thoughts on radio reception

Keith Smith
Posts: 9939
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Pompton Plains, NJ
Contact:

thoughts on radio reception

Post by Keith Smith »

We have a decision to make regarding the handling of radio reception at some of the remote non-towered airports, outside of TRACON airspace.

I was under the impression, based on remarks in the 'communications' section on airnav.com for some of these airports (KIPL, for example), that the RCAG provides service all the way to ground level (much like an on-field RCO or a GCO). However, Alex found some remarks regarding poor reception below certain altitudes in SOPs that lead me to think otherwise.

That prompted me to look at the whole thing a little more closely, and that's when I realized that if an RCAG is 60nm away from an airport, you really don't have a prayer of picking that up on the ground (with the exception of RCAGs based on top of mountains, such as the one at the JLI VOR). Our system does actually allow us to specify the elevation of a radio transmitter, too, which is helpful, and solves a handful of the cases, but still leaves us with a decision to make regarding airports/RCAGs which aren't so lucky.

In such cases, I assume that pilots either depart VFR (certainly that's going to be the norm at these desert airports, I would think, where it's VFR 99% of the time) and pick up IFR in the air, or they call FSS on the phone if they want a clnc on the ground.

The question is, then, do we want pilots to be able to reach ATC from the ground at EVERY remote airport, regardless of real-world reception limitations? Before answering 'no', remember that we don't simulate FSS right now. While r/w pilots might not be able to reach ATC, they could certainly pull out a cell phone and call FSS...something we can't replicate.

For that reason, I think we ultimately need to have ATC coverage all way down to the ground at these airports (not that they'll be used very often), or another way for them to reach ATC.

I'm curious to see if anyone else has an opinion on this.
Keith
Aaron Flodin
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:32 pm

Re: thoughts on radio reception

Post by Aaron Flodin »

Not sure of the feasibility of it, but why not have a skype "phone number" set up that is the given "FSS" clearance delivery number for PilotEdge (same thing that Lockheed martin did real world) - a controller could simply have skype open in the background and whenever a call comes in answer it just like a normal FSS briefer does. The pilots would obviously need access to a phone to do this, but with the overabundance of cell phones these days I hardly see a reason why that would be an issue.

Another possible benefit to this is that, much like the real world, if pilots had a question, FSS would be a great place to direct them.

The terminology changes a little, but not anything significant, mainly the "ATC clears...blah blah blah" thing.

Not sure what the cost of setting up one of those numbers is though....


Anyway, haven't really given it a whole lot of thought, there may be huge holes in the idea, just the first thing that came to my head if we are trying to make it as real as possible.


-AF
Keith Smith
Posts: 9939
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Pompton Plains, NJ
Contact:

Re: thoughts on radio reception

Post by Keith Smith »

AF, I absolutely love the direction. It open the possibility of closing VFR and IFR flight plans, and all sorts of neat stuff. The expense surrounding the phone number is not going to be the issue. The issue is one of freeing up a controller to do that. If we're in a minimal staffing config and the controllers are busy, that phone might go unanswered for a long time. We'll see, though.

Short term, I can't see it happening, but I will absolutely keep it in the back of my mind. Very quickly, there will be request for full briefings (not that everyone will use it, but some will, particularly the hardcore sim crowd, I think), which is going to require much more time on the phone, and a lot of training to do in a plausible fashion.

All that said, if the phone number was presented as number to reach the flight data position (_not_ FSS) at the ARTCC/tracon then we'd be in a position where we only need to issue clearances. That shouldn't take much more time than working a radio, actually.

I could see that happening without massive implications for training/staffing.
Alex Stjepanovic
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 3:48 pm
Location: Novi Sad, Serbia

Re: thoughts on radio reception

Post by Alex Stjepanovic »

I like AF's idea, but I'm too worried about the availability of people to work it. How about just adding an additional frequency at a fully fictional position(Both vertically and laterally) which would be able to cover the entire range of airports, per sector(Just like some of our other combined frequencies). It might not be realistic, but with a few other shortcomings I don't think it'd be a HUGE deal. It wouldn't require additional staffing, while it would allow the controller to talk to his pilots very much instantly and directly.

