Jump to content
Alec Walker

atc-discussion Use of CPDLC

Recommended Posts

Alec Walker

Hi All,

In general for Shanwick, and with CTP looming large, I would like to put forward a case for CPDLC.

I feel it is an often underused piece of equipment, especially if realism is your key. I have been using CPDLC where possible and I have found that although the majority of members know nothing about it, those that do love it and those that find out about it from me try it and like it. Historically, it has been a pain to use alongside Euroscope as it's been a separate program but I've been having a tinker with the Australian TAAATS mod and have got this working with Euroscope and the Shanwick sector file.

They key points for me with the TAAATS mod are CPDLC from directly within Euroscope and a use of ADS-C tracking fed directly into Euroscope. Again, this is an excellent realism tool, and I feel that if we offer it, people will start to use it more.

That being said, would people be interested in utilising my setup for TAAATS/SAATS? I have made some changes to the tags and screens, as those aircraft in the SAATS screen are way to big for my liking. I am also hoping that we can have an updated version of GOATS available soon as the developer has released the source code and Craig Phillips has agreed to assist in updating it. These two tools together make for an excellent representation of the Shanwick system!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simon Kelsey

Alec,

It's a great idea in principle -- I think the big barrier to widespread uptake on the pilot side is the fact that Hoppie's ACARS client doesn't integrate that well with MSFS (or, perhaps I'm doing it wrong). At present the pilot has to install a separate piece of software which runs externally from MSFS and having, for instance, programmed up the FMC in the aircraft the pilot is then required to input all the same essential information in to the ACARS CDU and keep updating it as the flight progresses. It's all a bit of a faff.

However: if there is/can be widespread support for the Hoppie protocol (for want of a better term) across the ATC community then perhaps gradually there will be more of a demand from pilots for third-party aircraft developers to integrate it in to their models. At present, the argument from Aerosoft in particular is that they are waiting for the networks to develop their own ACARS protocols and once they are in place they will support them: I suppose if it can be decided/proven that the ACARS protocol of choice on VATSIM is the Hoppie system then they might be prepared to support it (and others may follow suit) but it's something which would require network-wide support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry Sugden

Hi Alec,

If you're able to guide me through exactly what likes to be done (I'm generally best reading guides / being shown that just guessing! :D), then sure, I'd happily facilitate the use of CPDLC for any Oceanic controlling slots I am doing on Saturday.

Seeing GOATS in use I'm sure would please many - at the moment I believe we don't use it because the integration between controllers isn't tested to its extreme, widely recognised as standard practice... and change (which many don't like)! If some real development can be invested into it, then that would be another great asset to busy Oceanic positions, as I certainly enjoy using it when solo.

Edited by Harry Sugden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill Casey

Alec,

It's a great idea in principle -- I think the big barrier to widespread uptake on the pilot side is the fact that Hoppie's ACARS client doesn't integrate that well with MSFS (or, perhaps I'm doing it wrong). At present the pilot has to install a separate piece of software which runs externally from MSFS and having, for instance, programmed up the FMC in the aircraft the pilot is then required to input all the same essential information in to the ACARS CDU and keep updating it as the flight progresses. It's all a bit of a faff.

Extra work in order to fly on text? No thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alec Walker

Hi Harry,

I'm off work all week now, so let me know when you want, and I can set up a Teamviewer session and take you through it if you wish!

I will also try and put a guide together for general use as well!

And Mr Casey, your signature says it all! :P

Cheers,

Alec

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

    • Harry Sugden
      By Harry Sugden
      Oooo, "cleared RNP approach runway 26L" soon come! 😎
      rnav to rnp.pdf
    • Sebastian Wheeler
      By Sebastian Wheeler
      Just a slight query related to the above:
      I was fortunate enough to partake in a weeks worth of work experience with NATS recently, and while at whitely on the ADC sims, I heard the following phraseology being used "G-ABCD, Cleared to enter controlled airspace via Route A, at or below altitude 2000 feet, QNH 1014."
      Upon asking one of the pseudo-pilots about the change, I was told it is "new phraseology" can anyone else confirm whether this is the case? Apparently, it was put in place after some confusion from pilots after receiving a "not above" clearance.
    • Steve Riley
      By Steve Riley
      Just reading the new sid charts , am I right in saying hand offs are going to LONDON or SCOTTISH  and not radar as no mention of Radar on the charts.
      2. After departure, aircraft shall remain on the Tower frequency until instructed. 3. En-route cruising levels will be issued after take-off by 'London Control'. 4. Report callsign, SID designator, current altitude and cleared level on first contact with 'London Control'.
      I have not got the old charts to confirm this as I take them straight from NATS web site. 
      Also frequencies have changed are we changing them within ES ?
        123.980, 131.005  BIRMINGHAM APPROACH/RADAR
        118.305  BIRMINGHAM TOWER
      121.805  BIRMINGHAM GROUND 
       

       
       
    • Thomas Wowk
      By Thomas Wowk
      As above, how do you guys assess the runway surface condition on VATSIM? Do you make a visual assessment from the visual control room in correlation to the current/prevailing weather conditions or do you assess this purely off the METAR/TAF?
       
      The only reason i ask it that the surface condition of a runway really affects our landing performance (each operators SOP's may be different for the same aircraft type) Specifically if the runway is declared as DRY full length our crosswind limitations may be increased, whereas if the runway is declared WET full length, crosswind limitations are decreased. If i also needed to return after departure due to an emergency and perform an overweight landing, a DRY/WET surface also makes quite a difference for our overall LDA requirements. 
       
      Cheers
    • Thomas Wowk
      By Thomas Wowk
      Hi all,
       
      For the ones who enjoy carrying out IFR circuits in large aircraft, Doncaster Sheffield (EGCN) accepts visual circuits for aircraft above 5,700kg - B737/B757/B767/B747 etc. 
       
      The circuit profile & procedure can be found in the textual data in the AIP for EGCN. Primarily speaking only one aircraft can be in the circuit at a time. Be nice to get TWR on at EGCN from time to time to accept more training traffic within the network.
       
      The circuit profile briefly summarised as below:
       
      Visual circuits by aircraft above 5700 kg must comply with the following noise abatement procedures.
       
      i. Runway 02 After departure turn right crosswind at no greater than 2.5 DME, fly downwind at 2000 FT QNH, report final south of Bawtry (3 DME) and not below 1500 FT QNH.
      ii. Runway 20 After departure climb on track 190°, at 1.5 DME turn left crosswind, fly downwind at 2000 FT QNH and report final not below 1500 FT QNH
       
      Cheers.
       
       
×
×
  • Create New...