VATUSA Forums
General => The Control Room Floor => Topic started by: Alex Handsaker on June 20, 2010, 01:10:00 PM
-
Hello all,
I am a Houston S1 and i have been told something my several people that i want to know what you think about and what was the ups and downs of the holding points. I have just memorized them 5 days ago and now they are being removed, for better flow.
The Holding Points Are as Follows:
HOLDING POINT ONE (1): FACING WESTBOUND ON TAXI-WAY ROMEO-ALPHA IN-LINE WITH TAXI-WAY WHISKEY-GULF HOLDING SHORT OF TAXI-WAY WHISKEY-BRAVO. PRIMARY USE IS FOR SOUTH RAMP OF TERMINAL(S) ALPHA, BRAVO, CHARLIE AND ECHO.
HOLDING POINT TWO (2): FACING WESTBOUND ON TAXI-WAY ROMEO-BRAVO IN-LINE WITH TAXI-WAY WHISKEY-FOXTROT HOLDING SHORT OF TAXI-WAY WHISKEY-BRAVO. PRIMARY USE IS FOR SOUTH RAMP OF TERMINAL(S) ALPHA, BRAVO, CHARLIE AND ECHO.
HOLDING POINT THREE (3): FACING WESTBOUND ON TAXI-WAY ROMEO CHARLIE IN-LINE WITH TAXI-WAY WHISKEY-ECHO, HOLDING SHORT OF TAXI-WAY WHISKEY-BRAVO. PRIMARY USE IS FOR SOUTH RAMP OF TERMINAL(S) ALPHA, BRAVO, CHARLIE AND ECHO.
HOLDING POINT FOUR (4): FACING NORTHBOUND SHORT OF TAXI-WAY WHISKEY-WHISKEY IN-LINE WITH TAXI-WAY NOVEMBER-FOXTROT. PRIMARY USE IS ON NORTH-WEST RAMP AT ALPHA TERMINAL.
HOLDING POINT FIVE (5): FACING NORTHBOUND SHORT OF TAXI-WAY NOVEMBER-CHARLIE, IN-LINE WITH TAXI-WAY NOVEMBER-DELTA. PRIMARY USE FOR NORTH-RAMP BRAVO AND NORTH-EAST RAMP ALPHA TERMINAL(S).
HOLDING POINT SIX (6): FACING NORTHBOUND SHORT OF TAXI-WAY NOVEMBER-CHARLIE IN-LINE WITH TAXI-WAY NOVEMBER-JULIETTE. PRIMARY USE FOR NORTH-WEST RAMP OF CHARLIE TERMINAL AND NORTH RAMP BRAVO TERMINAL(S).
HOLDING POINT SEVEN (7): FACING NORTHBOUND SHORT OF TAXI-WAY NOVEMBER-BRAVO IN-LINE WITH TAXI-WAY NOVEMBER-KILO. PRIMARY USE FOR NORTH-EAST SECTION OF CHARLIE AND ALL DELTA TERMINAL(S).
HOLDING POINT EIGHT (8): FACING SOUTHBOUND SHORT OF TAXI-WAY ROMEO-ALPHA IN-LINE WITH TAXI-WAY SIERRA-CHARLIE. ONLY USED IF IN EAST-BOUND OPERATIONS AND USING RUNWAY NINER FOR DEPARTURES.
They are used for various parts of the airport so the controller does not have to tell the person contact me when ready to taxi, they just say contact me at Holding Point whatever. It also can help the pilots cause they do not get as many taxi ways to taxi on, when they get on a HP they are already on an intersecting taxiway, like HP 3 is RC/WB. Which if you turn right and go up then left on WW you are at 15L which is a very simple taxi way, as with no HP, it is Taxi to 15L via RC, WB, WW, or WV. So it kinda reduces the taxiways on the pilots.
So from a pilot and a controllers point of view what do you think? What is a good thing to have the holding points, and the bad things of them. I am interested to see what you as pilots, and controllers think of them.
