ANYONE WANT TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT NERC ??

[It's a Joke]

Come on........we ALL know that the chances of "O" date being in January next year are becoming more and more remote.

What with the software problems, and the guys not believeing that the training they are being given is adequate (as an aside, exactly WHAT is SRG doing about this ????????), when are our inglorious management going to come up with the truth.

Any idea anyone ??

(That is, IF they know what "truth" is !!!!)

[Over+Out]

I don't think the 'Old NATS' management understood the word truth. I hope very much that Kenny Everitt and The Airline Group will change all of that. Fingers Crossed!

[ 08 August 2001: Message edited by: Over+Out ]

[It's a Joke]

Amen to that, O & O !!

[Numpo-Nigit]

As I understand things, SRG's remit is to approve and monitor the PROCESS. That seems to mean that NATS produce a wildly optimistic plan which states that a, b and c will happen on dates x, y and z with the end result of all staff valid and competent by O-date. SRG give their approval to this master plan, and then come along to monitor that it is happening as stated - that means checking that the right people are appearing on the right dates for the correct number of simulations with the agreed number of instructors. This IS happening, more or less. What SRG do NOT seem to be interested in is the fact that the trainees do not feel their training is adequate. Neither do SRG seem concerned about the safety of the NERC concept or its current state. I hope that I have correctly summarised the SRG view as told to me. If not, I'm sure someone else will correct it.

Quite what, if anything, SRG will actually DO if the current O-date looks like REALLY happening with the current NERC system and inadequate training/familiarisation, I don't know. Perhaps they are just waiting for the NATS master plan to fail once again, just like the rest of us. Then they won't have to actually DO anything, but will undoubtedly claim it as a triumph of the SRG regulatory environment.

Do I sound cynical (again) ???

[terrain safe]

What do SRG do anymore? They seem to be quite happy generally to leave things alone and if it works than they are right and is it isn't then they step in. Don't they get invoved in any safety case work or this not in their remit? Years ago management would go to SRG in fear because with a single word they could stop a procedure coming in or even close an ATC unit. Now they seem to be in fear of NATS management.

Still I suppose it's another nail in the coffin.

[Direct HALIFAX]

You lot are a bunch of cynics. NERC will open on time. The controllers will be trained to an adequate standard and the traffic will be flowed. We all know that. Even TAG. What's the problem. :)

[eyeinthesky]

Quote from SRG rep on visit to OCT relayed to me:

"You're all professionals and are paid a lot of money, you will make it work."

Need I say more?

[It's a Joke]

eye in the sky.......well, I must say that has knocked me back a bit.........even me !!!

I cannot believe that an SRG representative said that........he/she should be taken to task for that !!!!!

It's appalling !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[BEXIL160]

Dct Halif....

I hope you're being saracstic, but if so it doesn't come across too well. If, perchance, you are being remotely serious then perhaps you could post some evidence for your assertions. It is a FACT that most operational staff at LATCC have doubts about the viability of the current "O" date.

Eye in sky etc...

Not overly impressed with SRG / ATSSDs aledgedstatement. If true then there is a mismatch between what ATCOs (and the public) expect of a regulator of a private company and what is actually occuring. Perhaps Ms. Dunwoody should be told on her return.

Rgds BEX

[BEXIL160]

and another thing.....

Is there anybody out there who can say EXACTLY what the flow rates will be post "O" date? I have asked several managers both at LATCC and NERC who should be "in the know" and yet all I get back is the "standard" reply : "don't worry, you'll be protected". Not one of them could give any exact figures (percentages or actual rates), and not even the flow people at LATCC could enlighten me.

This is not good enough. NATS management already have a credibility problem and soothing words about how they'll "protect us" don't cut it for me (well do you trust them?). I'd like some figures please, they shouldn't be treated like state secrets.

In hope of an honest reply

BEX

[Maineman]

25% below current TSFs I believe. Don't remember where I heard this from though. :(

[BEXIL160]

Maineman...

