A publication of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
Issue link: http://natca.uberflip.com/i/597273
o ERAW MOU o Terminal CHI Team o ASSC o Off Shore automation site visits o Cross lines of business interactions (AJV, AJR, ANG, and AJI) · Attended a meeting about SWIM Visualization Tool (SVT) o AJR, PMO, and AJV 7 present o Filtering capabilities o Deploy initially to two of the eleven sites for trial o Chose one wake recat facility and one that does not have wake recat o Additional IP addresses for ZNY to add two positions o Site visit to N90 to better understand utilization for that area · Attended a meeting with Wendy O'Connor (AJV) about Path Stretch Decis ion Support Tool (DST) and the ERAM Conflict Probe · Attended a meeting with Matt Tucker (NATCA Weather) to check in to see where the program is at · Participated on a telcon with Mitch Herrick (NATCA TAMR), Eric Labardini (NATCA SBS), Kevin Ma ney (N90 Facrep) about FUSION being deployed to N90 · Attended a meeting with NATCA leadership, Kieron Heflin (NATCA Remote Towers), and Mel Davis to prep for the remote tower panel at ATCA conference · On AL Thursday and Friday RNAV and PERFORMANCE BASED NAVIGATION (PBN): Dennis Kelly (PHL) is the Article 48 Representative for the criteria work for RNAV and PBN initiatives. Mr. Kelly's report to the membership for this week is below. · 7100.41A – Reviewed recent comment s on this update to the PBN Implementation order and will meet again prior to a planned Nov.30 th draft completion for final review by the FAA. · Flight path management assessment – These are main points on this report on flight crew challenges in man aging flight path. Mr. Kelly sent this out as an education piece to explain why something that seems simple to us isn't as simple for the pilot, which affects our operation. It is not an excuse but an explanation of why we have issues. o Variation in a ircraft equipage has been a point of interest within the industry for a very long time and it frequently surfaces when cost of equipage, aircrew training costs, or flight path differences are the topics of discussion. Most will agree that variation in fli ght deck systems is typically the result of continual advances in technology. On a positive note, variation in the flight deck has been created by a host of technology enhancements that have improved the flight crew's ability to function (location of contr ols, use of color coding, consistency of display formats, automated checklists, etc.) or improved safety operations (EGPWS, TAWS, and other alerting). o However, there have also been negative consequences of change and the resulting variation. For examp le, operators report that some flight crews require increased training time associated with learning aircraft with corresponding system functions that operate differently than on their previous model. This issue was a frequent comment by