ARTCC Consolidation

[Andreas Fuchs]

Yes, that's what I have been trying to say: if you are against Super-Centers (that actually do work nicely in other parts of world), then you cannot be in favour of "APP-only"-ratings...

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

I'm just gonna toss a match in that straw man before it takes over the discussion.

 

Andrea, that would only make sense if the objection to super-centers was based on the CoR or the lack of top-down service. It is not. The objection to super-centers is based on the question of the usefulness of increasing enroute coverage potentially at the expensive of other coverage.

[Keith Smith]

Ross,

 

Take a typical night in ZBW where most of the traffic is going in/out of BOS. Let's [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume there are 5 aircraft on the ground waiting to get out and a number of inbounds. How do you handle any real volume of IFR operations if the field is essentially non-towered under the app-only or ctr-only scheme?

[Ross Carlson]

Yes, that's what I have been trying to say: if you are against Super-Centers (that actually do work nicely in other parts of world), then you cannot be in favour of "APP-only"-ratings...

 

A super center is not the same thing as a CTR-only or APP-only rating. The concepts are much different and the objections against them are very different.

 

Take a typical night in ZBW where most of the traffic is going in/out of BOS. Let's [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume there are 5 aircraft on the ground waiting to get out and a number of inbounds. How do you handle any real volume of IFR operations if the field is essentially non-towered under the app-only or ctr-only scheme?

 

From what I've seen, it's pretty rare to have 5 aircraft on the ground with a number of inbounds, all at the same time, outside of an event. A typical night might involve 1 or 2 on the ground and 1 or 2 inbounds *at any given time* and handling them under the 1-in-1-out rule would not be difficult. Also, we wouldn't necessarily need to obey the 1-in-1-out rule in these situations. That might have to be a realism sacrifice. I don't know, just thinking out loud.

 

Really the idea would be to get more controllers to plug in more often. If we have controllers online with a CTR-only rating (and I might be inclined to call it a radar-only rating that could work both CTR and APP), then it might encourage those controllers to go for full top-down ratings, and it would definitely encourage guys going for a cab rating to get online more often if they were to have radar coverage above them.

[Alexander Cohrs]

But who is going to direct the 1 inbound / 1 outbound rule? In your concept, the departure will be taking off uncontrolled, so you don't have any chance to manage any departure/arrival flow. Practically, you would have to vector an aircraft on final, send him to Unicom (!), he would need to grab the keyboard and make a text announcement on Unicom and then see if it fits with the departures for that runway. Just thinking from a pilot's perspective, switching to Unicom on final does not really sound attractive to me.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

I like the idea of allowing folks to go directly to radar if thats the road they choose. been advocating that for atleast 2 years now, maybe its about that time it would definitely help with wasted training time and would hopefully make the "need" for the super centers nil since the folks who do want to control radar would now be able to without getting burned out before they get there (hopefully )

 

I for one am one that doesnt really like working radar. i prefer Tower or Ground. ask the folks at ZMA how long i procrastinated in even getting certified on approach, and i was already a C1

 

funny enough, i was going for Enroute when i tried to get in with the FAA shouldve probably tried local, might have gotten picked for the academy

 

the radar only position i personally like, but it does have a few things that need to be worked out. besides the ones Kieth mentioned, another is since you technically would not be controlling the active runways, what would stop someone from departing in the opposing direction when you are vectoring someone to the ILS (that they requested mind you since the field is uncontrolled) on a day/night when a visual wouldnt be an option. this wouldnt be much of an issue at small airports, but at the major international airports that do tend to get more traffic, itd get pretty interesting one way to overcome that tho is to clear them on the ILS as early as possible then havem switch to unicom before it becomes an issue. gives them plenty of time to coordinate with anyone on the ground

[Callum McLoughlin]

This idea makes it realistic for the controller but not the pilot who will end up getting an even more limited service than they get already.

[Ross Carlson]

But who is going to direct the 1 inbound / 1 outbound rule? In your concept, the departure will be taking off uncontrolled, so you don't have any chance to manage any departure/arrival flow. Practically, you would have to vector an aircraft on final, send him to Unicom (!), he would need to grab the keyboard and make a text announcement on Unicom and then see if it fits with the departures for that runway. Just thinking from a pilot's perspective, switching to Unicom on final does not really sound attractive to me.

 

Switching to unicom on final is exactly what you do now when flying into an uncontrolled field. This would be no different.

 

It doesn't sound attractive to you as a pilot, but what's more attractive ... having a radar-only controller vector and clear you for an approach, or having no ATC at all? Again, the idea is to provide more avenues to get controllers online.

[Ross Carlson]

This idea makes it realistic for the controller but not the pilot who will end up getting an even more limited service than they get already.

