VATUSA Creates Traffic Management Coordinator Position

[Josh Hjemvick 811983]

::noding in agreement::

 

Let's give them a few hours to post an SOP someplace for us to further investigate. I'm not 100% for the idea, as I feel TMU is inherently an ARTCC function. . . but it is obvious now that VATUSA HQ wants it to be a VATUSA funtion, fine. Either way, not being on a FAB anymore, my opinion honestly doesnt matter. VATUSA, do as you wish.

[Richard Green 810012]

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.

 

Marc -

 

Two things...

 

1. Coming from you that is high praise ( especially given how you feel about some people )

 

2. I can tell you a few things about this position even before you guys see the SOP:

 

A. This person will coordinate with ARTCCs for events ( this person has no power to impose anything )

B. The ATM of the event sets the requirements for the event and the TMU will filter that out to the enroutes.

C. The TMU or designated person ( we figure 5 - 10 as most people have lives ) will be on hand to watch the traffic flows for the event and will coordinate the upstream adjustments so that the arrival center doesn't have to play catchup.

 

 

Note - for C... I know this is a sore subject for a lot of you, and that a GOOD controller should never be handing crud off to another Center, but the sad fact of the matter is that at times, ARTCCs need someone to provide them some help and instruction. Personally I think this is 70% a training issue and 30% a "big picture" issue. That being said, at the end of day this position is coming on line to help not put leg irons on anyone.

[Nicholas Bartolotta 912967]

I am sure that once someone is appointed to this position, they will also be changing it's job description to a level that is more suitable. Just going to have to wait and see

[Marc Sykes 852946]

Note - for C... I know this is a sore subject for a lot of you, and that a GOOD controller should never be handing crud off to another Center, but the sad fact of the matter is that at times, ARTCCs need someone to provide them some help and instruction. Personally I think this is 70% a training issue and 30% a "big picture" issue.

 

Agreed, if not 80 or 90% training-related. I hope whoever's chosen to lead the program is not only an experienced enroute controller, but an experienced instructor who can make education the centrepiece of the position rather than just telling people "ok start holding." Things like MIT restrictions, holding, etc. are really not that hard to accomplish, but it's just not something that is part of most ARTCCs' curriculum (even at ZLA it's really not something we used to teach as a standard, more something you learned on the job when it became necessary). And I've found that even good VATSIM controllers, who understand the basic principles, don't always have great technique when it comes to the execution -- including myself. When I started my real-world training I thought I knew how to vector for spacing, and attempted to use my VATSIM techniques in the sim until the instructors started watching and saying "ok, well, what you're doing will work .. in the long run .. [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming you don't mind watching and fine-tuning this for the next half hour. Or, we can show you how to get it done quick and dirty in 2 minutes, like they do it on the floor. Which would you rather do?" It's a rhetorical question -- with 15-20 targets on your scope, there's no way you can afford to devote more than a couple of minutes to one individual problem.

 

Maybe this can be the start of a more advanced training curriculum that will go beyond the basic stuff to be accomplished at the Academy and even within the individual ARTCCs' training programs. I guess we'll have to wait and see who's chosen for the position and what relevant qualifications (if any) he possesses. It's something I'd do myself, mostly for the opportunity to educate, if I hadn't already been judged as officially unfit to be a VATUSA instructor.

[Richard Green 810012]

Maybe this can be the start of a more advanced training curriculum that will go beyond the basic stuff to be accomplished at the Academy and even within the individual ARTCCs' training programs. I guess we'll have to wait and see who's chosen for the position and what relevant qualifications (if any) he possesses. It's something I'd do myself, mostly for the opportunity to educate, if I hadn't already been judged as officially unfit to be a VATUSA instructor.

 

Marc -

 

I for one have been one of the people who have always had issues with people being "pulled" back to the training academy... that being said, if an ARTCC wanted to send someone there for a "train the trainer" sceanrio I think thats a great idea.

 

I think that once someone is sent to a home ARTCC the ARTCC should deal with their training or at the very least they should determine when someone is ready for more advanced skill training ( some C1s would be ready, some C3s might NEVER be ready )

 

I spent 2 days at the MCO Tracon a few weeks back and I learned more causally observing than I have in YEARS ( if not my whole time on SATCO/VATSIM )

 

It is time though that we get the C1s and above ( once their ATM/TA decide they are ready to do so ) get some advanced training. The problem is there are VERY FEW in VATSIM who can do a job like this. I would say the vast majority can handle ITS when there are a few planes but I have seen many a good CTR controller choke when the heat gets turned up.

