VATUSA Forums
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Don Desfosse on December 14, 2017, 06:23:36 AM
-
All, there seems to be more and more discussion in the community regarding ATC timetables so pilots can have an approximate idea of when ATC might be on. Arguments have been made for years about "not wanting to feel pinned down", it would feel like a job/commitment", etc. But some of our facilities do it regularly and don't seem to suffer any ill effects.
So I figured I'd start a discussion.
Would you be in favor and why, or not and why, of having an ATC timetable that folks could post their intended staffing times to, assuming that timetable could be edited at will and is certainly non-binding?
Groundrules that the community would see would include:
The timetables is designed to give pilots an approximate idea of where and when to expect controllers online. This information is intended as a general guideline; controllers will often sign in without advance warning. Controller availability may change with little to no advance notice. Furthermore, even if there is no controller signed-up, drop-in ATC is often available during our peak hours.
Thoughts?
-
Don,
You hit the nail on the head with the flexibility and non-binding statement.
This is a discussion I’ve had with my fellow staff memebers, and my opinion of it is as follows:
If VATUSA would like to create a booking system in which controllers may post availability and pilots may view Controller availability, it could be beneficial to both parties. Similarly, pilots could plan flights through said system in order to alert controllers to their arrival.
It is absolutely necessary that this system be non-binding. It is often seen that people will want to control, and think they have availability to do so at a specific time, but when they get closer to the time, something comes up that prevents them from getting online.
This non-binding policy must be made clear to pilots: There are many cases with other scheduling systems that result in anger and/or disappointment from pilots when the controllers don’t show up for their scheduled time, or cancel a few minutes prior. This serves as a huge decrement in ATC-pilot relations.
So, yes, we should look into it, but we need to make clear the restrictions that you laid out in your post to both pilots and controllers.
I’m interested to see other people’s thoughts and what we end up doing with it.
-
Don and Brin,
I agree completely with your thoughts about the non-binding or requiring of ATC to hold to their scheduled times to the T.
I would use this to give pilots a general idea if I plan to control, which will be very beneficial for HCF-bound pilots wanting to fly the pacific, as they’ll be able to plan their time-critical flight accordingly.
My question is will this be an ARTCC or division wide system?
-
My thoughts were articulated above.
I'd also like to see the opposite available -- a board pilots could voluntarily post to ahead of time, so we can scramble controllers if there's a forecast high-time. Sure, we can see them enroute, but that doesn't help with a departure push. It may also directly lead to additional communication from the VAs about their flight schedules.
-
I believe that something centralized would work better than something ARTCC wide, at least from a pilot's perspective.
Something really cool would maybe be a map highlighting when ATC will be on given a certain time of day.
-
Personally, I would not use it.
1) We have to take a look at how many controllers use the VATUSA website and visit it frequently. Before I became a staff member, I never looked at the forums and the only time I was on the VATUSA website was when I needed to take an exam. If this were to be implemented, wouldn't it make more sense to have it run through the ARTCC's website?
2)How would this be enforced? If we implement this system, how would we make sure it's used? What happens if we don't use it? What's the point of creating it if nothing happens if we don't use it and everything goes back to the way it is currently?
3) My schedule has become too unpredictable for me to ever use it. I would like to add that most of the time that I control, I control because I feel like it and I want to. Furthermore, I never know how long I want to stay online for. Some sessions I may stay on 3 hours, while others I may stay on 1 hour. The majority of that decision comes from how the pilots are and the amount of traffic that I have.
Back when I was in High School and I had a predictable schedule, then this makes more sense, but for me right now, I would most likely never use it.
I want also reiterate that I am not speaking for the entire ARTCC, and each member may have a different feeling towards this issue. Hopefully this provides a different view to what's already been proposed.
-
I’m open to it. Here are some scenarios were I see it as beneficial:
1) Some controllers decide they’re going to staff up SoCal one night. They put it on the schedule. Pilots see it and plan some flights within the airspace. They put their flights on the schedule so the controllers know who’s planning to join in.
2) A group of pilots decide they’re going to do a fly-in or poker run. They put it on the schedule. Controllers who are available respond with what times they’ll likely be on so they can also join in.
It doesn’t have to be one-way where only controllers are posting their availability every time they plan on controlling.
