Another reason for the decline in use of the JHB_OPS channel was the
necessity, when controller numbers grew, of a channel for ATC co-ordination.
This saw a split in ranks in a way but the UK_ATC channel was essential in
the early days for both coordinating traffic (which it is still used for)
and some basic ATC help to the other members.
I joked at one point that three channels would have been useful but it is
true. One for operations, one for either UK_ATC or JHB_OPS and a third would
have been ideal for controller training. The last needs a separate channel
as it is constantly active but the only time I tried this meant that I had
no spare for normal ATC co-ordination and was unable to talk to any
controller other than the trainee.
In real life a controller would have three regular communication channels.
One would be the radio - a frequency to the aircraft coupled with a domestic
frequency to ground traffic (missing in IVAO but very busy at any airport).
The second would be the intercom - to other ATC positions or direct lines to
Centre controllers. The third would be vocal - talking to others in the room
whether trainees, assistants or other essential personnel. A controller
could easily have four or five conversations going at once - one to an
aircraft, one on intercom to Tower/Radar, one to a vehicle on the airfield,
one to a trainee and maybe one to the Works Supervisor who may be in the
tower discussing a trench he wants to dig across the airfield. The absence
of ground operations in IVAO makes the job a doddle <vbg>.
In IVAO co-ordination between ATC is automatic once handover points/levels
are agree between two positions - this agreement being conducted on text.
Any further discussion is also by text although there is not a lot to be
said really. I can see a need for a second channel for trainees and mentors
but I don't know how this is done in IVAO.
The JHB_OPS channel is very useful for pilots provided they aren't tuned to
(or ought to be) on an active ATC frequency. Whilst under an ATC service the
Ops channel can't be touched. Maybe we ought to dig out our old copies of
Roger Wilco and use this for additional channels..
bones
-----Original Message-----
From: jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Paul Reynolds
Sent: 31 August 2007 23:58
To: jhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb] Re: Faroes
Indeed the second channel on PCI fell out of use. I would still welcome the
facility though, we often used it to discuss configuration issues and the
like. Having said that the JHB_CC channel also facilitates that.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of bones
Sent: 31 August 2007 23:23
To: jhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb] Re: Faroes
Good point Gerry. Our use of the second channel for chat is probably driven
by the lack of action in PCI and hearing another voice is a welcome relief.
Had PCI become busier the use of the chat channel would have declined.
Text is far easier to manage in IVAO - especially for the controller as
there are no popup chat boxes. It is very fast to switch to text if radio
appears problematical - or if a pilot simulates a radio failure.. <g>
bones
-----Original Message-----
From: jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Gerry Winskill
Sent: 31 August 2007 21:42
To: jhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb] Faroes
Ive just done an IVAO flight from Ronaldsway ro Varga, in the new Faroes
download.
The flight was a good toe in the water operation, with both London and
Scottish Controls to deal with. Quite different, too. London was loud and
clear. I contacted him before taxiing, to check whether I needed clearance.
I didn't but was just asked to contact him airborne. Altitude clearances
were given on the fly and my own, pre takeoff, Xponder setting accepted.
Scottish was slightly different. Apart from being more difficult to
understand, he was clearly issuing clearances etc and wanting to be in
control. On previous occasions I'd assumed it was because he wanted
something to do. Tonight he was very busy but adopted the same approach.
So long as you know where you stand, it doesn't really matter but I've made
a note of both names, so that I am prepared for their approaches next time.
After dealing with the two control centres I think Approach and Tower
positions may provide a bit more relaxed environment, since there's not
generally the overall volume that these two positions were handling. Tonight
it made concentration, to listen for my own callsign, more demanding.
My other impression was that the level of radio discipline was good. With
the exception of one admitted learner, with whom they dealt very patiently,
no one spoke unless he had to. I was impressed by the ease with which they
switched to text if a/c proved hard to contact.
Overall it was impressive but, volume apart, no harder than our earlier
sessions. It did however make me realise that, for the pilots, a second,
chat, channel would be a very mixed blessing. There isn't the time to get
involved in anything but the flight and the second channel would almost
certainly affect concentration and be quite tiring.
Vagar is worth visiting. The advised rwy is 13, with the Localiser running
down a fjord but including a 14 degree turn late on; like a mini Kai Tak
without buildings. It was a shock, though, to find the glideslope
wasn'tworking and I guess the low but broken cloud is normal.
Overall I'd definitely reccomend the destination and making the flight when
the control centres are manned.
Gerry Winskill
