VATUSA Forums

General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Jonathan Voss on August 22, 2017, 12:49:06 PM

Title: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Jonathan Voss on August 22, 2017, 12:49:06 PM
Regarding the founders trying to ensure ease of access:  I know that, you know that, but we see a trend of making it difficult for people "not in the know."  For example, sector naming.  How do I know if X, Y, or Z approach is North, West, or East?  Or if 12, 21, 14, or 41 center is high/low, east/west, etc?  I've heard controllers get mad at (and yell at -- there's too much yelling on this network these days) pilots for not knowing their internal symbology and nomenclature.  It's a bit ridiculous.

+1 for this statement. It has become a pet peeve of mine, really. As a controller, there is no real reason for these callsigns... I can see exactly which controller has which alpha-numeric ID and the pilot has no use for this information. When flying, it would be tremendously more useful for me to have at least a vague idea of which controller to initially contact when flying in from an uncovered region. Aeronautical charts do not help here either because we do not staff/cover all of the same real world frequencies. I'm not sure when or why this became the norm but I do miss the ol'e E/W, H/L, etc.

As for the few places that still seem to do this, keep it up! You guys rock!
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Nickolas Christopher on August 22, 2017, 04:45:13 PM
I think it's actually close to real world. There are no definitive TRACON or center sector boundaries on aviation charts. IFR charts have center boundaries, but otherwise, the frequencies on VFR and IFR charts are there so you can get a controller on the radio who can help you.

Additionally, some TRACONs are more complex than others. SoCal has probably over a dozen sectors, and I can't count how many times a pilot goes NORDO thinking they aren't in SoCal TRACON airspace.

I don't expect a pilot to know sectorizations and frequencies. But, I'd rather them call me and ask than go NORDO and cause conflicts. If I'm not the correct controller, I'll send them to the right frequency.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski on August 22, 2017, 05:49:07 PM
I think it's actually close to real world. There are no definitive TRACON or center sector boundaries on aviation charts. IFR charts have center boundaries, but otherwise, the frequencies on VFR and IFR charts are there so you can get a controller on the radio who can help you.

Additionally, some TRACONs are more complex than others. SoCal has probably over a dozen sectors, and I can't count how many times a pilot goes NORDO thinking they aren't in SoCal TRACON airspace.

I don't expect a pilot to know sectorizations and frequencies. But, I'd rather them call me and ask than go NORDO and cause conflicts. If I'm not the correct controller, I'll send them to the right frequency.

Excuse me?  Are you sure you want to assert that there's no way to determine that information based on the publications provided by the FAA for real-world operations?  ARTCC boundaries are listed on enroute charts.  AF/D show approach facilities for an airport, enroute charts show who owns what with the postage stamps.  The big difference is that they can combine frequencies/sectors and run multiple concurrently, even with aircraft on different frequencies, which we don't do -- hence the need for a VATSIMism.

As a pilot, you should know exactly who to call 99% of the time with those resources.  We don't have those resources on VATSIM.  The N/W/E/S/F/etc identifiers used to be the analogous resource... now there's nothing.

What we have is nothing akin to real world.  We're missing the supplemental information (maybe that's why they renamed the AF/D to the chart supplement) to make it viable as-is.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Jonathan Voss on August 22, 2017, 06:00:43 PM
This is too funny. In this very thread we just discussed how you must operate a Mode C transponder at all times regardless of real world regulations and yet, brining up something that would actually help pilots is frowned upon because it's not real world.

However, just like Matthew was saying, when flying in the real world, I can easily determine which controller I'm supposed to contact initially. As I was saying earlier, because we do not monitor all of the frequencies listed (like real ATC does) there is no way for the pilot to use the available information to determine the appropriate frequency. Every time we sectorize this same issue comes up time and time again where pilots either go NORDO or they call the wrong sector. It is a lot of needless frequency congestion and confusion during busy events.

I don't understand why there is a necessary need to make things more "realistic" for the pilot when it is neither realistic or practical.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski on August 22, 2017, 06:03:59 PM
This is too funny. In this very thread we just discussed how you must operate a Mode C transponder at all times regardless of real world regulations and yet, brining up something that would actually help pilots is frowned upon because it's not real world.

This thread has made one thing pretty clear to me:  Depending on which way I turn my head, the rules and interpretations of what needs to be adjusted for VATSIM are either one-sided or arbitrary.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Ira Robinson on August 22, 2017, 07:24:38 PM
This thread has made one thing pretty clear to me:  Depending on which way I turn my head, the rules and interpretations of what needs to be adjusted for VATSIM are either one-sided or arbitrary.

In other words you can't be all things to all people all the time.  And this surprises you Matthew?  You've been around too long for that.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 22, 2017, 07:27:21 PM
Alright.. from a real world perspective, there is no reliable method to determine which frequency you have to be on.  EVERY day, I hear at least 2 aircraft call over guard across the northern half of the state of Alaska (bigger than Texas) because they lost contact with Anchorage Center and requesting pilots relay messages to Anchorage to get them a new frequency and/or they were instructed to change, misheard it and now can't reach the previous controller.  The AF/D (which no longer exists) doesn't accurately portray approach sectors either.  For Fairbanks, AK. for instance, the E/W split is about 7 miles east of FAI, but according to the Chart Supplement, East is everything from the 360-179 and West is 180-359.  So neither tell you exactly whom to call.  It gives you an idea only to call and ask.  The controllers are the ones who get pilots to the same frequency.

Real world or not, pilots DO go to incorrect frequencies, and get direction from the controller on who to call.  N/S/E/W are as cryptic to pilots as sector numbers (and relief callsigns are usually numbers anyway).

As far as on VATSIM... the N/S/E/W don't really help.  If I am sitting at IAH or JAX, do I contact E/W/N/S?  01 14 W E all mean the same thing to a pilot, it's another sector.  What does help is redirecting lost pilots to the correct frequency, controller text and providing helpful diagrams on your website.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 23, 2017, 01:06:13 AM
To all, I sincerely apologize.  Going back through these posts, I had thought I read bickering back and forth and locked the topic.

I have split the topics, as this is a different direction than the original thread's question and unlocked the topics.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski on August 23, 2017, 08:09:36 AM
Lots of points I want to address, so I apologize in advance for the inline quotes:

Alright.. from a real world perspective, there is no reliable method to determine which frequency you have to be on.

Of course there is.  Again, they're listed on all the charts.  When you're enroute, you pick a nearby airport and use the information published.  I've only ever been handed off to a "correct" controller once when doing that.  If you're going to use Alaska as you did below, of course that's another animal due to the nature of the (lack of) population density, but the same concept applies.

EVERY day, I hear at least 2 aircraft call over guard across the northern half of the state of Alaska (bigger than Texas) because they lost contact with Anchorage Center and requesting pilots relay messages to Anchorage to get them a new frequency and/or they were instructed to change, misheard it and now can't reach the previous controller.

Of course, but that's a well-known issue with radio coverage in Alaska.  Additionally, missing handoffs isn't new or unusual.  The SOP here is to do exactly that.  Over the middle of Texas, we've, in a Skyhawk at 6,500, provided relay services on guard for an approach controller who wouldn't hail an airliner.


The AF/D (which no longer exists) doesn't accurately portray approach sectors either.  For Fairbanks, AK. for instance, the E/W split is about 7 miles east of FAI, but according to the Chart Supplement, East is everything from the 360-179 and West is 180-359.  So neither tell you exactly whom to call.  It gives you an idea only to call and ask.  The controllers are the ones who get pilots to the same frequency.

Sure it does, but the split there is largely irrelevant.  If you use the resources mentioned, they tell us the following:

FAIRBANKS DEP CON
126.5 381.4(360°-179°)
125.3 5363.2(180°-359°)

If you're headed East and call up 5 early, they're not going to pong you back ;-)

P.S.  I know the AF/D was renamed, but you'll see that I used it as a set up for the "supplemental" joke.

Real world or not, pilots DO go to incorrect frequencies, and get direction from the controller on who to call.  N/S/E/W are as cryptic to pilots as sector numbers (and relief callsigns are usually numbers anyway).

Are we talking VATSIM here?  If so, I think you're sorely underestimating the average pilot.  While the average VATSIM pilot may not entirely understand how to read charts, I think that even a 13 year old has been taught a compass rose.  I've had this discussion via text PM on network dozens of times... They get confused as who to call, and many have mentioned that the older style here largely removed that confusion.

As far as on VATSIM... the N/S/E/W don't really help.  If I am sitting at IAH or JAX, do I contact E/W/N/S?  01 14 W E all mean the same thing to a pilot, it's another sector.  What does help is redirecting lost pilots to the correct frequency, controller text and providing helpful diagrams on your website.

Yep, another VATSIMism.  On the ground isn't nearly as concerning as when flying in.  You won't get ding-donged and wallop'd a minute later while you're running a flow or loading a flight plan and figuring out a freq like you will as you cross a border you can't see.  We can't expect that pilots will go to every ARTCC/FIR website (if they even know what the ARTCC/FIR is in the first place) and know that the Dallas TRACON is known as the D10 and pull charts.  We can't expect that pilots will know that they even need to.  You're correct that directing them to the right frequency is part of the solution, but I've lost confidence in our ability (as controllers on the whole) to do that regularly without a tone of condescension.  I hear it far too often.  That's another issue to solve, of course, but is certainly justification for workarounds elsewhere.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Jonathan Voss on August 23, 2017, 08:14:29 AM
Alright.. from a real world perspective, there is no reliable method to determine which frequency you have to be on.

I'm sorry but I disagree with your statement. Flying VFR and approaching controlled airspace it is very necessary (and easy) for us to determine which frequency is appropriate. Additionally, when arriving IFR if for some reason we lost communications, sure it happens, it is also charted on the IAP which approach facility and frequency I should be talking to.

EVERY day, I hear at least 2 aircraft call over guard across the northern half of the state of Alaska (bigger than Texas) because they lost contact with Anchorage Center and requesting pilots relay messages to Anchorage to get them a new frequency and/or they were instructed to change, misheard it and now can't reach the previous controller. 

I hear this every day out flying too... but I'm not sure what its relevance is here in this particular topic.

Real world or not, pilots DO go to incorrect frequencies, and get direction from the controller on who to call.  N/S/E/W are as cryptic to pilots as sector numbers (and relief callsigns are usually numbers anyway).

Absolutely people get the wrong frequency, no argument there! However, I do not believe as many pilots would agree with you that they would be just as cryptic as sector IDs. I get pilots who call me all the time thinking the ID has some directional or location significance to them as the pilot. The pilots have absolutely no use for the ID or care so why even display it to them at all? Almost anything else could actually help them.

As far as on VATSIM... the N/S/E/W don't really help.  If I am sitting at IAH or JAX, do I contact E/W/N/S?  01 14 W E all mean the same thing to a pilot, it's another sector.  What does help is redirecting lost pilots to the correct frequency, controller text and providing helpful diagrams on your website.

No one is saying it would cure cancer here (all our problems). At least you would have a little better idea though. To your example, if I was on the ground at IAH and we had ZHU center split, you're honestly going to say picking between: 87 or 38 is easier to determine versus something like E and W?

