NATS latest "brainwave" to save money

[thinkofdolphins]

Thought there might have been something already on here about PB's latest piece of nonsense. To save money he wants to extend oceanic airspace at night to close RADAR covered sectors to save money. How is this contributing to safety? Is he slightly retarded? Did he miss the whole Uberlingen incident? I really despair working for this company at the moment. It is run by people who have no concept of what ATC is all about. Any money made should go back into the infrastructure to make it better ie better equipment. To close radar covered airspace to replace it with procedural sectors is complete madness. Let's get rid of phones and go back to bits of string attached to plastic cups and call it progress!! I would love him to justify this in court when 2 planes collide in one of his new "budget sectors" when a fully servicable radar feed could have been used. Anyone who does nights will know that even if you only have 2 on freq that they will inevitably pass over each other 1000" apart even though they have 1000's of miles of airspace to use. Garbling won't be an issue when you can't see them at all!:ugh:

[The Fat Controller]

NATS, a customer and environmentally friendly company - NOT.

Let's have all our customers flying extra miles at non-optimum levels in procedural airspace just so we can save a couple of ATCO salaries.

Or maybe not, as when we go into PC we are likely to need just as many on nights, if not more, as the band-boxing options are going to complicate things.

I have just spent a few hours with my colleagues sending aircraft from one end of Scottish airspace to the other at the level THEY want.

Come on all you bright sparks in management, let's find a way to do that ALL the time.

[anotherthing]

Old News.

This first surfaced a few months ago on another intranet thread when someone in an office (never having worked operationaly) mooted that to save money, night-time operations for UK could be moved to one centre i.e. Swanwick would close at night. Now I don't mind the question being asked by a non-ops person - they can't be expected to understand how we work if the work they do for NATS does not have a direct impact opn what we do in the Ops room.

It's the muppets that do have a direct say on our work that then run with the idea thinking it's great that worry me.

Obviously for it to work the whole concept of ATC regulation and licensing would need to be bypassed or overhauled - and I'm sure that operators into LTMA airfields at night woud love to go to a procedural and therefore less efficient operation.

The fact that on the intranet someone from Oceanic has stated that procedural control is very modern nowadays misses the point totally. Procedural control has it place - but if we could have radar coverage over the ocean, we would use that instead of procedural - therein lies the whole point.

These schemes are dreamt up by people who have either never worked in an ops room, or have not set foot on watch for a long time.

Speaking purely from an LTMA point of view (but obviously it affects AC as well as the feeding and receiving unit), the amount of arrivals, especially until 3am (ish) is actually fairly significant.

Of course, no thought is made of the extra manning required up north to work the initial start of the transatlantic arrivals with the extra workload of London FIR traffic...

Also, not thought to the licensing requirements that state an early shift cannot commence before 0530 - therefore night shift manning will still be required. (SRATCOH rules - designed to ensure safe ATC provision - maybe some non operational people should do some research).

This is the same sort of claptrap that is thought up by non ops people or people who only have experience of their own operation.

There are rules in place now of what you can and can't do on a night shift to amuse yourself (more to the point, stay awake) in the wee dark hours - you know the 0300 to 0500 when the body is at its lowest ebb. For instance, you're allowed to read a book, but not allowed to watch a DVD on your laptop (even with volume very low and your RT on loud speaker).

The fact that a fast-paced film is possibly more likely to keep you alert than the soporific effect that reading has on most people is neither here nor there - some HF person has stated what they think we should do, based on no experience of working ATC shifts and without even shadowing for a couple of cycles to try to understand.

Bear in mind though that a tactic throughout the history of management/union relations in all types of employment has been for management to put some ridiculously stupid ideas on the table in order to slip in some other, fairly odious but less dodgy practice.

Then when the new rules or whatever are adopted, the sheep collectively sigh with relief and say 'yeah, it isn't great, but its better than what they really wanted', when in fact the management have achieved what they set out to do.

Smoke and mirrors - the biggest mistake anyone can make is to think that senior management are stupid - they are far from it.

[Hootin an a roarin]

It would be good to hear from any Manc APC controllers. Alledgedly due to the newly signed loss making crappy contract that they work under, procedural control on nights with reduced manning has been mooted to help reduce the deficit.

