Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Harry Sugden

atc-discussion Climbing/descending indicators

Recommended Posts

Harry Sugden

Hi all,

I've been working to trawl through the agreements in the sector file to introduce more of the arrows to indicate that an agreement is climbing/descending (rather than level by the point shown), so you should start to see more of these with an update to 2019/05 when it's out.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, the first few were introduced in December, and are as shown in this procedure change post. (And also here:)

image.png.1c13284cf7d3f4970e58f97b6eba52dd.png.d86d8252825476231d150778a9c38299.png

[If you're not seeing them, you might need to expand the width of your Sector exit point name column to 6 rather than 5.]

As they are rolled out, I'd quite like to know whether people find the fix name useful at all. They're perhaps advantageous in that they give you a rough idea of where the transfer takes place, but I'm of the personal opinion that they might look better as simply an arrow in order to differentiate completely from those agreements that are actually level by.

What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trevor Hannant

Useful Harry - however playing Devil’s Advocate, doesn’t this take away from controllers learning their sectors and the agreements therein?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry Sugden

Yes and I would’ve - in the the past - been the first person to suggest that and argue against this.

But even with the descending arrow, I have had to remind people on many occasions of the fact that the agreement above is descending FL160 via VATON, students and rated controllers alike. Either people don’t read and drill in Procedure Changes, or they have an obsession with all agreements having a level by point. There are controllers, for example, who I have heard say (every time) “descend FL80 level by LAM” out of habit rather than necessity.

I’m of the opinion now that given most controllers - me included on sectors I don’t know as well - do rely on EuroScope as, at the very least, their reminder and otherwise simply the gospel... these arrows might go some way toward encouraging correct usage. As it has always been, if no agreement shows then you would 1) check/know if there is one, or 2) coordinate unless tfc is at cruise. 

In addition, it’s up to students to take the initiative and potentially reduce their training length by learning agreements and thus seeing the cascading time saving effects across their controlling. But it can’t be forced on VATSIM! I will also continue to point out to people where agreements haven’t been used correctly hopefully in the nicest way possible, as I did the other night without a fuss.

Edited by Harry Sugden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael Pike

Speaking as a 70 year-old now, we need all the help we can get. Frankly, without ES assistance I would find it quite impossible to control an area sector at all!🙁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris Pawley

Hopefully we have many years of Mike Pike service to come 😍

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • 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.
       
       
    • Chris Pawley
      By Chris Pawley
      The Letter of Agreement between London and Amsterdam (Dutch vACC) is revised to take into account changes in AD3 at the end of 2018. It's available here.
       
      Chris.
    • George Barlow
      By George Barlow
      Hello all,
      Since the enrollment of the dedicated VCCS server, there have been various issues regarding connection, general calling and also the sound that alerts you of an incoming call. I thought I would take the time to address these issues and supply a possible fix.
      Connection issues to the server & General calling
      Many have faced this issue and the reason behind many of you getting a 1797 issue is due to the revision of Euroscope you are on. The most current beta released is r19, which can be downloaded here: http://www.euroscope.hu/installbeta/EuroScopeBeta32a19.zip All of the contents in this .zip file should be moved to your main Euroscope directory (Default: C:\Program Files (x86)\EuroScope), please note that this will require you to overwrite existing files in the directory - a backup of your Euroscope folder should be made before transferring the files.
      Incoming call alert sound
      This issue occurs due to the current 'landline_request.wav' is too long. A simple resolution to this would be either to crop the sound file down yourself or download a new and improved one, courtesy of George Peppard: https://drive.google.com/file/d/11Tq58cAVQRX8AuHa1aCpnwi4t7qeqrvv/view?usp=sharing This file should overwrite the current 'landline_request.wav' file in your main Euroscope directory (Default: C:\Program Files (x86)\EuroScope\Sounds\), restart Euroscope after this change and this issue should've been resolved - be sure to make a backup of this file before overwriting!
      Multiple Euroscope instances open & VCCS won't work
      This issue occurs when two or more VCCS instances are opened/used in one single connection to the network (usually by proxy). This can be resolved by making sure you only open the 'VCCS dialogue' on one instance or making sure you stick to calling other positions on one of the Euroscope instances only - switching between two instances on a proxy connection will confuse VCCS and the server, potentially causing further issues.
      Majority of the issues faced with VCCS are down to either the server address entered wrong or not having the most up-to-date beta of Euroscope.
      If any other issues arise that I have not addressed, do give me a shout through private message on the forums, Slack or Teamspeak.
      Hope this helps use VCCS to its full potential, giving a better amount of realism on the VATSIM network.
      Kind Regards,
      George
       
×
×
  • Create New...