3 Comments

B-AREA UPDATE 7/24/15

Hi everyone,

By now, most of you should have received the briefing for the RDM LOA changes coming soon. I don't have an exact date, but we will all be briefed again by the Airspace department before it goes into effect. I want to thank everyone for their input during the briefings this week as we have a lot to look at moving forward with the possible redesign and what is best for the B-Area and the users. This update will be posted in the B-Area Updates page of the ZSE Natca Website where you can comment on any of the issues that you think need to looked at discussed further in depth.

SCHEDULE - I will be meeting with John Lawson next Tuesday to go over next year's schedule. I want to thank Jeff Enticknap for working with me to build a new schedule. This becomes very difficult as we have to adjust our numbers for the possibilities of retirements and such. It looks like we have the possibility of losing 7 people by the end of 2016. That is a huge number of losses for the B-Area if that happens. 

LLOYD - I talked to Lloyd tonight and he is healing very well. It looks like he will be back on August 9th. He said to say hi to everyone!!

ARTICLE 5 - As of tonight, I have two names interested in the R-Side Class from 9/8/15 - 10/9/15. If you are interested in teaching the class, please email me by COB tomorrow night 7/25/15 to submit your name. We will be finalizing the selection on Tuesday afternoon.

OJTI CLASS - Aaron McMorran and Lindsay Williams are scheduled to attend the class from 9/15 - 9/18/15.

TRANSITION SPEED REMINDER - If you plan to run a tight sequence, it is probably a good idea to remind the aircraft to transition to the published speed of 280K. We still had a few issues this past week of aircraft not seeing the note on the STAR and were well above the speed restriction causing an overtake situation on the aircraft in front. It's just a safety net for us all.

FATIGUE MITIGATION - This is just a reminder that due to fatigue mitigation requirements, the controllers that work mid-shifts are the last to be selected to work third swings to cover for leave purposes. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Rick Lund

B-Area Rep

3 Comments

Comment

B-AREA UPDATE 6/3/15

Hello everyone,

I have quite a few issues to go over so this will be a lengthy update.

On Monday afternoon (6/1), I sat in a meeting with Troy, John Warwick (TMU), and Derek Adams (A-Area). The focus of this meeting was to discuss the issues of the metering program we are working with today and how can we work together to accomplish a safer way of doing business. So before I go into detail about some of the ideas that were brought up, please have an open mind and understand that we really need to look at the possibility of changing some of our old ways of working traffic in the B-Area during metering.

One of the main issues that I have seen lately and that Troy observed yesterday was that the FLM's are not engaged in the operation enough to make a decision on what is best for sectors 42 and 46 when we are ready to go into metering. It basically boils down to the fact that they just don't know what to do because they have never experienced these daily issues when we meter. The B-Area FLM's don't have the experience that most of us controllers have so making a decision is tough. On the flip side, we have a lot of younger controllers that have only worked sectors 42 and 46 combined for their whole career. So this leads me to the million dollar question during times of metering -"What do we do to improve the overall safety of the NAS while we've had restrictions placed on us such as staffing, training, and mandated sectors being open?" It puts the area in a position of finger pointing and complaining while nothing seems to be getting done.

Well, the time for a change is now so Troy and I decided to have a meeting on Tuesday with Lawson and let him know what we would like to see. Some of you are going to completely disagree with our decision and that is fine. I plan to post this on the local Natca website www.natca-zse.com so that we can discuss the concerns. 

Below is a list of issues that we came up with and some alternatives that may help. Please again, keep and open mind as change needs to happen.

1. We requested that everyone attends mandatory breakouts next week in conjunction with MMV airspace briefings that I will talk about later. Lawson should be in attendance along with a TMU rep and the FLM's. Troy and I are going to attend as many as possible to assist in the discussions. If one of us is not there, please send your feedback to Troy or myself directly if you have a concern from the meeting.

2. The fact is, we feel the FLM's don't know really know what decisions to make when they are told by TMU that sector 42 and 46 are going to be RED and plan to meter at XXXX time to SEA. So we asked TMU to help initiate a plan of action and offer solutions such as:

     A. Possible reroutes of moving some SEA traffic from the HAWKZ arrival to the CHINS arrival to take care of some of the delays and gate balancing. This would be accomplished from the D-Area.

