Jump to content
Dan Parkin

atc-discussion CTP Proposal

Recommended Posts

Dan Parkin

Don't bother with Oceanic.

 

 

 

 

 

Oceanic seems to be the main cause of stress and frustration for both pilots and controllers.

 

Dispensing with it will remove a major bottle neck in the system by removing the need for pilots to get oceanic clearances, some of whom are woefully ill-equipped to deal with such. In the oceanic phase controllers are so overloaded it's extremely difficult to provide any sort of worthwhile service. Pilots can look after themselves in the oceanic phase and get picked up by radar controllers who can give them a meaningful service at the other side.

 

I've only done oceanic a couple of times during CTP but it taught me to avoid it like the plague.

 

Discuss  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oliver Parker

Agreed Dan. I imagine however that this proposal won't be looked upon favourably! 

 

There are too many a/c for people who log onto the position to deal with. Usually they have only controlled the position a handful of times and very little good comes of it. (Pilot and adjacent controller perspective)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dale Brooksby

The current problem I see with CTP and my last CTP departure as a pilot confirmed this; the problem lies with airports who don't have the capacity to hold CTP traffic. Take for example Boston last year, I spent at least an hour and a half on a taxiway, in a queue because the airport was completely overloaded with traffic. I think that either ground/delivery positions need to be split at departure fields, or we have a greater choice of departure points because it just makes the whole experience enjoyable for everyone.

 

Removing Oceanic I think will just create more of a problem because the traffic won't be evenly spaced when it gets to the other side, leaving everyone on top of each other by the time they get there, making the arrival controllers job 10x harder than it needs to be. I also see where you are coming from, if you depart midway through the event the deliovery frequencies are ALWAYS overloaded and there is never enough online to cope. If there was some form of ACARS system used to PM pilots their clearance 30 minutes before their arrival at their Oceanic entry point then this could significantly reduce the stress on controllers. Yes they would have to be typing into some sort of web form to work out the clearance but they don't have to be dealing with a frequency and spreadsheet as well as give the clearances all at once. This would just mean more track frequencies and less delivery controllers, easing the workload. 

 

Maybe this isn't the solution, but as Oliver says - this won't look to favorably among many, especially those controllers who love oceanic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oliver Parker

The current problem I see with CTP and my last CTP departure as a pilot confirmed this; the problem lies with airports who don't have the capacity to hold CTP traffic. Take for example Boston last year, I spent at least an hour and a half on a taxiway, in a queue because the airport was completely overloaded with traffic. I think that either ground/delivery positions need to be split at departure fields, or we have a greater choice of departure points because it just makes the whole experience enjoyable for everyone.

 

Removing Oceanic I think will just create more of a problem because the traffic won't be evenly spaced when it gets to the other side, leaving everyone on top of each other by the time they get there, making the arrival controllers job 10x harder than it needs to be. I also see where you are coming from, if you depart midway through the event the deliovery frequencies are ALWAYS overloaded and there is never enough online to cope. If there was some form of ACARS system used to PM pilots their clearance 30 minutes before their arrival at their Oceanic entry point then this could significantly reduce the stress on controllers. Yes they would have to be typing into some sort of web form to work out the clearance but they don't have to be dealing with a frequency and spreadsheet as well as give the clearances all at once. This would just mean more track frequencies and less delivery controllers, easing the workload. 

 

Maybe this isn't the solution, but as Oliver says - this won't look to favorably among many, especially those controllers who love oceanic.

 

The problem is that they are seldom spaced anyway. A couple of CTP's ago the traffic was a nightmare when it came to us even with a full Oceanic compliment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dan Parkin

I imagine however that this proposal won't be looked upon favourably! 

 

Well of course it won't but I thought it would be a laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joseph Beresford

I have to say the overloaded Oceanic frequencies is what makes CTP for me, its why it is so special because to get this amount of traffic for one VATSIM event is rare and unique, especially on a long haul sector. As much as it is a massive headache on the day, it would slightly ruin the enjoyment of the controllers improvising to the situations they are put under.

