VATUSA Forums
General => The Flight Deck => Topic started by: Daniel Hawton on September 07, 2010, 07:55:49 PM
-
At Jacksonville, we are trying to expand our coverage to provide you with service as you fly around Jacksonville, Daytona or Orlando. Previously, the FAA attempted to separate the Orlando TRACON from Orlando Tower and combine Orlando, Daytona, Tampa and Jacksonville TRACONs into one giant "Central Florida TRACON". This, however, was stopped by NATCA and resulted in only the TRACON and Tower separations and the southern shelf of Daytona Approach near Melbourne and Space Coast becoming part of Orlando.
At Jacksonville, we decided to create this dream.. with the exception of Tampa because that is Miami's airspace. So, if you are flying out of Jacksonville and do not see JAX_APP, JAX_N_APP or JAX_S_APP... look for F11_J_APP. F11_J_APP is the primary sector covering Jacksonville, Daytona and Orlando areas. If F11_J_APP and F11_O_APP are on, F11_O controls Ocala, Gainesville, Orlando area, and Melbourne airports while F11_J_APP controls Daytona, Craig, and Jacksonville area airports.
This new airspace spans approximately 190 nautical miles north to south, and 130 nautical miles east to west of freshly controlled airspace. The majority of the airspace is SFC to 10,000 feet, but areas over Orlando are up to 16,000 and over Jacksonville up to 15,000 feet.
If you have any questions, feel free to reply here!
The radio call sign is "Central Florida Approach" for arriving aircraft and "Central Florida Departure" for departures.
-
Should also add that F11_J_APP will cover Orlando in the absence of F11_O_APP.. so look for JAX_APP, JAX_N_APP or JAX_S_APP, then F11_J_APP.. then center. If in Orlando, look for MCO_E_APP, MCO_W_APP, or F11_O_APP .. lastly F11_J_APP.. then center.
-
Looking at this from a pilot's perspective, this is a confusing policy.
1.) Is "F11" depicted correctly on ServInfo, VATSpy, VATSIM Who's Online, etc? That in and of itself may make it look as though there are no approach services provided anywhere.
2.) Is there really any basis for the combination except for attempting to implement a procedure that was never implemented at all, but may have looked good on paper? We've tried a lot of things in ZDV that require some pilot education, such as Ramp Control, but in reality, hardly anyone wants to take the time to read in-depth about these procedures. This one is really out of the ordinary in that it isn't remotely close to a real world procedure whatsoever, from the F11 to the Central Florida Approach callsign.
3.) What happens when you "sectorize" for events? Do all callsigns revert to their real world ones, or is "Central Florida Approach" the callsign for all satellite/primary airport approach positions? If it's not, then you're kind of violating the basics of a TRACON consolidation: When D01 (Denver) TRACON took over PUB and GJT, the callsigns for PUB_APP and GJT_APP became "Denver Approach," but on paper, the Pueblo Sector and Grand Junction Sector respectively. Likewise the SOCAL, NORCAL, and Potomac TRACON consolidations feature the same callsign for all positions.
From an administrative standpoint:
1.) Why isn't it more effective to allow your students to train on the major approach facilities (as far as I'm aware from looking at your site, MCO is the only major TRACON) and then just move them up to center, where they can provide the VATSIM-standard, tier-based services to all of those TRACONs in addition to the en-route airspace? Is there some sort of requirement to certify on F11 before being certified on Center? If there is, then you might be in violation of the GRP.
I don't like to be such a heavy critic, and I'm all for new ideas, but I don't know that this one will serve the purpose that you all intend.
-
Looking at this from a pilot's perspective, this is a confusing policy.
1.) Is "F11" depicted correctly on ServInfo, VATSpy, VATSIM Who's Online, etc? That in and of itself may make it look as though there are no approach services provided anywhere.
Most mapping tools seem to place Approaches based upon where their primary visibility point is located. (and by most, I mean Vattastic, vatview, and ServInfo being the ones I checked) Not too sure about VATSpy because I have had zero luck getting the thing to fully function, but that is how I have found ServInfo and several others to work.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]2.) Is there really any basis for the combination except for attempting to implement a procedure that was never implemented at all, but may have looked good on paper? We've tried a lot of things in ZDV that require some pilot education, such as Ramp Control, but in reality, hardly anyone wants to take the time to read in-depth about these procedures. This one is really out of the ordinary in that it isn't remotely close to a real world procedure whatsoever, from the F11 to the Central Florida Approach callsign.[/quote]
This is beyond paper, this was actually IN PROGRESS but was halted by NATCA because it was also a slight downsizing amongst other "issues". Not much "education" needs to happen here, a contact me is good enough to get the pilot on frequency.. even working a regular approach, I find myself having to send contact me's to pilots because they "didn't see me on".
