Before I go through the replies, I do want to make a quick clarification on all of this:
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.
1.
2. Re-defined to only apply to larger, 3+ ARTCC FNOs
It is this way, without the "larger" modifier:
What I mean is that, if you are going to keep the requirements of OPLEVEL3 the same, effectively encouraging a dedicated TMU at each Tier 1 and saying each Tier 1 has to be involved in pre-event meetings, you should limit OPLEVEL3 events to those that advertise multiple ARTCCs like the ZAB/ZFW/ZME Trifire in October that has one major airport in each ARTCC. However, the example in the slides is a ZTL FNO, which has one airport advertised in one ARTCC.
I'm proposing that an FNO advertising one airport in one ARTCC should be classified as OPLEVEL2 or we should consider reducing the requirements of OPLEVEL3 so each FNO doesn't become a massive burden, not just on the host facility but on each of their Tier 1's. Imagine being Memphis Center. The staff of ZME are going to have to give up not just their Friday but also their Thursday nights any time an FNO or other single-airport event is held in Indy, Atlanta, Houston, Fort Worth, or Kansas City. That could easily happen 3 out of 4-5 weeks and thus represent a significant impact for their staff.
The Command Center will provide staffing if none is available - the reason we've initially determined that this is the best way forward is because of local knowledge of the airspace and what works for your facility. I have no idea what best practices are at ZME, so I want to rely on someone that is familiar and can tell me why my idea is bad and we should do this other plan. Eventually, we'll have put together a "playbook" of sorts where we can make better informed decisions about what to do when a scenario pops up, but if something out of the ordinary occurs, we want that local person there to tell us what they think is best so we can evaluate our decision from a national level.
There are benefits to doing it over voice because it can happen quickly and there's less wait for typing and reading.
From a visibility perspective, I hope you're planning to use the regional channels in the vATCSSC Discord to manage pre-event communications (as we've been informally doing for past events). That way, each neighboring airspace can be kept in the loop about discussions. Maybe it's a matter of having the initial discussion via text with the option for a call and/or voice meeting as needed. Speaking from a ZBW perspective, it's truly hard to imagine a scenario where I would need to have a voice discussion with ZOB for a standard FNO featuring KBOS in non-COVID times. Again, I don't want every FNO to become CTP. The traffic (in regular times) doesn't warrant it. You may also want to think about how you schedule the pre-event meeting. That should, at minimum, be established in the staffing request 3-4 weeks out. Saying to people "hey, let's meet tomorrow night" doesn't always work for those of us who don't have a 9am-5pm work schedule (or even for those who do). Then, you have your discussions via Discord 3-7 days out and the day before, people can decide if the scenario warrants a voice call or not. From a ZBW perspective, very few of our events would. That likely is different in other regions where there is more inter-ARTCC collaboration required. [/quote]
We will be using the vATCSCC discord quite heavily, especially in the preplanning phase of the event, as well as during the event for tactical communication between facilities. The 24 hr out meeting, like Jeremy said, will be short (nothing like CTP route meetings
![Cheesy :D](https://forums.vatusa.net/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif)
) and may not even need to occur on voice if everyone's happy with the plan that was put in place during the week.
Currently, there isn't always someone to communicate to during an event about routing, restrictions, or any other relevant factors. But if we want to address the traffic management problem, we need to start with having people who can communicate for their facilities and people who will coordinate with others.
We should absolutely make this a requirement but it should be left for discretion as to whether a dedicated position is required or whether this can be managed by a controller who is working traffic. Yes, I realize it's much better to have a dedicated person in real life. And if you want to pay the same salary FAA TMU operators received, I'm game! When it warrants, have a dedicated position. But when it doesn't warrant, you should come up with a standard of identifying which active controller from the facility is "in charge" from a TMU perspective. I don't know if that's a _T_ in their callsign (not ideal for position swaps) or some kind of identification in Discord (like changing nicknames?). However you do it, identifying "the person" to talk to during an event (or heck, even during non-event scenarios) would be a valuable addition to our standard cross-ARTCC communication practices.
For example, in ZBW we define a CIC. In regular operations, that's the highest-level controller for the facility (so, ZBW). During an event when split Centers are in play, we'll always identify which of them is the CIC. I'm sure it would help neighbors to have a quick resource knowing which of the staffed Center controllers is the best person to contact for general cross-ARTCC questions.
[/quote]
CICs are great for internal issues, but when it comes to external issues, I think a TMC is needed solely for routing, flow programs, and general cross-ARTCC coordination.
Again, like I said at the top, nothing here is final and I want to keep this discussion going to help us pave the way forward.