Pilots flying JAX, MLB, DAB and MCO/ORL/SFB

[William Lewis]

I guess it could happen, but I highly doubt that anyone could hop on a center position without having the need to get familiar with the airspace and local procedures first. In all that training time or familiarization time the major field(s) would not always be staffed so that controller would not need the endorsement.

My opinion

Possible (by wording in the book) Yes, Practical No

If anyone were to try this they would be wasting more time dealing with avoiding the major field, rather than they would to just check out on it. Also there is also not may reasons not to train on the major field and work center at the same time. If you already have a C1 or up why limit your experience to just one field rather than all at one time (unless to high of traffic load is preventing this)

For my VC's hop on Center, I will monitor you and make corrections as necessary so you can get familiar with the airspace. While we are not talking to aircraft we will discuss the procedures of each TRACON.

[Dan Leavitt]

So, while we waiþ on an answer about a VC/Transfer, let me add this wrench into the loop.

1. A student ONLY wants to work minors, he gets up to APP and cleared for APP, but not for majors, can he get Center, and then just either wait for an APP to cover him on major, have a split where he only works high, or west, etc, where he's not in control of the major?

2. I'm going to borrow from another thread, let's say that a controller has his major cert revoked ie: discipline, not competent, WHATEVER the reason, can he still control center, following the same example from number 1 here?

DL

[Jon Stoops]

So, while we waiþ on an answer about a VC/Transfer, let me add this wrench into the loop.

1. A student ONLY wants to work minors, he gets up to APP and cleared for APP, but not for majors, can he get Center, and then just either wait for an APP to cover him on major, have a split where he only works high, or west, etc, where he's not in control of the major?

2. I'm going to borrow from another thread, let's say that a controller has his major cert revoked ie: discipline, not competent, WHATEVER the reason, can he still control center, following the same example from number 1 here?

DL

lol, if a controller has major cert revoked for discipline, or not competent than how would he be competent and not have discipline problems to work center?

[Harold Rutila]

There was once a time when people actually cared enough to train for a couple majors before getting onto center. I think the notion that this shouldn't be done is a little strange. As an added bonus, those guys on the major TWR and APP positions can ask the CTR controllers for a second opinion on something because the CTR guy is implied to have controlled at that airport before. The last thing we need is another way for students, transfers, or visitors to jump through procedural loopholes to get up to CTR. I very much disagree.

Let's remember we also control in a place where people can shut down their console whenever they feel like it or when the power goes out. We really don't need anyone working Center who doesn't know how to work one or several major airports. I've had that situation happen to me plenty of times.

[Kenneth Haught]

Agreed Harold, while it might be interesting to discuss ways around the "policy" for enroute controllers, I would be highly cautious actually contemplating having a controller non-certified to work my major jumping on my center. If he's that interested in working center, he can spend the few hours to check-out for major approach and then not have to constantly worry about whether he has someone on that airport so he can work center. After all, an approach is an approach, is an approach...by which I mean that before I want someone working center, they should be competent/comfortable enough to deal with the airports under them, including knowing applicable terrain and approaches that they need to begin their (the pilot's) descent on. In that light if they can work 1 approach, they should pick up local procedure for the major pretty quickly. And if they have that much trouble comprehending policies (or the tasks of a radar position), I really don't want them on an enroute sector, where they affect not only my traffic flows, but could also impact my neighbors (if we had any in AK ), and therefore the reputation of the entire ARTCC.

[Daniel Hawton]

Agreed Harold, while it might be interesting to discuss ways around the "policy" for enroute controllers, I would be highly cautious actually contemplating having a controller non-certified to work my major jumping on my center. If he's that interested in working center, he can spend the few hours to check-out for major approach and then not have to constantly worry about whether he has someone on that airport so he can work center. After all, an approach is an approach, is an approach...by which I mean that before I want someone working center, they should be competent/comfortable enough to deal with the airports under them, including knowing applicable terrain and approaches that they need to begin their (the pilot's) descent on. In that light if they can work 1 approach, they should pick up local procedure for the major pretty quickly. And if they have that much trouble comprehending policies (or the tasks of a radar position), I really don't want them on an enroute sector, where they affect not only my traffic flows, but could also impact my neighbors (if we had any in AK ), and therefore the reputation of the entire ARTCC.

Vancouver doesn't count as a neighbor?   Looks like this thread has long since strayed from the original topic though.

[Kenneth Haught]

Purely tongue in cheek mate  We also border Oakland Oceanic, Edmonton, and a Russian sector that I won't attempt to pronounce/type. Indeed I think we've covered every possible facet of the discussion...all without name-calling or other shenanigans (amazing!). Until next time...