Just for clarification's sake since this was split off from another thread. We're discussing the actual callsign used by ATC on the VATSIM network and not the IDs used in handoffs, etc.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 23, 2017, 12:54:30 PM
Lots of points I want to address, so I apologize in advance for the inline quotes:

Alright.. from a real world perspective, there is no reliable method to determine which frequency you have to be on.

Of course there is.  Again, they're listed on all the charts.  When you're enroute, you pick a nearby airport and use the information published.  I've only ever been handed off to a "correct" controller once when doing that.  If you're going to use Alaska as you did below, of course that's another animal due to the nature of the (lack of) population density, but the same concept applies.

The information published is not always correct.  I've provided plenty of corrections, and the powers that be keep adding in more.  As I provided in my example, there is always incorrect information to be had, and just like real world, on VATSIM pilots who wander into the wrong frequency get redirected by the controller to the correct one (or should).

Quote
EVERY day, I hear at least 2 aircraft call over guard across the northern half of the state of Alaska (bigger than Texas) because they lost contact with Anchorage Center and requesting pilots relay messages to Anchorage to get them a new frequency and/or they were instructed to change, misheard it and now can't reach the previous controller.

Of course, but that's a well-known issue with radio coverage in Alaska.  Additionally, missing handoffs isn't new or unusual.  The SOP here is to do exactly that.  Over the middle of Texas, we've, in a Skyhawk at 6,500, provided relay services on guard for an approach controller who wouldn't hail an airliner.

You sure?  Sounds like you know nothing about Alaska if you think we have a lack of radio coverage up here.  I live and work it up here, there is almost no areas where you cannot reach ATC by radio.  Even a remote village in a mountain pass with a population of 282 people that is not on the road system has radio coverage to the ground.

Quote
The AF/D (which no longer exists) doesn't accurately portray approach sectors either.  For Fairbanks, AK. for instance, the E/W split is about 7 miles east of FAI, but according to the Chart Supplement, East is everything from the 360-179 and West is 180-359.  So neither tell you exactly whom to call.  It gives you an idea only to call and ask.  The controllers are the ones who get pilots to the same frequency.

Sure it does, but the split there is largely irrelevant.  If you use the resources mentioned, they tell us the following:

FAIRBANKS DEP CON
126.5 381.4(360°-179°)
125.3 5363.2(180°-359°)

If you're headed East and call up 5 early, they're not going to pong you back ;-)

P.S.  I know the AF/D was renamed, but you'll see that I used it as a set up for the "supplemental" joke.

They usually will if they've got their butts handed to them.  And East often does.  Difference between us, I've worked it. 
 I work ATC up here in the state of Alaska and am intimately familiar with it.  The supplemental change wasn't directed at you, but another individual that addressed it as the AF/D for use.

Quote
Real world or not, pilots DO go to incorrect frequencies, and get direction from the controller on who to call.  N/S/E/W are as cryptic to pilots as sector numbers (and relief callsigns are usually numbers anyway).

Are we talking VATSIM here?  If so, I think you're sorely underestimating the average pilot.  While the average VATSIM pilot may not entirely understand how to read charts, I think that even a 13 year old has been taught a compass rose.  I've had this discussion via text PM on network dozens of times... They get confused as who to call, and many have mentioned that the older style here largely removed that confusion.

Nope.  I am the reason ZJX switched.  When I showed up in 2009, they had: North (N), South (S), East (E), West (W), Coast (C), Epcot (D), plus highs, lows and a super high..  Sitting at JAX, who do you call?  ZHU W/E, I'm at IAH, who do I call?  There is no published information on where the split is... so if I'm near the boundary then yes, I have a decent idea who to call .. but more often than not, there's no way to know other than a controller's information.  I removed ZJX's horrible sectoring because not only were the names unhelpful, but the sectors that were created real life were created for a multitude of reasons.  Some of which include: not having airways split along boundaries or criss-crossing them, traffic flows into certain airports, etc.  The way the old ZJX boundaries were set up, S got JAX, MCO and TPA traffic.

Quote
As far as on VATSIM... the N/S/E/W don't really help.  If I am sitting at IAH or JAX, do I contact E/W/N/S?  01 14 W E all mean the same thing to a pilot, it's another sector.  What does help is redirecting lost pilots to the correct frequency, controller text and providing helpful diagrams on your website.

Yep, another VATSIMism.  On the ground isn't nearly as concerning as when flying in.  You won't get ding-donged and wallop'd a minute later while you're running a flow or loading a flight plan and figuring out a freq like you will as you cross a border you can't see.  We can't expect that pilots will go to every ARTCC/FIR website (if they even know what the ARTCC/FIR is in the first place) and know that the Dallas TRACON is known as the D10 and pull charts.  We can't expect that pilots will know that they even need to.  You're correct that directing them to the right frequency is part of the solution, but I've lost confidence in our ability (as controllers on the whole) to do that regularly without a tone of condescension.  I hear it far too often.  That's another issue to solve, of course, but is certainly justification for workarounds elsewhere.

If you've lost that ability, that's completely on you.  I've heard it (since now I mostly fly) countless times without condescension.  The work around is simple, make sure you send a contact me rather than let the pilot fly aimlessly into your airspace, put good information into your controller info, and hate to say it, but whether you use ZHU_14_CTR or ZHU_W_CTR, you're still going to have pilots call you that should be on another frequency.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 23, 2017, 12:59:31 PM
Alright.. from a real world perspective, there is no reliable method to determine which frequency you have to be on.

I'm sorry but I disagree with your statement. Flying VFR and approaching controlled airspace it is very necessary (and easy) for us to determine which frequency is appropriate. Additionally, when arriving IFR if for some reason we lost communications, sure it happens, it is also charted on the IAP which approach facility and frequency I should be talking to.

And I'm going to disagree with you there.  Flying VFR, there is materials that still often point you to the wrong locations.  Example provided in the original post below.  It's not as reliable as you make it sound.

Quote
EVERY day, I hear at least 2 aircraft call over guard across the northern half of the state of Alaska (bigger than Texas) because they lost contact with Anchorage Center and requesting pilots relay messages to Anchorage to get them a new frequency and/or they were instructed to change, misheard it and now can't reach the previous controller. 

I hear this every day out flying too... but I'm not sure what its relevance is here in this particular topic.

That there is no more reliable way of finding frequencies than asking for help from controllers.

Quote
Real world or not, pilots DO go to incorrect frequencies, and get direction from the controller on who to call.  N/S/E/W are as cryptic to pilots as sector numbers (and relief callsigns are usually numbers anyway).

Absolutely people get the wrong frequency, no argument there! However, I do not believe as many pilots would agree with you that they would be just as cryptic as sector IDs. I get pilots who call me all the time thinking the ID has some directional or location significance to them as the pilot. The pilots have absolutely no use for the ID or care so why even display it to them at all? Almost anything else could actually help them.

Displayed because there's no other way to connect to the network with splits.  Plus it does help neighboring controllers.  One guy logs in as JAX_CTR and a split opens as JAX_04_CTR.. now the neighbor has to ask what sector is JAX_CTR?

Quote
As far as on VATSIM... the N/S/E/W don't really help.  If I am sitting at IAH or JAX, do I contact E/W/N/S?  01 14 W E all mean the same thing to a pilot, it's another sector.  What does help is redirecting lost pilots to the correct frequency, controller text and providing helpful diagrams on your website.

No one is saying it would cure cancer here (all our problems). At least you would have a little better idea though. To your example, if I was on the ground at IAH and we had ZHU center split, you're honestly going to say picking between: 87 or 38 is easier to determine versus something like E and W?

Just for clarification's sake since this was split off from another thread. We're discussing the actual callsign used by ATC on the VATSIM network and not the IDs used in handoffs, etc.
[/quote]

I'm addressing Michael, who seems to think that numbered sectors over compass rose points are somehow detrimental to the pilot experience on the network.  I never said 87 and 38 vs E W are easier to determine.  I am saying that it is equivalent in the cryptic sense for a pilot starting on the ground, or entering from any direction other than the E/W edge.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Fred Michaels on August 23, 2017, 01:21:16 PM
In other words you can't be all things to all people all the time.

Quote of the day...
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski on August 23, 2017, 01:38:22 PM
This thread has made one thing pretty clear to me:  Depending on which way I turn my head, the rules and interpretations of what needs to be adjusted for VATSIM are either one-sided or arbitrary.

In other words you can't be all things to all people all the time.  And this surprises you Matthew?  You've been around too long for that.

No, it doesn't surprise me, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.  If I can champion an effort to remind us that we're only half of the puzzle, I'll be doing something meaningful.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski on August 23, 2017, 01:42:01 PM
Daniel-

The inlines are going to get ridiculous, but you're making it a little difficult to have a meaningful conversation.  We're citing charts as the rule, you're citing local procedure and knowledge as if it's the rule rather than the exception to the rule.

A common sentiment I hear from individual controllers is "I don't send contact mes!" as they cite CoC B3.  I believe there is a serious disconnect between you (and frankly, most of "management") and the common controller or common pilot.  Your experiences, as mine, as Jon's, are slightly different than the average.  I believe we need to keep that in mind and not slant the perspective towards those with higher understanding and actual involvement/interaction with the NAS.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 23, 2017, 01:57:27 PM
I have cited charts as well.  I'm also citing local knowledge in a further example that compass points aren't as easy as you make them out to be.

A common sentiment, yes, that the VATUSA and VATSIM staff say there is absolutely no reason to not use contact me.  That reasoning also further disintegrates the second there is a split... whether you use a cryptic number or a compass rose points in the callsign.  Most of the advocates of CoC B3 have been talking, from what I've seen, when they're the only controller on.  If they're the only controller on then it doesn't matter if it's HOU_83_CTR, HOU_N_CTR, or just HOU_CTR.

There is no disconnect, I still fly quite regularly and am an avid chart user.  I often fly into areas I've never flown before both inside and outside the US.  I fly into areas around Europe where they often have unrealistic sectors that pop on (Adriac Center, EuroControl, etc) that are uncharted completely (outside of EURO_M_CTR which does exist rw), FIRs that don't cover the entire FIR....  I also remember my early days, when I was still figuring it all out, but I also know how to apply it.  Believe it or not, you're discounting the knowledge of the pilots significantly.

A pilot departing DFW for IAH, and there is ZHU W and ZHU E, who do they call?  Does it really make any difference if it is ZHU W and E vs ZHU 83 and 78?  Nope.  It doesn't.  A pilot with zero knowledge of the sectors in Houston will be as confused either way.  That's the point I'm trying to make.  It has nothing to do with "management being disconnected", but more of, we all should make sure that we are helping pilots and providing the service we volunteered to do.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Jonathan Voss on August 23, 2017, 02:13:06 PM
And I'm going to disagree with you there.  Flying VFR, there is materials that still often point you to the wrong locations.  Example provided in the original post below.  It's not as reliable as you make it sound.
.

I fly within multiple busy airspaces quite regularly both VFR and IFR. I can say from experience, it's reliable. If it has changed between charting cycles it is NOTAM'd.

Our friends at the charting office strive to maintain high degrees of accuracy and do an excellent job with the massive data set they have to deal with while being very responsive to corrections.

The FAA does not set out to create a shell game for pilots to figure out who to contact.

That there is no more reliable way of finding frequencies than asking for help from controllers.

Nobody disagrees with you here? People will always call the wrong frequency at times...