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]3.) What happens when you "sectorize" for events? Do all callsigns revert to their real world ones, or is "Central Florida Approach" the callsign for all satellite/primary airport approach positions? If it's not, then you're kind of violating the basics of a TRACON consolidation: When D01 (Denver) TRACON took over PUB and GJT, the callsigns for PUB_APP and GJT_APP became "Denver Approach," but on paper, the Pueblo Sector and Grand Junction Sector respectively. Likewise the SOCAL, NORCAL, and Potomac TRACON consolidations feature the same callsign for all positions.[/quote]
The whole purpose behind Central Florida Approach is to offer services to others. Having a call sign of Orlando Approach with this "Consolidation" will be far more confusing when Jacksonville Approach is active. During events, Central FL App can still handle the airspace with normal sectorization occuring in the appropriate areas. This is meant mainly for non-peak times to broaden the expanses of the approach controller. This position is not meant for event staffing, as centers are usually up for events where as centers aren't up otherwise as often as approach.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]From an administrative standpoint:
1.) Why isn't it more effective to allow your students to train on the major approach facilities (as far as I'm aware from looking at your site, MCO is the only major TRACON) and then just move them up to center, where they can provide the VATSIM-standard, tier-based services to all of those TRACONs in addition to the en-route airspace? Is there some sort of requirement to certify on F11 before being certified on Center? If there is, then you might be in violation of the GRP.[/quote]
There is only 1 major airport/airspace in ZJX, so, it has nothing to do with additional training. Once you have Major Approach, you can staff MCO and F11.. no additional training required as you already got it between minor (working JAX) and major (working MCO). I know all about the GRP, and designed F11 because we have more Approach controllers than Center or people Center qualified that enjoy working Approach more. As far as the training on center thing, training is slower in our ARTCC than it used to be because our levels of training staff have dropped as seems the trend around VATUSA. So, this way there is more "reward" for picking up major approach.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I don't like to be such a heavy critic, and I'm all for new ideas, but I don't know that this one will serve the purpose that you all intend.[/quote]
And while I appreciate criticism, this is, in the end a game.. we are trying to provide better and more services to pilots and have an environment we all can enjoy. There's nothing "extra" required of controllers to staff it besides remembering the call sign, frequency and position name. Nothing extra required of pilots besides just looking to see who is on using their pilot client. This way, aircraft going from Miami to Daytona can actually get services all the way to Daytona versus descent to about 5000 and right about the point they are supposed to get vectors to final are told radar services terminated.
And staffing of F11 versus MCO, DAB and JAX is at the discretion of the controller.. it's more choice for the controller on what they want to do. All that is required is certification on major and minor approach. Even the SOPs for F11 tell you to refer to the local TRACON SOPs and basically define the airspace purpose, frequencies and boundaries.
-
Oh, and yes, it is recorded in VATSIM's Who's Online.. as it appears to not have any restrictions on callsigns it logs. IE, log in as a mistyped/made up name.. then go and check it out.. you'll see it listed.
-
Well, it is surely quite an interesting concept. Thanks for answering those questions; they did clear up what I was wondering. Good luck with this whole thing.
-
Given that ZJX has no airport designated as a MAJOR, and given that GRP requires "top-down" service of its controllers, how does this increase the services provided to pilots?
I mean, since controllers controlling at the Center level are required to provide service into/out of all airports, is this going to increase service?
I am not against the idea, just trying to understand...
Jason Vodnansky
-
Most mapping tools seem to place Approaches based upon where their primary visibility point is located. (and by most, I mean Vattastic, vatview, and ServInfo being the ones I checked) Not too sure about VATSpy because I have had zero luck getting the thing to fully function, but that is how I have found ServInfo and several others to work.
Incorrect. None of the programs listed above display F11 callsigns. Furthermore, they don't place Approaches based on primary vis point.
