VATUSA Creates Traffic Management Coordinator Position

[Neil Corman 881190]

VATUSA Creates Traffic Management Coordinator Position

 

 

WASHINGTON DC March 8, 2006 – VATUSA today announced it has added the position of Traffic Management Coordinator to its ranks. This individual will monitor all of the traffic for specified events within the VATUSA airspace to identify and manage saturation points for arriving and departing traffic. Working with the 1st and 2nd tier ARTCC’s in relation to the event the TMC will issue ground holds, mile in trail (MIT) restrictions, in addition to the other tools at their disposal in order to manage the air traffic flow to the Airport Arrival Acceptance Rate.

 

“With the rapidly growing number of pilots participating in VATUSA events in the past year even the best staffed ARTCC’s have been challengedâ€

[Daniel Roesen]

Am I the only one who absolutely hates this "press release" style (not specifically here, but here even more so)?

 

Sorry Neil, but this is no business here were "quoting VIPs" in marketing/PR "press release style" is the right way to bring a simple message across. Explaining what VATUSA is in the VATUSA Forum is also a bit... erm...

 

We're not playing BS bingo, do we?

 

Best regards,

Daniel

 

PS: my apologies if this style was meant as humor

 

EDIT: fixed typo

Edited March 8, 2006 at 04:10 AM by Guest

[Ethan Stein 890841]

Great idea! I think VATUSA will definitely benefit from this new position.

[Jeff Turner]

Am I the only one who absolutely hates this "press release" style (not specifically here, but here even more so)?

 

Sorry Neil, but this is no business here were "quoting VIPs" in marketing/PR "press release style" is the right way to bring a simple message across. Explaining what VATUSA is in the VATUSA Forum is also a bit... erm...

 

We're not playing BS bingo, do we?

 

Best regards,

Daniel

 

PS: my apologies if this style was meant as humor

 

EDIT: fixed typo

 

Don't read them then....

[Kiel McGowan 813486]

hmmm I can think of a particular friday event that has really raised the need for this position

[Marc Sykes 852946]

Don't read them then....

 

Nice to see the powers that be responding so positively to constructive criticism. Here's a little more, and from someone who knows a fair bit about the real-world application of flow control at that: nice idea, but it won't work as long as 95% of center controllers have no clue how to issue holds (as is currently the case), and particularly not if they continue to just dump targets into the other controller's airspace regardless of whether or not a handoff has been coordinated, even if the controller has specifically requested holding or increased spacing (as has been the case in my experience). What happens when (not if) they're just unable to comply with what the TMC is asking them to do because they don't have the skill set? And will the TMC's attempts to alleviate the problems just end up shifting the burden to the adjacent centers, who may very well be getting deals/[Mod - lovely stuff]py spacing/etc. from the centers adjacent to them? For that matter, what happens if the adjacent centers aren't even online (as has been the root of many problems in the past)?

 

I don't think a TMC is necessarily unwarranted (though I'd prefer to see the affected centers work it out between themselves, as they do for the most part IRL -- it's just not reasonable for one VATUSA-appointed person to have the amount of airspace knowledge that would be required to coordinate events in 20 different ARTCCs), but the first steps to unblocking the bottlenecks that now characterize many of the larger events HAVE to be 1) better training, 2) better training, 3) better event planning, 4) better training, and then maybe 5) TMC positions. It isn't a bad idea to have one or two people looking at the larger picture and trying to head off major problems before they arise, but if you're expecting to simulate the intricacies of real-world flow control and then impart it to controllers who have zero experience sequencing for an adjacent center or vectoring for in-trail spacing, good luck.

 

(counting the minutes until this gets deleted/censored)

[Ross Carlson]

While I do not share Marc's overly pessimistic [Mod - Happy Thoughts]essment of the average controller's skillset, I do agree that the TMC's task will be quite difficult to accomplish in the VATSIM world, due to the many variables, some of which Marc touched on above. The main reason I think this way is because the "saturation point" for any given ARTCC depends entirely on staffing and the skills of the controllers currently on the scope. It will vary from one event to the next within the same ARTCC. Traffic levels alone are not the governing factor when trying to determine when ground stops and airborne holds are needed. I don't think any one person outside of the ARTCC can make the call.

