2 upcoming MITRE events (Feb 4/5 and Feb 9)

[Keith Smith]

This is cross-posted from the newly created MITRE forum, which many people may not have seen. The first event is being held Feb 4 (PST), which equates to Feb 5 UTC. Hopefully that resolves the Feb 4/5 date issue.

 

Los Angeles ARTCC will be hosting two events in early February focusing on the RNAV SIDs and STARs at Las Vegas.

 

A comprehensive briefing of the events is available here: http://mitrecaasd.org/vatsim/

 

As stated in the briefing, modified procedures will be in effect during this event:

- modified phraseology for handling LAS arrivals (see briefing/training)

- LAS terminal [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignments for each airline (not specific gates, just a terminal) to reduce gate conflicts

- PDC procedure as LAS to alleviate congestion on DEL freq

- LAS deps are requested to complete pre-flight, FMS programming, and engine start (if possible) prior to connecting to the network to minimize the number of aircraft on the ground

- LAS departures call DEL for taxi, then monitor GND when instructed to alleviate GND frequency congestion

- LAS departures will be sequenced to maximize the departure rate

- pilots who have not secured a reservation will be asked to avoid the LAS terminal area during the 1hr event window (Event 1) and 2hr event window (Event 2)

- pilots are requested to avoid the use of heavy/757 aircraft in order to allow the maximum departure and arrival rate

[Garry Morris 920567]

While I'm reserved out of PHX for an LAS arrival, I'll be very interested to see how the PDC clearance structure goes. It was similar to an idea I had for putting an X or . in text chat to indicate you were ready for a clearance (my idea came out of Eve-Online, in which if one wants to join a "gang" of people that have teamed up to fight together, one puts an X or a . in the chat window to indicate their interest in joining). It sounds like MITRE found a way to make that idea fit into the reality of VATSIM, and I really hope it works, as if people actually use that idea, it could really alleviate blocking problems on the DEL channel.

[Keith Smith]

Hi Gary,

 

The PDC process was actually devised and docomeented by a VATSIM team. It should work well in environments where there is a reasonable expectation that few route amendments will be required. Essentially, any time specific routes are published for an event, PDC should work well. If it works well at Vegas, I'm sure it will be considered for future MITRE events, and perhaps considered by event planners in general.

 

Good luck with your flight!

[Garry Morris 920567]

Ahh! Good to know it came out of the VATSIM team (though certainly it doesn't matter where it came from, I too think it has potential).

 

Looking forward to it, best of luck to you guys and I always enjoy my flights into ZLA.

[Corey Elliott 903412]

All pilots should use VATSIM weather for their wind source during the flight, disabling 3rd party weather products such as ActiveSky. This will ensure that [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned speeds will result in consistent separation. Once enroute, pilots should fly at the filed TAS, which is included in the details provided with the reserved route.

 

What about pilots that use the "Use Vatsim Weather" option in Active Sky?

 

Corey

[Keith Smith]

Corey,

 

If using that option ensures that you'll have the same winds and temperatures aloft as other pilots, then you should be ok.

[Corey Elliott 903412]

Thanks for the reply Keith.

 

By the way, I know is it's off topic and irrelevant but, did you and I join the forums on the same exact day? Weird.

 

Corey

[Ross Carlson]

That's when the forums first went live, so any members at that time show the same (or close) join date.

[Corey Elliott 903412]

Ahh, that makes sense Ross. Thanks.

 

Corey

[Keith Smith]

In case there is any confusion, the first MITRE RNAV event is happening now. If you have a booking, you should plan on flying it very shortly if you're not in the air already.

[Anthony Atkielski 985811]

The load was very light for this event—no lag or performance problems or other issues at all. Frequencies were lightly loaded and no problem getting a message in by voice. In fact, things were so quiet that I cannot possibly hope that the several huge, glaring mistakes I made could have been lost in the chatter. In the future, (1) always set the heading bug before pressing HDG SEL, not after; and (2) if the direct waypoint doesn't sound instantly familiar, ask to have it spelled rather than waste a minute trying to find it on the route or on the plates.

[Nate Johns]

Note to self...

 

Prior to participating in a scientific collaboration with a real research firm designed to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ess programs that may actually be used in real life, make sure I actually know how to operate my aircraft and all its complex systems in full correctly, and read my charts, understanding my route of flight completely before I fly.