-
Incorrect. None of the programs listed above display F11 callsigns. Furthermore, they don't place Approaches based on primary vis point.
Not fully correct, when I was on F11, I was fully displayed utilizing Vatview and Vattastic. When I move my primary visibility point, on vatview, it moves too. I placed it over at Pensacola for testing, and a few minutes later, my "approach ring" was over Pensacola instead of Orlando on vatview. This, to me, would be the smarter way to do it as opposed to a giant database because approaches are more likely to change than center sectors. When looking through Vatspy and ServInfo's directories, I find the center boundaries, but nothing for TRACONs. So, meh.
-
Not fully correct, when I was on F11, I was fully displayed utilizing Vatview and Vattastic. When I move my primary visibility point, on vatview, it moves too. I placed it over at Pensacola for testing, and a few minutes later, my "approach ring" was over Pensacola instead of Orlando on vatview. This, to me, would be the smarter way to do it as opposed to a giant database because approaches are more likely to change than center sectors. When looking through Vatspy and ServInfo's directories, I find the center boundaries, but nothing for TRACONs. So, meh.
I have never seen this before. Could you please post a screenshot of you on as F11 and displayed on the map?
-
I have never seen this before. Could you please post a screenshot of you on as F11 and displayed on the map?
Login as anything you want and try it yourself. "Accidentally" typo MIA_APP and set your visibility point over Tampa. You'll see it yourself.
-
Question regarding TPA.
I have known for years that ZJX 'owns' Orlando, and ZMA 'owns' TPA.
I have thought it might be in the best interest of both ARTCC's to mutually share one, or both of these airspaces so that say if MIA Center is online, but JAX is not, that MIA would 'own' MCO.
A simple letter of agreement and a mutual training program in regards to TPA and MCO could go a long way to providing more ATC coverage for pilots.
As an example,
MCO is owned by ZJX, but when JAX_CTR is not open, the airspace is released to MIA_CTR.
TPA is owned by ZMA, but when MIA_CTR is not open, the airspace is released to JAX_CTR.
Of course some other issues would have to be worked out such as S3s being allowed to work the airspace, or perhaps it could be limited to C1s only who are Center Certed at their respective facility, and given special training to work the released airspace.
Thoughts?
-
That's been tried before, and was discontinued.
-
That's been tried before, and was discontinued.
I assume it didn't work out too well then?
Best laid plans...
-
It worked fine, but it was canceled by the DD at the time.
"Ownership" wasn't involved, but certified controllers of each ARTCC could provide services in the absence of the other.
-
The other reason being that MCO is a major while TPA is not. And another reason, if you go to airnav and look up airports in Tampa's airspace, you'll see ARTCC being referenced to Miami, and airports in MCO's airsapce referencing Jacksonville. Swapping it around, back and forth, will be confusing for pilots. A majority have it down were they contact JAX CTR around 10000 or so after leaving TPA. Not too sure about the Orlando side contacting MIA, though.
-
Not too sure about the Orlando side contacting MIA, though.
Some pilots are good about that, but you can never be perfect.
-
The other reason being that MCO is a major while TPA is not. And another reason, if you go to airnav and look up airports in Tampa's airspace, you'll see ARTCC being referenced to Miami, and airports in MCO's airsapce referencing Jacksonville. Swapping it around, back and forth, will be confusing for pilots. A majority have it down were they contact JAX CTR around 10000 or so after leaving TPA. Not too sure about the Orlando side contacting MIA, though.
Daniel,
You say that KMCO is a "major" airport. Upon review of the GRP, which is the only list of approved "major" airports, KMCO is NOT on that list. How are you able to treat it as a "major" facility?
Obviously you have approval for this, so could you, or your ATD, share with us the process you used to treat KMCO as a "major" airport, and how you got this approved?
Thanks,
Jason Vodnansky
-
Daniel,
You say that KMCO is a "major" airport. Upon review of the GRP, which is the only list of approved "major" airports, KMCO is NOT on that list. How are you able to treat it as a "major" facility?
Obviously you have approval for this, so could you, or your ATD, share with us the process you used to treat KMCO as a "major" airport, and how you got this approved?
