Cardiff ATC

[whitebeard]

REF: C1260/06 From: 2006-Apr-01 Sat 00:01 To: 2006-Sep-30 Sat 23:59
ICAO: EGFF CARDIFF
ALL TRAINING FLIGHTS MADE BY ACFT WITHIN THAT PORTION OF N864 AND L9 BTN EXMOR TALGA AMMAN AND ALVIN FL165 AND BELOW MUST OBTAIN A SLOT PRIOR TO ENTERING CONTROLLED AIRSPACE. SLOTS WILL BE ISSUED BY TELEPHONE ON 01446 712564 AS FOLLOWS : EXAM FLIGHTS MAY REQUEST SLOTS UP TO 48HRS IN ADVANCE. ALL OTHER FLIGHTS MUST REQUEST SLOTS BY TELEPHONE ON THE MORNING OF THE FLIGHT.
Discuss.......
Personally, I shudder to think what Cardiff ATC are going to come up with next.

[Stone Cold II]

I doubt it is due to with Cardiff ATC, probably airport managment. I'm not sure but I think Cardiff ATC maybe be upgrading there systems which might be why they have this NOTAM in place.

I'm sure Flower will answer your question when she reads this thread, she always says Cardiff ATC are more than happy to provide a service to training flights.

[Chilli Monster]

Stone Cold - this will have nothing to do with the airport management as it involves IFR trainers not just into Cardiff but into Bristol, Filton and possibly Exeter too. This is a pure ATC problem.

Personally I don't think I've seen anythng so ridiculous in all my life. People booking training slots at other airports are now going to have to get an airways slot at the same time! In short - Cardiff are trying to control training and more importantly, associated revenue at other units. That is unacceptable.

Unit management either wants their a**e kicked and told to get on with the job or, if they can't handle it, give it back to an area unit and stop trying to be one themselves.

[matspart3]

Booking training at two airfields with a coincident airways slot will be tricky.

Presumably BADIM & WOTAN joiners leaving at or before ALVIN for Bristol, Gloucester and Filton won't be affected anyway as Bristol provide the service?

[Spitoon]

Unit management either wants their a**e kicked and told to get on with the job or, if they can't handle it, give it back to an area unit and stop trying to be one themselves.Or give it to BRS who've always seemed to me to be able to handle traffic properly anyway.....well, certainly in the last few years.

[055166k]

Cardiff are responsible for more airspace than Manchester sub-centre when that first opened. They move a large amount of traffic in a professional and expeditious fashion and they make my job at Swanwick a lot easier. Would you agree that it would be totally ridiculous to impede scheduled traffic in the event that the airspace was saturated with training traffic?
Traffic handling capacity is a finite resource and one method of matching supply and demand is the requirement to obtain prior permission [get a slot].
Reality check....ATC is an expensive business....exactly where does the revenue come from.....does it come from the PA28 clogging up the hold for an hour?.....or from the heavy aluminium tube that pays a landing charge and a couple of hundred passenger taxes and thereby keeps lots of people in work?
The days of the big un-restricted freebies are gone.
By the way....does the sched driver mind being vectored out of his/her way [with the associated fuel burn penalty] just to fly round some spam-can in the hold?

[matspart3]

...don't forget that the driver of that spam can clogging up the hold is doing it for a reason. One day, he'll be driving big aluminium tubes too!!

[Spamcan defender]

By the way....does the sched driver mind being vectored out of his/her way [with the associated fuel burn penalty] just to fly round some spam-can in the hold?
Errr, steady now......:E :E
Spamcan Defender by name, spamcan defender by nature :D :D :D

Spamcan

P.S as an ATCO, i've gotta agree with you (Just keep that bit quiet though):D

[Standard Noise]

Or give it to BRS who've always seemed to me to be able to handle traffic properly anyway.....well, certainly in the last few years.
Indeed! Although if we keep 'em out altogether then Filton can have them and we'll all go home early!
Hello Chilli, long time no speak, how are the frozen wastelands north of Daventry?

055166k - "they make my job at Swanick a lot easier". Well you know what they say, 'what the Rhoose giveth, the Lulsgate taketh away.':ok:

[flower]

As I'm currently seeing more of the Physio therapy department at my local hospital than my workplace I can't give a definite answer as to what exactly has happened .