     B. Delay "X" amount of aircraft in the D-Area to help reduce the vectoring or holding over BTG.

     C. Oceanic aircraft that come over SEDAR can be rerouted over JAWBN (A-Area would do this, not the B-Area) with prior communication to TMU. This will definitely help from mixing those aircraft with the HAWKZ arrival aircraft.

     D. A continuous CFR to SEA from roughly 6:00am to 8:00pm local time.

     E. The one that some of you don't want to hear is splitting sector 42 from sector 46. Troy and I agree along with a lot of controllers that I have talked to that splitting the two sectors during metering needs to happen. I'm attaching a snapshot that TMU took two weeks ago on a Thursday night during metering. There were 27 aircraft at the peak time with metering of 3 minute delays on roughly the first 8 or 9 SEA arrivals and 7 minute delays on the last couple.  If the sector had been split in the beginning, it would have been easily manageable with only 3 point outs needed to sector 42. Two of those being non vectored boundary runners up to BTG. This is happening on an everyday basis right now throughout the weekdays. Doing nothing and sitting back complaining is not the answer!!

     1. I don't want to hear that NOBODY wants the sectors split. That is completely false as I have talked with the other side of the crew from me that splitting the sectors was the best thing to do and they have been doing it more frequently. 

     2. I keep hearing that if it's split it causes too many point outs (I feel a lot of that is technique because there is plenty of space to the southeast of sector 46 to start the turns for the delay). Or, if you are running 5 or more minute delays, forget the vectoring and hold or assign turns at BTG.

     3. Splitting the sectors will definitely help with frequency congestion which I feel is more of a safety issue than making point outs.

     4. Not having to coordinate and work the oceanic traffic helps when volume and metering exist with having the sectors split.

With all of these issues that I have brought up, we all need to work together as a team for the safety of the NAS. I'm sure I'm going to take some heat from some of you. It's my job to look at every possible area of concern and help determine the best solution to the problem. I am open to listen to each one of your concerns and again, this will be posted on the local website www.natca-zse.com under B-Area updates. Feel free to voice your concern but as always, please be professional at all times.

MMV AIRSPACE - Next week on June 11th, P80 will take over the MMV airspace. Eric Tandberg will be briefing everyone.  I will be putting out a reminder about it again next week and also what each of you will have to do to your prefsets for your low altitude map and any maps that you have saved associated with sector 6. It shouldn't take more than 5 minutes but each of your FLM's will give you time to take care of this prior to plugging in next Thursday.

ODO - OPPOSITE DIRECTION OPERATIONS - Apparently I have a meeting next Tuesday with RDM tower about some issues with ODO. I currently am not aware of any issues that the B-Area has had or that RDM is having. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns so that I can discuss those with RDM next week.

STAFFING - Most of you have heard by now that Lloyd is going to be out for at least two months for his surgery. I haven't had a chance to meet with management on this since I just found out when I was leaving work yesterday. Good luck on your surgery ZZ and heal up fast.

It seems like it has been forever but welcome back April. We missed you!!

TRAINING - We need our developmental's and transferring CPC's training all the time. Management is aware of my request to call in overtime to accomplish this. If you see opportunities where training should be taking place but nothing is being done, please talk to the FLM and let me know as well.

CONGRATULATIONS - Congrats to Whitney Parker as he just completed Stage 3 training in the back and will report to the floor next week on Crew 6. Good Job!!

That's all I have right now!!

Rick Lund

B-Area Rep

Comment

10 Comments

Metering Program

Hi everyone,

Most of you should have gone to the briefing last week that Leon had given in regards to the “center runway” at SeaTac being closed throughout the summer months.

Due to this issue, a lot of questions are coming up in the area such as:

Why doesn’t the A-Area take some of the delay because they aren’t doing anything to help out the B-Area?

Why don’t we move the “lock-in time” parameter further south into the D-Area?  

Why doesn’t the D-Area take some of the delays and give us everyone in trail to help mitigate some of the BTG times?

What is TMU really doing up there?

What can our FLM/CIC’s do to help us out?

What about splitting sectors 42 and 46?