Thanks,
Jason Vodnansky
You are correct, it became a major AFTER GRP v2.0 was released. As far as the process, it was handled by the ATM and DATM of ZJX, not sure who they contacted. To verify major airports within VATUSA, visit http://www.vatusa.net/major_apt_list.php (http://www.vatusa.net/major_apt_list.php)
-
Interesting, I wasn't aware that VATUSA could override the EC.
Gary, if you are watching this thread, is the list on VATUSA's site correct?
Bryan, as VATNA1, and as the chair of the EC, could you explain the process used to designate a "major" facility? When did the EC vote on adding KMCO to the list? Could you also explain which source takes priority?
Surely some process has been used to bypass the EC's authority...
Jason Vodnansky
-
Daniel
With reference to your "super-tracon", something that is unclear to me is the progression of the student thru the S-3 to C-1 level...
Assuming that KMCO IS, in fact, a "major" airport, am I correct is saying a student going through your training program would get;
1) S-2 rating
2) KMCO endorsement
3) S-3 rating
4) F11 ( I think) endorsement
5) Then the Controller (C-1) rating
Is that the correct order?
Jason Vodnansky
-
Interesting, I wasn't aware that VATUSA could override the EC.
Gary, if you are watching this thread, is the list on VATUSA's site correct?
Bryan, as VATNA1, and as the chair of the EC, could you explain the process used to designate a "major" facility? When did the EC vote on adding KMCO to the list? Could you also explain which source takes priority?
Surely some process has been used to bypass the EC's authority...
On reviewing the GRP v2 list, I would say there has been an inadvertent omission of KMCO as an authorized MAJOR Facility within the vZJX ARTCC. I found no facility from vZJX in the list at all and think if any facility within the ARTCC warrants MAJOR status, it would be KMCO. Additionally, it was accepted as such prior to GRPv2 and would think that status carried forward to v2 with no reservations.
As for the process to establish a MAJOR, it is the same it has always been...request processed through the Division to Region where all things being good-to-go, it is presented at the next scheduled EC meeting and voted on.
NOTE: There is NO allowance for nor intent at the Division level to override this process.
One question I have, was this coordinated/approved through the Southern ATD?
-
On reviewing the GRP v2 list, I would say there has been an inadvertent omission of KMCO as an authorized MAJOR Facility within the vZJX ARTCC. I found no facility from vZJX in the list at all and think if any facility within the ARTCC warrants MAJOR status, it would be KMCO. Additionally, it was accepted as such prior to GRPv2 and would think that status carried forward to v2 with no reservations.
As for the process to establish a MAJOR, it is the same it has always been...request processed through the Division to Region where all things being good-to-go, it is presented at the next scheduled EC meeting and voted on.
NOTE: There is NO allowance for nor intent at the Division level to override this process.
One question I have, was this coordinated/approved through the Southern ATD?
From what was given to me from the ATM/DATM/TA, it was approved before I got there. Not sure who they coordinated with. One of them would be the best people to ask. Recently, due to some internal things, I have stepped down from FE so I am no longer the best person to ask and the senior staff of ZJX do not frequent these forums. Not sure, but I know it was coordinated through either VATUSA8 or VATNA1 at the bare minimum. Exactly whom, I don't know.. it was/is above my paygrade.
-
Daniel
With reference to your "super-tracon", something that is unclear to me is the progression of the student thru the S-3 to C-1 level...
Assuming that KMCO IS, in fact, a "major" airport, am I correct is saying a student going through your training program would get;
1) S-2 rating
2) KMCO endorsement
3) S-3 rating
4) F11 ( I think) endorsement
5) Then the Controller (C-1) rating
Is that the correct order?
Jason Vodnansky
No, there is no training requirement For F11. There is no extra endorsements (not permitted through the GRP v2 anyway). F11 is there if the controller WANTS to control it, and/or use it as a stepping stone to center since a majority of the time center is just an extra large TRACON with an extra set of responsibilities. There is no requirement to even work F11. It's there if the controller wants it. The training staff have been instructed to not require training on it, and only monitor people on F11 if the student requests it.
So the steps still are:
1) S-2 rating
2) Major Tower
3) S-3
4) Major approach (MCO) [AFTER this step, a person can work F11 since F11 is inclusive of MCO airspace but they must complete this step first]
5) C-1
-
ZJX had previously decided/asked to take KMCO off the Major airport list to support inclusivity and because our traffic flow wasn't the best.