Thanks. Next question, assuming the 25% reduction is true, what effect will this have on the delays? An airline pilot colleague suggests that his company have been told that "delays will only be a two or three minutes more than now". Perhaps he heard wrong, perhaps "Two or three times more than now is what was said. It's probably nearer the truth with a 25% flow reduction. :eek:

The Truth is out there.....

Rgds BEX

[ock1f]

Well I've heard, on good authority, that we will be protected by the fact that RVSM is coming in across Europe at the time of 'O' date, and so traffic will be naturally reduced. Now anyone working BRS/STU a day or two after RVSM was introduced, with the sector split 6 ways, will know that protection was virtually non-existant.. As for SRG, just wait till some poor sod has an incident at NERC - SRG will be down like a tonne of bricks - provided, of course, that they are back from one of their holidays in the Carribean, paid for by... well, i wonder...?

[Scott Voigt]

Actually RVSM allows you to have MORE aircraft and does nothing to slow things down...

regards

[BEXIL160]

OCK1F & Scott...

Yes, you're both quite right. Is another reason for pushing for the January "O" date the ability to shift the "blame" for delays onto the European introduction of RVSM, rather than the less than sparkling performance of the NERC system?

Personally if we do actually get down there in January, I'd like to see regulation on top of whatever Europe imposes for RVSM introduction. Overloads/Incidents/deals, whatever you like to call them, are SAFETY critcal. Some people are begining to lose sight of the primary aim of ATC (due to beckoning bonuses??)

Rgds BEX

[ 10 August 2001: Message edited by: BEXIL160 ]

[expeditor]

Apparently Maas are moving to a new room (somebody may be able to confirm this), around the same date, Ive heard that NATS management will hide behind this and RVSM being implemented, therefore not applying too many regs but blaming the delays elsewhere.

[ 10 August 2001: Message edited by: expeditor ]

[Scott Voigt]

BEX;

Why would management even think about adding restrictions to help with RVSM??? I would think that they would think that RVSM is going to make your job easier since it is much easier to get only a 1000 ft. sep in the higher altitudes... <EG> Just look for more aircraft and less restrictions.

Have fun

[BEXIL160]

Scott, old buddy, Do management "think" about anything? No, no, no... Kneejerk reactions are more their style <VBG>

To be slightly serious, "Unlearning" Westbound and Eastbound levels is a novel experience, and just saying the words "Climb FL340" for example rings all sorts of bells in your head the first time you say it.

Also there are quite number of non RVSM approved a/c out there (more than management admit) who can ruin your entire day.

Best rgds BEX

[ZIP250]

Going back to the original posting for a change, I have a question (the first of several, but arguably the most important).

What evidence is there for the much vaunted claim that NERC will increase the overall capacity of en-route airspace by 20%? Our ex chairman, Sir Christopher Tugendhat had to have a figure for improvement in overall capacity to present to HM treasury in order to get the funding. I do not believe that the figure has ANY scientific base. It was simply a figure run through the fast time simulator at Bretigny long before any of the NERC concept was properly developed.

Is it not the case that in fact there is a lot of evidence that the overall capacity of NERC is far below the capacity of the existing operation at West Drayton? Furthermore the base line for the 20% has never been drawn and our poor unsuspecting customers think that it is based on current capacity. In other words they are expecting us to move 2.4 million aircraft in 2003. (I have allowed one year for the sytem to settle down.

In my opinion, and, I believe, in the opinion of the majority of experienced AC controllers who are at last seeing what NERC has to offer, the figure is very unlikely to come close to the 2000 figure of 2 million.

I would humbly suggest that TAG get some real evidence about the improvement that is on offer and not merely listen to those who have a vested interest in the grand opening. And, at the risk of upsetting colleagues, I include all those who are fed up with the daily grind up the M3. Gentlemen you might be unpleasantly surprised.

Z :(

[BEXIL160]

ZIP.... yep, agree with all you've said. I'd like to see a few answers as well... from those without vested interests.