-
I'm not a fan. I understand that it's frustrating for the pilots to see ATC online, load up, get clearance and then be given to unicom for departure.
Here's my issue. While a booking system seems nice in theory, I doubt you would get the actual participation you're looking for. We already set commitments for staffing times during events, and we have a hard enough time getting people to follow through on their commitments on those. Making everyone make a "non-binding" booking would add another commitment that people could back out on by either not showing up at all or closing early.
It's a lose-lose situation in my opinion. We can say "non-binding" until we're blue in the face to both pilots and controllers. The fact of the matter is that no matter how "non-binding" the booking is pilots are going to be miffed if a controller doesn't follow through on his booking or closes early, and controllers are going to look at as an obligation.
As an aside, it seems like many of these complaints are coming from newer CIDs. Maybe it's just me, but when I see a "stale ATC (Greater than 1 hour) online," I'll usually ask how much longer they'll be on, but I also don't mind flying on unicom if I have to. The reward of seeing 1 other airplane knowing that that's a person sharing my hobby is worth giving up a whole offline airport full of AI.
-
I think the timetable would be most useful if pilots booked for event flights in advance of the event thereby enabling ARTCCs to plan event staffing. For non-event business as usual traffic, I don’t think the timetable would be as beneficial because controlling is more spur of the moment for many members.
-
Good discussion -- keep it going! Toby, I was thinking division-wide. Some ARTCCs already do it. Much like other divisions already do it, it would be "one-stop-shopping" for pilots. I had thought of adding the pilot bookings -- one ARTCC does this now -- but was thinking of taking this in baby steps. Besides, I almost never see the pilot bookings used at that ARTCC that has them available now.
-
I would be a fan but like stated before, many don’t even know of the VATUSA website or even that VATSIM is even split into devisions. For this to work, it would need to be at least promoted via sources such as VATTASTIC.
-
I have to agree with some of the above... the non-committal can be the biggest element on the page and you will have pilots take it out on the division/ARTCC/CCFs/controllers if someone leaves/early doesn't show. I, like many, hop on more when I feel like it... so my schedule would be one that is never posted (unless I feel like adding another step to the sign in process).
-
All good points. I figure all we can do is offer it, encourage it (both from ATC and pilot perspectives), and at least we won't have the incessant ankle biting that we seem to get on the VATSIM forums.... :)
I was hoping one of the ARTCCs that utilizes a Timetable would chime in (hint, hint.... ;)).
-
I was hoping one of the ARTCCs that utilizes a Timetable would chime in (hint, hint.... ;)).
We do have a front-page schedule at ZLA. I see it used by a couple of controllers and for confirmed training sessions. I’m starting to use it myself to see if pilots actually do notice it or not.
Like many have said, it does feel like a bit of an obligation. However, whether or not you’re being paid or volunteering shouldn’t be a factor in being reliable and keeping commitments. If you say you’ll be there, then make a reasonable effort to do just that.
Just like for events, I ask controllers what they are willing and able to do. I then expect you to keep that commitment. If you say 1 hour, then I’ll expect and plan for 1 hour.
If I see that I can reasonably keep a scheduled time, I’ll post it. If I think that something else might come up or I’ll decide last minute, then I won’t post it.
-
I’ve actually typed several replies to this thread, deleted them and then came back a few hours later or so later to rethink. From a personal perspective, torn. I’m saying this not only from VATUSA/VATSIM experience, but two decades of experience with online gaming organization management that often encountered the same double edged sword.
First, the positives. The concept is a solid one. Create a system allowing pilots to view when ATC will be online. Intent to increase participation, increase traffic and create an all-around positive development for the community. What’s not to like? Which is where it gets into the concerns...
Even today people do not necessarily review events posted on popular websites such as VATTASTIC (where they are spoon fed). I know I’m not alone in having witnessed an event in progress, massive traffic in an area, a flag posted for the advertised event and see someone ask in the chat box “What’s happening in (insert airport here)?” Person can’t even be bothered to click their mouse twice to look up the information. Is that a majority? No, but leads into a point others have raised…
VATUSA is not viewed by many pilots flying inside US airspace as a "popular public website" critical to flying online. This is no different than the fact a solid percentage of folks don't visit a local ARTCC website to review procedures before flying in their region. I question how valuable the resource would be from a practical standpoint.