 

I would say that at best, this position will just be a glorified messenger, [Mod - Happy Thoughts]isting controllers at the event ARTCC in getting the word out that they need ground stops or airborne holds. If that's all this position is intended to be, then I'm all for it.

 

I also wonder what happens when an event is going on and the person currently holding the TMC title isn't available. It seems that there needs to be more than one TMC in order to provide enough coverage.

 

On a related note, I think it speaks well to the health of our network that such a position is needed.

[Richard Green 810012]

Ok...

 

Ross - the job description of the TMC states ( it should be posted by now ) that this person will be responsible for training several people to also perform the position as there is no way one person could perform the job on their own (well not anyone with any shred of a life)

 

I also think you make a VERY valid point about controller competency... There is a serious disconnect at some ARTCCs about letting anyone with "X" rating taking any slot for an event, instead of filling it with the "BEST" person for the job. That is something that this position will not be able to do... the TMC will in no way dictate how an ARTCC staffs for its event (most of them do an adequate job at this). I however think this is becoming a central theme in events that have issues. I think event people shouldn't pick who staffs events, that is should be the ATM and TA who pick who should go where. If they don't know the competency of their own people.... perhaps we have identified a more pressing concern.

 

My desire is for this position is that the person filling it will be able to identify gaps or problems and solve them before they "snowball" into something major.

 

Marc - Glad to see you still around in the "MERKIN" forums...

Ok my view on some of your points...

 

"It’s just not reasonable for one VATUSA-appointed person to have the amount of airspace knowledge that would be required to coordinate events in 20 different ARTCCs"

 

While this person won't have intimate knowledge of every ARTCC, they will be expected to become familiar with the procedures for each ARTCC and how flow control impacts each STAR or airport. This person would also be expected to sit down with the ATMs for each center and hash out the needs for each event. At the end of the day a TMC is a messenger, but not merely p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing requests along as much as looking for bottlenecks and adjusting the flow upstream so a minor issue doesn't become something major.

 

As far as someone censoring or deleting your post, I for one don't think there is reason one to do so. You have some valid points (with a bit of pessimism thrown in for spice), especially in the area where you were an ATM, there were times where there were rather large gaps in the enroute coverage. I also agree that some people while able to handle the day-to-day traffic levels aren't able to handle the demands that a major event puts on them.

 

Lastly Daniel -

 

I personally like the PR style releases from Neil. Its nice to be a bit professional around here from time to time instead of the “Hey we need someone to do Xâ€

Edited March 8, 2006 at 04:09 PM by Guest

[Daniel Roesen]

I personally like the PR style releases from Neil. Its nice to be a bit professional around here from time to time instead of the “Hey we need someone to do Xâ€

[Richard Green 810012]

 

Thanks Richard for not reacting with a nonsense "then don't read it", even if my posting was hardly constructive (my apologies for that, but I couldn't resist).

 

 

Don't mention it, and no it wasn't constructive... but I think there is room for opinion. I have been known to take jabs at people for being a bit, umm..... lets just say devoid of basic common sense and logic from time to time.

[Kiel McGowan 813486]

Explaining what VATUSA is in the VATUSA Forum is also a bit... erm...

 

I would say since this is a public forum, and the same thing goes on the website, there is always a possibility that someone looking to go into the field of these job postings in the real world may cross upon this "great job opportunity" and think they were going to be paid for it! Giving them an idea that this is all virtual may stop them prior to them inquiring further. Just a thought.

[Karl Triebel 928312]

Well, in my humble opinion:

 

(1) The press-release style is self-important and unreadable. I would just put in a subject line, "Here is our latest mandate that we are now declaring is the way we will do things" (paraphrasing, of course); with a message that says what your announcement is.

