Untie my hands

[airac]

Many units are now desperately short of fully rated controllers. As a consequence reduced manning levels (so we are not talking NATS here) are becoming the norm along with reduced levels of service.
This results in pilots having to revert to technology developed in the 40’s and 50’s in order to carry out instrument approaches.

Is it not possible for the powers that be to see that giving radar assistance, with the use of the ATM to an approaching A/C or simply initiating a centrefix approach would be far safer than the use of less up to date equipment/ procedures.

Granted restrictions would have to be applied to prevent less scrupulous management taking advantage and reducing staffing levels event further,
For example

USE of ATM for radar vectoring.
1) Approved by CAA to overcome temporary shortages (reviewed 6 monthly)
2) Only to be used by controllers with current APS rating
3) Procedure limited to within 15nm of airfield.
4) During the hours of darkness only.
5) Procedures to be used to facilitate no more than two A/c
6) The controller shall not issue instructions to any other A/C on the ground following commencement of the procedure.

Self Positioning of A/C
In order to assist an arriving A/C controllers may initiate a centrefix approach provided:-

1) Both Pilot and controller are familiar with the “Centrefix “position
2) Pilot shall maintain relevant MSA until established inbound on final approach.

More could be put in place but I’m sure you get the idea.

I would be very interested in people’s thoughts

[Chilli Monster]

I'll just say the words "Lexington" and "Regional Jet" and see if people think operating like that is acceptable?

'nuff said.

[NudgingSteel]

Even if you were only giving a radar service to one aircraft at a time, I doubt you'd be able to pay sufficient attention to the aerodrome outside the window at the same time. Even though there might not be any aircraft moving, you still have vehicles, wildlife, lighting systems (all of which have infringed / failed / generally tried to ruin a quiet shift for me!). Don't forget the radar monitoring to check for terrain and airspace compliance, any pop-up traffic to call etc etc on the inbound, and that's without even doing the vectoring.....
I do agree that it's desperately frustrating to be watching the inbound on the ATM without being able to expedite their arrival, but I reckon in this case the regulator is absolutely right to insist on a separation of the two tasks of APR and ADC. (Consider the attempts to reduce operational distractions both in ATC and on the flightdeck, and it seems impossible to then justify imposing a fairly significant task, removing attention from the primary ADC task, purely to a customer's economic benefit).
The answer is for the airlines to be making noise about this at management level, and insisting that they receive the service that they have paid for, and are entitled to.

[Tower Ranger]

It is not approved for one very obvious reason, its just not safe!!
Expedition good, Safety better!!

[Scott Voigt]

Chili;

Even though I completely agree that less is not good when it comes to staffing, the LEX accident had NOTHING to do with one controller in the tower.

regards

Scott

[Chilli Monster]

Scott

Yes - fully realise that. However as an example of a "break" in the safety chain it's still a relevant point in my opinion. As has been said before - UK practice is you provide a tower service, or an approach radar service - you can't provide both (unlike the ATCO at Lexington) and it should stay that way. What airac is proposing, albeit it with conditions (until someone calls you and starts badgering you on the ground when vectoring - see how long you can impose those conditions then) is no different, and as such is a break in the chain.

[2 sheds]

What - Nothing?
I am reluctant to make detailed comment on an incident before the official report, but is it not a fact that the controller was involved in other duties? If that is correct, then with more appropriate staffing and distribution of duties, the controller might have observed the pilots' error before it became a disaster.

[This is a crisis]

Interesting discussion - I too have sat in front of an ATM working procedurally.
I have to say that I am totally against vectoring whilst carrying out ADC duties. What may be possible however is a procedure that radar derived information can be used to assist in carrying out procedural control i.e. instead of sitting there waiting for a report that an aircraft has passed XXX reporting point, then you can just observe it on the ATM.
I personally think that Procedural Control is not as safe as it used to be. I have sat in front of an ATM loads of times working procedurally and noticed that aircraft have 'overshot' clearnce limits. I find it a comfort being able to observe it all on the ATM.

