How many airplanes is considered busy/acceptable to you

[CDN_ATC]

In your speciality/country, how many airplanes on frequency at the same time would you consider being busy?

Obviously enroute can handle more than APP at the same time, so the speciality makes a difference obviously.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

APP can get busy too. At a busy terminal, 20+ as an Approach man and a dozen as a final director wouldn't be too diffcult. It's difficult to quantify "busy" as it depends on the traffic in question, the expereince of the controller, weather conditions, etc. I could fall asleep working 20 commercial jets on Approach control, where the pilots knew what they were doing, but 3 or 4 little clockwork mice PPLs could have me at my wits end!!

[Basil]

HD,
You're not kidding!
I was on a short ground tour in RAF ATC at a very busy, mixed type station with a US fast jet base nearby.
Their Airships, for reasons best known to themselves, elected to use us for UAS summer camp so we frequently had solo students in the circuit.

One day doing Twr (usually delightful, easy watch) App advise inbound multi jet short of fuel. Student downwind in Chippy.
Basil: S1, clear to the north and hold at XXX (Disused field to north)
S1: Mumble - (continues downwind)
Basil: S1 turn left onto north
S1: Mumble - (continues downwind)
After several attempts S1 commences right turn onto base.
PAR: Bigplane 1, On glide, on centreline etc etc
Basil: (Breaking in) Bigplane 1, Chippy turning in ahead, overshoot maintaining your own visual separation.

Time passes.

V cross Sqn Ldr capt of Bigplane 1 seen striding purposefully towards tower. :sad:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<EGTT used to use a figure of 9 aircraft on frequency at any one time and when there was a possibility of another five aircraft coming on frequency the sector would be split as soon as was practicable..>>

I'm not aware of this procedure - maybe it happened before I was there? No such procedure ever existed at Heathrow. 9 aircraft on frequency nowadays probably represents a rest-break.

[Inverted81]

Not only does the number of aircraft quantify whether a sector is "busy" or not, but the complexity of the traffic situation is a significant factor. As HD has already said, watching 20 commercial aircraft fly the 'sausage machine' into an international airport isn't necessarily regarded as busy.

My approach sector is probably regarded as one of the quietest in the NATS collection. I work Sumburgh approach up in the Shetlands. Yes it is a relatively quiet sector however, with no SIDS/STARS, standard routes, the traffic situation can become very complex with 4 or 5 aircraft. 6 Runways to play with, mixture of aircraft types, helis, sf34 upto B462 size aircraft, military etc etc. And this is just my primary function. Working over 200Sqmiles of airspace, SFC upto FL195, it can get quite busy in class G ;)

Happy days
81

[45 before POL]

different scenarios can dictate how many in lacc....as said before you could be working 20+ with little but monitoring and hello/good bye.....then a mix with climbers, descenders/ wx/emergency can complicate this and you end up working your butt off. sat with only 2/3 on frequency and been made to work hard before. :}:}

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Vercingetorix.. I was at Heathrow Tower 72-92 and TC (still Heathrow Approach from 92-02 so not too familiar with LATCC Area ops. I probably experienced some of the GMP/GMC nightmares tho' (I still have them!). Wonder who the Irish guy was - KS??

[Inverted81]

oh yeah the WX. 52kt crosswind the other day......
One Logan crew is starting to think its me who's jinxing them!

[REVOLUTION]

If you've got time to count you aren't busy!

[A I]

Vercingetorix and HD. Perhaps the young Irish guy is now instructing at CATC. He's not that young any more!!

A I :)

[CDN_ATC]

Thanks for replies guys.

We don't have to count, a spot on our radar tells us how many are on our CJS.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

AI.. I thought he meant someone who had left for good. The one you refer to I trained... ask him!!

[Jagohu]

In my sector group I'd say above 22-24 on the freq is usually pretty busy, because of the arriving/departing traffic...

[opnot]

no more than one ,then that could be to busy

[JustaFew]

Had times when 3 a/c on frequency was busy as they all conflicted with each other, requiring coordination ie talking time on telephone; and there's only one of me!

Other days, not enough room in the strip bays for all the planes on frequency, yet it flows without a hitch.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Humble apols... have gone into PM mode. Sorry chasps.

[Radar Pete]

Methinks Verci is refering to a little 'smart' lad who moved east......:8.

[arrffaa]

ah ha - still moving everything exceedingly quickly although not as quickly as all that these days! mouth just as fast though!
as for a busy movement rate? - keep 'em coming. it's never too busy (thanks bren)

[Jetwhine]

Other than fanning ourselves about who can handle more, I never thought a whole bunch about how many airplanes it took to be busy when I was a controller.

