Jump to content
Lenny Colton

proposal Extended TWR Coverage

Recommended Posts

Lenny Colton

I noticed, recently, that the Oakland vARTCC used to have the position BAY_TWR, which provided TWR coverage at KSFO, KOAK, and KSJC, two relatively large airports and a smaller one, and I was wondering if any consideration could be given to a similar idea in the UK, on a smaller scale, perhaps allowing EGKK_TWR to top-down EGKR, especially if they are already top-down the CTR, or perhaps for EGCC to top-down EGCB_I. This would allow some smaller/quieter airports to enjoy increased coverage, though controllers would perhaps need to exercise discretion with when these positions were opened and allow others to open the band-boxed sectors. Thoughts?

Edited by Lenny Colton

Share this post


Link to post
Kye Taylor

This would be nice, Something like ESSEX_TWR, SOLENT_TWR For the position that is relatively quiet. Theses positions could be split down in the event of another controller mutch like if ESSEX_APP was online.

Maybe having this as a "Special Tower" Position so an endorsement maybe needed?

Something definitely to consider!

Share this post


Link to post
Louie Lister

I don't mean to be rude so don't take this the wrong way, but I think that's a tragic idea and massively unrealistic too.

Share this post


Link to post
Lenny Colton
1 hour ago, Louie Lister said:

I don't mean to be rude so don't take this the wrong way, but I think that's a tragic idea and massively unrealistic too.

I'd be interested to hear more about your reasoning, here. In any but the quietest situations, I'd agree that an ESSEX_TWR would be a bad idea, especially if radar is online, as the positions no longer adjoin. However, I feel that an EGKK/EGKR bandbox (or EGKK top-down EGKR) would have a legitimate purpose, as EGKR basically "takes a bite" out of EGKK's airspace and is surrounded by it on 3 sides, whilst being very rarely staffed.

Share this post


Link to post
Adam Farquharson

I think the EGKK and EGKR thing kinda makes sense IF there is no radar online as Tower technically has control of the CTR in that case and with EGKR sitting under the CTR(kinda) so I guess KK tower could be considered to be doing topdown in that case but other than that case(and similar) I don't think it would be a good idea and as @Louie Lister said It would be massively unrealistic.

Share this post


Link to post
James Gibson

I have a bad feeling about this!

 

Share this post


Link to post
James Gibson
13 hours ago, Kye Taylor said:

This would be nice, Something like ESSEX_TWR, SOLENT_TWR For the position that is relatively quiet. Theses positions could be split down in the event of another controller mutch like if ESSEX_APP was online.

Maybe having this as a "Special Tower" Position so an endorsement maybe needed?

Something definitely to consider!

The problem is that ESSEX_APP exists. Special tower does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Matthew Wilson

I can see this working for Redhill and Vallance, as we pretty much cover both aerodromes top down, short of actually giving landing and take-off clearances. But you wouldn't need to create a new position, as EGKK_TWR can do all 3. As already mentioned, we already have ESSEX_APP which covers top down for Stansted, Luton and Cambridge, so again no need to create a new position there either. Also if you are creating a super bandboxed tower position then it it prevents people from loging on to the other positions and you would need to split the position up again. You're also comparing USA procedures, which I'm sure you'll agree, are totally different from ours. And fourthly as everyone else has said, it's just completely unrealistic in the UK. I can't really seeing this taking off (If you'll pardon the pun) (wishwings) imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Louie Lister
 
 
 
 
8 minutes ago, Matthew Wilson said:

I can see this working for Redhill and Vallance

Gatwick provides some sort of service for Vallance anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Harry Sugden

What a scary thought! Some TWR controllers can't manage one airfield, let's not let people loose on more...

Also I think the realism argument prevails here. It's a totally unrealistic prospect to combine towers and weird and whacky callsigns I'm sure would just confuse pilots.

On the Redhill/Vallance thing - I've been on TWR/APP in the past where pilots have called up to alert that they're on frequency, where I've given surface wind info at Gatwick and any relevant traffic information etc. Nothing to stop a TWR controller doing that at present!

Share this post


Link to post
Simon Kelsey

Also worth noting that whilst I am not intimately familiar with Redhill, I am fairly sure that flights within the LFA can perfectly legitimately take place without reference to Gatwick ATC, so I'm not sure how that squares with "Gatwick Tower should cover it top-down"...

Share this post


Link to post
Louie Lister
11 minutes ago, Simon Kelsey said:

Also worth noting that whilst I am not intimately familiar with Redhill, I am fairly sure that flights within the LFA can perfectly legitimately take place without reference to Gatwick ATC, so I'm not sure how that squares with "Gatwick Tower should cover it top-down"...

Redhill has it's own tower too.

Share this post


Link to post
Fergus Walsh

Bad idea in my opinion - very unrealistic and unprofessional. 

Share this post


Link to post
Adam Farquharson
1 hour ago, Simon Kelsey said:

I am fairly sure that flights within the LFA can perfectly legitimately take place without reference to Gatwick ATC, so I'm not sure how that squares with "Gatwick Tower should cover it top-down"

The Redhill LFA is a section of airspace which sits underneath the KK CTR(partly). And following that principle since KK_TWR has control of the KK CTR when there is no station above it could cover top down of the KR LFA in the same way that KK_APP covers topdown of the KK ATZ when TWR is not online. 

Even this is pushing it a bit but I can see it working.

Share this post


Link to post
James Gibson

I mean Redhill gets so busy on VATSIM that we must debate this.

Redhill has no affiliation with Gatwick and is OCAS. Without checking if I'm correct on the AIP, as far as I can remember last time I visited there, the only difference is VMC minima due to proximity of Class D, to the ordinary.

