Discussion about sector IDs

Jonathan Voss

  • Members
  • 47
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion about sector IDs
« Reply #30 on: August 23, 2017, 04:30:33 PM »
This is meant to say that sectors and callsigns do not necessarily need to be 1:1, especially where pilot and controller needs may differ.

Thank you, I think the discussion has become so muddy at this point but this is the exact point I was trying to make. ID's like 38 and 78 mean nothing to a pilot. Why is there no room for something more meaningful?

Example:
HOU_38_CTR becoming HOU_E_CTR or HOU_EH_CTR or some other helpful combination.

If there is going to be a callsign displayed to the pilot can it not have any meaningful significance to it other than an ID the pilot is never going to care about?

Jonathan Voss (JV)
Houston ARTCC

Matthew Kosmoski

  • Members
  • 654
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion about sector IDs
« Reply #31 on: August 23, 2017, 04:34:16 PM »
This is meant to say that sectors and callsigns do not necessarily need to be 1:1, especially where pilot and controller needs may differ.

Thank you, I think the discussion has become so muddy at this point but this is the exact point I was trying to make. ID's like 38 and 78 mean nothing to a pilot. Why is there no room for something more meaningful?

Example:
HOU_38_CTR becoming HOU_E_CTR or HOU_EH_CTR or some other helpful combination.

If there is going to be a callsign displayed to the pilot can it not have any meaningful significance to it other than an ID the pilot is never going to care about?

This may be off point, but I get the feeling that part of the problem is that some folks feel that sector IDs look more "official" and are thus "cooler," leading to a false sense of importance on presenting the sector ID.

If that represents reality in the slightest, I would assert that it's not a valid justification to do this, given that there's no downside to the other option, and may benefit a few (and a few more than the sector ID in callsign).

That being said, I hope my shower thought here is incorrect.

Re: Discussion about sector IDs
« Reply #32 on: August 23, 2017, 06:53:42 PM »
Pilots do not know where the E/W boundary is, so there is no east side vs west side from the pilot perspective.

The E/W boundary is irrelevant to this conversation. The pilot would not know the boundary between 38 and 78 for that matter. Most of the use cases would probably not fall anywhere near the boundary anyways. The goal would not be to use the callsign to establish a finite point in space but give the pilot at least a sense of who to contact.

There's no condescending in saying the past isn't as rosy as you two make it out to be.  It's the truth.

Asserting your own view point as the absolute truth and disregarding others is very condescending, Mr. Hawton.

And there's nothing condescending in saying the past wasn't as great as you seem to believe.  Seems to me you're taking things too personally.

Quote
I've posted SEVERAL arguments that you and MK have ignored.  MK has done nothing but been personally insulting since his first reply.

I have replied to every one of your arguments in this discussion.

To be clear, I am not advocating against using many sectors. I am simply advocating that the callsigns we use are not always the most appropriate nor realistic for the end-user experience. They are often the cause of confusion, delays, and communication issues.

You might be in a different conversation.  Compass Rose callsigns provide no additional form of clarity, at all, as discussed several times.  They provide as realistic as cold calling a random frequency on the chart asking for assistance.

Quote
Things do constantly change in aviation. I wish VATUSA as a whole showed the same willingness to hear out opposing view points.

Yes, things do change.. this was something that just changed.  What you are advocating for is a change back without any logical arguments for it.

Re: Discussion about sector IDs
« Reply #33 on: August 23, 2017, 06:57:32 PM »
This is meant to say that sectors and callsigns do not necessarily need to be 1:1, especially where pilot and controller needs may differ.

Thank you, I think the discussion has become so muddy at this point but this is the exact point I was trying to make. ID's like 38 and 78 mean nothing to a pilot. Why is there no room for something more meaningful?

Example:
HOU_38_CTR becoming HOU_E_CTR or HOU_EH_CTR or some other helpful combination.

If there is going to be a callsign displayed to the pilot can it not have any meaningful significance to it other than an ID the pilot is never going to care about?

There is no room because the call sign limit is 10 characters.  There is no "helpful" combination.  Sector IDs allow proper sectorization, specialization and keep things standard.  Why should sectors only exist during events and random arbitrary letters other times?  What happens when, during a non-published event, traffic picks up and could cause the need for sectors?

"EL" means absolutely nothing.  Low what? East from where?  It means nothing to pilots.  So there is really no logical reason to "go back" to arbitrary letters that cause less standardization across the board.  You shouldn't switch between sectors and compass points, either keep sectors with combinations when not needed, or don't use them at all.  When centers combine up at night, they combine to a sector, but that sector still exists and still has a function... they don't magically become something else.  That way your neighbors know 10 is here, 12 over there, and 13 over there.  When 10 and 12 are combined, it's easier than going.. wait, that was E, but now it's 10 12 and 13.