 

Like, for instance, "I am firing so and so: here is a copy of the letter I sent him" is preferable to "VATUSA Head Honcho Fires So-and-So, get the Scoop Here!" And then you can say, in the message "Today I was really bummed out to have to fire so and so. But, things just didn't work out. Here is a copy of the letter I emailed him. I am including it because I think that public flogging is the best way to go."

 

(2) Y'all remind me of Crazy Dave of American Idol, Season Five fame, when he comes out and addresses the judges, "Overlords of the Universe," or something to that effect. My somewhat critical point being: who did you discuss this master plan with? I am just a lowly student nobody, but it seems to me that the last thing the two or three center controllers per artcc who are working the event need to deal with is one more person to talk to. Particularly when the goal is to solve a problem that could be solved by making sure controllers know how to issue holds, coordinate handoffs in a high traffic environment, and provide extra separation when needed.

 

BUT even IF you have it right, and this is a good thing, my larger point is, who did you talk to? In my opinion, you should have talked to the center controllers at (at least) all of the major artccs, if not at all of them. Or, here is a wacky idea, post a forum topic saying, here is what we are thinking of doing, what do you think? Sure you may get some heated discussion, but you may get a viewpoint you had not considered. FINALLY, in yet another piece of unsolicited advice, why don't you TRY it first in a trial run and see if it works, and get feedback from the controllers involved?

 

My criticism of VATUSA before Jan 1 was that I never heard or saw you, and the training materials for controllers was laughable. As a result, I rarely visited your website. My criticism of VATUSA after Jan 1 is that you seem to have taken to announcing rash decisions without involving others in any sort of discussion. Oh, and your training materials remain as weak as ever, leaving it up to the artcc to do all of the training. (What I would do, since that is the new requirement for critical posts, is improve the VATUSA training materials).

 

I doubt you will delete my post, but I would appreciate something in reply more than "well then, go control in Europe!"

[Richard Walsh]

(2) Y'all remind me of Crazy Dave of American Idol, Season Five fame,

 

You are complaining about how they made the announcement yet you quote American Idol. Are you critiquing the post like that Simon guy? My god critque its content not the format. Thats just whinning.

[Kiel McGowan 813486]

My criticism of VATUSA before Jan 1 was that I never heard or saw you, and the training materials for controllers was laughable. As a result, I rarely visited your website. My criticism of VATUSA after Jan 1 is that you seem to have taken to announcing rash decisions without involving others in any sort of discussion. Oh, and your training materials remain as weak as ever, leaving it up to the artcc to do all of the training. (What I would do, since that is the new requirement for critical posts, is improve the VATUSA training materials).

 

Each ARTCC has specific things that need to be trained to new controllers, so putting the majority of the training on the ARTCC is very similar to the real world. In the RW you go to the FAA training academy for roughly 3 months for training, then go on to your facility for more training which lasts 2-5 years or more (do you really ever stop learning). If VATSIM was the RW your training at the facility would probably be 100++ years (learning every position in the ARTCC ) It seems like the same ratio is held in VATUSA, a basics test on VATUSA to get your controller rating takes roughly 30 minutes of reviewing the material to take, a C3 test takes roughly 1-2 years to accomplish (if you are active).

 

I know they are working on a VATUSA training program, which I would guess would teach new controllers the basics, to keep that burden off the individual ARTCC's but right now I think most ARTCC's handle teaching the basics while teaching the specifics to the facility fairly well. With an established training program at VATUSA I can easily see new controllers complaining that it takes too long to get to their facility because they can't p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] the basic information tests...

 

VATUSA can't possibly take on training all controllers in the US, it is neccesary for each ARTCC to train its controllers as they are the only ones who know that airspace.

 

 

my larger point is, who did you talk to? In my opinion, you should have talked to the center controllers at (at least) all of the major artccs, if not at all of them. Or, here is a wacky idea, post a forum topic saying, here is what we are thinking of doing, what do you think? Sure you may get some heated discussion, but you may get a viewpoint you had not considered. FINALLY, in yet another piece of unsolicited advice, why don't you TRY it first in a trial run and see if it works, and get feedback from the controllers involved?

