Discussion about sector IDs

[Daniel Hawton]

If the division were to, say, implement a policy that you were to use sector IDs many would just like the reverse. It's one thing that, really, the division doesn't need to be involved in.  Would it be beneficial to make a central database on the VATUSA website for it in the same way VATUK and VATGER do?

PS, I wasn't knocking those two. They're examples of FIRs that don't always control entire FIRs and have non-descriptive splits. But their information is well documented. Again, there's no reason it shouldn't be well documented here... Even if it's a simple graphic.

Yes, every change frustrates many people. Some get mad that it's just because it's different.

[Rick Rump]

As someone in change management, you will always have those who resist change Daniel. Unless you can show them that change is beneficial (And even then, you may not catch everyone). The only way to really do change is with input from everyone who would be effected by said change.

I know it has been brought up previously by those in positions of power that they like a system that lets pilots know who covers where (Whether it be the somewhat arbitrary compass directions) or which I have seen other use, diagrams or given lines of demarcation (via for instance J/Qs).

[Matthew Kosmoski]

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

It's kind of hard to take you seriously when you're trying to tell me what I said, or Jon what he said, when he's the one who said it.  The fact that you split the thread removed some context, which perhaps is what led to the confusion.  In fact, the title of the thread is something *you* chose, nobody else in this thread was capable of naming the thread when **YOU** split it.

[Daniel Hawton]

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

It's kind of hard to take you seriously when you're trying to tell me what I said, or Jon what he said, when he's the one who said it.  The fact that you split the thread removed some context, which perhaps is what led to the confusion.  In fact, the title of the thread is something *you* chose, nobody else in this thread was capable of naming the thread when **YOU** split it.

See the quote of your post... where you specifically said "sector naming".  I'll post it again:

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.

It's really hard to have a discussion with you Matthew when you keep going with your underhanded insults and your unwillingness to communicate effectively.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

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

It's kind of hard to take you seriously when you're trying to tell me what I said, or Jon what he said, when he's the one who said it.  The fact that you split the thread removed some context, which perhaps is what led to the confusion.  In fact, the title of the thread is something *you* chose, nobody else in this thread was capable of naming the thread when **YOU** split it.

See the quote of your post... where you specifically said "sector naming".  I'll post it again:

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.

It's really hard to have a discussion with you Matthew when you keep going with your underhanded insults and your unwillingness to communicate effectively.

Daniel-

I've been trying my hardest to adapt my method of communications with you for the duration of this thread.  I've just been unable to find something that both conveys meaning and ultimately does us both justice.  For that, I apologize.  My job is to communicate and document risk and mitigation, and I haven't run in to similar issues in a long time.  I'm typically praised on my effectiveness, but here we're running in to a wall.  As a result, I'm a little frustrated.  Perhaps I'm just not putting in the effort because I don't have to, I don't know.

So, let's take it back to the first post of the thread:

+1 for this statement. It has become a pet peeve of mine, really. As a controller, there is no real reason for these callsigns... I can see exactly which controller has which alpha-numeric ID and the pilot has no use for this information. When flying, it would be tremendously more useful for me to have at least a vague idea of which controller to initially contact when flying in from an uncovered region. Aeronautical charts do not help here either because we do not staff/cover all of the same real world frequencies. I'm not sure when or why this became the norm but I do miss the ol'e E/W, H/L, etc.

As for the few places that still seem to do this, keep it up! You guys rock!

From the get go we've been talking about what is facing the pilot.  That first post conveys that fairly clearly.  Yes, I used the word sector in the post it quoted, but you and I are both intelligent enough to know that the actual sector is invisible and irrelevant to the pilot.  In fact, as you've stated, you should be intimately familiar with that notion given your background.

Why we're getting hung up on minutia is perplexing.  It's as if the minutia is being used to detract from the meat of the discussion.  I don't like it.  It's the kind of thing that doesn't do any of us any good.  The definition of sector is a mundane detail.  The pilots don't know they exist nor do they care.

[Alex Ying]

If I may add my 2 cents, from a TRACON perspective, in a very complex airspace like N90, being able to seamlessly split and combine sectors is very useful. The coverage in N90 is constantly changing with people coming online or logging off and with controllers holding different certifications at the N90 sectors. Having consistent sector names that don't change depending on situation (event or non-event) facilitates this system.

I've never run into an issue with telling a pilot to contact another controller. I've also seen many pilots be proactive and ask who to call. I think the issue of calling the wrong sector initially is a bit overblown, it's not that much work to send them to the right frequency. Additionally, with a system that doesn't change (NY_CAM_APP will always be that, but subsectors RBR_APP can be split off of it) lets pilots learn the system. Eventually, they do know that if I'm flying into Kennedy, I should call CAM.