Displayed because there's no other way to connect to the network with splits.  Plus it does help neighboring controllers.  One guy logs in as JAX_CTR and a split opens as JAX_04_CTR.. now the neighbor has to ask what sector is JAX_CTR?

This statement is just as true for alpha-numeric IDs as it is for directional indicators. Previously we often connected with _W_ , _E_, _H_, _L_ prefixes when we were the only controller. Honestly, adjacent controllers would now have an easier time figuring out which controller to hand off aircraft traversing their boundaries.

In fact the time spent dealing with adjacent ARTCCs sorting out which ID is for which sector prior to and during events has become a little insane and wastes everyone's time. This is phenomenon was largely created when sector IDs in the callsigns became the norm.

Quote
I'm addressing Michael, who seems to think that numbered sectors over compass rose points are somehow detrimental to the pilot experience on the network.  I never said 87 and 38 vs E W are easier to determine.  I am saying that it is equivalent in the cryptic sense for a pilot starting on the ground, or entering from any direction other than the E/W edge.

It is a pretty large reach to claim that it is just as cryptic. I disagree and was offering discussion to that point.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski on August 23, 2017, 02:15:09 PM
Daniel, I think we're talking past each other here:  As I said before, our sectors are VATSIMisms.  Of course *our* sectors don't match what's on charts.  The charts are representative of RW.  The compass rose is simply an analogous mechanism to replace the charts.  Of course our fantasy sectors wouldn't be represented.

You know what I'd do if E/W was on simultaneously?  Call the one for my direction of flight.  If they've coordinated the local services one way or another, that's a result of VATSIMism'd top-down service.  We can't make it perfect, of course, but that's focusing on the traffic going the opposite direction of those I've been trying to speak of.  Flopping back and forth is only denying the antecedent, given the natural disconnect created by top down.  If a tower was on underneath, it'd be a moot point.  While top-down changes the game, of course, it adds nothing to this particular conversation since sector ids don't solve it, either.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 23, 2017, 02:21:33 PM
JV-

You have a different experience with the office than I do.  They broke an entire cycle of supplements late last year for the state of Alaska.  I even provided an example of incorrect split information in the original post you quoted from.

As far as sector IDs vs random letters... nothing has changed.  It's become part of learning your local knowledge.  LOAs should specify what is what, just like before.

IE, what changes for you as a controller between seeing JAX_CL JAX_SL JAX_CH JAX_SH and JAX_04 JAX_07 JAX_10 JAX_14?  Nothing, really.  Learning what sectors are what on the other side of the boundary is part of local knowledge.

For a pilot, they all look the same.  And flying from DFW to IAH.. who would you call between HOU_W_CTR and HOU_E_CTR?  The past wasn't as great as you seem to believe.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 23, 2017, 02:27:57 PM
Daniel, I think we're talking past each other here:  As I said before, our sectors are VATSIMisms.  Of course *our* sectors don't match what's on charts.  The charts are representative of RW.  The compass rose is simply an analogous mechanism to replace the charts.  Of course our fantasy sectors wouldn't be represented.

You know what I'd do if E/W was on simultaneously?  Call the one for my direction of flight.  If they've coordinated the local services one way or another, that's a result of VATSIMism'd top-down service.  We can't make it perfect, of course, but that's focusing on the traffic going the opposite direction of those I've been trying to speak of.  Flopping back and forth is only denying the antecedent, given the natural disconnect created by top down.  If a tower was on underneath, it'd be a moot point.  While top-down changes the game, of course, it adds nothing to this particular conversation since sector ids don't solve it, either.

Sectors aren't charted.. so they will not match.

As far as your direction of flight, that's ambiguous.  If you're entering the E flying W bound, I hope you're not calling W as that is your direction of flight.  Again, DFW to IAH with E/W.. there isn't one that matches so it matters none that it's E/W vs 83/78.

I never said sector IDs solve it, I'm saying compass rose points don't solve the issue.  Solving the issue is proper documentation and information available, controllers assisting pilots, and a genuine interest to learn.  Using compass rose points vs "proper" sector IDs will change nothing to anyone except the marginal few who happen to enter through specific points.  And then if you have someone come and relieve you while you're working HOU_EL_CTR, there will either be a complete disconnect in services kicking everyone out of the voice room and then hoping they all rejoin when the relieving controller logs in and takes over.. or you end up using numbers HOU_83_CTR anyway.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski on August 23, 2017, 02:39:03 PM
Daniel, I think we're talking past each other here:  As I said before, our sectors are VATSIMisms.  Of course *our* sectors don't match what's on charts.  The charts are representative of RW.  The compass rose is simply an analogous mechanism to replace the charts.  Of course our fantasy sectors wouldn't be represented.

You know what I'd do if E/W was on simultaneously?  Call the one for my direction of flight.  If they've coordinated the local services one way or another, that's a result of VATSIMism'd top-down service.  We can't make it perfect, of course, but that's focusing on the traffic going the opposite direction of those I've been trying to speak of.  Flopping back and forth is only denying the antecedent, given the natural disconnect created by top down.  If a tower was on underneath, it'd be a moot point.  While top-down changes the game, of course, it adds nothing to this particular conversation since sector ids don't solve it, either.

Sectors aren't charted.. so they will not match.

As far as your direction of flight, that's ambiguous.  If you're entering the E flying W bound, I hope you're not calling W as that is your direction of flight.  Again, DFW to IAH with E/W.. there isn't one that matches so it matters none that it's E/W vs 83/78.

I never said sector IDs solve it, I'm saying compass rose points don't solve the issue.  Solving the issue is proper documentation and information available, controllers assisting pilots, and a genuine interest to learn.  Using compass rose points vs "proper" sector IDs will change nothing to anyone except the marginal few who happen to enter through specific points.  And then if you have someone come and relieve you while you're working HOU_EL_CTR, there will either be a complete disconnect in services kicking everyone out of the voice room and then hoping they all rejoin when the relieving controller logs in and takes over.. or you end up using numbers HOU_83_CTR anyway.

I know they're not charted.  We discussed this very early on.  What point are you trying to make?

I also understand that direction of flight is determined from point of origin.  Where are you going with this?  The condescension is getting a little thick and isn't very appreciated.

What happens when HOU_38_CTR is relieved today?  HOU_3A_CTR gets on.  How is the relief protocol an issue?  As was done in yesteryear, HOU_W_CTR becomes HOU_W1_CTR.  You're citing operational concerns (that can all be easily resolved) as justification to do something equally as useless in these cases.  This is detracting from the discussion we're trying to have.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Jonathan Voss on August 23, 2017, 02:43:16 PM
Maybe I have had a different experience with the charting office they have been nothing but professional in my dealings with them. I'm sorry if you have had issues but this is not a discussion for this thread.

Due to changes in staffing levels and inconsistencies between events the LOAs can severely lack guidance during high traffic/staffing levels. Some LOAs could really use a lot of work (and updating) if we are going to rely on them as such.

As for what changes for you as a controller? Nothing, which is exactly the point I'm making.

For the pilot, they do not look the same. Flying between DFW to IAH, let's take an honest look at it. Depending on routing you would be predominately down the East side of ZHU airspace, that definitely makes it an easier call to HOU_E_CTR. As an unfamiliar pilot I would certainly have no chance at a guess between 83 vs 78.

The past wasn't as great as you seem to believe.

I do not appreciate the condescending attitude, particularly from a VATUSA staff member. We are trying to have an honest open discussion with a logical debate.

I have yet to hear a good counter argument for all of the pros we have discussed in the thread. Mostly it has just been attacking my viewpoint and it is disappointing to see these discussion dissolve to that.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski on August 23, 2017, 02:48:13 PM
Now, this may be out of left field, but I believe that my feelings, Jon's feelings, and Daniel's feelings are pretty well expressed.  There have to be some other opinions out there that people have.  I'm just not seeing them here.  Would any others care to weigh in before this ends up in a stale-mate at risk of being locked again?
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 23, 2017, 03:28:16 PM
Daniel, I think we're talking past each other here:  As I said before, our sectors are VATSIMisms.  Of course *our* sectors don't match what's on charts.  The charts are representative of RW.  The compass rose is simply an analogous mechanism to replace the charts.  Of course our fantasy sectors wouldn't be represented.

You know what I'd do if E/W was on simultaneously?  Call the one for my direction of flight.  If they've coordinated the local services one way or another, that's a result of VATSIMism'd top-down service.  We can't make it perfect, of course, but that's focusing on the traffic going the opposite direction of those I've been trying to speak of.  Flopping back and forth is only denying the antecedent, given the natural disconnect created by top down.  If a tower was on underneath, it'd be a moot point.  While top-down changes the game, of course, it adds nothing to this particular conversation since sector ids don't solve it, either.

Sectors aren't charted.. so they will not match.

As far as your direction of flight, that's ambiguous.  If you're entering the E flying W bound, I hope you're not calling W as that is your direction of flight.  Again, DFW to IAH with E/W.. there isn't one that matches so it matters none that it's E/W vs 83/78.

I never said sector IDs solve it, I'm saying compass rose points don't solve the issue.  Solving the issue is proper documentation and information available, controllers assisting pilots, and a genuine interest to learn.  Using compass rose points vs "proper" sector IDs will change nothing to anyone except the marginal few who happen to enter through specific points.  And then if you have someone come and relieve you while you're working HOU_EL_CTR, there will either be a complete disconnect in services kicking everyone out of the voice room and then hoping they all rejoin when the relieving controller logs in and takes over.. or you end up using numbers HOU_83_CTR anyway.

I know they're not charted.  We discussed this very early on.  What point are you trying to make?

I also understand that direction of flight is determined from point of origin.  Where are you going with this?  The condescension is getting a little thick and isn't very appreciated.

What happens when HOU_38_CTR is relieved today?  HOU_3A_CTR gets on.  How is the relief protocol an issue?  As was done in yesteryear, HOU_W_CTR becomes HOU_W1_CTR.  You're citing operational concerns (that can all be easily resolved) as justification to do something equally as useless in these cases.  This is detracting from the discussion we're trying to have.

You insinuated they were charted.

No condescension.  I'm using the terms as they are defined in aviation.  You can't change the definition at your whim, direction of flight is established by the direction your flight is heading (origin to destination).  If you call based on your direction of flight, you'd be calling the incorrect person.  If you meant something else, it's better to use actual, correct terms to ensure your point is clearly understood.

Another topic you're forgetting, and something I see happen at ZHU during events... by splitting up the airspace into sectors, you allow ECs the ability to proper setup the airspace for events.  Rather than 1 person covering everything from Houston all the way to the east, you can setup a sector to be merged to work the flow into MSY during an event.  And properly sectorize to allow specialties of service rather than a general sector trying to do everything.

You're ignoring the very reason why the compass points were dropped to have a discussion that's already happened and happened for a reason.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 23, 2017, 03:32:25 PM
Maybe I have had a different experience with the charting office they have been nothing but professional in my dealings with them. I'm sorry if you have had issues but this is not a discussion for this thread.

Due to changes in staffing levels and inconsistencies between events the LOAs can severely lack guidance during high traffic/staffing levels. Some LOAs could really use a lot of work (and updating) if we are going to rely on them as such.

As for what changes for you as a controller? Nothing, which is exactly the point I'm making.