Just to shed some light on the situation as I was the FE at ZJX when the Major airport application was sent through.
DATM & ATM of ZJX spoke with David J. *To my understanding* with my recommendations as well to have ZJX come forth as a Major airport.
We were then forwarded to either a button on the VATUSA website This was very very recently after you had been appointed VATUSA1.
On Saturday May 1st 2010 the DATM "who clicked the button on the VATUSA site" was sent an email that was also sent to David J. among other VATUSA staff. The email had a message that confirmed the major airport application had been approved.
Hope this helps
Rahul
-
http://www.vatsim.net/network/docs/grp/ (http://www.vatsim.net/network/docs/grp/) is the only written authority for a 'major'
KMCO is not yet listed there. If the intent is for it to be a major it can only be approved by the EC and only when listed does its status change.
-
http://www.vatsim.net/network/docs/grp/ (http://www.vatsim.net/network/docs/grp/) is the only written authority for a 'major'
KMCO is not yet listed there. If the intent is for it to be a major it can only be approved by the EC and only when listed does its status change.
KMCO's MAJOR status is being worked out...should have a resolution very shortly.
-
KMCO's MAJOR status is being worked out...should have a resolution very shortly.
Great news Gary.
-
Gary while you are sorting that out could you work on KCVG's? We submitted a packet to Brian (who was VATUSA1 and VATNA1) in Feburary or March and still haven't been given an approval or denial. We were told we would have more information after the April EC meeting but never got a response. My review of the meeting minutes affords me to believe that it wasn't processed at that point. Our understanding is that it must be unanimously approved by the EC.
-
not to start a thread about adding fields to the list, but could you give some insight for ZOB's request about 4 months ago to add CLE as a major field? we also haven't heard anything.
-
Seems to me some senior staff at ZJX have been misinformed as they are still under the impression it is a major. I have forwarded this thread to them.
-
We're waiting at least one in ZDV.
-
For all those concerned, yes the ZJX ATM asked me how could they get KMCO to be a Designated Airspace. I pointed them to the VATUSA website where they could request that an airspace be considered by the ruling authorities as such. Since I am not part of the process that decides this (the EC does), I subsequently informed them that when and if they see their facility listed on the VATUSA page under "Approved Major Airports" (see link here http://www.vatusa.net/major_apt_list.php (http://www.vatusa.net/major_apt_list.php), then they could go ahead and treat it as a major airport. I don't claim to have any knowledge of how this was decided, or how it was listed up on the VATUSA page, but being that it was, they had at least my permission to use KMCO as a major airport, I will vouch for that.
I now understand that the link Norman sent is the official authority on what is and what is not desingated airspace. I will not refer ATMs to the VATUSA list anymore, but I think obviously that should either be kept up to date or taken down altogether, so as not to cause confusion.
Daniel, thanks for forwarding this post to the rest of the folks at ZJX, but they are under the impression that KMCO is major because of what I just said above. They should continue to follow their current procedures until Gary gets the status "worked out" as he mentioned above. I'm not going to ask them to change their policies and procedures on a temporary basis, as I've a feeling that Gary will come back to us with a ruling shortly, and then I'll ask them to take actions if necessary. I understand that during this short, interim period, KMCO will be operating as a major airfield (as they have been since May), even though it is not officially listed in the link that Norman listed above. We'll get a ruling shortly, and then we'll do what needs to be done.
-
Bruce,
CVG is being worked on, I promise. It originally met some resistance when it was introduced, and when an EC member was lost in the process, it ran out of steam.
MCO is being worked on as well, as Gary mentioned.
CLE never made it to me, and I am not aware of any airports submitted by ZDV.
-
To add further to the confusion, it seems to be the VATUSA request system that is causing the misunderstanding. Specifically, it is the wording in the emails, as Rahul mentions.
I haven't seen the emails in a very long time, so I can't comment as to the exact wording, but the approval letters, basically saying that the major application has been approved, is simply stating that the major airport is approved BY THE VATUSA STAFF. It is somewhat misleading...possibly incredibly misleading. ZJX obviously took that letter and the status change on the VATUSA website to mean that their airport had been approved by everyone. They are not trying to circumvent the system or operate an airport as major that they are not authorized to operate as such. It is a very simple misunderstanding.
