Need for ATC ground position and freq?

We should decide if we should include the ATC position of GROUND (including a frequency) or if having positions as TOWER and CONTROL is sufficient for our operations. Do we have enough manning to include such a position, and is it needed for the flow of operations on the airfield based on our experiences in the last years.

Options:

Only TOWER and CONTROL is sufficiend for 132nd operations.
GROUND, TOWER and CONTROL is needed for 132nd operations.

makes it easier to serve two frequencies, instead of 3 whenever there is just one controller online. The airport´s layout hardly being complex, especially if only the taxiways are controlled ( not the hangar area) movement areas.

Same here, option 1. It's the only way to have the full SA of what's happening on the airfield, and the ground traffic is not that dense in game that it requires a frequency for itself.

Option 1 - GND is almost redundant on the more complex taxi layout at Al Dahfra, so Bodo should be absolutely fine without ground. If there is an influx of controllers I'm sure they would get bored with Bodo GND very quickly :-)

Option 1 is more than enough IMHO

Option 2 for sure. It's a contingency option for 176th controllers which doesn't hurt at all having:

It doesn't interfere with uncontrolled operations: for UNICOM and SA, everyone on the ground, airborne inside the CTR and in the TMA will have to broadcast position reports & intentions to "BODO TRAFFIC" on TWR Frequency. Using more than one uncontrolled UNICOM frequency, e.g. TWR TRAFFIC and TMA TRAFFIC would hurt the ability to build SA for encounters near the common boundary: opposite arrivals and departures approaching the CTR boundary could even miss each others' presence completely if the inbound switches to TWR near the time the outbound switches to RADAR - both below 10NM on collision course.
Right now, we have it in OMAM, and even if used less than a handful per year, it serves absolutely well and invaluably:
- For rare overload situations, where the TWR frequency and the traffic airborne in CTR & Pattern and on the RWY are so busy that TWR needs a relief by sending vacated flights to GND UNICOM for uncontrolled taxiing.
- For rare overstafing situations where an additionally present controller can do anything from at least participate a little bit in training to saving the evening for an overloaded TWR controller - depending on traffic volume and complexity.
- For controller training scenarios, where a newbie ATCO can practice his first calls on GND while the coach manages him as well as the TWR freq. Or where the focus lies on intercom & chat coordination between controllers.
- For pilot training scenarios or checkrides, where pilots can be offered additional frequency changes or other workload
It's published on the charts we intend to use - not deleting it saves workload and keeps the charts look more realistic.
We're planning to have more movements in a smaller infrastructure than in OMAM - we should not unnecessarily destroy capacity options - even if they are then used only rarely.
The military shelter loop taxiway layout south of TWY "Y" in ENBO will from time to time cause confusions, blockings & opposite stalemates for our pilots, especially in the first months. Would be nice to have an optional GND frequency where the stuck pilots can coordinate how to deconflict themselves when the controlled or uncontrolled TWR frequency is busy.

I'm not saying that the GND frequency is needed for daily business. I'm saying that deleting the option from charts and docs like TTP-5 is not wise and definitely not worth the hassle and workload. Better to have it optionally available and not need it than one day feeling the desperate need for the option and not having it...!

Option 1 for me as well. It will simplify and make it possible to streamline all procedures to where we do not have ground available.

I would vote for option 1 here as well. I see some cases mentioned above, but I can't remember last time any of that was a real actual problem for us, so I am going to say those are theoretical. More beneficial to simplify and it would be more in line with with the amount of controllers we have for events; Pretty sure we would rather have TWR and one or more AWACS for pretty much any event. The only reason I would vote option 2 is if someone said they absolutely love acting as GND

The amount of controllers available is absolutely not the central point here. Staffing someone only on GND is indeed extremely rare and mostly not desirable.

My central point here is that I believe we should do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the GND frequency. Leave it as a realism feature option in the charts where it's already printed. Don't bother with erasing the feature / role in other docs like TTP-5, 176th SOP, etc, Save us the workload! When someone checks in on Ground, either send him to the used TWR frequency right away or don't even answer or even monitor it. Every pilot already knows that there is no such thing as a GROUND UNICOM here and will next check in on TWR himself for taxi.

