ARTCC transmitting and receiving stations

[roncachamp]

Of course they do, but to say I'm "wrong" is inaccurate!

Okay. Your statement is wrong. Better?

 

[ChrisK]

Okay. Your statement is wrong. Better?

Pshaw. It would be better to say "Yes that happens too, but I was talking about aircraft who should be able to hear each other stepping on each other". I didn't mean to turn this into a petty argument.

 

[gismo]

Is there another way to step on each other's transmissions?

This isn't a case where there's only one. IMO every little bit helps but none are essential.

Right. Given that aircraft on the same frequency step on each other, how does a system that allows aircraft on different frequencies to hear each other prevent them from stepping on each other?

I'm not expecting that this would prevent simultaneous transmissions to the same controller let alone on the same frequency. But by making it possible to determine when the end of a transaction (2 way dialog between ATC and one airplane) occurs it could/should reduce the occurrence of one pilot attempting to contact a controller while that controller is listening to a different airplane on a different frequency. When I can't hear the other airplane's response to ATC I have no way to tell if they're still talking when I transmit. The best I can do is wait for a period slightly longer than I estimate for their reply based on what ATC said or wait until the controller contacts someone on my frequency and jump in at the end of that.

I don't know how big a problem this is for ATC but I do know from my own experience that it does affect pilots often enough that this feature would be appreciated by some including myself. Whether it's worth the cost or a productive way to spend the FAA's budget I can't say.

Where do controllers choose that option? What is your source of information?

AFaIK controllers have a panel (or maybe a touchscreen in NextGen) that allows them to select which transmitters and receivers they are using. IIRC the same panel shows which receiver is sensing a carrier from someone's transmitter. My source is vaguely remembered visits to Minneapolis Center, MSP TRACON (I used to work right next to the tower) and various towers around the country.

May I ask why you seem so opposed to this concept? Do you see this as causing controllers more work and/or grief or just a waste of money? is there some other reason you don't like it? Seems to me if it reduces the instances where two pilots talk to one controller on two different frequencies, it would be a benefit to ATC as well as pilots.

 

[roncachamp]

Pshaw. It would be better to say "Yes that happens too, but I was talking about aircraft who should be able to hear each other stepping on each other". I didn't mean to turn this into a petty argument.

You only provided one reason.

 

[ChrisK]

You only provided one reason.

Ah. I was incomplete. That is, by many testing standards, partially wrong. I will say, however, that there are many, many reasons that pilots COULD step on each other that are completely unrelated to the patching proposal, but I felt that things like "the volume was down" and "the pilot's headset was broken" were best left out of a discussion on patching =)

 

[roncachamp]

This isn't a case where there's only one. IMO every little bit helps but none are essential.

Well, given that pilot transmissions to different controllers cannot step on each other, ...

I don't know how big a problem this is for ATC but I do know from my own experience that it does affect pilots often enough that this feature would be appreciated by some including myself. Whether it's worth the cost or a productive way to spend the FAA's budget I can't say.

That's the issue for me. I see this as a substantial expense to fix a minor problem. "Stepping" incidents are a problem in high traffic areas, in these areas aircraft are on a single frequency so this new capability would have no effect there. Where controllers are working multiple frequencies or multiple sites on the same frequency you find light traffic. When aircraft step on each other it's a simple matter to call one of the likely parties and have them say again. When you're through with him you ask the other guy to say again.

AFaIK controllers have a panel (or maybe a touchscreen in NextGen) that allows them to select which transmitters and receivers they are using. IIRC the same panel shows which receiver is sensing a carrier from someone's transmitter. My source is vaguely remembered visits to Minneapolis Center, MSP TRACON (I used to work right next to the tower) and various towers around the country.

Correct. Transmitters and receivers can be selected/deselected individually. But Order JO 7110.65 sayeth:

2−4−2. MONITORING

Monitor interphones and assigned radio frequencies
continuously.

NOTE−
Although all FAA facilities, including RAPCONs and
RATCFs, are required to monitor all assigned frequencies
continuously, USAF facilities may not monitor all
unpublished discrete frequencies.

But let's ignore the order for a moment. Imagine you're a controller working six frequencies. You hear an aircraft call and look to your communications panel to see what frequency is in use. You deselect the five other frequencies before responding. When you're through with that pilot you reselect those five frequencies. Do you then broadcast on them to see if anyone else had called?