Last year we handled more traffic than ever before , this year we know we have at least a 25% increase on that which we handled last year with no more staff to do it with ( although that is trying to be dealt with), several overloads happened last year all of which were extremely nasty and as they were shared around the unit and between various levels of experience could not be put down to the ATCOs involved but the sheer volume of traffic going through the sector. In each overload there were a large number of en route trainers.
It may surprise some to know who work either at units nearby Cardiff or have moved on that every hour we have a large influx of trainers going through the airspace, they are low and slow often taking up several Flight Levels. EXMOR it is common to have maybe 4 trainers at the same time whilst trying to deal with all the inbounds and outbounds from Cardiff, Bristol and Exeter.
It was decided to look at all procedures to see how we could better deal with them and ensure that the chances of overloads are reduced, the idea of flowing Trainers through the sector has been around for a long time, we could put this through Brussels of course and get them to put a flow restriction on or we could just at least try to ensure that we regulate the trainers at each Beacon at any time.

The airspace is controlled by just One ATCO, the same airspace at Manchester is controlled by several, so we decide we want to make sure the ATCO doesn't get overloaded this year, it is like any procedure fluid, should we gain more staffing and the responsibilities are shared then a new procedure can be looked at again.

Before people criticise perhaps they should check the facts, one person has only so much capacity.

[nasib]

The really sad and worrying thing is the ignorance of the realities of pilot training by some in ATC. Until the Multi-Pilot License is introduced, those flights in "PA-28's", in this case light twins but "spam cans" nevertheless, are the final stages of pilot training before the candidate becomes a commercial pilot. To keep the airlines supplied with "heavy aluminium tube" drivers these flights have to take place in and out of controlled airspace. The CAA insists on it.

And by the way, Cardiff ATC have long since dispensed with the the "PA28 clogging up the hold for an hour?....." They accept no light aircraft for training.

[Standard Noise]

Helloflower, heard you were on the skive, er sorry, Tom'n'Mick for a bit, explains why I haven't heard your dulcet tones other end of the dog.

Your boss may have other ideas about how to "re-distribute" the manpower available to him rather than having increases in staff numbers. You might want to ask him his views about LARS? Anyhoo, where would you put another five ATCO's in your tiny building. Now, if you moved across the Severn estuary of course............;)

[flower]

Standard Noise,
the one joy of not being able to sit for very long is to distance myself from the politics of it all, although I must admit i really miss the controlling bit. When i get back, hopefully within the next 4 weeks I will have loads to catch up on no doubt.

Nasib,
Cardiff ATC didn't ditch any training, Beacon training still very much goes on but Cardiff International Airport Limited have put strict restrictions on whom they will allow to train at their Airport, that decision was not made by ATC and as it is their airport we have to abide by it. The flowing of trainers is not preventing any training by students either just attempting to regulate the flow at beacons, should also mean you are more likely to get the level you requested.

[Gonzo]

Nasib,

From CAA doc CAP493 Manual of Air Traffic Services Part One.

Flight Categories:
A Aircraft in emergency
B Search and rescue
C Royal Flights
D Head of Government
E Flight Check/Calibrator
Normal Flights
Z Training and non-standard flights.

take it up with the CAA if you feel that strongly. Not ATC's fault!

[Turn It Off]

I was one of the lucky ones not to have an overload last summer, but, was also about when two of them happened and its not very nice.
Just to continue what some other people have said, it is regular to have several trainers in the system. As an example, on my last shift, there were two a/c filed to join at exmor, one routing Exmor / BCN / OF, the other, Exmor / Tinan / BIA (I think). They were both passed to me by Yeovliton 4 miles apart at FL60 and 65 respectively. ( The one at 60 might need to check their quandrantals! )
At the same time, there was a trng flight departing Brizzel, routeing BCN / Alvin / GST requesting FL90 and a C130 in the Cardiff hold descending FL100.

None of these aircraft want headings, the idea i would presume of training with reporting points is to actually use them (!), so, I level seperate them. Base level for most of their routes is either FL65 or FL75. So, One exmor Join Climbs FL80, The other to FL70, The brizzel Dep gets 90 C130 in the hold at FL100.

