FSS/Flight Watch

[Matthew Ballew]

I really would like to see FSS/Flight Watch Controllers. It would be easy to accomplish, and provide an amazing service to pilots.

[Michael Mund-Hoym]

What service would they be providing VATSIM pilots? Same as in the world (opening and closing VFR flight plans, providing weather information, etc.) or did you have other or further tasks in mind?

[Matthew Ballew]

What service would they be providing VATSIM pilots? Same as in the world (opening and closing VFR flight plans, providing weather information, etc.) or did you have other or further tasks in mind?

FSS Staffers Would have the normal duties of an FSS control, plus that of Flight Watch. They will have access to a radar screen in order to assist in determining the exact location of an aircraft. However they would not provide vectors out of severe weather.

FSS may choose to serve an entire ARTCC, or just one FSS. For example, in ZKC there are the McAlester FSS, Jonesboro FSS, Columbia FSS, Wichita FSS, and StLouis FSS. During busy times in ZKC, an FSS Staffer may only service Columbia, Wichita and StLouis FSS. During less busy times, an FSS staffer may service the entire ARTCC. Staffers may share service, even if they are operating the same FSS.

Comms are not easily set up for this type of situation. Some VORS have two-way comms, on a different frequency, some receive on the standard 122.1 and transmit on another, some receive and transmit completely differently. I know that vPilot supports transmitting on one frequency, and monitoring another. I also know you can listen in VRC to multiple freq. and alternate your transmissions. Staffers could even log in, and not appear as a new controller, instead listening on all or just a few VORS, waiting to respond. Or, you could opt for a more simple system, one where all pilots transmit on 122.1, but listen in on their closest accepted VOR, which would be listed in the controllers information. This would assist the staffer in determining the aircrafts location, while assisting in keeping things simple.

I am testing some of my theories on VATSIM right now, Ill get back to you.

[Matthew Ballew]

I just tested the following setup on VATSIM with a supervisors approval. I am only an S1, so I am sure there are other ways to accomplish this.

Since I am an S1 I could not select FSS under the position type, thusly I was logged in a MCI_TEST_DEL with a range of 600NM

Primed and Receiving to my Headset on 122.100

Receiving to my headset on 112.4, Columbus FSS-Pawnee City VOR

With the help of a friendly pilot, we were able to determine that  with some switching of primed freq I was able to receive from the pilot on 122.1, and respond on 112.4. However this system would be troublesome to setup and manage, so I propose using just one frequency for two way radio communication. Additional and easier circumstances likely exist for C1+ rated controllers. FSS should be possible, and I think would be an amazing addition to VATSIM.

[Wygene Chong]

Hi Matt,

I'm not sure if Flight Service Stations function in the USA the same way that they do in Northern Europe, but essentially my understanding is that they provide traffic, weather and aeronautical information to pilots. They are usually present in remote areas where a control service is not available due to lack of radar or traffic etc...

If it is the same concept, then FSS is certainly implemented on VATSIM. One of the largest is Søndrestrøm Information in Greenland (BGGL_FSS), which provides the enroute flight information, as well as covering every airport in Greenland top down with an "aerodrome flight information service" (AFIS). For added service, it also covers the capital airport BGSF with a radar control service as is the case in real life. In terms of frequencies, there is only one frequency used, and pilots are expected to contact BGGL_FSS prior to engine start-up regardless of whether the airport is controlled or uncontrolled. In a way, it operates a bit like a nationwide UNICOM frequency with an AFIS officer overseeing the operations. Pilots are expected to request startup, push, taxi, takeoff and landing from BGGL_FSS, as well as reporting their position enroute every 20 minutes or so. BGGL will never expressly deny permission to do something, but will pass relevant information e.g. "GRL123, traffic is Air Iceland Dash 8 landing runway 17, taxi to and backtrack the runway at your discretion, report ready for departure." Pilot Reply: "Søndrestrøm Information, thanks we have the Air Iceland in sight, will taxi and backtrack runway 17 after they have landed, GRL123."

More info in the Guide to Greenland: http://vatsim-scandinavia.org/pilots/airports/iceland/

NB. Above FL195 in Greenland it is in fact Icelandic airspace (BIRD/BICC) so ignore that added complexity

[Camden Bruno]

Had this discussion a while back on the Boston forums, not too many people were into it.

http://forums.bvartcc.com/index.php?topic=12053.msg80847#msg80847

[Ryan Parry]

Problem is, if I am a C1 and I am signed in, I am controlling and not playing with VFR guys (which we don't see many of on the network outside of certain areas). More can be accomplished for pilots on an enroute position than it can on an FSS position like this imo.

[Wygene Chong]

Thanks for the link Camden, looks like it's a VFR-centric position in the USA. For the Greenland BGGL_FSS, there actually is no CTR available below FL195, so the FSS is serving both IFR and VFR traffic which can be quite busy.

[Wesley Miles]

• With the amount of traffic you'd be talking to, it's literally not worth the time
• Most of the job of FSS is relaying clearances and information... all of which would be available by talking directly to the CTR
• With the low staffing numbers at many ARTCCs (including ZKC), as a staff member and fellow network user, I'd like to see what limited resources we DO have go toward a more active role providing a higher level of service to the pilots

[Josh Glottmann]

Although it might be interesting to see, I don't think there is nearly enough demand for this position in one specific area. I believe in order to have a sufficient need for it, it would have to cover a handful of FSSs (inter-ARTCC).

[Matthew Ballew]

I am on a tablet, so this is going to be brief 

I started this conversation because I saw most of Europe had FSS online. To my surprise however these controllers did not provide the services I was expexting.

As to the demand of FSS, although not great, I think it would be appreciated by actual and student pilots, as well as attract more VFR pilots. I as a controller would love to see VFR traffic, and would appreciate the practice.

Perhaps are larger combined FSS would assist in providing as much coverage with as little controller expenditure as possible.

Overall I think this is possible, and would be beneficial to pilots and controllers alike. I would like nothing more than to be able to call up the perhaps USA combined FSS and filing my flight plan, as well as receiving my WX brief.

Overall I think FSS would be easy to achieve, academically beneficial, and attract new and perhaps more......professional members

[Ryan Geckler]

Eurocontrol is an actual air traffic unit in Europe, and the real they are logged on as a FSS is to get around some network limitations. They aren't actually a flight service station.

I don't think this proposal brings any substantial value to the division, IMO. We don't have the controlling staff to support this as well as regular operations.

[Don Desfosse]

I would be willing to consider adding an FSS function to the services we provide once all ATC functions in the USA are fully staffed on a daily basis in alignment with RW facility operating hours, and that is sustained over the course of at least 3 months to ensure it's a systemic implementation.  Until then, let's focus on investing our limited volunteer manpower to support our primary mission, Air Traffic Control, where our ATC and pilot members will realize a far better return on investment, not on an advisory service.