Jump to content
Edward Berkley

atc-discussion Better way to improve PDC via text?

Recommended Posts

Edward Berkley

Hello all,

I was finding a more realistic way to give out PDC's via text. I thought of using these two messages:

.pdc1 .msg $aircraft $dep PDC: $aircraft CLRD TO $arr $deprwy via $sid INIT ALT: $alt squawk $asquawk ATIS $atiscode NO READBACK REQUIRED. If you're happy with this PDC, please verify by replying to this message, saying: "ACCEPT".

 

If they reply with 'accept' then I send out this second message.


.pdc2 .msg $aircraft Thank you, $aircraft. Contact $callsign on frequency $com when FULLY ready to push and start with stand number, ATIS info, aircraft type AND current QNH

I preferably wanted all of the important information from the second message into the first message. However, I discover that euroscope has a word limit as to how long your messages can be.

I'm wondering what you guys think of this procedure. Are vatsim pilots very responsive? As well, is there a way to automatically send out the second message by a somewhat means of detection from the pilot when he/she says 'accept'?

I hope what I just said makes sense. 

 

Many thanks!

 

 

Edited by Edward Berkley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adam Farquharson

The following is in the Heathrow moodle course and is the PDC that I usually use but there are others that were posted around the times of CTP that I'm sure someone else will probably be able to send.

.pdc .msg $aircraft $dep PDC: $aircraft CLRD TO $arr OFF $deprwy VIA $sid SQUAWK $asquawk ATIS $atiscode NO READBACK REQUIRED Contact $callsign on frequency $com when FULLY ready to push and start with stand number, aircraft type AND current QNH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James Yuen

@Edward Berkley That's actually a really good idea actually! I'd agree it's very realistic and for GND controllers/new S1's - it would be a good way to understand how it works.

PDC's have been tested with old systems (c. 2012?) and the conclusion, back then, was that it increased workload than decreased. Many London controllers use PDCs to reduce their workload significantly and therefore, the one message compromise would work better given VATSIMisms.

The 'two message' system is already adapted within vSMR and Hoppie, which is now integrated within the FSLabs A320. Many pilots are using that now so that is a great alternative/complement with the existing PDC via PM system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Edward Berkley
On 28/09/2019 at 15:10, James Yuen said:

@Edward Berkley That's actually a really good idea actually! I'd agree it's very realistic and for GND controllers/new S1's - it would be a good way to understand how it works.

PDC's have been tested with old systems (c. 2012?) and the conclusion, back then, was that it increased workload than decreased. Many London controllers use PDCs to reduce their workload significantly and therefore, the one message compromise would work better given VATSIMisms.

The 'two message' system is already adapted within vSMR and Hoppie, which is now integrated within the FSLabs A320. Many pilots are using that now so that is a great alternative/complement with the existing PDC via PM system.

Glad you like the idea. I guess it's best suited for delivery/ground and probably not for tower and above. Thanks!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nathaniel Laurence

Hi, can I just make a suggestion to this, because from my experience using PDC is used when it is busy, for example when someone is on London bandbox and doesn't have time for lengthy clearences. Because recently I have seen a Manchester ground controller using PDC with four aircraft on the ground. the reason why I think this is a bad move is because the pilot has not requested it, and a lot of the times when people are issuing PDC clearences they do not fully understand how to use it, for example you cannot issue a PDC clearence when there is a runway change about to come into effect etc. I am fully up for London using it because they are busy, but if you are struggling to control as ground at an aerodrome then it isn't the best habit to get into, because you need to issue voice clearences during your exam. The Hoppies ACARS CPDLC is a good thing to use though because the pilot has requested it and is therefore expecting a CPDLC clearence, otherwise pilots are wanting to have a voice clearence. I believe (but may be wrong) that in real life the PDC is accompanied by a unique identifier so that you as a controller know that the pilot has recieved the correct clearence and not an incorrect clearence or an old one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fraser Cooper

I think GND/DEL should have the capacity to give out voice clearances. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
George Peppard
2 hours ago, Fraser Cooper said:

I think GND/DEL should have the capacity to give out voice clearances. 

This!

In the real world™ PDC is always initiated by the pilot. On VATSIM it can be used by busy controllers (CTR, APP) covering ADC top-down to ease frequency congestion. I am of the opinion that it should not be used by GND and DEL controllers to be lazy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael Benson
On 30/10/2019 at 18:53, George Peppard said:

In the real world™ PDC ... used by GND and DEL controllers to be lazy!

😏

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simon Kelsey

@Michael Benson could confirm, but I think in reality PDC is (or can be) pretty much automated -- so the request is sent by the pilot, the computer generates a clearance and sends it back all without any controller intervention (unless it can't, in which case it sends back "revert to voice").