With a crap load of a/c outside of CAS playing perfectly by the rules and not on frequency and being too lazy / ignorant to think we might want to speak to them, so, the proper flights are being vectored all over the sky to get below the hold and the overflight trainers, and keeping their turns inside CAS against the unknowns outside. Easterly winds, so Bristol Inbounds from the north are still getting used to their new descent profiles / level restrictions which doesn't give them many extra miles to play with, especially when I lob in a wedge of speed control.

It was quite good fun, but, the lesser priority flights ( Sorry trainers but thats you (and u r also not revenue making - damn freeloaders (thats a joke))) were creating massive bottle necks in the system.

The best way to flow this situation so that everybody gets an acceptable service is to restrict the lesser categories of flight. As Gonzo quotes from the Mats part 1, thats the route which has been followed. I am sure training schools and trainees alike do not agree with it, but, its the rules!!

As far as restricting Filtons earnings potential, maybe the aircraft who wish to train at Filton can route outside of controlled airspace coming into you, and fly airways on the return flight instead? (subject to slot of course :ok: ).

Anybody free calling wishing to join without a slot (certainly when I am plugged in) will be turned away. This measure has been put in for the safety of the airways users (thats all the people that contribute here whether they be crew, pax, or anything else)

Sorry guys, SAFETY FIRST.

/end rant

TIO

[Chilli Monster]

As Gonzo quotes from the Mats part 1, thats the route which has been followed. I am sure training schools and trainees alike do not agree with it, but, its the rules!!
Yes it is - BUT - what Gonzo doesn't appreciate is that these flights actually Flight Plan as normal flights. What they do at destination is incidental. It could be therefore argued that they have no reason to phone Cardiff for a slot as they have flight planned, as anybody else does, in the normal manner.
Dare I suggest that if you delve into the background it could even be possible that Cardiff are trying to operate in direct contravention of the charter that NATS must operate within, as laid down by the government? (I don't know for definite - just saying it's possible).
maybe the aircraft who wish to train at Filton can route outside of controlled airspace, and fly airways on the return flight instead? (subject to slot of course :ok: ).
See answer above
Anybody free calling wishing to join without a slot (certainly when I am plugged in) will be turned away.
Fair enough, nobody's disagreeing with that - but as has been mentioned before, they don't - they Flight Plan.
This measure has been put in for the safety of the airways users (thats all the people that contribute here whether they be crew, pax, or anything else)
Isn't that what Flow Control are there for? If you feel the sector is subject to overloads then do it properly and either a) resectorise with sufficient resources; or b) submit a maximum flow rate to Flow Control for the lower levels.

[I'm not joking sir]

resectorise with sufficient resources

If only it was that simple - this is NATS!!

[flower]

"submit a maximum flow rate to Flow Control for the lower levels."

I know that issue has been looked at, then no doubt the training aircraft would file at higher levels. These are obviously training flights as well Chilli not normal flights you only have to look at their flight plans, they always return to their departure aerodrome without landing with several aerodromes filed enroute for training

As I said I'm not at work at the moment so don't know the full background of the new procedure but like Turn It off I was also lucky not to have an overload last year although I several times came very close to it, but have been around in the aftermath of them, in everyone there was an excess of training flights, they are not being denied access which is all the charter states they are simply being flowed.
If you had been in our approach room last year you would equally be trying to get something sorted, it wasn't nice.

[Chilli Monster]

I know that issue has been looked at, then no doubt the training aircraft would file at higher levels.
They wouldn't, because they can't - aircraft performance and capabilities?
These are obviously training flights as well Chilli not normal flights you only have to look at their flight plans, they always return to their departure aerodrome without landing with several aerodromes filed enroute for training
They don't actually. Tendency is to file from A to B, via airways, with return to A flown off airways VFR (or IFR outside CAS) so it's not apparent.
they are not being denied access which is all the charter states they are simply being flowed. Sounds to me like if their airways slot as defined by Cardiff doesn't co-incide with their arrival slot booked at destination aerodrome then they're being denied access?

[Gonzo]

One could also argue that if they are not declaring themselves as training flights, they are as much in contravention.

Does the ANO/AIP stipulate training flights must declare themselves as such?

[flower]

The flight plans are obvious they do file what they are doing Chilli, so no excuses.

Anyhow I am not fully conversant with the new procedure, but if it does go someway to reduce the chance of overloads then it is fine with me.

[PPRuNe Radar]

If I was a Cardiff management bod then I'd ........