 

~Nate

[Paul Byrne]

Hi,

 

Yeah, this seemed like it ran quite smooth, especially in the TRACON enviroment. I notice that the traffic count will be greater for the Feb 9 event.

 

Thinking about it, we could also do our own little bit of research with these events. With events like this, where there are specified departure and arrival rates, we could push up the departure/arrival rates till we see the start of controller overload, where it goes from fun to frantic .

 

In fairness, there are so many variables (Amount of controllers/sectorisation/pilot competence etc.) to this that it would be hard to get a definitive number, but it could get an average amount that could be used for future large event planning (CTP etc.). XYZ ARTCC could be told that a certain event has a specified number of departures/arrivals/overflights coming to the ARTCC. By looking at the results of these tests, they could determine the optimum amount of controllers and even optimum sectorisation if you broke down the info right to the traffic flow level.

 

For example, vZBW and vZNY decide to run a big event between KBOS and NY metro area. If necessary, NY area departures can be routed through 4 different STAR routes into KBOS. By knowing the average meltdown rate a controller has and by planning the use of holds and slot times you could sectorise the airspace so that the 3 STAR routings could be handled by 3+ different enroute controllers and 2-3 different TRACON controllers running to a final, increasing the overall traffic flow rather than just making it a free for all with controllers melting down.

 

Just an idea.

 

Cheers!

Paul.

[Keith Smith]

Paul, interesting point. We actually started out with a dep/arr rate for the 4 RNAV STARs and 6 RNAV SIDs, built a spreadsheet to calculate the wheels up times and then built the route system from that. Between that, and determining minimum MIT spacing for each stream, it made for a very predictable evening, completely different than most events that I've attended or coordinated in the past.

 

That said, tonight was not indicative of what the event should have been, since less than half of the scheduled traffic flew during the event. I believe there was m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive confusion over the actual date of this event, if you can believe it. It's something we'll be sure to be very clear about in all of the literature next time. I mentioned this in the MITRE forum, but since the discussion has started here, I'll mention it here, too.

 

For those pilots that booked a slot, but didn't fly, what was the reason? No harm or mockery will come to those that answer, I'm only curious to make sure that we try to avoid this situation in the future, and to confirm that it was a date issue rather than a "it turns out, I can't fly on Mondays" issue.

 

Thanks again to those that flew and staffed the event. It was remarkable to see the new clearance and taxi procedures in effect. Pilots did a great job complying with the instructions provided in the briefing.

[Paul Byrne]

it made for a very predictable evening

Yeah, almost too predictable...

 

Except of course doing a constant descent approach with a 4-5 mile base to final onto a runway with a 16kt tailwind

 

Made for some fun and improvised speed managment Do they really have such high wind cutoffs, especially with a tailwind factor? I was thinking about requesting another runway as my company SOP forbade landing in a tailwind component of over 15kts, but I could see IE_SUP lurking on the controller list and didn't want to give him an excuse to use that lead weighted return key finger of his

 

Cheers!

Paul.

[Keith Smith]

Paul,

 

Negative, in the real world they would've swapped runways. We were not prepared to run north ops for this event, though, for various reasons. In hindsight, given the traffic levels, we could've sent the GRNPA's to the 25's without any sequencing headaches. We were anticipating more traffic and lighter winds.

[Garry Morris 920567]

The 25kt crosswind with very heavy gusts on the 25s was no fun either.

 

Incidentally, with no traffic around me, was there a reason the TYSSN center controller wasn't issuing the descend as published? The approach controller was pretty surprised when, after issuing me a speed override, followed by a resume published speed, I told him I was still level at 12000 due to prior restrictions (my only instructions coming down the TYSSN was a cross KADDY at/maintain instruction).

[Keith Smith]

Garry,

 

Our SOP's have the CTR controller instructing you to cross KADDY at and maintain 12k. The APP controller should have issued the descend via.

[Keith Smith]

Paul,

 

Negative, in the real world they would've swapped runways. We were not prepared to run north ops for this event, though, for various reasons. In hindsight, given the traffic levels, we could've sent the GRNPA's to the 25's without any sequencing headaches. We were anticipating more traffic and lighter winds.