-
I like Hold Points and they can be used to create a flow in and out of the ramp. Since we do not control the ramp it allows the aircraft to move about a necessary to get to the assigned point of where they would start their taxi. We use Hold points at CVG but fortunately ours are published on the airport diagram. The major problem at IAH is getting the information to the pilots about the hold points. I flew out of IAH once and was given a hold point to call for taxi and a URL was in the ATIS to locate the hold point which worked well but i can see how it could be confusing to other members. Hopefully one day they can publish them on the diagram which would drastically help. Below is a clip of CVG airport Diagram with the hold points boxed in red.
[img]http://www.vzidartcc.org/training/file.php/10/CVG.JPG\\\" border=\\\"0\\\" class=\\\"linked-image\\\" /]
-
The same thing happened to us at Denver. We implemented Ramp Control a while back at DEN, but it was soon realized that it was a little bit tedious for pilots to locate the holding points. Since the points are located on the non-FAA, UAL-operated ramp, AeroNav doesn't publish them on their charts and the HPs are thus not freely available.
-
This can be easily fixed by replacing numbers with letters.
Take SFO for example. The TMU has implemented a plan where, under periods of high traffic, holding points may be implemented. Used to, we would say, call number one at holding point 1 for taxi. Now, we just say something like "exit the ramp at M" or "taxi to holding point M" (Mike is the taxiway that the holding point is on).
I think holding points are a great idea, they just need to be tweaked a little bit.
-
This can be easily fixed by replacing numbers with letters.
Take SFO for example. The TMU has implemented a plan where, under periods of high traffic, holding points may be implemented. Used to, we would say, call number one at holding point 1 for taxi. Now, we just say something like "exit the ramp at M" or "taxi to holding point M" (Mike is the taxiway that the holding point is on).
I think holding points are a great idea, they just need to be tweaked a little bit.
Why would you create new points when SFO already has designated spots located at the end of each ramp. Defeats the purpose of realism IMO.
-
Daniel, we're not talking about SFO and what we do there...we're talking about the concept as a whole.
-
Daniel, we're not talking about SFO and what we do there...we're talking about the concept as a whole.
And what you do there? Just because I'm referencing SFO doesn't mean I'm relating ZOA. As to the concept as a whole, major airports have ramp spots. Here is your answer for IAH.
[img]http://i621.photobucket.com/albums/tt299/ODTheATC/image002.jpg\\\" border=\\\"0\\\" class=\\\"linked-image\\\" /]
OD
-
My thoughts:
1) Tough to implement on the controller side.
2) Hard for pilots to understand what you are talking about when many of them don't even use taxiway maps.
3) I fail to see the benefit gained by implementing this.
I don't mean to rain on your parade - simply scratching my head wondering what the point is.
-
Let them go. The majority of pilots will not have a clue what you are asking. At some point "as real as it gets" goes too far in the virtual world and IMHO this is one of those occassions.
Pilot
Houston
-
A related question: Why don't AeroNav charts include this type of information?
-
A related question: Why don't AeroNav charts include this type of information?
My guess is because it is part of the non-movement area that the airport authority controls, not the FAA on the whole.
As far as keeping or getting rid of them, I believe it's all scenery related. Prime example is that KLAS has their spots on the field, similar to KIAH's holding points. They are just entry points into the ramp area, and aren't depicted in the default scenery. However, they do exist in the old SimFlyer's KLAS and FSDreamTeam's KLAS sceneries. If you have them, they can be used. If not, improvise. The only problem is that pilots need to know where those spots are, relative to the scenery that they have.
I would say to keep it, as long as ZHU provides a chart or graphic on their website that depicts those holding points (for example, a blown up Airport Diagram of KIAH and pointing out where those holding points are).
BL.