[Greg Phelan 810114]

A few observations from an outsider (with a bit of experience in looking at flow control as it applies to a real world environment)

 

1) Local controllers need to know what their saturation point is. That is something that, on VATSIM more then the real world, will differ from controller to controller, and situation to situation. Sometimes, an arrival rate of 60 (60 arrivals per minute) at an airport might be doable (two runways to be used exclusively for arrivals, sufficient controllers to sectorize appropriately); whereas at other times 20 might be the max (one runway for arrivals/departures, not enough controllers, etc.).

 

2) Local controllers cannot always impact what the arrival rate will be. Heck, even the centre controller or the 'shift manager', if you will, cannot always look out and see the anticipated traffic volumes 2 hours from the aircraft arrival. It's just too much airspace to look at - and, too much of a workload, there are always other things for the shift manager to be working on (Solving tactical problems like getting seats filled, rather then strategic problems). For a centre controller - even less time is available to look at the overall picture, because there is a specific roll to fill.

 

3) Having one individual able to disseminate information to a variety of places can become essential during a busy environment. The shift manager can talk to their staff, and determine, "we need an arrival rate of no more then 50, without encountering significant ground delays". The regional flow controller can look and suggest, "the best way to do that is to restrict departures from the following airports to 20 miles in trail, from these airports to 5 minutes in trail, and these airports via a call for release".

 

In the real world, ATS providers have spent tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars to develop software that will predict demand at an airport. Even then, it often requires a skilled professional to determine what the best way to balance the traffic is. Sometimes, it can be done on the fly - I remember one morning shift while I was in training, we were three short, and could not split off two sectors as we usually did. So, we put a specific flow into place from the main airport (our specialty was the low level enroute surrounding that airport) - 5 minutes between departures, west, north-west, north, north-east, east, and south independant. In that specific situation, we didn't need to go any further - the biggest demand at that time of the morning is the departure rush, and that can easily be limited.

 

Other times, such a decision simply cannot be made in that manner. One busy summer afternoon, the high level specialty above mine was several people short, and had an increased workload due to bad rides and some thunderstorms. Well, the shift manager consulted with the operations centre, and they determined the best way to put in flow - ensuring that the specialty did not become oversaturated, while at the same time being as non-restrictive as possible to the aircraft.

 

It is easy to keep going until the saturation point, and then say, "stop everybody else". That leads to no delay for some, and huge delay for others. Better, perhaps, is to get flow in early during a busy event - make it as non-restrictive as possible, and avoid having to start issuing lengthy holds. Now, online is a bit different then real life - nobody online has to pay for gas. Real-world, aircraft would much rather hold on the ground for 5 minutes extra, then circle in the air for 5 minutes - that's a lot of money being burned while making donuts in the sky.

 

All in all, a proposal like this one will allow centres to focus on making tactical decisions, and get [Mod - Happy Thoughts]istance with strategic decisions. Instead of having to call up, in a panic, "stop all inbounds to ZZZZ" (boning the adjacent controller who is fairly busy dealing with their own traffic); an orderly flow can be established from the ground up, making extremely busy events more enjoyable for both the pilot and the controller. Yes, en-route holds will still be issed on occasion - it's a fact of life. This will simply allow all controllers to plan that out a bit better - the area traffic manager will be able to tell the local CIC/Shift Manager, "You're going to be over capacity in 20 minutes, and a decision can be made there as to how to lower the traffic volume without having to go to a drastic, "hold everybody", in which case the traffic volume fluctuates drastically - the numbers go down sharply without any inbounds and there is a significant amount of wasted space.

 

My $0.02,

 

Greg Phelan

[Marko Savatic 825464]

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...

I couldn't agree with Steve more. One of the biggest problems during large scale events is pilots that don't know much about flying, and have trouble doing things that are essential when it is busy, like for instance, holds, or proper radio ettiquette.The Superbowl fly-in was a cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ic example of poor pilot radio etiquette. I bet you half of them were off on their own little tangent while I was by myself at Chicago Center, if I had a nickel for every time I heard a "say again" or "your breaking up center," well...i'd have a few buckets full of nickels. Asking a pilot to cross 20 miles west of (Insert VOR name here) can be a helpful tool for center controllers, but if a pilot doesn't know how to do it, we'll, your SOL. I think personally we should start at the root of the problem, and that's with getting pilots to fly the proper way to make it easier job for the controllers.

 

I'm not just gonna take this to bash pilots, as stated in the previous few posts, controller training can be an issue. After seeing the past few events unfold, I'm adding sequencing in my curricular to make sure that we are able to get these guys XX MIT for whoever the next center controller is. Not only that, but the proper phraseology and knowledge of holds also helps if the controller has a knowledge of what they are and how to properly have an aircraft enter a hold. If we could get to a point where all the Center controllers were coordinating with others, not just playing a game of "p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] the trash" we would be better off for these "high intensity" events.