Establish an airspace volume with Brussels CFMU for the airspace concerned. Agree routes, levels, etc, to be captured, thus allowing Brussels to create the 'environment'.

Declare a traffic capacity (monitor value or Target Sector Flow).

Insist the trainers file IFR plans through IFPS (assuming they don't already).

Have LFMP monitor the capacity versus demand, and if capacity exceeded, put on a Regulation with agreement of Cardiff or allow Cardiff to take other tactical measures to manage traffic efficiently (this can also mean taking extra aircraft or improving slots, as well as restricting them by things such as MDIs). If there's Regulation delays, then that is because the airspace is too busy. The trainers will get their share of airspace slots in this system like everyone else. Whether that matches their airport authority slot is not really a Flow Management problem, it's one for the pilot to resolve. The airspace slot is part of an ATC clearance and is the one which overrides any other arrangement.

Issue ATC clearances, approach times, etc in accordance with MATS Part 1 priorities. Note that this may mean joining training aircraft holding outside CAS until workload permits their acceptance. Or holding en route to facilitate Normal category flight sequencing. A CFMU slot is never a guarantee of an unhindered flight path.

Any IFR trainers calling 'cold' should be accomodated as workload permits. If they didn't file a plan through the correct channels, then they will have to take their chances.

Errr, that's it :ok:

[VCR]

PPrune Radar
That's pretty much what is going to happen, AFAIK...

Chilli
Chill out! You won't have anything to worry about up there!!!;)

The trainers DO file FPL's with IFPS in the normal way. Type of flight is 'X', indicating the training status, which does, indeed equate to Z priority in ccordance with MATS Part 1.

Personally, I think Cardiff and Bristol are doing a great job with the GA and training traffic....

[Legs11]

something had to be done, there was a major incident waiting to happen involving too many training flights wanting access to the airways system between Exmor and BCN at the same levels and at the same time. no longer my problem (at least for now;) ) but my ex-colleagues at Cardiff have my heartfelt sympathies and indeed admiration for the way they go about their work.

Cardiff ATC are a hard-working, diligent and conscientious bunch of guys who do a particularly difficult job very well.

[Legs11]

...furthermore, with new west end airspace already established and Bristol/Cardiff CTA developements yet to be implemented, surely for safety reasons it's better to regulate the flow of traffic whilst controllers and pilots alike get used to it, no?

[Turn It Off]

How about :

- Flow Rate is 0/60 unless prior permission received from Cardiff ATC this applies to training aircraft only. (Don't believe that contravenes anything, although I don't believe the current procedure does either).

Happy now??

TIO

[Chilli Monster]

TIO

May I refer you to THIS (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/5/ergdocs/erg_ercp_natslicence_january06.pdf) document. The following extracts from Condition 2 of NATS operating licence are particularly relevant

Condition 2: General obligation to provide Core Services and Specified Services
1. Without prejudice to the general power conferred under this Licence, the
Licensee shall make available:
(a) the Core Services so as to be capable of meeting on a continuing basis
any reasonable level of overall demand for such services;

5. Without extending the obligation as to the overall level of services to be provided under paragraph 1(a), the Licensee shall meet each request for the provision of the Core Services reasonably made by any person.

6. For the purposes of paragraph 5 above, a person shall be held to have
reasonably made a request for the relevant services where:

(a) the Licensee has been notified of, and has not rejected, a legitimate
flight plan from the commander of an aircraft or a recognised flight plan
processing centre to a bona fide flight which is required by applicable
safety requirements to submit to the instructions of a person providing
air traffic control in the relevant area;

7. In providing services under paragraph 1 the Licensee shall not unduly prefer or discriminate against any person or class of person in respect of the operation of the Licensee’s systems, after taking into account the need to maintain the most expeditious flow of air traffic as a whole without unreasonably delaying or diverting individual aircraft or such other criteria as the Licensee may apply from time to time with the approval of the CAA.

Para 7 may be your "get out clause" - but has the unit (or NERL) obtained CAA approval for it?

[PPRuNe Radar]

Regulating airspace (and any subsequent slot allocations) and/or complying with MATS Part 1 priorities to issue clearances would meet the En Route licence requirements.

Otherwise the CAA will have to change the rules with Europe, and itself :}

However, you can't factor in training aircraft for a 0 rate. It is all or nothing and any 'exclusion' or 'inclusion' would have to be done manually by FMP.