For the pilot, they do not look the same. Flying between DFW to IAH, let's take an honest look at it. Depending on routing you would be predominately down the East side of ZHU airspace, that definitely makes it an easier call to HOU_E_CTR. As an unfamiliar pilot I would certainly have no chance at a guess between 83 vs 78.

The past wasn't as great as you seem to believe.

I do not appreciate the condescending attitude, particularly from a VATUSA staff member. We are trying to have an honest open discussion with a logical debate.

I have yet to hear a good counter argument for all of the pros we have discussed in the thread. Mostly it has just been attacking my viewpoint and it is disappointing to see these discussion dissolve to that.

Pilots do not know where the E/W boundary is, so there is no east side vs west side from the pilot perspective.  There's no condescending in saying the past isn't as rosy as you two make it out to be.  It's the truth.  There were a lot of problems with compass rose sector names, that is why sector IDs were so quick to be adopted.

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

I've not been attacking viewpoints, I'm providing examples as to why the argument you two have been making has been set aside years ago for a very good reason.  You all are ignoring it.   Things change, constantly, in aviation.  Sectors exist for a reason.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski on August 23, 2017, 03:34:29 PM
You insinuated they were charted.

No condescension.  I'm using the terms as they are defined in aviation.  You can't change the definition at your whim, direction of flight is established by the direction your flight is heading (origin to destination).  If you call based on your direction of flight, you'd be calling the incorrect person.  If you meant something else, it's better to use actual, correct terms to ensure your point is clearly understood.

Another topic you're forgetting, and something I see happen at ZHU during events... by splitting up the airspace into sectors, you allow ECs the ability to proper setup the airspace for events.  Rather than 1 person covering everything from Houston all the way to the east, you can setup a sector to be merged to work the flow into MSY during an event.  And properly sectorize to allow specialties of service rather than a general sector trying to do everything.

You're ignoring the very reason why the compass points were dropped to have a discussion that's already happened and happened for a reason.

I'm not sure where I insinuated that they were charted.  I did explicitly say that ARTCC boundaries are charted, but I don't think I ever said that individual sectors are.  They're irrelevant to pilots... which is why we will never know who is who in the current callsign scheme.

Direction of flight is not a formal term in this context.  Let's not play semantics games here as they don't belong and are nothing but a red herring.

Event positions are nothing new, either.  You can still allow the standard facilities to exist and be fed without confusing pilots.  Event sectors are rarely the point of initial contact, and even more rarely do they need to be cold called.  Again, an exception to the rule rather than the rule itself.

If you could just provide one argument as to how sector IDs in callsigns generally benefit pilots or controllers, I think we'd be back on track and out of stagnation.  That's what I feel this discussion is missing.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 23, 2017, 03:57:23 PM
You insinuated they were charted.

No condescension.  I'm using the terms as they are defined in aviation.  You can't change the definition at your whim, direction of flight is established by the direction your flight is heading (origin to destination).  If you call based on your direction of flight, you'd be calling the incorrect person.  If you meant something else, it's better to use actual, correct terms to ensure your point is clearly understood.

Another topic you're forgetting, and something I see happen at ZHU during events... by splitting up the airspace into sectors, you allow ECs the ability to proper setup the airspace for events.  Rather than 1 person covering everything from Houston all the way to the east, you can setup a sector to be merged to work the flow into MSY during an event.  And properly sectorize to allow specialties of service rather than a general sector trying to do everything.

You're ignoring the very reason why the compass points were dropped to have a discussion that's already happened and happened for a reason.

I'm not sure where I insinuated that they were charted.  I did explicitly say that ARTCC boundaries are charted, but I don't think I ever said that individual sectors are.  They're irrelevant to pilots... which is why we will never know who is who in the current callsign scheme.

Direction of flight is not a formal term in this context.  Let's not play semantics games here as they don't belong and are nothing but a red herring.

Event positions are nothing new, either.  You can still allow the standard facilities to exist and be fed without confusing pilots.  Event sectors are rarely the point of initial contact, and even more rarely do they need to be cold called.  Again, an exception to the rule rather than the rule itself.

If you could just provide one argument as to how sector IDs in callsigns generally benefit pilots or controllers, I think we'd be back on track and out of stagnation.  That's what I feel this discussion is missing.

I got your insinuation that sectors were charted from "Of course *our* sectors don't match what's on charts.  The charts are representative of RW."  But that's beside the point.

Direction of flight is a very standard term across aviation.  I'd recommend using words as defined to prevent miscommunication rather than redefining terms for a discussion where any person could drop in mid-discussion and misunderstand your meaning.... as I may have misunderstood what you meant because I applied to the understood definition across aviation for direction of flight.

Not sure if you didn't read what I wrote.. but

Quote
by splitting up the airspace into sectors, you allow ECs the ability to proper setup the airspace for events.  Rather than 1 person covering everything from Houston all the way to the east, you can setup a sector to be merged to work the flow into MSY during an event.  And properly sectorize to allow specialties of service rather than a general sector trying to do everything.

They aren't "event sectors", they're sectors.  Event Coordinates can utilize sectors to setup positions to work by combining sectors for specific tasks.  By standardizing, you keep LOAs simple and allow ECs to coordinate that ZYX_04 is sectors 4, 5, 6 and ZYX_20 is all the rest.  Controllers at the other end only need to know what sectors are where and who is working what sectors.  They're set, they're standard, and can be combined appropriately to specialize what said controller is working.  It's tried and it does work.

If you stick to the ZHU method of compass rose sectors, you're not allowing proper sectorization nor standardization across procedures.  LOAs should document sectors, and sectors should be routinely used.  It keeps things simple to know that Metta (sector 10) is the standard sector, it always means the same thing.  You're not creating custom maps for every event trying to create custom sectors, etc.  Sticking to standards allows quicker, faster coordination between facility ECs and understanding of the controllers through a quick note that sector 10 is covering 10, 6, 5, 4, etc. when they're working a small section (IE, an arrival flow).

Centers specialize sectors, sectorization allows us to specialize controller tasks.  It makes it easier for all once they've accomplished local area knowledge.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Jonathan Voss on August 23, 2017, 04:04:39 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.

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.

I'm simply expressing my opinion and looking for logical feedback. If someone presents a well thought out logical reason why there is no other way besides sector IDs in the callsign, I would very much like to be persuaded.

Things do constantly change in aviation. I wish VATUSA as a whole showed the same willingness to hear out opposing view points.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski on August 23, 2017, 04:11:44 PM
You insinuated they were charted.

No condescension.  I'm using the terms as they are defined in aviation.  You can't change the definition at your whim, direction of flight is established by the direction your flight is heading (origin to destination).  If you call based on your direction of flight, you'd be calling the incorrect person.  If you meant something else, it's better to use actual, correct terms to ensure your point is clearly understood.

Another topic you're forgetting, and something I see happen at ZHU during events... by splitting up the airspace into sectors, you allow ECs the ability to proper setup the airspace for events.  Rather than 1 person covering everything from Houston all the way to the east, you can setup a sector to be merged to work the flow into MSY during an event.  And properly sectorize to allow specialties of service rather than a general sector trying to do everything.

You're ignoring the very reason why the compass points were dropped to have a discussion that's already happened and happened for a reason.

I'm not sure where I insinuated that they were charted.  I did explicitly say that ARTCC boundaries are charted, but I don't think I ever said that individual sectors are.  They're irrelevant to pilots... which is why we will never know who is who in the current callsign scheme.

Direction of flight is not a formal term in this context.  Let's not play semantics games here as they don't belong and are nothing but a red herring.

Event positions are nothing new, either.  You can still allow the standard facilities to exist and be fed without confusing pilots.  Event sectors are rarely the point of initial contact, and even more rarely do they need to be cold called.  Again, an exception to the rule rather than the rule itself.

If you could just provide one argument as to how sector IDs in callsigns generally benefit pilots or controllers, I think we'd be back on track and out of stagnation.  That's what I feel this discussion is missing.

I got your insinuation that sectors were charted from "Of course *our* sectors don't match what's on charts.  The charts are representative of RW."  But that's beside the point.

Direction of flight is a very standard term across aviation.  I'd recommend using words as defined to prevent miscommunication rather than redefining terms for a discussion where any person could drop in mid-discussion and misunderstand your meaning.... as I may have misunderstood what you meant because I applied to the understood definition across aviation for direction of flight.

Not sure if you didn't read what I wrote.. but

Quote
by splitting up the airspace into sectors, you allow ECs the ability to proper setup the airspace for events.  Rather than 1 person covering everything from Houston all the way to the east, you can setup a sector to be merged to work the flow into MSY during an event.  And properly sectorize to allow specialties of service rather than a general sector trying to do everything.

They aren't "event sectors", they're sectors.  Event Coordinates can utilize sectors to setup positions to work by combining sectors for specific tasks.  By standardizing, you keep LOAs simple and allow ECs to coordinate that ZYX_04 is sectors 4, 5, 6 and ZYX_20 is all the rest.  Controllers at the other end only need to know what sectors are where and who is working what sectors.  They're set, they're standard, and can be combined appropriately to specialize what said controller is working.  It's tried and it does work.

If you stick to the ZHU method of compass rose sectors, you're not allowing proper sectorization nor standardization across procedures.  LOAs should document sectors, and sectors should be routinely used.  It keeps things simple to know that Metta (sector 10) is the standard sector, it always means the same thing.  You're not creating custom maps for every event trying to create custom sectors, etc.  Sticking to standards allows quicker, faster coordination between facility ECs and understanding of the controllers through a quick note that sector 10 is covering 10, 6, 5, 4, etc. when they're working a small section (IE, an arrival flow).

Centers specialize sectors, sectorization allows us to specialize controller tasks.  It makes it easier for all once they've accomplished local area knowledge.

Alright, route of flight will be used.  We were initially talking departures where direction of flight would have been appropriate, but if we really must continue to muddy the waters with an irrelevant tangent like this, we'll do it your way.

I never argued against sectors.  I do not believe that the callsigns are appropriate.  Have I been unsuccessful in conveying that opinion?  That being said, this is VATSIM, we have low traffic loads.  How many splits do we need?  As a result, not everything is standard.  As such, there are positions that should only be used for events when traffic demands it.  An SOP is a standard and won't encompass everything.  This is VATSIM, not the FAA.  It's a video game first.  To pretend that we're a real world facility is unrealistic and futile.  We have to adapt to the limitations of the platform, the mission of the platform, and the users of the platform.

It sounds like we're placating to a limited subset of the users of the platform, but instead of discussing that, it keeps getting dragged back to the definition of "direction of flight."
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski on August 23, 2017, 04:19:59 PM
I never argued against sectors.  I do not believe that the callsigns are appropriate.  Have I been unsuccessful in conveying that opinion?

Upon further reading, that may have still been unclear.  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.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Jonathan Voss 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?

Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski 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.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton 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.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton 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.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Robert Shearman Jr 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... ;-)
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski 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.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton 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.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Robert Shearman Jr 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.
;-)
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton 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.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Robert Shearman Jr 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.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton 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.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Robert Shearman Jr 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.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski 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.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Jonathan Voss 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.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski 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.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 23, 2017, 07:36:14 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.

Then contact the webmaster and request they be updated.  There's no reason the two should contradict.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski on August 23, 2017, 07:38:14 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.

