Bay Tower Position

[Doug Pullen]

Gents

We have decided to re-open the Bay Tower position which will cover the three major airports in the bay area. KSFO, KOAK and KSJC.
The requirements and frequency to use are listed on SOP 050 and a new POF file (2.3a) is available in the downloads section. You will have to hold the B/C tower certificate to operate this position unsupervised.
This will give us better coverage when only a few controllers are online. It will relieve the approach/center controllers work load also.
Be sure to check out the SOP's often as well as the other sections.

[Inigo Markle-Allen]

I find the decision disappointing...

[Keith Smith]

Inigo,

Like you, I'm a big fan of real world procedures. There are a couple of ways in which VATSIM is different to the real world.

One of these ways is ATIS, and another is the volume of traffic and level of staffing

Our humble ARTCC doesn't have 24/7 staffing of all the towers. It is just a crime to have someone working SFO_TWR, while two approaches are coming into OAK, with nobody in the tower. This isn't a real world situation, so a non-real world procedure (ie. BAY TWR) makes sense to me.

I'm with you on real world procs, my friend, but I have to say I'm a huge proponent of this idea.

Keith

[feathers]

You know, my first reaction (upon reading the subject line) was "Nooo!"

But once I read the rest of Doug's post, I changed my mind. I think Keith pretty much summed it up for me, that VATSIM isn't true to life, as much as we try to make it (just ask him about wind checks ^_^). Heck, a fact we learned at KLAX tower today was they handle 165 operations per hour! PER HOUR! At KLAX alone. I imagine if we had that kind of traffic on VATSIM, we'd be using 12 controllers in the tower alone too (if the servers didn't crash first).

But the truth (as sad as it may or may not be) is that some nights I can sit at KSFO tower for an hour and see three arrivals and two departures. I think better to give that lone tower controller more to do to jazz up their night, rather than sitting around at KSFO, lamenting about all the traffic flying in and out of KOAK.

I'll admit that besides the fun of handing off to Center, another reason I like APC_APP is because I'm free from tower duty (at least in Normal Ops... in East Ops I pull double-duty). Not that I don't like tower (had a good time last night) but for me, especially still getting the swing of TRACON, having to do clearances eats up my remaining brain capacity. I have one of those old 386/25 brains. Need an upgrade...

So ultimately, I look forward to seeing people taking BAY_TWR. If anything it'll be more fun for the pilots to change over on final when we can only scare up one tower controller. And we can have one big, fun, Bay Airport party frequency!

James

[Dan Sprouse]

Inigo I know your hard world and do not like to deviate but as the last two post mension. This is to allow a B/C Certified Controller to work the three main airports when there is no one else on line. This will add to the fun of both the pilot and controller rather than just flying in and haning no tower to greet you.

It is not replacing the main towers only complementing them. If a controller comes on and wants to work Oakland or San Jose all they have to do is tell Bay Twr and log onto that position.

Bay Tower can not keep all the tower positions if someone wants to work one. It is setup the same as the Tracons for 2 or 5 sectors. This too is not real world but makes for more fun when someone works it this way.

[nobody291]

Plus, how realistic is it for a center or 5 sector (or even 1 or 2) Norcal controller to work all the towers (or OAK and SJC when SFO_TWR is staffed)? I think this is a very good move by Rob, Dan, Doug, etc. Thanks.

[Doug Pullen]

The main idea to bring back the Old Bay tower is to provide better service to our pilots, while helping relieve the work load of center and approach. And as mentioned above, if more staff gets on, then they can logon as oak tower or even sfo. Same as for the approach positions. We dont get 10 guys online a night to be able to single man alot of positions, I think we average maybe 3 on at a time during normal ops?

[Reece Hunter]

Inigo, why do you find this disappointing? Your post kinda left me hanging like a good thriller. Now I need to know bud :lol:

Is BAY Tower the only position that was activated? How about BAY Ground and BAY Delivery? (I should probably read the SOPs while I'm here :lol:)

By the way, is there also a ZOA_FSS position, unlike the OCEANIC?

[Inigo Markle-Allen]