But let's not get confused by the 2 'access' issues.

On one hand, the 'environment' is an en route or arrival regulation. It consists of designated airspace or airfields and is automated, using FPL data to populate it's traffic volumes. It is not exclusive, anyone filing an appropriate FPL will figure in the big scheme of things, and get given a slot if regulations are in force.

On the other hand, the airport operator can set access rules (PPR, slots, etc) to its facilities as it sees fit. Whilst ATC can be given information on this and possibly be contracted by the airport authority to 'police' it, it is not for ATC to set the policy or the access rules. That is between the pilot and the airport authority.

You also have to bear in mind the licenced and unlicenced areas of NATS (in terms of the CAA economic En Route licence to provide ATS). Cardiff provides a service in the licenced arena to traffic on the Airways. In its unlicenced function, it is providing a service on behalf of the airport authority. So, the rules Chilli quotes apply to the Airways under Cardiff Control only. Trainers can plan to fly within them, and are dealt with as other en route traffic (see first paragraph of this post). For traffic which wishes to make an approach, then the airport operator (administered in the air through NATS ATC) can probably say no or set conditions (such as timing) to any operator it wishes with impunity. And I don't think this breaks any 'licence' set by the CAA.

[Turn It Off]

Blimey, I'm getting confused now,

I cant be ar5ed to read the license document but have downloaded a copy, it might come in useful when winter traffic levels begin again.

One thing I did spot in the quotes that were extracted,

2.1.a - the Core Services so as to be capable of meeting on a continuing basis any reasonable level of overall demand for such services;

I would say that the slot booking system does meet a reasonable demand on a continuing basis. The airway is restricted to the number of movements booked as per beacons, to stop overloading in any one area at any one time.

IRO of section 5, the requests shall be met, but maybe not at an 'ideal' time for the training school involved.

IRO section 7 after taking into account the need to maintain the most expeditious flow of air traffic I think there is a reasonable argument to be maintained that the amount of slower aircraft in the system would affect expedition.

I may even be playing devils advocat a little here, however, I know how these low slow flights affect the operation.

Maybe for a change these aircraft could file to route Compton, lambourne, Bovingdon, hold at LON followed by 1 x Radar vectored ILS to fly an asymetric missed approach at EGLL and then a hold and NDB approach at EGKK, asymetric for the approach and climb out, then operate the block between FL45 and FL65 in the EGSS overhead? If they cannot do this, why not?

Some common sense is needed and, although I dread to say it, I think Cardiff ATC has provided this.

Sorry to Chilli et al who believe that FF ATC are breaking rules, its better than breaking planes :ok: :ok:

Oh yeah, and why should we be busting our pans for people who are using the airway on a freebie anyway?


edit:

Sorry Chilli, I only just saw ure question on the bottom. I do not know if an exemption was saught, if indeed required.

[Gonzo]

As Radar says, that Licence only applies to NERL. NSL (airports) are not subject to that licence.

[Chilli Monster]

Gonzo - the licence does apply to Cardiff inasmuch as they are controlling airspace specified in the licence as the responsibility of NERL, and as such are acting as a "sub-contractor" to NERL. The restriction being talked about is an en-route restriction, not an airfield restriction.

Do keep up :hmm:

[flower]

So all these years I have been working for NERL :hmm:
So what about the work we are contracted to do for the military Chilli, whose rules do we apply there ?

Cardiff have been working exceptionally closing with the traffic managers at LACC , DAP and numerous other organisations including SRG, all new procedures have to go before the regulator before they can be brought into use.
The charter regarding the airspace has been to the fore in everything we have done of late, I would expect that it has been looked at to check that it is in line with all the regulations we have to abide by, the question about can we flow trainers has been raised I know I raised it myself some months back.

I don't know what your beef is, we are not denying access to anyone we are applying a flow restriction on traffic a common tool used to manage traffic in NATS.

[Legs11]

Gonzo - the licence does apply to Cardiff inasmuch as they are controlling airspace specified in the licence as the responsibility of NERL, and as such are acting as a "sub-contractor" to NERL. The restriction being talked about is an en-route restriction, not an airfield restriction.
Do keep up :hmm:

...actually, there is no sub-contract:uhoh: