Discussion about sector IDs

[Daniel Hawton]

The best place for it is: controller info, contact mes, and websites.

A lot of these websites are outdated... I know of a at least a few that have position lists that wildly do not match their SOP.

All of these arguments make no difference between whether there is an ID in their callsign or not...

Some of them are down right confusing in approach airspace where an _F_ controller likely has nothing to do with finals. Additionally _E_ and _W_ may not even remotely correlate to East/West adding to the confusion.

From years of first hand experience myself, I can tell you to this day that pilots still pay attention to this.

Then contact the webmaster and request they be updated.  There's no reason the two should contradict.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

The best place for it is: controller info, contact mes, and websites.

A lot of these websites are outdated... I know of a at least a few that have position lists that wildly do not match their SOP.

All of these arguments make no difference between whether there is an ID in their callsign or not...

Some of them are down right confusing in approach airspace where an _F_ controller likely has nothing to do with finals. Additionally _E_ and _W_ may not even remotely correlate to East/West adding to the confusion.

From years of first hand experience myself, I can tell you to this day that pilots still pay attention to this.

Then contact the webmaster and request they be updated.  There's no reason the two should contradict.

I can think of at least one where the issue has been raised repeatedly due to the conflict in authoritative information, yet it's been ignored because the controller documentation is all they want to maintain... which notably isn't pilot information.  Nor should we expect that pilots have to crawl the web to that many repositories of information to reasonably fly on the network.

[Daniel Hawton]

Helping pilots "guess correctly" doesn't change whether whether they use numbers or letters.

It does for me.  I suspect it does for other pilots as well.  But as long as you refuse to believe that, there is nothing more to discuss because it is the one point central to the disagreement.

That's the crux of the issue we're having in this discussion with Daniel, too.  Our own experiences (and discussions with others) are invalid whereas his own are the word.

Given that VATUSA staff is supposed to be representing us and working for us, as members of VATUSA, I am disappointed with that position.

If you don't think I fight for VATUSA, then you don't know anything about me.....

I am not saying you HAVE to use Sector IDs.. I've provided PLENTY of examples where they are and have been extremely helpful.  And you've ignored every single one while you slide in underhanded insults.

Sector IDs keep sectors standard at all times, whether an event or not.  It's helpful for controllers and for its neighbors.  Keeping standards help pilots who become familiar with the airspace to make it predictable.  Compress Rose points were confusing and very limiting for proper event handling.  They didn't follow departure or arrival procedures.. and severely tied hands of the ECs in the facilities that had them.  That's my piece.. take it as you will.

[Daniel Hawton]

The best place for it is: controller info, contact mes, and websites.

A lot of these websites are outdated... I know of a at least a few that have position lists that wildly do not match their SOP.

All of these arguments make no difference between whether there is an ID in their callsign or not...

Some of them are down right confusing in approach airspace where an _F_ controller likely has nothing to do with finals. Additionally _E_ and _W_ may not even remotely correlate to East/West adding to the confusion.

From years of first hand experience myself, I can tell you to this day that pilots still pay attention to this.

Then contact the webmaster and request they be updated.  There's no reason the two should contradict.

I can think of at least one where the issue has been raised repeatedly due to the conflict in authoritative information, yet it's been ignored because the controller documentation is all they want to maintain... which notably isn't pilot information.  Nor should we expect that pilots have to crawl the web to that many repositories of information to reasonably fly on the network.

It's not an expectation, but it's still helpful to have that information available.  If the information is incorrect, and they don't want to update it, please pass it up to through the chain of command.  Information made public shouldn't be incorrect, there's no valid reason for it.  In fact, feel free to contact me if you don't feel the chain of command will address it and I will make sure it gets addressed and corrected.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

Helping pilots "guess correctly" doesn't change whether whether they use numbers or letters.

It does for me.  I suspect it does for other pilots as well.  But as long as you refuse to believe that, there is nothing more to discuss because it is the one point central to the disagreement.

That's the crux of the issue we're having in this discussion with Daniel, too.  Our own experiences (and discussions with others) are invalid whereas his own are the word.

Given that VATUSA staff is supposed to be representing us and working for us, as members of VATUSA, I am disappointed with that position.

If you don't think I fight for VATUSA, then you don't know anything about me.....

I am not saying you HAVE to use Sector IDs.. I've provided PLENTY of examples where they are and have been extremely helpful.  And you've ignored every single one while you slide in underhanded insults.

Sector IDs keep sectors standard at all times, whether an event or not.  It's helpful for controllers and for its neighbors.  Keeping standards help pilots who become familiar with the airspace to make it predictable.  Compress Rose points were confusing and very limiting for proper event handling.  They didn't follow departure or arrival procedures.. and severely tied hands of the ECs in the facilities that had them.  That's my piece.. take it as you will.

Nobody is arguing the value of sector IDs for controlling.  We're only trying to state the fact that the radio callsigns and the sectors being worked don't have to be typed in the same when you connect to the network.