Third, and this is two decades of online gaming organization management coming in. We can say whatever we want, but if the schedule isn’t going to be binding then it shouldn’t exist. Pilots will be within their right to complain people are on a schedule but not there. They won’t dive into the forums or our community websites to voice their frustration. It will be on UNICOM or chat systems and never present the opportunity for our leadership to reinforce the non-binding nature of the schedule. Not to confuse, I’m not saying it should be binding. I see a benefit, even if someone decides last minute to sign on they could at least advertise how long they plan to be online. But life happens and as most adults know, IRL takes priority compared to an online hobby that isn’t paying the power bills. Yet, sadly many on the network do not always display proper maturity in thinking. Just ask the controllers dealing with pilot complaints about why they are signing off after working a 4 hour event.
Finally, actually pulling from Matt’s comments, without a requirement it is doubtful controller participation levels will be what would be needed to turn the resource into something pilots would actually seek out before signing onto the network. When almost every ARTCC is making cuts monthly due to inactivity of controllers, we are talking about adding an additional layer of expectation voluntarily. If the resource isn’t being actively used, it creates a perception (truthful or not) about a lack of activity within VATUSA from those who spend perhaps 10 seconds a month on the website.
So I remain torn. I see potential for a centralized location advertising when people plan to be on. However, it gets complicated when folks don't always know their schedules, getting controllers to actually use it cannot be mandated, getting pilots to actually view it will be barrier to change and there are limits to how expectations about the system could be managed within the broader community.
-
Replies so far have effectively discussed the positives. Pilots and controllers have a better idea of who will be staffed where, there's a general idea of who's going to be online, and it makes for setting up informal staff-ups like the one we have going on right now at BOS much easier.
Using tonight as an example: we wanted to get on and support ZDC's FNO. Our EC posted the event on our forums and said "put yourself on the Timetable if you can make it". (For larger events, we roster; however, for nights when we just want to support our adjacent facilities, the Timetable is fantastic as an informal means of coordination.) Now, our EC knows whether or not we'll to have coverage based on what's up there. As it turned out, we saw that DEL/GND/TWR/APP were all going to be staffed. Seeing a few people online at Boston, we also ended up having others connect at BDL. With all of the expected coverage, we got some posts up on social media letting people know that we'll have a full staff.
The Timetable has allowed organic staff-ups to happen quite frequently. I'll toss my name on CTR in the morning and by the time I'm connecting at 8pm, there's 4 or 5 other controllers that have joined in the fun.
As many of you may know, and as DO recently hinted at, we've been using an ATC Timetable (and actually have a pilot one too) at BVA for many years. The controller timetable is quite active; the pilot one doesn't get much attention, but is there for people who wish to use it.
On the ATC side, we've not really had the issues of controllers not meeting commitments. I'm sure it's something that could come up, but would be addressed with the individual controller. A simple "3 strike" rule where the ARTCC just removes the ability for someone to sign up would do fine. Similarly, for folks who just want to jump on when they feel like it, we still encourage people to post to the Timetable. If gives the pilots an idea of how long you might be on for, and -- in some cases -- pilots just check the Timetable (rather than VatSPY) to see who's going to be staffed. Not all of our controllers use it, and I'll sometimes spawn up at the 8pm start time I've set up only to find someone else has CTR. I'll jump on another position until he's ready for relief.
We have not had a single case of bad feedback or a complaint from a pilot saying "hey, ZBW was supposed to be staffed and then the guy removed his name" in the 5+ years we have used this system. Part of that is likely because we're very clear that the Timetable is not like an event sign-up, and everything is optional.