Then contact the webmaster and request they be updated.  There's no reason the two should contradict.

I can think of at least one where the issue has been raised repeatedly due to the conflict in authoritative information, yet it's been ignored because the controller documentation is all they want to maintain... which notably isn't pilot information.  Nor should we expect that pilots have to crawl the web to that many repositories of information to reasonably fly on the network.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 23, 2017, 07:50:41 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.

If you don't think I fight for VATUSA, then you don't know anything about me.....

I am not saying you HAVE to use Sector IDs.. I've provided PLENTY of examples where they are and have been extremely helpful.  And you've ignored every single one while you slide in underhanded insults.

Sector IDs keep sectors standard at all times, whether an event or not.  It's helpful for controllers and for its neighbors.  Keeping standards help pilots who become familiar with the airspace to make it predictable.  Compress Rose points were confusing and very limiting for proper event handling.  They didn't follow departure or arrival procedures.. and severely tied hands of the ECs in the facilities that had them.  That's my piece.. take it as you will.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 23, 2017, 07:52:19 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.

Then contact the webmaster and request they be updated.  There's no reason the two should contradict.

I can think of at least one where the issue has been raised repeatedly due to the conflict in authoritative information, yet it's been ignored because the controller documentation is all they want to maintain... which notably isn't pilot information.  Nor should we expect that pilots have to crawl the web to that many repositories of information to reasonably fly on the network.

It's not an expectation, but it's still helpful to have that information available.  If the information is incorrect, and they don't want to update it, please pass it up to through the chain of command.  Information made public shouldn't be incorrect, there's no valid reason for it.  In fact, feel free to contact me if you don't feel the chain of command will address it and I will make sure it gets addressed and corrected.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski on August 23, 2017, 08:19:53 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.

If you don't think I fight for VATUSA, then you don't know anything about me.....

I am not saying you HAVE to use Sector IDs.. I've provided PLENTY of examples where they are and have been extremely helpful.  And you've ignored every single one while you slide in underhanded insults.

Sector IDs keep sectors standard at all times, whether an event or not.  It's helpful for controllers and for its neighbors.  Keeping standards help pilots who become familiar with the airspace to make it predictable.  Compress Rose points were confusing and very limiting for proper event handling.  They didn't follow departure or arrival procedures.. and severely tied hands of the ECs in the facilities that had them.  That's my piece.. take it as you will.

Nobody is arguing the value of sector IDs for controlling.  We're only trying to state the fact that the radio callsigns and the sectors being worked don't have to be typed in the same when you connect to the network.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 23, 2017, 08:29:45 PM
Nobody is arguing the value of sector IDs for controlling.  We're only trying to state the fact that the radio callsigns and the sectors being worked don't have to be typed in the same when you connect to the network.

Which adds to more confusions for the controllers... and more non-standard information (and more information to remember).  HOU_E_CTR working 10 14 15 16 and HOU_S_CTR working sectors on the east side while E has a little channel for arrivals.  That's just as unhelpful to everyone.

In fact, your initial argument was about sector IDs... not connections.

Quote
Regarding the founders trying to ensure ease of access:  I know that, you know that, but we see a trend of making it difficult for people "not in the know."  For example, sector naming.  How do I know if X, Y, or Z approach is North, West, or East?  Or if 12, 21, 14, or 41 center is high/low, east/west, etc?  I've heard controllers get mad at (and yell at -- there's too much yelling on this network these days) pilots for not knowing their internal symbology and nomenclature.  It's a bit ridiculous.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Jonathan Voss on August 23, 2017, 08:43:24 PM
Which adds to more confusions for the controllers... and more non-standard information (and more information to remember).  HOU_E_CTR working 10 14 15 16 and HOU_S_CTR working sectors on the east side while E has a little channel for arrivals.  That's just as unhelpful to everyone.

The text callsign makes no difference here at all.

Once again, the argument is not to change how anything is operationally done, adjust sector boundaries, or even limit the number of sectors. It changes nothing with adjacent controllers, their use of radar IDs, etc. All of this information is available on the controller list, so any particular callsign is irrelevant anyways.

We are just talking about the callsign used log into the network and perhaps standardizing on something more meaningful to the pilots we are supposed to serve. References to the past were merely that they were more descriptive.

I think everyone is well aware of your position on it, although you may not fully understand the other position being taken. I would like to hear more opinions on the matter besides re-iterating the same points over and over.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 23, 2017, 08:48:21 PM
Which adds to more confusions for the controllers... and more non-standard information (and more information to remember).  HOU_E_CTR working 10 14 15 16 and HOU_S_CTR working sectors on the east side while E has a little channel for arrivals.  That's just as unhelpful to everyone.

The text callsign makes no difference here at all.

Once again, the argument is not to change how anything is operationally done, adjust sector boundaries, or even limit the number of sectors. It changes nothing with adjacent controllers, their use of radar IDs, etc. All of this information is available on the controller list, so any particular callsign is irrelevant anyways.

We are just talking about the callsign used log into the network and perhaps standardizing on something more meaningful to the pilots we are supposed to serve. References to the past were merely that they were more descriptive.

I think everyone is well aware of your position on it, although you may not fully understand the other position being taken. I would like to hear more opinions on the matter besides re-iterating the same points over and over.

See my above post... the initial argument was sector naming.. not callsign.  I understand your position all to well, and I heavily disagree.  Say you have 3 people working different splits in the east, then what? E1/E2/E3?  Compass Rose naming doesn't help, and confuses things for the controllers.  Again, see my above post.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Jonathan Voss on August 23, 2017, 09:05:00 PM
See my above post... the initial argument was sector naming.. not callsign.  I understand your position all to well, and I heavily disagree.  Say you have 3 people working different splits in the east, then what? E1/E2/E3?  Compass Rose naming doesn't help, and confuses things for the controllers.  Again, see my above post.

The initial argument has always been about the callsigns. I'm sorry that you misunderstood that.

Again, I'm not proposing to have all the answers to a different naming scheme but if you are going to have an east three way east split: NE, E, and SE may work. I do not feel this would add more confusion and if anything helps other controllers, especially visiting, in the same way it would help pilots.

You are certainly entitled your opinion. Please understand others may disagree with you and apparently do in this case.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 23, 2017, 09:15:03 PM
See my above post... the initial argument was sector naming.. not callsign.  I understand your position all to well, and I heavily disagree.  Say you have 3 people working different splits in the east, then what? E1/E2/E3?  Compass Rose naming doesn't help, and confuses things for the controllers.  Again, see my above post.

The initial argument has always been about the callsigns. I'm sorry that you misunderstood that.

Again, I'm not proposing to have all the answers to a different naming scheme but if you are going to have an east three way east split: NE, E, and SE may work. I do not feel this would add more confusion and if anything helps other controllers, especially visiting, in the same way it would help pilots.

You are certainly entitled your opinion. Please understand others may disagree with you and apparently do in this case.

And if they aren't really NE E SE?  Keep in mind others may disagree with you as well. I've dealt with stupid naming conventions before and, for a reason, moved ZJX into a realistic system that showed for flexibility. Locking positions down into arbitrary making takes out mid event sector splits and combinations as well.

In reality, nothing can compare to appropriate, accurate pubic information, redirecting lost pilots, a descriptive controller info and using contact me messages when splits are happening.

Keep in mind, some may and do disagree with you. I've been active in this network long enough to have seen the old systems morph into the systems you see today. It's not new, it happened years ago. This doesn't mean you two can launch underhanded insults because you and I disagree.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Jonathan Voss on August 23, 2017, 09:28:28 PM
Keep in mind, some may and do disagree with you. I've been active in this network long enough to have seen the old systems morph into the systems you see today. It's not new, it happened years ago. This doesn't mean you two can launch underhanded insults because you and I disagree.

I certainly understand people may disagree with me, you certainly do. I have been nothing but professional with you despite condescending undertones from all of your replies directed at me. I too have been on this network long enough to witness all of the morphing you are referencing. However I do not think that makes my opinion any more valuable than the next.

I am sorry we do not agree on this, however, accusing me of insulting you because of it is unacceptable. May we allow others to voice their opinion?
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Ryan Parry on August 23, 2017, 09:33:18 PM
Given that VATUSA staff is supposed to be representing us and working for us, as members of VATUSA, I am disappointed with that position.

I'm not, I support it actually..

We are just talking about the callsign used log into the network and perhaps standardizing on something more meaningful to the pilots we are supposed to serve. References to the past were merely that they were more descriptive.

I completely disagree with this sort of thinking. This isn't a network for just pilots, it is a network for aviation enthusiasts who enjoy flying and/or controlling. Plenty of people control and do not fly. Why should everything be about the pilots? Why can't a controller have their fun too? Why can't they be immersed in realism too? The thing about this network is it is about balance and making it fun for everybody, not one group.

A sector ID is a very trivial thing to be upset about, much less start a big debate over. We will be using sector ID's at ZOA for our upcoming Center resectorization. Our current system is OAK_A_CTR, OAK_B_CTR, and OAK_C_CTR, and those have existed since before I was even on the network. Does A, B, C tell you what is what? No, but it has never been an issue.

Changing to numerical ID's isn't my choice, that's what my controllers want, it's part of the fun for them, and my goal as ATM is making it fun for ZOA members as well as the pilots. If sector ID's help them have fun and feel immersed, then fine so be it, so long as they follow my one request (policy, actually) to ensure the controller info is filled out indicating the region and altitudes they control. They get to have their fun, pilots will have an easier time figuring out who is who, everybody wins.

There is nothing hard about right clicking and viewing the controller info to see who you need to contact. It can be done inside all of the pilot clients, it can be done on all of the traffic applications such as Vattastic, Vatspy, etc. That is why that function exists to begin with, to provide information about the controller. I don't see the logic in telling controllers they can't use a number as the sector ID because a pilot is too lazy to do proper, simple, research before a flight. Heck, even if the info isn't available, what's wrong with taking a guess and asking?  Any good controller will have no problem directing them to the right frequency. Just to further prove there is nothing wrong with asking, it is written in the PRC  (https://www.vatsim.net/pilot-resource-centre/general-lessons/airport-atc-procedures-cd-gnd-twr)to do so if you are unsure if the controller is working your departure airport.

Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Jonathan Voss on August 23, 2017, 09:52:15 PM
That is a very valid view point and I appreciate your input. The lack of a USA wide standard can certainly make it more confusing for users. Even if the standard was to use sector IDs at least we would all be doing similar things.

To Matthew's point - there have been many times where controllers have been frustrated or angry because pilots have called the wrong controller as if they should know better. However, this most certainly a training issue.

It can be a little difficult to check the controller information of a whole list of controllers which is one of the difficulties I was expressing. It is very time consuming and often does not mention the area they are providing services for. If your ARTCC has that as a procedure, than many kudos from me.

To play devil's advocate, having to research every ARTCC's website for sector IDs before or during a flight is pretty cumbersome and often outdated if it is even listed but this point has been brought up before.

At any rate, making changes because your controllers are asking for it is a sign of a great ATM and I can support that!

Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 23, 2017, 09:59:43 PM

To play devil's advocate, having to research every ARTCC's website for sector IDs before or during a flight is pretty cumbersome and often outdated if it is even listed but this point has been brought up before.

At any rate, making changes because your controllers are asking for it is a sign of a great ATM and I can support that!