In theory this could work on VATSIM too -- PDC request comes in via Hoppie, Euroscope knows the departure runway, SID and squawk, the route could be automatically checked against a database (e.g. SRD + any additional routes) and if it matches then it automatically pings back the clearance; if not the pilot gets "revert to voice". That really would ease controller workload!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael Benson

As usual, you're spot on Simon.

If the pilot entered data matches that on the FDE the PDC is automatically sent, there is zero ATCO interaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alex Beavil

In essence, one of the main reasons i've used PDCs is to reduce my workload on GND/DEL, by sending out a clearance that is "fire and forget". It is rare to be in a situation where you're needing to reduce workload in this way, but we don't have a eurocontrol computer assigning CTOTs to every plane on the network, so it does become a requirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lenny Colton
On 30/10/2019 at 18:53, George Peppard said:

This!

In the real world™ PDC is always initiated by the pilot. On VATSIM it can be used by busy controllers (CTR, APP) covering ADC top-down to ease frequency congestion. I am of the opinion that it should not be used by GND and DEL controllers to be lazy!

I think there are circumstances where TWR or VERY occasionally GND may find reason for PDCs to be used. Case in point: The week AFV launched, I was on KK TWR, GND logged off. I was left with about 45 departures on the ground, so naturally I sent out PDCs, since I was top down with about 50-55 on frequency. I can see a situation (such as CTP if DEL has a software crash) where GND may use it, but it would be very rare. DEL’s entire job is clearances, so i don’t see why they’d send PDCs, or even want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Callum Presley
1 hour ago, Lenny Colton said:

DEL’s entire job is clearances, so i don’t see why they’d send PDCs, or even want to.

I would say it’s only a small part of their job if we actually do GMP properly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lenny Colton
On 03/11/2019 at 11:32, Callum Presley said:

I would say it’s only a small part of their job if we actually do GMP properly!

Except in very exceptional circumstances, on VATSIM, DEL generally gives standard and requests non-standard clearances, and assigns stands. They are rarely required to manage slots, so it still doesn't seem like PDCs would be necessary...

Edited by Lenny Colton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robert Terrace
On 31/10/2019 at 22:08, Simon Kelsey said:

@Michael Benson could confirm, but I think in reality PDC is (or can be) pretty much automated -- so the request is sent by the pilot, the computer generates a clearance and sends it back all without any controller intervention (unless it can't, in which case it sends back "revert to voice").

In theory this could work on VATSIM too -- PDC request comes in via Hoppie, Euroscope knows the departure runway, SID and squawk, the route could be automatically checked against a database (e.g. SRD + any additional routes) and if it matches then it automatically pings back the clearance; if not the pilot gets "revert to voice". That really would ease controller workload!

I've seen something similar floating around, I'm just trying to see if I can find it again and get something that can be worked on from it.

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

    • Daniel Gill
      By Daniel Gill
      Evening all,
      I, as well as many other people I have seen on the forum, have been wanting to get back into controlling in light of the recent events.
      I last controlled about a year-and-a-half ago, and even though I don't think I have lost knowledge of the procedures and R/T, I am still a little nervous to log back in after so long.
      From what I have seen on VATSpy ect. maybe GND/DEL can open ATIS without TWR or above? If I'm unsure about this, there could be other things that I don't know about. I don't want to be a nuisance to fellow controllers by not knowing the proper etiquette.
      I suppose what I am asking is if there's a resource that I would be able to learn the new rules/procedures, so it can give me some more confidence to give it a go.
      Thank you for your time, and apologies if this isn't suitable here.
      Kind Regards, Daniel Gill
    • Layth Al-Wakil
      By Layth Al-Wakil
      Pilots
      Departing and arriving pilots will all request the latest airfield and weather information on first contact.
      Inbound pilots make this request roughly 50nm away from LXGB using their com2 however, if they are unable to do this, they can ask Sevilla Radar to allow them to switch frequencies momentarily to get the weather information from Tower.
      Gibraltar does not have many approach types on offer, the three approaches available are:
      RNAV to visual Surveillance Radar Approach (SRA) Visual approach As this is a non-precision evening there is likely to be more emphasis on the SRA, this will involve 2 separate controllers with 1 being there simply just to do the final segment of the approach, the controller can only have 1 aircraft on frequency. As you can imagine this is going to most likely lead to holding and delays so bring plenty of fuel extra and make sure you have charts for the aerodrome that will provide you with more information.
      For free and up to date charts you can check out the Military AIP
      There is an old Pilot brief that I wrote with much of the information that still applies to this date, this can be found here.
      ATC
      This briefing is split up according to each of the positions and what their responsibility will be:
      LXGB_R_APP “Gibraltar Radar”
      The main responsibiites are:
       Identification and Control of outbound IFR aircraft f Identification and Control of inbound IFR aircraft until they are transferred to Talkdown or Aerodrome Control. Provision of a service to VFR inbound and outbound aircraft. Provision of a service to overflying traffic. Control of aircraft in emergency. Transfer of aircraft to Talkdown will be accompanied by a radar handover each time with aircraft descending to 1500ft.
      LXGB_P_APP “Gibraltar Talkdown”
      Talkdowns’ primary objective is to provide the SRA and thus is only allowed to have 1 aircraft on frequency at all times.
      The SRA crib sheet that I created a little while ago is still in date and can be used fully for the procedure. Also bear in mind that you will be giving SRAs for both civilian and military aircraft on differing tracks.
      The only pieces of co-ordination required are obtaining a landing clearance from tower and also informing radar of when the controller is free to receive another aircraft with the phrase “talkdown free”
       