 

I think that they TCU will work if we can get at least the controller part sorted out with the training. It doesn't do you any good if the TCU tells A center to give B center 20 MIT at all altitudes if A center doesn't know how to sequence to get 20 MIT. It's a step in the right direction, but it's going to take alot of work by both VATUSA and the individual ARTCCs to see this fully come through and be effective. You'd also have to get the surrounding ARTCCs online as well, which can be a challenge sometime.

 

Well, there is my .0231 Candian Cents...

[Lance Williams]

I couldn't agree with Steve more. One of the biggest problems during large scale events is pilots that don't know much about flying,

 

I couldn't agree LESS!

 

The worst events ever are those ill planned by the hosting ARTCC. At least when it comes to TGIF traffic. I have yet to see a pilot not know what he is doing, but I always see unprepared ATC trying to handle more traffic then they are ready for.

[Matthew Horan 901577]

Want to see un-prepared pilots?

 

Look at the ocean, anytime during the day.

 

I'm starting to get sick of explaining to people over and over and over again.. gonna write explanation aliases soon

 

Lance, you were one of the good ones - pleasure to have you fly through, feel free to do it again! Take my mind off the less-fortunates..

[Lance Williams]

Want to see un-prepared pilots?

 

Look at the ocean, anytime during the day.

 

I'm starting to get sick of explaining to people over and over and over again.. gonna write explanation aliases soon

 

Lance, you were one of the good ones - pleasure to have you fly through, feel free to do it again! Take my mind off the less-fortunates..

 

LOL I hear ya Matthew I actually was caught off guard by you being there, but quickly adapted and enjooyed the Oceanic experience.

[Chad Black]

 

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.

 

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.

 

I couldnt have said it better...lol

[Marko Savatic 825464]

 

I couldn't agree LESS!

 

The worst events ever are those ill planned by the hosting ARTCC. At least when it comes to TGIF traffic. I have yet to see a pilot not know what he is doing, but I always see unprepared ATC trying to handle more traffic then they are ready for.

Wow Lance

Ever control any large scale events? For me, it has gotten to the point sometime where it's no fun to control VATSIM pilots during these large scale events and almost become stressful. I'm not saying its the COA guys, but there are some out there that should have their virtual flying liscense revoked...

[Richard Green 810012]

Guys this is turning into a “pilots vs. controllersâ€

[Ross Carlson]

Thanks for the further clarification, Richard. Personally, I still think the position is unwarranted. To toss up another analogy, it's like having a guy in your office who's job is to print out email messages and hand-deliver them to the recipient, when the original sender could have just sent the email to the recipient directly. I don't see why the controllers at the event ARTCC can't just contact the adjacent enroute controllers directly.

 

On the flipside of the coin, perhaps the mere presence of the TMC will make the event controllers more aware of the need for inter-ARTCC coordination when that need arises. In other words, perhaps the problem is that the event controllers simply don't realize the need for ground stops and enroute holds until it's too late, because they don't see the big picture because they're dealing with their own sectors. They "can't see the forest for the trees" so to speak. So, perhaps the TMC position will help with that. In my opinion, the TMC position might better be staffed by someone from the event ARTCC itself, and not from a "generic" VATUSA staff position, but there really are advantages both ways. If the TMC position was handled by a member of the event ARTCC, then he/she would have a much better understanding of traffic flows and controller capacities, but if the TMC person were from outside the event ARTCC, then that means there's one more event ARTCC member who can control aircraft instead of working as the TMC.

 

I guess we'll see how well it works in practice.

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

Thanks for the further clarification, Richard. Personally, I still think the position is unwarranted. To toss up another analogy, it's like having a guy in your office who's job is to print out email messages and hand-deliver them to the recipient, when the original sender could have just sent the email to the recipient directly. I don't see why the controllers at the event ARTCC can't just contact the adjacent enroute controllers directly.

 

EXACTLY!!!

 

Like I said, all this position is going to do is confuse matters further during an event. That's exactly what we DON'T need. The controllers, or CICs, or whoever absolutely do NOT need another person to talk to during the event. Like I said, this position is completely useless. Go back through my alternatives I posted earlier. This is yet another completely useless and unwarranted VATUSA position that we don't need. That's not to say we don't need more VATUSA positions...just not this one.

[Chad Black]

Thanks for the further clarification, Richard. Personally, I still think the position is unwarranted. To toss up another analogy, it's like having a guy in your office who's job is to print out email messages and hand-deliver them to the recipient, when the original sender could have just sent the email to the recipient directly. I don't see why the controllers at the event ARTCC can't just contact the adjacent enroute controllers directly.

