[Ross Bristo VATUK5]

Evening,

Following a number of meetings between VATSIM-UK, VATEUD, VATeir and EUCvACC staff, I would like to announce that there will be a trial period to test a new EuroControl sector covering the UK, Ireland and Iceland.

We are trailing this new sector in the hope that it will;

• Bridge the gap between the ATC cover provided between Ireland and Norway/Copenhagen/France and the Netherlands when EGPX/EGTT are not online.
  
• Provide more en-route cover to pilots transiting the UK when EGTT and EGPX are not online

For those of you not familiar with Eurocontrol; the main goal is to provide a service to pilots across Europe and Russia, the Eurocontrol sectors are all fictional sectors (except Maastricht) which cover from FL245-FL660 and cover multiple en-route centres. When an en-route centre logs on Eurocontrol no longer controls that sector.


How will this affect the UK?

The UK (EGPX/EGTT) will (when not online) be covered by the new Eurocontrol sector. When either EGTT and/or EGPX comes online Eurocontrol no longer has ownership of those sectors and the ownership of the sectors are now responsibly of the EGTT or EGPX controllers
Ireland will be removed from the Eurocontrol West sector and Reykjavik will be removed from Eurocontrol North sector, these will join EGTT and EGPX in the new Eurocontrol sector.

The new sector trial will become effective 0000Z on Sunday 1st August, and to minimise disruption to pilot service, the operational changes will be as follows:

• The new sector will be logged in as "EURI_FSS" (frequency TBC) and the callsign will, temporarily, be "Eurocontrol"
  
• Only authorised sector testers may staff the new EURI sector

As this is a trial period changes may well occur (and are likely to). Once aspect we are looking in to is the erroneous TMA (LTMA/MTMA/ScTMA) and En-route bases within the UK that bust the EUC FL245 filter. However these are likely to become unchanged as Eurocontrol is integrated in to a sector, not the other way around.

As much feedback is appreciated from the UK membership (especially CTR controllers) and pilots.

Discuss!

This post has been edited by Ross Bristo VATUK5: 02 July 2010 - 11:32 PM

[Wygene Chong (1089621)]

I think this is a great opportunity to integrate into the Eurocontrol system. It's good to see that Eurocontrol will adapt to UK airspace and not vice versa... that way we can retain our separate airspace restrictions and still provide pilots with control when it's not available. This particularly applies to me seeing as I only fly in the UK mornings/afternoons when not much ATC is around; I often see Eurocontrol online and would appreciate the coverage. All up, looking forward to 1st August!

[Michael Male (1137064)]

This seems quite exciting, and, having more hours as a pilot than a controller on VATSIM, am looking foward to this, and will give my feedback when I fly with Eurocontrol, and perhaps make a new VATSpy file...

I don't know whether this is the place to ask questions, but here goes. If, say, EGTT_S_CTR was online, would that mean Eurocontrol doesn't control south of Birmingham or would it mean they wouldn't control EGTT?

[Callum Presley (975002)]

Will the controllers apply ICAO procedures and phraseology for all other airspace and then UK procedures to our airspace at the same time or will they be using ICAO procedures in our airspace?

[Christopher Cox (1059568)]

I remember the first time I saw EURW control online and I noticed we weren't covered (VAT-Spy), and I was wondering why :P

So, this is a great opportunity to have more control than ever. It will definitely plug the gap.
I will definitely try out some of the new controlling :)

[Ben S-T 834851]

Hi guys,

Its interesting that the pilots love this idea, but not too many upper controller comments so far.

Personally I am against this suggestion, my reasons are as follows. The EC option was looked at when the London Working Group reviewed TT upper policy. It was dismissed then because it lowers the standard of control; EC sectors with the exception of the Maastricht sector don’t follow the standard levels or have LoAs……. In fact making it compliant over the TT airspace is a nightmare due to the standing agreements and STAR levels….. the EUR handoffs to TT are shocking as it stands, and will be even more shocking if the EUR sectors are handing to the TMAs………So what your left with is a poor generic service that covers a large area. I can see why pilots love it, but from an ATC point of view we are shooting ourselves in the foot.
What you need to be asking is why TT isn’t manned? How can we get manning on TT etc……..

This is a 10p solution to a much bigger problem you seem to be ignoring………..

I wish you all the best with the trial, and as always feel free to get in touch….

Ben

[Michael Benson (810399)]

Don't be so negative Ben!

It's great to contact someone, be told to continue and then not speak to them again for 2 hours with crazy length directs!

[Stephan Boerner (945550)]

The solution for your problem is very simple Staff TT regulary, and noone will be forced to suffer under such insufficient control.

This post has been edited by Stephan Boerner (945550): 03 July 2010 - 09:56 AM

[Trevor Watchorn (883598)]

What Ben has to say makes a lot of sense. As he points out the problem lies with lack of EGTT manning but, while that is the case, some control is preferable to no control at all. So, I vote for Eurocontrol, especially as it does nothing whatsoever to inhibit domestic manning of the UK upper sectors.

