Thanks
Lock'n'Load and
Callyoushortly. Some good information there explaining why things are the way they are.
I always find it hard to understand why grade comes in to a reticence to report something. Both units have professionals who are licenced and move air traffic. On that side of things, they are equals as far as I am concerned. Grading is a company tool more concerned with pay and conditions and keeping the masses divided, not anything to do with anyones professional skills or performances. Don't be shy to bring up things you don't like. If no one mentions anything then it's understandable that the unit that's 'shafting' you doesn't think they are doing anything wrong -after all, no one has complained.
Part of the answer to the whole thing does lie in EDI looking at its flow rates for inbounds. It's finger in the wind at the moment rather than scientific. Someone in unit management needs to sit down and work out exactly what delivery rate you can provide per hour (with the health warning that they can all arrive in the first 30 minutes of course = holding). The problem that will then arise is that the BAA will get all upset because they will want more than you can provide and they might also be forced to go in to slot allocation agreements with airlines through Airport Co-ordination Ltd. So suddenly EDI ATC will come under pressure from external agencies and NATS HQ as they will be contributing heavilly to NATS delay figures and possibly hitting the companies bottom line. But if it's a Standing Agreement which puts everything to the hold regardless, then that's what will need to be done to ensure that the maximum of 8 in the hold at any time is not (generally) exceeded. Allied to this will be some work to beef up the issuing of EATs. EDI will need to specify either the landing rate and the first EAT (allowing ScACC to let subsequent pilots know their EAT), or be very disciplined in passing EATs to ScACC for traffic under their control. This is especially so in poor weather conditions where pilots may have very limited fuel before a diversion is being considered. At the moment, it's another area in which, between the units, pilots get a relatively poor service. There is always an embarrassed silence when the pilot asks us at ScACC and we have to tell him we'll get back to him, or we are waiting for an EAT from EDI.
The other main thing that will have to be done is education for the airlines and crews. EDI will have to be very high profile in explaining what the new procedures are there to achieve and how taking away high speeds (let's assume they are appropriate for an individual case - there's only a couple of inbounds) and vectoring towards base leg and replacing them with standard speeds and holds as the norm will overall improve their lot. You are going to have to convince them that the reduced efficiency in flight ops is far outweighed by a massive increase in capacity which allows their schedules to be unaffected by delay. Because believe me, the companies will want to see something in return when their EDI fuel burns go up. I guess I am just trying to point out the possible Pandora's box here, because if you go for the more regimented system (for entirely valid reasons from EDI's view) and you maintain the current arrival 'rate' or possibly even reduce it, then you will be put in a very uncomfortable position by the beancounters of the airlines and NATS. Just be prepared for that potential backlash - or else motivate everyone to move the traffic a lot quicker on final approach