[airac]

Ok so the majority appear to be against it. In an ideal world I would agree, however, whilst I totally agree with you Chilli, single manning is not desirable, it is however a situation that is faced regularly at several units.
I believe even your unit struggled to attract the normal number of applicants last time round. How would you solve the problem?:confused:

Nudging, good point but even if I maintain a permanent watch I'm not going to stop the odd hare ( that’s why its a hare field) infringing my runway, vehicles like A/c would not move and terrain is taken care of under the existing RVA arrangements .
I am not proposing cutting corners merely utilising all the available aids to provide a safe and expeditious flow etc.

Tower ranger, Why is it not safe? Please inform me of incidents directly related to the apparent misuse of the ATM; in fact I believe headings are issued at one unit already in the event of a go around.

This is a crisis , the point you make is also valid.
However why cant we as controllers make the most of modern technology these procedures were established BEFORE the advent of daylight displays, when it was obviously impossible to do the same task

Nobody has mentioned the self positioning of A/C using Centrefix. What’s wrong with doing that?

To simply say its not done that way because it never has been is not good enough, technology moves on so should we . Each case should be looked at separately and generalisations as per the MATS pt one should, if possible, be avoided.
Lets face it when was the last time you heard of a B747 inbound to Heathrow adopting the Bog off procedure in the event of etc.

[NudgingSteel]

airac,
Unless you're at an extremely quiet airport, could you really stop any other movements (including aircraft taxying, operations vehicles carrying out runway / taxiway checks, any other service vehicles free-ranging on taxiways where they might possibly infringe the runway)? It's fine expediting the inbound's approach, but you'd then be possibly delaying a departure by several minutes beyond the point at which you could have released it anyway procedurally!
Terrain separation is theoretically taken care of when an aircraft flies the centrefix approach, as the crew and the FMC should be aware of the MDAs throughout. But they should also be aware of MDA or approach descent fixes on, say, a VOR approach. Two recent(ish) and publicly reported descents below minimum altitude on final approach were resolved; one by ATC monitoring and go-around instructions, the other by GPWS. That's surely enough for the regulator to avoid changing the status quo for the moment, in my opinion anyway...

[Chilli Monster]

Ok so the majority appear to be against it. In an ideal world I would agree, however, whilst I totally agree with you Chilli, single manning is not desirable, it is however a situation that is faced regularly at several units.

Been there, done it. Didn't have the luxury of an ATM though so the option you propose was never available. Said unit has taken 2 years to get back to full manning. I'm not actually against single manning by the way, providing you have ATCA support. It's the combination of the ADI/APS function that's the bone of contention here.

I believe even your unit struggled to attract the normal number of applicants last time round. How would you solve the problem?

There are only 2 solutions:

1) Invest and bond - notwithstanding the debate of whether bonding is legal or not the time is here when the supply of NATS failures with an ADC rating has dried up. Airports have to bite the bullet and spend money on training staff for the future, or throw money at the mercenaries out there to tempt them to move. Both these solutions however mean the rich survive, the poor die. Your management has to decide whether they want to be a player, and spend the money accordingly, or realise aviation isn't cheap and seriously think how they want to proceed if they haven't got the funding.

OR

2) Sub-contract APS services to an adjacent airfield who can guarantee the staffing, and accept the fact that you are a tower only aerodrome. If you have an adjacent, fully staffed, international airport next door (;) ) then maybe it's time to start talking - even to the extent that you could be encompassed in their class 'D' (should they have any).

Nobody has mentioned the self positioning of A/C using Centrefix. What’s wrong with doing that?

I'd say nothing at all - any IFR equipped aircraft should be BRNAV capable. All you need is a definition as to what the "centrefix" is. The European custom of adopting an RNAV reporting point for the Initial, Intermediate or even Final Approach Fix of an ILS is something that would be well adopted in the UK at certain airfields - thereby defining the "centrefix".