Please let the GND frequency just sit there unused and without causing workload for its decommissioning, and then use it however rarely and for whatever valid reason for the moment when you want to, or not. It's simply a contingency option for isolating and managing special events like ATC frequency overloads, emergencies, whatever. I can't understand how keeping it can feel like a burden or hassle for anyone.

Leave it as a realism feature option in the charts where it's already printed.

I think we should not include anything on the charts that we do not use or have a purpose for us. So everything not in use should be removed to make the charts as easily understandable as possible (for example, if we decide to use UHF freqs, then we remove all the VHF freqs).

Don't bother with erasing the feature / role in other docs like TTP-5, 176th SOP, etc,

We do not need to do anything in the other documents. We simply do not use GND in the Kola map. So there is nothing that need to be changed.

Please let the GND frequency just sit there unused and without causing workload for its decommissioning, and then use it however rarely and for whatever valid reason for the moment when you want to, or not. It's simply a contingency option for isolating and managing special events like ATC frequency overloads, emergencies, whatever. I can't understand how keeping it can feel like a burden or hassle for anyone.

I suggest that we rather on those rare occasions simply have ATC broadcast the frequency in the event information or on the ATC freqs during the event if needed. That way, the procedure we normally use (without ground) is our standard and reflected in charts and procedure, brief and event info.

I also would say option1.

if we have a GND freq that is sitting there unused, we will always have some guys on that freq, that nobody uses, and the others on TWR, where they should be.

It is exactly the same situation with the carrier. Nobody ever knows if they should use 309.100 (TWR) or 309.500 (AI-Lights). Some use one, some the other.

I'd say get rid of any freqs other the one that we NEED (twr in case of the airfield), and IF we ever have use for GND, that can be posted in the comms chatter of that particular event as Neck just suggested.

One of the observations of Kola Test Session 4 on June 16th was that there were occasional frequency congestion situations leading to simultaneous transmissions ("block-outs") on the TWR frequency where all ATC service for ground operations and airborne traffic in CTR and TMA was combined and concentrated.

This led to feedback like this exemplary one from Neck's ARR: "ATC: We can consider to make it default to always use both TWR and APP freq to reduce the amount of traffic in one freq. This especially because the TMA is so much larger then on the ATRM. Then activity/calls in the TMA do not jam for calls that prevent/disrupts takeoff or landings. This could then be standard both with or without controllers?"

Having been the ATCO on duty, I'd like to comment on the situation and my observation of its root cause, and talk about possible solutions regarding standard use of frequencies in the departure / arrival phases.

My setup was to provide TWR (combined with GND) and APP services for the TMA, all only on TWR frequency combined. I additionally monitored GND, APP and DARKSTAR Check-In frequencies for my picture and in order to send anyone checking in on GND or APP to TWR - as they should have known to do from the event page. This is the way I personally prefer to work ATC, using only one single control frequency for my (combined) area(s) of responsibility. I expected a medium to high workload during the departure phase, and I personally can only work multiple uncoupled frequencies simultaneously during low to medium workload situations without getting annoyed. Otherwise the number of calls I miss and the number of flights I have to manage getting back to after telling them to "stand by" gets too much and too frustrating for me personally. Other 176th ATCOs may have other preferences and views on what I'm about to discuss.

I noticed that the vast majority of frequency congestion situations that evening occured during the departure phase with almost all traffic either still on the ground or airborne inside the CTR. And the workload and frequency time requirement for talking did not result from the volume of traffic, not from the number of flights - but from the complexity, the amount of talking required in average per flight to get everything sorted and ready. If we take a closer look at the situation that evening, my observations were: The main reason for the high workload and for the frequency congestions during that departure phase with only medium traffic numbers that evening was missing information, the collection and distribution of which required lots of talking and frequency time. Pilots as well as myself were confronted with having to adapt to an opposite runway-in-use direction than the one we prepared for from the briefing. This happens, but requires a concious effort from everyone to adapt and change plans / intentions accordingly. Some pilots had not noticed or not prepared the Ground and VAC Charts to be used, which were linked in the Event Details. Others were not yet familiar enough with them to get a simple taxi instruction correct the first time or to relay their intended departure routing when asked. Several flight plans were completely empty or at least missing any intention information regarding departure and arrival. Those flight plans that had been filed before were not updated after notification of the actual runway-in-use and therefore required intention confirmation. Lastly, the ever re-occurring occasional transponder setting issues cost time. And some pilots, after having been told to "stand by", still feel invited to transmit all their intentions right away nevertheless. Happens at least once in every event. New to me was one case where a pilot simply switched away from the TWR frequency where he was under ATC without notifying or getting approval from the controller. He was quickly found back, checking in with Departure on APP frequency. So far for the background reasons behind the frequency congestion and block-out situations: the issue is proficiency and knowledge levels rather than frequency use standard procedures.