All it'd require from our side, is to make pilots aware of those few frequencies.
Peter Grey
Posts: 5716
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 3:21 pm

Re: thoughts on radio reception

Post by Peter Grey »

KS, I know we talked about AF's idea a bit when we talked a while ago so you know my thoughts on that.

Regarding radio reception to the ground, I can verify this is not a given at a lot of airports in ZLA. Normally its depart VFR to get IFR, or make that phone call, or call FSS on the ground, most (but not all) airports ARE designed to get FSS on the ground, for example at HII and IGM (both in the middle of nowhere), you can't get center on the ground, but you can get FSS.

Do we need it as a compromise for now, I think so, however I think AT's idea of a FSS "position" is a good one to go with it. AT's idea isnt as unrealistic as he makes it sound based on my experience. It is not uncommon to call FSS on the ground to get a FP opened, closed, or get a clearance (we could easily restrict this as needed).

I would suggest the following frequencies be used for this:

122.0 (this is the US wide flight watch frequency for in flight weather briefings).
122.2 (this is the universial FSS frequency, its so common that its implied to exist at nearly all other FSS communication outlets)
If we're in a minimal staffing config and the controllers are busy, that phone might go unanswered for a long time
I thought we wanted realism? ;)
Peter Grey
PilotEdge Director of Quality Assurance and Operations
peter@pilotedge.net
Aaron Flodin
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:32 pm

Re: thoughts on radio reception

Post by Aaron Flodin »

Keith Smith wrote:
All that said, if the phone number was presented as number to reach the flight data position (_not_ FSS) at the ARTCC/tracon then we'd be in a position where we only need to issue clearances. That shouldn't take much more time than working a radio, actually.

I could see that happening without massive implications for training/staffing.

I probably should have clarified earlier, but when i referred to the FSS # i was referring to their nationwide clearance delivery 800#

That is actually very similar to what lockheed martin has done nationwide...they have instituted a nationwide clearance delivery 800 number so that you can get a clearance without having to play 20 questions about weather brief information.We use it for all of the clearances that we need to get on the ground at uncontrolled fields..

I absolutely agree that giving full briefings over the phone would be a little over the top, but I think just giving out clearances would not be much of an issue and as was previously alluded to, a wait is not entirely unrealistic (as I sit there burning 450 lbs of jet an hour listening to the damn elevator music play through for the billionth time because they can't get podunkville departure to turn off the simpsons and give out a release....) ;)
Daddy O
Posts: 450
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 9:32 am

Re: thoughts on radio reception

Post by Daddy O »

The most cost effective way to do it would be to offer a web interface to file flight plans. Make it an option in the plugin menu, similar to Vatsim's (but with better explination of the fields, assuming that not everyone filing IFR is actually an IFR pilot.) You could skin the interface to look like the actual FAA online form. If you really think we need to have a response, then set up an automated response, or when the ATC gets a break then can respond on the unicom frequency for that airport.

A text entry interface would allow ATC to better work it in to their busy day (better than a live radio call.)
Rauerb3
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 4:27 pm

Re: thoughts on radio reception

Post by Rauerb3 »

DaddyO, My impression of this whole setup is that it is of higher quality and augmented realism compared to the alternatives. A large part of that is not compromising on the services provided. There is no such thing as a text-fss for clearence, and I don't think the hard core simmers or commercial clients that PE is aiming for will appreciate such an archaic workaround.

I wouldn't.

-RA
Alex Stjepanovic
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 3:48 pm
Location: Novi Sad, Serbia

Re: thoughts on radio reception

Post by Alex Stjepanovic »

Daddy O wrote:A text entry interface would allow ATC to better work it in to their busy day (better than a live radio call.)
I don't know if you have any experience with ATC, but the words text and ATC don't go well together in the simulated world...*especially* when busy :)
Daddy O
Posts: 450
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 9:32 am

Re: thoughts on radio reception

Post by Daddy O »

Filing a text based flight plan would be no different than filing online:
https://www.duat.com/
DUAT even allows users to check weather and file flight plans from their I-phone & Droid.

So they file using a web entry file, and when control is not terribly busy they contact the pilot by voice. If you were at a remote airport, you'd probably file on the net anyhow (provided they have the net or you have phone reception.)
Post Reply