 

That would only be true if controllers who are fully top-down certified opted to do radar-only. Sounds rather unlikely to me.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hi Ross,

A super center is not the same thing as a CTR-only or APP-only rating. The concepts are much different and the objections against them are very different.

why is it different? None of them is allowed to offer any kind of services that are [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociated with DEL, GND or TWR. And if a CTR or APP is required to provide the just mentioned services, then the candidate needs to be trained and checked on those positions, too. We are going round in circles here, I feel.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

theres a loop hole with that Andreas. you arent required to provide services to minor/uncontrolled airports when working radar

 

the question is whether the ARTCC's are willing to give up those "majors" to allow this model to fit without having to go back and redo GRP too much, GRP would still have to be redone in order to allow the advancement from OBS to S3 since right now it only allows you to go straight to S2 <<<< disregard that, cant find anything in the CoC, CoR or GRP saying you are required to provide local services while on radar, so ARTCC's wouldnt have to change that at all

Edited March 7, 2012 at 07:11 PM by Guest

[Ross Carlson]

Hi Ross,

A super center is not the same thing as a CTR-only or APP-only rating. The concepts are much different and the objections against them are very different.

why is it different? None of them is allowed to offer any kind of services that are [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociated with DEL' date=' GND or TWR. And if a CTR or APP is required to provide the just mentioned services, then the candidate needs to be trained and checked on those positions, too. We are going round in circles here, I feel.[/quote']

 

There are two major differences:

 

1) Super centers cover many ARTCCs where radar-only positions cover a single ARTCC or a single TRACON.

2) Super centers have an airspace floor of FL240, where radar-only positions have an airspace floor just above surface area for airports within their jurisdiction.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

you know what, now that i went back and checked, i cant find ANYTHING in the GRP, CoC, or CoR saying a radar controller HAS to provide local services at all. maybe im missing it? the only thing that closely mentions anything close to that is the voice ATIS policy which states that someone must be providing local services in order to put up the ATIS. other then that, i see nothing saying you are required to provide local services when on radar. if its not there, one step closer

[Jordan Langelier 827846]

I like that fast-track to Center idea. A lot.

 

I don't know how some of those Center controllers do it sometimes, especially in the more popular regions. Having X number of planes in the air, and working with X number of people on the ground with often ridiculously flawed flight plans, taxiiing them, etc. Not many guys can do that in prime time (or even in non-prime time) and I have to figure the immensity of that task drives C1's away or may make them avoid the position at all. Having the option of doing radar only can only serve to increase the pool of center-level controllers.

[William Lewis]

Here was my post from VATUSA

 

As I pondered this for a bit I wanted to try and figure out what the ultimate goal was here. I think it is save to say that the goal must be to increase ATC coverage throughout VATUSA.

 

Now Europe has done this by by using these mega centers. This makes sense as DK pointed out this is emulates RW Euro Control. Rather than emulate what EURO does why not emulate the US?

 

Rather than have mega centers, allow members to chose a different training path. Choose Terminal (currently every new members starting point) or En Route. What i am talking about here is allowing people to train and operate directly on Center. Now before you through the idea out the window give it some time to soak in a bit and consider these few things.

 

1. This would void top down service.

The Mega Center would do this as well so they are even.

 

2. It would be to difficult to teach all of the Center airspace to newer members.

Yes, this is correct. Solution instead of training on the entire center have the ability to check out and operate on specific sectors or area. The mega center is already considering to increase controlling area why not consider to decrease controlling area.

 

3. You do not want to decrease controlling area because that goes against the ultimate goal of providing more ATC coverage.

At initial look yes but consider you target audience. Here is the most recent numbers for the EC meetings:

 

 

The mega centers target C1s and above - 762. This proposal targets all members - 2783

 

Now this is if everyone chose to start training on En Route. Obvious this is not the case but [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming a 50/50 split you are still nearly double the membership of that of the Mega center target audience.

 

4. This would go against current controller ratings.

This is very true but it seems that many are already considering the idea of getting away from these controller ratings and going to a certification process. This idea of training directly on en route could be be accomplished by a certification system. Again were you get checked out on specific sectors or areas.

 

5. Controller fall out.

The current system of starting at tower has a lot of controller fall out that I would propose that a major factor in this is the boredom of starting at a position they are not interested in. Where this could open many more doors as of where to start.

 

6. More options to train.

Again the current system everyone starts at Tower. This option allows again more options as to were to start. Also just like our RW counter part do not start every new controller at one area within the center. Spread them out among the available areas.

 

7. This simulates a realistic environment.

Mega Center simulates a RW environment for Euro, this could simulate RW for the US as well as increase ATC.

 

8. Bring on the bashing.

I am just trying to think out of the box. It appears that many others are coming close to nearing taking action with extreme changes to our current system. This idea is not much less of an extreme over this and the other ideas being throw out there, just in a different direction than anything already purposed.

 

Really I do not think a drastic change is that necessary but it is starting to appear as if it is going to happen anyways. This post is not to have all the answers but rather a starting point for an idea in a different direction. Similar to the OP.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Here we go:

 

Global Ratings Policy 2

 

4. Graduated Controller Ratings

 

4.1 Graduated controller ratings are essential within the VATSIM on-line environment since on-line ATC

shall provide a "top-down" service and whenever traffic load permits cover for any missing control

positions beneath them; this applies to all control positions from CTR down.

