5 Watch system - SRATCOH compliant - not!

[Data Dad]

Well, here's a grenade to lob! The crux of this issue is the requirement for three 60 hour "rest" periods within a thirty day period.

The important part of the legislation are the words "within ANY (my emphasis) 30 day period....) SRG have confirmed that if the start of that 30 day period falls during one of these 60 hour "rest" periods, then that period doesn't count towards the 3.

Now taking a typical 5 watch system of MMAADDOOOO or MMAANNSOOO, then taking a 30 day period commencing on the THIRD rest day, it will be seen that there are only TWO 60 hour rest periods!

I'll leave you to draw the bar charts!

Any SRG PPruners out there?

[This message has been edited by Data Dad (edited 27 August 2000).]

[Numpo-Nigit]

I can only defer to those who actually understand ALL the implications of any watch-keeping system. Just a question - does the LATCC en-route pattern of AAOMMNNSOO then AAOMMDDOOO comply? Of course, it is a rare event for anyone to work the "usual" pattern of alternating days and nights - personal preferences and rostering requirements see to that. I hope that the experts will be keeping a very careful eye on the goings-on during OCT next year (if it happens).

[Father Jack]

Data Dad, I can't work out what you're getting at, particularly about the beginning of a thiry day period writing off the sixty hour period that it falls within.
I think that you should consider the thirty days as a "sliding 720 hour window" within which the appropriate number of 60 hr periods must occur.
If you do this (I think) the system works.
Consider the pin reinserted, and nothing left to see
Move along now!

[Data Dad]

Father Jack, the sliding window is precisely the point I was making - if you write out a continuous repetition of the MMAADDOOOO or mix it up with the MMAANNSOOO which I am led to believe is worked by a major London Airport, then with the sliding window starting on the 3rd rest day, there are only 2 60 hour rest periods in 720 hours(30 days). Pin taken out again? haven't looked at the LATCC version.

[Flybywyre]

Confused the **** out of me!

Regards
FBW

[get'em to heaven & back]

anyone for 6 on 5 off?

[Flybywyre]

How about 5 on 6 off.........

[Spotter]

Make it 5 on 6 off.

Doh! FBW beat me to it. Looks like the movement is gathering momentum!

[This message has been edited by Spotter (edited 29 August 2000).]

[Xorpria]

SRG may have confirmed that the first period does not count as a 60 hour break but the corresponding period at the other end of the 720 hour window is also a 60 hour rest period. If the night shift finishes at, say, 7 am on the sleep day then 60 hours rest is accomplished by 7 pm on the second day off. This is the 3rd 60 hour rest period required by the scheme.

[captlcc]

Xorpria, mmm, lets see

using father Jack's sliding window starting on the 3rd rest day gives a pattern of

oommaannsooommaannsooommaannso for 30 days or 720 hours.

At the start "oom" - that's not 60 hours so there are 2 60 hour breaks in the middle and the last one "nso" finishing at 0700? Nope, can't see 60 hours there either! The problem is - you may reach 60 hours by 7pm on your second rest day BUT that is day 31. The leg. says "WITHIN any 30 day period etc.etc"

What's a repeating roster anyway? Never heard of one at my place of honest endeavour.

[This message has been edited by captlcc (edited 29 August 2000).]

[This message has been edited by captlcc (edited 29 August 2000).]

[Shazbat]

I am just left to wodner how NATS can legally ask people to do overtime ? Or am I being a bit cynical here, thinking that, for ONCE, SRG might take control of things and "just say no".

[Shazbat]

By the way......wodner = wonder ....... fingers = not working ! ( I think )

[get'em to heaven & back]

Shazbat- "am I being a bit cynical here, thinking that, for ONCE, SRG might take control of things and "just say no"."

SRG are not remotely concerned at overtime breaking SRATCOH. They are well aware that it is happening but these "fiscally-unconcerned" brethren appear to cave in & accomodate it when instructed to do so- maybe a wrong impression but one which SRG have, unfortunately, allowed to happen. ATCOs who do o/t on these grounds do themselves no favours either- imagine the sympathy & understanding that would be forthcoming if you, God forbid, had a nasty while doing an o/t shift that busted SRATCOH! NOT!!!!!!

Y'all take care now!. My understanding is that you just have to fill in a form and you're covered in their eyes.