 

ding ding ding! We have a winner! Hopefully the powers that be are listening in to this thread, and hearing us little guys opinions on the matter. Why aren’t matters like this ever put to a vote?

[Lance Williams]

Wow Lance

Ever control any large scale events? .

 

Yep, controlled TGIF at Denver as Final approach. I'm sure I guided 10x more aircraft into a nice landing then you normally land in a week.

[Richard Green 810012]

At the end of the day, the position is there so it frees up the ARTCC having the event from having to tie up a QUALIFIED person in a non-controlling position.

 

As for other things in this thread....

 

Lance - and you did a fine job controlling, but no need to play "My dog's better than your dog"

 

Chad - Sorry but we don't vote on everything, but I do listen to your opinions.

 

Bryan - Two things:

1. The TMC doesnt talk to you during the event, he ( or she ) deals with upstream issues.

2. With all due respect, and you know I respect your opinion, what makes your opinion any more correct than Jeff's, mine, or any of the others who support the idea.

 

We can agree to disagree but no need to call people's ideas useless or that the people ( ATMs btw ) are not trying to help the division.

 

I appreciate your feedback and don't think I havent taken it all in and have written a lot of it down to add to the job description.

[Lance Williams]

Lance - and you did a fine job controlling, but no need to play "My dog's better than your dog"

 

Just answered the "query" there bud. Oh and my Dog is better than yours any day!

[Chad Black]

Chad - Sorry but we don't vote on everything, but I do listen to your opinions.

 

You 'sorta' left that open ended... in all the years I have been a member of VATSIM, I have NEVER seen a vote put forth to the general public (ie the members)

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

Thanks RG. Oh no, I definitely don't think your ideas are useless. Trust me. You know me better than that. I think you all (whoever worked on the general concept) have a VERY good idea. I'm just not sure the way it's being implemented is the best. Then again, you never know. Prove me wrong! After I see it in action, I might change my tune.

 

I do have a question regarding one thing you wrote though:

 

1. The TMC doesnt talk to you during the event, he ( or she ) deals with upstream issues.

 

If that's the case, how does the TMC call for things such as ground holds, holds in the air, and extra MIT? They HAVE to be talking to somebody right, since they obviously aren't going to be controlling the aircraft themselves?

 

 

Also just to clarify briefly,

the position is there so it frees up the ARTCC having the event from having to tie up a QUALIFIED person in a non-controlling position

 

Our Event CICs have never been in a non-controlling position. Well...aside from the Poker Run, but for obvious reasons there. That's really how easy the job is.

 

I STILL don't understand why a 3rd party is required to do this job. Richard, if you or anyone can better explain this to me, things might make more sense. But for the time being, the position just doesn't seem terribly useful. Like I already said, I would much rather see these 10 (or more?) volunteers used for something that is going to make an even larger difference on the network. As far as I can tell, while I'm sure many people are unofficially working on the new training program, we have one guy officially [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned to Training??? It doesn't sound like the priorities are in the right place.

[Richard Green 810012]

 

If that's the case, how does the TMC call for things such as ground holds, holds in the air, and extra MIT? They HAVE to be talking to somebody right, since they obviously aren't going to be controlling the aircraft themselves?

 

Well I should have more correct;y stated that the TMC doesn't talk to the controllers who are running the event at the destination ( unless talked to ) they are more concerned with dealing with upstream controllers.

 

 

Also just to clarify briefly,

Our Event CICs have never been in a non-controlling position. Well...aside from the Poker Run, but for obvious reasons there. That's really how easy the job is.

 

Thats the thing Bryan, many (most) ARTCCs designate someone to NOT take part in the event to be a CIC... and to be honest even if ZLA uses a CIC who is controlling, they don't see what is happening 2 ARTCCs away. ( well they can't if they are giving their attention to their own traffic )

 

The TMC is there to deal with problems before the become issues, before most controllers would even notice them.

 

Do I think this person would become less important if EVERY CTR controller had abetter grasp on flow control? But we can't mandate good CTR controllers everywhere, I really wish we could, but some ARTCCs suffer warm body syndrome and are willing to give people the training that will allow them to control an average day, but where they choke on a moderate level of traffic.

[Josh Hjemvick 811983]

 

...but some ARTCCs suffer warm body syndrome and are willing to give people the training that will allow them to control an average day, but where they choke on a moderate level of traffic.

 

Isn't that a problem there in and of itself? Soft training standards at the ARTCC level. I don't know much about the VATUSA Academy, but I certainly hope that it works to strengthen controllers abilities before they enter a facility that has soft training standards.