FACT: It will not be possible to split the DVR sector (S15/16) at NERC due to staffing issues (They're all required to split HRN, S19/20/21). This leads to the ridiculous situation where the DVR sector at LATCC has a greater capacity than NERC at least for a few years

Progress? I think not, but what to TAG think?

Rgds BEX

[Scott Voigt]

BEX;

Well you said it <G>, management is not prone to really thinking out an issue. Just we gave it "A" thought and that is what we are going to do. No never mind that what they thought about was how they did it 15 years ago and that has no basis in reality on how the operation is being done today <sigh>...

I still think that as far as RVSM is concerned that your management isn't going to think that there is that much to worry about. Just suck it up lad, just think of it as the low altitude levels and you will do fine <G>. As to the large amount of non RVSM equipped aircraft. I know of what you speak and we are planning for a much larger percentage than what you have to deal with too. Shoot, we have a butt load of high performance turboprops who like to fly at those altitudes, not to mention OLD lears...

For those of you talking about capacity of the new facility. The experience that we had with transitioning to our new equipment a couple of years ago is that your productivity IS going to go DOWN for a couple of months at the very least. It is going to take you that long to get really comfortable with the new equipment. Face it, we as controllers all know that when it gets REALLY busy we do everything by instinct. If you can not do what you need to do with instinct and have to look about for a computer key or whatever, you are going to slow down and not be able to give the old level of service... Hopefully your computer human interface is going to be good enough to help out some and then help improve on what you used to do in the LATCC.

regards

[ZIP250]

Scott,

Thanks for the input. I think you may be falling into the trap which has claimed those leading the NERC project and reflected elsewhere on this forum. "Those professionals will make it work" I have been guilty of being a doubting Thomas (no insult Chris) over the years when I look at the various changes we have successfully introduced, but this time it is very different. Apart from grave doubts about a software driven system, the major problem is that staff are being asked to perform functions simply to make the system work. Whereas now one telephone call can convey a vast amount of information, the NERC system needs a lot of human interaction to perform the same function. Because of its design that phone call has to be supplemented.

What I am claiming is that the ultimate capacity of NERC 1 (and there is no serious talk of NERC 2) is so far below that of West Drayton that our customers should know that the UK is going to be delaying traffic for many years into the future because those running the project do not have the courage to admit that there could have been a monumental mistake. Whilst I realise that the ultimate capacity of an ATC system is impossible to define (unlike a runway), I believe that it should be possible for the capacity of the existing system to be compared with that proposed.

The next major worry is that when we try to make changes at NERC to correct the mistakes of the design team, the required changes will not be possible because of software constraints. A change of procedure at WD is easy because all it takes is a piece of paper. Software is very expensive because of the testing required.

Regards

Z :rolleyes:

[ALVIN BUNCE]

I confess to having given only a few passing thoughts over the last 10 years or so to the much-vaunted capacity increase NERC is supposed to bring. My excuse (apart from being rather slow on the uptake!) is that I've had little to do with "The Project" over the years and, so, have had to rely on what snippets of information have come to light. Now, however, having completed a fair chunk of OCT, the first-hand experience I've gained leaves me at a complete loss to understand where this increase is going to come from.

The only thing I can think of that might help is the ability to open more sectors thus making more controllers available to handle more traffic. Surely, though, NERC's capacity increase cannot be predicated on this alone? If it is, with staff at the current levels, someone is going to be very disappointed for some years to come!

It was actually Zip250's post that set me thinking. I remember sitting in a promotion board in the late 80s spouting on about a 20% capacity increase to be expected from the new centre to the obvious approval of the board members. Could Zip be right I wonder? Was this just a figure plucked out of the air and loosely-based on the traffic figures of the mid- to late-80s for the purposes of giving the then Chairman something to work with but which has now become "set in stone" and rolls on to each new year's figures? Has anyone ever seen the scientific/statistical basis for this claim or the baseline year to which it refers?

