Frequency isolation logic is going to change

[Keith Smith]

Based on the increased traffic we've seen in recent months and resulting workload for the controllers serving the clearance delivery and ground roles, it's very likely that I'll be making an important server change in the near future. I plan to disable the frequency isolation feature on the server in cases where you're working with the controller who is serving the ground role. This will mean that you will start hearing the other pilots who are being worked by the controller, regardless of the frequency that they're on. Edit: as of 10/10/15, this implementation has been updated: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4866&p=38065#p38065, the repeaters are only on the clearance and ground freqs now.

It is a frequent occurrence that ATC will issue a clearance, and while the pilot is reading it back, other pilots will call in with their requests. In other cases, pilots will talk right over the top of someone else who is making a request since they have no reasonable way of knowing that someone is already talking. Based on past traffic levels, we were able to make do, but now that we routinely have 3-5 pilots calling at once, many times per hour, it's time to make an adjustment. We are outgrowing the current model and it needs to change.

There will be no client change, this will all be done on the server side. Hopefully you'll just wake up one morning soon, and this will be the new behavior.

For now, I plan to limit this change only to the cases where the controller is covering the clnc/ground role, which is where we see this happening the most. The tower, departure and enroute positions roles will still work the same (ie, still have frequency isolation), unless the controller who is covering ground is also working one of those higher level positions.

[wmburns]

This actually sounds like great news on a number of fronts.

• It's better to hear the other pilots.
• It will be easier to not talk over another pilot when you can hear the other pilot.
• Perhaps most importantly this means that PilotEdge is growing

For myself, I'm looking forward to the change. Keep up the good work!

[Keith Smith]

I have mixed feelings about the change, but overall I think it's going to result in a better experience. Right now, the workload on the controlling side is very high as a result of the current configuration. The service will be able to scale in a more healthy fashion as a result of this change. We can scale up approach and center sectors very easily in the future (much like the real world), however, it's more of a challenge to scale the ground problem. There are way more cold calls on ground then any other role in the system. The exchanges also tend to be longer. The combination of those two things can be sinister the way things are currently set up.

And yes, we're definitely growing. A quick look at peaware show ~1000 ops per week for Nov/Dec 2014. We're up around 50% for Jan 2015 (there's an anomaly in the charting showing a huge drop for a brief window, but that didn't actually happen).

[Steven Winslow]

I welcome this change. I think it's a good move. A few days ago I was at GCN wanting clearance to HND. It was a busy afternoon with over a dozen pilots online. I tried to time my request to not step on other communications, waiting for a few seconds after I would hear the controller, allowing time for the pilot to respond. Even so, it took several tries to be heard and understood. Thanks for looking for ways to make the PE experience better!

[jagipson]

I have mixed feelings about the change, but overall I think it's going to result in a better experience.....

I too have mixed feelings. I was in a jam-up trying to be clearance the other night, myself, and it took so long to get my clearance that by the time I had it, I had to disconnect because I no longer had enough time to make the flight before a reasonable bed-time. I like the idea of accelerating clearances, but this whole issue raises a question for those like myself who lack the real-world experience: How long does it take (IRL) to obtain clearance? Is it a problem that it takes five or ten minutes on PE if a real-world pilot could expect it to take just a long?

I do think the crowding trend is a definite indication of PE's success, and I'm glad to see it doing well. And it sounds like this change would ease scaling PE operations.

[hoser70]

In the real world clearance delivery is not also issuing taxi instructions, issuing Takeoff clearances and also vectoring aircraft all while one or more pilots are asking for clearance, not knowing that someone else is talking to the controller and cannot be heard. That's the reason for the delay. I see a good reason for implementing this change.

Glad to hear the network is growing Keith.

[Keith Smith]

I once waited 17 minutes to get a taxi instruction at JFK. With the advent of PDC, the clearance delivery frequency at large airports is often very quiet. When I flew out of ATL it was a ghost town on the clearance frequency, all the airliners were getting it through PDC.

Frequency congestion is a real problem in real life, but what we're facing is something worse....blind frequency congestion. There are not many cases where that happens (though I have seen it once where a Boston Approach controller was working 2 frequencies and both of them were very busy. It was a mess compared to normal operations).

Controllers work multiple freqs in real life when it's feasible to do so. If there's a ton of traffic on two frequencies, they can open up a second position and split the load. In our case, doing 80+ positions with one or two controllers and so many planes, the frequency isolation is causing problems which don't normally exist in the real world. So, even though it's not realistic to hear a plane on the ground at another airport....it's also not realistic to have the controller working all of those positions to begin with....so we need to continue the compromise. If we get to the point where we have more controllers online to distribute the load on clearance/ground (for example, a clearance controller and ground controller that covers 20 of the airports, and then another controller covering the other 20 airports) then hopefully I can turn the isolation back on.

[Keith Smith]

Actually it's super common at Delta airports for clearance and ground to be the same person. And in those cases, blocks do happen. However, it doesn't happen to the extent that we have here. Most of the blocks here are not avoidable...the classic case is someone calling with a request, taking quite a while to get through their transmission, then a second person starts their request....now ATC has to decide if they're going to respond to #1 immediately (in which case they won't be able to hear the rest of #2's transmission), or wait until #2 is done.

Say they wait...now #3 chimes in just as #2 is finishing up (because ATC hasn't transmitted anything in a while, everyone reasonably assumes the airwaves are clear and now is a good time). The cycle goes on, up to 3-4 pilots deep. This is the case which is going to be completely solved by this change.

The one issue that occurs right now which is avoidable is that ATC will issue a clearance to someone, then immediately, someone calls with another request, rather than waiting to hear the controller say "readback correct." This is the one that happens in real life at fields where ground and tower are combined. A student pilot will inevitably call for taxi on the ground frequency while the other guy is reading back the clearance on the clearance freq. In that regard, I wish we COULD keep the isolation so pilots could be exposed to that case, but after a lot of consideration, removing the isolation for the controller working the ground role has more benefits than it does drawbacks.

[snglecoil]

This will be a welcome change. And honestly, the increase in communications heard by the pilot does reinforce the discipline of listening on frequency before opening your mic. It doesn't require any more suspension of disbelief than hearing the controller working Lindbergh tower when I'm sitting on the ground at San Luis. Although I may miss the days of listening to the recordings and regularly hearing a controller say something like "Ok all aircraft standby. The person requesting taxi at Long Beach, say request again." ...and then 5 people immediately charge in with their calls.

[wmburns]

Keith,

I have asked about this before but maybe it's worth asking about again. What about an option to submit flight plans via a "look alike" pre-departure clearance (PDC) system?

I recall that one of the issues using PDC on PilotEdge is it requires better planning on the part of the pilot. IE, the route, altitude, SID, STAR needs to be correct the first time.

What if?

• The use of PDC were completely optional.
• For those pilots interested in simulating airline operations this would offer an additional "immersive" experience.
• For those pilots interested in training for a GA environment clearance can still be obtained via radio call.
• An option is to use PDC only at Class B airports.
• Obviously PDC is only for IFR requests.
• Reject out right any PDC's with errors. The pilot could then get clearance the standard way. Or correct and re-submit.
• The flight plan could be submitted via the WEB page like it is now. The PDC could be delivered via email. Since you have the email address of the logged in user, knowing were the send the email shouldn't be an issue. A check box for PDC would likely need to be added to the WEB form.
• Depending upon the number of pilots using PDC, has the potential to reduce radio traffic and maybe even controller work load.

I know this could involve a significant programming change that may also have business and operational considerations. This is only a "food for though" suggestion. So feel free to tell me to go away.