Pilots flying JAX, MLB, DAB and MCO/ORL/SFB

[Daniel Hawton]

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.

[Harold Rutila]

We're waiting at least one in ZDV.

[David Jedrejcic]

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, 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.

[Bryan Wollenberg]

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.  

[Bryan Wollenberg]

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

[Harold Rutila]

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.

[Bryan Wollenberg]

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.

[David Jedrejcic]

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

[Bryan Wollenberg]

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.

[David Jedrejcic]

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?

[Daniel Hawton]

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?

[Gary Millsaps]

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...

[Bryan Wollenberg]

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.

[Dan Leavitt]

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

[J Jason Vodnansky]

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