-
Im strongly opposed to any SOPs that require pilots to know something that isnt freely and easily available. Just say "Contact Ground when holding short of whatever taxiway"
I get pretty annoyed when I fly at ARTCCs that require me to do things that I would only know if I went to that ARTCCs website. Sorry but it isn't realistic at all to expect pilots to go to your website before flying in your airspace.
-
Im strongly opposed to any SOPs that require pilots to know something that isnt freely and easily available. Just say "Contact Ground when holding short of whatever taxiway"
I get pretty annoyed when I fly at ARTCCs that require me to do things that I would only know if I went to that ARTCCs website. Sorry but it isn't realistic at all to expect pilots to go to your website before flying in your airspace.
You're right, completely unrealistic in the slightest to think a pilot would plan their flight by checking to see what information might be available from the ARTCC. After all, odds are there will be a controller handy to tell them how to set their flight up anyway...so why would they need to worry about that kinda stuff.
P.s. I am slightly mad (crazy) and take no responsibility for anything that my other personalities find amusing or witty. I also do not have a particular concern about holding points, but agree that unless it is something that is on the APD or is clearly marked in default/common scenery it's very unlikely to be successfully implemented. Even then it takes a lot of patience and consistency to have it be successful.
-
You're right, completely unrealistic in the slightest to think a pilot would plan their flight by checking to see what information might be available from the ARTCC. After all, odds are there will be a controller handy to tell them how to set their flight up anyway...so why would they need to worry about that kinda stuff.
P.s. I am slightly mad (crazy) and take no responsibility for anything that my other personalities find amusing or witty. I also do not have a particular concern about holding points, but agree that unless it is something that is on the APD or is clearly marked in default/common scenery it's very unlikely to be successfully implemented. Even then it takes a lot of patience and consistency to have it be successful.
I don't consider visiting an ARTCC's website part of flight planning. I visit PUBLISHED charts, IFR/VFR supps as appropriate, view the weather along the route, and the JCS NOTAMs. That's flight planning to me. Why should I add hunting down an ARTCC's website for holding points that should be published (if in existance) on the Airport Diagram? Additionally, is it REALLY that necessary outside of events to force pilots to use such information? Is there that much traffic that the ground controller has to filter aircraft through holding points. LAX sees more traffic and is often only controlled by center (and it's much appreciated), yet, they don't have/need "holding points". I think adding stuff not on the charts is unneccessary and not realistic at all.
-
Daniel, you completely missed the post... [!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]...but agree that unless it is something that is on the APD or is clearly marked in default/common scenery it's very unlikely to be successfully implemented...[/quote] I am not advocating use of non-published holding points. It just seems to me that many pilots on VATSIM are becoming very spoiled. They can't be bothered to even attempt to check their routing for proper altitudes, then complain to the ARTCC if they are a bit too low on a non-published section of their route (which they filed for and presumably checked beforehand). They also seem to think we are the world encyclopedia when it comes to how to do the most basic things like adjust a heading, altitude, setup the pilot client (SB/FSInn/XSB), and a thousand other minor points.
To me it is entirely reasonable to expect a pilot not familiar with an area to check the ARTCC website, it saves a lot of hassle if A) there is no controller, or there is a controller and he/she is applying standard ARTCC policies that the pilot is not familiar with. Would I say you have to check each ARTCC every time you fly...absolutely not. As long as you are reasonably familiar with the area you should be aware of any special considerations that may be needed. Like I said, if it's "NOT ON THE APD OR CLEARLY MARKED ON THE DEFAULT/COMMON SCENERY IT'S UNLIKELY TO BE SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENTED."
Sorry for the caps, but I assumed you missed it the first time.
-
I don't consider visiting an ARTCC's website part of flight planning. I visit PUBLISHED charts, IFR/VFR supps as appropriate, view the weather along the route, and the JCS NOTAMs. That's flight planning to me. Why should I add hunting down an ARTCC's website for holding points that should be published (if in existance) on the Airport Diagram? Additionally, is it REALLY that necessary outside of events to force pilots to use such information? Is there that much traffic that the ground controller has to filter aircraft through holding points. LAX sees more traffic and is often only controlled by center (and it's much appreciated), yet, they don't have/need "holding points". I think adding stuff not on the charts is unneccessary and not realistic at all.