[Daniel Hawton]

Nobody is arguing the value of sector IDs for controlling.  We're only trying to state the fact that the radio callsigns and the sectors being worked don't have to be typed in the same when you connect to the network.

Which adds to more confusions for the controllers... and more non-standard information (and more information to remember).  HOU_E_CTR working 10 14 15 16 and HOU_S_CTR working sectors on the east side while E has a little channel for arrivals.  That's just as unhelpful to everyone.

In fact, your initial argument was about sector IDs... not connections.

Regarding the founders trying to ensure ease of access:  I know that, you know that, but we see a trend of making it difficult for people "not in the know."  For example, sector naming.  How do I know if X, Y, or Z approach is North, West, or East?  Or if 12, 21, 14, or 41 center is high/low, east/west, etc?  I've heard controllers get mad at (and yell at -- there's too much yelling on this network these days) pilots for not knowing their internal symbology and nomenclature.  It's a bit ridiculous.

[Jonathan Voss]

Which adds to more confusions for the controllers... and more non-standard information (and more information to remember).  HOU_E_CTR working 10 14 15 16 and HOU_S_CTR working sectors on the east side while E has a little channel for arrivals.  That's just as unhelpful to everyone.

The text callsign makes no difference here at all.

Once again, the argument is not to change how anything is operationally done, adjust sector boundaries, or even limit the number of sectors. It changes nothing with adjacent controllers, their use of radar IDs, etc. All of this information is available on the controller list, so any particular callsign is irrelevant anyways.

We are just talking about the callsign used log into the network and perhaps standardizing on something more meaningful to the pilots we are supposed to serve. References to the past were merely that they were more descriptive.

I think everyone is well aware of your position on it, although you may not fully understand the other position being taken. I would like to hear more opinions on the matter besides re-iterating the same points over and over.

[Daniel Hawton]

Which adds to more confusions for the controllers... and more non-standard information (and more information to remember).  HOU_E_CTR working 10 14 15 16 and HOU_S_CTR working sectors on the east side while E has a little channel for arrivals.  That's just as unhelpful to everyone.

The text callsign makes no difference here at all.

Once again, the argument is not to change how anything is operationally done, adjust sector boundaries, or even limit the number of sectors. It changes nothing with adjacent controllers, their use of radar IDs, etc. All of this information is available on the controller list, so any particular callsign is irrelevant anyways.

We are just talking about the callsign used log into the network and perhaps standardizing on something more meaningful to the pilots we are supposed to serve. References to the past were merely that they were more descriptive.

I think everyone is well aware of your position on it, although you may not fully understand the other position being taken. I would like to hear more opinions on the matter besides re-iterating the same points over and over.

See my above post... the initial argument was sector naming.. not callsign.  I understand your position all to well, and I heavily disagree.  Say you have 3 people working different splits in the east, then what? E1/E2/E3?  Compass Rose naming doesn't help, and confuses things for the controllers.  Again, see my above post.

[Jonathan Voss]

See my above post... the initial argument was sector naming.. not callsign.  I understand your position all to well, and I heavily disagree.  Say you have 3 people working different splits in the east, then what? E1/E2/E3?  Compass Rose naming doesn't help, and confuses things for the controllers.  Again, see my above post.

The initial argument has always been about the callsigns. I'm sorry that you misunderstood that.

Again, I'm not proposing to have all the answers to a different naming scheme but if you are going to have an east three way east split: NE, E, and SE may work. I do not feel this would add more confusion and if anything helps other controllers, especially visiting, in the same way it would help pilots.

You are certainly entitled your opinion. Please understand others may disagree with you and apparently do in this case.

[Daniel Hawton]

See my above post... the initial argument was sector naming.. not callsign.  I understand your position all to well, and I heavily disagree.  Say you have 3 people working different splits in the east, then what? E1/E2/E3?  Compass Rose naming doesn't help, and confuses things for the controllers.  Again, see my above post.

The initial argument has always been about the callsigns. I'm sorry that you misunderstood that.

Again, I'm not proposing to have all the answers to a different naming scheme but if you are going to have an east three way east split: NE, E, and SE may work. I do not feel this would add more confusion and if anything helps other controllers, especially visiting, in the same way it would help pilots.

You are certainly entitled your opinion. Please understand others may disagree with you and apparently do in this case.

And if they aren't really NE E SE?  Keep in mind others may disagree with you as well. I've dealt with stupid naming conventions before and, for a reason, moved ZJX into a realistic system that showed for flexibility. Locking positions down into arbitrary making takes out mid event sector splits and combinations as well.

In reality, nothing can compare to appropriate, accurate pubic information, redirecting lost pilots, a descriptive controller info and using contact me messages when splits are happening.

Keep in mind, some may and do disagree with you. I've been active in this network long enough to have seen the old systems morph into the systems you see today. It's not new, it happened years ago. This doesn't mean you two can launch underhanded insults because you and I disagree.

[Jonathan Voss]

Keep in mind, some may and do disagree with you. I've been active in this network long enough to have seen the old systems morph into the systems you see today. It's not new, it happened years ago. This doesn't mean you two can launch underhanded insults because you and I disagree.