These are just some of the questions that I went and found out and hopefully a little insight that you may not know.

So here is the insight to the meter program:

The A-Area takes an automatic built-in 1 minute delay and this is because of the PDX, EUG, MFR, and RDM departures for SeaTac. The agency has also agreed with the Users that they will be able to conduct an OPD (Optimized Profile Descent).  The OPD starts at BTG and vectoring aircraft off the arrival is not the intentions of the program.  As for the aircraft coming in from HNL, all of the delay is taken in sector 2.

The current lock-in time parameter is set to a position that is best for flexibility. If the lock-in time is moved south to even the B-Area/D-Area boundary, it can cause up to a 1 hour delay for departing aircraft out of SeaTac.  By leaving it where it is at, TMU can work better to help with the delays but it also requires the B-Area controller to hit the times.

 If the parameter is set in the D-Area, there is absolutely no flexibility when the B-Area controller misses the times by a minute or so. TMU has to make a lot of adjustments (not just in the B-Area) so that all the meter times from all the flows into SeaTac can work effectively.

TMU is there to help us out when needed. They would prefer that the B-Area FLM/CIC come up to the unit and ask what they need so that TMU can work with the D-Area on a plan. The worst thing that can happen is for the B-Area FLM/CIC to go to the D-Area FLM/CIC to come up with a plan such as in-trail or speed control without TMU’s knowledge.  TMU needs to be involved in this decision so they can work the list in an effective manner.  Also, the Command Center is now involved each day in making sure if SeaTac needs a GDP or Ground Stop in place when needed. Any flow change that SeaTac may encounter may cause up to a 10 minute delay to turn the airport around.

Splitting off sector 42 may be one of the answers to helping out with the volume and frequency congestion while metering to SeaTac. I know we are dealing with staffing issues, but having sector 46 split off to concentrate on SEA metering may be a good solution. I know that some of you don’t want to see the two sectors split off because it causes point-outs with less room to vector. We have D-Sides available so why don’t we use them. In the past many of the older controllers would hold at BTG or tell aircraft “after BTG turn right heading 160 and I’ll call your turn back” when delays were 5 minutes or more. I see a majority of controller’s nowadays vector aircraft all over the sky regardless of the amount of delays. This causes more of a workload in my opinion.

I would like to open this issue up for discussion but more importantly hope that some of the issues that I talked about earlier give you a better idea of how the meter program works.  We are already getting call for releases to SEA at 5:30am and meter programs at 6:15am. It’s only going to get worse throughout the summer.

Please leave feedback and remember to be professional at all times.  I will take all your feedback and meet with management to come up with best solutions while we work these issues.

Thanks,

Rick Lund

B-Area Rep 

10 Comments

Comment

Training, HIO Aero Academy, P80 - UAO Tower

Hi everyone,

It's been a little longer than normal for getting an update sent out to you but I wanted to get a few issues taken care of so that everyone has an idea of what's been going on recently.

First off, I'm working with management right now on getting a line ready to bid when Samson is projected to get checked out.  There is a lot that goes into figuring out what is best for the area when coming up with the best scheduled line. I believe that April is going to be coming back around the start of June time frame so that will definitely help through the summer months.  As soon as we agree on something, we will get it posted as soon as we can.

With the staffing numbers as thin as they are, I want to thank those of you who work on my crew and on both sides of my crew while I have had to deal with quite a few issues with management. Not having me on the floor at times to spell some breaks can be frustrating and I appreciate all of your hard work during those times.

With annual leave becoming an issue, please know that I'm working as hard as I can to try and get everyone as much non-prime time leave as I can. We are stretched real thin but I will continue to look at each pay period when leave has not been approved and try to work with management as best I can.

Lawson and I decided to put together a letter between the two of us as to what took place when myself along with Erich, Andy, John, and Annika went down to meet with the HIO Aero Academy down at Troutdale and then over to P80 to work on the UAO Tower issues. I will paste the letter below and you may also see a copy or two floating around in the area. I know there have been a ton of questions as to what went on, so hopefully the letter will help with that.

