Obviously it adds an element to oceanic ops that can provide another level to the experience on the flight deck and controller side.  For domestic operations....I can understand what RR eluded to regarding juggling another client in ones background that is not functional directly with Vatsim.  Very difficult (for me..) to determine who has the on-board capability and is using it.  With rapid changes in domestic en-route operations, particularly near airspace boundaries, I think voice service is the only way to go.  After all, how many people have advocated the elimination of 'text pilot' with the newest system capabilities?  Perhaps a more robust domestic CPDLC product, integrated within common/approved clients, could be somewhere in Vatsims distant future and serve as the text replacement.

I can definitely see pros and cons to this, and a huge pro being what is in bold.

However, the biggest con I also see in the use of CPDLC, and this even extends to RW ops, is the decreased use of the DEL position. With clearances now being given via CPDLC, it has all but made the DEL position obsolete, as less and less comms are being handled at that level, unless something is happening with that aircraft's access to CPDLC, or if the pilot has a question.

As currently it is optional here, we'll see not as much reliance on it as in the real world, but would we start to see that much less reliability on DEL should CPDLC be used more? and would we have need to have someone dedicated to handling all of the clearances with it, say during an event?

BL.

How do you assume all facilities simulate the required safety logic system?
Not all ARTCCs are training this way.

Depends on what you're meaning by the logic. Are we dealing with the .65 requirement that we don't lock and load anymore with LUAW, or the .65 requirement that we don't lock and load anymore with LUAW that every sector applied for a waiver to that requirement (yeah, that happened!) Or are we talking about logic related to anticipated separation? There's a lot to go into on this one..

BL.

ZSE's "Fly the Gorge" event a couple weeks ago got me thinking -- where are some other really scenic flights one can make in the US?  Obviously there's the Grand Canyon, the Manhattan skyline, the various resort airports around Colorado, the Florida Keys -- maybe around Mount Rainier, too -- what are some other "pretty" US flights you've done that you recommend?

Let's answer that question with a question: How daring do you want to be?  Here's why I ask.

When I fire up the sim, I get tired of waiting for the scenery to load for the first time before repositioning to where I want to be, so I've always picked some well off field where no-one is going to be, and for a while I chose somewhere weird like 48U (Greater Green River Intergalactic Spaceport - yes, it really is named that). One day, I typoed on that, and put in 85U, which took me to Soldier Bar, ID.

.. well... okay. But since I'm just there to get my routes made, that's okay.

Then I looked at the airport. It's one of a set of rare airports where the runway has a turn in it, is sloped like Lukla/Tenzing-Hillary or Courchevelle, and there's only one way in and one way out. Finally, it's slapped onto the side of the mountain, so if you miss it, you had better make that right turn out, otherwise you kiss the mountain.

My point here is that you could make a Salmon River run through the Rockies from there down to Boise, or east to Butte. But it's a very scenic run through the mountains there.

.. And it beats going to an intergalactic spaceport. 

BL.

Figured I'd jump in and throw another topic up for discussion here. The concept of how to solicit and apply visual separation. Unfortunately, throughout the process of flying under the control of a number of facilities as well as training controllers within my own, I've found that visual separation is a often misunderstood and misapplied concept. Key examples of this include, but are not limited to:

• Attempting to apply visual separation in the flight levels

First, in order to establish some definitions, let's look at 7110.65 7-2-1, which states:

Quote from: JO 7110.65X 7-2-1 a. (Terminal) and b. (Enroute)

Visual separation may be used up to but not including FL 180

Yep. Can't use it in Class A airspace. Have to have lateral, vertical, and/or wake turbulence separation. no exceptions.

Great post here, Dhruv, and one that definitely needs to be either pinned here or taught as a refresher to each individual sector (not that the instructors at those sectors don't do a great job; but just as a reminder of what we at the TRACON and En Route facilities can use as a tool).

However, while I know this answer, I would love to see how you would extend this to any VFR-on-top operations, where they can operate at FL+500ft. I know that for the most, the same lateral/horizontal/wake separation standards would still apply, but the +500ft throws that off a lot of people's games when it comes to Class A airspace.

For example. Say you have 3 aircraft that are laterally separated but geographically converging at a given point. One is VFR at 17500, one descending through FL180, and one VFR on top at 18500. Here you would be applying different methods of separation, including visual. How would you think that should be handled?

BL.

Like with the others are saying here, you're looking at a cascading effect with what you are looking for.

That said, I'm in the same boat as you:

Gigabyte GA-Z77N-WIFI Mini-ITX motherboard
8GB DDR3 PC16000 memory
Intel Core i5-3570K CPU
Sapphire AMD Radeon R9 290 3GB PCIe video card

If I were to upgrade the motherboard, like you are considering, that may require a CPU AND a memory upgrade. Most have jumped from DDR3 to DDR4 memory, so if you find a motherboard that doesn't, you would be okay as far as that goes. Otherwise, you'll be looking to buy the same amount of memory you already have again. Also, depending on the motherboard and everything else you have, you could be looking at a PSU upgrade as well, so it all will start to add up..

Right now, there isn't that much that has changed as far as the sims go, so you should be plenty fine with where you're at. I mean, I'm running P3D 4.2 with a fair amount of sceneries without any problems (Flightbeam, FSDT, and 1 or 2 from Imaginesim, only 2 real payware aircraft - FeelThere and Virtualcol, Nav data from FSTramp and Navigraph, ActiveSky), and am getting smooth framerates throughout.