I certainly understand people may disagree with me, you certainly do. I have been nothing but professional with you despite condescending undertones from all of your replies directed at me. I too have been on this network long enough to witness all of the morphing you are referencing. However I do not think that makes my opinion any more valuable than the next.

I am sorry we do not agree on this, however, accusing me of insulting you because of it is unacceptable. May we allow others to voice their opinion?

[Ryan Parry]

Given that VATUSA staff is supposed to be representing us and working for us, as members of VATUSA, I am disappointed with that position.

I'm not, I support it actually..

We are just talking about the callsign used log into the network and perhaps standardizing on something more meaningful to the pilots we are supposed to serve. References to the past were merely that they were more descriptive.

I completely disagree with this sort of thinking. This isn't a network for just pilots, it is a network for aviation enthusiasts who enjoy flying and/or controlling. Plenty of people control and do not fly. Why should everything be about the pilots? Why can't a controller have their fun too? Why can't they be immersed in realism too? The thing about this network is it is about balance and making it fun for everybody, not one group.

A sector ID is a very trivial thing to be upset about, much less start a big debate over. We will be using sector ID's at ZOA for our upcoming Center resectorization. Our current system is OAK_A_CTR, OAK_B_CTR, and OAK_C_CTR, and those have existed since before I was even on the network. Does A, B, C tell you what is what? No, but it has never been an issue.

Changing to numerical ID's isn't my choice, that's what my controllers want, it's part of the fun for them, and my goal as ATM is making it fun for ZOA members as well as the pilots. If sector ID's help them have fun and feel immersed, then fine so be it, so long as they follow my one request (policy, actually) to ensure the controller info is filled out indicating the region and altitudes they control. They get to have their fun, pilots will have an easier time figuring out who is who, everybody wins.

There is nothing hard about right clicking and viewing the controller info to see who you need to contact. It can be done inside all of the pilot clients, it can be done on all of the traffic applications such as Vattastic, Vatspy, etc. That is why that function exists to begin with, to provide information about the controller. I don't see the logic in telling controllers they can't use a number as the sector ID because a pilot is too lazy to do proper, simple, research before a flight. Heck, even if the info isn't available, what's wrong with taking a guess and asking?  Any good controller will have no problem directing them to the right frequency. Just to further prove there is nothing wrong with asking, it is written in the PRC to do so if you are unsure if the controller is working your departure airport.

[Jonathan Voss]

That is a very valid view point and I appreciate your input. The lack of a USA wide standard can certainly make it more confusing for users. Even if the standard was to use sector IDs at least we would all be doing similar things.

To Matthew's point - there have been many times where controllers have been frustrated or angry because pilots have called the wrong controller as if they should know better. However, this most certainly a training issue.

It can be a little difficult to check the controller information of a whole list of controllers which is one of the difficulties I was expressing. It is very time consuming and often does not mention the area they are providing services for. If your ARTCC has that as a procedure, than many kudos from me.

To play devil's advocate, having to research every ARTCC's website for sector IDs before or during a flight is pretty cumbersome and often outdated if it is even listed but this point has been brought up before.

At any rate, making changes because your controllers are asking for it is a sign of a great ATM and I can support that!

[Daniel Hawton]

To play devil's advocate, having to research every ARTCC's website for sector IDs before or during a flight is pretty cumbersome and often outdated if it is even listed but this point has been brought up before.

At any rate, making changes because your controllers are asking for it is a sign of a great ATM and I can support that!

As I've said before, take it up with the chain of command to fix the website. There's no legitimate reason for it to not be public and accurate.

Researching before and during seems common on a good chunk of the network. Ever flown through VATUK or VATGER?  Good luck doing that without researching and some them also don't use controller info to help you out.. because it's normal to research the flight across the pond.

As far as controllers yelling at pilots, it keeps being brought up. That is neither an argument for or against using sector IDs. The only thing that means is the controller needs to be spoken to. It's not sectors causing it, as there are plenty of examples of actions where controllers yell at pilots, sadly. There isn't a reason for it and it shouldn't happen..

Well I'd love to have a division standard, this thread is a perfect reason why I'd never ask for one or expect a discussion for one. Each side will get angry.

[Jonathan Voss]

Some ARTCCs do not publish this information readily available on the website. It is often not be possible to do the research before the flight in this case. At that point it seems like we go back to forgetting what the pilots may care about in terms of their realism.

It is a difficult balance, I certainly agree with Mr. Parry on that.

I personally have not had one bad experience in VATUK or VATGER. They may have a little different procedures however the charts do a fine job of explaining them. The controllers there have been exceptionally professional working with pilots I have heard on frequency unfamiliar with their procedures. If they had a more identifiable text callsign, I am sure it would help as well.

Well I'd love to have a division standard, this thread is a perfect reason why I'd never ask for one or expect a discussion for one. Each side will get angry.

From my command experience, this is every change. I will not speak for the others, however, I am certainly not angry.