We also met with Steve Fore to work on a training plan for the area in regards to Stage 3 and Stage 4 classes.  We have overtime available that I worked out but let me tell you, it is like pulling teeth in this facility. Again, I will do my best to work with management to help the floor out but please realize that when it seems that we are short and overtime is not used, help each other out by cutting back a few minutes on your breaks. We are all in this together.

Here is what John and I put together:

B-Area news FYI

Training meeting with Steve Fore on 3/30/15

Rick Lund and John Lawson have been agonizing over B-Area staffing this fall and next year for several weeks, leading us to meet with Steve Fore regarding future B-Area staffing concerns heading into 2016.  With the known losses of Raelyn Witmer, April Eash and the unexpected loss of Joe DeRosa, combined with 1-2 strong possibilities for retirement after the 1st of 2016.  We are looking at bidding hopefully 31 lines but maybe just 30 lines next year, including Samson Chastain and Danielle Eliel.

For the B-Area, the Training department had planned two upcoming Stage 3 classes in spring, one starting Apr. 27th and one starting Jun. 15th, with stage 4 classes slated for July 13th and Sept. 8th. 

John and Rick requested consideration for an early Stage 4 class to get a couple R-side students to the floor to train this summer (the best time to train on 5 & 6), hoping, with some success (2-4 position certs) they would occasionally be able to supplement staffing this fall and at the turn of the year.  This required extensive flexibility by the training department and the B-area, but Steve agreed and we have a stage 4 radar class slated to start Apr. 13th for Evan Gwinn and Jonathon Bradshaw rather than July 13th.  RJ and possibly Loran move up to the July 13th class and may be of some Radar use at the turn of the year as well.  The Apr. 27th Stage 3 class was already in motion and will remain.  The B-area may have to give up a student slated for the June 15th stage 3 class but will get another transferring journeyman starting shortly after that instead, giving more breathing room regarding D-side training which eats resources. 

To make all this happen the following commitments were made:

Training - will adjust their current TTL and classroom schedules for instructors, students and GPO’s to make room for the new Stage 4 class.

The B-area – will provide RJ to be GPO for the stage 4 class from 5/3 - 6/5 as well as making sure he gets his currency.

The B-Area – will provide a 2nd article 5 instructor, from 5/10 – 6/5 (4 weeks).  While this hurts, Rick and John believe it will hurt less than the alternative next fall and winter.  Rick and John limited volunteers for this activity to Sat/Sun or Sun/Mon crews (opposite Art. 5 Deanna Rogers).  Bob Normandeau was selected.  A mix of training and operational OT will be used when justified.

Evan, Jonathan, RJ and Loren will all get less seasoning on the D-sides than planned or possibly desired, but all were excited to hear the news they would be moving along sooner, and their supervisors each think they can handle it. 

Rick or John have had conversations with each of them, explaining the future staffing fears that are driving this, that they will achieve there next pay raise sooner (2 R-sides), but will be used for staffing more than normal in the late fall and winter reaching FPL status at about the same time that they would have without being moved up.  

We have not talked about the Sept. 8th stage 4 class or whether Kevin Brothers may be planned for that.  Steve Fore is shaking up his schedule pretty good for us and we will let the dust settle.

 HIO Aero Academy Meeting on 4/1/15

We arrived at 0745 to set up. The meeting started at 8:00am.

ZSE representatives: John Lawson, Annika Preciado, Rick Lund, Erich Chouinard, Andy Olson

Approximately 35 fixed wing and helicopter CFI’s were in attendance.

Erich started off the meeting giving the group an overall explanation of what we do as air traffic controllers and why we were there to talk about the communication issues with the flight school students.

We played a couple of videos (Falcon’s with voice, about 10 minutes long) showing the CFI’s what we were dealing with and how we go about our business of trying to flight follow these students.

We expressed our concern of the following issues:

1.    As controllers, we are having a hard time understanding the students English being spoken.

2.    The students do not always understand what we are asking.

3.    Multiple calls just to get the information put into the computer are a big problem.

4.    More interaction from the instructor needs to happen when the student is struggling.

We explained to the CFI’s what we want to hear during their check on to the frequency.

1.    Initial check on – Just state your call sign and that you are requesting flight following.

2.    After we talk to you we will be looking for a response to the following: Type of aircraft, destination, and altitude.