[Xorpria]

Thanks Captlcc, the point I was trying to make is that although the 60 hours cannot be completed within the 720 hour window, it is nonetheless a 60 hour rest period and unless SRG make a similar statement about the period at the end of the window then we must assume that it counts for the purposes of the scheme. I look forward to hearing something to the contrary!

[Shazbat]

Well there you go get'em back to wherever .......seems you and I.......and I just wodner....errrr.....wonder.....how many more - have exactly the same opinion : that SRG are in the pockets of NATS management, who can get away with ANYTHING.

Just left to wonder (got it right this time) what the "S" in SRG stands for ??????????

Sorry this is a little "off-topic" guys, but it does need an airing !!

[Data Dad]

Xorpria et al, have today checked exactly what we were told by SRG. As well as the bit about the start, they also said that if the 30days finish in the middle of a 60 hour rest period (ie: not yet completed the 60 hours when the 30 days/720 hours is up) then that one doesn't count either! So my original argument still stands.. By the way, for all SRG bashers http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif "WE" are also a NATS unit! :) :) :) :)

[This message has been edited by Data Dad (edited 31 August 2000).]

[Father Jack]

Look out ! That man has a loaded pin!
Data Dad,
sorry I haven't been back to this for a while, but I did the charts on something other than a fag packet, and you are completely correct.
I'm absolutely amazed and await an SRG answer.
Also, captlcc, I need to take issue about your lack of repeating roster at your unit.
You work, then you work some more, then some more, then some more, then some more, then some more.......
Father Jack

[captlcc]

Father jack,

yeah, then you go home and work some more!

[2 six 4]

Shazbat - what has overtime to do with SRATCOH ?

[get'em to heaven & back]

2 six 4, "what has overtime to do with SRATCOH ?"

nothing, until your overtime shift breaks afore mentioned regulations- if you work @ ScO/L ACC you won't know what overtime is. May I refer you to the other thread about SRG and, as someone else wrote, them appearing to be in management's pocket.

[Xorpria]

Thanks for SRG's words of wisdom on this. It is an interesting interpretation of the regulations. It is also interesting that in the numerous unit inspections over recent years they have never mentioned it. My recollection of the deliberations of the original CRATCOH was that the 60 hour breaks counted because they are 60 hour breaks even if they do not occur wholly within the 720 hour period, but this wouldn't be the first piece of legistlation to be found wanting when tested in a court of law so ..........

[PPRuNe Radar]

Shazbat,

Of course NATS can legally ask people to do overtime, overtime is not against the law per se. However NATS should ensure that the SRATCOH element is complied with, unless they get a dispensation from SRG. I also beleive that it would not be possible for this overtime to be mandatory, i.e. no one holds a gun at the ATCO's head to do the extra shift times.

The other element, although not a legal one, is that it would have to be allowable in staff conditions of service. What is the union position on ATCO's working overtime anyway ?? Which NATS units currently enforce overtime on it's ATCO staff ?? I think we should be told.

However, back to the original issue.....very interesting and an official interpretation would be useful.

------------------
PPRuNe Radar
ATC Forum Moderator
[email protected]

[Shazbat]

There you have the nub of it.....why would NATS ask it's staff to do overtime ?? The answer is, they will be too short of staff to run the service efficiently (safely) without relying upon it.

Ergo the staff called in on overtime would be breaking their SRATCOH requirement by working during the 60 day period that is being discussed here.

That would seem to be obvious to me ?

[Shazbat]

Sorry PPPrune RADAR, I forgot to answer your question regarding the union's stance on overtime. Not being an "active" member I cannot be 100% sure, but I BELIEVE that the union is asking members not to undertake overtime ? Perhaps a union man could elaborate here ?

You also mentioned NATS getting a "dispensation from SRG" ! Hmmmmmmmmmm........I refer you to the thread concerning SRG !! Dificult to think here, offhand, but has there ever been a time when when NATS have been refused a "dispensation" ?

[Data Dad]

Shazbat,

yes, my NATS unit was refused a dispensation. That's why this whole topic came up! We reckon that some units rosters fall foul of the 60 hour rule for ALL their ATCO's and on a REGULAR basis, but SRG won't let us break it on an irregular basis for just one or two ATCO's!! :mad:



[This message has been edited by Data Dad (edited 02 September 2000).]

[Shazbat]

Well Dad, seems we have SRG showing typical colours.