If VATUSA moved forward with an ATC Timetable that was division-wide, there are several things that I would say should be considered and included:
- An API allowing individual ARTCC websites to display a timetable and for controllers from those ARTCCs to post through their own sites; I don't see controllers doing everything through VATUSA
- Some rules around not allowing the Timetable to become a means of "reserving" a spot
- ARTCC policies around how often someone can "no show" before there are concerns
-
First off I'd say that a display with ATC bookings (and pilots) would be fantastic. I regularly book when I can (although that's not often as my time is usually spur of the moment these days. What I would add though is instead of re-inventing the wheel here I'd like to see support and a push from Division down to the ARTCC's to integrate the popular booking platform VATBOOK. The advantage here is that it's already displayed in several of the online clients (notably vRoute, although if I recall ServInfo also pulls data), as well as offers a global audience. I believe this is the platform used most often in ICAO land, although I could be wrong about that. It's also (from what I have poked around with) easily integrated on both VATUSA's website, as well as ARTCC websites for those facilities that wish to do so. It's about as "cross-platform" (i.e. multiple website) as you can probably get to avoid having 23 booking systems with 23 different sets of data.
-
It's about as "cross-platform" (i.e. multiple website) as you can probably get to avoid having 23 booking systems with 23 different sets of data.
Assuming that the plan was for VATUSA to generate it and host the data here, and have external sources (vattastic, VATSPY, etc) pull the data for display, that would indeed be ideal.
What I would add though is instead of re-inventing the wheel here I'd like to see support and a push from Division down to the ARTCC's to integrate the popular booking platform VATBOOK. The advantage here is that it's already displayed in several of the online clients (notably vRoute, although if I recall ServInfo also pulls data), as well as offers a global audience.
So we source this through them, and post? Good thought on not re-inventing the wheel... Best not to waste the time of our web team if the "wheel" already exists.
I agree with your comments, Ken. I think more of the discussion will be on how we implement this policy-wise, rather than technical-wise.
We have not had a single case of bad feedback or a complaint from a pilot saying "hey, ZBW was supposed to be staffed and then the guy removed his name" in the 5+ years we have used this system. Part of that is likely because we're very clear that the Timetable is not like an event sign-up, and everything is optional.
I find that surprising, as many pilots have been known to complain about it in more public forums (vattastic chat, etc) when a controller logs off prior to their arrival. Maybe it's because they're not necessarily scheduled, in those cases... In the specific case of ZBW's system, maybe the pilots just don't want to bother leaving feedback about the system when there's the occasional breakdown? Maybe your controllers are so likely to follow their commitments (as I wish we all were ;D) that it's never been seen as an issue? Either way, your success with it is encouraging and is likely to be a very good reason for us to give it a try on a division-wide scale.
So should we, as a division, follow the example of ZBW and make this more of a pilot community, especially with the timetable? I find it to be rare for most pilots to show up here independently, so should we start advertising vatusa.net as a place for pilots to come and find out division info?
All good points. I figure all we can do is offer it, encourage it (both from ATC and pilot perspectives), and at least we won't have the incessant ankle biting that we seem to get on the VATSIM forums.... :)
So is the plan now to offer it, in hopes that it will generate some success? As seems to be the case with the ARTCCs who do offer this to pilots, it may not be used all of the time, but it is a good thing to offer, at the very least.
So do we:
- Implement VATBOOK? (As a well-established system...)
- Write our own timetable? (Having to advertise it slightly more...)
Technical-wise, either could work...
It then becomes a matter of policy with regards to signups, removals, etc.
Do we:
- Offer it to both pilots and controllers?
- Offer it to pilots, and encourage (strongly) controllers to use it?
Further thoughts?
-
Disclaimer: I don't have any experience as ATC but I would like to share my thoughts.
As a pilot I think this is a great idea because I frequently choose where to fly based on known ATC coverage (if it's available). I understand that controllers will not always know how long they will be online but if you DO have an idea of your timetable and want more traffic, posting it would definitely encourage me to fly to your airspace. If i see a controller has already been online for 1+ hours and there is not much traffic in his airspace then I may "assume" that he will be signing off soon and will choose to fly somewhere else. When actually that controller was planning to stay online for a while and was hoping to get more traffic.
I wouldn't expect all controllers to use it if they don't want to or if they don't know how long they will be online. And I wouldn't hold any controllers "accountable" for their booked hours if they were unable to honor them for any reason.
Also I can't speak for other pilots but i cannot imagine getting angry or upset about a controller having to sign off early or not coming online during hours they had booked. Anybody who would get angry about this needs to grow up and realize this is a hobby for pilots and controllers alike and we all (hopefully) have lives outside of VATSIM where sometimes things come up.
Josh
-
I just saw this so...if you have not used it please do. Free.
www.atcbooking.com
Shez