 

The idea of more airports on offer (especially departing!!) is needed. It gives pilots more variety, it also offers more slots and makes everything more realistic as obviously in the real world they do not all come from 3/4 airports. I think this is what could be improved in future CTPs, especially on westbound. VATSIM Europe could easily staff 8+ departure airports, doing this will also enable controllers to get more of a go at controlling during peak times (instead of getting a quick 30 minute slot) 

 

I would like to see the organisers to try and spice things up in the next CTP, add more departure airports, add smaller arrival airports, have no oceanic or maybe something completely random. It's the one event (except Live! weekend) that I look forward to for the whole year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Henry Cleaver

I've controlled Oceanic positions (including delivery) for CTP for the last few years and haven't been as overloaded as I had previously. The routes are worked out much better these days so the amount of traffic coming down each track is fairly manageable. Also Kieran's (giving him credit, may not be his) google docs spreadsheet shared by all track controllers makes the job far easier.

 

In my opinion, it's all part of the fun of CTP. If you don't like it, fly across the pond on a quiet day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Celestyn Chmielewski

Probably another useless post from me.....

 

Few CTP events ago, I remembered that one Oceanic Radio frequency, I was monitoring, was overloaded and difficult to communicate with everyone (voice and text) and one wonderful pilot texted his suggestion on frequency "Why not make this text only frequency?". Controller thought about his suggestion and decided to declared his frequency text only. I witnessed this moment and this pilot's suggestion actually helps make controller's workload just a little easier and he was able to communicate with everyone (well most of them, I think!). I posted this on VATSIM.net thread and same controller quoted my post saying it did helped him.

 

So maybe make all Oceanic Radio frequencies text only just as a trial during to see if it actually will works or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simon Kelsey

Isn't one of the great things about CTP the opportunity to experience an Oceanic service? Apart from anything else it makes a bit of a change to plodding across alone and in silence as is the normal situation...

 

I agree in part with Celestyn about using more text. RT loading on the tracks has been an issue in the real world too -- CPDLC has massively cut that down, and whilst text isn't exactly equivalent it should have the same effect for us provided that it's just an issue of RT loading and not controller workload.

 

I wouldn't banish voice altogether though -- I'd go with the real-world procedure of initially checking in on voice for the normal SELCAL check etc on primary and secondary frequencies -- but if after that the majority of posreps were conducted on text things should be a bit more manageable.

Edited by Simon Kelsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kris Thomson

Interesting discussion. I've controlled Shanwick for the last few years during CTP. While previously I did find it to be stressful and chaotic, I've seen improvements in the last year which made it much more manageable for controllers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stuart Duncan

OCA wouldn't be so bad during CTP if pilots actually knew what they were doing.  Some pilots are excellent and some are shockingly bad.  So much RT time is wasted because pilots simply haven't researched how to request an OCA clearance and how to make a position report.  If the OCA controllers spent less time extracting this information, often painfully, from ill-prepared pilots, there'd be more time for correct clearance requests, position reports and, dare I say it, perhaps periods of radio silence as well!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James Horgan

I'd like to see a bigger uptake of the use of ACARS. Hoppie.nl/acars is a great tool and very realistic - once I get validated it is my intention to try and offer it as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alec Walker

Want to make CTP better? Instantly ban all pilots who don't know what they're doing!!! That's as drastic a solution with as good as an effect.

My personal suggestion is that as with RW, some of the tracks should enforce mandatory CPDLC usage. Using the Hoppie ACARS (or Airbus equivalent, I can't remember what it's called at the moment) for both CPDLC not only cuts down on voice comms but also enables the use of ADS-C for better situational awareness.

From a controller aspect, GOATS is a must. It again improves situational awareness as well as improving co-ordination between adjoining Oceanic Sectors and tracks / split levels.

Life is sooooo much simpler for the controller with GOATS and CPDLC/ADS running!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark Wilson

On a normal day, to have Oceanic is very rare and great. They have time to deal with those that know what to do and help those that don't. In my pilot hat, if I see an OCA controller online I will dump my intended EU flight and make every effort to do a pond crossing. My pilot hat says a massive thanks to anyone doing OCA out of a fly-in.

 

Oceanic on a CTP is a nightmare and seriously not fair. Not fair to the controller and to those that actually have read and try hard to follow the procedures and then those that just think, hell, I want to do the CTP but wont read the procedures! The reason to fly online is you can expect real world procedures, don't bother flying online if you don't want them!

 

CTP's are organised and advertised, why not add into the advert 'ALL' pilots are expected to follow CTP procedures with a link to information on how pilots should follow procedures, failure to follow will result in pilots unfamiliar with procedures maybe removed! Drastic but we have to protect this rare occasion and make it as it should be for those that make an effort.