As I've said before, take it up with the chain of command to fix the website. There's no legitimate reason for it to not be public and accurate.

Researching before and during seems common on a good chunk of the network. Ever flown through VATUK or VATGER?  Good luck doing that without researching and some them also don't use controller info to help you out.. because it's normal to research the flight across the pond.

As far as controllers yelling at pilots, it keeps being brought up. That is neither an argument for or against using sector IDs. The only thing that means is the controller needs to be spoken to. It's not sectors causing it, as there are plenty of examples of actions where controllers yell at pilots, sadly. There isn't a reason for it and it shouldn't happen..

Well I'd love to have a division standard, this thread is a perfect reason why I'd never ask for one or expect a discussion for one. Each side will get angry.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Jonathan Voss on August 23, 2017, 10:37:04 PM
Some ARTCCs do not publish this information readily available on the website. It is often not be possible to do the research before the flight in this case. At that point it seems like we go back to forgetting what the pilots may care about in terms of their realism.

It is a difficult balance, I certainly agree with Mr. Parry on that.

I personally have not had one bad experience in VATUK or VATGER. They may have a little different procedures however the charts do a fine job of explaining them. The controllers there have been exceptionally professional working with pilots I have heard on frequency unfamiliar with their procedures. If they had a more identifiable text callsign, I am sure it would help as well.

Well I'd love to have a division standard, this thread is a perfect reason why I'd never ask for one or expect a discussion for one. Each side will get angry.

From my command experience, this is every change. I will not speak for the others, however, I am certainly not angry.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 23, 2017, 10:45:19 PM
If the division were to, say, implement a policy that you were to use sector IDs many would just like the reverse. It's one thing that, really, the division doesn't need to be involved in.  Would it be beneficial to make a central database on the VATUSA website for it in the same way VATUK and VATGER do?

PS, I wasn't knocking those two. They're examples of FIRs that don't always control entire FIRs and have non-descriptive splits. But their information is well documented. Again, there's no reason it shouldn't be well documented here... Even if it's a simple graphic.

Yes, every change frustrates many people. Some get mad that it's just because it's different.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Rick Rump on August 24, 2017, 08:45:58 AM
As someone in change management, you will always have those who resist change Daniel. Unless you can show them that change is beneficial (And even then, you may not catch everyone). The only way to really do change is with input from everyone who would be effected by said change.

I know it has been brought up previously by those in positions of power that they like a system that lets pilots know who covers where (Whether it be the somewhat arbitrary compass directions) or which I have seen other use, diagrams or given lines of demarcation (via for instance J/Qs).
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski on August 24, 2017, 12:38:31 PM
In fact, your initial argument was about sector IDs... not connections.

It's kind of hard to take you seriously when you're trying to tell me what I said, or Jon what he said, when he's the one who said it.  The fact that you split the thread removed some context, which perhaps is what led to the confusion.  In fact, the title of the thread is something *you* chose, nobody else in this thread was capable of naming the thread when **YOU** split it.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 24, 2017, 01:08:04 PM
In fact, your initial argument was about sector IDs... not connections.

It's kind of hard to take you seriously when you're trying to tell me what I said, or Jon what he said, when he's the one who said it.  The fact that you split the thread removed some context, which perhaps is what led to the confusion.  In fact, the title of the thread is something *you* chose, nobody else in this thread was capable of naming the thread when **YOU** split it.

See the quote of your post... where you specifically said "sector naming".  I'll post it again:

Quote
Regarding the founders trying to ensure ease of access:  I know that, you know that, but we see a trend of making it difficult for people "not in the know."  For example, sector naming.  How do I know if X, Y, or Z approach is North, West, or East?  Or if 12, 21, 14, or 41 center is high/low, east/west, etc?  I've heard controllers get mad at (and yell at -- there's too much yelling on this network these days) pilots for not knowing their internal symbology and nomenclature.  It's a bit ridiculous.

It's really hard to have a discussion with you Matthew when you keep going with your underhanded insults and your unwillingness to communicate effectively.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski on August 24, 2017, 01:36:42 PM
In fact, your initial argument was about sector IDs... not connections.

It's kind of hard to take you seriously when you're trying to tell me what I said, or Jon what he said, when he's the one who said it.  The fact that you split the thread removed some context, which perhaps is what led to the confusion.  In fact, the title of the thread is something *you* chose, nobody else in this thread was capable of naming the thread when **YOU** split it.

See the quote of your post... where you specifically said "sector naming".  I'll post it again:

Quote
Regarding the founders trying to ensure ease of access:  I know that, you know that, but we see a trend of making it difficult for people "not in the know."  For example, sector naming.  How do I know if X, Y, or Z approach is North, West, or East?  Or if 12, 21, 14, or 41 center is high/low, east/west, etc?  I've heard controllers get mad at (and yell at -- there's too much yelling on this network these days) pilots for not knowing their internal symbology and nomenclature.  It's a bit ridiculous.

It's really hard to have a discussion with you Matthew when you keep going with your underhanded insults and your unwillingness to communicate effectively.

Daniel-

I've been trying my hardest to adapt my method of communications with you for the duration of this thread.  I've just been unable to find something that both conveys meaning and ultimately does us both justice.  For that, I apologize.  My job is to communicate and document risk and mitigation, and I haven't run in to similar issues in a long time.  I'm typically praised on my effectiveness, but here we're running in to a wall.  As a result, I'm a little frustrated.  Perhaps I'm just not putting in the effort because I don't have to, I don't know.

So, let's take it back to the first post of the thread:

+1 for this statement. It has become a pet peeve of mine, really. As a controller, there is no real reason for these callsigns... I can see exactly which controller has which alpha-numeric ID and the pilot has no use for this information. When flying, it would be tremendously more useful for me to have at least a vague idea of which controller to initially contact when flying in from an uncovered region. Aeronautical charts do not help here either because we do not staff/cover all of the same real world frequencies. I'm not sure when or why this became the norm but I do miss the ol'e E/W, H/L, etc.

As for the few places that still seem to do this, keep it up! You guys rock!

From the get go we've been talking about what is facing the pilot.  That first post conveys that fairly clearly.  Yes, I used the word sector in the post it quoted, but you and I are both intelligent enough to know that the actual sector is invisible and irrelevant to the pilot.  In fact, as you've stated, you should be intimately familiar with that notion given your background.

Why we're getting hung up on minutia is perplexing.  It's as if the minutia is being used to detract from the meat of the discussion.  I don't like it.  It's the kind of thing that doesn't do any of us any good.  The definition of sector is a mundane detail.  The pilots don't know they exist nor do they care.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Alex Ying on August 24, 2017, 01:40:05 PM
If I may add my 2 cents, from a TRACON perspective, in a very complex airspace like N90, being able to seamlessly split and combine sectors is very useful. The coverage in N90 is constantly changing with people coming online or logging off and with controllers holding different certifications at the N90 sectors. Having consistent sector names that don't change depending on situation (event or non-event) facilitates this system.

I've never run into an issue with telling a pilot to contact another controller. I've also seen many pilots be proactive and ask who to call. I think the issue of calling the wrong sector initially is a bit overblown, it's not that much work to send them to the right frequency. Additionally, with a system that doesn't change (NY_CAM_APP will always be that, but subsectors RBR_APP can be split off of it) lets pilots learn the system. Eventually, they do know that if I'm flying into Kennedy, I should call CAM.

We actually have a mix of "descriptive" and "cryptic" (from a pilot's perspective) sector names/callsigns at N90. If you saw NY_KEN_DEP, NY_NWK_DEP, NY_LSO_DEP all online, you can probably guess who covers Kennedy, Newark, and Laguardia. That's not so much the case with NY_CAM_APP, NY_ARD_APP, NY_HRP_APP.

Regardless though, Daniel does have a point with his E/W vs 78/83. Say I'm sitting at Teterboro. It's about equally far from Laguardia and Newark. As a pilot, how do I know whether to call NWK or LSO? Knowing the NWK covers Newark and LSO covers Laguardia is absolutely useless to me.

I think that having logon names that represent true sectors is the best policy. CAM for example, is a single sector in N90. When the other Kenendy sectors are not online, it covers them as well. But CAM also refers to a single subsector. You'll never have to change away from the CAM callsign to something else when you do a sector split (say RBR comes online). As long as which subsector is the "primary" when no other subsectors are online is consistent, then the pilots see a consistent ATC presence and can learn the nomenclature. Anyone who's flown into NY with approach online more than a couple times would know that CAM is the Kennedy primary sector.

That's one of the things I think Daniel was talking about with the compass namings. Say you need to split the "E" sector, how do you do so consistently if you don't have other subsectors also already named in the same format? Is seeing "E", "EL", "EH" that much more descriptive for a pilot? As someone who's never controlled ZHU, I for sure wouldn't know who to call if I saw those.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Reuben Prevost on August 24, 2017, 01:50:27 PM
This topic seems to have snowballed a bit. While reading this thread it would seem as if we are talking about life and death, but it's really not a big issue at all.

I prefer the sector ID's as opposed to E/W H/L. I find that E/W doesn't really help.

Furthermore, can't you put which airspace you control in your controller atis? Wouldn't it be more detailed (and helpful) to put "I control Houston Center below FLXXX" or "I control Houston Center east of XXXX" in your controller atis, rather than a callsign of HOU_E_CTR?

Just my personal opinion.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 24, 2017, 01:50:37 PM
In fact, your initial argument was about sector IDs... not connections.

It's kind of hard to take you seriously when you're trying to tell me what I said, or Jon what he said, when he's the one who said it.  The fact that you split the thread removed some context, which perhaps is what led to the confusion.  In fact, the title of the thread is something *you* chose, nobody else in this thread was capable of naming the thread when **YOU** split it.

See the quote of your post... where you specifically said "sector naming".  I'll post it again:

Quote
Regarding the founders trying to ensure ease of access:  I know that, you know that, but we see a trend of making it difficult for people "not in the know."  For example, sector naming.  How do I know if X, Y, or Z approach is North, West, or East?  Or if 12, 21, 14, or 41 center is high/low, east/west, etc?  I've heard controllers get mad at (and yell at -- there's too much yelling on this network these days) pilots for not knowing their internal symbology and nomenclature.  It's a bit ridiculous.

It's really hard to have a discussion with you Matthew when you keep going with your underhanded insults and your unwillingness to communicate effectively.

Daniel-

I've been trying my hardest to adapt my method of communications with you for the duration of this thread.  I've just been unable to find something that both conveys meaning and ultimately does us both justice.  For that, I apologize.  My job is to communicate and document risk and mitigation, and I haven't run in to similar issues in a long time.  I'm typically praised on my effectiveness, but here we're running in to a wall.  As a result, I'm a little frustrated.  Perhaps I'm just not putting in the effort because I don't have to, I don't know.

This is the third misunderstanding in this very thread alone based solely on word choice.  I can't read your mind.. so I don't know if you're applying the definition of the words or picking something else.  I have to go by what I can read, or not engage at all.  Looking at what was quoted, it is hard to determine you meant callsigns.  And if it was about callsigns, this entire time JV has had the ability to modify his post and title to properly reflect that (since it was cut on his post, that makes this "his" thread).

