Air Traffic Controllers
Thread Starter
Air Traffic Controllers
Are RAF air traffic controllers, trained at Shawbury, up to the standard required to control traffic at Northolt? This is in regard to the airprox last year between an A380 and a Gulfstream, the controller became distracted and concerns were also raised at the manpower levels.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Distraction is a human factor, it can and does happen at any airfield regardless of it being a military or civilian, big or small.
Is the question regarding the ATC school at Shawbury stem from the fact it's a RW base?
Is the question regarding the ATC school at Shawbury stem from the fact it's a RW base?
The 'incident' appears to have been caused by the oncoming controller being distracted while an aircraft was being vectored for the easterly approach at Northolt which includes a 'dogleg' turning final at about (I think) 4nm (please correct me if I'm wrong); the aircraft cannot be positioned on long final for Northolt due to traffic on the 09L ILS at Heathrow so it requires a great amount of concentration to achieve the ideal final approach track.
Northolt have separate frequencies allocated for 'approach' and 'final' directors so I'm surprised as it appeared to be so busy that the supervisor wasn't keeping a better eye on things.
Guest
Posts: n/a
haltonapp (#1),
After five years of flying in war, and a further five years in peace, I was an RAF ATC from 1955 to 1972, including 3 years as an instructor at Shawbury. But no experience on Area Radar. (We have a MPN11 on frequency here, who can remedy that deficiency).
IMHO, Door Slider (#2) has answered your question. But your unspoken question is: Does the Civil ATC Training system produce a "superior product" (for Civil purposes) to the RAF (Shawbury) system ? I leave that open for discussion, but will only note that many RAF Controllers, after the end of their SSCs, made successful careers in Civil Air Traffic Control.
I think we may have a hot potato here !
Danny42C.
After five years of flying in war, and a further five years in peace, I was an RAF ATC from 1955 to 1972, including 3 years as an instructor at Shawbury. But no experience on Area Radar. (We have a MPN11 on frequency here, who can remedy that deficiency).
IMHO, Door Slider (#2) has answered your question. But your unspoken question is: Does the Civil ATC Training system produce a "superior product" (for Civil purposes) to the RAF (Shawbury) system ? I leave that open for discussion, but will only note that many RAF Controllers, after the end of their SSCs, made successful careers in Civil Air Traffic Control.
I think we may have a hot potato here !
Danny42C.
Adopt the brace position!
Both paths share similar skill sets as required by the job, and also different 'specific' skills as dictated by the unit you work at post-college, hence why each unit requires it's own training plan and validation. (Mil traffic operate differently to civil, etc).
No unit has the same airspace/traffic/restrictions etc so leaving the ATC college, whether it be RAF or Civil, will not make you eligible to walk in to a unit and be able to work the traffic in a safe, orderly & expeditious manner. You merely leave the college with a licence to learn at the unit you're posted to.
Airprox's can, and do, happen at any unit, regardless of where the staff were trained, so to imply those trained at Shawbury may not be up to the standard to work Northolt is absolute bolleaux. It's a challenging job wherever you were trained, and wherever you're posted.
Both paths share similar skill sets as required by the job, and also different 'specific' skills as dictated by the unit you work at post-college, hence why each unit requires it's own training plan and validation. (Mil traffic operate differently to civil, etc).
No unit has the same airspace/traffic/restrictions etc so leaving the ATC college, whether it be RAF or Civil, will not make you eligible to walk in to a unit and be able to work the traffic in a safe, orderly & expeditious manner. You merely leave the college with a licence to learn at the unit you're posted to.
Airprox's can, and do, happen at any unit, regardless of where the staff were trained, so to imply those trained at Shawbury may not be up to the standard to work Northolt is absolute bolleaux. It's a challenging job wherever you were trained, and wherever you're posted.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adopt the brace position!
Both paths share similar skill sets as required by the job, and also different 'specific' skills as dictated by the unit you work at post-college, hence why each unit requires it's own training plan and validation. (Mil traffic operate differently to civil, etc).
No unit has the same airspace/traffic/restrictions etc so leaving the ATC college, whether it be RAF or Civil, will not make you eligible to walk in to a unit and be able to work the traffic in a safe, orderly & expeditious manner. You merely leave the college with a licence to learn at the unit you're posted to.
Both paths share similar skill sets as required by the job, and also different 'specific' skills as dictated by the unit you work at post-college, hence why each unit requires it's own training plan and validation. (Mil traffic operate differently to civil, etc).
