LATCC CApping on Saturday

[MACC 29 all the time!!!!]

Hey guys this is a team game you know!!!!

Have you guys on Daventry and S3,4 ever wondered what happens to all that traffic you refuse to take into your airspace?

What was the deal on Saturday? Refusing a few fair enough just refusing the whole lot is a bit OTT in my opinion did you care too look at the chaos you were causing in MACC SE? Too make matters worse then saying we couldn't climb in the last few miles of DAV airspace, when we had got higher to go into 29, even though we could see there was no traffic there!

We are helping you out by taking your traffic please give a little back and let us use free airspace!

OK Flame proof coat on

Rant over

[daft fader]

go have a look at the pilots page (rumours and news) under something entitled "atc delays latcc short staffed" or similar.(19 november)

Anyway, youve got what used to be our airspace, you can`t complain when you get the traffic which goes with it. Oh, sorry your Manchester which I suppose excuses it. Yes it is a team game, when are you people going to join?

[This message has been edited by daft fader (edited 19 November 2000).]

[Numpo-Nigit]

Whilst I can sympathise with the guys and gals at MACC who anticipated another band-boxed Saturday morning, but got dumped on, you really should find out just what was happening on those LATCC sectors that you are castigating for their lack of co-operation. They were also suffering from staff shortages, albeit not as bad as those affecting Bristol and the west, and were "dropped right in it" by an over-paid Flow Manager who failed to implement the restrictions required by the Watch Supervisor. I believe that both Daventry and Lakes sectors filed overload reports. No wonder they showed little enthusiasm for solving Manchester's problems as well! Yes, it is a team game - we just need a better referee!!!!

[Slippers]

Just a quick question DTY guys.

When you're level capping due staff shortages, is there just one person on radar and that's it, or do you you have a chief there as well to help you out?

[Postman Pat]

There aint an easy answer to that Slippers. Come and visit and we will explain. If the CSC is npt available, on some sectors flow could be relatively high (eg Clacton, Dover, Seaford, Daventry. On the complicated ones like LUS, Berry Head and Lakes the CSC has a rather different task and if there isn't one available then the flow restrictions should be very fierce. There is always pressure to move more aeroplanes now and some of us believe that the safety margins are being eroded. That is one of the reasons we don't like the PPP. There will be a ton more commercial pressure and the safety will be regulated by SRG. These well meaning guys do not have the resource to police the system properly in a hands on way (ie in the ops room with the authority to overule a gung ho supervisor or flow manager) but we are sure that our ability to restrict traffic for professional reasons will be curtailed by over zealous managers. We are a safe operation who do not want to be changed without a convincing argument.

[Slippers]

I do have some sympathy for our friends in the north on this subject. While I appreciate the staffing situation in AC, it has to be remembered that nowhere is exactly overflowing with controllers.

What appears to be happening more and more though is a blanket capping of all domestic LTMA departures. This does seem to be a bit of overkill to me. It would be better if AC could be a bit more choosy over which aircraft are held down. Stopping a D328 or a 146 at FL180 is not much of a penalty for them, whereas forcing a 737 to fly most, if not all the way to Scotland or Ireland at 180 rather than 350 is a bit harsh. This would also produse a fairer spread of the traffic.

If I can just give you one recent example. All domestic flights were capped at FL190 or below. This meant that TC Midlands and the Welin sector in particular were busy. Winding out the radar we could see that Manchester were very busy. When we counted the number of aircraft in the whole of the DTY sector (north and southbound) it was only 5. Hardly fair.

[Numpo-Nigit]

I've just discovered that everything on this topic is totally untrue. Having read the transcript of an interview on BBC Radio by our illustrious Chief Executive, I now realise that there is no shortage of controllers. In fact there is a surplus of "sixty odd controllers". Disregarding, for a moment, his right to describe any of his controllers as "odd", he went on to state that the only reason that sectors were ever closed was because the traffic demand was insufficient. Now, how could I have been so stupid as to believe there was actually a staff shortage on Saturday? I just hope that management will forgive my naivety. I must have been misinformed by some of those sixty surplus controllers! I trust that everybody will now be suitably reassured????

[Asda]

Well put Numpo, I just wonder which cupboard all these 60 controllers are in and when they're going to let them out. By the way because of his superb work over the last few years you should remember that Mr Semple has been rewarded with promotion to Deputy Chairman. There's now another fall guy as CEO.

Slippers, as a DTY controller who wasn't there at the weekend and hasn't spoken to anyone about these particular events but has seen it many times before, a typical scenario would be:

Only 2 controllers available for DTY when normal rostering requires 3. As a result the sector has to be run bandboxed on to 1 position with no ability to split long term. Sector has to be flowed for single staffing. TPLD forecasts high traffic levels due to a North about transatlantic flow with DTY rapidly filling up with transatlantics from the continent. As a result TMA departures will be capped to remain below DTY. This situation sounds as if it was repeated on Lakes/Wirral.

Now we all know just how accurate the TPLD (Traffic Prediction Load Device?)is. So seeing only 5 a/c at one particular time in DTY is not really that surprising. What was it like 15 mins before or after? In a world of sensible traffic management the TPLD could actually say that this '5' minute period was going to be busy and that '5' minute period wasn't and then perhaps we could exercise some precise traffic management that for that period and allow TMA deps, for example to climb earlier. Of course in this example this would effect LKS/WRL and whatever traffic problems they have as well. There is of course that famous phrase makes me reach for my revolver whenever I hear it. 'Flow control is a very blunt instrument'.

Is anyone, anywhere seriously looking at reducing the size of time periods used for flow control so that instead of 36/60 we might be able to use 6/10? That would reduce the risk of bunching and its associated problems and risks and because of that might actually increase the amount of traffic we could handle. Controversial?

But anyway Slippers my guess is that they expected a lot of traffic, which for the most part they got and at the same time had a shortage of staff. Hey, if it gets too busy put a flow rate on yourself, there's not point in being overloaded yourself because of staff shortages at LATCC (until we find the cupboard anyway)

[250 kts]

OK, let's try to get the issue of level capping sorted.
The situation is that each sector has a target Sector Flow which in the case of S3/4 is around 58/hour. Unless the forecast is for this figure to be exceeded then no restrictions will be enforced. however if theoperators start to pick up delays, then they are able to file around / under / over the problem airspace.
There are times when the TSF is held back eg sickness,bad wx. When this occurs there will inevitably be traffic capped. However, the suggestion that this action is taken carte blanche is just not the case.
The guys at MACC inherited S29 earlier in the year and some have spent most of the time complaining about how quiet it. In fact I would hazard a guess that it hasn't come even close to it's TSF since they took responsibility for it.
Capping also affects LATCC sectors, especially the LUS/LMS interface. LMS regularly picks up additional traffic in much more complicated airspace than S29 and with a higher TSF.
This is not an issue of whether it's fair or not, it's a case of the operators getting away on time even if cruising at lower levels.
It can even be argued that an oceanic on a 12 hour flight should be the ones we hold down as , as a percentage of TOTAL fuelburn they would take less of a hit than the domestics.eg FL260 for 10 mins as opposed to FL280 and a large delay.
If a "blanket capping" is occurring then MACC should get their highly paid TTC's to find out why!!- and whether a particular watch is operating in this way. I know for a fact that ours doesn't and if they tried they wouldn't get away with it without very good reason.

[POMPI]

It's TLPD - Traffic Load Prediction Device, by the way.

[daft fader]

doesn`t matter what it`s called, tlpd/tpld whatever, it`s still c**p and used by watch management to inflict grief on the real workers