Question : Does your unit's un-approved dispensation affect commercial concerns at all ?

Answer : Probably not !

[get'em to heaven & back]

Shazbat:- w.r.t. the union & overtime. the union frown severely upon overtime and you won't find it happening at centres. the muscle at the centres means that levels of service can be reduced dramatically when a couple of people go sick and management are unable to "persuade" controllers to cover. airfields are different- the threat of loss of contract always looms large and, in some quarters, controllers adopt the attitude of wanting to help the machine run smoothly even when you can't legally supply the staff to do it. are they benefitting themselves (except in the pocket)? I think not. are they benefitting management by getting them out of a hole and making sure airlines don't complain to said management about delays? I think....

as the only people who can approve SRATCOH-busting overtime are SRG, I refer my honourable friends to the conclusion that Shazbat & I appear to agree whole-heartedly upon- that SRG have teeth for bearing at ATCOs but run like +*^! from Management when an airline is in danger of a 5 minute delay- except< as I sy, @centres due to the muscle of the ATCOs there.

and I agree (not surprisingly) with your sentiments that the refusal of a dispensation would have had no adverse commercial impact.

[U R NumberOne]

Airfields are different alright. I did a bit of overtime at the end of a morning shift the other day - not for the cash (one whole hour :rolleyes: ), not to get management out of a hole, but from a flight safety point of view.

We all know that there are methods of reducing traffic to a managable level when necessary (holding, flow, etc), but most ATCOs I know will try to keep traffic moving at the normal rate when bandboxed because we want to provide the best service and create minimum disruption to operators. Normal staff levels equal normal service standards - reduced staff levels equal controllers trying to provide normal service standards but with the best will in the world this may lead to eroded flight safety at peak times. If a bit of O/T prevents this situation what's more important - following the Union line or maintaining flight safety?

[get'em to heaven & back]

u r no 1:- i commend you for your attitude. yes flight safety is the most important thing and i too would help out for an hour or so if reqd. but would you be quite so prepared to finish your cycle, do a night's o/t the day after the sleep day & return to work for your next cycle? what about an extra shift that means you work 7 in a row?that, i'm sure you'll agree, is a whole different kettle of fish! and no, they are not made-up scenarios! and SRG approved them only in retrospect, not on advance!

[Packem Inn]

I know our Unit Mgt are scared stiff of SRATCOH bust forms going to SRG. Trouble is, we have been understaffed for over 2 years, with virtually no replacement of radar ATCOs, just VCR.

Not only are we continually rostered with insufficient staff - something SRG should have also picked up - but finding someone to do overtime is also difficult, near impossible. About the only easy way is for people already on leave to come in.

No enhanced rates for working overtime either. Mgt are worried about overtime costs, yet fail to accept that we are already short-staffed (thus saving salary costs) and more importantly, rostered staff are working with increased levels of traffic with fewer controllers than has been agreed.

So the emphasis is on saving money rather than safety.

One also wonders whether we are getting Mgt out of a 'hole' or digging ourselves into one.

[squawk 6789]

packem inn:- I agree that something like an hour's o/t is not a great problem. But would you be prepared to do an extra night shift after your sleep day? Or a shift which would mean you work 7 in a row? SRG will approve it- after the fact of course!

[This message has been edited by squawk 6789 (edited 05 September 2000).]

[Not Long Now]

Overtime, hmmm, let's wait until OCT starts early next year, requiring, I believe, over 40 controllers to be detached every day from LATCC. Anyone made holiday plans yet? Still, I assume all the airlines will just swallow all the flow there's going to be, after all, everything will be hunky-dory when we get to NERC wont it, plenty of spare staff capacity...

[Data Dad]

I am suprised that any unit is "afraid" of filing SRATCOH "busts" - my understanding is they are generally filed under B.I.N.

The whole scheme is flawed IMHO. Majority of "busts" are filed AFTER the event - so SRG don't get the opportunity to say NO!

What sanction do they have anyway? Who (at the units) carries the can - management or the individual ATCO? I expect as with everything else these days it would be the latter - esp. if there was an incident during a "bust" period.

[Shazbat]

Dad, you are SO right.....one sniff of an incident brought about by an ATCO who has been stupid enough to accept overtime (not including the odd-hour here by the way, but referring mostly to what NATS will want it's LATCC/AC staff to be doing next year) and management will so very very quickly do a Pontius Pilate.