NATCA Bookshelf

use of Integrated Departure-Arrival Capability (IDAC), which is an automated departure release process. IDAC provides tower capability to schedule their departures. Day 2 Review storyboards that focused on Pre-departure Rerouting and Surface Metering with their 3T-related interactions, as well as some arrival impacts on departure operations. A few concerns surfaced for TFMS DT when going through these storyboards. Concern 1: MITRE demonstrated the difference between the uses of IDRP in their scenarios against the RAD tool. In this demonstration, IDRP was framed as "the tool to use" when rerouting flights predeparture. This showed limited use of the RAD and only in the Departure Viewer tool (DVT) option, which is only one of many strategies in using the RAD. The tool hasn't seen software development yet and is in direct conflict or parallel to the RAD/ABRR/PDRR which is set to be deployed this January 2017. IDRP can do one moderate thing the RAD can't, at this point, which it can show a volume limit on a fix. Another column indicator IDRP demonstrated is that it can indicate WX impact. The RAD is designed to do a lot more than IDRP and the volume limit was something that was considered but held for a later development. Not though of for the RAD in DVT was to have weather impact indication but the weather information is CWIS only, which limits the indication to mostly frontal systems. CWIS is not recommended to be used with air mass thunderstorms since the algorithms don't reflect well with it. The RAPT tool, which uses CWIS, has not been a success since most TMU's try to use it for both frontal and air mass. Due to the weather variance, TMUs that do not realize with what weather to use it for have deemed the tool unreliable. Throughout all the demonstration, Mitre demonstrated a positive spin on the IDRP concept more the use of the RAD tool, which has design across all facets of TMU. This may be since Mitre is partial to the IDRP and/or had limited understanding of the RAD tool usage and capability. References were made from third party with tool replacement to the DSP, which is primary to the N90/PHL operation. Concern 2: Finding out that TBFM and TFDM seem to miss the need to design a tool that would manage an airport as one rate for departures and arrivals. TBFM focuses on the arrival portion while TFDM (SMP) focuses on mainly departure. Manual entries have to be made back and forth between the two to manage it as one. One would think the decision support tool would create a throughput rate for the airport based on equipment types. A combined tool could provide information on options to handle heavier arrivals or departure bank based on the overall flow of the airport within aircraft types. Both groups address well their own part of the problem but seemed challenged on how to manage as one. The discussion was left at manually entering information into the system. Because of this, training is going to be a significant part for the TMCs in managing as one. Concerns 3: TMU's maintaining TMC experience due to TMU term limitations in some cases of 2-year term or less. With many in depth systems to learn, by the time a TMC feels confidently proficient they may leave the unit. It is important to design systems without overly being complicated to the point of TMCs not using them as intended. A mix of permanents, 5 year term and 2 year term may be a better staffing unit design to keep a unit healthy. VOR MINIMUM OPERATING NETWORK (MON): John Vogelsang (P31) is the Article 48 Representative on the VOR MON project. His update is below.

• Cover