And by the way, many of the Eurocontrollers happen to be very good.

This post has been edited by Trevor Watchorn (883598): 03 July 2010 - 10:10 AM

[Simon Irvine (858680)]

I've changed my mind over this - i was never a fan of the UK being included in Eurocontrol, however i have been persuaded that this is a good idea for the division.

Speaking as I pilot i would rather have some ATC than being on Unicom and looking at some of the inane chatter that goes on. Most pilots don't give a toss that they get a huge direct, they like the fact they have ATC.

There are some people on here, both pilots and controllers, that are never going to like this idea as it goes against everything that they believe in. As one senior Vatsim member said to me this week, the UK are a laughing stock around the rest of the network for our almost faciast zeal for realism. Vatsim has changed over the past 12-18 months and this trial encompasses that new ethos.

Eurocontrol works very well on Vatsim, I understand that there have been little or no complaints from pilots in the 6-7 years it has been in operation. Some people may say that the UK airspace on Vatsim is much more complex than in Europe, these people need to get over themselves as they are wrong.

As i see it, its an extra position for controllers and more ATC coverage for pilots - its a win-win and I look forward to controlling the position during the trial.

[Ben Hunwicks 827467]

Hi Guys,

This discussion about the UK being part of Eurocontrol is obviously something that has gone on for many years, and I have always said that the only way to find out if it actually works, is not to talk about it but to test it out, so I am very glad to see that this is being done.

There is however, always a BUT, and my main concern at the moment is the apparent lack of any defined procedures for this new position, and it's interactions with LON. If I were to be logged on now as LON_CTR and this new EURI came online, I wouldn't have a clue what to do.

Simon Irvine (858680), on 03 July 2010 - 10:10 AM, said:

As one senior Vatsim member said to me this week, the UK are a laughing stock around the rest of the network for our almost faciast zeal for realism. Vatsim has changed over the past 12-18 months and this trial encompasses that new ethos.

Eurocontrol works very well on Vatsim, I understand that there have been little or no complaints from pilots in the 6-7 years it has been in operation. Some people may say that the UK airspace on Vatsim is much more complex than in Europe, these people need to get over themselves as they are wrong.

An interesting point Simon, that title always used to rest firmly with our Dutch neighbours but perhaps you are right that it was handed over to the UK some time ago. I wouldn't say that the UK airspace is more complex than Europe, but as I explained in the previous thread on this subject, I do think that it has to be at least acknowledged that it is different. The main reason being is that I believe it is the only European airspace to regularly simulate a lower and upper area control centre, one on top of the other. Although I believe some test have been done in Germany, every other country splits their airspace laterally into different sectors. Therefore if EUR is online, then there is no control below FL245, if the local CTR is online then they have the whole airspace. In the UK you have the scenario where you have EUR online AND LON underneath it, also providing an area control service.

Have procedures and LOAs been written but just not published yet? If not, then will agreements be decided upon? If they haven't been done yet, wouldn't this be a good opportunity to get clear and concise LOAs drawn up with all of our external sector partners, covering all possible combinations of LON/TT/EURI/EURM-W-N being on or offline?

What happens where the ceiling of LON is below FL245, what happens to this gap?

Ross Bristo VATUK5, on 02 July 2010 - 11:27 PM, said:

[*]The new sector will be logged in as "EURI_FSS" (frequency TBC) and the callsign will, temporarily, be "Eurocontrol"
[*]Only authorised sector testers may staff the new EURI sector

How many UK C1s/C3s are in the group of "Authorised Sector Testers"? Will the Non-UK testers be given some introduction to the workings of LON/TT as they stand at the moment without EURI?

Callum Presley (975002), on 03 July 2010 - 07:37 AM, said:

Will the controllers apply ICAO procedures and phraseology for all other airspace and then UK procedures to our airspace at the same time or will they be using ICAO procedures in our airspace?

Well I would hope that the controllers would apply the procedures relevant to the country owning the airspace they are controlling at the time, not necessarily just "ICAO". Real world Eurocontrol has to cope with looking after the airspace of several countries, I'm sure we can manage to come up with something.


One last point of discussion, is that people seem to be complaining about being given direct routings, which is something that I have always thought was more realistic? Rather than the normal Vatsim way of everyone following their flightplan for their entire flight I would have thought pilots would be pleased to get a direct for a change. I know of a few regularly used direct routings used across Europe that are around the 400nm mark and a couple just under 750nm.

[Callum McLoughlin (1063042)]

Would it be possible to "normalise" TMAs to cover FL245 to surface?

[Wycliffe Barrett VATUK4]

Hi

The whole issue of Eurocontrol in the UK has cropped a couple of times in the past, personally I like Eurocontrol especially when I fly through Europe. Having control rather than none is so much better. When Severnair used to do its weekly breakfast club flights across Europe we woould have a good old chinwag on Teamspeak and excellent across Europe control with some diverts no problem, lovely.

