Terminal Control (Approach Radar)

[Gonzo]

So, without hopefully descending into excessive banter (or worse; insults:hmm:), what is the consensus on the benefits of grouping the Approach Radar function for several airports in one TMA together in one ops room?

For those who don't know, the London Terminal Control Centre, as well as 'area' sectors, also includes the Approach Radar function for Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, City and Biggin. Also low-level radar positions for traffic in and around the London Control Zone around Heathrow and City airports.

The idea to put them all in the same room was to make co-ordination between them and the preceding TMA sectors more efficient.

I've been at Heathrow Tower for nine years now, and I've noticed an increasing 'disconnect' (to use management speak!) between us in the tower and Heathrow Approach...even more so since LTCC has moved down to Swanwick, 70 miles away, rather than just a few miles from Heathrow. There is a feeling in the Tower that increasingly that Approach fail to appreciate our problems.....I'm quite sure Approach feel the same in return.

How do the Approach guys and girls feel about this?

What about those in a similar situation in other countries?

What can be done to address this?

[Reflex]

A quick reply from one of your 'customers'.

There seems to be an awareness of the relevance of 'Ally Pally' for us rotary types routing onto the Heathrow zone from the North. Essex quite frequently give us a direct Ally P without any previous request.

I'm guessing doing the rounds of various approach positions helps spread the word - if so I'm all for it.

Keep up the good work!

[Talkdownman]

I've got an idea....
How about combining Tower and Approach/Approach Radar into the same building.....say, a Control Tower?
Centre could release the arrivals by telephone.

[Gonzo]

TDM, what a place to work that would be.

Might stop people disappearing off to the desert, too!:ugh:

[Scooby Don't]

But we like the desert! The beer is cold, the women aren't, and we have oodles of flunkies! :E
The downside is when you return to the real world, and spend 5 minutes infront of a door, wondering why the hell it hasn't been opened for you... :ugh:


Edited to add a sensible opinion! I'm in favour of tower as a first validation, in large part because I think it makes for a better radar controller in the future. That alone takes co-location of TWR and APR. The biggest argument though, is that the relationship between TWR and APR is more immediate than that between APR and area. Admittedly things could be different in the London TMA, but TWR and APR are still the ones who most closely affect each others' work.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<The idea to put them all in the same room was to make co-ordination between them and the preceding TMA sectors more efficient.>>

But the original idea of integrating the positions didn't work, as proved by simulation, so the Approach controllers still sit quite separately from the TMA people.

I moved with Heathrow Approach to TC and spent 10 years there before retiring. Apart from a fairly nice coffee bar and a bigger car park I never found any logical reason for going to LATCC. On the contrary, the extreme lack of radar awareness of the new Tower controllers at Heathrow often concerned me. Probably the Heathrow people found that the newer radar controllers showed an ignorance of their problems too.

Sure, we sat in the same room as the TMA people, but not close enough to converse directly so all liaison was carried out by telephone, as when we were at the tower building. We might see the odd (some very odd!) TMA controller in the rest-room or canteen but conversation did not always centre on "work" so there was little benefit in that direction.

Nobody has ever provided me with a truly sensible ATC reason/argument for splitting the Approach and Tower functions but I'm still listening (just out of curiosity now). Some (me included) found tower work harder as we got older and radar was far more leisurely... but others had opposing views.

[throw a dyce]

Gonzo,
I can only speak for HK abroad.The ATC centre had everything combined,Tower,Approach and Area.When the new airport opened we were streamed,much the same as Nats does.However the people being streamed all had over 10 +++ years experience in multi disciplines.
Although I,as a tower person was not qualified on radar,I had a damn good idea of their problems,and we had a beer in the plaza afterwards.(HK TRM course:ok:)
I think the problem you are talking about,could be coming from people who haven't validated a radar/tower rating,or don't even have one.How to solve it? Perhaps some runs in each others simulators,and a general love in.
Overall experience is very valuable,but something the NATS doesn't seem to want to recognise anymore.It's all about missions,targets,destinations and perhaps giving students a very narrow,limited training isn't the best way.:hmm:

[SINGAPURCANAC]