 

Other options, make sure there is a SUP online monitoring the CTP, maybe have a sub OCA controller who can help those lacking in knowledge, OCA_HLP_FSS or something similar, maybe add a track or route, even use land based dct's, max FL280, for those not informed or wanting to not be informed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael Benson

Last two CTPs I've done I didn't bother getting a clearance or doing any position reports. It was impossible to get in on frequency and there is no way that any form of control was really been used. I SLOPed away and waited till I got to the coast.

I don't see why in this day and age we can't have an app/webpage where you enter the information and there is nothing on the radio apart from SELCAL calls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christopher Crawford

What will make CTP even better than it already is IMO is when CPDLC ACARS is completed and hopefully integrated into a/c, might be wishful thinking currently but it looks promising 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Pettit

Reading through all the above, we should just be thankful we get to use VHF. Can you imagine what it would be like if we were all trying to use HF :o

Edited by John Pettit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jouka Ahponen

I have now one CTP behind as a controller and it wasn't that bad. I actually enjoyed my time controlling. Also The whole idea of CTP is that the Atlantic is full of ATC. Guess many pilots wouldn't even fly the event without.

One thing we controllers have to note this time is that there has been much more discussion about CTP around. Also slots were booked in record time. Usually this means that more pilots are interested flying and therefore also the amount of people who don't read the documentation or don't know the oceanic procedures icreases. With simple probability maths we can predict that this time around there is more flight booked by this kind of pilots than normally.

I am not saying the pilots are bad or anything. Just that EVERYONE, even the ones who have done CTP many times before, should revise themselve with the oceanic procedures so they know excactly what to do and say in certain situations. That will help the controllers' job a lot and also the radio will stay much cleaner when the controller doesn't need to step on another aircraft and shout him to standby when he stepped in in the middle of a readback. That has happened to me few times.

Jouka

Edited by Jouka Ahponen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • Paul McHutchison
      By Paul McHutchison
      Hello!
      It's been a very long time since I've been active on the controlling side (I'm pretty sure I was still a kid when I was most active, and I'm 26 now!) and I've been thinking recently that I'd like to get back into the swing of things. I had validations for Jersey Control and Heathrow Tower back in 2010, and though I'm sure the Heathrow one is useless these days, the Channel Islands are fairly straightforward and probably a good way for me to get back into it. I've just got a couple of questions which I searched for but had no luck:
      1) Am I allowed to just jump straight back in on Jersey or do I have to be revalidated?
      2) Is there an idiot's guide to setting up EuroScope from scratch anywhere? I resisted switching to it back in the day, and somebody set up my Heathrow profile for me so I'm really not sure of what I'm doing.
      3) (this is where I really show how hopelessly out of the loop I am) While I figure out how to get myself up and running on ES, am I allowed to use VRC as a stop gap? I would worry that its lack of tag features would maybe cause issues for coordination with LON_CTR.
       
      Thanks in advance for your help! I'm looking forward to getting some ATC time in, I've been flying again for the last 18 months or so and it's great to see such a high standard of ATC in the UK.
    • Dan Bishop-Adams
      By Dan Bishop-Adams
      Hi All,
      Following today's release of UK2000 Bristol 2019 HD, I thought I'd provide an update on the latest parking stand limitations - as this scenery includes some apron extensions and stand changes that won't be covered in the existing vMATS or indeed the sector file to an extent. This will also be useful for pilots choosing their stand when setting up for departure (or indeed arriving without ATC). 
      The aircraft type shown is the maximum type that can use that stand:
      Stands 1-3 - A321
      Stand 3R & 4 - B752
      Stands 5 & 6 - B738/A320
      Stands 7-9 - A320
      Stands 10-15 - A319
      Stands 19 & 20 - B738 
      Stand 21 - B733/F100/E190
      Stand 22 - B738/A320
      Stands 23-25 - A321*
      Stand 26 - B789/A333
      Stand 26S - B738/A320 (Cannot be used at same time as 26)
      Stands 28 & 30 - A321
      Stand 29 - B752
      Stand 31R - E145
      Stand 31 - A321
      Stand 32R - E145/AT72
      Stand 32 - B752
      Stand 32L - E195
      Stand 33 - B752
      Stand 33L - E195
      Stand 34 - A321
      Stand 35 - B738/A320
      Stand 36 - E145
      Stands 37-39 - A321
      (Bear in mind the multi-use of these stands, and which ones may block others)
      Overflow Stands (These are not to be used routinely, though some of them [Such as E2/W3/W5] could be used for additional heavy parking if 26 is occupied, but at the expense of blocking other stands):
      Stands E1-E3 - A321**
      Stands W1 & W2 - E145
      Stands W3-W7 - A321**
      *I have some conflicting information about stands 23-25, they used to be max B752 but the latest information I have states A321. I will check and update ASAP, as the documentation I am using has been misprinted before!
      **Stands E1/E2 & W4/W6 are used even more infrequently - in the real world, these are for departure only in very busy times and a/c are towed onto these stands. 
      Hope this is useful!
      Regards,
       
