you say that this is a result of a "successful" trial in Scotland
I didn't say it was in Scotland , I simply said there had been a successful trial
For the record, it took place within the London and [principally] the Scottish FIRs.
From what I've been told, the trial involved Civilian ATCOs coordinating in the Military fashion
It involved civil and military controllers co-ordinating using revised military co-ordination (there were some very minor changes made to what was previously being used by M.o.D.)
What was not trialled was Military ATCOs trying the Civvy method
Correct but it was agreed, based upon assessment of options such as this, that this solution was most likely to be successful for the majority of civil units and M.o.D.
I'm sorry, but all that proves is that Civvy ATCOs can coordinate in the Military fashion, provided that thier workload is not too high. It does not prove which is the better method
There is always the option to trade efficiency for safety (and v/v) however this time safety improvement was at the heart of why this trial was agreed. The participants (including SRG) took the view that assessing and managing workload [and safety performance] using a trial first, was the way to go. That the trail proved successful, and as your suggest will be implemented by the SRG, is evidence enough for me that it's better than what was there previously.
Being an open-minded chap though .... If you feel there's a better way, talk to SRG and the M.o.D. to make the change happen, that's what happened here. I'm sure everyone wants what's best and from what I can read, there seems compelling agreement that consistency through a common understanding of procedures will help us all achieve what we need.
With this in mind, roll on ATSOCAS and lets have a common view of what "clean" means
