CDM

Flow Evaluation Team

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.893055555555556in"
height="1.832638888888889in"}

Meeting Notes

July 12, 2006

ATCSCC

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="1.3216535433070866in"
height="1.3251968503937008in"}

## Executive Summary

CDM's Flow Evaluation sub-team (FET) conducted a meeting at the ATCSCC
in Herndon, VA on July 12, 2006. The main goal of the meeting was to
review AFPs to date and consider issues of concern and make
recommendation for the future.

Key activities during the meeting included:

-   Conducted reviews of the following AFP issues:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Training

-   EDCTs

-   Strategies

-   Exit Strategies

-   Popup Factors

-   Miscellaneous

-   Analysis data

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Received a briefing from Curt Kaler on proposed new North Routes

-   Had a briefing and discussions on Automation issues.

-   Developed a list of potential best practices items.

-   Set date for next FET meeting.

These meeting notes will be reviewed and then posted on line at:

<http://cdm.metronaviation.com/Workgroups/route_eval.html>

### July 12 2006

## Introduction

The meeting began at 0700 at the ATCSCC in Herndon, VA.

Attendees were:

Mark Libby, ATCSCC Curt Kaler, ZMP Joe Bertapelle, MITRE

Dennis O'Hara, ZDC Jeff Miller, ATA Gary Dockan, USA

Glenn Godfrey, ATCSCC Jeff Tichenor, D01 Phil Smith, OSU

Joe Hof, ATCSCC Jim Strouth, MITRE Jill Sparrow, ATCSCC

Mike Brennan, Metron Al Mahilo, ZOB Tom St. Clair, ATCSCC

Paul Eure, TAC2 Ed Olsen, NWA Edna Weitzman, TAC2

Mark Hopkins, Delta Ken Howard, Volpe Joe Mealie, USA

Sandy Clover, Metron Charlie Mead, AAL Carol Catron, ATCSCC

Omar Baradi, ATO-R Jo Damato, NBAA Bill Cranor, COA

Ved Sud, FAA Miro Lehkey, Metron Michelle Duquette, MITRE

Namita Arora, Metron

### Welcome/Agenda Review 

Mark Libby welcomed attendees to the meeting and reviewed the agenda
items:

1.  Review current AFP feedback from FAA and Customers

2.  Automation Issues; current bugs and process for future changes.

3.  Review fourteen item list and review solutions sets.

4.  AFP NavCanada Route Options.

5.  Review any concerns from the Customer meeting held 07/11/06.

6.  Review analysis of AFP vs. GDPs in support of SWAP.

7.  Review numbers for AFP008.

### AFP Review - Training

The following issues were discussed and documented on the status of
training:

-   Still seeing places where apparently no training was done.

-   All continue to push this issue. As more AFPs are run, more
    resources will get informed. Mark L. will continue to work with Jim
    Enders on training.

-   Many tower/terminals advise that their computers are not fast enough
    to run Centra.

-   A suggestion was made to put any training packages on the Learning
    Center for downloading.

-   Attendees discussed the need for multiple route training and how it
    would be done and whether it would be timely.

-   Most feel that the TMCs training will be OK; but CPC training will
    likely be another issue.

-   ZMP CPCs had no clue about AFPs. The CPC training is not being taken
    seriously by many CPCs.

-   A question was asked concerning the method of distribution of Trust
    and Verify training. It was reported that it was a Read and Initial
    item.

-   Mark and Mark need to address all of these issues with S2K.

-   The issues of CDR changes and some issues with PDARs/PARs was
    discussed, but appears to not be a large issue.

-   ZOB reports the training and awareness is improving as they talk
    directly to the towers, but ZOB towers don't get a lot of EDCTs.

-   There were some CDR issues. Gary D. reported that experienced RMT
    users are getting assistance by using the RMT graphics to search for
    good routes around weather, FCAs, etc., if the routes are not
    overridden by the FAA.

-   Curt continues to collect data on the PDAR/PAR issue.

### EDCTs

The following EDCT issues were discussed:

-   There are continuing problems with the number of EDCTs.

-   The first patch appeared not to help.

-   Another patch (5 minute) went in last night. Kapri sent out the
    change notice via the exploder list.

-   Jeff T. suggests the need for additional follow-up telcons with
    towers and Volpe to continue the analysis of data.

-   Ken Howard advised that there are some other ideas that might
    improve the situation being discussed and they will be reviewed
    during the PMR/TIM on Thursday.

-   Ken feels, in general, that changes are more of an issue for towers
    than the number of EDCTs.

### AFP Strategies

A number of strategies were discussed to plan, implement, and cancel an
AFP:

-   There are several types of GSs; GS when no routes are available; GS
    that is not implemented in FSM; and GS implemented in FSM.

-   If GS is anticipated to be less than one hour, it may not be
    implemented in FSM. This is recognized as bad for OPSNET delay data.

-   Recent patches have addressed some of the issues with re-control
    times and this issue will continue to be looked at.

-   There seems to be a reluctance to dropping rates.

-   It was noted that if there is weather inside of AFP001 or AFP002,
    you probably need to consider something other than an AFP.

-   An example of an AFP being in effect while there was a GS at EWR for
    36 flights was discussed. Under this circumstance, may want to
    revise AFP so the 36 slots could be used.

-   Several attendees emphasized that in most cases, there may be a N90
    problem rather than a EWR problem.

-   There was a general discussion on the use of GSs versus FCA001 or
    FCA002.

-   If weather is directly affecting the terminal areas of NY, an AFP
    will not solve the problem.

-   Most feel that GDPs and GSs should be used in conjunction with AFPs.
    The key to success is learning how to transition in and out of
    these.

-   There are some thoughts that we are causing spikes at EWR. It was
    suggested that maybe this should be looked at in a HITL.

-   Are we considering modeling a purge? Mike B. advised that most of
    this type of changes could be made in FSM without hub site changes
    and might be a good thing to have.

-   Mike B. suggested that you don't need a full team to run a HITL.
    This could be done with a small group and focus on modeling GDPs and
    GSs options with AFPs. Use a recent day of traffic. Need to consider
    many and all options, including modeling zero rate GDPs.

-   The general consensus is that using GDPs with AFPs are acceptable
    and can be very helpful.

-   Joe H. suggested that if the HITLs are done, it would be a very good
    time to develop and capture best practices.

### AFP Exit Strategies

The following issues concerning exit strategies were discussed and
documented:

-   Most want to cancel AFPs when there are low volumes.

-   Most also feel that when there are two AFPs implemented at the same
    time, it clears confusion with the towers to cancel both at the same
    time when able.

-   There was a long discussion on how best to inform the towers when
    one AFP is cancelled and one remains in effect.

-   There is a general concern with all cancel messages sent to towers.

-   Ken H. advised that in the future, there will be the capability to
    send a flight list by tower and/or facility.

-   Curt K. explained the logistics of ZMP sending GI messages for
    cancellations.

-   A suggestion was made to consider using the Remarks area for this in
    the future.

-   Most feel it would be advantageous to have a canned, consistent
    cancel message that explains specifics; P + 10; Now + 15; etc.

-   There needs to be some more analysis done on this issue looking at
    number of cancels, rates, when the cancels were issued, etc.

-   Dennis O. advised that AFPs have helped to control the increase of
    traffic during the beginning of the mid shifts.

-   The overall consensus of customers is to see AFPs cancelled if not
    needed.

-   Glenn G. took an action item to work on a canned message for AFP
    cancellations for advisories and GI messages.

-   Another best practice should be the use of west coast exemptions as
    an exit strategy.

-   The NESP has been looking at flights from the west and tactically
    moving them toward the end of AFPs.

-   Some would like to see a tool available that would model delay
    numbers when moving from one AFP to another AFP (AFP swapping
    modeling).

-   Glenn met with Kapri and discussed ways to display FA Table average
    delay on OIS associated with each AFP.

-   It was noted that Item \# 5 on the list was fixed with a recent
    patch and should be closed.

### Popup Factor

Item \# 6, Popup Factor was discussed:

-   Most think the use of popup numbers are improving.

-   Data is still being collected. FAA thinks the numbers being used are
    good, while Industry perception is different.

-   Jo D. is concerned that her customers are getting large delays while
    not having all of the options of the airlines.

-   All agree that this needs more work by the analysis group.

-   The overall feeling is that popups should be revised cautiously.

### Miscellaneous Issues

Several miscellaneous issues were discussed:

-   Attendees discussed the possibility of changing AFP altitudes. Some
    would like to consider raising the floor from 120 while others would
    like exemptions above FL 410.

-   Some suggest trying a higher floor if weather is not in immediate NY
    area.

-   Jo D. would like to have any available data on gaming issues so she
    can try to educate members.

-   Consider tactical options for moving altitude floor of an AFP based
    on weather location and other factors.

-   Jeff T. took an action item to use PDARS to accomplish analysis to
    determine specifics on flights that might take off below 120 and
    then ask for and get higher.

-   Some concern with controllers letting a direct flight into an AFP.
    Since the flight is airborne, it will not get a delay.

### Analysis

Jill provided a presentation on analysis of some of the initial AFP
data. She emphasized that this is very preliminary data and not for
public dissemination. The following discussions were documented:

-   On bad AFP days, flights that filed out of AFP (like a CAN 1 from
    MSP) and then were given an ESP delay are not getting the OPSNET
    delay reported.

-   Most feel the data is still evolving as patches are going in, popups
    and rates are being adjusted, and the weather is changing.

-   Point made that the overall data may not show AFPs as good, but they
    are not bad either.

-   Operational errors have not been looked at yet.

-   Want to focus on any safety improvements.

-   Jo D. requested any kind of data on GA. Jill advised that it is very
    hard to get GA data.

-   Jo D. is getting pressure from her customers to show them data to
    justify the high delays.

-   Some think that the departures should be analyzed since we expect
    departures to "free flow".

-   Some limited data on popups was reviewed.

-   There is no data yet on dropouts.

-   ZOB reported that the rate table is OK.

-   ZDC reported no major problems with it other than some issues with
    the way the weather is classified

### North Route Briefing

Curt Kaler briefed attendees on the proposed new north routes and the
following discussions were documented:

-   There were general discussions on why we did not build AFPs for
    Canada.

-   Advisories were reported as very complicated and listed by
    destination and very hard to interpret.

-   The CAN 7 will be used for ZBW arrivals.

-   Question on why there is no ZAB? Curt advised that it is rare for
    them to go up on CAN 7.

-   CAN 1 will be used for JFK. All other N90 (EWR, LGA, TEB, HPN, MMU)
    will use CAN 2.

-   TULEG is the ZBW constraint area.

-   All west departures from the east will use the CAN 7.

-   Currently there is no approved CAN route for DC metro or PHL toward
    the east. These requests will be handled individually.

-   Ed. O asked about using a shorter CAN route. Curt advised that this
    is a Toronto and ZBW issue.

-   Is there any flexibility on the CAN route 40 MIT? Don't know.

-   Would like to see the CAN route and A 761 ESP delays on OIS.

-   Curt would like to see the new routes start as soon as possible.

-   The full presentation will be put on the CDM web site.

### Automation

Ken H. and Kapri Kupper briefed attendees on automation issues. The
following key points were documented:

-   First patch was deployed on June 27.

-   Another patch was deployed today, July 12 and the big change is the
    wait of 5 minutes.

-   Another patch is in testing with a target data of July 24.

-   Two small FSM changes were also fielded last night.

-   Discussed some of the candidate items for 8.4 release.

-   Went over some of the reported problems that were not ETMS related.

-   Many issues are still being investigated.

-   Ken H. went over a chart on the distribution of CT updates.

-   The FA Table is in the coversheet already.

-   Want the OIS to display average delays and this is likely a Kenrob
    project.

-   Discussed Phase II that will include how to send dropout messages by
    individual flights, and how to send purge messages via flight lists.

-   Ken discussed options to consider making EDCT reports dynamic lists
    rather than the static lists they are now,.

-   Need to develop a detailed map of airports and AFPs and provide to
    Metron for RMT. Then a request could be sent through Kapri to Kenrob
    so the map could be available on the OIS.

-   Center resources on FET will provide a list of applicable airports.

-   Discussed Reroute Monitor and having a required route that is not
    required. After some discussion, it was decided to recommend using
    FYI with a specific recommendation that if you change routes, a
    specific route will be required. All want a canned response for
    consistency.

### Closing

Mark L. will send out the ZME suggestion on FCA Setup.

The schedule for the FET meeting in conjunction with the CDM meeting
will be ½ day on Monday, a full day on Tuesday, and possibly a ½ day on
Thursday afternoon if needed.

### Action Items

1.  Metron and Mark Libby will setup and plan HITL in the near future to
    focus on modeling of AFPs with GDPs and GSs. This will be
    accomplished with a small, focused subset of FET.

2.  Joe Hof will participate in HITLs and based on HITL activities, will
    develop a list of best practices.

3.  Glenn Godfrey will develop a draft, canned message that can be
    included in Advisories and GIs when AFPs are cancelled.

4.  Glenn Godfrey will meet with Kapri and discuss ways to display FA
    table average delays on OIS page associated with each AFP. **Kapri
    accepted this action item during the meeting.**

5.  Jeff Tichenor will do PDARS analysis on past AFPs to determine if
    flights taking off below the floor of the AFPs (120) were then
    requesting and getting higher altitudes (gaming the system).

6.  Paul Eure to add Curt Kaler's Route Briefing to the FET page of the
    CDM web site.

7.  Curt Kaler, Al Mahilo and Dennis O'Hara will provide lists of
    airports that should be included on future maps for AFP planning.

8.  Mark Libby to distribute ZME FCA setup proposal for review and
    future discussions.

9.  Paul Eure to check on schedule for FET meeting during CDM meeting
    week. **FET is scheduled to meet on Monday, September 11 from 1 to 4
    pm and all day on Tuesday, September 12. Location TBD .**

### Best Practices

1.  Use any future HITL sessions as an opportunity to develop and
    document best practices.

2.  Develop best practices for canceling single and/or multiple AFPs.

3.  Develop best practices for considering tactical options for moving
    West Coast flights as part of the exit strategies for AFPs.

4.  Develop best practices for considering tactical options for moving
    the altitude floor of an AFP based on weather location and other
    factors.

5.  Develop best practices for coordinating minimum MITs on Canadian
    routes.

6.  Develop best practices for making ESP delays on A761 available to
    users.

7.  Develop best practices for reroute designations for advisories and
    GI messages. FYI with specific remarks indicating that if an
    optional route is accepted, that specific route will be required.