My two cents..
We have examined some solution for new ATM system. One is to have APP room at present position.Below TWR cab,and another one to locate app position in ACC a few km away. Both solutions have advantages and disadvantages. The main disadvantage for separate solution is staffing.
In case it is "co-located" it is easier to organize shift at twr/app. Because everyone (or it will be aim) will be multi rated (TWR/APP) and people could work 2 hours on TWR than take rest,than 2hours in APP or any other combination that seems appropriate. Also we do not belive that it is possible to train people only for APP position without TWR experience . Thre are examples in different direction but we strongly believe that APP ATCO must have current TWR rating. Having such approach to problem there is no possibility for someone to become TWR OJTI withour APP rating. So each TWR OJTI must have APP rating . ESSAR 5(and local interpretation of it) clearly states that OJTI must have some nuber of hours at live traffic in order to be qualified to train students. With such requirements it is easier to mainatin required level of " live traffic work" in case of TWR/APP in the same building. It is also possible to do it when facilities are separated but life for SATCO will be much easier.
Co-location of TWR/APP costs more,because the main system is in ACC but few cables (maybe wireless) more is not huge costs. People and organization will cost more.
Thank you for your inputs in this thread it will help us.

[mr.777]

Have to agree with you on this one Gonzo. I for one would love to be dual valid at a London tower.
I think perhaps, more importantly, was the decision a couple of years ago for approach students at the college NOT to do aerodrome first...and vice versa of course. I was fortunate enough to be on the very last course where everyone did aerodrome before being streamed for tower/approach/area. I have since found this to be more than useful in understanding what you guys do.Also helped that Seaton Intl bears more than a little resmeblance to my airfield, minus the pesky flying club of course! By the same token, some of the tower guys that have never done app radar have a lack of understanding of what goes on our end....not their fault at all, more a product of a flawed system.
One thing that can be done, as discussed in our watch safety meeting recently, was more liaison visits between yourselves and us Swanwick monkeys...but with our staffing levels, I can't see that happening for a while :rolleyes:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Vercingetorix... But some USA controllers who visited Heathrow when the move was being initially discussed warned us emphatically not to do it!!

<<One of the benefits, at the time, was that both APP & TMA controllers got to know who the voice at the other end was. e.g. if you saw 'XXXXX' sitting on EGLL APP you knew how close, or how far apart, you could offer traffic. >>

Well I do recall one of the lovely ladies who had been doing LAM inbounds running over and giving me a huge kiss because I'd brought everything off but I don't think management would have viewed that as a benefit!! Over at Heathrow we'd often answer internal phone calls with our names or initials so we'd know who we were dealing with but when we did that at LATCC it was heavily frowned upon - understandably I suppose; it was hardly "book standard".

The 20+ years I did at Heathrow working both TWR and APC were the happiest days of my working life and I think it was a tragedy when the split took place.

[throw a dyce]

Wasn't it part of ''Tunnels in the Skies'' (TITS) at the time.That's lasted a long time.:)

[Del Prado]

giving me a huge kiss because I'd taken everything off

you wouldn't get away with that now, HD.:ok:

Gonzo, I do feel we've become more 'disconnected' since TC changed shifts to tie up with AC days (and so out of step with tower shifts)

Also since the move to Swanwick and the advent of the GS Airports position, there are (TMA valid) supervisors who don't have a clue about airfield operations.

[Talkdownman]

Supervisors who 'don't have a clue about airfield operations' were there long before the move to 'Swanwick' (whatever 'Swanwick' is......I havn't got a clue...... :E )

[anotherthing]

Del Prado,

Conversly there are GS's who do not have a clue about area (TC)!!

[Spiney Norman]

Once upon a time there was a unit that had Aerodrome, Approach Radar, AND Area controllers. They all worked on the same watches, knew, and socialised with one another. Unsurprisingly this worked really well and the understanding of one anothers problems meant that morale was very good. Unfortunately this is all being changed and the Area people will be moved away from the airfield functions. Strange eh?
And before anybody gets steam up about the various 'moving to Scotland' arguments. I'm an ADC and Approach RAD guy who is just surprised that the TC concept was totally binned in the Manchester situation as, to a small degree, we'd always had it!

[chevvron]

As vercingetorix said, it is an American idea. I read about a visit to 'New York Common IFR' by some LATCC controllers when I first joined and thought 'it could never happen here'. Then in the early 80s the 'Beeker Plan' came along (named after its authors, Dave Beech and Al Parker) and so here we are. What it failed to take account of was the dissimilar setups of ATC Operations here and in the USA; over there it was unusual to have a RAPCON (radar approach control) co located with the tower which it serves, whilst over here it was always the 'norm', so what you guys are lumbered with is a system which really was adapted to our needs rather than formulated for our needs from the word go.

[Gonzo]

so what you guys are lumbered with is a system which really was adapted to our needs rather than formulated for our needs from the word go.