      LXGB_TWR “Gibraltar Tower”
      In the absence of ground, Tower is to take the responsibilities from airway clearance all the way through to take-off clearance. The IFR clearance for each aircraft is to be sought from Sevilla Radar (LECS_CTR) who will provide the initial routing, cleared level, SSR code and any other instruction.
      Once the aircraft has pushed back a release must also be sought from Radar who will ask Sevilla for a release and any after departure instructions which must be relayed on to the pilot even if it is just re-confirming the clearance.
      Weather information must also be passed to inbound and outbound pilots via Tower, you effectively read them the METAR and active runway, if the aircraft is military you also pass the colour code.
    • 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
      Stand 19 - A320/B738
      Stand 20 - A321
      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, for VATSIM purposes, 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***

      *Stand 4 CAN be used for a heavy (such as B788) and in the real world would need to be coned off. This would be at the expense of the taxilane accessing stands 7-9 however.
      **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,
       
    • Angus McKenzie
      By Angus McKenzie
      G'day all.
      Not sure if this is an issue with install or the nav data for Euroscope, but for every flight plan I look at or draw on Euroscope as any position, it is never able to figure out the route number and just puts people direct to the next waypoint that is written in their flight plan. Example of route vs what ES pulls out of it below.
      https://imgur.com/a/hL46m0M
      Any help to fix this issue appreciated. 
    • Harry Sugden
      By Harry Sugden
      Basics
      St Athan has a tower position that on VATSIM should operate on 122.875 MHz. The ATIS should be broadcast on 130.550 MHz.
      St Athan Tower is responsible for the ATZ, a circle with 2 mile radius centred on the mid-point of runway 07/25, up to 2000ft. There is also a Local Flying Zone established up to 1700ft that permits autonomous operation for VFR flights within this area, without reference to Cardiff ATC. 
      Approach control services for IFR arriving aircraft are provided by Cardiff. Departing aircraft will also speak to Cardiff once they begin IFR flight.
      Circuit is left hand for 25, right hand for 07, 800 ft QFE for light piston aircraft, 1300 ft QFE for all other aircraft.
      Most traffic will need to backtrack if runway 25 in use. Ensure you obtain a release that considers this and any inbounds.
      Other VFR stuff read here
      Arrivals
      Inbounds to St Athan should be treated as if they were inbound to Cardiff by AC West and Bristol APC. Cardiff APC will then position them for an approach for the active runway.
      The only approved approach available is a visual approach which, given the likely weather later today, is going to be interesting...
      If this proves impossible, I had hoped that there would be an ILS available that although not currently approved for civilian use, it was when the field was military. However, I've checked and it isn't in P3D by default 😄 So depending on the type of person to fly in, they may or may not have added it to their sim. Assuming runway 25, the frequency is 111.15, course 254 - who knows, it might be worth a shot!
      Cardiff Approach should take care to:
      Cancel the IFR flight plan passing 2400ft (the MSA) Put a check on departures from Cardiff in good time for the approach Prenote St Athan tower of pending inbounds and transfer once the aircraft is happy to continue with the approach visually Technically, inbounds larger than a B757 who miss E or F need to be pushed back down the runway in order to vacate... but it's VATSIM, so just shove 'em on the tiny taxiways or get them to do a 180!
      Departures
      The AIP explains: "Departing flights that have filed IFR flight plans will be issued with a VFR/SVFR clearance to depart on runway track climbing to altitude 4,000 FT. On passing 2,400 FT QNH the flight will become IFR. Based on sector safe altitudes."
      Airways joining clearance and en route direction will be issued by Cardiff APC once airborne.
      All St Athan Tower needs to do is:
      "BAW9172, Climb straight ahead to altitude 4000ft Cardiff QNH XXXX, squawk XXXX, VFR. On passing altitude 2400ft flight becomes IFR."
      Then get a release from Cardiff before departure, and Bob's your uncle!
×
×
  • Create New...