3.    If you came from another facility and already receiving flight following, just state call-sign, altitude, and that you are VFR.

If we don’t get to you right away, we are probably busy with other traffic, multiple frequencies on combined sectors. Please try calling us only when you hear a lull on the frequency unless you have an issue such as an emergency.

We found out from the director of the flight school that the FAA Medical Examiner is the deciding factor for passing their English test to determine if they are ready to go into the cockpit.

The CFI’s are also frustrated with the ability to understand their student pilots. We discussed that the students may need to slow down their speech rate when talking on frequency.

The CFI’s told us that the students get very nervous if we start getting frustrated with them. It kills their confidence and was hoping that we would be a little more patient with them.

We explained some of our controllers are prejudging language ability as soon as they hear an accent and we are working on that.

Our group talked to them about getting a PowerPoint sent to the school with a lot of information on standard as well as advanced terms that they will hear from the controllers to hopefully, help them understand our requests. We would hope that they would incorporate this into their classroom requirements.

We were told that FAA designated Pilot Examiner is the person who gives the student their final check ride.

The CFI’s were interested as to what we would like for round robin flights. We requested that they file separate flight plans for each airport where they will conduct a practice approach when they are IFR.  We requested they make sure to fly the published missed approach or assigned alternate missed approach and to not make up their own thing.

P80 (Portland TRACON) has a rule that if the controller cannot understand the student after the first call, the instructor will talk during the second transmission. We are looking at doing the same thing at ZSE for consistency.

We ended the meeting by inviting the CFI’s to call the center to schedule a tour if they get a chance.

Meeting adjourned at 9:15am.

Action Items from Hillsboro Aero Academy meeting:

Hillsboro Aviation;

CFI’s when in the cockpit will make effort to take over communications after ATC advises language is an issue after a call.  Students will resume communications when instance is clarified.  This will make us consistent with efforts by P80.

Teach students to make sure frequency is clear and check on with call sign and requesting flight following then wait for response.

Teach students to speak with a slower speech rate.

File point to point rather than round robin if approaches will be executed.

Seattle ARTCC:

Will try to remain patient and give students at least 2 attempts to deliver requests/information.  Often times under good operations, controllers are heard saying “aircraft calling say again”, so we will try to give that courtesy to Hillsboro Aviation students as well.

Develop and deliver a power point with both standard and advanced terms they will hear from controllers, to be incorporated into classroom training at Hillsboro Aviation.

We are meeting with P80 later in the day and we will advise them of our plan to be consistent with P80 requests so expectations are the same at both facilities.

Seattle ARTCC will do its best to provide good service, use standard phraseology and reduce frequency congestion/confusion by splitting sectors when able during high Hillsboro Aviation activity.

Portland Approach / UAO Tower Meeting on 4/1/15

Meeting started at 10:30am.

ZSE representatives: John Lawson, Annika Preciado, Rick Lund, Erich Chouinard, Andy Olson

We began by first attending the P80 TRACON to take a look at their fusion radar to give us a good idea as to how good they can see the SLE area and vectoring ability for the RNAV 35 into UAO.

After the TRACON visit, we went back to discuss the airspace issues and LOA changes that we were looking at implementing. P80 did not have a representative that could make any final decisions but had a NATCA rep. who would pass the information on to the FACREP.

MMV Airspace – On or around mid-May, P80 will be permanently taking over the MMV airspace full time at 5000 feet and below.

The ZSE Article 48 workgroup was tasked to look at the P80 request for an airspace redesign south of VANTZ encompassing DUBMY and connecting up to the MMV airspace.

This airspace request will be considered FLIP-FLOP airspace but will not be activated for P80 initially until traffic and coordination becomes a obvious factor.  This may not be apparent until traffic picks up next summer (2016) as the UAO Tower will not be operational until Aug. 20th, 2015 at the earliest this year.  If there is not a significant change in the traffic or traffic pattern, no change is necessary, but if there is a significant change, we took the IOU to be ready to start the flip flop airspace. To accomplish the readiness, both facilities will start to build the airspace for possible future use once ZSE makes a determination on the new way-points created.