Robert Shearman Jr

  • Members
  • 306
    • View Profile
    • Slant Alpha Adventures
Re: Discussion about sector IDs
« Reply #34 on: August 23, 2017, 07:01:26 PM »
What follows is the opinion of a pilot rather than a controller (as my 18 hours of S1 Ground in ZDC, now outdated over two years, pretty much might as well count as 0 time controlling).

When an ARTCC is split among multiple controllers, it is FAR preferable when the controllers in question use their callsigns to give SOME indication of who covers what.  Yes, in many cases I will inevitably still call the wrong one; but with two sector numbers, that's essentially a 50/50 chance, where with a geographic hint at least that chance of a correct initial contact might increase to 75%.

Daniel, you keep countering with individual instances of pilots calling the incorrect frequencies.  You are correct that no system will prevent all such instances, real-world or VATSIM.  What I think you may be missing is that when taken across ALL VATSIM instances in which ARTCC sectors are split, helping SOME pilots "guess correctly" will help reduce unnecessary radio traffic to SOME degree.  I feel as though your arguments against it are very all-or-nothing.  Since ARTCC sectors are more often split on VATSIM during high-traffic events, any effort to help increase an individual pilot's chance to guess the correct initial frequency will be multiplied by the number of pilots participating in the event.

Of course, the better solution would be to ensure that all Center controllers covering only a partial ARTCC area have something helpful listed in their controller ATIS block.  My how we dream... ;-)
Cheers,
-R.

Matthew Kosmoski

  • Members
  • 654
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion about sector IDs
« Reply #35 on: August 23, 2017, 07:10:21 PM »
What follows is the opinion of a pilot rather than a controller (as my 18 hours of S1 Ground in ZDC, now outdated over two years, pretty much might as well count as 0 time controlling).

When an ARTCC is split among multiple controllers, it is FAR preferable when the controllers in question use their callsigns to give SOME indication of who covers what.  Yes, in many cases I will inevitably still call the wrong one; but with two sector numbers, that's essentially a 50/50 chance, where with a geographic hint at least that chance of a correct initial contact might increase to 75%.

Daniel, you keep countering with individual instances of pilots calling the incorrect frequencies.  You are correct that no system will prevent all such instances, real-world or VATSIM.  What I think you may be missing is that when taken across ALL VATSIM instances in which ARTCC sectors are split, helping SOME pilots "guess correctly" will help reduce unnecessary radio traffic to SOME degree.  I feel as though your arguments against it are very all-or-nothing.  Since ARTCC sectors are more often split on VATSIM during high-traffic events, any effort to help increase an individual pilot's chance to guess the correct initial frequency will be multiplied by the number of pilots participating in the event.

Of course, the better solution would be to ensure that all Center controllers covering only a partial ARTCC area have something helpful listed in their controller ATIS block.  My how we dream... ;-)

Rob-

Thanks for jumping in with that perspective!  The pilot-with-no-controller-experience angle is what I feel like I was trying to protect, but I'm not sure I was terribly effective.  Around here, there's an obvious bias -- it's mostly people who want to (and do) control!  The pilots often are neglected, which is what I've been trying to address.  I hope I was marching in the right direction!

The ATIS bit is a great point, and we should look to incorporate that.  Unfortunately, as a controller, I find that most people ignore controller ATIS information.  I now include "Aviate, navigate, communicate" in mine :-)  If we (and the ATOs may be the right place to start, wink wink) teach pilots to read and actually read the controller and airport ATIS, that may be a great step in the right direction.

Re: Discussion about sector IDs
« Reply #36 on: August 23, 2017, 07:18:33 PM »
What follows is the opinion of a pilot rather than a controller (as my 18 hours of S1 Ground in ZDC, now outdated over two years, pretty much might as well count as 0 time controlling).

When an ARTCC is split among multiple controllers, it is FAR preferable when the controllers in question use their callsigns to give SOME indication of who covers what.  Yes, in many cases I will inevitably still call the wrong one; but with two sector numbers, that's essentially a 50/50 chance, where with a geographic hint at least that chance of a correct initial contact might increase to 75%.

That's a way over estimate on the correct initial contact.  Again, my example of HOU_E for HOU_W 87 or 78.  You have a 50% chance of guessing the correct one.  Outside of events, there is rarely more than 1 center on anyway, so whether or not they use a sector number of name is a moot point.