 

I should elaborate slightly on that point about north ops. We do have the SOP's to land north, that's not the issue. The issue is that doing so would normally involve pulling RNAV arrivals off the STAR fairly early, negating one of the major objectives of the data collection from this event. That is why we stuck to 25/19 ops and prayed for the winds to subside.

[Garry Morris 920567]

Ahh, no problem Keith. The approach controller only issued the descend as published after I informed him I wasn't descending as published, which caused some confusion on my part (and his). I didn't want to get flagged for failing to fly the approach properly when I was following valid instructions from prior positions.

[Keith Smith]

It's perfectly reasonable to say "last controller instructed us to cross KADDY at and maintain 12k." It sounds like a mistaken [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umption on the controlling side. Being clear about what you were told to do by previous guy usually clears things up quickly, you'll never be penalized for that

[Brad Littlejohn]

And that controller would have been me, which I issued the 'descend via' for every arrival on that end, but I might have cancelled the speed restriction for you because I had someone behind you that was coming in a bit hot, and lost MIT spacing that the final controller had requested. After I got him slowed down I issued 'resume published speed', so you could slow down as well. I didn't have anyone in front of you, so that would have helped a lot.

 

BL.

[Garry Morris 920567]

No, it was you Brad, and everything went just fine. The issue at hand was that I had been told to cross KADDY at/maint 12000/250kts. Upon initial contact, you gave me a cross (next fix, can't remember name just now) at 260 indicated, overriding the published speed and prior speed [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignment, which was totally cool. You then gave me a "resume published speed", which again, was perfect.

 

I then realized that after p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing that next to last fix, I was down to that last fix, with an 8000ft altitude and in the procedure also had the "turn to intercept ILS 25L". Since I was still at 12k, and knew that I was now getting awfully high off the altitude that I knew I'd need to be at with that last fix so close to the runway, I mentioned that I was still under previous instructions to be at 12k.

 

The only reason I mentioned it here was that you sounded surprised, and gave me what sounded like a hasty descend as published TYSSN1 (or something to that effect). That led me to believe that perhaps there had been a disconnect somewhere, and I wanted to make sure I understood what was going on, as well as ensure that I hadn't missed a call, or that there was a problem with the SOP that might manifest in a much more ugly manner during the heavier fly in later this week.

 

All the ATC did an excellent job (I can't say I've ever been at 7k on a visual that close to the airport with another aircraft at 6k below me before - was really impressive and fun) and I had a lot of fun helping MITRE out. Again, I just wanted to get some clarification to make sure everything was going correctly there.

 

Thanks for the clarifications.

[Mike Cassel 849958]

Garry, funny you should mention that incident...I was the final approach controller, and what happened there was I gave the guy in front of you a base turn that should have given him 5 miles in front of you minimum, I was thinking closer to 6. However, for what ever reason, he lollygagged the turn, and didn't move for 25 seconds. With both aircraft being around 210-220, 3.5 miles of my planned separation didn't happen. I cleared him for the visual once he turned closer, but then he wouldn't get out of 6000 feet for another 30 even though he was already above glideslope. You may have heard "it would help to leave 6000 now" from me, that was so I could get you down until you called the traffic. I probably should have descended him to 5000 earlier, but I was sort of hoping he'd do it on his own. Luckily, I had been smart and kept 1000 foot vertical the whole time, so it wasn't a deal, but it was quite annoying to deal with the late turn and sluggish performance of the other aircraft. Eventually it turned out ok with the speed, had 3.5 miles over the threshold, but it was a fair amount of work.

 

 

What I found all night, is that people on RNAV arrivals took an extremely long time to get off their arrival and onto a heading; I figure 5 seconds to readback(this is bad form to readback before complying, but most people do), 10 to turn the knob, and then another few to hit the heading sel mode. Thats 20 seconds, and 20 seconds when you are being turned in front of another aircraft is a covergence speed of 360 knots or so, if both aircraft are at 180. At 210, it becomes 420. In in other words, that 20 second delay can result in a 3 mile difference between what the controller thinks is going to happen and what actually does. What I found was giving an intermediate heading, taking someone off the arrival but close to the arrival course, then giving the base resulted in much much quicker turns.

[Shawn Goldsworthy 925085]

(this is bad form to readback before complying, but most people do)

 

I agree with this statement to a point. Personally I prefer if a text pilot complies with the instruction before he reads it back for obvious reasons.

 

However an ATC instruction technically isn't valid until the pilot reads it back