I actually only knew I was busy when the rush was over and someone would look over my shoulder to relieve me and mentioned they'd try to do that 20 minutes earlier but couldn't even get my attention because ... I was too busy to listen to them.

Jetwhine

[HeathrowDictator]

As already said, it depends moreso on the complexity of the traffic rather than the amount. Working outside CAS with four RAF stations, one parachute station, several glider sites and private airfields all within a 40nm radius you can often find that you could be working your a*$e off with only two of your own aircraft on frequency - if both of those are RAS. Then throw in one of those RAF stations "going black" and you can get very overloaded very quickly with fast jets diverting in. Also at the moment, with the G.D.F. SSR outage we're back to primary only which can get interesting when you have a wall of primary only contacts outside controlled airspace and don't have any clue on their levels!!!

On the opposite side of the coin, if it's a particularly windy day and none of the flying clubs are out and the RAF are quiet then you could have 5 IFR aircraft on frequency - all RAS and be falling asleep! (Metaphorically of course)


-HD-

[Jetwhine]

No doubt complexity is the story here. But then most of us who have been in that situation know that.

Watching a trainee roll heavy numbers of airplanes in would always tell me they were getting close to certification.

But I'd never sign anyone off until I watched what they did when the weather went into the tank and half the airplanes didn't do what they were told. It's how they handle those situations that would give me a real insight into what they'd do when on the position alone.

BTW, do you go back far enough to remember GCA HD? I used to run a bunch of those at RAF Wethersfield in another lifetime.

Jetwhine

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<But I'd never sign anyone off until I watched what they did when the weather went into the tank and half the airplanes didn't do what they were told. It's how they handle those situations that would give me a real insight into what they'd do when on the position alone.>>

Sounds eminently sensible and I sincerely hope it still happens, or I wouldn't want to fly round here in the bad weather

<<BTW, do you go back far enough to remember GCA HD? I used to run a bunch of those at RAF Wethersfield in another lifetime.>>

Missed out by a few months. I was supposed to do a PAR course at Heathrow but they decided to shut it down. Great pity. I worked with the USAF abroad where they did GCAs all the time... great fun!!

[catocontrol]

It does not have to be the number of planes that determins how busy an airport or sector is. You can be very busy with 3 planes, and not busy at all with 10!

[RadarRambler]

yes totally agree you cant put a set number on it to say that means you are busy, it depends on the complexity, the number and type of instructions that need to be issued, other co-ordination that may be required, even weather. Quite simply having one plane to work that is in an emergency could be more than enough!

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Add to all the other things people have mentioned about what makes an ATCO busy, language ability of the pilots, airmanship of the pilots, culture of the place in which you work (specifically in relation to the way management conducts themselves).

It doesn't matter how many you have on frequency, if you have pilots who jump in with initial calls straight after the ATCO issues a clearance and don't wait for the readback from the relevant pilot, and you end up with double transmission after double transmission, if you have pilots not hearing/reading back/ complying with instructions you will be busy.

That makes numerical sector loadings a joke and waste of time. Managers like to cover their backsides and sector loadings allow them to use the number of aircraft on frequency at the time of an incident as a way to hang an ATCO or at least make sure they the manager doesn't get any flack.

Doesn't matter where you work, these days with short staffing and managers trying to trim any fat from rosters anywhere they can, we all work close to if not over our capacity a lot of the time. Unfortunately in too many places these days, staffing is based on the average requirements, not the peak requirements, which means when you hit a peak you are left up poo creek without a paddle.

[MidgetBoy]

Theres a tower controller at the airport I fly at in British Columbia, Canada. If there's more than 5 people in his airspace his accent shoots up and no one understands what hes saying anymore. And unless someone is inbound for a landing, no one from outside the airspace is allowed in until some people land or get out. He also doesn't allow gliders in the air. (Though the gliders never respond on the radio so that's a decent reason)
It's pretty scary when you're 8th in the circuit and he's panicking and no one has a clue where they are in the circuit.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<He also doesn't allow gliders in the air>>

I say, what an eminently sensible bloke!!!

[chevvron]

Nothing wrong with gliding provided you have robust procedures agreed and adhered to by both powered and unpowered pilots. HD only lives a short distance from an airfield with ATC which has a very busy gliding club, so he should know.(EGTB)

[RadarRambler]

The issue still comes though even when there is a defined number, if the sector/position isnt split for whatever reason, even maybe its about to be, it has suddenly built up, or even a sector becomes busy for other reasons even if below the magic number, where would the blame still be, management or the actual controller involved?