Quote
Daniel, you keep countering with individual instances of pilots calling the incorrect frequencies.  You are correct that no system will prevent all such instances, real-world or VATSIM.  What I think you may be missing is that when taken across ALL VATSIM instances in which ARTCC sectors are split, helping SOME pilots "guess correctly" will help reduce unnecessary radio traffic to SOME degree.  I feel as though your arguments against it are very all-or-nothing.  Since ARTCC sectors are more often split on VATSIM during high-traffic events, any effort to help increase an individual pilot's chance to guess the correct initial frequency will be multiplied by the number of pilots participating in the event.

Helping pilots "guess correctly" doesn't change whether whether they use numbers or letters.  My arguments are for standardization.  Use sector IDs so that neighboring facilities can learn what is where, or don't.  When you constantly change between compass rose or sector IDs, you make things confusing for pilots who frequently fly the area and for your neighbors.  But using "EL" vs 87 don't really describe anything.

Quote
Of course, the better solution would be to ensure that all Center controllers covering only a partial ARTCC area have something helpful listed in their controller ATIS block.  My how we dream... ;-)

Controller info is the place for it, as are contact mes during splits... and information on the website.  If VATSIM won't allow frequency bandboxing, then we're stuck in this situation regardless of which solution is implemented.  Having experience with sectorization as well as compass rose points, nothing beats the ability to customize the airspace with sectorization... nothing.  We fly using realistic routings, departure procedures, etc. but then have some wanting to ignore the very structure of ATC that the routings were designed for.  Departure procedures are handled by certain sectors for a specific reason.  During events, the ability to open the departure sector is second to none.  With Compass Rose, that's not really possible without mixing and matching (HOU_E_CTR HOU_11_CTR, HOU_W_CTR. .. what?)

This is why every facility has a website, why controller clients have controller info boxes, and every controller client has contact me functionality .. to help pilots get to the correct controller without having to guess without any information.

Robert Shearman Jr

  • Members
  • 306
    • View Profile
    • Slant Alpha Adventures
Re: Discussion about sector IDs
« Reply #37 on: August 23, 2017, 07:20:30 PM »
the better solution would be to ensure that all Center controllers covering only a partial ARTCC area have something helpful listed in their controller ATIS block.
great point, and we should look to incorporate that.  Unfortunately, as a controller, I find that most people ignore controller ATIS information.  I now include "Aviate, navigate, communicate" in mine :-)  If we (and the ATOs may be the right place to start, wink wink) teach pilots to read and actually read the controller and airport ATIS, that may be a great step in the right direction.
Excerpt from VATSTAR P1 Lesson 4, "Seeing What's Up":
Quote
To be completely clear on what areas are covered by which controllers, particularly Approach and Departure controllers, it may be best to look at their ATIS block.  Particularly in cases where a regional Approach facility might cover multiple airports (such as New York covering JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark, or Potomac covering BWI, Reagan, and Dulles), it's not always the case that one controller logged on by him- or herself is covering the whole Class B.  Information contained in their ATIS block might tell you.  The example shown here illustrates this perfectly; this particular controller handles Newark (KEWR), but, not Kennedy (KJFK) nor LaGuardia (KLGA).  The map generated by a network activity monitoring site or app will normally not make this differentiation; the Approach/Departure area is represented by a generic circle which only approximates the coverage area.  VAT-Spy has no way of knowing which sectors are covered by whom, nor when one controller might cover them all versus when they might only be certified to take one area.
;-)
Cheers,
-R.

Re: Discussion about sector IDs
« Reply #38 on: August 23, 2017, 07:21:14 PM »
What follows is the opinion of a pilot rather than a controller (as my 18 hours of S1 Ground in ZDC, now outdated over two years, pretty much might as well count as 0 time controlling).

When an ARTCC is split among multiple controllers, it is FAR preferable when the controllers in question use their callsigns to give SOME indication of who covers what.  Yes, in many cases I will inevitably still call the wrong one; but with two sector numbers, that's essentially a 50/50 chance, where with a geographic hint at least that chance of a correct initial contact might increase to 75%.

Daniel, you keep countering with individual instances of pilots calling the incorrect frequencies.  You are correct that no system will prevent all such instances, real-world or VATSIM.  What I think you may be missing is that when taken across ALL VATSIM instances in which ARTCC sectors are split, helping SOME pilots "guess correctly" will help reduce unnecessary radio traffic to SOME degree.  I feel as though your arguments against it are very all-or-nothing.  Since ARTCC sectors are more often split on VATSIM during high-traffic events, any effort to help increase an individual pilot's chance to guess the correct initial frequency will be multiplied by the number of pilots participating in the event.