 

The policy makers of VATUSA are a collective bunch, its just like congress p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing a law, will everyone like it no, but usually it is a good thing, they are the representatives of each of us. They have been around long enough to know what is going on. For a decision like this, what is their to discuss, it will either work or it wont. The only way to try out is to post an announcement asking for some people to apply for the position and try it out. VATUSA usually doesnt leave stupid policies in place if they just don't work so, I am sure if this is a complete failure they will move on.

 

but it seems to me that the last thing the two or three center controllers per artcc who are working the event need to deal with is one more person to talk to. Particularly when the goal is to solve a problem that could be solved by making sure controllers know how to issue holds, coordinate handoffs in a high traffic environment, and provide extra separation when needed.

 

Just coming off TGIF last week, my thoughts would be this postion is do able. The TMC doesnt need to be talking to the few ARTCC center controllers affected by the traffic, they need to be talking to the ones that don't think they are affected. The ones sending traffic from random parts of the country right into the thick of it without really knowing. Example, say SEA_TWR releases two KATL arrivals 5 miles apart, without realizing that when they arrive to KATL they will be converging on 100 other arrivals, the TMC could make sure its known throughout that KATL arrivals departing from the same airport need to be at the minimum 20 miles apart or more. Once the traffic gets airborne they will need to coordinate with the centers away from the event to make sure a/c dont start getting close to each other and seperation is maintained. Will it work...maybe, it does depend on the skills of the controllers, but ground stops and holds can accomplish this as well if the center controllers don't look up to the task. Hopefully it doesnt cause less pilot participation because of the restrictions but it is nearing the point that this is required. Having a few controllers land 120+ aircraft in a 2 hour period where normally 15+ controllers would work, is not possible.

 

I am not a "head honcho" but I have been around SATCO and VATUSA for a long time now and have seen how it has changed, and I can't say I have ever really been too upset about anything the "head honchos" have done. All of it is for a reason, and I dont think one of them just pops an announcement out like this, they have their discussions with the appropriate people prior to doing so.

 

I can't wait to see how this position works out.

[Richard Green 810012]

(2) Y'all remind me of Crazy Dave of American Idol, Season Five fame, when he comes out and addresses the judges, "Overlords of the Universe," or something to that effect. My somewhat critical point being: who did you discuss this master plan with? I am just a lowly student nobody, but it seems to me that the last thing the two or three center controllers per artcc who are working the event need to deal with is one more person to talk to. Particularly when the goal is to solve a problem that could be solved by making sure controllers know how to issue holds, coordinate handoffs in a high traffic environment, and provide extra separation when needed.

 

BUT even IF you have it right, and this is a good thing, my larger point is, who did you talk to? In my opinion, you should have talked to the center controllers at (at least) all of the major artccs, if not at all of them. Or, here is a wacky idea, post a forum topic saying, here is what we are thinking of doing, what do you think? Sure you may get some heated discussion, but you may get a viewpoint you had not considered. FINALLY, in yet another piece of unsolicited advice, why don't you TRY it first in a trial run and see if it works, and get feedback from the controllers involved?

 

My criticism of VATUSA before Jan 1 was that I never heard or saw you, and the training materials for controllers was laughable. As a result, I rarely visited your website. My criticism of VATUSA after Jan 1 is that you seem to have taken to announcing rash decisions without involving others in any sort of discussion. Oh, and your training materials remain as weak as ever, leaving it up to the artcc to do all of the training. (What I would do, since that is the new requirement for critical posts, is improve the VATUSA training materials).

 

 

Karl - if you don't like it go to Canada ( just kidding )

 

In all seriousness we did talk to a lot of people ( I am sorry that your ATM didn't ask you what YOUR opinion of it was ). This has been discussed in the staff forums as well as with individual ATMs as this person falls under my area.

 

Secondly why the utter disdain you had some valid questions, but they get lost in the diatribe that you posted, but I am probably one of the few people who would have taken the effort to read through it all to gleam that you had some valid questions.