Whenever the load permits, you are required (shall=must) to provide a full top-down service. Our "Special Centers" that terminate at FL240 are exempted from that, although it is common practice to provide a STAR and services for descent below FL240 here and there, when coordinated with local APP-controllers.

[Andrew Wolcott 814793]

But who is going to direct the 1 inbound / 1 outbound rule? In your concept, the departure will be taking off uncontrolled, so you don't have any chance to manage any departure/arrival flow. Practically, you would have to vector an aircraft on final, send him to Unicom (!), he would need to grab the keyboard and make a text announcement on Unicom and then see if it fits with the departures for that runway. Just thinking from a pilot's perspective, switching to Unicom on final does not really sound attractive to me.

 

[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign departure restrictions, clearance void times, hold for release, or release times when necessary to separate departures from other traffic or to restrict or regulate the departure flow.

 

HOLD FOR RELEASE, EXPECT (time in hours and/or minutes) DEPARTURE DELAY.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

thanks Andreas, thought i missed it then yes the ARTCC's would have to treat those majors as minor uncontrolled airports or go the route of the special centers, mind you that would only work for the centers and not approach controllers. other then that, the GRP would definitely have to be amended to be able to allow the center/approach only positions, if the idea moves forward from just being an "idea" anyway.

 

Here we go:

 

Global Ratings Policy 2

 

4. Graduated Controller Ratings

 

4.1 Graduated controller ratings are essential within the VATSIM on-line environment since on-line ATC

shall provide a "top-down" service and whenever traffic load permits cover for any missing control

positions beneath them; this applies to all control positions from CTR down.

Whenever the load permits, you are required (shall=must) to provide a full top-down service. Our "Special Centers" that terminate at FL240 are exempted from that, although it is common practice to provide a STAR and services for descent below FL240 here and there, when coordinated with local APP-controllers.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Hi Ernesto,

 

what do you mean by "minor airports"? Do you think that you don't need to provide top-down service at "minor airports"? We do and we do have quite a few of them as well. Basically you need to service every "controlled IFR airfield", even if it is smaller than "minor". Of course you will only do this as long as it does not harm the level of service provided for other pilots in your sector.

[Benton Wilmes]

Here we go:

 

Global Ratings Policy 2

 

4. Graduated Controller Ratings

 

4.1 Graduated controller ratings are essential within the VATSIM on-line environment since on-line ATC

shall provide a "top-down" service and whenever traffic load permits cover for any missing control

positions beneath them; this applies to all control positions from CTR down.

Whenever the load permits, you are required (shall=must) to provide a full top-down service. Our "Special Centers" that terminate at FL240 are exempted from that, although it is common practice to provide a STAR and services for descent below FL240 here and there, when coordinated with local APP-controllers.

 

Well it seems like we know one section that we can change/eliminate for the 3rd revision of the GRP

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

Andreas that is indeed how they are treated here in the US. not every airport is covered with top/down service. take the cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] D's for example. some ARTCC's may cover them during their normal operating hours, while others dont handle the cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] D's or any of the other minor underlying airports at all.

 

i dont mean "minor" as in how the GRP explains "minors". i mean minors as in uncontrolled/untowered airports (the cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] D's become untowered when not staffed), basically anything other then the B's or C's

 

there are areas that also dont handle the cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] C's unless workload permits.

[Andreas Fuchs]

Wow, that is poor service, I have to say. In Europe this would be unthinkable. Any airport that is theoretically controlled by TWR and APP (airspace DELTA) receives full service from CTR, if workload permits.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

not really. you could still get your IFR release if on an IFR flightplan. you'd be given your clearance limits with that and a void time for that.

 

difference being you wouldnt get any ground or tower service while the airport is untowered. you would taxi and takeoff on unicom and then contact the radar controller once airborne.

 

you also have the option of departing VFR and then calling when airborne to pick up IFR.

 

this is how those types of airports are treated here in the US, even in the real world.

 

so essentially, you would be doing the same thing with all underlying airports with the idea of the center/app only controllers. they would be providing that exact same service that would be applied to those uncontrolled airports

[Rahul Parkar]

Andreas,

 

The fields do not necessarily have a TWR,

 

Mostly they do that limit under certain hours, and many ARTCC's treat them as open during normal hours, as uncontrolled during closed hours.

 

Cheers!

Rahul

[Steven Bartlett 1106450]

If controllers really want to control approach or Center, they will stick around and do the training from delivery on up! If they don't, then they really didn't want it to begin with. The current system weeds out the ones that are not going to stick around, whether they start out at delivery or center. I am willing to bet if you ask the pilots, the majority of them would say they want a top down controller, not get to FL240 and then told they are on there own, just because somebody is to lazy to go through the training process. I know I worked hard to get my C1 and would really dislike it if all of a sudden a newbie gets to start his/her training on Center!