If we take a look at Neck's suggestion to always use both TWR and APP frequencies to reduce the amount of traffic in one frequency, my opinion is that there is only few to be gained from that other than different sorts of problems:

As stated above, all workload would still be concentrated on the TWR frequency during the departure phase.
An additional frequency increases the total number of transmissions and workload required by adding the need for more frequent frequency changes, check-out calls, formation on-frequency checks and check-in calls.
In a controlled environment with only one controller present, this would either force him to work two separate frequencies simultaneously with more workload, more frequency changes and more "stand-by"s and everything that comes with it.
It would otherwise force the ATCO to reduce his service to a smaller area of responsibility (e.g. only the CTR) more often. But during a departure phase, nothing is gained for the TWR controller or for the pilots from sending departing flights to an uncontrolled APP frequency for only a few minutes instead of directly to DARKSTAR.
The only thing that would have helped to relieve the TWR frequency on that evening would have been to use the GND! frequency to sort out all the issues described above before taxi.

Exchanging position and intention information in order to build a traffic picture and in order to plan ahead and to decide on options takes time. That's the reason why many VFR procedure charts require airborne traffic approaching a controlled airspace which they intend to enter to check in with the controlling agency a minimum of 3-5 minutes before reaching the boundary. Let's take a look at the ENBO CTR and TMA regarding size and flying times in TMA airspace for VFR traffic: The normal speed limit for VFR traffic in TMA & CTR is 350 KIAS. The shortest distance between a TMA boundary and a CTR boundary is around 12 NM, the longest distance between both is around 38 NM. At an assumed ground speed of 350 KT that gives between 2 and 6,5 minutes of flying time. So in order to coordinate position and intentions for a CTR entry with a TWR controller or with uncontrolled CTR traffic (plus maybe additional time for formation check-in), a VFR arrival has to check-in on TWR frequency either already outside the TMA boundary or shortly after entering the TMA - depending on distance / flying time to the desired CTR Entry CRP. Using the separate APP frequency for VFR arrivals really only makes sense if there is more than one controller present to handle it. In this case, intentions and traffic pre-announcement will be coordinated between the controllers. And only then a later check-in with TWR when approaching the CTR Entry CRP is in order.

In an uncontrolled scenario, using separate TWR & APP frequencies isn't the solution to frequency congestion, unfortunately:

The larger amount of required radio calls for position reports and movements per flight is at least equalized by the missing controller's transmissions and their required readbacks.
Separating traffic flying towards each other or towards a future common crossing point by CTR traffic being on TWR frequency and TMA traffic being on APP frequency is dangerous: While flying towards the common CTR Entry / Exit CRP in a conflicting situation, the arriving and the departing flights could be unaware of each other by not having received the opponents previous position / intention reports on separate frequencies. Even worse, they might both be in the process of switching to the respective next frequency while closing on collision course, never getting any however late chance of hearing each other. This could only be mitigated by completely separating CTR Entry and Exit CRPs from each other, significantly reducing airspace use flexibility and efficiency for departures and arrivals alike.