We actually have a mix of "descriptive" and "cryptic" (from a pilot's perspective) sector names/callsigns at N90. If you saw NY_KEN_DEP, NY_NWK_DEP, NY_LSO_DEP all online, you can probably guess who covers Kennedy, Newark, and Laguardia. That's not so much the case with NY_CAM_APP, NY_ARD_APP, NY_HRP_APP.

Regardless though, Daniel does have a point with his E/W vs 78/83. Say I'm sitting at Teterboro. It's about equally far from Laguardia and Newark. As a pilot, how do I know whether to call NWK or LSO? Knowing the NWK covers Newark and LSO covers Laguardia is absolutely useless to me.

I think that having logon names that represent true sectors is the best policy. CAM for example, is a single sector in N90. When the other Kenendy sectors are not online, it covers them as well. But CAM also refers to a single subsector. You'll never have to change away from the CAM callsign to something else when you do a sector split (say RBR comes online). As long as which subsector is the "primary" when no other subsectors are online is consistent, then the pilots see a consistent ATC presence and can learn the nomenclature. Anyone who's flown into NY with approach online more than a couple times would know that CAM is the Kennedy primary sector.

That's one of the things I think Daniel was talking about with the compass namings. Say you need to split the "E" sector, how do you do so consistently if you don't have other subsectors also already named in the same format? Is seeing "E", "EL", "EH" that much more descriptive for a pilot? As someone who's never controlled ZHU, I for sure wouldn't know who to call if I saw those.

[Reuben Prevost]

This topic seems to have snowballed a bit. While reading this thread it would seem as if we are talking about life and death, but it's really not a big issue at all.

I prefer the sector ID's as opposed to E/W H/L. I find that E/W doesn't really help.

Furthermore, can't you put which airspace you control in your controller atis? Wouldn't it be more detailed (and helpful) to put "I control Houston Center below FLXXX" or "I control Houston Center east of XXXX" in your controller atis, rather than a callsign of HOU_E_CTR?

Just my personal opinion.

[Daniel Hawton]

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

It's kind of hard to take you seriously when you're trying to tell me what I said, or Jon what he said, when he's the one who said it.  The fact that you split the thread removed some context, which perhaps is what led to the confusion.  In fact, the title of the thread is something *you* chose, nobody else in this thread was capable of naming the thread when **YOU** split it.

See the quote of your post... where you specifically said "sector naming".  I'll post it again:

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.

It's really hard to have a discussion with you Matthew when you keep going with your underhanded insults and your unwillingness to communicate effectively.

Daniel-

I've been trying my hardest to adapt my method of communications with you for the duration of this thread.  I've just been unable to find something that both conveys meaning and ultimately does us both justice.  For that, I apologize.  My job is to communicate and document risk and mitigation, and I haven't run in to similar issues in a long time.  I'm typically praised on my effectiveness, but here we're running in to a wall.  As a result, I'm a little frustrated.  Perhaps I'm just not putting in the effort because I don't have to, I don't know.

This is the third misunderstanding in this very thread alone based solely on word choice.  I can't read your mind.. so I don't know if you're applying the definition of the words or picking something else.  I have to go by what I can read, or not engage at all.  Looking at what was quoted, it is hard to determine you meant callsigns.  And if it was about callsigns, this entire time JV has had the ability to modify his post and title to properly reflect that (since it was cut on his post, that makes this "his" thread).

So, let's take it back to the first post of the thread:

+1 for this statement. It has become a pet peeve of mine, really. As a controller, there is no real reason for these callsigns... I can see exactly which controller has which alpha-numeric ID and the pilot has no use for this information. When flying, it would be tremendously more useful for me to have at least a vague idea of which controller to initially contact when flying in from an uncovered region. Aeronautical charts do not help here either because we do not staff/cover all of the same real world frequencies. I'm not sure when or why this became the norm but I do miss the ol'e E/W, H/L, etc.

As for the few places that still seem to do this, keep it up! You guys rock!

From the get go we've been talking about what is facing the pilot.  That first post conveys that fairly clearly.  Yes, I used the word sector in the post it quoted, but you and I are both intelligent enough to know that the actual sector is invisible and irrelevant to the pilot.  In fact, as you've stated, you should be intimately familiar with that notion given your background.

Why we're getting hung up on minutia is perplexing.  It's as if the minutia is being used to detract from the meat of the discussion.  I don't like it.  It's the kind of thing that doesn't do any of us any good.  The definition of sector is a mundane detail.  The pilots don't know they exist nor do they care.

The only reason I'm hung up on it now is that the word "call sign" or "callsign" doesn't exist in the original thread.. I cut it where it seemed to make the most sense (since SMF won't let me pick and choose, without an extreme amount of effort, posts, just 1 post or from that post on).  And it was cut to allow this discussion to happen, rather than being a hijacked thread under a CoC B4 discussion.

