Originally Posted by
parishiltons
I do take your point. But surely the difference is semantic. In a busy en route surveillance sector more comms can happen by voice in a given timeframe than by CPDLC. Sure the latter has a place (noting that Eurocontrol authorises it only for non time critical communications), but we are a long way from it supplanting direct voice comms.
If you consider replacing voice with CPDLC indeed this statement is correct. As indeed CPDLC is not meant for time critical communications. Therefor you would either send the message earlier/have a bigger buffer/wait longer.
However CPDLC is not to replace voice, it is a secondary means of communication.
There are many messages that can be send to offload the frequency. Either by pilot or controller. And indeed we do have the luxury of 2 sometimes 3 ATCO's on a sector. But even while talking to one aircraft I can send multiple CPDLC messages to other aircraft at the same time.
This is also due to the way the system is set up for us. We have the luxury of being able to change the system in-house and have a relatively short time between a change request and a system update.
If you ever are in Europe please drop by Maastricht would love to show you how we use it to our benefit. You might even get some of our old Ozzy colleagues to join you.
GOLD is indeed very comprehensive, we are looking to upgrade to PLATINUM ;-)