May I ask why you seem so opposed to this concept? Do you see this as causing controllers more work and/or grief or just a waste of money? is there some other reason you don't like it? Seems to me if it reduces the instances where two pilots talk to one controller on two different frequencies, it would be a benefit to ATC as well as pilots.

I see it as a large expense to fix a minor problem. Even if it could be done rather cheaply the government would find a way to make it expensive. The FAA has a very poor record with this kind of stuff.

 

[SCCutler]

...

I see it as a large expense to fix a minor problem. Even if it could be done rather cheaply the government would find a way to make it expensive. The FAA has a very poor record with this kind of stuff.

the meat of the matter!

I agree.

 

[ChrisK]

The funny thing is, the patching equipment is likely already there.

 

[gismo]

Well, given that pilot transmissions to different controllers cannot step on each other, ...

Is that a subtle pitch for more controller positions?

That's the issue for me. I see this as a substantial expense to fix a minor problem.

You might well be correct and if so the FAA should spend their money where it would have a more important effect. But from the information in this thread I can't really tell what the cost/benefit is or how that fits into the big budget picture. If this could be implemented with half a days work for some technician per center I think it would easily be justified, in the (more likely) scenario where the FAA hires a big contractor to design and implement the capability with a $100 million budget, not so much.

"Stepping" incidents are a problem in high traffic areas, in these areas aircraft are on a single frequency so this new capability would have no effect there. Where controllers are working multiple frequencies or multiple sites on the same frequency you find light traffic. When aircraft step on each other it's a simple matter to call one of the likely parties and have them say again. When you're through with him you ask the other guy to say again.

I'll take your word on the lack of benefit to controllers although I would have thought reducing the likelihood of you hearing multiple aircraft and having to mentally filter all but one out would be attractive to you even if it only helped occasionally.

But I think you're missing the benefit to pilots where they can't reliably determine if a controller is listening to another pilot. IME this happens a lot more than it sounds like you believe. I've had it happen in busy as well as quiet sector groupings, and I suspect that the idea of combining quiet sectors sometimes creates a grouping that's as busy as the average single sector. Perhaps it's because we tend to remember annoyances more than mildly pleasant experiences but I recall several times when I waited what seemed like sufficient time after hearing only ATC's side before transmitting only to have the controller or another pilot get on the frequency before I pushed the button and way more than once this has repeated several times before I was finally able to communicate. While "patching" wouldn't eliminate that, it probably would reduce it significantly.

Correct. Transmitters and receivers can be selected/deselected individually. But Order JO 7110.65 sayeth:

But let's ignore the order for a moment. Imagine you're a controller working six frequencies. You hear an aircraft call and look to your communications panel to see what frequency is in use. You deselect the five other frequencies before responding. When you're through with that pilot you reselect those five frequencies. Do you then broadcast on them to see if anyone else had called?

The concept under discussion would help with that. If you didn't have two pilots calling on different frequencies you wouldn't need to block the ones you weren't transmitting on. And FWIW if you do deselect (in violation of policy), don't the buttons still light up when the associated receiver breaks squelch? If so you would only need to ask who called on that freq if a button had lit up while you were busy.

I see it as a large expense to fix a minor problem. Even if it could be done rather cheaply the government would find a way to make it expensive. The FAA has a very poor record with this kind of stuff.

You may be right about the large expense and to a somewhat lesser extent the minor problem aspects, I just don't see enough here to form a viable conclusion on that. WRT the FAA's ability to waste money on an expensive solution when something far cheaper would do as well or better I'd have to agree.

 

[roncachamp]

Is that a subtle pitch for more controller positions?

Nope.

 

[gismo]

Nope.

On a more serious note, since you feel this improvement wouldn't be worth the cost, what do you as an "insider on the front line" think the FAA should be spending their not too trivial budget on that they're not (just guessing you don't agree completely with the official budget)?

 

[Velocity173]

On a more serious note, since you feel this improvement wouldn't be worth the cost, what do you as an "insider on the front line" think the FAA should be spending their not too trivial budget on that they're not (just guessing you don't agree completely with the official budget)?

Controller bonuses.

 

[gismo]

Controller bonuses.

Hey, I said serious.