When you say "ZDC AIRAC file", do you mean "sector file" (.sct2)? Or are you trying to load a separate file they have that updates navigation data?

Does "descend via" cancel a previously-issued speed restriction? If VNAV tells you to descend, do you have to ask ATC for lower first? Do you have to meet an "expect" crossing restriction? These questions and many more are the subject of BVA's last 2020 Ground School seminar on RNAV Procedures.

Please note that the session will be recorded for a future upload to YouTube.

Tonight is the first of a two-part series on Instrument Approach Procedures. We'll discuss types of approaches, minima, landing variations, course reversals, missed approaches, and more! Then, on September 7, the second half of the series will look at some of the considerations that appear when flying different approaches.

Please note that the session will be recorded for a future upload to YouTube.

None of what was in the slides is final - it was merely a first draft designed to get conversation going between staff members about how to attack this issue. Changes are always an option and feedback is highly encouraged to myself, my team, and the rest of USA staff. Like was said in the meeting last week - we are here to help you guys succeed in your event.

[Nothing] here is final and I want to keep this discussion going to help us pave the way forward.

Thanks Ryan. So, in that theme and for clarity, I'm pointing out two things for your consideration:

1. For FNOs or other events that feature only airports in one ARTCC/facility, either:
--> Call them OPLEVEL2 events or
--> Reduce the burden of OPLEVEL3 events to make it a bit more reasonable on neighbors and on you if we're going to do a minimum of 52 FNOs a year, plus however many other events meet this criteria.

2. Find a way to identify a currently-online TMU representative, who may or may not be actively controlling a position, for each ARTCC/facility on a ongoing basis, both during events and outside of event times.

Regarding #1, my concern is the workload not just on the ARTCCs/facilities but also on your central TMU division is going to be extensive. As it stands, you'll need at least two individuals (National Ops Manager, Area Traffic Management Officer) for 7 out of the next 12 nights, based on the current VATUSA calendar. If you want to build something, built it sustainably so it's something you can have more than 3 months from now.

I didn't see a thread here with discussion on the new VATUSA Traffic Management Unit so I thought I would make one.

In this post, I'm advocating that OPLEVEL3 needs to be re-thought and either be:
1. Scaled back significantly if it's going to apply to all FNOs
2. Re-defined to only apply to larger, 3+ ARTCC FNOs

I'm not ARTCC staff so perhaps there's a discussion I've missed. Specifically, I wanted to know if there has been any discussion from ARTCCs about some of the staffing requirements. From reading the PDF, it seems to me that VATUSA expects (or, at least wants) Tier 1 facilities to staff a dedicated TMU position any time there is a neighboring event (Page 18). Using the sample ZTL FNO that's described, that would mean Indy, Washington, Memphis, Jacksonville, and Houston would all be expected to staff not only Center but ALSO TMU. And then beyond that, there are going to be two representatives from the "national" level. That means we are going to go from having 0 required TMU controllers today to having 8 dedicated TMU positions. Doesn't that seem like a pretty big jump?



How many of our events really go that far "down the tubes" that 8 dedicated people are required to work TMU? As of today, I'd just be happy to have each of my neighboring facilities staffed with 1 controller!

Later in the document, using the same example, it says USA96 would cover the TMU function for facilities "where staffing isn't available". That seems to imply a facility should be trying to cover TMU. Speaking for myself, not as ARTCC staff, I would not feel comfortable assigning a controller to work a TMU position to support a neighbor's event. That is going to be a very boring 4-5 hours for whoever gets that assignment. Having worked plenty of "support" for neighbor ARTCCs, I can say that almost never does ZDC traffic get overwhelming for us to manage. Every now and again a ZNY event gets busy (because of the popularity of New York airports) but in those scenarios, we would much rather split Center than have one person working TMU watching the Center controller drown in managing the holding stack. 

Expecting someone to "sit and watch" on TMU during a ZDC FNO is unrealistic and disrespectful. I can't imagine anyone wanting to do that on a regular basis.

Particularly if the limit on the centralized training program for TMU controllers is a maximum of 6 per facility, it seems there will be a challenge to find certified individuals who want to do this work.

Similarly, asking all Tier 1's to attend a meeting the night before an FNO seems a little over the top. You're going to take about 10 people away from potentially controlling on-network for a planning meeting. Again, I wonder how necessary this is, or if some of this could just as easily be managed via a Discord discussion the evening before.

I know we're striving for realism in our operations but not every FNO is CTP. I suspect if you did a poll of VATUSA controllers, you'd find that only a few really are interested in TMU as a subject area (if they have done 1-2 events as a TMU before; it does seem interesting before you do it the first time). ZBW has historically staffed a TMU during any of what you're calling "OPLEVEL4" events: Cross the Pond, Boston Tea Party, etc. Everyone who has ever done it hates the fact that they have to effectively sit out the event and not control. We rotate it and live with it because, during those events, it's a necessary evil. But I can't see how that's justifiable while we're called to staff up for a neighbor's FNO.