Now that I know you mean callsigns, I'm going to still stand by what I've stated above... often times sectors don't fit into cardinal directions and prevent the flexibility sector combination and decombination on the fly as necessary for traffic flows through situations such as "E" is now working nothing on the east side but all interior and is now stuck with an "E" in their callsign whereas N is now north and east.

I agree that in real world sectors are invisible to the pilots.. because sectors are all handled by EDST and HOST.  On VATSIM, there is no difference between controller side and pilot side.. the same callsigns are shared between both... so you're not able to effectively do sectors while exposing a changeable callsign to the pilots to reflect the changeable nature of sectors.

[Rick Rump]

Furthermore, can't you put which airspace you control in your controller atis? . . . "I control Houston Center east of XXXX" in your controller atis, rather than a callsign of HOU_E_CTR?

That would require someone reads it. I get people calling me from PHL constantly, in my controller info it clearly says I do not cover PHL.
Though if ZNY would like to trade us PHL for ACY I am game

[Jonathan Voss]

And if it was about callsigns, this entire time JV has had the ability to modify his post and title to properly reflect that (since it was cut on his post, that makes this "his" thread).

I specifically mentioned callsigns in the original posting unless someone else has edited my words, which I would consider most alarming. The title of this thread was not my choice. Additionally, I actively choose not to modify my previous posts to avoid distorting or unfairly representing what others may have said in subsequent postings. In retrospect, this topic most certainly should have started in its own thread, however, who could imagine such a trivial issue would cause such a rage?

If the division were to, say, implement a policy that you were to use sector IDs many would just like the reverse. It's one thing that, really, the division doesn't need to be involved in.

It is unfortunate that the division feels this way. Standardization is one of the reasons for VATUSA to exist in my opinion. A standard would be easier to follow than the numerous conglomerations each individual area wishes to use. It would help pilots and other users have a clearer understanding regardless of whether sector IDs, random letters, or cardinal directions were to be used.

Would it be beneficial to make a central database on the VATUSA website for it in the same way VATUK and VATGER do?

I do not think anyone would disagree that it would not be helpful. Although I would worry it would suffer from becoming outdated rather quickly if there was no accuracy enforcement. I believe the pilot community would be much happier to have a one-stop shop versus mandating researching every individual ARTCC's website with various interface designs and levels of information provided.

Controller textual ATIS can be a great tool. However, remember than when flying into an event there are often numerous controllers within your visibility range covering the same airspace. It can be quite impractical check every single textual ATIS for what vague information may be contained within.

We often look at issues purely from the controller's perspective. It is a worthwhile experiment to think about how it may affect pilots. After all, without them, there would be little reason for any of us to be here. And while I certainly understand the network is more than just the aviators, they often get very little advocation and are immediately brushed off, unfortunately.

We have heard from a few controllers who disagree, I certainly respect their opinion. We have also heard from someone I would consider well in touch with today's sim pilots who agree that callsigns could be far friendlier.

While I understand that cardinal directions may not be the answer, I am, again, not saying that it is. My entire point is that a different methodology for the textual callsign may be more useful. The sector ID itself placed in a textual callsign provides no additional value for controllers if another standard were to exist.

At the end of the day, it is just an option to help users of the system.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

This topic seems to have snowballed a bit. While reading this thread it would seem as if we are talking about life and death, but it's really not a big issue at all.

I prefer the sector ID's as opposed to E/W H/L. I find that E/W doesn't really help.

Furthermore, can't you put which airspace you control in your controller atis? Wouldn't it be more detailed (and helpful) to put "I control Houston Center below FLXXX" or "I control Houston Center east of XXXX" in your controller atis, rather than a callsign of HOU_E_CTR?

Just my personal opinion.

I was talking to Voss about this point earlier, because I do like the ATIS idea and mentioned that before.  There's an issue with it, though:  What happens during large events with 10 TRACON controllers and 6 centers?  Do we expect pilots to pull ATIS on each until they find the right one?  That seems like an unfair expectation to place on the pilot.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

I agree that in real world sectors are invisible to the pilots.. because sectors are all handled by EDST and HOST.  On VATSIM, there is no difference between controller side and pilot side.. the same callsigns are shared between both... so you're not able to effectively do sectors while exposing a changeable callsign to the pilots to reflect the changeable nature of sectors.

I disagree that you can't expose them separately - the POF makes it easy for the client to show sector IDs in the controller list.  I know that 1N is West feeder regardless of their login callsign, in all clients.  Only controllers can see that as only controller clients use the POF.  That leaves the callsign for the pilots.

[Daniel Hawton]

And if it was about callsigns, this entire time JV has had the ability to modify his post and title to properly reflect that (since it was cut on his post, that makes this "his" thread).