The position was fine with me when I was an S-1, trying to get on approach as fast as I could... covering a wider area worked just fine for me! Making the approach vs collective tower is the same thing argument just doesn't work though, because it's not. On vatsim, in any ARTCC or FIR out there on the whole planet, the higher position you work you always also control every lower position (like towers and ground for class C/B airports, we let you off on the class D because there's so many of them). I find returning to the old setup to be counter productive to where we got this ARTCC in terms of controller training, because the whole point of starting people off small is to encourage them to progress to a higher position! More APP rated controllers = more staffing throughout the day (keith and dan and doug can only stay on for so long) = more traffic for you guys. Isn't that what ya want? You can still work tower even if you're rated higher, I did it constantly as an I-1. You talk to the CIC and see where they need you. Finally, the argument that approach controllers could use the reduction in workload frightens me a little, because if someone on approach can't handle the workload of three towers (only 1.5 when you count how much traffic SJC and OAK are getting now adays) during a period where Oakland has seen quite a bit less traffic than in the past (when we DIDN'T have this position)... it leads me to believe that your problems are not in airspace architecture (that's been proven to work very nicely for the last few years of awesome CalScreamin events), but that crazy T word that no one wants to talk about: Training. Looking on Servinfo right now, I see someone on LAX_V_APP. This means he's working the combined approach sectors of LAX_APP, SNA_APP, BUR_APP, LAX_DEP, ONT_APP and SAN_APP. In addition, he has to work LAX and SAN Tower (both class B.), and BUR, ONT and SNA Towers (all class C like OAK and SJC). How can somebody do this?! Good training... The instructors make damn sure that when they sign off on someone's Approach OTS that that person has already done enough work on all of those five towers (and in LA's case each approach sector too) to be able to work them combined with their eyes closed and one hand tied behind their back, which is good, because now they can focus on approach :lol: . Brad's an instructor there, he can back me up (I hope lol). Despite how hard this seems, there are a LOT of socal combined rated controllers. Why? They wanted to work more traffic at more than one airport! By making approach the next step up (like we have for the last few years), people were encouraged to become approach rated. Making a "make believe" position for those five towers would not only kill realism, but I think it would get people side tracked in the process; giving them a lot of area to cover without any need for a promotion.

There's my explanation Reece, and everyone else. Just the two cents of a former ZOA Cheif Training Officer.

[Reece Hunter]

Inigo,

Thanks man. Let me see if I understood your points. You are saying (please, please, please, correct me if I misunderstood)

1. The Bay Tower position does not encourage student controllers to pursue "higher" positions such as TRACON and Enroute.

2. The Bay Tower position should remain inactive since ZOA TRACON controllers should be able to handle local functions at the three airports (SFO, OAK and SJC)

Is this a fair assesment of what you were saying?

[Inigo Markle-Allen]

In my opinion and experience: Yes. If people disagree with me, that's fine. Voicing one's opinions is the key to democracy.

I just want to add that I'd like to make sure everyone knows that this topic is not a brand new revolutionary idea... this is how it origionally was several years ago, and the idea was picked apart in former FAB discussions long ago and determined that there were too many downsides to the advantages it creates (I've listed 'em in my previous post).

[Dan Sprouse]

Wow! guess its a good thing your not a contorller here then because now you would not have any reason to progress beyond being a B/C S-1 Controller (sounds like a lack of motivation to me). I'm just glad everyone does not think in a closed box like that.

My 2 Cents.

Oh yea as for telling everyone this is not a new Idea I dont think we tried to take credit for that. Were happy giving you guys the credit for coming up with it a long time ago. Hence the refferences in our post to "The main idea to bring back the Old Bay tower " "re-open the Bay Tower position " So I don't think you supprised anyone with that bit of news but thank you for your concern all the same.

Who knows we may just turn out to be among the best ARTCCs to work and still be able to have fun while doing it, which it was all about to start with.

Sometimes things in the real world are just not fun!

My 3 cents.

[Keith Smith]

Inigo,

I think you make a valid point when you say that BAY_TWR is a step between B/C tower and approach that reduces the speed at which someone might move through the ranks.

However, the gap between B/C tower and Norcal TRACON (ie. one step after basic approach) is pretty significant. I don't think it's so bad to add another step there.

I still think this approach has more positives than negatives since it will ultimately be more enoyable for tower students, and will provide more coverage for the pilots.

I do agree with you, Inigo, that approach should be able to handle the tower(s). I don't see BAY_TWR as a welcomed relief for approach, I simply see it as an opportunity for up and coming tower controllers, and for our pilots. Those are two very important groups.

Keith

[nobody291]

Inigo / all -

It's "make believe" that approach and/or center cover any tower anywhere. Vatsim is a compromise between reality and virtual reality all the time. Mostly, I'm in favor of a realistic simulation of the real world, but in this case I like Bay tower. It allows a person to become more proficient at all three of the busiest bay ATCTs when it is fairly slow and allows an APP or CTR controller to delegate all three when he/she is close to saturation (hence providing better service) and there aren't many controllers online. I think our training is quite good and all of us who are APP rated and center rated (hopefully the latter includes me before too many more months go by) are capable of handling all the traffic that comes along just as well as our ZLA colleagues, it's just a matter of how efficient you can be. The argument that folks might not want to progress to approach because of this new policy seems faulty to me...couldn't you make the same argument about the combined Norcal sector? Wouldn't that make someone less likely to pursue the center rating?

