FNO Changes for the time being Part 2: electric boogaloo

[Mark Hubbert]

I heard. Not too happy about it. Facilities should be given the choice of what kind of FNO to have (group, solo, etc.).

For the record, ARTCC's were given the choice of how they wanted to proceed with the way FNO's are done.  The ATM's (Who are in charge of the ARTCC and were asked to consult with their staff) voted on this and 57% which carried the largest majority voted for the current format. 

[Ryan Pitt]

Mark, I’m aware of the vote. I believe the ATMs who voted for that third option were under the impression that it meant they have the option to either do a solo, regional, or multi regional event.

[David Stone]

Mark, I’m aware of the vote. I believe the ATMs who voted for that third option were under the impression that it meant they have the option to either do a solo, regional, or multi regional event.

+1

[Brandon Wening]

Mark, I’m aware of the vote. I believe the ATMs who voted for that third option were under the impression that it meant they have the option to either do a solo, regional, or multi regional event.

+1

This was also ZDV's interpretation

[Ira Robinson]

You will have to forgive me for not following this subject as closely perhaps as I should, but it seems to me that if the current problem is that there are more aircraft flying into an ARTCC than the fields can handle and the controllers are being overwhelmed, doesn't it  make sense to try to address the issue where it begins....  at the VA's?   I don't know that anyone will be happy if the VA's are told they only get so many slots, but with membership climbing I don't see any other action that we can take short of actually creating a slot system.


Now that probably wouldn't solve the problem, at least not at first. But as the pilots get used to using it it may eventually catch on.  I am sure it could be done without creating more work for the local ARTCC's.  Of course I am also sure someone must have thought of this already, so has it been tried?

[Dhruv Kalra]

You will have to forgive me for not following this subject as closely perhaps as I should, but it seems to me that if the current problem is that there are more aircraft flying into an ARTCC than the fields can handle and the controllers are being overwhelmed, doesn't it  make sense to try to address the issue where it begins....  at the VA's?   I don't know that anyone will be happy if the VA's are told they only get so many slots, but with membership climbing I don't see any other action that we can take short of actually creating a slot system.


Now that probably wouldn't solve the problem, at least not at first. But as the pilots get used to using it it may eventually catch on.  I am sure it could be done without creating more work for the local ARTCC's.  Of course I am also sure someone must have thought of this already, so has it been tried?

Pretty sure a minority of FNO operations are VA-affiliated pilots.

[Manuel Manigault]

Mark, I’m aware of the vote. I believe the ATMs who voted for that third option were under the impression that it meant they have the option to either do a solo, regional, or multi regional event.

No, the poll was addressing the format for FNOs going forward.  The option that received 57% of the vote was "A mixture of all three"  That is what we delivered in the AUG-DEC bid:  ARTCCs had a choice of bidding on a single FNO date, Regional Concept FNO date, minimum of three ARTCCs FNO date.