Don't be too sure about that.
Like I mentioned before, KLAS does have "spots" similar to holding points. They aren't located on any Airport diagram that I've seen at NACO/Aeronav, and the aren't in the AF/D. But they are there. There are 22 of them:
- C2, sort of C.
- C3, short of C.
- West of C3, southwest facing, short of C.
- West of C3, southeast facing, short of C.
- West of C4, southwest facing, short of C.
- West of C4, southeast facing, short of C.
- C5, short of C.
- C6, short of C.
- B4, short of C.
- West of B4, short of C.
- B5, short of C.
- In Holding Pad #3, short of C.
- west of Holding Pad #3.
- west of Spot 14, west of Holding Pad #3.
- B7, short of C.
- north of Holding Pads #1 and #2, on W, short of G.
- G1, short of G.
- G2, short of G.
- on S, between the North and South Holding pads, short of D.
- Facing west, short of D and P.
- Facing Northwest short of D and N.
- Facing Northwest, North of N, short of D.
You can see these via Google Earth/Maps. I'm still looking for the official reference for those without imposing on our contacts at the Tower.
The reason we are not using the spots is two-fold. First reason being that the spots are all in the Ramp area, which we are treating as non-movement here on VATSIM, while in the real world, they are controlled, but NOT by the Ground controller. There is a separate Ramp control that operates the ramp area, and uses these spots as entering/leaving points for transitioning to/from Ground. Second reason we don't use them is that we don't get as much traffic as KLAS really does. If we did, we certainly would. Currently, only the old SimFlyers KLAS scenery and the FSDreamTeam scenery depicts this. Other sceneries do not have them.
But to say that we don't have them isn't really right. We do, but we just don't use them for one reason or another.
BL.
-
Don't be too sure about that.
Like I mentioned before, KLAS does have "spots" similar to holding points. They aren't located on any Airport diagram that I've seen at NACO/Aeronav, and the aren't in the AF/D. But they are there. There are 22 of them:
- C2, sort of C.
- C3, short of C.
- West of C3, southwest facing, short of C.
- West of C3, southeast facing, short of C.
- West of C4, southwest facing, short of C.
- West of C4, southeast facing, short of C.
- C5, short of C.
- C6, short of C.
- B4, short of C.
- West of B4, short of C.
- B5, short of C.
- In Holding Pad #3, short of C.
- west of Holding Pad #3.
- west of Spot 14, west of Holding Pad #3.
- B7, short of C.
- north of Holding Pads #1 and #2, on W, short of G.
- G1, short of G.
- G2, short of G.
- on S, between the North and South Holding pads, short of D.
- Facing west, short of D and P.
- Facing Northwest short of D and N.
- Facing Northwest, North of N, short of D.
You can see these via Google Earth/Maps. I'm still looking for the official reference for those without imposing on our contacts at the Tower.
The reason we are not using the spots is two-fold. First reason being that the spots are all in the Ramp area, which we are treating as non-movement here on VATSIM, while in the real world, they are controlled, but NOT by the Ground controller. There is a separate Ramp control that operates the ramp area, and uses these spots as entering/leaving points for transitioning to/from Ground. Second reason we don't use them is that we don't get as much traffic as KLAS really does. If we did, we certainly would. Currently, only the old SimFlyers KLAS scenery and the FSDreamTeam scenery depicts this. Other sceneries do not have them.
But to say that we don't have them isn't really right. We do, but we just don't use them for one reason or another.