[Rich1997]

As a new Approach controller I disagree with the thought that Bay tower would slow students from becoming approach rated. When I got my C/B tower cert I hated seeing traffic coming in to oak and sjc but not sfo. I would have been happy to take them all. It would have helped me with my approach study because I would have known the OAK and SJC DPs/STARs better.
-Rich

[Doug Pullen]

Another way to look at it also, it will help in the training of a controller to be able to handle more than one position at a time.

[Inigo Markle-Allen]

Ya know what guys, I'm not gonna trudge of into some corner or something. If the majority likes it, then there's every reason to do it. That doesn't mean I have to like it. ;) Enjoy the position though, if you all think it'll help maybe it will. Finally Dan, I didn't come up with it, nor did I close the position. It was Jim Bartosh and Ian Elchitz and Alex Bower, the three main people on staff back then, weren't you on the staff by then as well? Don't you also remember the reasons it was closed origionally? Please don't accuse me of being close minded... I agreed with several other people's previous decision. Maybe you decided to change your mind. People seem to like the idea, so there's no reason not to do it. Can we conclude "flame IM" time?

[Rich1997]

Inigo I just have a couple more things to say before we close this topic:
I'm glad you're not going to sulk in a corner. :)
It is nice of you to give credit where it is due.
and lastly,
I thought this was a forum where we could openly exchange our thoughts and idea about ZOA. I'm sorry if you felt 'flamed' -_- that was sincerely not my intention, :unsure: I just wanted to share my thoughts.
I am glad that we could do this in a civilized manner.
I do like reading everyone's opinions, including yours Inigo.
Take care,
Rich

[feathers]

Holy cow, who knew this thread would catch on fire like this! Apparently there is a lot of opinion on the subject.

Personally, I'm taking the same tack as on some of the changes made to the G/G SOP: I'm willing to give it a shot and see what happens. BAY_TWR was killed off once, it can be killed off again if it doesn't work out.

In the mean time, I have yet to see anyone in the position, so really I couldn't say if I like it or not or if it works better for me. ^_^

James

[ielchitz]

The decision to get rid of the Bay Tower position was not actually for any "let's do it real world" reasons.

Jim and I had always tried to find the right balance between "as real as it gets" and "as real as makes sense in a simulated enviroment".

We thought that by breaking the position into 3 separate positions - we would be providing our Students with a larger choice of places to plug in. In the past we thought that people might sign on hoping to work a tower - see bay tower staffed and think " I don't want to work Ground so I'll just observe or go do something else". We had hoped that by having someone work SFO TOWER - it would let other students work OAK or SJC tower.

I totally understand the perspective that having the bay tower position merged again provides students the opportunity to work more traffic and also gives the pilots some better services into oak and sjc. At the same time - I think you guys should consider making it clear that if a guy is signed on as BAY tower and another guy wants to open OAK - the guy on BAY can't just say "no - go work Podunk tower bud".

I'm in no way saying that I disagree with or agree with this decision. I'm trying to frame the reasons behind the last switch from bay back to three positions.

Even if I was agreeing or disagreeing - who am I to tell you guys how to run ZOA? From all appearances you seem to be doing a fantastic job.

I've recently done a few flights into and out of ZOA after a long period and all of the guys I've encountered have done a great job. Nice to see some of you whom I never met working out so well and even more enjoyable is coming into ZOA and listening to someone like TS work the skies like a pro.

See ya around.

Ian.

[Keith Smith]

At last count, Tony's controlling kicks as least 53 kinds of ass. I'm happy to hear you say it, Ian.

Keith

[feathers]

One Month Later...

Don's post reminded me of a question I have about BAY TWR. How do we refer to it? If I'm working approach, who do I say to contact, exactly, on 118.3 (or is it 118.2)?

Myself, as approach, I've told pilots 'Contact San Francisco Tower 118.3 good day'. I like this for two reasons. First, it sounds right (except any frequent flyer will realize the frequency is wrong). Second, hopefully the pilot will check in on the other side with 'San Francisco Tower', which clues BAY TWR to where they should be looking for the aircraft.

However, I can't help but think some pilots will look in the SquawkBox list and try to find SFO_TWR, which probably won't be there. And on final approach to the airfield, the last thing you want is confusion and trouble contacting the tower.

So what's the offical word? If the offical word is in the SOP, then I'll take my 20 lashes with a flightstrip and check the offical documentation before opening my mouth again. ^_^

James

[Rob Law]

James,

I've worked app since Bay Tower was re activated and I told pilots to contact Bay Tower, Bay Tower on 118.3. Most have them just switched with no problem. The ones that asked me what happened to OAK SFO or SJC, i tell them that they are combined for the time being.

Mo muss no fuss... :ph34r:

Rob