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.


Messages - Ryan Geckler

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
The Control Room Floor / Re: VATUSA Traffic Management Unit: Launch
« on: August 28, 2020, 02:30:30 PM »
Sure, we can have another discussion with senior staff to discuss the way moving forward. I'll speak with USA12 to get a meeting set up.

2
The Control Room Floor / Re: VATUSA Traffic Management Unit: Launch
« on: August 28, 2020, 10:46:47 AM »
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.
Quote from: Evan Reiter
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.

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 :D) 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.
Quote from: Evan Reiter
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.

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.

3
The Control Room Floor / Re: VATUSA Traffic Management Unit: Launch
« on: August 28, 2020, 10:44:01 AM »
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 :D) 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.

4
The Flight Deck / Re: Recommended call sign for war birds
« on: June 09, 2020, 11:51:07 AM »
Callsigns are 7 digits long. Use something like MSTNG31 or FIRBD81.

5
Events / Re: [17 Apr 2020 2300-0400z] Honk! FNO (KBOS, CYYZ, KBDL)
« on: April 16, 2020, 12:31:59 PM »
Let's get those holding patterns warmed up...

6
Events / Re: [10 APR 2020, 23Z - 03Z] Springtime in Philadelphia FNO
« on: April 10, 2020, 10:35:46 PM »
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.

Another thing that I didn't mention - airports like PHL with one primary arrival runway can usually run around a 42-48 aircraft arrival rate per hour - at one point, PHL had over 240 arrivals. The airport cannot physically handle as many planes as we were throwing at it.

7
Events / Re: [10 APR 2020, 23Z - 03Z] Springtime in Philadelphia FNO
« on: April 10, 2020, 10:31:34 PM »
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.

ZID was asked to provide miles in trail over ATC chat, private message, and through our traffic management units - we made many attempts to coordinate with the facility.

Pilots following instructions does not equal controllers not doing their jobs. In times like this where traffic has been ramped up ten fold, we need controllers to do their part and help out each other. When they don't, pilots suffer.

8
Events / Re: [10 APR 2020, 23Z - 03Z] Springtime in Philadelphia FNO
« on: April 10, 2020, 10:12:44 PM »
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.

9
The Control Room Floor / Re: Direct Requests
« on: March 27, 2020, 12:11:29 PM »
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.

It isn't the case. Planes are rerouted all the time for efficiency, weather, or pilot requests. As long as the routing that you provide is LOA-compliant with the receiving facility, it's not necessary.

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.

It's 500nm between the two, and that's for RNAV only aircraft, not ones that have GNSS capability (which is most aircraft nowadays).

RNAV only = /I | RNAV+GNSS = /L

The IFR requirement is that the route FILED must contain a waypoint of each facility that you traverse. What you actually fly could be direct to the airport because ATC is providing radar monitoring of the route. Take a look at 7110.65 4-1-2 - as long as ATC provides the shortcut and uses radar monitoring throughout the leg that you've shortcut, it's legal. /GLVS aircraft are exempt from the radar monitoring part because of their advanced equipment.


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.


In legal terms, any change of route outside of what the aircraft was cleared is a change in the clearance limit. If nothing in a neighboring LOA prevents changes to arrivals/routes/etc, you have the ability to do whatever you want. You are now responsibility for the accuracy of the route and having to deal with potentially angry controllers down the line if you knowingly route someone right into someone else.

10
The Flight Deck / Re: High Speed Climb
« on: February 15, 2020, 03:49:14 PM »
SoCal approved the speed because they've already declared an emergency, so they pretty much have free reign to keep the aircraft flying.

It's not legal for controllers to approve speeds above 250kts below 10000, but if asked for a "high speed climb", the answer is "approved as requested" because there is abiguity about the request.

11
The Control Room Floor / Re: Visual Separation and You: Dos and Don'ts
« on: January 09, 2019, 04:08:00 PM »
VFR-on-top is an IFR operation... how else would you get through the layer?
This is VATSIM... Can't you just spawn there?   ;) ;) ;)

It's one of those VATSIM golden rules... be nice, don't spawn on a runway, don't spawn above a cloud layer VFR... :D

12
The Control Room Floor / Re: Visual Separation and You: Dos and Don'ts
« on: January 09, 2019, 04:03:31 PM »
VFR-on-top is an IFR operation... how else would you get through the layer?

13
The Control Room Floor / Re: Visual Separation and You: Dos and Don'ts
« on: January 07, 2019, 04:59:20 PM »
Let's take a look at 7110.65, shall we?

Quote
7−1−1. CLASS A AIRSPACE RESTRICTIONS

Do not apply visual separation or issue VFR or
“VFR-on-top” clearances in Class A airspace.


Gliders usually operate in accordance with a LOA and the facility/agency will block airspace (i.e ATCAA).

14
The Control Room Floor / Re: Visual Separation and You: Dos and Don'ts
« on: January 07, 2019, 02:02:02 PM »
.

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.

You can't be VFR on top in Class A airspace.

In the case of the other two, there is no requirement to separate the two planes, but you would stop the IFR aircraft above until clear or they have the 17500 guy in sight.

15
General Discussion / Re: We don't talk enough...
« on: December 07, 2018, 07:40:30 PM »
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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10