Jump to content
Krister Larsen

CTP Airfield Applications 2018

Recommended Posts

Many have maybe heard it already about the CTP Airfield Applications, which has been opened. I and Martin have discussed it and decided to apply only one airfield, as we think there is a bigger chance to be one of the 5 departure/arrival airfield under CTP when "nominating" only one airport from Vatsim Scandinavia.

 

The event department has decided to apply;

EKCH (Copenhagen, Kastrup) for CTP Westbound 2018

ESSA (Stockholm, Arlanda) for CTP Eastbound 2018 (when that time comes ;) )

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember that discussion from eastbound, but cant find the thread anymore.

Wasnt Copenhagen a "rogue" application last time? I know there was a discussion about nominating only one and others got applied somehow anyway..

Edited by Jimmy Stigsjoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lukas Agerskov said:

Just out of curiousity, howcome Copenhagen is selected twice in a row for CTP? Seems a bit odd.

The situation last year was like this:

  • ESSA was departure field on CTP Westbound 2017
  • ENGM and EKCH was arrival field on CTP Eastbound 2017

The requirements are that the arrival/departure fields should not be too far away from the Pond, which means we can not apply EFHK, for example. That ends up with EKCH, ESSA and ENGM. We could apply regional airfields too, but it will most likely be rejected because of capacity.

Personally, I wanted to switch the airfields like this and suggested it to Martin

  • ENGM or EKCH for CTP Westbound 2018 as Departure field
  • ESSA for CTP CTP Eastbound 2018 as Arrival Field

Martin agreed to do like this and suggested EKCH. I had no issue with it for the following personal reasons;

  1. Norway has more planned events this year. Comparing Norway and Denmark, Norway has already got 2 events this year and we have more to come with this year. But don't worry, there will be more events in Denmark too.
  2. From my perspective, Copenhagen FIR is in great growth of new ATCs, especially when it comes to S2. And personally, I think this is like giving candy to the controllers in Copenhagen FIR, motivating them to continue their great work. 

I don't know why Martin suggested EKCH, so I think the best answer is from himself.

I hope this gave you some kind of answer :) 

 

In addition, I've got some questions from some Norwegian guys asking why not ENGM or both. The answers will be found in this and the first post. Someone has to be elected and this time it was ESSA and EKCH.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last year with ENGM and EKCH as arrival airports wasn't planned from the ED. However EKCH was applied for also by director Mikkel, which was a bit of misunderstanding. However it all went well and we got both(!) selected, which I thought was tough to achieve in the voting process. If that EKCH application wasn't sent in last year it would have been ENGM to be the only application from VATSCA. 

So therefore  in order to have a good rotation on the airfields it's time to have EKCH applied as a departure airfield. And when it comes to the Eastbound edition later this autumn the airfield being applied for will be ESSA. 

Hope that makes sense in why I suggested that EKCH was to be nominated for this year's Westbound edition. :)

Edited by Martin Tornberg
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea, however the official announcement on when the event will happen shouldn't be too far away. If the website says April, my best guess is early or mid-April. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to be difficult or anything -- on VATSIM, the members have to agree with all the staff members anyway, but statistically speaking, the chance is higher of a vACCSCA field being selected if more fields are elected to be submitted to CTP for election.

That being said, I respect the decision made, and see WHY that decision is made. However, I will have to agree with @Lukas Agerskov here, especially seeing that EKCH was a 'rogue' field not having been cleared with Event department before.

Also, has the Event department even considered Iceland (BIKF, BIRK)? I know there is a consensus among our members to elect both Icelandic and regional airfields.

I'd strongly recommend that the Event department consider having an election (or even just a poll, where Event department has the final say anyway), for which airfields are selected for CTP nomination. I have seen a more and more distanced relationship between vACCSCA's ordinary members, and its staff members. Such a development is unhealthy and directly dangerous for any community of any size, and including the ordinary members in more of the choices made, such as for CTP nomination, would maybe make that bond between staff and non-staff members stronger. Let the members feel ownership of the decisions made.

Let it be known, I do not suggest giving the members the final authority of field nomination to CTP. I am suggesting that a poll, to see where there is consensus, would be a nice way of at least including the members in the processes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Henrik Sonstebo said:

Not to be difficult or anything -- on VATSIM, the members have to agree with all the staff members anyway, but statistically speaking, the chance is higher of a vACCSCA field being selected if more fields are elected to be submitted to CTP for election.

That being said, I respect the decision made, and see WHY that decision is made. However, I will have to agree with @Lukas Agerskov here, especially seeing that EKCH was a 'rogue' field not having been cleared with Event department before.

Also, has the Event department even considered Iceland (BIKF, BIRK)? I know there is a consensus among our members to elect both Icelandic and regional airfields.

