UK specific airspace modification

[BASys]

Hi Folks

Dan -
I've not had the chance to look at your file in FS
as my video card has a hardware issue.



Not sure if I've understood your comments regarding
the AFCAD method you're using to create LARS volumes.

However,
from having previously played around with these,
you can create working LARS/ATSUs,
without using AFCADs or detrimentally affecting high alt AI,
by setting the boundary's altitudeMinimum/altitudeMaximum values.

If you'd like,
please PM me your email
and I'll send you some source and bgl sample files,
which I'd created for the UK's offshore heliops ATSUs.



Additionally -
Airspace boundaries can overlap, crossing, or be concentrically located.
The Spatial sorting comment in the SDK relates to scenery placement areas,
i.e. Contained in folders Scenery\0501\ Scenery\0502\ etc.

I don't recall if I ever located the terminal control areas bgl.
I'd have to dig out my notes form another PC.

AIUI, a tweaked bgl can be in any folder,
and as long as the file is read after the default,
then it'll display the contained info.



HTH
ATB
Paul

[ricki429]

I can try.

But what I suggest may not be quite what you're trying to achieve. A control area will mean that high altitude civilian AI aircraft (that travel along geodesics rather than airway routes) will stray into the area, being handed off to "Salisbury Ops" as they do so. You will hear this if you are transiting the area, or if tuned into Salisbury Ops, you will hear them communicating with these civilian airliners. This strikes me as an unwanted (unrealistic) experience in FS9. Therefore I suggest the following:

Firstly, you don't need to do anything to the bvcf.bgl. What you need is afcad.

Give Netheravon an approach frequency of 122.75MHz, with the callsign "Salisbury Ops".
Give Thruxton an approach frequency the same as Boscombe Down, with the same callsign ("Boscombe", probably).

Finally, you need to create a null afcad to the North East; I suggest the disused airfield at Membury, where you may want to place some apron polygons to give the impression of disused runways. Refer to Google Earth. However, you need not create any ground scenery features at all. Neither is it necessary to locate the null afcad at an airfield or related facility. All you need do is give the afcad a unique location, title, ICAO-type code, and an approach frequency. I suggest that you enter the primary approach frequency that you have in use at Brize Norton (that is, the approach details that appear highest in the "Comm Frequencies" list), with the same callsign (if you have the default EGVN, this will be 127.25MHz, callsign "BRIZE"), as this would be the most likely ATCC you'd be in contact with in this area. Alternatively you could enter the primary approach details of Lyneham, although you may feel that this will extend the area in which you are controlled by Lyneham too far East. IIRC, one would be more likely to receive a LARS from Brize than Lyneham, even in this area.

Now draw two lines on a map, one equidistant between Boscombe and Netheravon, the other equidistant between Thruxton and Netheravon. This line will form a slightly skewed cross. The North West quadrant of this skewed cross is the area in which aircraft will be under the control of Salisbury Ops. The other three quadrants will be under the control of Boscombe Approach. The Salisbury Ops sector will extend North East to a line equidistant between Netheravon and Membury, North West to a line equidistant between Netheravon and Lyneham, and West to a line equidistant between Netheravon and Bristol. This pretty much defines the area in which aircraft would be under the control of Salisbury Ops. Additionally, it won't have the unwanted effect on the high altitude r/t behaviour of civilian AI traffic.

All you need do now is create a "Salisbury Ops" callsign, probably with EditVoicePack. I haven't ever done this myself, but I think it's fairly straightforward, if a little time consuming (you have to create the callsign with each of the eleven or so voices, I think).

Thanks for that! Fantastic reply, you've given me a few ideas - 'Salisbury approach' will have to do then - im no good at splitting up all the FIRs etc - will try the Netheravon idea. I'm ok with Voicepack so will give that a crack now.

I've already created smaller 'airfields' such as woods where helicopters practice confined work so i will just add approach to that...or a blank airport.

