ATTN: All TMU personnel (including VATUSA Command Center Staff, NTMOs, NTMS', and VATUSA ECs)

Effective immediately, all personnel performing TMU duties on the network must utilize callsigns detailed in Notice 7210.931, Authorized Traffic Management Unit Callsigns. This policy reflects notification made in the vATCSCC Discord to STMCs (VATUSA ECs), TMCs, and Command Center NTMOs/NTMS' on 23 October 2021 (and amends and adds to it).

Please direct all questions, comments, and concerns to the VATUSA NOM at vatusa9@vatusa.net.

Please welcome Aidan Deschene to the VATUSA team as the Operations Planner (OP, VATUSA14) for the VATUSA Command Center!

Aidan has the dedication, motivation, and skills to help run and grow the Command Center. There will be a transition period during which Aidan will be dual-/tri-hatted as Cleveland's TA and WM while he, the facility, region, and VATUSA Training Department work to ensure the hard work he has dedicated to ZOB is left in good hands.

ATTN: VATUSA ECs and designated TMU personnel

Please observe Notice 7210.930, Interdivisional Communications, regarding notification requirements for traffic management initiative (TMI) coordination with facilities in other divisions. This requirement is intended to ensure TMI coordination is accountable to both facilities involved and the Command Center.

Please direct any questions or concerns to the VATUSA NOM at vatusa9@vatusa.net.

Quote from: Evan Reiter on May 12, 2021, 03:57:31 PM

1) Yes - at the airports where PRM approaches are published, they are routinely used when traffic warrants. I have flown PRM approaches at KATL regularly. I believe they are also common at KSFO.

2) I would imagine, like in real life, VATUSA facilities simulate the use of PRM approaches when traffic and weather conditions warrant. Specifically, I would imagine KATL to be a regular user of PRM approaches.

Thanks for your information.Got it. I will pay attention while I'm flying although I havenot seen it now.

By the way, are there special frequency for PRM approaches in real operation?
(For example, I noticed when ILS 9L with PRM, crews need to monitor 32.55 but it seems not approach controllers' frequency?)

Are there controllers only monitor traffic on final (or they need to work on 2 frequencies and work for arrival traffic and monitor traffic on final at the same time)?

See this: https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/training/prm/media/PRM_training.pdf

Quote from: James Sobey on February 26, 2021, 09:42:04 PM

Is anything going to be done for all the pilots that were either stuck on the ground due to ground stops 2hrs 30 minutes for myself or turned around back to where they came from due to handover denials?

Yea sure send me your hourly Vatsim pilot rate and I'll draw up a Cheesecake Factory giftcard in MS Paint.

27/0026    SFO    VMC    ARR:28L/28R_STAGGER DEP:28L/28R    AAR(Strat):40    ADR:40

27/0015    SJC    VMC    ARR:30L/30R DEP:30L/30R    AAR(Strat):40    ADR:40

27/0015    SMF    VMC    ARR:35L/35R DEP:35L/35R    AAR(Strat):50    ADR:50

27/0015    OAK    VMC    ARR:28R/30 DEP:28R/30    AAR(Strat):45    ADR:45

Greetings from this ZNY-based pilot (albeit the edges of the airspace!)

Can we go to the extremes with this by using FS2004, outdated scenery AND an outdated pilot client (Squawkbox)?

So here's the deal: we (at ZNY) are working on gathering old routes and such to/from LGA. So we will be able to cross-check old/legacy routes with the preferred ones as far back as 2001 (the year, and May of 2001 to be specific). However, because flights will be going to/from all over the place--not just ZNY--you should be prepared to amend your route appropriately at the request of ATC in the case that they can't accept the CAP VOR (this was replaced by SPI VOR), for instance. Furthermore, you will NEED to communicate with ATC so as long as you can do that without issue, then you'll be fine.

ZNY will be doing its best to keep track of old/legacy routes and coordinating with our ATC friends to make sure everybody has a good time. For instance, if you file a legacy route that mirrors a modern-day equivalent, we would put something like "modern route: XXX YYY ZZZ" in the flight plan remarks and then coordinate that information verbally.

Hope this answers your question!