 

Perhaps you don't understand the full details of what the job entails, perhaps you don't care that its something to help ARTCCs, or perhaps because it came from VATUSA it is automatically evil. This project came from one of the ATMs and I thought it had merit so I took it to staff.

 

I am sorry if in my vain attempt to help close some of the gaps in coverage and planning that I have offended you, but I think anything that anyone on staff says automatically will get your defenses up.

 

If I am wrong I apologize, but that IS how you come across.

[Karl Triebel 928312]

Karl - if you don't like it go to Canada ( just kidding )

 

. . .

Secondly why the utter disdain you had some valid questions, but they get lost in the diatribe that you posted, but I am probably one of the few people who would have taken the effort to read through it all to gleam that you had some valid questions.

 

If I am wrong I apologize, but that IS how you come across.

 

No, I intended to come across that way. One of those posts where you know its gonna bite you to hit "submit" but you do it anyway.

 

There are some good people at VATUSA, just sometimes y'all do things that really get my goat, and I remain bitter for a while afterwards, and I look for opportunities to express that bitterness. Also, there are some not so great leaders here, and when I see them berate people for no reason, I get a little miffed.

 

I really wish you would all (a) be more open about policy decisions and discuss them with the group at large before making them, (b) improve the central training curriculum and content, and © right past wrongs.

 

And I really don't like the press release style, but I only bring that up because someone else asked if they were the only one.

[Richard Green 810012]

One of those posts where you know its gonna bite you to hit "submit" but you do it anyway.

 

There are some good people at VATUSA, just sometimes y'all do things that really get my goat, and I remain bitter for a while afterwards, and I look for opportunities to express that bitterness. Also, there are some not so great leaders here, and when I see them berate people for no reason, I get a little miffed.

 

I really wish you would all (a) be more open about policy decisions and discuss them with the group at large before making them, (b) improve the central training curriculum and content, and © right past wrongs.

 

And I really don't like the press release style, but I only bring that up because someone else asked if they were the only one.

 

Karl - you can't paint everyone with such a broad stroke...

 

I have said many times that I won't ever agree with everything anyone does, but that doesn't mean I get to lash out every time they do something else I don't like ( if only my wife would read this ).

 

In all seriousness you brought up some great points... but just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean that it wasn't discussed.

 

If I asked the general membership about every event proposal I would be sending 20 forum posts a month. That doesn't mean I don't value your opinon, it just means I choose to stop my discussions at the ATM/TA/Event Coordinator level.

 

This new position exsists to stop things from getting bad before they get to their destinations. This person doesn't dictate anything, they only coordinate "pre-approved" plans at the ATM/TA level before the event. They also make sure that all the enroute is staffed.

 

Thats pretty much it ( simplified a bit of course.)

[Steve Ogrodowski 876322]

1) Personally, I love the PR-style of announcements and the way that there is someone who is "marketing" VATUSA. It boils back down, really, to the level of reality that you want with this hobby. The current leaders of VATUSA find this the most effective and fun way to do it. This style adds a little more to the environment and makes it more excitable! They don't release every bloody thing in "PR-style" either, at least 75% of the News Bulletins on the VATUSA website are made by the Regional Directors or Events Coordinators. And in either case, I don't understand why it's a cause for irritation....?

 

2) Much more planning goes into such things than is publicized. I doubt you go sit in on every deliberation in the House when they are drafting bills, or do you? I doubt anyone 'round here even watches C-SPAN. The people who are asked about this are the facility managers that have been appointed. We can't just throw every idea out there and ask every person, "What do you think?" VATSIM just couldn't work that way. Facility managers are well aquainted with their operations (or should be), and are the most reliable source for input. To be frank, there are a good majority out there that presume they have a full understanding of the goings-on, but really don't. I'll be the first to admit, I tend to speak before I think, and that's not an excuse, but many people do that from time to time.