Quote
So, let's take it back to the first post of the thread:

+1 for this statement. It has become a pet peeve of mine, really. As a controller, there is no real reason for these callsigns... I can see exactly which controller has which alpha-numeric ID and the pilot has no use for this information. When flying, it would be tremendously more useful for me to have at least a vague idea of which controller to initially contact when flying in from an uncovered region. Aeronautical charts do not help here either because we do not staff/cover all of the same real world frequencies. I'm not sure when or why this became the norm but I do miss the ol'e E/W, H/L, etc.

As for the few places that still seem to do this, keep it up! You guys rock!

From the get go we've been talking about what is facing the pilot.  That first post conveys that fairly clearly.  Yes, I used the word sector in the post it quoted, but you and I are both intelligent enough to know that the actual sector is invisible and irrelevant to the pilot.  In fact, as you've stated, you should be intimately familiar with that notion given your background.

Why we're getting hung up on minutia is perplexing.  It's as if the minutia is being used to detract from the meat of the discussion.  I don't like it.  It's the kind of thing that doesn't do any of us any good.  The definition of sector is a mundane detail.  The pilots don't know they exist nor do they care.

The only reason I'm hung up on it now is that the word "call sign" or "callsign" doesn't exist in the original thread.. I cut it where it seemed to make the most sense (since SMF won't let me pick and choose, without an extreme amount of effort, posts, just 1 post or from that post on).  And it was cut to allow this discussion to happen, rather than being a hijacked thread under a CoC B4 discussion.

Now that I know you mean callsigns, I'm going to still stand by what I've stated above... often times sectors don't fit into cardinal directions and prevent the flexibility sector combination and decombination on the fly as necessary for traffic flows through situations such as "E" is now working nothing on the east side but all interior and is now stuck with an "E" in their callsign whereas N is now north and east.

I agree that in real world sectors are invisible to the pilots.. because sectors are all handled by EDST and HOST.  On VATSIM, there is no difference between controller side and pilot side.. the same callsigns are shared between both... so you're not able to effectively do sectors while exposing a changeable callsign to the pilots to reflect the changeable nature of sectors.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Rick Rump on August 24, 2017, 03:11:12 PM
Furthermore, can't you put which airspace you control in your controller atis? . . . "I control Houston Center east of XXXX" in your controller atis, rather than a callsign of HOU_E_CTR?

That would require someone reads it. I get people calling me from PHL constantly, in my controller info it clearly says I do not cover PHL.
Though if ZNY would like to trade us PHL for ACY I am game :)
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Jonathan Voss on August 24, 2017, 03:42:27 PM
And if it was about callsigns, this entire time JV has had the ability to modify his post and title to properly reflect that (since it was cut on his post, that makes this "his" thread).

I specifically mentioned callsigns in the original posting unless someone else has edited my words, which I would consider most alarming. The title of this thread was not my choice. Additionally, I actively choose not to modify my previous posts to avoid distorting or unfairly representing what others may have said in subsequent postings. In retrospect, this topic most certainly should have started in its own thread, however, who could imagine such a trivial issue would cause such a rage?

If the division were to, say, implement a policy that you were to use sector IDs many would just like the reverse. It's one thing that, really, the division doesn't need to be involved in.

It is unfortunate that the division feels this way. Standardization is one of the reasons for VATUSA to exist in my opinion. A standard would be easier to follow than the numerous conglomerations each individual area wishes to use. It would help pilots and other users have a clearer understanding regardless of whether sector IDs, random letters, or cardinal directions were to be used.

Would it be beneficial to make a central database on the VATUSA website for it in the same way VATUK and VATGER do?

I do not think anyone would disagree that it would not be helpful. Although I would worry it would suffer from becoming outdated rather quickly if there was no accuracy enforcement. I believe the pilot community would be much happier to have a one-stop shop versus mandating researching every individual ARTCC's website with various interface designs and levels of information provided.

Controller textual ATIS can be a great tool. However, remember than when flying into an event there are often numerous controllers within your visibility range covering the same airspace. It can be quite impractical check every single textual ATIS for what vague information may be contained within.

We often look at issues purely from the controller's perspective. It is a worthwhile experiment to think about how it may affect pilots. After all, without them, there would be little reason for any of us to be here. And while I certainly understand the network is more than just the aviators, they often get very little advocation and are immediately brushed off, unfortunately.

We have heard from a few controllers who disagree, I certainly respect their opinion. We have also heard from someone I would consider well in touch with today's sim pilots who agree that callsigns could be far friendlier.

While I understand that cardinal directions may not be the answer, I am, again, not saying that it is. My entire point is that a different methodology for the textual callsign may be more useful. The sector ID itself placed in a textual callsign provides no additional value for controllers if another standard were to exist.

At the end of the day, it is just an option to help users of the system.

Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski on August 24, 2017, 04:55:55 PM
This topic seems to have snowballed a bit. While reading this thread it would seem as if we are talking about life and death, but it's really not a big issue at all.

I prefer the sector ID's as opposed to E/W H/L. I find that E/W doesn't really help.

Furthermore, can't you put which airspace you control in your controller atis? Wouldn't it be more detailed (and helpful) to put "I control Houston Center below FLXXX" or "I control Houston Center east of XXXX" in your controller atis, rather than a callsign of HOU_E_CTR?

Just my personal opinion.

I was talking to Voss about this point earlier, because I do like the ATIS idea and mentioned that before.  There's an issue with it, though:  What happens during large events with 10 TRACON controllers and 6 centers?  Do we expect pilots to pull ATIS on each until they find the right one?  That seems like an unfair expectation to place on the pilot.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski on August 24, 2017, 04:58:26 PM
I agree that in real world sectors are invisible to the pilots.. because sectors are all handled by EDST and HOST.  On VATSIM, there is no difference between controller side and pilot side.. the same callsigns are shared between both... so you're not able to effectively do sectors while exposing a changeable callsign to the pilots to reflect the changeable nature of sectors.

I disagree that you can't expose them separately - the POF makes it easy for the client to show sector IDs in the controller list.  I know that 1N is West feeder regardless of their login callsign, in all clients.  Only controllers can see that as only controller clients use the POF.  That leaves the callsign for the pilots.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 24, 2017, 05:08:48 PM
And if it was about callsigns, this entire time JV has had the ability to modify his post and title to properly reflect that (since it was cut on his post, that makes this "his" thread).

I specifically mentioned callsigns in the original posting unless someone else has edited my words, which I would consider most alarming. The title of this thread was not my choice. Additionally, I actively choose not to modify my previous posts to avoid distorting or unfairly representing what others may have said in subsequent postings. In retrospect, this topic most certainly should have started in its own thread, however, who could imagine such a trivial issue would cause such a rage?

Edits are marked. No edits. For the rest, please reread my post you seem to have misunderstood what was written. You could have edited the title if it didn't reflect what you and Matthew intended the conversation to be rather than allowing the miscommunication to last over 5 pages..

Quote
If the division were to, say, implement a policy that you were to use sector IDs many would just like the reverse. It's one thing that, really, the division doesn't need to be involved in.

It is unfortunate that the division feels this way. Standardization is one of the reasons for VATUSA to exist in my opinion. A standard would be easier to follow than the numerous conglomerations each individual area wishes to use. It would help pilots and other users have a clearer understanding regardless of whether sector IDs, random letters, or cardinal directions were to be used.

A standard on something as trivial as this is bureaucracy where it doesn't need to be. It removes flexibility Andrew choices from people and attempts to apply a system that may work one place and not others.

Quote
Would it be beneficial to make a central database on the VATUSA website for it in the same way VATUK and VATGER do?

I do not think anyone would disagree that it would not be helpful. Although I would worry it would suffer from becoming outdated rather quickly if there was no accuracy enforcement. I believe the pilot community would be much happier to have a one-stop shop versus mandating researching every individual ARTCC's website with various interface designs and levels of information provided.

Facility webmasters are not that busy... Been there, done that. FEs aren't that busy as well.

Quote
Controller textual ATIS can be a great tool. However, remember than when flying into an event there are often numerous controllers within your visibility range covering the same airspace. It can be quite impractical check every single textual ATIS for what vague information may be contained within.

ECs should be putting out information, controllers have the ability to send contract mes, and it takes thirty seconds to direct lost pilots. I feel like a broken record.

Quote
We often look at issues purely from the controller's perspective. It is a worthwhile experiment to think about how it may affect pilots. After all, without them, there would be little reason for any of us to be here. And while I certainly understand the network is more than just the aviators, they often get very little advocation and are immediately brushed off, unfortunately.

Often the pilots are the only ones looked after across this network. One look at the vatsim forums call debunk what you've just said. This is one example where we let the controllers decide.

Quote
We have heard from a few controllers who disagree, I certainly respect their opinion. We have also heard from someone I would consider well in touch with today's sim pilots who agree that callsigns could be far friendlier.

While I understand that cardinal directions may not be the answer, I am, again, not saying that it is. My entire point is that a different methodology for the textual callsign may be more useful. The sector ID itself placed in a textual callsign provides no additional value for controllers if another standard were to exist.

At the end of the day, it is just an option to help users of the system.

I've answered this above. By placing cardinal direction in callsigns you absolutely restrict the ability to reorganize the applied sectors.

There is a reason years ago cardinal directions were left behind. The way the NAS is moving, cardinal directions are not useful. You don't get to use modern procedures and ignore modem application.  And as the NAS continues to evolve, things will still constantly change. Very little airspace these days can be handled by simple cardinal direction splits.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 24, 2017, 05:11:52 PM
I agree that in real world sectors are invisible to the pilots.. because sectors are all handled by EDST and HOST.  On VATSIM, there is no difference between controller side and pilot side.. the same callsigns are shared between both... so you're not able to effectively do sectors while exposing a changeable callsign to the pilots to reflect the changeable nature of sectors.

I disagree that you can't expose them separately - the POF makes it easy for the client to show sector IDs in the controller list.  I know that 1N is West feeder regardless of their login callsign, in all clients.  Only controllers can see that as only controller clients use the POF.  That leaves the callsign for the pilots.

That's a very simplified approach... And not at all accurate. Many point and clickers in VRC will easily lose track of what is what same with the controller list.

In the end, the callsign is the callsign. Controllers don't just see what's in the POF... the rest of the client only sees callsigns.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski on August 24, 2017, 05:14:19 PM
Facility webmasters are not that busy... Been there, done that. FEs aren't that busy as well.
To be fair, they're also volunteers.  They make take offense to your assertion of their workload.

ECs should be putting out information, controllers have the ability to send contract mes, and it takes thirty seconds to direct lost pilots. I feel like a broken record.
Where should they put it?  And as we've covered, many controllers refuse to send contact mes, citing B3.  I'm pretty sure I'm the one who should feel like a broken record here.

Often the pilots are the only ones looked after across this network. One look at the vatsim forums call debunk what you've just said. This is one example where we let the controllers decide.

But they're not represented at all here.  You have to join VATUSA, which requires that you register as a controller.  Perhaps VATSIM forums, which actually can represent both, side that direction sometimes for a reason.  Pilots can't even speak up here.

I've answered this above. By placing cardinal direction in callsigns you absolutely restrict the ability to reorganize the applied sectors.
I have to speak up and defend him here:  He didn't say that cardinal directions were the answer, but possibly an answer.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski on August 24, 2017, 05:15:20 PM
In the end, the callsign is the callsign. Controllers don't just see what's in the POF... the rest of the client only sees callsigns.