The only time Gatwick ATC speak to Redhill ATC is if someone has got a bit too close when flying a circuit (inside the CTR!).

Share this post


Link to post
Oliver Parker

Do it. More quiet positions covered for the same amount of controllers. Just don't let the rubbish ones open them.

Edited by Oliver Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Kye Taylor
41 minutes ago, Oliver Parker said:

Do it. More quiet positions covered for the same amount of controllers. Just don't let the rubbish ones open them.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7
17 hours ago, Harry Sugden said:

What a scary thought! Some TWR controllers can't manage one airfield, let's not let people loose on more...

Also I think the realism argument prevails here. It's a totally unrealistic prospect to combine towers and weird and whacky callsigns I'm sure would just confuse pilots.

On the Redhill/Vallance thing - I've been on TWR/APP in the past where pilots have called up to alert that they're on frequency, where I've given surface wind info at Gatwick and any relevant traffic information etc. Nothing to stop a TWR controller doing that at present!

As I suggested. Have this position require an endorsement much like Heathrow, Miliary, Shanwick, and Bandbox. I believe the .net term for a position like this would be "Special Tower" much like the "Special Center" for Bandbox and Shanwick.

Traffic levels seem to be on everyone's mind when talking about this but seem to forget when Bandbox Logs on they Cover top down for the hole UK FIR, I'm sure there are S2 rated controllers out there that can handle more than one airport.

Share this post


Link to post
Lenny Colton

Some people are having a sensible discussion, here, and some are blowing it way out of proportion. ESSEX_TWR and SOLENT_TWR are pretty bad ideas, not least because of the shape of the airspace and distance between the aerodromes. My original idea was related to Redhill (which can be covered top-down by EGKK_APP anyway) in the absence of overlying control, with Barton being similar, due to its proximity to Manchester. Both of these small aerodromes are positioned underneath the CTA/CTR of major airports, meaning that top-down ADC makes far more sense than with, for example, an Essex ADC position.

Edited by Lenny Colton

Share this post


Link to post
Simon Kelsey
On 07/09/2019 at 11:40, Lenny Colton said:

Both of these small aerodromes are positioned underneath the CTA/CTR of major airports

No, they are located outside controlled airspace (certainly Barton; Redhill may technically be in Class D I accept but still has its own LFA which is not subject to Gatwick ATC).

Airspace is 3D, i.e. underneath != inside, and I struggle to see why EGKK_APP, let alone TWR, should have anything to do with Redhill flights operating within the Redhill LFA.

Edit: further, Barton doesn't even have ATC: it is AFISO only so even less reason for anybody there to be required to speak to EGCC_TWR (not to mention being some 10 NM away by my reckoning).

Edited by Simon Kelsey

Share this post


Link to post
Matthew Wilson
On 06/09/2019 at 21:24, Simon Kelsey said:

Also worth noting that whilst I am not intimately familiar with Redhill, I am fairly sure that flights within the LFA can perfectly legitimately take place without reference to Gatwick ATC, so I'm not sure how that squares with "Gatwick Tower should cover it top-down"...

Because unless you're coming in from the north, east or west, you will need to transit Gatwick CTR and most probably the Gatwick ATZ, so yes, you would need to talk to Gatwick Tower. And in the absence of any top down control then Tower will take on the responsibility of giving a zone entry and a transit clearance.

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Similar Content

    • Colin Green
      By Colin Green
      with Oculus Rift S being so cheap now I think more people are going to go for this. I personally have sold all my 737 cockpit parts. One thing is a problem on Vatsim and that's text messages can't be viewed in VR so when a controller is trying to get in touch with you, you can't tell so my proposal is can they not just speak to us through Unicom?
       
       
    • Lee Connolly
      By Lee Connolly
      I wouldn't say this is just for the UK division for vatsim in general. I think It would be good if you were able to change your call sign (Pilots) without having to disconnect from the network, maybe an addon for pilot clients? 

      Thanks 

      Lee
    • Callum Calcutt
      By Callum Calcutt
      I love vatsim especially with the new codec coming however I don't want people to publicly see my name, can there be a way to hide it, its making me not want to use vatsim
    • Anastasios Mpithas
      By Anastasios Mpithas
      When Slack was first introduced it was a great app that enabled, and still enables all of the Vatsim UK members to have a chat, exchange opinions, organise flights and unwind.
      But I believe that Discord is now much better than Slack for text communications for the following reasons:
      Easier to access -most of the members and staff of Vatsim UK have a Discord account, new members are more likely to join Discord than Slack, because most people don't even know what Slack is The VATSIM.net official server for communications, and many other divisions are on Discord  Messages don't get deleted on Discord; If you need to find older messages on Slack you are out of luck Plenty of bots for easier moderation Much easier to implement something than Slack, it has a better API Roles can be useful for (new) members to identify staff and mentors Please respond with your opinion!
      Note: I am not talking about voice communications. This has been discussed already.
      The only downside that this move might have, will be the recustomisation of the bot that links Core-Slack, which I have no clue how hard it is to do.
       
    • Thomas Hallam
      By Thomas Hallam
      In the Vatsim UK Teamspeak, I believe Yorkshire should get its own room, 
      Reasons for this:
      1. Because Yorkshire is the best.
      2. Its the biggest county
      3. Yorkshiremen will sit in the room and be very welcoming
      4. Yorkshire gives people the best cup of tea
      Get more reasons why at https://www.martinwoods.me.uk/what-yorkshire-gave-the-world/
       
×
×
  • Create New...