[Don Desfosse]

Excellent questions, Dan.  For what it's worth, at Boston, one cannot earn Center privileges without a Major Approach certification, due to the top-down requirement.  Not into playing games about "well, if x is on, I can be , but if he/she signs off, I have to also...."  Not worth chasing our tails.

[Dan Leavitt]

I guess I never stated my position on this for the record...I'm against having any of these types of situations happen, because there's too many factors that come into play. I just ask, because it's something that had crossed my mind in the past, and just wanted to see what the "general" view on the situation was, and if it was even possible if the need arose.

Don and others with the same view, I completely agree with you guys, but like I said, just wanted to see the options available  

DL

[David Jedrejcic]

Gary, Bryan,

Thanks for clearing that up for me - I figured this was the case, but..  In all fairness, I think it would have been nice to see the wording in the GRP say something like "All CTR positions that include a Major airspace are thereby Major" rather than taking the opposite tack of saying "No CTR positions are Designated Airspaces except for the following Special Centers" and then having us reason that CTR airspaces must be treated as major because of the top-down structure.  It makes it hard to understand the intent.  Anyways, thanks for the answers.

For the rest of the conversation, I don't see any reason or know of any examples where the CTR airspace is manned by a controller that does not have Major certifications.  It is my interpretation of Gary's and Bryan's reponses that a C1 can only control a CTR position if they have the certifications for the Major airspaces below it, period.  If there are no Major airspaces below it, then a C1 is good to go at CTR without any certs.  It makes sense to me, I just don't see it expressly written in the GRP, that's all.

[Stephen Faison]

Just an update on the F11 situation to whom it may concern, it is no longer in effect and the airspace is back to normal as it was with MCO being controlled only by MCO_APP, JAX being controlled only by JAX_APP, and DAB being controlled only by DAB_APP.

As for the MCO major status, there was some miscommunication and misunderstanding. We've turned MCO back to a minor, have fixed the appropriate documentation, have changed training accordingly, and are patiently awaiting the final decision/approval from the EC.

[Harold Rutila]

Did you guys really have to change MCO back to a minor airport while awaiting major status even though you've been teaching with it as a major for years? You should not have to default to minor if you once had a major status at a facility and are awaiting re-approval of its major status. Doesn't that make sense?

[Stephen Faison]

It was a minor for a pretty long time. When a new senior staff came in, we all decided it'd be best to have MCO as a major. We applied, and a few weeks later we were prematurely informed by David J. that the request for MCO as a major was approved. We then proceeded to change all of our procedures reflecting MCO as a major.

Snippets from two different emails from David J. recently:

"...but we’re going to have to go back to treating KMCO as a minor airfield until it gets on the GRP list, and that will not be overnight..."

"You all will need to cease any treatment of a facility as “Major” unless it is listed on the GRP document referenced above (on the VATSIM site, not the VATUSA site).  This needs to be done as soon as possible.  I understand that you all likely have documentation that needs to be modified (if you find yourself in this predicament), and I know that can’t be modified overnight, so we will work to make sure this gets done ASAP."

So, we changed MCO back to a minor temporarily until it is approved (hopefully lol)

[Harold Rutila]

The main problem I have with that is in theory you could certify students on Jacksonville Center without them having any knowledge of how to work potentially high-level traffic scenarios and deal with whatever else presents unique situations to ATC in Orlando. Either that, or students could complain (and win the argument) that they should be certified on Jacksonville Center without needing to go through MCO_APP training. It just opens a giant loophole, and I don't think that's right.

There wasn't any specific language in the policy that said we ever had to go back to treating airports that were formerly major as minor until they were approved; this is quite literally an example of the proverbial step backward.

[Daniel Hawton]

The main problem I have with that is in theory you could certify students on Jacksonville Center without them having any knowledge of how to work potentially high-level traffic scenarios and deal with whatever else presents unique situations to ATC in Orlando. Either that, or students could complain (and win the argument) that they should be certified on Jacksonville Center without needing to go through MCO_APP training. It just opens a giant loophole, and I don't think that's right.

There wasn't any specific language in the policy that said we ever had to go back to treating airports that were formerly major as minor until they were approved; this is quite literally an example of the proverbial step backward.

MCO was a minor long before GRPv2 ever came out.  So in effect, it's undoing something that has only been around for a few months and going back to what has been done for years.  As far as future training, I do not believe that they can remove a controller's ability work positions they are certified on just because an airport goes from minor to major.  But I may be misinterpreting that.