BL.
these points are not depicted on the faa airport diagrams. but i can tell you, the jeppesen airport diagrams depict this information. now as to realism about sending pilots over to the artcc website, that cannot be related as all r/w pilots have jeppesen charts and those display all this information prominently. this is just something we cannot ask every pilot on vatsim to buy a copy of. if the pilot has these points, he will call saying where hes at and you can assume that position is the exact same as the one you are seeing on your control screen.
-
these points are not depicted on the faa airport diagrams. but i can tell you, the jeppesen airport diagrams depict this information. now as to realism about sending pilots over to the artcc website, that cannot be related as all r/w pilots have jeppesen charts and those display all this information prominently. this is just something we cannot ask every pilot on vatsim to buy a copy of. if the pilot has these points, he will call saying where hes at and you can assume that position is the exact same as the one you are seeing on your control screen.
You're right. We can't expect pilots to buy the Jepp charts. But it would be prudent that if a given sector was going to use something like this, to make it known on their website and have some sort of chart that accurately depicts where these spots are. That way, pilots have a reliable resource that gives them such information.
BL.
-
Daniel, you completely missed the post... I am not advocating use of non-published holding points. It just seems to me that many pilots on VATSIM are becoming very spoiled. They can't be bothered to even attempt to check their routing for proper altitudes, then complain to the ARTCC if they are a bit too low on a non-published section of their route (which they filed for and presumably checked beforehand). They also seem to think we are the world encyclopedia when it comes to how to do the most basic things like adjust a heading, altitude, setup the pilot client (SB/FSInn/XSB), and a thousand other minor points.
To me it is entirely reasonable to expect a pilot not familiar with an area to check the ARTCC website, it saves a lot of hassle if A) there is no controller, or there is a controller and he/she is applying standard ARTCC policies that the pilot is not familiar with. Would I say you have to check each ARTCC every time you fly...absolutely not. As long as you are reasonably familiar with the area you should be aware of any special considerations that may be needed. Like I said, if it's "NOT ON THE APD OR CLEARLY MARKED ON THE DEFAULT/COMMON SCENERY IT'S UNLIKELY TO BE SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENTED."
Sorry for the caps, but I assumed you missed it the first time.
Your right.. I read the first paragraph and absorbed it as sarcasm and only made it half way through the final paragraph.. apparently before that sentence.
And controllers are getting spoiled as well. They think that just because a pilot isn't flying a simroute, they can re-route the aircraft to a whole new route willy nilly... not just changing what is affected in their airspace, but for the route several ARTCCs away with no controllers online and from a "normal" route to an RNAV route. Granted, he asked if I could take it and I declined preferring to stick to the real world route.. but the fact he tried to change more than my SID (which apparently is a "noise abatement" SID that wasn't marked as such) irked me.. especially when the first NAVAID on the route exists in half of the same SIDs for that airport.. instead he wanted to do an RNAV route that he pulled out of who knows where (as there were no simroutes for that route). Yes, pilots are spoiled but controllers are also going that way with the super ultra-realism it's my way or the highway. I've also had a tower controller send me a contact me, VFR, 20+ miles away and issue an instruction to remain at least 5nm away from other aircraft. I'm VFR... * SEE AND AVOID *.. and when I said this to the Class D Tower controller, he said "leave it to arrogant pilots to ruin it for everyone".. why because a 777 said he saw me flying around below him along the water but didn't alter his course/altitude because I wasn't close enough to disrupt his flight but going about my business over the water?
-
does anyone know the copyright rules or laws regarding this issue, i dont believe we are allowed to put jeppesen charts onto our artcc websites.
-
does anyone know the copyright rules or laws regarding this issue, i dont believe we are allowed to put jeppesen charts onto our artcc websites.
You are NOT allowed to do so
-
Your right.. I read the first paragraph and absorbed it as sarcasm and only made it half way through the final paragraph.. apparently before that sentence.
