Restore EURI Functionality

[cpawley]

Summary of issue/change

The lines references here:https://github.com/VATSIM-UK/UK-Sector-File/blob/master/Ownership/Non-UK/EUR%20Islands.txt

No longer are in use, and,

It seems the data within this file is not called into the sector file build currently.

Therefore we have no EURI functionality currently.

Reference (amendment doc/official source/forum) incl. page number(s)

https://www.euc-vacc.org/images/EURI.jpg

Affected areas of the sector file (if known)

/master/Ownership/Non-UK/EUR Islands.txt

[hazzas-99]

(Good! 🤣) Well, seeing as it does exist, guess this might need a look at... 🙄

[hazzas-99]

My proposed solution is to create 5 EURI sectors, one to cover the geographical area of each primary area sector across EGTT and EGPX. Each will be 245-660. Will also need to amend line display to indicate when it's online.

[cpawley]

Sounds good.

[hazzas-99]

Just to check, it won't matter that agreements won't work, will it? EI is online so rarely I wouldn't have thought it would, but maybe that's just me.

[cpawley]

I think it would be better if they did....but it's hard to impliment in a way which doesn't take alot of extra lines of code

[hazzas-99]

Going to wait for changes to SCO sectors in #1665 first

[lennycolton]

I'm looking into this - is it blanket FL245+ throughout or are there some airspace considerations (SCO upper/lower boundary at FL255 sticks out the most)? If splitting at 255 is the answer, it might be worth taking this opportunity to implement a separate Westcoast sector and the Hebrides upper/lower split.

[hazzas-99]

Yes, blanket 245+ throughout. Eurocontrol on VATSIM is not about local specifics; it is an absurd way of trying to provide coverage over regions that are (nowadays) much better staffed than when it was invented. It is wholly unfit for purpose in the UK with our coverage and traffic levels and so we are lucky it doesn't log on very often - hence why this issue has been left on the back burner.

The way most other vACCs in Europe do it is to split every sector that has airspace across the 245 boundary into constituent parts in the ese. But this also requires updating the relevant agreements, will serve to slow EuroScope down (especially during events), and introduces a further layer of complexity in upkeep/bug testing. This is why I wanted to opt for a simple 'notify when online' solution but I never quite got my head around the logic for this (see #1919, which was unfinished as I tried to flesh out the logic for line display on a piece of paper 😄 ).

EURI rant over. Nothing aimed at you Lenny, I just hate this issue 🤦‍♂️

If splitting at 255 is the answer, it might be worth taking this opportunity to implement a separate Westcoast sector and the Hebrides upper/lower split.

When Scottish resectorisation was considered about 5 years ago, these weren't seen as necessary or desired possible splits. Despite lots of change across the UK with regard to desired splits in other airspace, the solution we have now (that divides the Westcoast sector into constituent parts underneath the upper sectors) remains my preferred option here, and I wouldn't be looking to implement any further upper/lower splits in Scottish. It also illustrates exactly the problem with Eurocontrol - its blanket 245 just does not fit with the UK. Imagine having ScTMA, MTMA and LTMA Bandboxes all online - there'd be so many levels to work out and grey areas to fill in, the Euro Islands controller would have no clue which way is up!

[lennycolton]

Yes, blanket 245+ throughout. Eurocontrol on VATSIM is not about local specifics; it is an absurd way of trying to provide coverage over regions that are (nowadays) much better staffed than when it was invented. It is wholly unfit for purpose in the UK with our coverage and traffic levels and so we are lucky it doesn't log on very often - hence why this issue has been left on the back burner.

The way most other vACCs in Europe do it is to split every sector that has airspace across the 245 boundary into constituent parts in the ese. But this also requires updating the relevant agreements, will serve to slow EuroScope down (especially during events), and introduces a further layer of complexity in upkeep/bug testing. This is why I wanted to opt for a simple 'notify when online' solution but I never quite got my head around the logic for this (see #1919, which was unfinished as I tried to flesh out the logic for line display on a piece of paper 😄 ).

EURI rant over. Nothing aimed at you Lenny, I just hate this issue 🤦‍♂️

If splitting at 255 is the answer, it might be worth taking this opportunity to implement a separate Westcoast sector and the Hebrides upper/lower split.

When Scottish resectorisation was considered about 5 years ago, these weren't seen as necessary or desired possible splits. Despite lots of change across the UK with regard to desired splits in other airspace, the solution we have now (that divides the Westcoast sector into constituent parts underneath the upper sectors) remains my preferred option here, and I wouldn't be looking to implement any further upper/lower splits in Scottish. It also illustrates exactly the problem with Eurocontrol - its blanket 245 just does not fit with the UK. Imagine having ScTMA, MTMA and LTMA Bandboxes all online - there'd be so many levels to work out and grey areas to fill in, the Euro Islands controller would have no clue which way is up!

I'll split all the SCOs at FL245. It might be worth shoving all the Westcoast parts into a file together for simplicity's sake (considering the painful 1000ft-wide split that's gonna be required) - I'm gonna try to minimise the number of convoluted and confusing files this creates. -_-

[hazzas-99]

Hold fire please - I’m going to discuss this with the rest of the Ops team. I don’t want to bend over backwards for such a position if we don’t have to.

[trevorhannant]

Can we not look at an agreement with EUR that says they only control over FL255 in the UK given the horrendous amount of work that would be required to make this work in the sector file?

[lennycolton]

Can we not look at an agreement with EUR that says they only control over FL255 in the UK given the horrendous amount of work that would be required to make this work in the sector file?

I think the real issue is that the TMA ceilings are all different. If we base EURI at FL255, it's still got a massive chunk of MAN under its control. Meanwhile, there's a good amount of LON beneath FL255 before we even reach LTC.

[hazzas-99]

Watch this space - I don't want it to control anything in the UK :)

[trevorhannant]

EUREXIT

[danielbutton]

I think we should make it so that it only covers our Upper Sectors so they have lots of airspace to learn as opposed to just making it up, and maybe VATEIR could do the same?

[lennycolton]

I think we should make it so that it only covers our Upper Sectors so they have lots of airspace to learn as opposed to just making it up, and maybe VATEIR could do the same?

From what I understand of Irish sectors, they split everything at FL245, but I certainly support the idea with regards to the UK.

I feel like it'd be workable to assign EURI the S1-36 (with the exception of low-level stuff in the SW - this gets a bit fuzzy with S5's dual nature, 6/36's FL305 split, etc.) and the FL255+ SCO sectors (Hebrides, Central, Moray, Rathlin, Montrose, Deancross, Humber, Tyne), sort of how an "EGUP_CTR" (similar to France's LFUP_CTR) would be defined.

[hazzas-99]

LFUP_CTR has been removed, for your information. As useful as they are to go through, none of these suggestions will be accepted by Eurocenter as they are too complex - and they distract from the fact that the position is absurd.

[trevorhannant]

Dump it.....