I think we should be told!
AB

[ 12 August 2001: Message edited by: ALVIN BUNCE ]

[250 kts]

As I seem to remember it , when NERC was 1st thought of in the late 80's, it was thought that LATCC would run out of capacity in 1996.
That figure was approx 40% higher than the traffic we were moving then (around 1988)- and so NATS were able to say that NERC would increase capacity by around 40%.
So, 1996 became the original "O" date as that was when LATCC ran out of capacity and 40% became the increase in capacity by default!. Erm you're right - nothing scientific there then.

[eyeinthesky]

re SRG Quote: Take it from me, it is a FACT that he said it. No chinese whispers about that one. The point is that SRG seem to spend an inordinate amount of time monitoring the training at NERC but not actually DOING anything. They must be overwhelmed with comments and concerns from the ATCOs participating in OCT and seem to take no action. Someone else told me the same person had said that if 'O' date were to be delayed, it certainly wouldn't be because of SRG input.

Another example, although I can't vouch for its authenticity, is that the logic at NERC could not cope with non-RVSM traffic. Therefore neither SMF nor STCA reacted if a non-RVSM went 1000' underneath another a/c. SRG were apparently VERY concerned that SMF wouldn't trigger but didn't seen to care about STCA. i.e."We won't give you the tools to prevent you losing separation, but we ant to make sure we catch you if you do." Prevention better than cure? It seems not.

This doesn't really bode well for the future with them as independent external safety regulators, does it?

Re flow rates: A memo floating about today gives the following data:

1st ten days: 30% reduction with watch management discretion to 20%

2nd ten days: 25% with watch management discretion to 15%

and so on until full TSF achieved by 28th March.

Comments?

[BEXIL160]

Eyeinthesky....

See my post about what we (and the public) expect of a Regulator of a (Part)Privatised industry. Sitting back and monitoring due process isn't what is required, SAFETY REGULATION is.

As for the flow rates. Any connection between posts here and memos suddenly appearing at LATCC? It would be nice to think so. For the rates themselves, I'd like to see something in writing that REQUIRES the management to consult with ALL the operational staff on a particular sector (T,P & A) before even considering raising rates.

Rgds BEX

[ZIP250]

250kts

You may be right about the 1996 figures, but I believe that the 1996 "O" Date actually comes from the inability of HMG to accept that a project such as this could possibly take ten years. Sir Christopher would not n
have got the dosh approved if he had told the truth.

On the SRG theme, I think that it is very sad that they are behaving so unprofessionally. Knowing almost all of the controllers down at Gatwick, I find it very hard to believe that they have become such toothless wonders.

Z :(

[Scott Voigt]

ZIP250;

I think that maybe you didn't fully understand my post... The only reason that or upgrade wasn't as painfull as it could have been with the full advanced automation system (similar to what you are getting) is that we knew it wasn't going to work speed wise. The system took longer to use vrs. good old pen and paper. So we wound up getting new displays with the ability to be upgraded in the future, but the rest of the flight plan processing we still do the old fashion way. Even so, with only going to a new display and a new keyboard, it took us a while to get used to the new function locations and such... With YOUR change, I feel that it is going to take MUCH longer and you may never get the same productivity back unless there are some incremental changes made. However, that said, I haven't seen what the NERC system has changed too since I haven't see the stuff in over 8 years <G>...

good luck

[ZIP250]

So NERC is a copy of the "full advanced automation system". Well blow me!

I must keep taking the tablets.

Z :p

[250 kts]

True in part about the 1996 date and HMG, but if you can get hold of it, there's a report by the MITRE corporation floating about commissioned in 1988 which stated that this wasgoing to be a 13 year project-what's 1988+13?????- not far out were they?

[Scott Voigt]

250;

I don't know if it is a copy (don't think so) but it comes from the same DNA <G>. It has a lot of similarities... I just hope that your data imput is a LOT better than what it was when we deep sixed the program.

regards

[Great Unmanaged]

Ok guys, a question. How long do we think it will be before Swan-wick moves, with our help, as much traffic as LATCC? Or, put another way, how long will the patience of the AG last when they are slot stuffed?