No unit has the same airspace/traffic/restrictions etc so leaving the ATC college, whether it be RAF or Civil, will not make you eligible to walk in to a unit and be able to work the traffic in a safe, orderly & expeditious manner. You merely leave the college with a licence to learn at the unit you're posted to.
On the fast jet units I've worked on, it seems there's always a wave or two of aircraft each doing multiple circuits and bumps, especially when you need to drive past the end of the runway at shift change !
haltonapp (#1),
After five years of flying in war, and a further five years in peace, I was an RAF ATC from 1955 to 1972, including 3 years as an instructor at Shawbury. But no experience on Area Radar. (We have a MPN11 on frequency here, who can remedy that deficiency).
IMHO, Door Slider (#2) has answered your question. But your unspoken question is: Does the Civil ATC Training system produce a "superior product" (for Civil purposes) to the RAF (Shawbury) system ? I leave that open for discussion, but will only note that many RAF Controllers, after the end of their SSCs, made successful careers in Civil Air Traffic Control.
I think we may have a hot potato here !
Danny42C.
After five years of flying in war, and a further five years in peace, I was an RAF ATC from 1955 to 1972, including 3 years as an instructor at Shawbury. But no experience on Area Radar. (We have a MPN11 on frequency here, who can remedy that deficiency).
IMHO, Door Slider (#2) has answered your question. But your unspoken question is: Does the Civil ATC Training system produce a "superior product" (for Civil purposes) to the RAF (Shawbury) system ? I leave that open for discussion, but will only note that many RAF Controllers, after the end of their SSCs, made successful careers in Civil Air Traffic Control.
I think we may have a hot potato here !
Danny42C.
Guest
Posts: n/a
gr4techie (#8),
...Originally Posted by 360BakTrak
Adopt the brace position!
My opinion exactly ! When I started instructing at Shawbury, the thinking was that we were turning out Air Traffic Controllers (don't laugh, read my story below).
Later I came to think that we were turning out skeletons of Air Traffic Controllers, who would be clothed in the flesh of experience at their Stations. At the end I realised that we were really running a big Aptitude Test - if they could hack the Course, they could probably learn to do the real job at the desk.
But the practice did not always follow the theory ..... The newly minted D. turned up at Strubby in '55. "Welcome aboard", said SATCO, "we've been waiting for you - you're on Approach Monday afternoon - Flt Lt So-and-so will show you around - Good luck !"
In defence of that, I must remind readers that, in those benighted days, the Shawbury output was almost all ex-war aircrew, mostly pilots and navs, who had a fair idea of the job anyway. (It was said that the immediate postwar RAF Air Traffic Control Branch was set up as a Sunset Home for all the good old has-beens and neverwozzers of wartime leftovers). But I think that was just sour grapes. ...
Danny42C.
...Originally Posted by 360BakTrak
Adopt the brace position!
...leaving the ATC college, whether it be RAF or Civil, will not make you eligible to walk in to a unit and be able to work the traffic in a safe, orderly & expeditious manner. You merely leave the college with a licence to learn at the unit you're posted to...
Later I came to think that we were turning out skeletons of Air Traffic Controllers, who would be clothed in the flesh of experience at their Stations. At the end I realised that we were really running a big Aptitude Test - if they could hack the Course, they could probably learn to do the real job at the desk.
But the practice did not always follow the theory ..... The newly minted D. turned up at Strubby in '55. "Welcome aboard", said SATCO, "we've been waiting for you - you're on Approach Monday afternoon - Flt Lt So-and-so will show you around - Good luck !"
In defence of that, I must remind readers that, in those benighted days, the Shawbury output was almost all ex-war aircrew, mostly pilots and navs, who had a fair idea of the job anyway. (It was said that the immediate postwar RAF Air Traffic Control Branch was set up as a Sunset Home for all the good old has-beens and neverwozzers of wartime leftovers). But I think that was just sour grapes. ...
Danny42C.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: 75' from the runway edge and 150' from the threshold
Age: 74
Posts: 247
Received 30 Likes
on
12 Posts
Northern Dairies
Chevron,
That would have been Northern radar then, with PRESTON AIRWAYS up at the back with, IIRC, a single suite consisting of 2 controllers, 2 assistants, 1 tracker and 1 height finder. (Yes folks, 3 FIRs! Scottish, Preston and London).