The only hint of a reservation I might have is about LOA's and Eurocontrol getting to grips with UK airspace, but hey if they can manage Europe I don't think learning a little bit more will be to much of a problem.

Wycliffe

This post has been edited by Wycliffe Barrett VATUK4: 05 July 2010 - 09:04 AM

[Adam Arkley (1031024)]

Callum McLoughlin (1063042), on 04 July 2010 - 10:50 PM, said:

Would it be possible to "normalise" TMAs to cover FL245 to surface?

No.

As was clearly explained by the OP, we will NOT be lookign to change our airspace structure. Eurocontrol (if implemented fully) will integrate with us, not the other way around.

I am wholeheartedly against this idea. It seems like this is a getaround for the lack of Area controller throughput we're experiencing at the moment. This cannot be substituted by drafting in control from somewhere else. Fix out mentoring problem, THEN consider again if we need Eurocontrol cover.

[Gunnar Lindahl VATUK1]

Adam Arkley (1031024), on 05 July 2010 - 08:10 AM, said:

I am wholeheartedly against this idea. It seems like this is a getaround for the lack of Area controller throughput we're experiencing at the moment. This cannot be substituted by drafting in control from somewhere else. Fix out mentoring problem, THEN consider again if we need Eurocontrol cover.

I don't see why it would be any more beneficial to wait and then consider the need for Eurocontrol cover? The whole point of this exercise is widening ATC coverage for pilots; for years now we have been a black hole in Eurocontrol coverage which many see as a shame when we could quite easily have been covered by it all along, which means that pilot wouldn't be sent to UNICOM as they transit our airspace. This has nothing to do with our EGTT issues, it's simply that the Eurocontrol guys came up with a proposal which we discussed and agreed to. The EGTT manning issues would continue to be a problem with or without Eurocontrol, until we sort them, which is a lot easier said than done. And that is for another thread.

[Ben S-T 834851]

I asume then that all the controllers on this "new" Eurocontrol sector will have to have full TT upper ratings before they can control this new sector?

And what steps are being made with regard to TT manning?

[Anthony Lawrence VATUK9]

Ben S-T 834851, on 05 July 2010 - 09:09 AM, said:

And what steps are being made with regard to TT manning?

Gunnar Lindahl VATUK1, on 05 July 2010 - 08:43 AM, said:

And that is for another thread.

Regs,
A...

[Wycliffe Barrett VATUK4]

Adam Arkley (1031024), on 05 July 2010 - 08:10 AM, said:

Callum McLoughlin (1063042), on 04 July 2010 - 10:50 PM, said:

Would it be possible to "normalise" TMAs to cover FL245 to surface?

It seems like this is a getaround

Adam

It's not a get around it's one of several solutions being posited. Simon mentioned how VATUK is being ridiculed for its almost fascist zeal regarding realisim. I have to agree with this I feel we have for a long time painted ourselves into a corner, this has been around for a longtime, before many of you became members.

Who remember's the famous additional question on a twr exam.

"can you tell me where the carparks are at EG??" now that was just plain silly, but very true.

I don't think eurocontrol will affect our standards and of course eurocontrol only operates where there is no upper cover, so what is wrong with that.

Someone mentioned that it was a plot for the europeans to take over the UK division, I just laughed my socks off at that. Talk about conspiracy theorists, stick to the flying saucers instead.

My 2 cents worth

Wycliffe

[Simon Irvine (858680)]

Ben S-T 834851, on 05 July 2010 - 09:09 AM, said:

I asume then that all the controllers on this "new" Eurocontrol sector will have to have full TT upper ratings before they can control this new sector?

No need old bean. Thats not how Eurocontrol works.

I control EURN have had not one jot of training on the underlying sectors and Ive had no complaints from pilots or other controllers. I think the pilots are pleased to see me, funny as that sounds :)

Callum McLoughlin (1063042), on 04 July 2010 - 10:50 PM, said:

Would it be possible to "normalise" TMAs to cover FL245 to surface?

I'm all for doing that - it would make things much simpler.

Thoughts anyone?

[Ben S-T 834851]

Which Simon is my point.....

Then you will have a gap from FL245 to TMA.

Most EUR sectors do not follow STAR profiles, but mearly allow people to descend when ready. Therefore a TMA controller is going to get a bad presentation of traffic, itss bad enough as it stands with EUR west not handing traffic at correct levels to TT..... And this isn't the only point.

By diluting the service you lose quality..... And as for comments that VATUK is being ridiculed for its almost fascist zeal regarding realisim....... Standards have fallen alot in recent times..... The standard in Europe is higher than it has ever been with the Dutch and Germans leading the way..... I think the UK tries all the advanced stuff, with people listening to scanner, vMATS etc etc etc but we can't control for toffee as no one understands the basics...... But I am sure Anthony and Gunnar will push that one under the carpet....

Still have to say this is a bad idea...... Maybe standards, TT manning, Controller training etc need looking at before we go off on these grand schemes......