 

And to what end would be the scope of VATUSA-wide polling on policy deliberations? How are we going to hold deliberations? Simply in the Forums...or would there be Teamspeak sessions involved? There would be limits of around 40-50 people on a Teamspeak server....so are we going to have multiple debates? Will there be little questionniares and dockets of all proposals for discussion, and will I have my cell phone ringing with automated women asking, "Hello, this is the VATUSA automated voice polling system. VATUSA is currently considering a new Observer policy, please sit on your phone for the next ten minutes while this plan is described to you...."

 

My point here is, there is no way to deliberate among the entire VATUSA membership when deciding policies, which is half the reason we have the Directors and ATMs! They are the policy makers; the voice for their ARTCC. If you don't have confidence in our leadership, that's unfortunate.

 

I'm sorry for being trite, but Karl, not being a Center controller yourself, how would you know what is being dealt with in this system? And why is it bothering you? The only essential problem I see you presenting is that "VATUSA shouldn't make rules," and it's quite weak.

 

You have no basis in saying that what needs to be improved is knowledge of holds, or how to ensure MIT, and coordination. Most controllers, Center controllers, are quite good about this, when they are around. I will say that controllers tend to have trouble with MIT (Miles-In-Trail separation). What really needs to be improved, though, is piloting abilities of pilots. A good many pilots have trouble flying holds, and a great many pilots have trouble paying attention to frequencies and speaking expeditiously, and using a little bit of ettiquette when switching between frequencies. The idea of this position is to make coordination outside of the event area better transmitted, and to ensure that adjoining sectors of event-areas are staffed to help in flow-control. Adjoining Center controllers to event locations are critical to traffic management, because they provide initial and preliminary separation. If you turn the faucet down from the source, then the water flows smoothly. If you leave the faucet and plug the drain, it backs up...

 

As far as further claiming VATUSA weakness in that VATUSA has a poor nationalized training system, how would you better it at this moment? Would you take to "announcing rash decisions without involving others in any sort of discussion..." as you warned us not to before? To let you in on a little information, information that was released over two months ago, is that VATUSA is developing a Training Academy. See this post, from December 30: http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?t=6668

 

3) Training programs and docomeents and the such are even more meticulous, and require much more deliberation and time than such an idea of TMU. These discussions again work with the managers that have been appointed, who have the experience to rationally deliberate on them. Docomeents ARE being updated, as we speak. Tests ARE being revised, as we speak. But we can't just throw something together and post it within a week or two! Add on top of that the PHPtest application, where it's not just simply photocopying a sheet onto your computer, it takes a lot of time and effort to update the database.

 

I've heard no other complaints nor suggestions on changing current VATUSA training docomeents, therefore, training staff haven't really been prompted to apprise frequently on the current progress, although everyone should have known it was going on. Complacency has silence from within it, and if you had just asked politely, or inquired about VATUSA training material, you most likely would have gotten a response.

 

I find it extremely rude, and fruitless, that you are now badgering us about a Training Program that we are currently in the process of revising already, and without asking us sooner of our progress with the Training Academy, you accuse us of doing nothing to improve our system.

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

I'm sorry for being trite, but Karl, not being a Center controller yourself, how would you know what is being dealt with in this system?

 

Well I'm a center controller, and Karl is, quite frankly, right on the money.

 

The major problems that take place between ARTCC's (particularly during busy events) is a complete lack of coordination. For one, rarely anybody (between ARTCC's) ever sits down before the event and actually determines what's going to happen if things go awry. I've seen it time and time again. And As Marc indicates, many ARTCC's (and even controllers within the same ARTCC, for that matter) just keep sending pilots anyway, even though handoffs have been refused. Why this happens, I'm not even going to speculate.

 

But a VATUSA TMU isn't going to do a thing to solve this problem. You can issue all the ground holds you want, but unless the coordination issues are solved, it's not going to mean a thing.

 

Secondly, when I'm working Center at an event, the adjacent center controller just needs to give me a call and say, "Hey, could you hold traffic coming into my airspace?" And I do it! That's it. It's really that simple. Why is there suddenly the need to bring some 3rd party into the mix (who IS going to be clueless regarding airspace ops, regardless of how many times you try to say that this guy is going to be trained in every possible flow for every major airport in every ARTCC...I'll believe it when I see it), that will really just end up messing things up during an event?