Point and click or not, it's the left-most value in the controller list the clients.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 24, 2017, 05:25:23 PM
Facility webmasters are not that busy... Been there, done that. FEs aren't that busy as well.
To be fair, they're also volunteers.  They make take offense to your assertion of their workload.

Not speaking of personal workload... Speaking of virtual workload. It shouldn't take more than a couple minutes to update facility data. Again, been there done that.

Quote
ECs should be putting out information, controllers have the ability to send contract mes, and it takes thirty seconds to direct lost pilots. I feel like a broken record.
Where should they put it?  And as we've covered, many controllers refuse to send contact mes, citing B3.  I'm pretty sure I'm the one who should feel like a broken record here.

Many post directly to this forum, vatsim forums, their forums, etc.  Some do, but that's their fault when pilots contact the wrong controller. As I've said several times, refusal to send a contact me during splits is neither an argument for or against callsign one way or another. You keep using the B3 excuse, but that's all it is... An excuse. Pilots calling the wrong controller when the controller refuses to do a contact me... I haven't met any that won't during events... The ones that often don't don't do so when they're the only ones on.

Quote
Often the pilots are the only ones looked after across this network. One look at the vatsim forums call debunk what you've just said. This is one example where we let the controllers decide.

But they're not represented at all here.  You have to join VATUSA, which requires that you register as a controller.  Perhaps VATSIM forums, which actually can represent both, side that direction sometimes for a reason.  Pilots can't even speak up here.

They aren't? Do you know what we do behind the scenes? I've opened up VATUSA so you don't have to register at all. If you have a valid account with vatsim you can log in and post here. I've even created a subforum for pilots looking for others "come fly with me". So again, you're misrepresenting the truth. I personally opened it up and removed the concept of "registration". And it's been that way since a few months after I took over in 2015.

Quote
I've answered this above. By placing cardinal direction in callsigns you absolutely restrict the ability to reorganize the applied sectors.
I have to speak up and defend him here:  He didn't say that cardinal directions were the answer, but possibly an answer.

They were an answer when the airspace was simpler. When planes left and flew nothing but ground based navigational aid airways. But that's not the case, and things are getting even more complex creating a far more complex piece of airspace.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 24, 2017, 05:34:18 PM
Matthew, you seem to do a lot of speaking for VATUSA staff without seeming to know what exactly we do. It's not appreciated. This entire thread is littered with incorrect assumptions on what VATUSA does and doesn't do. You say we're disconnected, but maybe it's because you're only seeing what you want to see rather than how much we bust our humps to make this place better than we found it and try and ensure everyone enjoys this hobby.. not everyone is going to be happy about everything we do.. but that's the nature of working at a higher level with a lot of individuals.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Kyle Kaestner on August 24, 2017, 05:43:05 PM
First off, if have stated something that has already been brought up, just let me know because of the rapid responses to this thread. I personally don't really believe in the N/E/S/W idea. It serves a purpose, yes, but also there are much more sector splits in sophisticated TRACONS that can't be described with just directions. For example, how would you describe many of the Satellite sectors. If east Satellite of St. Louis has a STARS id of "Z" how would you even go about describing that in a controllers call sign. Along with Center, I think having actual numeral sector Id's is the best policy. Here at ZKC, we take multiple real sectors, combine them into one, and take one of the ID's (Picture Below). If I were to just make my call sign KC_W_CTR there is no way a pilot would know where that sector begins and ends. The ATIS maker is still probably the best tool we can use to get the information to the pilots. If they don't use the ATIS maker info. that's on the pilot. As stated above by someone, how does a pilot know how to find the right frequency in an event? I think the use of a pilot briefing is the best way. If you click Here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByOa9QE0ais8a2tHMXgxX2o0WUE/view), you can see that we have laid out all of the possible staffed positions for a particular FNO, and their frequencies. I know this doesn't actually provide a visual of the airspace split but it's a starting point. Each ARTCC could provide a Pilot airspace visual on their website, but who says every pilot will go there and search for such information.

Thoughts?

Center splits for FL240 and below: (https://image.prntscr.com/image/MHWsqJ6WQN_EQrbaOUu0pg.png)
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Jonathan Voss on August 24, 2017, 06:07:31 PM
Thank you Kyle, for providing some context.

From the other view point it seems there is east/west split anyways. Therefore, for the sake of argument, what would be the difference between 41/84 and E/W? The pilot would not know the boundary of 41 or 84 either. If I was flying in from CVG, it would be easy to determine that I need to talk to E versus 84.

Just to be clear once again, I am not saying controller should change their IDs within the VRC, vSTARS etc. Merely the textual callsign. Additionally, directional callsigns are only one example. While that is my personal opinion, I would be happy to advocate for a USA-wide standard, whether it be sector IDs, directionals, or some other meaningful combination.

It is the lack of consistency overall that causes the most confusion.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 24, 2017, 06:14:34 PM
JV, if the division were to implement it, we would get facilities that further complain that VATUSA is micromanaging. It's a ridiculous thing to have this long of a discussion about. If it were discussed, I'd vote against the division being involved and leave it to the facilities to manage. Some will want it one way, and others another. Because it isn't detrimental to the running of the network and experience ... There's no reason for a policy. My view and what I'd say if a policy were discussed.

If you guys saw the staff forums and how many people want so many different things in different ways ... You'd know exactly what I'm talking about.

It wouldn't work and one side will be angry. And what would it accomplish? More will be angered and leave than would be helped.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Wesley Miles on August 24, 2017, 06:35:16 PM
Because it isn't detrimental to the running of the network and experience ... There's no reason for a policy.

My thoughts exactly.  Each side of this debate brings pros and cons.  If you want to standardize and make policy about everything, you'll have a war on your hands.  You just can't please everyone.  It's like raising kids: to stay sane, you pick your battles-- determine what's critical or essential and focus on those items.  I'd say this division operates pretty smoothly for its size.  And in my experience, those who ask for policy typically regret the result.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Jonathan Voss on August 24, 2017, 06:42:27 PM
JV, if the division were to implement it, we would get facilities that further complain that VATUSA is micromanaging. It's a ridiculous thing to have this long of a discussion about. If it were discussed, I'd vote against the division being involved and leave it to the facilities to manage. Some will want it one way, and others another. Because it isn't detrimental to the running of the network and experience ... There's no reason for a policy. My view and what I'd say if a policy were discussed.

If you guys saw the staff forums and how many people want so many different things in different ways ... You'd know exactly what I'm talking about.

It wouldn't work and one side will be angry. And what would it accomplish? More will be angered and leave than would be helped.

Mr. Hawton, I understand, you have stated this several times.

Is it possible to move on from this one minute part of the argument? The conversation has become quite circular between us and I do appreciate others having an opportunity to discuss.

The thread is not necessarily about regulation. It is a thought experiment on the usefulness of placing the sector ID in the textual callsign.

 
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Wesley Miles on August 24, 2017, 06:46:49 PM
It is a thought experiment on the usefulness of placing the sector ID in the textual callsign.

Excellent!  Thanks for keeping us thinking Jonathan!  I say we lock this thread-- it's served its purpose!  Bottoms up!
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Jonathan Voss on August 24, 2017, 06:49:03 PM
Wesley, I would unfortunately agree. I had hoped for a meaningful and professional discussion.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski on August 24, 2017, 06:56:25 PM
It is a thought experiment on the usefulness of placing the sector ID in the textual callsign.

Excellent!  Thanks for keeping us thinking Jonathan!  I say we lock this thread-- it's served its purpose!  Bottoms up!

I can understand the sentiment, but what purpose does locking serve other than to cease potential future input?

stop with the insults Matthew. If you're unable to have a discussion without insulting, then don't. -AW

Nobody is mandating you read or participate.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Matthew Kosmoski on August 24, 2017, 06:58:10 PM
Plus, I'm on mobile, on the road, preparing for a hurricane. I'd love the opportunity to actually respond to earlier posts instead of having to miss out due to an impending natural disaster.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 24, 2017, 07:00:11 PM
JV, if the division were to implement it, we would get facilities that further complain that VATUSA is micromanaging. It's a ridiculous thing to have this long of a discussion about. If it were discussed, I'd vote against the division being involved and leave it to the facilities to manage. Some will want it one way, and others another. Because it isn't detrimental to the running of the network and experience ... There's no reason for a policy. My view and what I'd say if a policy were discussed.

If you guys saw the staff forums and how many people want so many different things in different ways ... You'd know exactly what I'm talking about.

It wouldn't work and one side will be angry. And what would it accomplish? More will be angered and leave than would be helped.

Mr. Hawton, I understand, you have stated this several times.

Is it possible to move on from this one minute part of the argument? The conversation has become quite circular between us and I do appreciate others having an opportunity to discuss.

You bright it back up saying you would advocate for a standard across the division. So I stated again why it wouldn't/shouldn't happen.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Wesley Miles on August 24, 2017, 07:04:18 PM
Actually, Don's a pretty mean boss and has mandated that we stay active in the forums.  This means I check for new posts.  New posts, such as yours and others in here that provide great insight and food for thought.  But as with any thread, it reaches a point where it becomes moot and as someone put it "a broken record".  Guess what... I think we're there.  Even this post I type now is not contributing in any way to the original, thought-inspiring discussion.  The points have been made, let's try to salvage what's left and use it to possibly spark discussion at the ARTCC level.

I just don't see it getting any more productive... thus my proposal to lock it.  Besides, the drinking game I've been playing reading this thread has started yielding results.    ;)
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Daniel Hawton on August 24, 2017, 07:14:19 PM
Agreed.. it has run its course. There have been enough examples from both sides to prove that there is no one size fits all solution here.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Jonathan Voss on August 24, 2017, 07:17:03 PM
The points have been made, let's try to salvage what's left and use it to possibly spark discussion at the ARTCC level.

I would most assuredly be told to go pound sand at that level and was a discussion was worthy of a much larger audience anwyays.

I just don't see it getting any more productive... thus my proposal to lock it.  Besides, the drinking game I've been playing reading this thread has started yielding results.    ;)

Agreed. Any point discussed between two participants will just be pulled aside and attacked circularly once again.
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Wesley Miles on August 24, 2017, 07:32:38 PM
It's unfortunate you believe your idea wouldnt stand a chace at a discussion at your facility.  This may be something that deserves a larger audience than a single ARTCC.  That's why I said the thread has fulfilled its purpose.  Your post has already sparked discussion on the ZKC teamspeak, and I'm sure it will do similarly at others.  That larger audience was reached.  You should be proud: it's kind of an accomplishment to start a thread on VATUSA that gets this far gone.   :D But it is that-- gone.  From this point out it would be nothing more than back-and-forth throwing of arguments supporting one side or the other, all of which have already been made.

It's old, stale and stinks.  This will be the end of my involvement-- I'm no longer fit to post.   :o  Good luck everyone!
Title: Re: Discussion about sector IDs
Post by: Ira Robinson on August 24, 2017, 07:44:19 PM
Your wish is my command!

This thread has been locked.  Not because the discussion isn't worth having, but because it has split into multiple discussions and gotten difficult to keep track of who is speaking to who and which point they are discussing.

But nothing stops anyone from opening a new thread and trying again, if that is your wish.