The ZSE work group came up with a couple of designs consisting of 3 NM, and 3.5 NM boundaries around DUBMY and then moving the one boundary to the SE corner of MMV airspace and straightening out the other boundary to the east connecting to a point that joins P80 airspace SW of ELKES at FL040 and below.

After a lot of negotiating, we decided that we would make a boundary 3 NM south of DUBMY and create two new way-points west of DUBMY to allow for vectoring slower aircraft on a left base for the RNAV 35 into UAO. P80 agreed to the new way-points but ZSE requested to look at traffic for two weeks until April 15th to decide if the way-points could work. Erich and Rick will be overseeing traffic on sector 41 during this time frame to finalize our decision.

ZSE requested that we look at changing the P80 LOA to show UAO landing traffic descending to FL080 instead of FL060 through the gate and give P80 control for descent to FL040 and turns no further west than present position direct DUBMY for the straight-in to the RNAV 35.

ZSE is in the process of getting a second SID at SLE airport to be able to depart aircraft to the west.

Again, at this point the UAO tower will not open until about August 20th, 2015 and there is no flight data available at this time.

P80 will be internally extending their UBG sector FL040 and below to the east of the TMBRS arrival. P80 will be coordinating with the ZSE Airspace department to get our maps updated and controllers briefed on the new boundary. In the meantime, Erich Chouinard is working on a work around with P80 if ZSE has not completed the UBG boundary design by the time P80 implements their new airspace. 

   Meeting adjourned at 1:15pm

Action Items from P80 meeting:

ZSE

Review new proposed way-points for possible flip-flop airspace and make a decision and advise P80 on or before 4/15/2015.

Map new UBG boundary or design a work around, once data is received from P80 and brief ZSE personnel prior to implementation.

Ensure flip-flop airspace is mapped and in a future build to be ready by Aug. 20th, 2015.

Ensure briefing of ZSE B-Area personnel on the plan for the flip-flop airspace prior to Aug. 20th, 2015.

Conduct follow-up negotiation with P80, to plan wording for LOA in the event the flip-flop airspace goes into effect and arrive at understandable trigger for initial activation of the flip flop airspace.

 P80

Provide ZSE A & P office with mapping coordinates for the new UBG boundary ASAP so ZSE can brief B-Area personnel.

Once ZSE provides tested way-points for flip-flop airspace, ensure flip-flop airspace is mapped and in a future build to be ready by Aug. 20th, 2015.

Conduct follow-up negotiation with P80 to look at changing the P80 LOA to show UAO landing traffic descending to FL080 instead of FL060 through the gate and give P80 control for descent to FL040 and turns no further west than present position direct DUBMY for the straight-in to the RNAV 35.  Be prepared with LOA wording in the event the flip-flop airspace goes into effect.  We will also need to arrive at an understandable trigger for initial activation of the flip flop airspace.

If you have any further questions regarding the training department, HIO Academy, or the UAO Tower and airspace issues please come and see myself, Erich, or Andy.

Lastly, in regards to new students - James Kerr from Hilo Tower was supposed to be in the B-Area, but he has just recently moved to the A-Area. We are getting two new students (Todd Franks who has been working in flight data and Zach Rush from OKC)

That is it for now, if you have anything else that you are wondering about, please send me an email.

Thanks,

Rick Lund

B-Area Rep

 

Comment

2 Comments

UAO Tower, MMV A/S, P80 LOA

Hi everyone,

On 1/14/15 we had a meeting with P80. We discussed three issues that included MMV airspace, P80 LOA, and UAO Tower. I’m going to break down each of these issues and talk about our thoughts and ideas going forward.

Please note that before the meeting started, all decisions tentatively agreed upon between both facilities would not be considered final at this time. Upon completion of the meeting, we gathered all the information and discussed it among our team to come up with a plan that will work best for all parties concerned while always realizing that safety is our number one goal. 

We plan on having a second meeting fairly soon which may take place in Portland. I still encourage you to give any feedback or ideas that you may have in regards to any or all of the issues being talked about. I plan on posting this update on the ZSE website as well so that any ideas or concerns that you may have can be posted in the comments section.

