

 

2 hours ago, Andrew said:

After that, the pilot has two options: they can either depart VFR or they can file a flight plan to a different airport.

And then the same controllers have to deal with this traffic as VFR, which is probably even more time consuming? Unless in real life, there probably won't be a FIS service online at all times ...

 

1 hour ago, Andrew said:

First off, a one hour delay in the real world is not at all uncommon. If we want to be as realistic as possible, then delays have to be expected and accepted. If time is a limitation for a pilot, there will always be locations to fly that are not affected by delays such as a satellite to the primary field (e.g. KMDW instead of KORD).

Sure, but traffic numbers and patterns differ quite a lot. This cannot be compared. And I don't think if you have online day at ZZZZ, that pilots are really interested to fly to the nearby airport ZZZX. And neither are they interested to "simulate" an hour of delay. It will still be a hobby and for pleasure, don't destroy that.

In VATSIM, there are also lots of city pair events. A traffic pattern you can't really see in real life (so many aircraft flying the same pair behind each other) and has a high potential that delays will be issued. Again, I want to point out that you cannot work with the same methods when you don't have the same starting position.

You have to be careful to not restrict traffic too much. Otherwise ATC and pilots will get bored and angry. I would also suggest to give a certain decision power about the acceptance rate to the controller in charge, so he can prevent unnecessary traffic restrictions.

 

[Scorpio]

My first reaction was: Sure, let´s do this, but the more I read the more I start to think that it is hardly feasable and not even needed except for events where high traffic can be exptected. On "normal" days this would just scare me away unless I had time enough at hand and are a "points collector".....

So, at this time I would like to change my vote above, but I can´t   

[Andrew Heath]

@Scorpio

I feel you are grossly overestimating the amount of times you would be affected by a delay program. You'll just have to wait for beta and see.

[Scorpio]

You are certainl right Andrew, we are an endangered species anyway......

But I still would rather not suppor the whole idea, because it will probably not be ncessesary,  as you seem to expect too   

[aeroniemi]

Will this mean that European controllers are able to go "on strike" (as certain countries here seem to do regularly) and have temporary reductions in capacity published ahead of time?

[George B.]

4 hours ago, aeroniemi said:

Will this mean that European controllers are able to go "on strike" (as certain countries here seem to do regularly) and have temporary reductions in capacity published ahead of time?

I don't really understand what you mean by this. What do you mean "go on strike"? This is literally a planning tool, I think this is being stemmed to far away from the initial seed. Capacity restrictions like in the real world will apply but they aren't harsh restricitons they are practical and the point of this planning system is to be able to regulate the airspace efficiently so that we all can go through the skies with minimal delays rather.

I am struggling to see what you mean by what you said.

[George B.]

On 8/11/2018 at 7:08 AM, Scorpio said:

My first reaction was: Sure, let´s do this, but the more I read the more I start to think that it is hardly feasable and not even needed except for events where high traffic can be exptected. On "normal" days this would just scare me away unless I had time enough at hand and are a "points collector".....

So, at this time I would like to change my vote above, but I can´t   

Refer to my initial post, I explained that this would be more practical for events that predict a high amount of flights rather than this system to be used on a  general basis.

Edited August 12, 2018 by georgebarlow

[George B.]

18 hours ago, Scorpio said:

You are certainl right Andrew, we are an endangered species anyway......

But I still would rather not suppor the whole idea, because it will probably not be ncessesary,  as you seem to expect too   

Can you explain your reasoning behind the comment that it wont be necessary? This system would allow us to make accurate slot times, allow us to regulate the airspace, create restrictions in any of the airpaces to relieve controller workload and to in the end reduce delays.

[Scorpio]

21 minutes ago, georgebarlow said:

Refer to my initial post, I explained that this would be more practical for events that predict a high amount of flights rather than this system to be used on a  general basis.

Yes George, you said it before and I agree with you. No need as a standard feature, but laid down in the rules and regulations that there CAN be delays if the need arises due to high traffic and overload for the ATC system.

That should be enough, I guess 

[George B.]

1 minute ago, Scorpio said:

Yes George, you said it before and I agree with you. No need as a standard feature, but laid down in the rules and regulations that there CAN be delays if the need arises due to high traffic and overload for the ATC system.

That should be enough, I guess 

I guess it could be enough, but the whole point of this post was to extend on that and build a system that allowed people to collaborate and help plan an event properly with a high quality system that helped reduce delays and also allows another route if people don't feel like doing ATC or piloting at that specific time.

[Scorpio]

20 minutes ago, georgebarlow said:

Can you explain your reasoning behind the comment that it wont be necessary? This system would allow us to make accurate slot times, allow us to regulate the airspace, create restrictions in any of the airpaces to relieve controller workload and to in the end reduce delays.

It would, sure and no doubt about that, but seeing what is going on both in VATSIM and IVAO I fear that for about 90% of the time there is either no ATC or not many flights, the exception being organised events like a fly-in, Cross the Atlantic, perhaps even an exam session for a new controller somewhere in the world....

In my opinion such a rule should be foreseen but only be enforced if the need arises.

And a real life strike action is no reason I find, because this is still a GAME and HOBBY, not a professional endeavor.

[Scorpio]

Yees George, the more flexibility there is built in, the better, just not a standard delay priciple or something like that

My 2 cts

 

P.S.

It would be interesting to know what the statistics on other networks tell us about peak attendance numbers and the average day....

Edited August 12, 2018 by Scorpio