So in conclusion, the use of multiple frequencies can help with high traffic volumes to avoid frequency congestions, but there is not one solution that fits all scenarios. In a controlled departure peak, using an additional Ground frequency to work out all intention, flight plan and transponder issues is way more helpful than having to later switch to an APP frequency for only a few minutes upon departure. Vice versa, during an arrival peak, using an additional APP frequency to collect all the yet unknown arrival procedure-, type of landing-, pattern-, formation split-, etc. -intentions in advance before switching to a busy TWR can make absolut sense. But if there is only one controller active, it is his prerogative to decide which and how many frequencies to use for what and which services to provide. It is also his responsibility to manage his workload and frequency in a way to ensure an acceptable level of efficiency and flow of traffic. This could also mean, for example during a very busy arrival peak, to just send landed traffic to an (uncontrolled) Ground frequency, in order to let them sort their taxiing-in out themselves - and in order to free the very busy TWR frequency up from the friendly but precious-time-consuming "Shutting down, thx for service" calls... No ATCO should be forced to work in a certain way or to use multiple frequencies simultaneously as a standard. In an uncontrolled scenario, arriving traffic has to use a common TRAFFIC frequency early enough prior to arriving at the CTR boundary in order to transmit own intentions and to build a mental picture of possibly conflicting traffic ahead. The key to avoiding congested frequencies can therefore not be frequency separation, but has to rather be pilot and controller radio telephony performance and efficiency first of all. And there are many many ways how everyone of us can contribute to improving that performance: preparation, chart study, radio telephony phraseology review, flight planning, flight plan filing and updating e.g. for different RWY direction, having flight plan data and further intentions on the MDC for quick reference, thinking before speaking, etc.

I also would say option1.

if we have a GND freq that is sitting there unused, we will always have some guys on that freq, that nobody uses, and the others on TWR, where they should be.

It is exactly the same situation with the carrier. Nobody ever knows if they should use 309.100 (TWR) or 309.500 (AI-Lights). Some use one, some the other.

I'd say get rid of any freqs other the one that we NEED (twr in case of the airfield), and IF we ever have use for GND, that can be posted in the comms chatter of that particular event as Neck just suggested.

The confusion issue is not rooted in having the optional GND frequency printed on the charts for optional reference or not - or in having 3 radio frequency presets for CV ops. The root cause that needs to be adressed is the familiarity level with the SOPs.

I don't know for real how they handle ENBO ground ops, but let's just imagine that in the real world they use the Ground frequency only for movements North of the runway. Maybe even only temporarily and on demand for a few situations per day when start-ups, IFR enroute clearances, civilian VFR outbound check-ins and civilian ground movements don't fit on the TWR frequency anymore. In this case they could use the ATIS to announce if departing civilian traffic should first call on GND or directly on TWR. All military traffic in the South would know that the Ground frequency is not meant for them unless in very rare and very special cases. They would not memorize the GND frequency, they would also not be confused by it being imprinted on any chart. They would simply know where to look if they need it.

All we need to do is create sufficiently simple SOPs and then train our pilots better on knowing those. It's not that hard and it comes down to simply re-reading the event information for latest updates shortly prior briefing or stepping: What controllers are online or not, what's their services' information / chatter / amplification saying? If no controllers online for the used services: this is the uncontrolled CV Ops, airbase traffic flow or C2 check-in / range activation SOP. Checked.

Then a simple reference information on a chart can not become a source of procedural confusion. It can just be there for what it's worth for.

After the experience of controlling ENBO on June 16th, if there was no ENBO GND frequency already imprinted on the charts from their real world sources, I would have requested the assignment of a dedicated GND frequency for ENBO: In order to give 176th ATCOs the optional contingency capacity to sort out all that before-taxi stuff on a separate frequency if they prefer working multiple frequencies or if they have and additional controller present to mitigate an overflowing TWR / APP combined frequency during a departure peak.

But if there is only one controller active, it is his prerogative to decide which and how many frequencies to use for what and which services to provide. It is also his responsibility to manage his workload and frequency in a way to ensure an acceptable level of efficiency and flow of traffic.

Yes, that is true, but we should aim for having our procedures as similar as possible for both controlled and uncontrolled usage of the airspace.

In an uncontrolled scenario, using separate TWR & APP frequencies isn't the solution to frequency congestion, unfortunately:

What is the purpose for us to have a CTR and TMA, if the comms are the same? Then there is no real point in seperating the CTR and TMA airspace? and we can all be on one freq regardless of where we are within the TMA?

And there are many many ways how everyone of us can contribute to improving that performance: preparation, chart study, radio telephony phraseology review, flight planning, flight plan filing and updating e.g. for different RWY direction, having flight plan data and further intentions on the MDC for quick reference, thinking before speaking, etc.

