Expect more holding for EWR

How will this new form of traffic management typically be represented in ATCSCC advisories in lieu of GDP?

“200 to the outer marker”
“Why are all these go arounds happening?!”
 
NovemberEcho said:
The esteemed COO (Franklin McIntosh) of the FAA has decided that padding the numbers is top priority, and has banned GDP’s and ground stops for EWR destined flights (unless weather related), we have been told to either eat the traffic or hold in the air. Safety first!
Click to expand...

Respectfully, weather is all that GDPs and ground stops should have been for. I won’t speak for staffing since I’ll get a stay-in-your-lane comment, but we have allowed this crap for ridiculous security things. Eg, VIP movement, TFR, etc.

Obviously if the staffing isn’t there I would rather not have a controller try to control too many aircraft. The proper action should be to hire and train more, or cut back the allowed arrival rate (capacity) at such airport. Or as much as one dislikes it, use GDPs.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Respectfully, weather is all that GDPs and ground stops should have been for. I won’t speak for staffing since I’ll get a stay-in-your-lane comment, but we have allowed this crap for ridiculous security things. Eg, VIP movement, TFR, etc.

Obviously if the staffing isn’t there I would rather not have a controller try to control too many aircraft. The proper action should be to hire and train more, or cut back the allowed arrival rate (capacity) at such airport. Or as much as one dislikes it, use GDPs.
Click to expand...
Summation:

Paragraph 1; don’t use GDP for understaffed facilities, weather issues only.
Paragraph 2; uh…never mind.
 
Controllers & Pilots: “The NAS system is at it’s breaking point and we are a couple of chain links away from an awful accident.”

FAA: “Let’s yeet more aircraft at some poor controller forced to be in PHL, that’s dealing with EWR, and is also on day one thousand of forced OT.”

EWR:
IMG_8998.webp



FAA:
IMG_8997.png
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Obviously if the staffing isn’t there I would rather not have a controller try to control too many aircraft. The proper action should be to hire and train more, or cut back the allowed arrival rate (capacity) at such airport. Or as much as one dislikes it, use GDPs.
Click to expand...

It takes around 3 years to get someone from New Hire to fully certified at my facility. Even with this "supercharged hiring", theres almost no chance this problem is "fixed" by 2030 even.

Hardly anyone is talking about the massive wave of controllers hired in the late 00's that are about to become retirement eligible. There is a huge brain drain of experience coming for the FAA in the next 5 years or so.

Its perhaps a hot take, but there should be more delays and massively so nationwide for controller staffing. We've "made it work" with inadequate resources with almost no penalty to the Users/Airlines for far too long. The Chickens of FAA mismanagement and Congressional choice to pay OT instead of hiring enough people to actually do this job are coming home to roost. Ive said it over and over on here, but its going to get worse before it gets even worse.
 
DropTank said:
So, are all you Republican voters feeling stupid now?

Do you actually go: "wow, THAT was a mistake" or is it still Obaba/Biden's fault?
Click to expand...

Yeeting another thread into the lav due to politics at the same rate the FAA is yeeting airplanes into EWR. I feel almost as bad for the JC admins as I do the EWR controllers.
 
nabbyfan said:
It takes around 3 years to get someone from New Hire to fully certified at my facility. Even with this "supercharged hiring", theres almost no chance this problem is "fixed" by 2030 even.

Hardly anyone is talking about the massive wave of controllers hired in the late 00's that are about to become retirement eligible. There is a huge brain drain of experience coming for the FAA in the next 5 years or so.

Its perhaps a hot take, but there should be more delays and massively so nationwide for controller staffing. We've "made it work" with inadequate resources with almost no penalty to the Users/Airlines for far too long. The Chickens of FAA mismanagement and Congressional choice to pay OT instead of hiring enough people to actually do this job are coming home to roost. Ive said it over and over on here, but its going to get worse before it gets even worse.
Click to expand...

Quick fix, raise the retirement age from 55 to 60. While that hiring spools up.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Quick fix, raise the retirement age from 55 to 60. While that hiring spools up.
Click to expand...

That won’t fix anything. We are eligible at any age with 25 years or 50 with 20 years. They are having trouble getting people to stay til 56. The number controllers who want to stay to 60 is practically single digits. Plus, you as a pilot shouldn’t want a 60 year old working you in busy airspace. Cognitive decline is real.
 
NovemberEcho said:
That won’t fix anything. We are eligible at any age with 25 years or 50 with 20 years. They are having trouble getting people to stay til 56. The number controllers who want to stay to 60 is practically single digits. Plus, you as a pilot shouldn’t want a 60 year old working you in busy airspace. Cognitive decline is real.
Click to expand...


Well. I’ll still take the old farts versus the new age wonders, skipping morning briefings and telling foreign crews headed towards a mountain (where they were vectored) to turn south, southbound now!


And honestly most people 55 to 60 should still be okay, cognitively.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top