#1. MMV Airspace – P80 requested to take over the MMV airspace FL060 and below full time. Their reasoning for FL060 and below was so that they could match up the altitude with their UBG sector. We felt that FL060 was not needed and countered with FL050 and below with the option for us to take back the airspace on an as needed basis. We also discussed as a team that by giving up MMV airspace FL050 and below, we no longer needed the FL060 shelf inside the confines of P80.

They told us with the new radar (ASR-9 and Fusion) that they will take hand-offs much earlier so we shouldn't worry about having to call them last minute. They also plan to staff the UBG sector more frequently with basically what we consider a tracker position as they are anticipating much more traffic going into/out of UAO but I will talk about that later. We also asked them if they needed MMV airspace as it looks today with the current boundaries or could the airspace become smaller. They needed to check on the ODP at MMV and get back to us if any adjustments could be made.

During our post meeting, the question that we discussed from a safety concern was...Should we have the MMV airspace default to the “ON” position each time a new controller signed in? 

After much discussion, our team felt MMV airspace should always be “ON” unless the controller turns the airspace “OFF” after signing in. This way, there is no confusion or chance for airspace violations as everyone’s preferred settings would require to have a MMV tear off tab to turn the airspace “ON” or “OFF”. 

Note: If you happen to be protecting for MMV airspace when in reality you may already have it, this would guarantee that no airspace violations would occur. If this is the road that we decide to go down, it may still take another 3-4 months before it could be implemented.

 #2. P80 LOA – For UAO landing traffic only, P80 requested that all aircraft be routed through the VANTZ gate direct UAO descending to FL060 as we currently do today. They don’t want sector 6 going direct DUBMY like we do now for the RNAV 35 nor do they want any jets over UBG direct UAO at FL060 that we were hoping they would buy off on. 

We proposed descending to FL080 through the gate and give them control for turns no further west than direct DUBMY and no lower than FL040 prior to DUBMY. P80 did not want descending to FL080 as they felt we would hang on to the aircraft closer to their boundary. We explained to them that due to our MIA’s, we can’t even descend to FL060 until about 5 -6 miles south of their boundary. What that ends out doing is that if they plan to vector to DUBMY for the straight in, then it makes it really close for the less than 90 degree intercept required for the approach. 

If we descend to FL080 and give them the control as mentioned above and shipping the aircraft early, the straight-in to RWY 35 is no problem. They said “NO” to our idea but I believe if we had met them in person and were able to show them on paper how we are trying to help them, they may have changed their mind. We will still talk to them more about this at our next meeting.

There were no other LOA changes that were talked about.

#3. UAO Shelf As seen before from the previous update last month, I showed you a drawing proposal from P80 that had an extension shelf south of DUBMY that they were looking to take over airspace towards SLE. 

Their plan was to be able to use this airspace to vector down winds west of UAO for setting up their sequence. They said that they needed to vector west of UAO for left base because of the PAJA activity southeast of UAO. I got a laugh out of that one. MR. “jump with the jets” seems to have a priority by what they were saying. 

We told them that we are not going to just give up airspace before we even see how much traffic will be going into/out of UAO. They said that it shouldn't be a problem for them to vector aircraft for a left base or get close to the proposed boundary as they would be able to vector inside of DUBMY allowing for the tighter turn on. 

We explained you can’t guarantee every time that that will happen and if a controller got distracted for a minute and sector 6 had a SLE departure off of RWY 31/34 that it could get very tight especially when two different facilities are working that small of airspace. We also explained that this impedes on our ability to vector aircraft north of SLE.  We would rather take a point out on aircraft being vectored or doing a full procedure at DUBMY and miss the traffic with our SLE operations from a safety concern.

So with that, here are the breakdowns:

1. We do not plan to give up any UAO shelf airspace at this time.

2. Not giving up the proposed UAO shelf allows for more airspace to conduct operations in/out of SLE.

3. Eric Tandberg is working on looking at a new SID at SLE where all radials could be used as we do at RDM and EUG. This would allow for more traffic to be worked west of SLE away from having to miss traffic from P80 at UAO.

4. We did discuss what the future may look like where we think this may lead to having P80 take over the Willamette Valley down to EUG and having one controller work that entire airspace from a safety aspect. P80 said that they have most of the equipment ready to go if something like that happens. I do not see that happening anytime soon.