It was, from my point of view as a servant of the Blue Line Master Race, a brilliant job, especially the controllers assistant part. I suspect that those of us who served at ATCRUs like the dairies and had to manually track 8 returns at once can still beat their grandchildren on modern computer games.
A342
p.s. I think my controller, who instructed me one night, to take 2 pairs of Lightenings on recovery to Binbrook, while he was playing Bridge up on the bridge with the co-ordinator and two assistants, made his 7 no trumps (or was it 7 spades?) Oh and Northern was JUST outside the Midland overhead!
That would have been Northern radar then, with PRESTON AIRWAYS up at the back with, IIRC, a single suite consisting of 2 controllers, 2 assistants, 1 tracker and 1 height finder. (Yes folks, 3 FIRs! Scottish, Preston and London).
It was, from my point of view as a servant of the Blue Line Master Race, a brilliant job, especially the controllers assistant part. I suspect that those of us who served at ATCRUs like the dairies and had to manually track 8 returns at once can still beat their grandchildren on modern computer games.
A342
p.s. I think my controller, who instructed me one night, to take 2 pairs of Lightenings on recovery to Binbrook, while he was playing Bridge up on the bridge with the co-ordinator and two assistants, made his 7 no trumps (or was it 7 spades?) Oh and Northern was JUST outside the Midland overhead!
Chevron,
That would have been Northern radar then, with PRESTON AIRWAYS up at the back with, IIRC, a single suite consisting of 2 controllers, 2 assistants, 1 tracker and 1 height finder. (Yes folks, 3 FIRs! Scottish, Preston and London).
It was, from my point of view as a servant of the Blue Line Master Race, a brilliant job, especially the controllers assistant part. I suspect that those of us who served at ATCRUs like the dairies and had to manually track 8 returns at once can still beat their grandchildren on modern computer games.
A342
p.s. I think my controller, who instructed me one night, to take 2 pairs of Lightenings on recovery to Binbrook, while he was playing Bridge up on the bridge with the co-ordinator and two assistants, made his 7 no trumps (or was it 7 spades?) Oh and Northern was JUST outside the Midland overhead!
That would have been Northern radar then, with PRESTON AIRWAYS up at the back with, IIRC, a single suite consisting of 2 controllers, 2 assistants, 1 tracker and 1 height finder. (Yes folks, 3 FIRs! Scottish, Preston and London).
It was, from my point of view as a servant of the Blue Line Master Race, a brilliant job, especially the controllers assistant part. I suspect that those of us who served at ATCRUs like the dairies and had to manually track 8 returns at once can still beat their grandchildren on modern computer games.
A342
p.s. I think my controller, who instructed me one night, to take 2 pairs of Lightenings on recovery to Binbrook, while he was playing Bridge up on the bridge with the co-ordinator and two assistants, made his 7 no trumps (or was it 7 spades?) Oh and Northern was JUST outside the Midland overhead!
I think I rather 'freaked out' some of the RAF guys one sunday. Mainland and North Sea positions were bandboxed and whereas the RAF guys dealt with off route traffic with a maximum of 4 tracks each, suddenly I had 16 tracks on frequency, fortunately all were on known routings and most of them were overflights and did not require climb or descent so I was quite relaxed, but the poor tracker trying to deal with 16 tracks was working his b@lls off!
A third console well away from the 2 upper airspace ones was used as a joint operation with Boulmer. It was called the 'Northern Joint Radar Service Area' (forerunner of 'Pennine Radar') and was for traffic below FL245 to/from Newcastle and Teeside which was leaving/joining controlled airspace at Pole Hill. Although this control position was moved occasionally, it was usually next to the console occupied by the co-ordinator who kept a 'log' of levels in use in the Lindholme T82 overhead; same type of radar as Midland but apparently with a much smaller overhead - wonder why that was?
My mentor did one session with me on this console when I started my training and thereafter he stayed in the rest room for extra tea/extra fag whenever we were rostered on it!
Last edited by chevvron; 29th May 2017 at 09:08.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Late on parade ... been following the BA chaos on another Forum and other places over the last couple of days!
During my 29 years in the RAF, I spent 8 years as a Tower controller [including time as SATCO and Local Examining Officer) and another 8 years in Area Radar (including Senior Supervisor, OC Training Sqn and LEO) at Joint units (Eastern Radar and LATCC). So I guess I can claim to have a reasonable spread of experience, including those years in a joint Mil/Civ environment.
I think the OP's question is 'reasonable' in the context he has drawn it, but there's no real difference when it comes down to the reality. ANY controller, of either persuasion, has potential to drop a ball occasionally and the incident in question shows how easily it can happen. The Airprox occurred simply because the Northolt controller was distracted exactly at the time when the Gulfstream should have been turned inbound. Any controller, when juggling several balls at once, need to remember which ball is the most important at any given moment ... and that priority changes dynamically every few seconds.
In a perfect world, either of the following could have prevented the Airprox:
Easy to say, in the comfort of my Study, of course. But if the Northolt controller had been Civil, the same scenario could have unfolded. That 07 approach must be a right sod to manage!
Have a picture of Eastern Civil. Of course, it would normally be much darker than that!
.
.
During my 29 years in the RAF, I spent 8 years as a Tower controller [including time as SATCO and Local Examining Officer) and another 8 years in Area Radar (including Senior Supervisor, OC Training Sqn and LEO) at Joint units (Eastern Radar and LATCC). So I guess I can claim to have a reasonable spread of experience, including those years in a joint Mil/Civ environment.
I think the OP's question is 'reasonable' in the context he has drawn it, but there's no real difference when it comes down to the reality. ANY controller, of either persuasion, has potential to drop a ball occasionally and the incident in question shows how easily it can happen. The Airprox occurred simply because the Northolt controller was distracted exactly at the time when the Gulfstream should have been turned inbound. Any controller, when juggling several balls at once, need to remember which ball is the most important at any given moment ... and that priority changes dynamically every few seconds.
In a perfect world, either of the following could have prevented the Airprox:
- Delay the controller handover until the Gulfstream was turned inbound. Literally a 'critical path'.
- Prioritise the Gulfstream and tell Heathrow Director to "Wait". Not easy to do, but see previous bullet!
Easy to say, in the comfort of my Study, of course. But if the Northolt controller had been Civil, the same scenario could have unfolded. That 07 approach must be a right sod to manage!
Have a picture of Eastern Civil. Of course, it would normally be much darker than that!
.
.
Guest
Posts: n/a
MPN11 (#14),
You have put your finger on it: "To err is human"; the man or woman who cannot make a mistake has not been born yet. (But, "To forgive is not Company Policy" ?)
Nic pic of all you poor battery hens in your gloomy henhouse ! Fresh (air-con) air, blue skies (occasionally), and starry nights, under wall-to-wall octagonal glass, suited old D. much better !
Danny.
...ANY controller, of either persuasion, has potential to drop a ball occasionally and the incident in question shows how easily it can happen...
Nic pic of all you poor battery hens in your gloomy henhouse ! Fresh (air-con) air, blue skies (occasionally), and starry nights, under wall-to-wall octagonal glass, suited old D. much better !
Danny.
Danny
Not always at Northern ... there were instances when Airwork(?), the engineers, failed to turn off the air-con when the 'Honey Cart' was going about its business by the air-con intake!!!
Fresh (air-con) air
a literal sh*t hitting the fan.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
We were obviously lucky at Eastern. We had proper plumbing and sewage disposal 
Data was fed to the assistant at this board by an electrowriter. One day at Northern, we were working away as normal when there was a loud 'pop' and a flash of light. The electrowriter had blown up!! I never saw the 2 assistants move so fast!!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Going deeper underground
Age: 55
Posts: 332
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@haltonapp - yes, of course they are. RAF ATC training, examination, validation, standardisation and supervision are all tightly controlled, documented and assured. As has been said already, HF happens. That is not to make light of the incident, but no system is fool-proof, especially with a human in the loop.
@Door_Slider - ATC training and RW training have nothing to do with each other at Shawbury. ATC training is all simulated.
@chevvron - Live tower training (using dedicated Jet Provosts) ended in the early 90s (I went through JATCC in 93 and was on an all-sim course).
One of the reasons for moving Northolt Approach down to Swanwick was to have the Northolt controllers sat with the Heathrow team in order to remove some of the coordination issues associated with such a tight piece of airspace.
@Door_Slider - ATC training and RW training have nothing to do with each other at Shawbury. ATC training is all simulated.
@chevvron - Live tower training (using dedicated Jet Provosts) ended in the early 90s (I went through JATCC in 93 and was on an all-sim course).
One of the reasons for moving Northolt Approach down to Swanwick was to have the Northolt controllers sat with the Heathrow team in order to remove some of the coordination issues associated with such a tight piece of airspace.