1.

2. Re-defined to only apply to larger, 3+ ARTCC FNOs

It is this way, without the "larger" modifier:

This level is activated for all events or operations requiring coordination involving more than two ARTCCs, including the host
ARTCC (i.e. FNO).

2.

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).

Yes we've had discussions about this very thing. I think the important principle to be understood here is that all facilities must first perform their 7110.65 2-1-1.b.1 duties: "[Provide] a safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of air traffic" before addressing their TMU duties. Now, that being said, facilities should absolutely be thinking about incorporating a dedicated TMU into their event schedules--particularly for the bigger events--but the actual execution of that is up to the facilities.

As far as the logic behind staffing for our neighbors is multi-faceted and I refer you back to slide 12 of the VATUSA TMU Roadmap ("Responsibilities").

3.

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?

Until now, we have absolutely no requirement for staffing TMU positions during events. However, in the past six months or so, numerous facilities (in varying levels of coverage) have been providing TMU positions. Particularly, I explicitly remember ZJX, ZMA, ZTL, ZDC, ZNY, ZLC, and ZDV having staffed at least one TMU position during a busy event in the recent past. Not only can it be done, but it should be done, again referring you back to slide 12.

4.

How many of our events really go that far "down the tubes" that 8 dedicated people are required to work TMU?

I would say enough to warrant a division-level TMU program. As an example, the PHL FNO in March 2020 used multiple facility level TMU positions (e.g., ZNY Enroute Coordinator, ZNY Arrival Coordinator, N90 Departure Coordinator, etc.). Even then, ZNY would've greatly benefited from a division-level Command Center to handle the influx of southeast and Midwest traffic that was outside the immediate purview of ZNY.

5.

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...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.

Facilities should now begin to think about the best ways to incorporate TMU into their event schedules. If you have absolutely no candidates who are willing to be available for coordination, maintaining facility-level situational awareness, anticipating traffic impacts, and performing required reporting, then by all means, the wording is there to allow the Command Center to help augment your availability to those resources. Will the Command Center ever make a decision for you without your facility's input? No. Will the Command Center coordinate with your facility to make sure TMU duties (whatever level appropriate for said situation) are being performed and objectives met? Yes, collaboratively.

6.

[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.

The reason for this is so we can actually train people at a reasonable pace. We don't have the resources to train everybody who wants to participate all at once.

7.

[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.

There are benefits to doing it over voice because it can happen quickly and there's less wait for typing and reading. Like in the real world, the conferences take as long as they need to get the important information across. If there's lots of route coordination that needs to go on, maybe it'll take 10 or more minutes. If there's severe clear, the call could take literally 30 seconds. Further, the goal is to have planning constantly ongoing so by the time the final planning telcon comes up the night before or night of, all goals (strategic and operational) should be clear to the point where these telcons are just routine, in a way. Either way, the coordination, collaboration, and communication are the three pieces Command Center is requesting facilities participate in.

8.

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.

It is my personal understanding that there are members who are willing or at least interested in the TMU functions in all facilities. Of course, I don't necessarily know who those people are but my suspicion is that they exist. Anywho, I refer you back to the Purpose and Responsibilities slides of the Command Center (slides 9 & 10) and also the Responsibilities slide for the facilities (slide 12).

9.

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.

These are all genuine concerns and frankly, we won't know the full implications of implementing the TMU program until it has been tried, tested, reviewed, the whole process. The foundation for this program is to execute 7210.3BB 18-1-1 by providing a division-level platform for communication, collaboration, and coordination between facilities (including the Command Center).

In summary, I want to urge all readers of these documents to remind themselves that the Command Center is not going to be a regulatory body, it is not going to mandate orders (unless there is a TMU-related disagreement between ARTCCs that cannot be settled themselves), and it is going to do its best to include all relevant facilities in the collaborative decision making (CDM) process. Evan, we appreciate the feedback! But, in order for this to work, we need to work with the facilities. Bottom line is, if we simply implement a program at the top and don't have some changes in how the facilities operate, then what we'd actually accomplish is a disconnect between the division and the facilities. 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.

If you want to talk with the team at any time, please reach out!