5. P80 said that right now the UAO tower has no FDIO and only one communication line. It looks to me like they have some work to do.

I hope this gives you a fairly good idea of where we are at locally with these issues. Again, please use the comments section to add any of your ideas and concerns.

Thanks for your time reading this long update,

Rick Lund

B-Area Rep

   

 

2 Comments

18 Comments

Interim Altitude throughout ZSE

Hello everyone,

All area's are encouraged to post here on the use of interim altitude throughout ZSE.

The Safety Team is taking a look at the question being brought up by many employees throughout ZSE (a lot coming from the B & D areas) in regards to having the data block reflect what the aircraft is doing. We have quite a few instances in all the areas where putting in FL230 as an interim altitude in the data block will not only show what the aircraft is climbing to, but also who it is coming from (IE: low or high altitude sector). I would like to list some examples from all the areas and get a perspective from everyone so that we can really see if this is an issue that we want to pursue. Once you take a look at the examples listed below, please comment with your suggestions, as everyone can blog on this topic which will help make a case moving forward. 

Please note that we need to be professional, respect everyone's opinions, and no derogatory comments towards another employee.

Here are some examples where the use of FL230 or other interim altitude is being talked about.

1. (B area to D area) - EUG departures eastbound requesting above FL230. Sector 6 will usually point out aircraft to sector 36. Hand off the aircraft to sector 13 still showing an altitude such as FL370 in the data block. Sector 13 thinks that the aircraft is climbing to FL370 but then has to back coordinate a point out with sector 46 when the aircraft checks on frequency stopped at FL230. 

2. (D area to B area) - MFR departures northbound to SEA show aircraft climbing to FL240 in the data block. The aircraft come over climbing to FL230 where sector 46 has to point out to sector 15 for climb. Another instance is where the aircraft is climbing to FL240 underneath sector 46 when it should have been FL230 due to the boundary. 

3. (C area to B area) - Aircraft off of YKM or PSC southbound are usually climbing to only FL230, but their data block shows an altitude above FL240. Sector 16 has to then call back to sector 47 for a point out after the aircraft has checked on frequency stopped at FL230.

4. (B area to A area) - Aircraft northeast bound to sector 32 are handed off by P80 to sector 34. Sector 34 climbs aircraft to FL230 but the data block shows an altitude above FL240. Sector 32 has to back coordinate with sector 16 on a point out.

5. Low altitude to High altitude sectors in your own area. IE: Sector 6 hands off aircraft to sector 46 with altitude above FL240. Should we actually show interim altitude of FL230 in the data block and why?

These are just a few examples listed and I'm sure there are many more. Again, please take a few minutes to see what others are talking about and let us know what you think.

Thanks for taking the time to read...

Rick Lund

B-Area Rep

18 Comments

11 Comments

P80 Airspace Proposal

Hi everyone,

I would like to get your input in regards to P80 requesting additional airspace south of DUBMY. As the new UAO Tower prepares to debut around the first part of April, we need to look at the possibility of an airspace redesign (if needed), LOA changes to UAO traffic into and out of the UAO airport, safety concerns, etc. 

If you haven't had a chance to check your email, I attached an airspace proposal from P80 to give you an idea as to what they are looking for. Regardless of the Article 48 work group outcome, I believe that an SRM (Safety Risk Management) process may have to be completed.

I'm hoping that by posting this, you all can help create a blog so that we can look at all the different possibilities that the area can see, and we can take that information and justify the safety issues (pros and cons) that will help with our decision when we meet with P80.

Reminder: Please keep this blog professional. No derogatory comments and be respectful of others. This is OUR area and I want what is best for US given the situation we were dealt. Again, the meeting with P80 will take place next week (1-14-15).

Things to take into consideration are: Safety, traffic into/out of UAO, left/right downwinds for RWY 35 at UAO, P80 LOA changes that may have to be created, MMV airspace (P80 wants FL060 and below full time), impact to the B-Area, SLE traffic departing/arriving, vectoring for the ILS/BC, SLE 3 SID, and possibility of giving up airspace to P80 down to EUG FL090 and below encompassing all of SLE. These are just a few...

Here we go...Who wants to be first to comment!!

 

11 Comments