I totally agree. We should all aim to be better and always improve. However, we also need to acknowledge the fact that this is a hobby, and not everyone have the same skill level (even though everyone meet the minimum skills needed). So we need to make the procedures so that they make sense for us, using DCS, not necessarily what works best in the real world with pilots that have this as a job. Our procedure need to be streamlined and as simple as possible.

I think this boils down to: Do we use a seperate ground freq for all operations on the ground. If so, we can keep the ground freq (however, this goes @Shadoga point that a single controller should not man more than one freq). If we think we are able to handle ground maneuvers on TWR freq, we should not need to have a ground frequency.

If we have a ground frequency, it should be used for both controlled and uncontrolled operations, as we should aim for our procedures to be as similar as possible regardless if we have a controller or not (what freqs in use for what)

Unfortunately we have to deal with the dreadful complexity added by having to install unrealistic uncontrolled procedures for even the majority of events with no controllers present. It would already be complicated enough to simulate realistic VFR & IFR operations in an always controlled environment...

Controlled and uncontrolled operations can only be brought to a certain level of similarity before more similarity becomes detrimental and counter-productive. Example: Radio Telephony Procedures A flight's radio calls can never be the same for controlled and uncontrolled operations. In an uncontrolled environment, frequent additional position reports (e.g. Holding short, Airborne, Break, Downwind, Final, Vacated, etc.) and occasional repetition of intentions are crucial to helping surrounding traffic build and update / uphold a complete traffic picture. In a controlled environment, all these same reports are clogging up the controller's frequency and are unnecessary because he can mostly see the traffic inside the Initial and on ground through his windows and / or on radar.

This has to do with the responsibilities and interaction requirements being completely differently distributed between the participating units in controlled vs. uncontrolled environments. What is therefore more important than maximum similarity between controlled and uncontrolled operations is instead maximum pilot awareness in what environment he is currently operating and what his current operational responsibilities are.

The TMA's lateral and vertical limits define the general boundary between tactical / enroute operations on DARKSTAR frequencies outside that boundary and ENBO ATC operations inside the TMA.

In the beginning of the ENBO TMA Project, the team had the spirits high and discussed upping the Wing's ARR/DEP realism levels regarding distinction between VFR & IFR operations by a couple of small steps, also through easy introduction of few airspace classes and Weather Color Codes and their interdependencies. We envisioned the use of a close to real-world TMA Airspace "D non-CTR" and the distinction between controlled and uncontrolled VFR operations in or around this protected APP airspace while an ATC controller is present (entry into "D non-CTR" requiring an ATC clearance, but not so for VFR operations in the TMA below "D non-CTR" and outside CTR). The questions asked here, the black or white dogmatic strive for simplicity, plus the fact that even project members occasionally struggle to think it all through or to discern VFR from IFR procedures, shows that the Wing seems not to be ready to raise the realsim bar in the DEP/ARR or flight rules simulation sector. And that's ok as well. But at least we should not make any steps backwards in that regard for the wrong reasons.

Inside the TMA as ENBO ATC's general Area of Responsibility, the CTR (airspace class "D CTR") is the protected airspace for local dep./arr. & pattern traffic that cannot be entered without an ATC clearance (if a controller is present) or without prior radio contact and prior position & intention report, plus coordination with other conflicting traffic, if necessary (if no ATCO is present). You need to free yourself from the dogma that traffic inside the TMA but outside the CTR cannot be on CTR frequency but needs to be on APP frequency - or else having a CTR boundary would not make sense. In addition to marking the protected airspace for ENBO local traffic, the CTR boundary can additionally serve as an AoR boundary between TWR and APP - in case more than one ATCO is active or in case a single ATCO wishes to offer TWR and APP services on separate frequencies, for whatever reasons.

So the general default mode of operation for both controlled and uncontrolled ops is to work / have all departing & arriving traffic inside or approaching the TMA and on the ground on ENBO TWR frequency. Other than that, it should be up to the present controller(s) what additional or what restricted services he/they want to provide and in what form and on which frequencies. Just as we have it now successfully established in OMAM and described in TTP-5.

We are also not erasing and decommissioning all optional published DARKSTAR WD frequencies outside Check-in 237,000 just because they are rarely used and not part of the standard uncontrolled comms flows. GND, APP and any additional ATC frequencies like e.g. PRECISION/FINAL are 176th's optional WD-equivalent service frequencies, to be used for optional services inside the ENBO TMA as deemed necessary and appropriate by the controller(s) on duty. Pilots should be expected to be able to adjust to a flexible ATC service environment.