The system preceeds Gary, and was used primarily during the initial request for major airports when GRP2 was introduced. It afforded the VATUSA staff the ability to have a web-based interface to review the applications, and the applicants a web-based system to see what progress was being made on their requests.
The process for requesting a major airport has not changed, and until the airport is listed in Appendix B of the GRP, it is not approved.
1) Make request for major status to VATUSA
2) VATUSA approves or denies the request
a) If VATUSA disapproves the airport, there is no appeal. Airport never reaches me or EC
3) Approved major airport (by VATUSA staff) is sent to me and normally approved
4) Major airports approved by the DD and countersigned by RD are presented to the EC
5) Airport must be approved unanimously by the EC
6) Airport is added to the GRP
-
I am not aware of any airports submitted by ZDV.
We were initially waiting on COS and ASE, but the most important request to us is ASE for several reasons. They are both listed as "pending" in the Major Airport Maintenance web page on vatusa.net. I can resubmit them if need be.
-
Ahhhh, gotcha Harold. If they're pending in the VATUSA system, they haven't come to me yet. I don't even see those until they are approved by the DD.
-
Bryan,
Alright, well if that's the official word, then I'll go ahead and instruct my ATMs that their airports are not major until listed on the GRP itself. Any idea how long the process above should take? This will be a first question from the ATMs - does it take a week to get approved (or rejected) by VATUSA or more? Does it take a month to get approved (or rejected) by the EC and to be listed on the GRP or more? I would just like to know what the intended turnaround for this is, roughly speaking.
Thanks,
Dave
-
Thanks Dave,
Yes, that is definitely official, straight from the top.
As to how long the process should take, it was designed so that major airports should not be changing regularly. There should be very few additions, and very few deletions to Appendix B, quite simply because airport traffic and complexity really shouldn't be changing that drastically. The Divisions submitted the original list based on what they felt was appropriate, and if the airport didn't make the list then, chances are it isn't going to at some point in the future.
As such, the EC is normally presented with any proposed changes at the quarterly meetings. If there is some pressing major airport that can't wait until then, we can certainly bring it up before the meeting. This is currently the case with MCO, a special center in Australia, and a few European positions relating to callsign changes. They need to be voted on immediately. So once submitted to the EC, it theoretically shouldn't be any more than 3 months, unless something goes wrong, as was the case with CVG.
As far as how long it takes to be approved on the VATUSA side, that is up to Gary. The Division Director must sign off on the airport first before it even gets to me, and if the Director does not approve the major airport, there is no recourse for submitting it to me or directly to the EC. If the DD denies an airport, it is denied and that's the end of the story.
-
Ok, excellent - thanks for the info. I have one question since I'm talking with all my ATMs about this at the moment...
If an ARTCC has a Major facility, how is it that their CTR position is not expressly defined in the GRP as a Designated Airspace? I hope you see my question, and I'm sure it's been answered years ago, but since we're talking about it now, I'd just like to make sure we're doing everything right... Can a visiting C1 come in and control ZXX_CTR if they don't have a certification to control at the Major facility KXYZ included in the airspace? I'm supposing that they cannot, in fact, do this - it simply wouldn't make sense. But the GRP specifically says that a CTR airspace is not a Major airport or a Designated Airspace by default, so... Do I tell my ATMs to treat their CTR airspace as something that requires certification (if it includes a Major facility), or that if it's not specifically listed in the GRP document, that their CTR facility is controllable by any C1 without any certifications?
-
Ok, excellent - thanks for the info. I have one question since I'm talking with all my ATMs about this at the moment...
If an ARTCC has a Major facility, how is it that their CTR position is not expressly defined in the GRP as a Designated Airspace? I hope you see my question, and I'm sure it's been answered years ago, but since we're talking about it now, I'd just like to make sure we're doing everything right... Can a visiting C1 come in and control ZXX_CTR if they don't have a certification to control at the Major facility KXYZ included in the airspace? I'm supposing that they cannot, in fact, do this - it simply wouldn't make sense. But the GRP specifically says that a CTR airspace is not a Major airport or a Designated Airspace by default, so... Do I tell my ATMs to treat their CTR airspace as something that requires certification (if it includes a Major facility), or that if it's not specifically listed in the GRP document, that their CTR facility is controllable by any C1 without any certifications?
Wouldn't that be covered under the requirement to provide top-down services? If you aren't certified to control a major facility, how can you provide top-down service?