    • Chris Pawley
      By Chris Pawley
      Traffic Flow
      Traffic entering in the South West of the FIR will route towards Heathrow and Munich via the South coast and to Copenhagen and Warsaw via CPT and onwards.
      AC West is expected to see a large amount of inbound and overflying non-event traffic - for this reason - no inbound event traffic is routing via the BEDEK/KENET area.
       
      Traffic inbound at LIFFY and DEXEN will route to BNN for Heathrow, as well as to Amsterdam and Warsaw via LAMSO and into Scottish for Copenhagen. Some Copenhagen (via BPK) traffic will cross the Warsaw stream to LAMSO in the North Sea sector.
      Finally, traffic inbound to Heathrow will arrive via BEL & KELLY. This can be descended beneath the other streams.
      Daventry has mostly the responsibility to sequence for Heathrow arrivals. Clacton is staffed mostly for AMS <-> LHR city shuttlers
       
      Event Sectors
      Currently we plan to use the event split of AC West into North and South and AC North into Lakes and North Sea
       
      Neighbours
      Shannon is operating using this configuration: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1fQU_ksQkb-jAlJ6fOQlp7JxAYI0uajPSc1v9Ii8mITI/edit?
      Amsterdam plans to use an East/West split (no Maastricht Delta online)
      Brussels may be covered by Eurocenter vACC
    • Chris Pawley
      By Chris Pawley
      Traffic Flow
      Traffic entering in at MOLAK will split into three - one section to Copenhagen, one to Munich at LONAM and one to Amsterdam at TOPPA
      Traffic entering at NIPIT routes via BEL and KELLY into AC Lakes. This might need to be descended slightly early to go beneath traffic in their sector.
      Traffic routing towards Copenhagen from AC North will cross both Amsterdam and Munich inbounds, hopefully with Amsterdam traffic already descending towards TOPPA.
       
      Event Sectors
      Currently we plan to use the event split of Scottish East into North and South
      We will open West+Deancross combined and East.
       
      Neighbours
      Shannon is operating using this configuration: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1fQU_ksQkb-jAlJ6fOQlp7JxAYI0uajPSc1v9Ii8mITI/edit?
      Amsterdam plans to use an East/West split (no Maastricht Delta online)
      Copenhagen will use EKDK_N EKDK_V and EKDK_B
       

    • Martin Killner
      By Martin Killner
      Good Afternoon 
      Firstly, apologies if this topic is covered in other areas of the forum....I have carried out a search without a great deal of success. Secondly, this question has arisen after my inaugural full flight on VATSIM, from EGKK to EDDH on XP 11 with the FF A320, which was hugely enjoyable and fretful all at once.
      The majority of learning has been gained from "apron listening" to the various procedures. The one item I faced without any prior experience was the descent procedure. 
      As you know, the MCDU will give me a TOD point. I am happy that a radar or director controller will probably not be aware of this point and I will need to request it. This first flight resulted in a late descent pattern resulting in vectors to shed altitude, which I achieved readily enough. I was helped enormously by a very patient and understanding director and tower controller at EDDH...(Flight taken on 24/10/19 at about 1700Z. Thank you, by the way). 
      The question is: How far in advance of TOD should I carry out initial call up, (I am using the VATSIM P1 phraseology guide), to radar to assist in my calculated descent path, and is it acceptable to inform a controller if I anticipate a too steep a path due to control lags, (or most likely my incompetence)?
      p.s. Happy with the concept of track miles btw....
       
×
×
  • Create New...