Dumbing down the arr./dep. process just for the sake of streamlining and facilitating it for the pilots to require less mental capacity for it would unnecessarily deteriorate one of the major attractions of our Wing operations: reducing simulation realism for the few enough cases where we can shine with ATCOs present. It would be a step back even over today's ATRM procedures and it will for sure not raise more controllers' motivation to become active and offer service. Uncontrolled operations are the crutch in this regard, and they should not impede the flexible flow of the more realistic controlled operations just because the two different modes have inherent differences that cannot be made the same without hurting at least one of them.

So I think we are able to handle ground maneuvers on TWR freq (most of the time), and we should nevertheless need to have a ground frequency. And even if we have a ground frequency, it should absolutely not be used for both controlled and uncontrolled operations by default, as it should simply only be a contingency option for 176th's ATCOs. And every pilot who ever read TTP-5 should know that uncontrolled ops in the whole TMA are exclusively coordinated on TWR frequency as "TRAFFIC" UNICOM. And in case there's controlled operations for an event, the event description or at least the ATC schedule service information should provide him with details of the services and frequencies to be expected.

So the general default mode of operation for both controlled and uncontrolled ops is to work / have all departing & arriving traffic inside or approaching the TMA and on the ground on ENBO TWR frequency.

So everything on one single frequency if I understand you correctly (on ENBO TWR freq)? If so, I disagree. If we have a much smaller TMA that we currently have on ATRM, then I can agree, as it does not have a very large airspace. With the current TMA around Bodø, it seizes a lot more airspace, making us need to compromise and make ranges also within the TMA (realistic at least here in Norway. Yes, no declared live fire range for FW may not be within the TMA boundary a Bodø, although on the charts for non-hpma you see danger areas for live fire. D452 and D464. In addition, if you check Ørland TMA, you see that Tarva range (where they do live fire from FW HPMA) are within the TMA of the airfield. In addition, dry CAS operations are done both on the northern, southern and eastern side in the TMA of Bodø airfield in the real world).

We "need" to use this airspace to the maximum use possible to reduce transit time to ranges in order to get all hobby pilots and our give our squadrons maximum training value out of the time spent. This is part of the entire design of the .miz on the ranges/airspace side.

Also the extended time in the TMA, makes sense for it to be two frequencies in order not to interefere with traffic inside the CTR.

The flights operating on the ranges in the TMA need to be on a ATC freq to monitor the airspace and for ATC be able to contact them if needed. As such, it is important to decide if our "normal" operations entail only a single TWR freq or if we should use CNTRL/DEP freq (although this is a different discussion than the original using ground position/frequency or not).

Other than that, it should be up to the present controller(s) what additional or what restricted services he/they want to provide and in what form and on which frequencies. True, but we can also set the aim and how we want to operate. Everyone are able to deviate from this as long as it is communicated.

As of now, we have 9 people favoring option 1, with having Bodø TWR and CONTROL, and only 1 person arguing for including a GROUND position in our procedures.

As a compromise, we can keep the ground frequency in the charts, as long as we denote on the chart that it is normally not in use, and only through information on the event page, or active TWR controller will send someone to TWR freq. Yes, people should be familiar with TTP-5, although if we have externals they may not. So we need to make sure our procedures are easily communicated also to someone not flying with us very often. Having the relevant information on the chart is therefore important, and it is the reason why I bring it up in the first place. As what we have in our charts should only reflect what we do/need for us in the DCS 132nd environment, not necessarily what is there for the real world. Experience over the last 10 years is the same as Entropy mentions:

if we have a GND freq that is sitting there unused, we will always have some guys on that freq, that nobody uses, and the others on TWR, where they should be.

It is exactly the same situation with the carrier. Nobody ever knows if they should use 309.100 (TWR) or 309.500 (AI-Lights). Some use one, some the other.

I'd say get rid of any freqs other the one that we NEED (twr in case of the airfield), and IF we ever have use for GND, that can be posted in the comms chatter of that particular event as Neck just suggested.

132nd-vWing / TRMA

Need for ATC ground position and freq? #19