A publication of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
Issue link: http://natca.uberflip.com/i/860752
work back from wheels up through taxi time to push time, and are currently expected to calculate Target Movement Area Times (TMATs) precisely enough to hit three - minute windows. The algorithm will possibly struggle to be tha t precise if there is not well - defined fix - runway mapping, but pinning down the runway - fix m apping will restrict ATC s ' flexibility to efficiently run the airport. Airlines frequently talk about being willing to sacrifice maximum efficiency for better predictability, bu t in practice the airlines often want both, even though the two goals conflict. At an airport like CLT, Surface Metering may end up being a solution in search of a problem, in that at a one - airline airport the solution to traffic flow problems could be s olved at the airline level, by adjusting schedules. As long as an airline continues to knowingly over - schedule the amount of traffic in the movement area, there will be too many conflicting constraints (movement area taxiway space, gate availability, runwa y balance0, etc.) to create a working solution that effectively improves efficiency. The Surface Metering goal may be overstepping the line where a solution should be attempted. Currently, a Surface Metering Program calculates push back times for individ ual aircraft, which may be a level of precision both unneeded and unattainable. The non - movement area is the purview of the airlines, and they have every right to work that ground space as they see fit to allow planes on and off the gates, so a program tha t tells them when to push planes may be seen as intrusive. If an airline wants to implement its own metering program, the FAA would hardly be in a position to say that they could not. A better strategy may be to generate TMATs in bulk, and allow the airlin es to provide whichever planes fit most easily for them to hit the TMATs. NAS MONITORING EQUIPMENT (NME) Corrie Conrad (PDX) is the NME Article 114 Representative. Ms. Conrad's report to the membership is below. NME Update There has been no update as to what alternatives they still want to move forward with since my last email of concerns that I had. We should be finishing the Comparative Safety Assessment next week on August 10, 2017. UIC OKC AJW 143 is still working on getting an NCP for the followi ng: There was a policy change to the 6750.24 that states when the Far Field Monitor alarms you are no longer required to downgrade from a CAT II approach to a CAT I approach. AJW - 143 in OKC is developing version 3.A, which will update the software for this change, but will not update any other version of the software such as approach lights, engine generators, etc. li ke SFO and OKC currently have. The PO suggested it be done this way as not to give the UIC any unfair advantage over other vendors during the process of developing the NME. AJW - 143 is still pushing in asking NAT CA to support upgrading all UIC s to the latest version that includes approach lights. However, I believe this may interfere with the