Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
1.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.2. Re-defined to only apply to larger, 3+ ARTCC FNOsIt is this way, without the "larger" modifier:
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.
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.
) 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.
1.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.2. Re-defined to only apply to larger, 3+ ARTCC FNOsIt is this way, without the "larger" modifier:
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.
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]
) 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.
What a mess. DC Center on 133.72 couldn't even except traffic from Indy Center. Five planes had to diverted and two just disconnected because they got tired of holding for over an hour. They could except traffic from Atlanta however during my time holding as I watched planes cross over from Atlanta sectors. Indy Center had to keep apologizing to everyone. https://prntscr.com/rx3b1w
Indy should be apologizing to everyone for not doing their part in trying to keep this event afloat - they were asked for 40 miles in trail, and they ended up with 5 MIT at the boundary to ZDC. After the handoffs were refused, they then dropped the track on planes and shipped them to ZDC anyways, which is a violation of many air traffic regulations. So, they were spun back into ZID airspace.
Don't blame ZDC - they've been doing as well as they could for an event that had more operations during this event than the last 12 hours real world.
Than maybe all the controllers for the event need to work together instead of blaming each other and having pilots fly circles all over the place for hours. Pilots are following the instructions given and were the ones getting hosed because of the lack of coordination between controllers. Sounds like a controller issue when neighboring ARTCC's cant work it out. Maybe FNO procedures need to be re-looked at due to the increased traffic loads due to real world situations. The last 3 FNO's have been like this.
What a mess. DC Center on 133.72 couldn't even except traffic from Indy Center. Five planes had to diverted and two just disconnected because they got tired of holding for over an hour. They could except traffic from Atlanta however during my time holding as I watched planes cross over from Atlanta sectors. Indy Center had to keep apologizing to everyone. https://prntscr.com/rx3b1w
Indy should be apologizing to everyone for not doing their part in trying to keep this event afloat - they were asked for 40 miles in trail, and they ended up with 5 MIT at the boundary to ZDC. After the handoffs were refused, they then dropped the track on planes and shipped them to ZDC anyways, which is a violation of many air traffic regulations. So, they were spun back into ZID airspace.
Don't blame ZDC - they've been doing as well as they could for an event that had more operations during this event than the last 12 hours real world.
Than maybe all the controllers for the event need to work together instead of blaming each other and having pilots fly circles all over the place for hours. Pilots are following the instructions given and were the ones getting hosed because of the lack of coordination between controllers. Maybe FNO procedures need to be re-looked at due to the increased traffic loads due to real world situations. The last 3 FNO's have been like this.
What a mess. DC Center on 133.72 couldn't even except traffic from Indy Center. Five planes had to diverted and two just disconnected because they got tired of holding for over an hour. They could except traffic from Atlanta however during my time holding as I watched planes cross over from Atlanta sectors. Indy Center had to keep apologizing to everyone. https://prntscr.com/rx3b1w
Very good topic! I was taught that an APREQ is required if you amend an aircraft's flight plan and it affects the next controller. I look forward to hear if this is actually the case since I haven't been able to find any official rule.
I was taught from the beginning that I am only authorized to approve shortcuts that span my airspace. And another side note to that is the RNAV guidance as I understand it. An RNAV flight plan must include AT LEAST one waypoint in any airspace the aircraft will transit AND there should not be more than 250nm between any two waypoints. So those two points alone would prohibit me from clearing a pilot from say the VHP VOR direct to the LAS VOR, as neither other those rules would be satisfied by the instruction.
does APREQ for a shortcut really modify an aircraft's flight plan? For example, let's say I have the following plan from KOMA-KONT:
CATTL2.LNK J60 NATEE.JCKIE2
If the aircraft is already on J60 (which they will be when they cross LNK), would sending them direct NATEE amend their flight plan? NATEE is on J60. I ask, because a shortcut could be sending them directly to a fix that is already on their flight plan, or covered by an airway that is in their flight plan. That is different from say, needing to send them to a new transition to a new arrival to a field that is different from what they filed. That would require an amendment.
VFR-on-top is an IFR operation... how else would you get through the layer?This is VATSIM... Can't you just spawn there?
7−1−1. CLASS A AIRSPACE RESTRICTIONS
Do not apply visual separation or issue VFR or
“VFR-on-top” clearances in Class A airspace.
.
For example. Say you have 3 aircraft that are laterally separated but geographically converging at a given point. One is VFR at 17500, one descending through FL180, and one VFR on top at 18500. Here you would be applying different methods of separation, including visual. How would you think that should be handled?
BL.
Who has turned their nose up, exactly, and how?
One reason I believe the ZHU community didn't bother with the whole class thing was simply they didn't care that much to attend it.
