Jump to content

Martin Loxbo

FIR Director Group
  • Content count

    630
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    53

Martin Loxbo last won the day on December 7

Martin Loxbo had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

372 Excellent

1 Follower

About Martin Loxbo

  • Rank
    Director of Sweden FIR
  1. Transponder difference Sweden Finland

    On VATSIM the transponder only has two modes: standby and Mode C. Depending on how the radar is set up we can decide what functions to simulate with each mode. The basic idea is that with the transponder in standby the controller cannot see any information about callsign, squawk code or altitude, but it's possible to circumvent this, so in our simulation of ground movement radar we can see all aircraft regardless of transponder setting. In real life most aircraft have several more modes. For example on the 737s I fly you can select: - STBY: The transponder is powered up but not transmitting or receiving - ALT OFF: The transponder transmits the Mode A code (the 4 digit transponder code) and the Mode S callsign (as entered in the FMC). - ALT ON: In addition to mode A/S the transponder transmits altitude information (mode C). - TA ONLY: In addition to mode A/S and C TCAS is activated but limited to give TAs only (no RAs) - TA/RA: Mode A/S and C, and TCAS fully active to give both TAs and RAs. The way we use it is that whenever we are moving on the airport, from requesting startup until parking on stand, we use ALT OFF. This is because most airports don't want aircraft on the ground to have Mode C activated, i.e. altitude information should not be transmitted. However, mode A/S is by ground movement radar to identify the aircraft. When entering the runway we select TA/RA so the transponder and TCAS are fully operational. The other modes would only be used in non-normal situations, for example TA ONLY would be used if we lose an engine or have to do an emergency descent and are unable to follow a climb RA.
  2. Suggestion for new graphic profile / logo

    Only updating new documents would indeed not be too much work, but most of our documents are not new but a continuous work in progress, which are updated whenever there is an update in procedures. For example, today I've put the final touches on updating the Swedish LOPs when NTL VOR is withdrawn and replaced by reporting point TOVRI. A very minor change but it requires at least 5 documents to be updated. If I had to update logos and other graphical standards in all those documents the work that might take 30 minutes for replacing NTL/TOVRI would probably take a couple of hours instead.
  3. Suggestion for new graphic profile / logo

    Just a couple of minor points: 1. Saying that the current triangle logo is not representing the whole VACC presumes that the symbol somehow is supposed to point its edges to three hubs/countries. I have always understood that the logo represents a reporting point/waypoint/fix or radar blip. 2. Having created many many documents for VACCSCA over the years I have already been through at least one update of our logo and several updates of our graphical standards, and I can tell you that when working with tens or even hundreds of different documents it creates a lot of extra work to update the documents to the new standards. We still have documents with the old logo so expect it to take years before everything is up to date.
  4. NAX or IBK ?

    I think CPH is now on the Irish AOC i.e. NAI / IBK callsign. Maybe @Axel Westermark can confirm?
  5. Here is a very informative video on a phenomenon called Controller Blind Spot, which means overlooking a close-by aircraft when scanning for conflicts. https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Controller_Blind_Spot_(SKYclip) More info: https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Blind_Spots_–_Inefficient_conflict_detection_with_closest_aircraft
  6. [25 Jun 16-18:30z] ESOS C1 CPT

    Grattis! Jag kunde tyvärr inte examinera då jag blev inringd från standby. Jag räknade kallt med att skulle jag bli inringd borde jag vara hemma till kl 18 men nu blev det inte så! Stort tack till Magnus som ställde upp i mitt ställe.
  7. More Eurocontrol training material

    I just stumbled upon these: Stabilised Approaches This includes screenshots and video clips of a couple of simulator exercises (conducted in the Airosar FIR fictive airspace) with accompanying quiz questions. The style is quite similar to some of our training content so it can be useful to watch! They even managed to have appropriate accents for the pilots (BAW, DLH, SAS, JAT etc.) in the videos which I found quite funny. Radar Skills Trainer A web based simulator with a few predefined example scenarios for basic training, refresher training etc. Good for inspiration on how to setup Sweatbox exercises! (The simulator is Java based. You will probably have to add https://trainingzone.eurocontrol.int/ as a trusted site in the Java control panel in order to avoid the application being blocked.)
  8. Aircraft data learning material and quiz from Eurocontrol

    I took a quick quiz and got 87%. It's not the easiest! I think there are a few hundred questions so you can take the quiz several times without getting bored.
  9. How much do you know about the most common aircraft? Can you spot the correct type from a photo? Do you know the basic data such as ICAO type designator, wake turbulence category, cruise speed and service ceiling? https://trainingzone.eurocontrol.int/clix/data/wbt/decompressed/FABEC_DA_5556059/FABEC-BASIC-ACFT_da.html
  10. ED Assistant Stepping Down

    Good luck Aleksander!
  11. ATC Bookings now via Vatbook

    Yes, and I could contact VATEUD and ask them to change ESOS_1_CTR to ESOS_CTR. Or I don't know if it's possible for you to make ESOS_CTR bookable even if it's not in the list. In any case it's not a big deal in my opinion, the only downside of not booking with the callsign you are actually using is that in vroute for example it won't show as if the booked position is actually online.
  12. ATC Bookings now via Vatbook

    Well, it's just a matter of how the VATEUD list has been done. Indeed ESOS_CTR isn't listed in favour of ESOS_1_CTR, but on the other hand ESSA_APP is listed instead of ESSA_E_APP. It's not really consistent, but it all means the same...
  13. Event suggestions

    Nice idea! I just checked that the final will be played on the 24th, so having the event on the 25th is probably a good idea (so we don't lose all the football fans! ). In real life they will be using RWY 08/26 as parking space for the large amount of visiting charter aircraft. It's probably difficult to simulate this in a useful way though...
  14. Suggestion for ATC chart

    It's a good idea but it's difficult to get such a chart 100% correct, as the sectorisation can change on a tactical basis. For example, if in Sweden we have ESOS_CTR and ESMM_K_CTR online, normally ESMM K would only cover ESMM sector K, and ESOS would cover the rest of the FIR. That would be the normal case, but the two controllers could also agree that ESMM K will also cover let's say ESMM sector L and sector 5, and instantly it becomes a bit more complicated to show on a map. Ideally the controller should put which area is covered in the Controller Info (a.k.a. "text ATIS"), but in busy situations with many sectors opening and closing, updating the Controller Info is usually not the first priority... In Sweden you can find information on each sector in the ATC Local Operating Procedures, or just check the AIP since the sectors are basically the same. Writing this I realise that for a pilot, maybe all this information is not so easy to find... So maybe we could make a basic map showing the various sectors. It will not be 100% correct all the time but it would be better than nothing.
×