-
Dave, et. al.,
As of GRPv1 with the implementation of the MAJOR airport facility, it was determined that the issuance of a C1 rating required the endorsement for any MAJOR facility within the ARTCC airspace. This supported the "top-down" service paradigm that has been extant across VATSIM for a very long time. Per GRPv1, visiting/transferring controllers had to satisfy any MAJOR endorsement(s) in order to fulfill the C1 operational requirements. As far as I'm aware, GRPv2 has not removed this requirement though I might have missed something in the interpretation of it all.
Though it may seem onerous at first, a C1 rated controller applying to visit or transfer should have the basic skills down-pat and only need training on the uniquely specific operational requirements of the MAJOR facility(s). Additionally, this is one of the reasons the MAJOR facility lists were reviewed and trimmed on issuance of GRPv2...it insured a limited set of facilities truly reflecting a need to be considered MAJOR is in the system.
Hopes this helps...
-
Gary is absolutely correct.
The requirements have not changed. While a center is not specifically designated airspace (and if a facility does not have a major airport, any C1 who is a visiting controller, passes the competency check, etc., etc. can work that facility), a center controller must provide top-down services when able. A center controller must at any major airport in the center.
-
The way that this is made out to be read, seems very cut and dry, if you are not Major certified, you can't work the Center. Seems very Black and White. Now to add some color. Can a C-1, home or visiting, who is NOT Major certified for whatever reason, still work Center IF an Approach is online for the major airspace? If that is the case, then the Center controller must sign off when the Approach sector closes, yes? OR, can the Center stay/come online, but just hand-off planes to Unicom when the Aircraft reach the Major Airspace's boundaries?
DL
-
The way that this is made out to be read, seems very cut and dry, if you are not Major certified, you can't work the Center. Seems very Black and White. Now to add some color. Can a C-1, home or visiting, who is NOT Major certified for whatever reason, still work Center IF an Approach is online for the major airspace? If that is the case, then the Center controller must sign off when the Approach sector closes, yes? OR, can the Center stay/come online, but just hand-off planes to Unicom when the Aircraft reach the Major Airspace's boundaries?
DL
Interesting question Dan, and it seems to me that there was a discussion about something similar within the VATUSA staff forum, or ATM forum, but it has been a long time and I could be wrong on that "memory"...
OPINION
I agree that it seems "black and white". If you are NOT "major" endorsed, then you may "NOT" work center for that airspace. You can't comply with the "top-down" service "philosophy".
OPINION
I DO believe that IF a "major" endorsed controller is controlling said "major" airport, that a controller CAN control the CENTER position. That controller, after all, is NOT handling the supposed "MAJOR" airport. Once that CENTER controller becomes responsible for that airport, he/she must sign off, as simply terminating service into said "major" airport is not following the aforementioned "philosophy".
I am curious to see what answers come forth in the near term. Even more curious as to the long term answers, though I think we actually have them, thanks to Norman for that information.
It seems that the BoG and the EC have this right, the question is, is it as intended?
Best,
JV
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Harold,
I tried my hardest (as did Gary) to allow JAX to keep MCO has a major airport pending a decision from the EC, but was taken to task by the BOG for that decision. I saw no sense in forcing them to redo all their training information, website, documentation, etc. for a week and then need to change it back again if it was approved. Rules are rules, and sometimes common sense gets thrown out the window simply for the sake of observing those rules. The good news is that MCO has been officially approved. The bad news is that it will not be appearing in the GRP until at least sometime next week, and as a result cannot be treated as a major airport until then.
-
Thanks for your efforts, Bryan. It's a shame that the guys at ZJX have had to go through such a document shuffle over all of this.
-
Thanks for your efforts, Bryan. It's a shame that the guys at ZJX have had to go through such a document shuffle over all of this.
+1, Bureaucracy at it's best. This is a volunteer network right? Different story if they were trying to go around the system, but it is clear that it was no fault of their own.
-
Since I misinterpreted the rules and gave ZJX a premature authorization to operate as a major, I'll take the blame for their troubles, but I had to ask them to shut down major ops until this was taken care of - certainly not what I had planned to do. And it certainly wasn't through any fault of ZJX. Just a bureaucratic hiccup. Looks like things will be back up soon though, so that's good news.