 

Thirdly, for ground holds and other TMU-related items, we look to the event CIC (Controller in Charge) which each ARTCC should have during an event. I.e., when we did an event with ZOA, their CIC informed our CIC that they wanted a ground hold for all a/c inbound to SFO. Our CIC put a single message on the ATC channel issuing a ground hold for a/c bound to SFO, and that was it. We put the ground hold into effect and the situation was resolved. There's no 3rd party necessary for this.

 

I just see this as another 1 or 2 or 10 (have to figure the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]istants into the equation) completely useless positions. Let's take those same 10 people and give them to Jim in the Training Dept.

[Ross Carlson]

Well said Bryan ... I'm in full agreement. I think there is definitely a need for better inter-ARTCC coordination, and this TMC/TMU position idea has its heart in the right place, but the execution is wrong. As you said, each ARTCC needs to have it's own TMU for large events, and also know who the TMUs are at neighboring facilities, and coordinate with them. A third party wouldn't provide any benefit here.

[Steve Ogrodowski 876322]

Forgive me, but we are on different sides of the states. Things don't usually run too aback over here. We usually only have problems because adjacent Centers aren't actually staffed. The biggest problem is that we have trouble getting our neighbors online during our events. Once they are there, we usually don't have many problems.

 

I guess it's all a subjective thing, and I don't mean to say that western ATC is less skilled than eastern ATC, but we usually don't have gigantic problems with the addressed items.

 

Secondly, when I'm working Center at an event, the adjacent center controller just needs to give me a call and say, "Hey, could you hold traffic coming into my airspace?" And I do it! That's it. It's really that simple. Why is there suddenly the need to bring some 3rd party into the mix (who IS going to be clueless regarding airspace ops, regardless of how many times you try to say that this guy is going to be trained in every possible flow for every major airport in every ARTCC...I'll believe it when I see it), that will really just end up messing things up during an event?

 

This is a valid point, and something I actually brought up with our ATM last night.

 

Thirdly, for ground holds and other TMU-related items, we look to the event CIC (Controller in Charge) which each ARTCC should have during an event. I.e., when we did an event with ZOA, their CIC informed our CIC that they wanted a ground hold for all a/c inbound to SFO. Our CIC put a single message on the ATC channel issuing a ground hold for a/c bound to SFO, and that was it. We put the ground hold into effect and the situation was resolved. There's no 3rd party necessary for this.

 

The problem with this over here in the east, as I mentioned before, is that event CICs aren't often pronounced, and the ARTCCs don't often support each other. What we'd need to first fix is ensuring management is accomplished within the ARTCCs somehow. I see a VATUSA TMU as a way to begin to bring that together. From what you say, the western guys probably ensure adjacent ARTCC sectors are online better than we do here in the east.

[Josh Hjemvick 811983]

Nice to see the usual cheerleaders are still sticking around.

 

I have to say, yes, this TMU position . . . from a VATUSA HQ position (as opposed to an individual ARTCC staff position) is going to be utterly useless. I have to echo the point a view that it should not be solely on the shoulders of ONE VATUSA staff member to bounce around for every weekend, trying to learn the STARs or SIDs for how ever many fields are involved. I'll give the benefit of doubt to VATUSA leadership this time though, in the hopes that they create more than just one position. . . perhaps a member for each region, or two members for each region, and make it a regional position. Two TMU specialists for th E, C, W, and SRN regions would be a good compromise to ease the minds of some of the more ARTCC centric individuals.

 

Karl, bravo to you. Glad you stuck by your original post.

[Jeff Turner]

Nice to see the usual cheerleaders are still sticking around.