[CuitoCuanavale]

Number of acft considered busy/acceptable is for the most part irrelevant unless you have an SMS in place that is observed and reviewed periodically with optional sector capping and activation. Naturally there are a multitude of factors that can either inhibit or sustain an ATC in the number of acft he/she works, …..all already discussed thus far.

That aside what amazes me to this day is the at times, unbelievable willingness that some ATC’s display in ‘babbling’ on freq’y and then later turning around and stating just how busy they were, when in point of fact, had they simply tailored their RTF to the absolute ICAO minimum, they in all probability would have walked away from that particular shift feeling as if they could easily have handled more.

Just recently saw a perfect example of that, colleague had seven acft under RC in VMC, no College Trainers (etc) or anything of the like and started calling to the Gods for help all the while abusing the poor ATCA verbally and in the process just about falling off the chair! Next day, different ATC, twenty seven under RC with weather avoidance and acft holding due to a runway closure at a satellite airfield and still had time to take a call from a family member……..reason, only the bare minimum of ICAO RTF.

[ferris]

Number of acft considered busy/acceptable is for the most part irrelevant Here here. 'Sector capping' is purely an exercise in management arse-covering. When a management edict is handed down limiting the number of aircraft on frequency, without any method of determining when that number will be reached, or what can be done when it is (as in the UAE), it is an exercise in blame-shifting. Merely lumping it on the supervisor and declaring it to be "in his duty statement" is more of the same. A classic example of the management ineptitude regularly demonstrated in that particular feifdom. A supervisor, possibly busy himself as he works traffic like a regular bod, is expected to monitor how many on frequency on every other sector and take 'steps' when a magic number is reached (or expected to be reached). Those that have worked in the area and understand it's dynamic nature fully understand the intent of such edicts. Right, Verci?

[ferris]

An economical truth, at best.

Your 'economical' post seems to indicate that said capping is an acceptable mitigator because there is a planner permanently available, and the man carrying the can, the supervisor, is now stand-alone.

1. How long has the supervisor position been 'stand-alone'?
2. How long has this 'permanent planner' been available?

and, drumroll...............

3. When was sector-load capping introduced?

not to mention a full compliment of tools to enable capacity management? (bwahahahaha).

[ferris]

So just to be chrystal clear, the mitigators that you say make sector capping acceptable were introduced several years after sector capping itself. I wonder what sector capping was all about, and who introduced it when they did, and why? Re-read previous posts to do with arse-covering.

My next point? Oh I've got a million to do with poor management.

Not really germane to this thread, though. I'll just make those points at appropriate times.

[ferris]

So you picked up that it was pejorative, did you? Well done. For the wider audience; Verci was the "manager" concerned.

You can probably tell by the way he attacks the critical issue of spelling rather than the substance. So like a "manager". In fact, he was soo good at spelling- sorry, "managing" -he was shown the door. It's why he is so critical of the current management. Trouble is, he doesn't have much of a record to beat them with. Right, Verci? Or had you forgotten that bit?

[ferris]

What an embarrassing attempt at justification. Fear not, little, Verci, from now on, wherever you pop up, espousing your "knowledge" in this forum, I will be here to let the wider audience know what an ineffectual joke you were. Note use of past tense.

The viewers at home can quite clearly glean the purpose in your constant attempts at disparagement of the current UAE management, and your pontification on various matters. The problem is; what exactly did you do to improve things whilst you were in the chair? Or were you just a puppet, bereft of any real authority? More like- someone who just signs things handed to you by the real boss? How embarrassing. How proud you must be of your record as a "leader".

Note; no denial of the point of previous posts: Sector capping introduced as purely an arse-covering measure.

ps quixotic 'tilting at windwills' is a more honourable pass-time than singing "yes sir, no sir, three bags full". But you don't get that, do you, which is why you are unemployed atm?

Key words: INEFFECTUAL, JOKE, PUPPET. Themes that I think we will explore more in the future, whenever appropriate.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Any chance you guys could book a room ?? :}

[Radar Pete]

Two incompetents argueing..................this has gotta be good.

[Chilli Monster]

Obviously for the French it's only 1 aircraft, any more than that and they insist on going on strike (currently sat at EGLL waiting to see if my flight to LFMN will be cancelled like the first one this morning!)

Unprofessional w**k**s!

[Gonzo]

I'm sure they all speak highly of you though, Chilli........