I specifically mentioned callsigns in the original posting unless someone else has edited my words, which I would consider most alarming. The title of this thread was not my choice. Additionally, I actively choose not to modify my previous posts to avoid distorting or unfairly representing what others may have said in subsequent postings. In retrospect, this topic most certainly should have started in its own thread, however, who could imagine such a trivial issue would cause such a rage?

Edits are marked. No edits. For the rest, please reread my post you seem to have misunderstood what was written. You could have edited the title if it didn't reflect what you and Matthew intended the conversation to be rather than allowing the miscommunication to last over 5 pages..

If the division were to, say, implement a policy that you were to use sector IDs many would just like the reverse. It's one thing that, really, the division doesn't need to be involved in.

It is unfortunate that the division feels this way. Standardization is one of the reasons for VATUSA to exist in my opinion. A standard would be easier to follow than the numerous conglomerations each individual area wishes to use. It would help pilots and other users have a clearer understanding regardless of whether sector IDs, random letters, or cardinal directions were to be used.

A standard on something as trivial as this is bureaucracy where it doesn't need to be. It removes flexibility Andrew choices from people and attempts to apply a system that may work one place and not others.

Would it be beneficial to make a central database on the VATUSA website for it in the same way VATUK and VATGER do?

I do not think anyone would disagree that it would not be helpful. Although I would worry it would suffer from becoming outdated rather quickly if there was no accuracy enforcement. I believe the pilot community would be much happier to have a one-stop shop versus mandating researching every individual ARTCC's website with various interface designs and levels of information provided.

Facility webmasters are not that busy... Been there, done that. FEs aren't that busy as well.

Controller textual ATIS can be a great tool. However, remember than when flying into an event there are often numerous controllers within your visibility range covering the same airspace. It can be quite impractical check every single textual ATIS for what vague information may be contained within.

ECs should be putting out information, controllers have the ability to send contract mes, and it takes thirty seconds to direct lost pilots. I feel like a broken record.

We often look at issues purely from the controller's perspective. It is a worthwhile experiment to think about how it may affect pilots. After all, without them, there would be little reason for any of us to be here. And while I certainly understand the network is more than just the aviators, they often get very little advocation and are immediately brushed off, unfortunately.

Often the pilots are the only ones looked after across this network. One look at the vatsim forums call debunk what you've just said. This is one example where we let the controllers decide.

We have heard from a few controllers who disagree, I certainly respect their opinion. We have also heard from someone I would consider well in touch with today's sim pilots who agree that callsigns could be far friendlier.

While I understand that cardinal directions may not be the answer, I am, again, not saying that it is. My entire point is that a different methodology for the textual callsign may be more useful. The sector ID itself placed in a textual callsign provides no additional value for controllers if another standard were to exist.

At the end of the day, it is just an option to help users of the system.

I've answered this above. By placing cardinal direction in callsigns you absolutely restrict the ability to reorganize the applied sectors.

There is a reason years ago cardinal directions were left behind. The way the NAS is moving, cardinal directions are not useful. You don't get to use modern procedures and ignore modem application.  And as the NAS continues to evolve, things will still constantly change. Very little airspace these days can be handled by simple cardinal direction splits.

[Daniel Hawton]

I agree that in real world sectors are invisible to the pilots.. because sectors are all handled by EDST and HOST.  On VATSIM, there is no difference between controller side and pilot side.. the same callsigns are shared between both... so you're not able to effectively do sectors while exposing a changeable callsign to the pilots to reflect the changeable nature of sectors.

I disagree that you can't expose them separately - the POF makes it easy for the client to show sector IDs in the controller list.  I know that 1N is West feeder regardless of their login callsign, in all clients.  Only controllers can see that as only controller clients use the POF.  That leaves the callsign for the pilots.

That's a very simplified approach... And not at all accurate. Many point and clickers in VRC will easily lose track of what is what same with the controller list.

In the end, the callsign is the callsign. Controllers don't just see what's in the POF... the rest of the client only sees callsigns.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

Facility webmasters are not that busy... Been there, done that. FEs aren't that busy as well.

To be fair, they're also volunteers.  They make take offense to your assertion of their workload.

ECs should be putting out information, controllers have the ability to send contract mes, and it takes thirty seconds to direct lost pilots. I feel like a broken record.

Where should they put it?  And as we've covered, many controllers refuse to send contact mes, citing B3.  I'm pretty sure I'm the one who should feel like a broken record here.

Often the pilots are the only ones looked after across this network. One look at the vatsim forums call debunk what you've just said. This is one example where we let the controllers decide.

But they're not represented at all here.  You have to join VATUSA, which requires that you register as a controller.  Perhaps VATSIM forums, which actually can represent both, side that direction sometimes for a reason.  Pilots can't even speak up here.

I've answered this above. By placing cardinal direction in callsigns you absolutely restrict the ability to reorganize the applied sectors.

I have to speak up and defend him here:  He didn't say that cardinal directions were the answer, but possibly an answer.