 

I have to say, yes, this TMU position . . . from a VATUSA HQ position (as opposed to an individual ARTCC staff position) is going to be utterly useless. I have to echo the point a view that it should not be solely on the shoulders of ONE VATUSA staff member to bounce around for every weekend, trying to learn the STARs or SIDs for how ever many fields are involved. I'll give the benefit of doubt to VATUSA leadership this time though, in the hopes that they create more than just one position. . . perhaps a member for each region, or two members for each region, and make it a regional position. Two TMU specialists for th E, C, and W regions would be a good compromise to ease the minds of some of the more ARTCC centric individuals.

 

Karl, bravo to you. Glad you stuck by your original post.

 

Hi Josh,

 

Yes, there will be one TMU head or whatever you want to call it. Under him/her there will be 4-5 senior controllers that will be available on any given day that the other isn't... I will post the SOP that is being created for all of you to read since there are so many questions... Keep them coming!

 

I'll get it up tomorrow for you and you can review it if you would like in hopes of a better understanding. We probably could have done a better job of explaining this idea to all of you, for that I apologize...

 

As far as VATUSA training is concerned, you can expect an update on that in the next few days.

[Steve Ogrodowski 876322]

Well, I see this is a division that is not easily swayed. Another disagreement among disagreements...I don't really have any problem one way or another. I do completely agree that ARTCC TMUs must be maintained and stepped up. But many ARTCCs haven't stepped up. I did state earlier that the TMU was a good idea...but:

 

After some more careful consideration, it would probably be better to enact some sort of requirement of ARTCCs to maintain a TMU of some sort, and then when VATUSA-based TMU is truly warranted, it be created. There would be the ARTCCs that don't like that idea because of their member levels...but how else can we accomplish this goal? Any ARTCCs that haven't stepped up already likely won't on their own, unless they have some other sort of motivation, whether it be restrictions or requirements. And then they would only continue to contribute to the messes we end up having...

 

 

Good night, and good luck!

[Marc Sykes 852946]

Forgive me, but we are on different sides of the states. Things don't usually run too aback over here. We usually only have problems because adjacent Centers aren't actually staffed. The biggest problem is that we have trouble getting our neighbors online during our events. Once they are there, we usually don't have many problems.

 

Well, a TMU will do nothing to fix the problem of centers not showing up. If that's the main concern, VATUSA would be better off creating a vigilante squad of known ace controllers who are allowed to log into adjacent center positions on an emergency basis, strictly to deal with event traffic flows. While they wouldn't technically be qualified to man the airspace, I don't see how ARTCC management can get too up in arms about it seeing as how they had the opportunity to staff up with their own checked-out controllers and, for whatever reason, didn't. (When I was chief (cue childish "What's a 'chief'?" interjection from the peanut gallery) at ZLA I would not have had a problem with somebody logging on as LAX_CTR in the extremely unlikely event that none of our crew was online during an adjacent center's event, [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming the person(s) logging in was known to be a good controller and was doing it solely to untangle the flows for the center next door. There would obviously need to be ground rules set up; ie. if you're there to space out traffic streams into OAK_CTR for an event at SFO you shouldn't be trying to work arrivals into LAX or LAS, and your controller info should probably state "online for event; ONLY handling inbounds to SFO" or something like that.) I'd be willing to help out in that kind of capacity, taking a CTR position to try to untangle some flows and set up streams into the adjacent center, or even establish a holding stack.

 

While I've never been a fan of VATUSA and find serious problems with the current "leadership," I do agree with the general intent here, which is to promote better event planning and inter-ARTCC coordination. Richard Green, alone amongst this "leadership," does seem to have the right idea and be willing to take an initiative, and that's good. But as Bryan pointed out, the sort of coordination that's needed is best accomplished between the controllers and ARTCCs involved. I fear that when and if this VATUSA TMC position comes to fruition, it's just going to be yet another self-appointed "big shot" with a VATxxx callsign and a 1500-mile range, imposing tremendous strain on the servers just when they need it the least, looking at all the pretty blips and throwing his weight around telling the controllers how to manage their traffic. We have enough VATxxxxs doing that already as it is, and it's only going to make things worse to have yet more "management" breathing down controllers' necks.