I'd strongly recommend that the Event department consider having an election (or even just a poll, where Event department has the final say anyway), for which airfields are selected for CTP nomination. I have seen a more and more distanced relationship between vACCSCA's ordinary members, and its staff members. Such a development is unhealthy and directly dangerous for any community of any size, and including the ordinary members in more of the choices made, such as for CTP nomination, would maybe make that bond between staff and non-staff members stronger. Let the members feel ownership of the decisions made.

Let it be known, I do not suggest giving the members the final authority of field nomination to CTP. I am suggesting that a poll, to see where there is consensus, would be a nice way of at least including the members in the processes.

 

I honestly think we should stop saying "rogue" airfield. It was a misunderstanding, which was subsequently fixed by Event department, but this implies someone intentionally tried to overrule event department. Mistake was made, apology was issued, we moved on.

I want to make clear that I did not have a problem with the selection and never implied it. I asked about it since it I was wondering why Arlanda was not selected since both the other airfields were used last year. 

In regards to voting, I am pretty sure it would create skewed polling since it will be the airport with most controllers and which would win every time. Everyone is going to vote on the airfield where they would be apart of it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lukas Agerskov said:

 

I honestly think we should stop saying "rogue" airfield. It was a misunderstanding, which was subsequently fixed by Event department, but this implies someone intentionally tried to overrule event department. Mistake was made, apology was issued, we moved on.

I want to make clear that I did not have a problem with the selection and never implied it. I asked about it since it I was wondering why Arlanda was not selected since both the other airfields were used last year. 

In regards to voting, I am pretty sure it would create skewed polling since it will be the airport with most controllers and which would win every time. Everyone is going to vote on the airfield where they would be apart of it.

I agree. I also think that the current "rotation" is a quite nice and fair way to solve this. But I also agree that Iceland should be in the mix, Helsinki too, I mean it's only like 200Nm more compared to Stockholm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware Matrin Tornberg tried to get Helsinki into CTP at one point but it was rejected for not having enough stands for heavy aircraft. I cannot remember if they also stated that it’s too far away. The lack of heavy stands (or stands in general) would also be a problem with Keflavik airport unfortunately.

Luckily we have been able to get Iceland involved on enroute controlling and it’s becoming a big part of ensuring smooth CTP Oceanic crossing for pilots as the event seems to get larger and larger each year.

Edited by Jouka Ahponen
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Jouka Ahponen said:

As far as I am aware Matrin Tornberg tried to get Helsinki into CTP at one point but it was rejected for not having enough stands for heavy aircraft. I cannot remember if they also stated that it’s too far away. The lack of heavy stands (or stands in general) would also be a problem with Keflavik airport unfortunately.

2

Seems like the problem lies within the CTP organizers then, and not within vACCSCA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Henrik Sonstebo said:

Seems like the problem lies within the CTP organizers then, and not within vACCSCA.

Well. If it revolves around the case of too few stands and too far distance, not really. We can't really rebuild two airports just to have them involved in an virtual event can we? :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is a real pity if EFHK couldn't be departure/arrival field for CTP.
If EFHK were used that would promote great traffic flow through both Norway and Sweden and possibly Denmark and Iceland as well.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jouka Ahponen said:

As far as I am aware Matrin Tornberg tried to get Helsinki into CTP at one point but it was rejected for not having enough stands for heavy aircraft. I cannot remember if they also stated that it’s too far away. The lack of heavy stands (or stands in general) would also be a problem with Keflavik airport unfortunately.

Luckily we have been able to get Iceland involved on enroute controlling and it’s becoming a big part of ensuring smooth CTP Oceanic crossing for pilots as the event seems to get larger and larger each year.

Fortunately EFHK is under a big terminal expansion with plenty of new heavy stands. If we get updated scenery for EFHK at some point, it would be possible for it to participate on the event.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Per Kristian Jensen said:

Seeing as Sangster made it for arrivals, I'd say Helsinki should be possible aswell

I have to agree there as well. Maybe @Martin Tornberg can tell us here what CTP team said back them. Maybe their line has changed or the it's inconsistent. EGLL-MKJS is 500 nm longer than KJFK-EFHK. And there is around same amount of heavy stands available + Helsinki has also remote stands where aircraft can be parked.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m still travelling but I will have a look in my e-mail for what the answer was on the Helsinki matter. However if I remember correctly they said that Helsinki won’t be considered since it’s too far away. But since they have an airport located in God knows where this year I agree that Helsinki should work also. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are open to Helsinki, I wonder if the CTP team might consider giving BIKF a few slots in a future event - not as much as larger airfields because it is a smaller airport, but say 30-40 slots. As Iceland is already halfway across the Atlantic, departures could be staggered out more because they already have a head start. So you could have a departure every 5 minutes for three hours. Since the distance to North America is shorter, we could also take medium aircraft, rather than only heavies, and we could also use the East Apron and remote stands, rather than just the Terminal stands.

This shouldn't affect BIRD_CTR's normal enroute participation too much but it would give our S2s and S3s something to do :) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×