THEN - how long will it be before strip printers etc appear and all the silly PC's get the heave ho? :confused:

[eyeinthesky]

Bex: Agree about the need for proper consultation before lifting flow rates. in a worst case secenario it is quite possible that you will see one of your two sectors once or twice ONLY before the flow rates get lifted as the ten-day trigger passes. Certainly I would worry about that on NSEA!

Not sure what the answer is about SRG. I suppose CHIRP might be a way to provoke some form of reaction...

(Edited for typo)

[ 15 August 2001: Message edited by: eyeinthesky ]

[ATC Watcher]

Mr NATCA ( Scott)
Re your earlier RVSM statement on increasing capacity :
Could you explain ( briefly) how RVSM will increase capacity in my sectors (all roughly 50 NM x 80 NM) with currently 5 usable CVSM levels and which are currently restricted to 50 a/c per hour (mainly due to R/T worklaod and coordinations requirements ?)

Thanks in advance.

[Scott Voigt]

Watcher;

If you add useable altitudes, you then add more places to put aircraft... That increases capacity. I did't say if you would use it, but from the suits statistics, they will show that capacity is indeed increased. It will be up to y'all to figure out how to use it...

regards

[ATC Watcher]

Yes but there you talk about capacity possibilities, not actual gains.

Let me use a simple example ( In the USA you love this normally )

It is not because you will buy a car that can go twice as fast as your current one that you can immediately deduct that you will need half the time to get to work.
And if the speed limit is 50 Mph on that road it wont'make a difference at all .

But on the other hand Porsche does not tell this to its potential buyers...

[BEXIL160]

Another NERC related Training issue (are you listening VLAD?)

The PLANNER (P) role is entirely new. One would normally not be expected to train anyone following a completely new licence validation until AT LEAST ONE YEAR subsequent to that new validation.

Does this mean that the only OJTIs available to train new staff in the (P) role are NTT? Ex LATCC OJTIs will have to have at least a years experience of the role themsleves before attempting to teach anyone else or have SRG / ATSSD given some sort of dispensation (again?).

Answers on a postcard.

Rgds BEX

[Scott Voigt]

My only meaning is the the suits are going to consider that RVSM is going to add capacity. Now that said, unless you have a bottleneck due to arrival traffic having no where to go, why wouldn't opening up altitudes increase your capacity? If you have extra altitudes to use, then for enroute traffic it makes the problem just that much easier if you can give more aircraft separate altitudes, not to mention how much easier it is to get 1000 feet at the higher altitudes vrs. 2000 feet when they are only climbing at 400 fpm...

regards

[ATC Watcher]

Got your point Scott, but in all our uper sectors the restrictive factor is the number of a/c per hour.
For instance our Frankfort airport feeder sector has to deliver all inbounds separated at FL240 over a point .If the aircraft on the cruise are 1000 or 2000 ft appart, that will not change my capacity to deliver the contract. On the contrary, simulation shows that it complicate work as, if I have an a/c at 330 I have now to descend it thru 2 extra levels, where there will be traffic ( 300 and 320 are the most popular RVSM cruising levels )but it will ease conflict resolution with overflights.
The 2 roughly balance each other on the workload .
What will complicate even more my job is if, when I am busy, the ususal old 707 from the USAF comes along,that I cannot refuse ( state a/c exemption) and I have suddenly to provide it with 2000ft sep.
RVSM has the potential to increase capacity, if we could re-sectorise and would have the controllers to open those new sectors.
But both are dreams at the moment...

[Uncle Pip]

Bex,

"consult with ALL the operational staff on a particular sector (T,P & A)"

Thank you, but pie in the sky. My last B module, with one ATCO missing and five people plainly in the room, one of the remainder said "Just three of us, then". If an ATCO (and there are distressingly many) can't "see" the Assistant, what chance does the Desk have?

Pipkin

[Scott Voigt]

Looks like I need to try to get a week off later in the year and come down and find a headset to help y'all out with your staffing <G>... Someone provide the tea and I'll be there...

regards