Discussion about sector IDs

[Daniel Hawton]

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.

[Jonathan Voss]

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.

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.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

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.

[Daniel Hawton]

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.

[Daniel Hawton]

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.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

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.

[Jonathan Voss]

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.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

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?

[Daniel Hawton]

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.

[Daniel Hawton]

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.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

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.

[Daniel Hawton]

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

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.

[Jonathan Voss]

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.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

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

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."

[Matthew Kosmoski]

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.