Damn, that's never happened before or since, has it!!!!:}

[Spiney Norman]

I'm just waiting for some promotion crazed manager to suggest that all the Aerodrome controllers are put together in a centre. Big Plasma screens fed from batteries of remote HDTV cameras......Could never happen. Blimey! I should have realised you never say never in this game!

[wizad]

approach would never like to go back to working at the towers they came from.... none of them would take the pay cut.
luton approach now band 5 the same as the TMA and AC, but the tower band 3 or something..... theres clearly no better feeling to getting spanked all day and looking over at busy ol' luton approach with headset off and reading the paper. oh how the company could save buckets of money if only they had the balls....

[Gonzo]

Spiney......too late......that's what our contingency VCR is going to look like.....

V in this case meaning 'virtual'

[Spiney Norman]

Well! And there was me thinking I was 'before my time'! (There is a first for everything). Next you'll be telling me they've invented an electronic version of the flight progress strip!!! Ha Ha Ha...Gulp!

[PPRuNe Radar]

Commercially it makes sense for NATS to have the Approach units in the Area Centre. If they lose the contract for an airport, it's much harder for who ever takes over to wrestle the Approach task from them, since it's an integrated part of a complex TMA/App set up.

The cynic in me says this is more likely the reason for TC than technical ones.

[chevvron]

......and one well placed bomb knocks out a whole host of airfields instead of just one!

[BEXIL160]

PPRuNe Radar is (not very surprisingly) pretty close to the truth, as is Chevvron.

Indeed at a certain SATCOs meeting in the mid 1980s (do they still happen?) CAA / NATS, as it was then, floated the idea of doing approach for ALL regional airports from one central location, be they "state" or "non state".

It didn't happen. Not for technical reasons, the idea was perfectly feasible, but for the two reasons above.

One, it would give CAA / NATS a monopoly whcih would be difficult to revert back from.

and Two, one well placed bomb knocks out a whole host of airfields instead of just one!

My own 2ps worth? The big advantages of the close operating environment that was lost when APP RADAR was moved away, was not made up for by the physical closeness to the TC Controllers. (HD's Hugs excepted!)

Question. How many TC AREA controllers hold APP RADAR validations and vice versa?

Rgds BEX

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Surprised that nobody has mentioned Northolt. If their approach facility had been at Heathrow Tower or TC I might not have quite so many grey hairs!!

[dangerdanger]

It is quite apparent that as time goes on even those with both twr and apc are becoming less aware of the others problems. However, there is a greater understanding of TMA issues. I would be curious to know if the TMA people feel traffic presentation is better, and co-ordination easier, because the apc controllers have a better appreciation of TMA now they're in the same centre.

Although the original idea may have been to ease co-ord between TMA and apc, there is a definate advantage to face to face co-ord between SS, GW and Thames. It's a shame Thames isn't adjacent but the odd strip and ident is done in person.

[heathrow, easy life]

Question. How many TC AREA controllers hold APP RADAR validations and vice versa?

When LL APC moved to WD the idea was that we would sit next to the TMA controllers, co-ordinate directly and holding would be minimised. Also it gave the oppurtunity for controllers who held all ratings to cross train to the other skill.

However only 3 LL apc guys did cross train and validate (2 TMA STH and 1 TC NTH) , one is now a non valid supervisor, one retired and one gone back to LL twr.

As for TMA training on APC, I think a few attempted, even fewer passed and at present (I think) there are no cross valid TMA/APC controllers in TC.

The original idea of APC's and TMA together really did not work as was envisaged from day 1. At first EGLL APC was split into 2 where APC NTH sat next to TC BNN and APC STH with FIN sat on the other side of the room with TC BIG, this lasted a very short time and the LL APC was again co-located, all sitting together.

There was serious talk a few years ago about splitting the APC from TC and returning them to the Towers, this could have worked for LL in the old tower that had a functioning Radar unit but since the move to the new tower this will now never happen.

A very sad day when EGLL APC and EGLL TWR went their seperate ways.

[spekesoftly]

In years gone by, some Manchester Controllers were valid on Area, APC and Tower. Seemed like a very efficient and happy set-up at the time, but I believe specialisation is the norm now.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<A very sad day when EGLL APC and EGLL TWR went their seperate ways.>>

Hear, hear. Well said that man...

[GavReal]

I'm sorry to sound naive, but am doing my research ready to apply to NATS.

My father is a RAF Controller and he holds tickets for all positions in the Tower, approach, tower and ground (also talkdown, zone but not director as he is only an SNCO). I assumed all tower / aerodrome roles were the same.

I knew that London airport's approach was done at LATCC but is it the same with all NATS airports? Is approach completely separate to Tower / Ground?