[Scott Voigt]

2 sheds;

From what was put together from other sources, and not from the NTSB (like you still waiting for the final report.) the way that the runways are lined up (looking at it in the dark) about the soonest the controller could have possibly noticed that the lights weren't going quite in the right direction (nav lights) was about going through the intersection... Probably to late to do anything about it, especially if you think about the time it takes to see something (after working almost a full mid shift.) and then getting to the mike and saying something and for the pilots to comprehend it...

regards

Scott

[airac]

Chilli
Yes we all know what management should do to solve the root problem but until the CAA determines the numbers required to sustain a particular operation, as they do for the RFFS then NOTHING will ever change. I am sure many years ago when the engineer was dropped from the flight deck people cried foul, but it didn't stop them going, because the technology had changed and was deemed (quite rightly) not to be a safety issue.
The ATM , under stringently laid down procedures, could be used safely.
Nudging Steel, movements are restricted during LVP's so what’s the difference? What I am saying or proposing if you like is that procedures are looked at and changed where possible and blanket refusals are a thing of the past.
At the end of the day we all know the "profession” is under threat from improvements in technology, we either adapt or get replaced by something that doesn't need, breaks, pensions, salaries etc
This is not about the erosion of safety after all was it considered unsafe to do away with the need for an approach procedural ticket at certain units? No
Of course it wasn't.

[flower]

If there is one ATCO on and has the use of a fully serviceable ATM and is working just one aircraft how can it be dangerous ?

If there are multiple movements occurring at the time then fair enough but if you have just the one how is it more dangerous than if you provide a procedural service combined with Tower ?

At night time we already have different rules regarding Scratcoh so why not the use of the ATM in quiet periods?

A Blanket ban makes no sense , a local arrangement approved by SRG makes perfect sense to me. Having worked at a unit where only 2 ATCOs are rostered at night it would make a difference to both ATCO and Air Crew if they could either vector using the ATM or legitimately approve Centre Fix approaches monitored on the ATM.

[throw a dyce]

I had an interesting incident with this.Single night manning,3am and foggy.Clear the a/c to the beacon 7nm north of the field and ask if they are happy to establish localiser from there.Pilot is happy.I then watch the a/c on the ATM turn south and point at the airfield no where near the beacon.The a/c then get to 2nm west of the field,and starts a rapid descent(level bust) towards high ground.It then turns up the finall approach below MSA,does a split a:mad: se turn and eventually on the loc.Vis 2000m.
Now which is safer? Me vectoring using an ATM,or letting the pilot nearly kill himself trying to fly into a hill.Legally I can't intervene because I can't use the ATM.
Ps our ATM can see from Norway to France.5 or 6 radars to chose from.

[SATCO Biggin]

As a relatively new ATM user (2 years) we frequently have staff discussions about what it can and cannot be used for. The classic scenario is the one where two aircraft are seen in direct conflict in class G airspace, one is known to you (but obviously not identified in true radar terms) and the other is not. The CAA line is that you can say nothing to alert your known aircraft.

What I want to know is what happens in the resulting coroners court when you are questioned as to why you observed a dangerous situation and did nothing to resolve it.

Air safety could be greatly improved by an ATM assisted FIS, but not providing radar derived avoiding action as that should remain the domain of APS rated controllers (whether on ADI duties or not).

ATM has come a long way from the old DFTI and its abilities should be used to enhance safety.

[vintage ATCO]

There are advanced users of ATM which we have approval for.

Traffic iinformation on catch-up on final approach
Separation on departure (5 or 3nm in trail)
Avoiding action for 'piggy back' go-arounds
Traffic info on transit traffic when identified to TWR by APPDidn't Norwich have approval for vectoring one aeroplane at night from the VCR on a radar and then walking over to the tower seat and clearing it to land?

[Data Dad]

SATCO Biggin,

As a possible answer to your dilemma you could adopt the method used one (single manned) night (combined Tower/approach) by a former colleague of mine.

TOWER: "ABC123, you know I don't have any radar"

ABC123: "yep"

TOWER: "well if I did have radar, I would now be saying to you "TRAFFIC 12 0'Clock 6 miles opposite direction similar level"" Imho a well deserved :D

DD

[throw a dyce]

How's about a Heads up Radar display? You get your ATM picture slaved onto a small HUD,and you can monitor radar and ADC at the same time.Works for pilots.:hmm:

[Dont tell um pike]

SatcoBiggin

I agree whole heartedly , morally I'm not going to sit and watch two blips merge :eek: when theres something i can do to assist.

DTUP

[radarman]

throw a dyce et al,

Alluding to the coroner's court is leading us inexorably towards the never-ending, but still unresolved dilemma facing controllers where CAA rules prohibit us from doing something, but duty of care says we should. Personally, I reckon a half-baked solicitor's clerk could drive a coach and horses through the MATS Pt 1, and I would always tend towards moral duty rather than sheltering behind regulations. But this discussion has been beaten to death in previous threads, so I'll return to the Easter bottle of Rioja.

[airac]

Certainly some more positive replies.
SATCO , I would suggest " Tfc believed to be North/south /west /east etc, no height information"
Vintage do you have a contact at EGSH who could supply the necessary info?
Don't tell um and Radarman ,don't forget the most important para in MATS pt 1
1.2 The Manual of Air Traffic Services contains instructions and guidance to controllers
providing air traffic services. Nothing in this Manual prevents controllers from using
their own discretion and initiative in any particular circumstance.

I would like to hear from someone at EGLL Where I believe these "extra uses were first bought to the attention of SRG ,thus instigating the changes in MATS pt one. Is ther any basis to this rumour?

[niknak]

Surely it's duty of care? I seem to remember these words were introduced after the incident at Brum - several years ago, when the ADC ATCO used the ATM to establish that an arriving a/c was making an approach to the wrong runway and was able to avoid the inevitable prang.

If you don't make full use of the equipment available to you and provide the full information that appears on an ATM, and two aircraft collide because you haven't given them information to assist them in avoiding each other, then you probably will be proved culpable in some way.

Vintage, no, there were never any such procedures in place, but that fact that we have an approval to operate radar from the VCR alongside the ADC as well as from downstairs, may have led you to believe otherwise, (the ATM is in fact a fully functioning radar console, when not in use as a radar it's wound down to 20nm for use as an ATM).

Of course, on a night shift, operating procedurely, one might be tempted to sneak a look at the radar just to ensure that there's nothing else in the way, or that certain aircraft are where and at the levels they say they are at...:E

[radarman]

Generally speaking, I think it is true to say that most ATM's these days appear to be, as niknak says, a fully functioning radar console. As such I would certainly use the ATM under duty of care if I thought it would avoid a dangerous situation. There are a number of phrases to use to pass traffic information without indicating you are providing a recognised radar service.
However, regardless of outward appearances and functionality, I seem to remember that SRG have a regulatory problem regarding using ATM's to provide a full radar service. It stems from the fact that ATM's are not designed for this purpose, and although they may outwardly appear to be normal consoles, the engineering protocols used in their design and installation may not be as robust as required for those in the radar room.

[vintage ATCO]

Vintage, no, there were never any such procedures in place, but that fact that we have an approval to operate radar from the VCR alongside the ADC as well as from downstairs, may have led you to believe otherwise,0

It was a long time ago, probably misunderstood.

[SATCO Biggin]

AIRAC
Procedure already being used by some of the staff. Just today I had to use it and the traffic concerned was very thankfull for the heads up. We are about to embark on an application for the advanced ATM use, with the backing of TC Ops, but I can see a rocky battle coming up with SRG (who will be reading this I am sure).
Radarman
Yes, for sure the CAP670 requirements for the installation and Safety Case for an ATM are far less than for a 'full radar' but if your ATM meets CAP670 as far as redundancy, reliability and accuracy are concerned then surely there should be some leeway for its extended use by APS rated controllers.