The overall theme of this post is: this should be fun, for us and the pilots. There's a risk to layering the TMU stuff on so thickly the enjoyment a pilot gets in flying in this airspace becomes diminished. Yes, sitting on the ground is better than holding in the air. But there's a risk we start creating significant ground delays and no lineup at the other end. I think most pilots would prefer to fly to a busy, but manageable, airspace than to wait for 20 minutes and have a completely quiet arrival experience. Likewise, a lot of controllers do this because they enjoy the experience. Let's not take that away by mandating TMU time. I'd much rather spend an evening controlling on-network than participating in an hour-long planning meeting with a neighbor two doors down, particularly when I'm probably only going to work 20 of their airplanes.

There are absolutely, without question, some airports and some events that require a concerted TMU effort, particularly with the increases in traffic we have seen lately. For "OPLEVEL4" events...sure, let's have a TMU rep from each facility that's participating (as we've always done with CTP). But expecting or even asking ZBW to staff two separate Center-rated controllers, one to work traffic and a second to be TMU, for a ZDC event, is ridiculous.

There are good concepts here and many of them would be strong additions to the event lineup. But I challenge you to explain what problem you are really trying to solve when you say that two people, a Center and a TMU, are going to be requested from every Tier 1 for every FNO. I would advocate for removal of the OPLEVEL3, scaling it back significantly if it is going to apply to FNOs, or only categorizing some larger FNOs (like those involving 3+ ARTCCs as event facilities) as OPLEVEL3 and then leaving others as OPLEVEL2. Regardless, there should not be a requirement or expectation for neighbors to provide TMU staffing or pre-event discussion for a simple, single-airport FNO. Let's focus on getting the neighbors staffing their airspace first.

We're covering Oceanic Procedures tonight! All VATSIM members are welcome to join the session using the link below. When joining, pelase ensure your mic and video (camera) are muted (off).

Please note that the session will be recorded for a future upload to YouTube.

Boston Virtual ARTCC's (BVA) new self-paced pilot training program is now live! Starting today, members of BVA can fly any of our 30 Wings Over New England (WINGS) flights on VATSIM to learn more about safely operating aircraft within the U.S. ATC system. 

If you are:

- Looking for more information about flying VFR through complex American airspace;
- Wanting tips on speaking with air traffic control;
- Hoping for guidance on flying full approaches, holds, and other complex IFR procedures;
- Interested in finding out more about RNAV;

WINGS may be for you! From VFR closed traffic at Nantucket (KACK), a back course instrument approach at New Bedford (KEWB), airline operations at Boston (KBOS), and RNAV approaches in the Adirondack Mountains (at KSLK), WINGS will take pilots on a scenic journey across the northeastern United States while offering engaging, self-paced learning along the way.



The program is designed for pilots who already know how to fly their aircraft; it won’t cover flying skills like using flaps or making turns. For that, we'd recommend going through an official VATSIM ATO like VATSTAR. Instead, WINGS addresses skills that apply to online flying in both VFR and IFR environments, making the most of what an at-home flight simulator can teach. It includes structured, self-guided training lessons that do not rely directly on an instructor, allowing pilots to learn at their own pace and in a comfortable environment. WINGS is not affiliated with the VATSIM Pilot Training Department.

Every WINGS flight contains a series of tasks. During the flight, ZBW controllers monitor progress to ensure each of the tasks is completed correctly. If a pilot successfully meets the standards, a rating is issued and the pilot progresses to the next flight. Pilots can choose to complete all 30 flights in sequence or focus on specific subsets like “I’m new to online flying”, “I want to learn about VFR operations”, or “give me an intro to RNAV”. 

To participate in the program, pilots must complete a free application to join Boston Virtual ARTCC. Once approved for membership, flights can be completed any time air traffic control is online in the Boston Center (ZBW) area. A schedule with expected air traffic control coverage is posted at www.bvartcc.com. 

Pilots can fly WINGS using any aircraft, provided they can meet the standards for the applicable flight. While a slower, piston or turboprop is recommended, private jets and even airliners are welcome too. The first half of the program specifically covers “low and slow” General Aviation operations like VFR pattern entries, helicopter and Class B transition routes, and visual navigation. The entire program is flyable with conventional navigation (i.e., VORs only), though pilots that have RNAV capability will gain more from the later flights.

For more information, visit www.bvartcc.com/wings.

Posted with approval from VATUSA12.

Evan, thank you for the time in sharing your thoughts on how handoffs should be handled. I completely agree with your statements, and I want to input my personal experience with working a neighboring ARTCC during the event.

Thanks Aidan! I didn't intend to call you out specifically, of course...I've been trying to drive this concept home within ZBW for the past several years. Just ask any ZBW controller who has tried to tell me that "handoffs are to NY_1_CTR" in a briefing...

Totally agree on rejected handoffs; that shouldn't be happening.

One thing we've done recently is created airspace.bvartcc.com as a quick reference for our active split. If you go there now, it will just show all available spilts. However, during an event, we post the specific split that's open (if you go to this link, you'll see what was published during Tea Party, albeit with a post-factum edit to include a reference to this post I just made). We've found this easier than telling people "yeah the split is on Page 6 of our LOA, oh wait, that's the old LOA, uh...". I recognize that, in the heat of battle, it's easier to just hear "high to 127.97" and we try to do that to...but I've always found a map helps.

I'd encourage other facilities to consider whether something like this is an option for them. We've tried to make it obvious and also put numbers on some of the key areas so we can say "change of plans, Area 6 is now going to 127.97" if we have to make an adjustment last-minute.