Discussion about sector IDs

[Matthew Kosmoski]

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.

Point and click or not, it's the left-most value in the controller list the clients.

[Daniel Hawton]

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.

Not speaking of personal workload... Speaking of virtual workload. It shouldn't take more than a couple minutes to update facility data. Again, been there done that.

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.

Many post directly to this forum, vatsim forums, their forums, etc.  Some do, but that's their fault when pilots contact the wrong controller. As I've said several times, refusal to send a contact me during splits is neither an argument for or against callsign one way or another. You keep using the B3 excuse, but that's all it is... An excuse. Pilots calling the wrong controller when the controller refuses to do a contact me... I haven't met any that won't during events... The ones that often don't don't do so when they're the only ones on.

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.

They aren't? Do you know what we do behind the scenes? I've opened up VATUSA so you don't have to register at all. If you have a valid account with vatsim you can log in and post here. I've even created a subforum for pilots looking for others "come fly with me". So again, you're misrepresenting the truth. I personally opened it up and removed the concept of "registration". And it's been that way since a few months after I took over in 2015.

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.

They were an answer when the airspace was simpler. When planes left and flew nothing but ground based navigational aid airways. But that's not the case, and things are getting even more complex creating a far more complex piece of airspace.

[Daniel Hawton]

Matthew, you seem to do a lot of speaking for VATUSA staff without seeming to know what exactly we do. It's not appreciated. This entire thread is littered with incorrect assumptions on what VATUSA does and doesn't do. You say we're disconnected, but maybe it's because you're only seeing what you want to see rather than how much we bust our humps to make this place better than we found it and try and ensure everyone enjoys this hobby.. not everyone is going to be happy about everything we do.. but that's the nature of working at a higher level with a lot of individuals.

[Kyle Kaestner]

First off, if have stated something that has already been brought up, just let me know because of the rapid responses to this thread. I personally don't really believe in the N/E/S/W idea. It serves a purpose, yes, but also there are much more sector splits in sophisticated TRACONS that can't be described with just directions. For example, how would you describe many of the Satellite sectors. If east Satellite of St. Louis has a STARS id of "Z" how would you even go about describing that in a controllers call sign. Along with Center, I think having actual numeral sector Id's is the best policy. Here at ZKC, we take multiple real sectors, combine them into one, and take one of the ID's (Picture Below). If I were to just make my call sign KC_W_CTR there is no way a pilot would know where that sector begins and ends. The ATIS maker is still probably the best tool we can use to get the information to the pilots. If they don't use the ATIS maker info. that's on the pilot. As stated above by someone, how does a pilot know how to find the right frequency in an event? I think the use of a pilot briefing is the best way. If you click Here, you can see that we have laid out all of the possible staffed positions for a particular FNO, and their frequencies. I know this doesn't actually provide a visual of the airspace split but it's a starting point. Each ARTCC could provide a Pilot airspace visual on their website, but who says every pilot will go there and search for such information.

Thoughts?

Center splits for FL240 and below:

[Jonathan Voss]

Thank you Kyle, for providing some context.

From the other view point it seems there is east/west split anyways. Therefore, for the sake of argument, what would be the difference between 41/84 and E/W? The pilot would not know the boundary of 41 or 84 either. If I was flying in from CVG, it would be easy to determine that I need to talk to E versus 84.

Just to be clear once again, I am not saying controller should change their IDs within the VRC, vSTARS etc. Merely the textual callsign. Additionally, directional callsigns are only one example. While that is my personal opinion, I would be happy to advocate for a USA-wide standard, whether it be sector IDs, directionals, or some other meaningful combination.

It is the lack of consistency overall that causes the most confusion.

[Daniel Hawton]

JV, if the division were to implement it, we would get facilities that further complain that VATUSA is micromanaging. It's a ridiculous thing to have this long of a discussion about. If it were discussed, I'd vote against the division being involved and leave it to the facilities to manage. Some will want it one way, and others another. Because it isn't detrimental to the running of the network and experience ... There's no reason for a policy. My view and what I'd say if a policy were discussed.