I appreciate that upon sucesful entry to the college, you get little or no choice on area or aerodrome but I assumed that were I selected for aerodrome that I would be able to validate in tower and approach.

Sorry to sound totally ignorant.

[BEXIL160]

I knew that London airport's approach was done at LATCC but is it the same with all NATS airports? Is approach completely separate to Tower / Ground?

Nope,all the NATS Scottish airports have co-located TWR and APP for the time being, as do Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff, Bristol and Southampton...... oh, and La Linea international. :ok::ok:Apologies to any others I've forgotten. (and to the great chaps in Gib:ok:)

Question. How many TC AREA controllers hold APP RADAR validations and vice versa?

In addition to the above, at least one TMA South controller validated Gatwick, and one Gatwick person did TMA south..... wonder where they both are now? ;);)

BEX

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Bex... Several Heathrow ATCOs validated on the TMA but no TMA people came to Heathrow while I was at TC.

"My father is a RAF Controller" Don't worry, GavReal - he'll probably get over it!! Worst thing I ever saw in my life was in the Approach Room at Luqa, Malta. A senior NCO (in rank and age) who was much respected by his colleagues was given a major dressing down in front of everyone because one of his shoes was dirty from having been on the airfield. The dressing down came from some little spotty-faced squirt of a Pilot Officer who looked about 16. It's things like that that put me right off the RAF so DON'T ever think of joining up.

[iahsatcs]

O.K. first an admission, I am American, and know we are disliked here but I am going to throw two cents worth in here anyway.

For the management from a purely cost viewpoint combining up numerous approach controls combined up into the same building makes tremendous economic sense. All approach controls will have numerous pieces of equipment, interphone communications lines, scopes, computers, etc. If all are grouped together there is less maintenance staff needed. Fewer buildings to maintain. Theoretically a more streamlined training program. Easier and cheaper to transfer between facilities or different areas. Also allows lower pay for the tower only people as a separate entity than would be normal under a combined traffic count profile. May allow for combining functions and a reduction in required manpower. These are all tangibles that are easy to quantify.

From the controller perspective there are many intangibles that are extremely important for an efficient movement of traffic. All controllers know that it is beneficial to have intricate, in depth knowlege of what others are doing an why they are doing it. This would normally occur in a breakroom or an afterwork type of establishment. This interaction is important for all concerned but it is an intangible that is difficult to quantify. We have seen numerous times that the split of a Tower/Tracon into separate facilities will eliminate this interaction. It makes no difference is the two facilities are still located on the airport, but in separate buildings, or if they are many miles apart.

Once the interaction ends the passing of knowlege will also end. In a fairly short time, those that have the knowlege from their pre-split days will forget all about it and the animosity between the two facilities will begin. It will become a downward spiral with essentially no end.

One side no longer has any idea of how they might be hurting the other side, and no longer care. It soon degenerates to telling on each other, which leads rapidly to CYA being more important to moving the traffic.

The bigger/busier the airport/approach the faster it will happen.

This might explain why the previous Americans advised not to do it. Unfortunately, you organization will only focus on the the costs and tangible evidence just like ours did. The end result will work, just not as well as it used to.

[ebenezer]

I think the problem you are talking about,could be coming from people who haven't validated a radar/tower rating,or don't even have one.
There are three distinct issues here, which in the UK are NATS issues, and not a problem for others.

The first relates to the gradual atrophying of skills when APS is separated from TWR and the controllers doing the respective jobs finally become disconnected with the other ~ as is happening across the board at the UK's London airports. The situation is exacerbated by the move even further away i.e. to Swanwick which makes the logistics of liaison visits difficult.

The second relates to the so-called 'skill specialisation' whereby trainees coming out of the 'college' training regime no longer have APS and TWR ratings and so have minimal understanding of each other's tasks and operating environment.

The third relates to the 'streamlined' training that's now fashionable whereby trainees no longer spend several weeks at centres, approach units or towers as part of their basic training.

The only demonstrable advantage that this policy has is a financial one (and has been said earlier) a contractual one; operationally, the pros and cons are almost impossible to objectively determine.

[BEXIL160]

iahsatcs
I am American, and know we are disliked here

As said above, in ATC circles Americans are very definitely NOT disliked. Indeed some of us here have very close ties with certain ex FAA controllers and NATCA Safety Reps. (I still have my NATCA denim Jacket!)

Anything you bring to the discussion here is very welcome, and from what you have written and what I have seen with my own eyes in the US, we ain't so different when it comes down to it.

Best rgds
BEX :ok: