Hey there C Area,
First - A big ol’ CONGRATS to Alex Fontaine for finishing up his D Side training! Well done to all those who helped in his success!
Article 5 - We have 2 opportunities coming up for an Article 5 detail, will be M-F. The first is a CPC-IT 6/30-7/11 and the other is 1 R Side trainee 8/4 - 9/12. Please let me or your sup know if you would like to volunteer for either of these.
IST - Please let me or your sup know if you’d like to volunteer to teach IST. The Cadre Classes haven’t been scheduled yet, but the weeks for teaching IST are 5/4-5/17.
Cross Coupling - Eric will be meeting with Orlando Holt next Friday who is apparently the Cross-Coupling guy. The original thought was we would like to see it done on lows to help with frequency congestion. Where we run into a problem is with using BUECs (which can’t be cross coupled) and picking the transmitter sites to pair. Considering we have an odd number of transmitters between 18 and 09, it doesn’t bode well for this to be successful, but we will see what Orlando has to say and I will let you know.
Interim Altitude - We will not be participating in the B & D Area’s trial period. Keep on keepin’ on as usual.
Low Map - I know I sent out a lot of data in my last email about some proposed updates to the low map. I have received no feedback on this, so my next thought is to have a copy of the list or picture of what is proposed in the area so you can see it. I will try to get this done next week. Still requesting feedback on this.
Meeting with the A Area & Airspace - There is a lot to cover here, so stick with me. Overall, it was a great meeting and we were able to get a lot of things discussed. Eric and I were able to meet with Matt, Dan, and Jared Simpach (sup airspace rep for the A Area. Lee is our new airspace rep and was unable to be there). Here is what we went over:
* Metering trial period with PD FL240. We are going to make this permanent and the SOP will be updated to reflect this. Some reminders for this procedure:
—We still need to give the A Area some delay. Sometimes it works out that they come over with no time or due to the sequence they end up with no delay, but it should not be the norm for us to take all the delay and give the A Area none.
—This does not alleviate our responsibility to sequence and separate aircraft. If you have an aircraft with a delay and the one behind it does not, we still need to ensure that we’re setting up a sequence that works, which may mean descending that no delay aircraft and assigning a speed.
* We discussed a shelf (I’ve attached a photo) over YKM that would be from FL200 up to but not including FL240. The idea behind this is so the A Area can continue an aircrafts descent on the CHINS without pointing out every arrival to 09. It was discussed to have the option to add or delete this airspace depending on flow, but since we have no other airspace boundaries that we do this for (when it comes to flow purposes), it was proposed that this area be added to 01’s airspace permanently. We would still need to do an SRM panel for this change on top of everything else to make it happen, but it would keep more aircraft off of 09’s scope when the CHINS is busy and SEA is landing north. I will keep you up to date on this as new developments come up.
* Sequencing low-performance jets. The A Area has an LOA with S46 when it comes to sequencing these jets that pose a challenge with the rest of the flying public. It has been proposed that we copy the list that the A Area already has with S46 (C500-550, C25A/B/C/M, EA50, EA50P, SF50, PC24, HDJT) and have the ability to stack them under better performing aircraft. They will still need to be sequenced with each other.
* CLS and other arrivals south of Seattle. We are waiting to get a proposal from Dan (A Area Rep) about what to do with the aircraft that land at airports south of Seattle. We talked about a couple of options and expressed our concerns with their initial proposal, but the gist of it is they are requesting to have these aircraft cross the boundary at or below FL240. We will continue to discuss this to come up with a solution that works well for both areas..
* Sequencing. The A Area expressed concerns with multiple instances that we are handing them aircraft 5M in trail with little to no pull away. They proposed us coming up with a procedure to require that we give the A Area 8M in trail with matched speeds on every aircraft. I am not a fan of implementing a procedure for instances like this, but ensured that I would share the A Area’s concerns with the C Area. Please be mindful of what you’re handing off to the next area/facility, keeping in mind if it’s not something you would appreciate receiving (even if it is considered legal), it is probably not going to be well received on the other end.
MAZAMA Airspace - If you haven’t heard of this yet, it is on its way….. After a lot of details continue to be hashed out between us, the A Area, and the military. It will be west of DIABLO, the littlest little polygon of airspace that you did ever see. As we figure out more details for it, I will keep you posted, but know neither the A or C area are happy about this little shape and it is causing a lot of work for everyone. And - no one knows who actually agreed to go forward with it. That’s the best part.
I want your feedback on this and everything, so please reach out and share your thoughts and concerns.
Thank you for all you do, you are appreciated!
In Solidarity,
Crumbley
360-635-8244