The Core i5 was released in Q2 2012, so for it coming up n 6 years old, it's fairly resilient. I only went with it as I could easily turn this box into a Hackintosh by simply doing a reinstall of OS X, as it worked with a Core i3 I was mucking around with. But it's a workhorse. Is it worth it? unless there is some seriously major software update/release that would require it, I'd say to stick with what you have. it won't be any slower than what you currently have unless aforementioned update happens.

BL.

Shortcuts don’t need to be APREQ’d unless they’re a direct violation of an SOP/LOA. I can guarantee you that ZMP10 doesn’t call every sector between themselves and MLP before issuing it to a MSP-SEA flight.

BL, if ZLC wants to send a guy from over BCE Direct HEC or HAKMN for the RIIVR or ANJLL STAR, would you expect it to be APREQ’d? I’d understand if they wanted to send a guy direct GRAMM or ANJLL then it’d be a different issue, but further out than that the expectation in the field is generally that amendment of the route string constitutes coordination.

I’ve personally been Cleared Direct SBJ from just east of SBN landing KTEB before, even though there’s not a snowball’s chance in Hades that it’ll stick. And lo and behold, you get onto a ZOB or ZNY frequency, and without fail you’ll hear “I have routing to KTEB, Advise when ready to copy.”

There’s really no need to get wrapped around the axle about this. Issue shortcuts that aren’t going to be stupid. I’ll happily clear direct HEC/MVA/OAL/MLP/etc. from halfway across the country, but wouldn’t even consider issuing direct GRAMM/CEDES/ANJLL/whatever. Conversely, if I get an airplane into my airspace that I need to put on an LOA compliant routing, I will do so or a reasonable approximation thereof that I can coordinate.

I don't expect the APREQ you're asking about, because what you're asking for is directly on the routing/airway that they already filed. But if I have an aircraft that is taking the southern route from LAX to JFK before cutting up north, there's the chance that I can create that shortcut by taking them directly to a point on that northward routing, I could give them that, bypassing the route that they've filed and saving them fuel the entire time.

What we don't know is how traffic will be in the sector having the fix or waypoint that we are clearing them to, hence the APREQ with the appropriate sectors so they know what to expect from an aircraft coming to them further along their route than they would expect them. So in this sense, I'm not using any APREQ to get their approval for clearing the aircraft on a shortcut; I'm using APREQ as a heads up, saying "You're having this aircraft coming to you direct this waypoint. If you'd like them re-routed, re-route them, otherwise, you'll need to factor it into your flows."

BL.

Quote from: Brad Littlejohn on March 18, 2018, 11:53:33 PM

Makes me wonder how they would handle something like SFO or MKE, where you can have a single taxiway intersecting 2 active runways. If you tell someone, for example, at MKE, to get to 1L by saying "Runway 1L, taxi via J, H, K, T, R, hold short of runway 1R", would that still effectively give them permission to cross 31R? Or would ATC have to add in a "hold short runway 1R, hold short runway 31" and soak up more air time to handle the ambiguity?

BL.

In paragraph a, you as the controllers are required to issue the hold short instructions: "If it is the intent to hold the
aircraft/vehicle short of" a runway. If you don't INTEND to actually hold them short, (like you're just waiting for the first crossing to complete) then you don't have to give the hold short instruction for the second runway.

I understand that completely. However, the problem that we have here is when you have an taxiway that crosses two active runways, and those runways intersect eachother. if the controller tells a pilot to hold short of one runway, does it still effectively give them permission to cross the other runway, especially if they intersect at the same location?

Again, reference KMKE: http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1803/00262AD.PDF

Runway 1R/19L, 13/31, and taxiway K all intersect at the same place. By this change, would you effectively have to tell the pilot to hold short of both runways, as it now specifically states that they must get permission to cross any runway on the way to their assigned runway, let alone must explicitly be given a hold short instruction for each of those runways that need to be crossed?

BL.

Just going to add this in as this should pretty much be common knowledge for all of us.

This is where sequencing at the Ground/LCL lvel comes in. If given the MIT via TMU from adjacent sectors, the LCL controller, especially the Ground controller can create that MIT by sequencing flights not going to the sector hosting the FNO between those that do. if that can't be done at the GND level in time, intersection departures would create that as well. For example, if SFO hosts the FNO, and I have 6 flights that are heading up that way, instead of holding up the entire conga line, I'll pull a LAS or SLC-bound aircraft(s) out of the line, TIPH them at an intersection, launch them, then get the next SFO-bound aircraft out. That artificially creates that MIT, without having to manage it by airspeed further along the higher positions. That's one way to properly get that MIT spacing at least from 1 - 3 different airports.

Another suggestion: Could TMU be used for Call-for-Release procedures? I'm not talking in getting the release from the TRACON, but in particular for the featured airport for FNO, could the local controller not only get the release from the TRACON (for the TRACON's airspace), but for the release for the aircraft going to the FNO airport and get the window for their departure? Sorta like combining metering with calling up for oceanic clearance, and getting the expected window for when they should reach the sector in question.

I'm trying to brush up again on all of the call-for-release procedures, so my memory is a bit rusty there.

BL.