Of course, the better solution would be to ensure that all Center controllers covering only a partial ARTCC area have something helpful listed in their controller ATIS block.  My how we dream... ;-)

Rob-

Thanks for jumping in with that perspective!  The pilot-with-no-controller-experience angle is what I feel like I was trying to protect, but I'm not sure I was terribly effective.  Around here, there's an obvious bias -- it's mostly people who want to (and do) control!  The pilots often are neglected, which is what I've been trying to address.  I hope I was marching in the right direction!

The ATIS bit is a great point, and we should look to incorporate that.  Unfortunately, as a controller, I find that most people ignore controller ATIS information.  I now include "Aviate, navigate, communicate" in mine :-)  If we (and the ATOs may be the right place to start, wink wink) teach pilots to read and actually read the controller and airport ATIS, that may be a great step in the right direction.

I've said the same.. use your controller info.. as that is what it's called in VRC.

I'm looking out for pilots as well, your compass rose system is as ineffective as telling what is where as are numbers.  Outside of very outside edges of airspace, it's ineffective and confusing and during reliefs (which are common), they're reverted to numbers anyway and all "benefits" are lost.  Contact mes, controller info, and websites are the way to help pilots get to the correct frequency at the beginning.

Robert Shearman Jr

  • Members
  • 306
    • View Profile
    • Slant Alpha Adventures
Re: Discussion about sector IDs
« Reply #39 on: August 23, 2017, 07:22:52 PM »
Helping pilots "guess correctly" doesn't change whether whether they use numbers or letters.
It does for me.  I suspect it does for other pilots as well.  But as long as you refuse to believe that, there is nothing more to discuss because it is the one point central to the disagreement.
Cheers,
-R.

Re: Discussion about sector IDs
« Reply #40 on: August 23, 2017, 07:26:14 PM »
Helping pilots "guess correctly" doesn't change whether whether they use numbers or letters.
It does for me.  I suspect it does for other pilots as well.  But as long as you refuse to believe that, there is nothing more to discuss because it is the one point central to the disagreement.

I've provided examples.  It's not refusing to believe, it's believing through years of first hand experience.  Many pilots don't look at controller infos, or callsigns.  They see JAX CTR and pick one and call.  There are many examples where N/S flight paths crossing into E/W or other types of splits are unable to determine with any degree of half accuracy the "correct" person to call.  The best place for it is: controller info, contact mes, and websites.

Robert Shearman Jr

  • Members
  • 306
    • View Profile
    • Slant Alpha Adventures
Re: Discussion about sector IDs
« Reply #41 on: August 23, 2017, 07:29:21 PM »
And I have seven years' flying experience on this network which tells me it IS helpful to pilots.  Guess it's all about perspective.
Cheers,
-R.

Matthew Kosmoski

  • Members
  • 654
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion about sector IDs
« Reply #42 on: August 23, 2017, 07:30:41 PM »
Helping pilots "guess correctly" doesn't change whether whether they use numbers or letters.
It does for me.  I suspect it does for other pilots as well.  But as long as you refuse to believe that, there is nothing more to discuss because it is the one point central to the disagreement.

That's the crux of the issue we're having in this discussion with Daniel, too.  Our own experiences (and discussions with others) are invalid whereas his own are the word.

Given that VATUSA staff is supposed to be representing us and working for us, as members of VATUSA, I am disappointed with that position.

Jonathan Voss

  • Members
  • 47
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion about sector IDs
« Reply #43 on: August 23, 2017, 07:33:50 PM »
The best place for it is: controller info, contact mes, and websites.

A lot of these websites are outdated... I know of a at least a few that have position lists that wildly do not match their SOP.

All of these arguments make no difference between whether there is an ID in their callsign or not...

Some of them are down right confusing in approach airspace where an _F_ controller likely has nothing to do with finals. Additionally _E_ and _W_ may not even remotely correlate to East/West adding to the confusion.

From years of first hand experience myself, I can tell you to this day that pilots still pay attention to this.
Jonathan Voss (JV)
Houston ARTCC

Matthew Kosmoski

  • Members
  • 654
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion about sector IDs
« Reply #44 on: August 23, 2017, 07:35:01 PM »
The best place for it is: controller info, contact mes, and websites.

A lot of these websites are outdated... I know of a at least a few that have position lists that wildly do not match their SOP.

All of these arguments make no difference between whether there is an ID in their callsign or not...

Some of them are down right confusing in approach airspace where an _F_ controller likely has nothing to do with finals. Additionally _E_ and _W_ may not even remotely correlate to East/West adding to the confusion.

From years of first hand experience myself, I can tell you to this day that pilots still pay attention to this.

I can think of one where N is actually West... which is particularly confusing.  All because people want to use STARS symbols in radio callsigns.