[Spitoon]

I know I'm a bit of a latecomer to this but the original question appears to be based on a serious misaprehension of how changes to MATS Part 1 (and sometimes MATS Part 2 too) get published. There are many considerations, not least compliance with ICAO and Eurocontrol standards and requirements, and how to publish the new words in such a way as to prevent the liberal interpretation that some would like to make on any procedures. And then there's any training that will be needed. And what about licensing - what rating will be required, and what of those (quite common now) that work TWR but have no radar rating or experience but seem to think it's all easy "'cos you can see where the planes are" (sorry, getting into rant mode here on account of a recent conversation!). I mention all these things because I've been on groups that have considered MATS 1 changes - trust me, it's not all as easy as it seems.

[airac]

Spitoon The original restrictions ,or should I say ideas for restrictions answer many of your points.
USE of ATM for radar vectoring.
1) Approved by CAA to overcome temporary shortages (reviewed 6 monthly)
2) Only to be used by controllers with current APS rating
3) Procedure limited to within 15nm of airfield.
4) During the hours of darkness only.
5) Procedures to be used to facilitate no more than two A/c
6) The controller shall not issue instructions to any other A/C on the ground following commencement of the procedure.
So it would not affect units that have full staffing nor tower only units. As for your other points. I certainly do not think it is easy to come up with a concensus between ATCO's, as for ICAO ,we in the UK have ,I believe, lodged more differences than any other country, so again that can't be used for an excuse.
All I am advocating is that, it has got to be safer to use modern equipment rather than ignoring it.

[Spitoon]

1) So what is a temporary shortage??
2) I believe much of what is proposed is already done at a couple of the 'big aerodromes' by people without APS.
3) Why? If it is safe inside an arbitrary 15 miles why not further away if all other conditions are met?
4) Why? If it's OK at night what difference does daylight make?
5) Why two aircraft? If the principal is OK for two, why not more?
6) And what about others in the air?

Maybe the problem is that you're looking at it from a manning perspective and I'm looking at it from a safety perspective (and that's what matters to SRG when they make changes to MATS 1). The simple fact that it's difficult to get a concensus between controllers means that there would need to be significant effort put into producing clear rules of application.

As for ICAO and differences, as they say in the adverts, albeit paraphrasing slightly, 'past performance may not necessarily illustrate the future' do a search for USOAP.

As it happens, I don't disagree with your proposal in principal and given the right circumstances I would support the use of the ATM in this way, I just think it needs to be developed from a safety perspective.
BTW, MATS 1 SI 6/1999 covered centrefix approaches - I don't have a copy to hand at the moment, is it still valid? It might enable you to do what you want already.

Whatever, the way to get this changed is to speak to CAA SRG, either the editor of MATS 1 (who's quite amenable) or your trapper (or whatever they're called these days) but be prepared to be asked for a safety case!

[airac]

Spitoon
1) 6 months to train and certify a new recruit
2 ) If it is thats what I'm trying to find out ,by asking around
3) Because our ATM is limited to 15 miles and I don't want to use it for general vectoring .
( A/c cleared to the hold at MSA a/c idented at the beacon then vectored for App)
4) During daylight hours we endeavour to have radar manned and you can't do VMC climb/descent at night
5) Only two because it would be quicker than havng two procedural approaches However also aware that Tower function is also active.
6)If we had more A/C I'm sure we could generate more income enabling company to offer terms that were more attractive thus rendering this whole proposal redundant.

BTW, MATS 1 SI 6/1999 covered centrefix approaches - I don't have a copy to hand at the moment, is it still valid? It might enable you to do what you want already.

It has been removed and controllers are not allowed to initiate such approaches.

Whatever, the way to get this changed is to speak to CAA SRG, either the editor of MATS 1 (who's quite amenable) or your trapper (or whatever they're called these days) but be prepared to be asked for a safety case!

Yes following on from this that is exactly the course of action I intend to take .So if you have info regarding the BIG Aerodomes please PM me .I know I'll need a pretty big stick to knock on SRG's door.:)