Death of approach procedual control

[Voroff]

Anybody seen caa uk ATSIN 34.

seems like the the CAA are creating a level playing field . By the sounds of it only adc/app combined unit's or radar unit's with only primary feed will reruire their personnel to have controller's to have APP rating's.


As someone with all three ratings, I would like to know how peeps feel about this.

I know it has been standard practice at some units in uk for a while. is it necescerary streamlining as total radar failures are extremely rare or dumbing down.

[Bern Oulli]

It is dumbing down. Procedural Approach Control is many things:

1. It is a good mental discipline.
2. It instills the basics of separation.
3. It is the safety line when everything else goes t!ts up.

Of course, radars never break, power never fails, aircraft never have radio failures, the London Underground never has derailments and the Staten Island Ferry never hits the jetty.

Never say "Never".

[niknak]

Bern is spot on, radar is a brilliant device, but when the cleaner plugs the hoover in and the screen goes blank you have to know what you're doing.

I've known grown men (and ladies) swoon at the very thought of having to do procedural control...... :E

[Spitoon]

And I've seen people go a very stange shade of green when the radar packed up.

Strange really, you'd have expected that when they were bathed in the glow of the old radar display but the looked quite normal then.

[matspart3]

Definitely dumbing down

There's no substitute for a sound understanding of procedural control.

There's still a number of non-radar units though...Oxford, Biggin, Cranfield and others who don't always have radar available...Southend, Gloucester, Cambridge...so the rating won't disappear altogether

[Legs11]

I'm with matspart3 on this one:ok: , there really is nothing to beat having approach procedural understanding under your belt when you are sitting there looking at the radar screen.

I don't care what the Engineers tell you - I have seen what can happen when a colleague loses his radar screen and has no idea what to do proceduraly to rectify matters:ugh:

[055166k]

Similar thing in Area Control. I'd like to think that I could still provide a procedural service in event of a radar failure, but in reality the skill has probably atrophied. The Regulator recognises this and London Area Control is not approved to provide a non-radar area service except as a short term expedient to clear traffic in event of radar failure....no new traffic would be allowed. Quite sensible in my view...I wouldn't like to risk lives using methods that are not regularly practiced.

[Eira]

Approach Procedural control was an excellent background for Approach Radar control.
I remember it as a tough 9 weeks , only getting easier in the last 3 weeks or so with the haze of misunderstanding lifting and thinking wow this makes sense after all.
We went into the radar course fully prepared and understanding what approach control meant before touching radar, subsequently we had a 100% pass rate on the radar course , losing a few along the way at the procedural stage.
Procedural sets you up so well for every aspect of ATC it is was a sad day when they did away with the procedural ratings, and now we would appear to be further de-skilling only allowing a few to do Aerodrome ratings :mad:

[2 sheds]

It is hardly de-skilling the profession to train controllers more thoroughly in data display management, looking at the data display first to determine a clearance, applying an appropriate mixture of procedural and radar separation, recognising when procedural separation exists, perhaps accidentally, and therefore not worrying about the application of ensuring radar separation, and finally - still shifting traffic, albeit an a limited rate, when the fail-safe radar goes tits up.

I can, perhaps, understand the current situation in the ACC context but in Approach Control it has just been a cop-out for the benefit of the "bottom line".

PS How do you check that your navaids are coding correctly if you don't know Morse Code?

[Eira]

Popup traffic in response to your post.

I am hardly a dinosaur being in my mid thirties, spend my time looking at how we can constantly improve our systems and procedures , embracing new technology where it improves the work I do.

However I must vigorously defend my post in that we have deskilled and Procedural control is not a dinosaur or obsolete in any way.
The only thing we have in the event of a total power outage and standby generators failing, and yes it can happen is the frequency on a backup battery , in such situations we revert to procedural control, so few people have a clue on how it works or what to do. Invent a radar system that will never fail never crash , never be the subject of a terrorist attack then yes maybe there are instances where procedural is unnecessary, but I personally exercise procedural control every day .

Its called giving a safe clearance.

[ProcATCO]

The "death" of Approach Procedural has been coming for some time!

As a controller who does not have a Radar rating (but wishes he had if only for the money!), I agree with the view that you have to be able to operate safely if you cannot see the aircraft for whatever reason. Safety DEMANDS this!

However, the upside for those like me is that as APP controllers retire, and the demand for us increases (it will you know!) we should be able to get a decent wage for our skills!!! :ok:

Ah well I live in hope. :hmm:

[Voroff]

I was thinking about future procedural courses (assuming all units with secondary get the excemption) and I could only come up with 12-15 (wasn't 100% on some) atcu that would then require the rating.

There are currently 2 colleges in the uk that offer the rating, so with the the majority of these unit's being quite small non 24hr airports with probably 5 or so atc staff that ain't many students to go round.

[matspart3]

I suspect that only a few ATSU's will actually apply for the exemption, with even some of the larger units still 'bandboxing' at night.

This 'problem' has been under consideration for some time. There was a school of thought some years back, that the radar course could be expanded by a few weeks to include enough to warrant the issue of a procedural rating too. Anyone who has both ratings will understand what a silly idea that was! The ATSIN seems to point to a compromise that will preserve the APC rating. There may be a small reduction in demand, but ASTAC and Shearwater already base their courses around 'modules' of 3 or 4 students.

I did the first RGAT Procedural course at Bailbrook. There were only 4 of us on that. Martin Thomas was a first class instructor...pity about his taste in ties!!!

[Voroff]

Indeed I also had the pleasure of the Martin Thomas procedual school at bailbrook. I remember the summative excericse where he wore a tie that depicted "munch's" the scream painting, very vividly
:D

[Spitoon]

I'm not sure I understand this exemption stuff. The way I read it if you do the things listed then you don't need an approach rating.

[yaffs]

for the last at least 5 years in nats there has been no procedural rating course- but the approach radar course provided a procedural element so you have a basic understanding of procedural control
so you leave with an approach radar rating

yaffs

[1261]

Don't know about other units, but when I first did my radar validation at EGPH we had to do a week's in-house course of procedural training; we then were issued with a letter from SRG stating that we could provide a procedural service - but only at PH and only inside controlled airspace. This has recently been withdrawn.