If you guys saw the staff forums and how many people want so many different things in different ways ... You'd know exactly what I'm talking about.

It wouldn't work and one side will be angry. And what would it accomplish? More will be angered and leave than would be helped.

[Wesley Miles]

Because it isn't detrimental to the running of the network and experience ... There's no reason for a policy.

My thoughts exactly.  Each side of this debate brings pros and cons.  If you want to standardize and make policy about everything, you'll have a war on your hands.  You just can't please everyone.  It's like raising kids: to stay sane, you pick your battles-- determine what's critical or essential and focus on those items.  I'd say this division operates pretty smoothly for its size.  And in my experience, those who ask for policy typically regret the result.

[Jonathan Voss]

JV, if the division were to implement it, we would get facilities that further complain that VATUSA is micromanaging. It's a ridiculous thing to have this long of a discussion about. If it were discussed, I'd vote against the division being involved and leave it to the facilities to manage. Some will want it one way, and others another. Because it isn't detrimental to the running of the network and experience ... There's no reason for a policy. My view and what I'd say if a policy were discussed.

If you guys saw the staff forums and how many people want so many different things in different ways ... You'd know exactly what I'm talking about.

It wouldn't work and one side will be angry. And what would it accomplish? More will be angered and leave than would be helped.

Mr. Hawton, I understand, you have stated this several times.

Is it possible to move on from this one minute part of the argument? The conversation has become quite circular between us and I do appreciate others having an opportunity to discuss.

The thread is not necessarily about regulation. It is a thought experiment on the usefulness of placing the sector ID in the textual callsign.

 

[Wesley Miles]

It is a thought experiment on the usefulness of placing the sector ID in the textual callsign.

Excellent!  Thanks for keeping us thinking Jonathan!  I say we lock this thread-- it's served its purpose!  Bottoms up!

[Jonathan Voss]

Wesley, I would unfortunately agree. I had hoped for a meaningful and professional discussion.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

It is a thought experiment on the usefulness of placing the sector ID in the textual callsign.

Excellent!  Thanks for keeping us thinking Jonathan!  I say we lock this thread-- it's served its purpose!  Bottoms up!

I can understand the sentiment, but what purpose does locking serve other than to cease potential future input?

stop with the insults Matthew. If you're unable to have a discussion without insulting, then don't. -AW

Nobody is mandating you read or participate.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

Plus, I'm on mobile, on the road, preparing for a hurricane. I'd love the opportunity to actually respond to earlier posts instead of having to miss out due to an impending natural disaster.

[Daniel Hawton]

JV, if the division were to implement it, we would get facilities that further complain that VATUSA is micromanaging. It's a ridiculous thing to have this long of a discussion about. If it were discussed, I'd vote against the division being involved and leave it to the facilities to manage. Some will want it one way, and others another. Because it isn't detrimental to the running of the network and experience ... There's no reason for a policy. My view and what I'd say if a policy were discussed.

If you guys saw the staff forums and how many people want so many different things in different ways ... You'd know exactly what I'm talking about.

It wouldn't work and one side will be angry. And what would it accomplish? More will be angered and leave than would be helped.

Mr. Hawton, I understand, you have stated this several times.

Is it possible to move on from this one minute part of the argument? The conversation has become quite circular between us and I do appreciate others having an opportunity to discuss.

You bright it back up saying you would advocate for a standard across the division. So I stated again why it wouldn't/shouldn't happen.

[Wesley Miles]

Actually, Don's a pretty mean boss and has mandated that we stay active in the forums.  This means I check for new posts.  New posts, such as yours and others in here that provide great insight and food for thought.  But as with any thread, it reaches a point where it becomes moot and as someone put it "a broken record".  Guess what... I think we're there.  Even this post I type now is not contributing in any way to the original, thought-inspiring discussion.  The points have been made, let's try to salvage what's left and use it to possibly spark discussion at the ARTCC level.

I just don't see it getting any more productive... thus my proposal to lock it.  Besides, the drinking game I've been playing reading this thread has started yielding results.   

[Daniel Hawton]

Agreed.. it has run its course. There have been enough examples from both sides to prove that there is no one size fits all solution here.