[kungfuman]

BASys, pm sent!

What you say you have found sounds exactly like what I always wanted to find myself!

I went with the afcad approach to lower airspace ATC delegation, because that was the only thing I have found that affects what ATS you are offered by FS9. I haven't ever come across any other factors affecting the ATC function, but I'm very interested to see that while the FS9 development team did not use other ways of controlling this, they nevertheless built in some capability that it seems you have found. I would love to make use of this, as it does seem preferable to null afcads in that one can define boundaries with greater ease, and one also has control over vertical limits.

Can you confirm that your experimentation yielded positive results regarding FS9s ATC allocation - ie. not just that you were able to put boundaries on a map? And what happens if there is an AFD with an approach channel nearby - does FS9 look to see if it should use your newly created airspace's associated comm freq instead of the AFD?

I guess its just boundaries of the same type that cannot overlap in the same file then. FS9 will only offer one "Center" frequency, so if you overlap a center boundary you won't be able to control which "Center" FS9 will assign in that area (unless you have some other way of predicting which one it will choose). Certainly, it seems the Aces(?) team did not overlap, or even co-locate, center boundaries.


Ricki429:
Looks like you've nailed it! But it sounds like BASys is onto something even better...

[Greg]

Please post all your findings here guys. I'm following this thread with great anticipation.

Greg

[BASys]

Hi Folks

Dan -
My apologies,
I may well have misunderstood the issue,
particularly that FS9 bglcomp
doesn't support compilation of comms for boundaries.

EDIT -
If your UK_bvcf.BGL is working ok in FS9,
and appropriately calling the voicepacks,
then my files should work similarly.



I've been working solely in FSX,
and not yet had the opportunity to test in FS9.
I'd appreciate any feedback on this,
as I'll eventually require these ATSUs to work in FS9.



The way these files are configured,
(vertical limits are as per IRL),
they'll work appropriately in FSX.

i.e.
When flying within one ATSU, and appropriately tuned to ATC,
on transiting into another ATSU,
ATC will instruct you to contact that other ATSU.

On departing a rig within an ATSU,
on attaining ~500' AMSL,
rig's ATC will instruct to contact the ATSU.

On approaching a rig,
ATSU hands over appropriately to the rig's ATC.

On attaining the ATSU volume's vertical limit,
ATC will handover to the parent CENTER, e.g. Scottish FIR.



Caveats -
FSX only supports Boundary coms for -
- One com frequency only - I've used the IRL Primary.
- Certain com types - I've used CENTER.

IIRC there may possibly be an problem initially contacting the ATSU,
but only initially when departing a land-based airport, e.g. EGPD.
I can't test ATM, as my video card has a hardware issue.



Other types e.g. RADAR will not utilise the voicepack,
though as yet not determined why.
I've just rediscovered my notes, and will post a query at FSDev.



For these very large areas,
using matching IRL CLASS types
then ATC is inappropriately localized.

For smaller areas, e.g. Salisbury Plain,
then applying CLASS types will probably work correctly.
However to obtain comms in FS9
you'll possibly have to utilise your fake airport method.


Please see your email inbox
and let me know how/if these work in FS9.


EDIT -
Just revisited bvcf.bgl
all RADAR areas are set to boundary and com type CENTER.



HTH
ATB
Paul

[ricki429]

Also reading this with interest - managed to sort my Salisbury plain comms out and works a treat now so thanks for that. Will continue watching this - keep it up guys.

[BASys]

Hi Folks

Dan -
Did those files work for you ?

ATB
Paul

[kungfuman]

Haven't had the chance to try yet (not a current project). Sorry. But I will try soon. My inaction is not a reflection of my disinterest. I'm grateful for your shared knowledge. Watch this space.

[BASys]

Hi Folks

Dan -
No worries.

I'd been wondering if my email had gone AWOL.
My ISP seems to have a problem sometimes.

ATB
Paul