We got that already, in principle. We have several APP control positions that cover a range of airports top-down. And as David has written in VATGER finally a speedier progression from zero to S1 (restricted to small airfields) through online-courses only has led to good local coverage up to TWR level. With such coverage an APP controller can easily manage 5 or more airfields.
in buisey airspaces with minimal control i will text to anounce myself and basic intentions and adhere to f/plan eventualy they will get to me via text or radio…having several pilots talking same time to atc is a problem but it works itself out in the end… 
I can understand why you think sending a text message to notify a busy controller is a good idea as a pilot, but as a controller, I’ll say that text chat is generally the first thing to be ignored completely once it gets busy.
If and when we do see text, it will usually take us more time to read and deal with it than a voice message will, especially as we have to double-check if the information in it may or may not be outdated already, and all that time with our eyes away from the area of responsibility is time that we can’t use to scan our sector, work the traffic and safely get everyone where they need or want to be, so you’re really just adding onto the already high workload of a controller. 
The exception, however, can be PDC and CPDLC. We’ll still need a verbal check-in before using CPDLC, but after that, due to direct integration into the tag (at least in the setup I’m familiar with) it’s very easy to send non-time critical instructions via datalink, and it helps tremendously to shed workload off the frequency.
Wasn’t he talking about text on UNICOM?
I don’t understand how no one is trying to introduce CPDLC that is clearly missing/not available in N-America when its actually in use in real life and fully operational in the EU on vatsim.
Want to reduce people that screw up and aren’t taking it serious? Implement it, reducing voice comms by up to 70% according to the FAA.
I asked a controller in the US about this the other day why they don’t offer CDPLC and his answer was “It’s not included in CRC”
It’s also not included in eurocontrol to my knowledge, but there is a module/library/plugin (sorry I’m only a pilot) for it.
Personally I’d love to see CPDLC included in both the pilot and controller-clients with a VA interface. Wether we integrate hoppie or put something in the protocol… let the pros decide.
Cheers
Ralph
1 Like
There are probably other solutions, but all vACCs whose packs I’m familiar with use the TopSky plugin for this. It connects (by default) to the Hoppie network and facility engineers can configure it to be closer to how it works IRL (e.g. minimum flight level for CPDLC, wording of the CPDLC messages, etc.), but if facility engineering did their job correctly, controllers pretty much just need to put in their Hoppie code, logon, and then it’s mostly just the same clicks you need to do anyways just without having to actively speak on frequency.
The problem - and I believe this is also be why VATUSA thus far hasn’t implemented CPDLC - is that Hoppie is a very outdated and, particularly under high load, unstable system. It often takes very long (sometimes even longer than the maximum two minutes to comply with the CPDLC clearance) for the message to reach the recipient, sometimes messages don’t go through at all, and it is really just a freetext messaging system (anyone could send you a clearance that looks like it came from ATC but really isn’t, e.g.).
If I’m not completely mistaken, Synaptic Simulations have announced that they are working with other third party devs and online networks to build a new system that follows the real world specifications, so if that project comes to fruition, it may replace Hoppie which could then also result in pilot and controller clients being updated to work with this new system and VATUSA implementing a CPDLC functionality in their controller client.
1 Like
Thanks for the detailed explanation…
Cheers
Ralph
Hoppie being “outdated” or “unstable” as you say is not the case as to why its not used. In fact, many aircraft implement the delay in Hoppie to simulate the real system. That is how its intended to work. It certainly is not a limitation of Hoppie. The system that Hoppie runs is very quick in its delivery of messages.
CPDLC in real world is not instantaneous given the use of satellite communications. This is why it is critical for pilots to remain listening to the frequency, a CPDLC message will likely not arrive in time for urgent messages. The real concern is that Hoppie does not integrate with VATSIM in any way, shape, or form. There is no authentication with the VATSIM network, so a person logged on as AAL123 on VATSIM is not necessarily the AAL123 on Hoppie. This makes it impossible for my team to address bad conduct on Hoppie, not only for lack of access, but for the inability to tie actions to our users.
VATSIM is leading the charge with other networks and addon developers on a shared CPDLC protocol that follows the real world protocol and integrates with the network. This protocol work is ongoing and will be made ready once it is a viable solution. Hoppie has been an unofficial stalwart on the network for a long time. It is widely used in Europe and oceanic, however it was not an official tool.
What you suggest ‘Chase’ is to deny rookies on the network which is not desirable and will ultimately drive pilots away. It has always said that if a pilot is not sure how the system works or how he can join in, all he, or she, has to do is ask. That will not be possible if pilots have to be ‘professionals’ before they can connect.
I do agree, however, that an inexperienced pilot or a pilot that is not concentrating is annoying for all concerned. A dedicated ‘local’ frequency that provided assistance to the inexperienced would go a long way to resolving that issue.
The problem is, however, that in certain areas of the network and particularly during the local evening prime time, it is becoming increasingly impossible to accommodate such questions.
In any case, my point with that message was to illustrate that the key problem is not the size of the sector per sé, but the fact that controllers have to work well beyond their normal sector borders (topdown and scanning beyond the sector into unicomland being the two prime aspects here, with the former becoming less of an issue with smaller sector size but the former becoming more of an issue) and that it is significantly less predictable how much and what type of traffic you get than IRL (one day you open the largest possible split and get bored because nothing happens, the next you open a medium-sized split but get overloaded by sheer traffic numbers, and the day after that you open a small split and have high but manageable traffic levels but every other pilot is either not paying attention or not following their instructions making it unworkable).
I doubt that, to be honest. What would you do if that position is not staffed? Simply not fly at all? I mean, seeing how our FIC positions are barely staffed, if ever, despite Germany having a very active VFR community, I highly doubt that many people would be willing to staff a “support hotline” frequency.
It is still my opinion that the best way to keep ATC workload manageable would be to make the entry requirements higher and give vACCs more power in deciding how they structure their training and airspace which in turn would also make it more possible again for controllers to provide at least some basic assistance to pilots.
From a new pilot perspective, however, the easiest solution is and always has been to pick flights that are unlikely to become very busy or otherwise challenging and properly preparing the flight, even if that means that you will have less complete coverage for your flight. The BoG has discussed an airport and event rating system which would give pilots a kind of traffic light for each airport and each event indicating how difficult it is (green = perfect for beginners, red = you need to be at the top of your game, that sort of thing), which could definitely make it easier for new pilots to gauge where to fly without needing to be super skilled yet, but it seems the project is currently held up by technical hurdles and it has also repeatedly been scaled down in at least its initial scope.