{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/zlsa/atc/issues/147","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/zlsa/atc/issues/147/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/zlsa/atc/issues/147/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/zlsa/atc/issues/147/events","html_url":"https://github.com/zlsa/atc/issues/147","id":102567523,"number":147,"title":"Proposal to use standard terminal arrival routes (STARs)","user":{"login":"glangford","id":3035114,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3035114?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/glangford","html_url":"https://github.com/glangford","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glangford/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glangford/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glangford/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glangford/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glangford/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glangford/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glangford/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glangford/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glangford/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/zlsa/atc/labels/enhancement","name":"enhancement","color":"84b6eb"}],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":3,"created_at":"2015-08-22T21:10:26Z","updated_at":"2015-08-23T09:42:32Z","closed_at":null,"body":"This is an enhancement proposal for introducing standard terminal arrival routes (STARs). All feedback is welcome.\r\n\r\n### Basic feature\r\n\r\nCurrently, multiple fixes can be provided in a single command to instruct aircraft to follow a particular path. Often, the same sequence of fixes are typed for aircraft to follow before clearance for landing on an assigned runway.\r\n\r\nRather than typing “ {aircraft id} FIX {fix1} {fix2} {fix3} ...”, common sequences based on a subset of published STARs for each airport can be used.\r\n\r\nFor example, to mimic the “Modesto Five” arrival at KSFO, we could currently type the sequence of required fixes:\r\n\r\n<aircraft id> FIX GROAN CEDES ARCHI MEHTA\r\n\r\nOr, we could record this STAR in ksfo.json as an array of fix names, and the user could type:\r\n\r\n<aircraft id> STAR MODESTO\r\n\r\n(dropping the version number “five” for simplicity). This would result in the same behaviour as navigating the sequence of fixes, and usually reduce the amount of typing. The aircraft navmode would be “fix” when the STAR is assigned, as if all the fix names were entered.\r\n\r\nEntering the STAR will not always be shorter to type; for example, the Golden Gate Six arrival consists of just the fixes PYE and DUXBY. A more compact STAR name could be used (eg. “GGATE”).\r\n\r\n### Additional supporting features\r\n\r\n* KSFO can be used as a test airport as it already has the required fixes; additional fix points can be added for other airports, as required\r\n\r\n* supported STARs for an airport could be drawn on the canvas as thin solid or dashed lines connecting the fixes, so there is a visual reminder\r\n\r\n* the flight strip could reflect the current STAR, as well as the current fix. In the above example, “MODESTO asterisk GROAN” could be displayed in the strip after the STAR command is entered (rather than just “GROAN”. Later, “MODESTO asterisk CEDES”, etc.\r\n\r\n* for spacing traffic in the real world, shortcuts are often provided which deviate from the published routes. An additional command called “DIRECT” could be added to provide a shortcut, while maintaining the list of fixes. For example, “DIRECT ARCHI” would delete any intervening fixes, but retain ARCHI and MEHTA on the Modesto Five STAR. This is the same command ATC would give.\r\n\r\n* to get a reminder at selected fixes, a controller can ask for an aircraft to report at selected waypoints/fixes. An additional command called “REPORT” could be added. For example, “REPORT ARCHI” would cause a message to be displayed when that fix is reached."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/zlsa/atc/issues/comments/133808149","html_url":"https://github.com/zlsa/atc/issues/147#issuecomment-133808149","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/zlsa/atc/issues/147","id":133808149,"user":{"login":"glangford","id":3035114,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3035114?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/glangford","html_url":"https://github.com/glangford","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glangford/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glangford/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glangford/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glangford/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glangford/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glangford/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glangford/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glangford/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/glangford/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-08-23T09:42:32Z","updated_at":"2015-08-23T09:42:32Z","body":"> I had been thinking of STARs as something which an aircraft is already on at the time it spawns as my understanding was a STAR would be assigned by the relevant center instead of a TRACON.\r\n\r\nIn the real world, an aircraft may have already filed for a STAR in their flight plan, or ATC can add a STAR as it nears the airport. From a game play/simulation standpoint it might be boring to have the STAR automatically assigned, so I was thinking more along the lines of using a command. In this sense, it requires some problem solving and the game play is similar to today.\r\n\r\n> Note the 'direct' command is already present as an alternative to 'fix'.\r\n\r\nI am proposing a change to the behaviour of \"direct\". Rather than just being a synonym for \"fix\", \"direct\" would adjust the current set of fixes, not overwrite them. For example, if the current fix list is A,B,C,D, using the new \"DIRECT C\" would result in C,D as the fix list. Today \"DIRECT C\" I think would just result in the fix C replacing the original list. I think this new behaviour is consistent with the ATC instruction to go direct to a fix."}}