And controllers are getting spoiled as well. They think that just because a pilot isn't flying a simroute, they can re-route the aircraft to a whole new route willy nilly... not just changing what is affected in their airspace, but for the route several ARTCCs away with no controllers online and from a "normal" route to an RNAV route. Granted, he asked if I could take it and I declined preferring to stick to the real world route.. but the fact he tried to change more than my SID (which apparently is a "noise abatement" SID that wasn't marked as such) irked me.. especially when the first NAVAID on the route exists in half of the same SIDs for that airport.. instead he wanted to do an RNAV route that he pulled out of who knows where (as there were no simroutes for that route). Yes, pilots are spoiled but controllers are also going that way with the super ultra-realism it's my way or the highway. I've also had a tower controller send me a contact me, VFR, 20+ miles away and issue an instruction to remain at least 5nm away from other aircraft. I'm VFR... * SEE AND AVOID *.. and when I said this to the Class D Tower controller, he said "leave it to arrogant pilots to ruin it for everyone".. why because a 777 said he saw me flying around below him along the water but didn't alter his course/altitude because I wasn't close enough to disrupt his flight but going about my business over the water?
I'm well aware of the issue with the Tower controller, and that has been addressed. I agree that controller are also spoiled...with proper amendment procedures barely being touched upon, much less taught and tested. Blame it on whatever policy you want, but there are people who I have also had issue amendments without even bothering to connect back to my route at any point, no clue what aircraft suffixes mean (/A anyone) and assume everyone is GPS/RNAV capable...but I digress.
-
does anyone know the copyright rules or laws regarding this issue, i dont believe we are allowed to put jeppesen charts onto our artcc websites.
You are NOT allowed to do so
But I'm not advocating posting the Jepp charts on a website. What I am advocating is either putting the same information that the chart contains on the website, or create your own image/graphic that depicts those points. That way, either the text of the information (which if you correlate that to a map of the airport, is the same) is up there, or your own image depicting the same information) is up there. No copyright violation whatsoever.
For example, you take a screenshot of the airport from Google Maps, and highlight/draw arrows to where those holding points or spots are. For the record, SimFlyers and FSDT got their data for the spots at KLAS for their sceneries from Google Earth and Google Maps, if not from the Jeppesen charts as well.
BL.
-
I'm a bit of a noobie here but that doesn't stop me from having a slight bit of an opinion (typical right?)
As much as realism, study depth, etc. are good things, VATSIM ATC (like real ATC) is ultimately a practical service with a purpose. Real ATC concluded that HPs were a good idea because they evaluated what their requirements and resources were and synthesized.
REAL ATC
Resources: Well-trained controllers, well-trained pilots, accessible dissemination methods, ramp controllers, cooperative personnel
Requirements: High traffic volume
VATSIM ATC
Resources: Amateur* controllers, amateur pilots, limited dissemination methods, no ramp controllers, sometimes non-cooperative personnel
Requirements: Low traffic volume
*No offense, I know VATSIM ATC training approaches the rigor of real world ATC training in most ways.
If you put the real FAA, airlines, airports, etc. into the "VATSIM world" in terms of resources and requirements, they would not come to the same conclusions that they have in the real world. The cost-benefit ratio is out of whack. The fundamentals of ground control probably best serve the situation while remaining emotionally satisfying to VATSIM's mission.
The best way to implement HPs (I think, at least initially) is to make agreements with select VAs who promise to ensure their pilots are HP certified. Only "Class 1" VAs, and their pilots, as shown in the flight plan comments, would be able to be given such hold points. Similarly only select airports should require higher-than-standard knowledge from their controllers for HP ops. OAK_GND might not be a HP ops position while SFO_GND is.
-
My thoughts:
1) Tough to implement on the controller side.
2) Hard for pilots to understand what you are talking about when many of them don't even use taxiway maps.
3) I fail to see the benefit gained by implementing this.
I don't mean to rain on your parade - simply scratching my head wondering what the point is.
At some point "as real as it gets" goes too far in the virtual world and IMHO this is one of those occassions.
Pilot
Houston
Ian, exactly, and Dave more exactly... lol