Again alledgedly the feeling at other airfields is that senior management non-air traffic experts/professionals are trying this on at their airfields as well.

Nats, the leading company in Air Traffic, what a joke!

[BDiONU]

To save money he wants to extend oceanic airspace at night to close RADAR covered sectors to save money. How is this contributing to safety? Is he slightly retarded? Did he miss the whole Uberlingen incident? <snip> I would love him to justify this in court when 2 planes collide in one of his new "budget sectors" when a fully servicable radar feed could have been used. :

Is the use of procedural on the Oceanic routes currently unsafe? obviously not so why would extending its use to other bits of airspace with exactly the same separation standards suddenly become unsafe?
Anyone who does nights will know that even if you only have 2 on freq that they will inevitably pass over each other 1000" apart even though they have 1000's of miles of airspace to use. Garbling won't be an issue when you can't see them at all!:ugh:
Oh my god! Only 1000' apart, I hope the regulators aren't reading this, sounds a bit too close to me :eek:

BD

[thinkofdolphins]

You clearly missed the point. They use procedural over the ocean because they DON'T have radar coverage. Why would you use this process when you have a perfectly good radar? And the point about being 1000' apart is that if you cant SEE them then pilot error, wrong pressure setting blah blah blah can cause incidents. Take a look at the incident reports in oceanic airspace and maybe you would see the point a bit better ie pilots appearing at the wrong entry point only picked up when seen on RADAR

[anotherthing]

Is the use of procedural on the Oceanic routes currently unsafe? obviously not so why would extending its use to other bits of airspace with exactly the same separation standards suddenly become unsafe?

Hmm.. 60 miles separation in the UIR/FIR... that'll work. NATS - driving down efficiency - unless it's cutting staff costs :hmm:

[BDiONU]

You clearly missed the point. They use procedural over the ocean because they DON'T have radar coverage. Why would you use this process when you have a perfectly good radar?
Because you don't need to use radar, or more specifically you don't need to use highly skilled and qualified radar controllers whose licences/validations cover very precisely delineated and defined volumes of airspace. Oceanic covers thousands of miles, an extension of a few 100 miles is not much if the separation standards employed are the same as now. Radar sectors are great when its busy, reduced separation means you can move more metal, when its quiet procedural over larger 'sectors' would reduce the need for so many radar controllers.
And the point about being 1000' apart is that if you cant SEE them then pilot error, wrong pressure setting blah blah blah can cause incidents.
This is no different to today.
Take a look at the incident reports in oceanic airspace and maybe you would see the point a bit better ie pilots appearing at the wrong entry point only picked up when seen on RADAR
I do see the point, do you see mine? Are you seriously suggesting that procedural control is unsafe and increase in its use is likely to significantly increase the number of SSE's?

BD

[BDiONU]

Hmm.. 60 miles separation in the UIR/FIR... that'll work. Thats how they come off the ocean currently and thats how they're spaced for crossing it. 10W is the magic point where things change. Where there is low density traffic why would this not be achievable?

BD

[ImnotanERIC]

how do you sign up to be a member of team **** bd?

[BDiONU]

[QUOTE] Team 'How about thinking realistically instead of this is how we've always done it?' Or team 'oh my god you know that procedural control is really unsafe and we can't possibly continue that way'.

To some extent I'm playing devils advocate and trying to point out that the objections raised so far in this forum are not convincing.
If you think this is all madness and you just don't believe it, wait until you see what the EU is aiming to introduce through SESAR :}

BD

[anotherthing]

OK,

Here's a novel approach for NATS before it sinks millions into another project (considering we've already signed up to iTec - a £250million project which in the blurb states that for it to work is reliant on all of NATS being EFD compliant... even though at the moment there are major stumbling blocks with TC EFD)... why not approach the airlines and say to them:

" Hello dear customer(s), we at NATS are trying to save a little bit of money here and there, and one of the ideas we have come up with involves a nightime extension of the airspace that is covered procedurally.

What this means is that we will not be as efficient with our airspace. We are doing this because at the times we are talking about, there is less traffic density.
The fact that you spiffing chaps tend to fly the same routes as each other at the same time (i.e. although traffic is reduced, it tends to be doing the same thing) is a trifling matter that we can look at some other time, or more likely, conveniently overlook.

We hope to save NATS somewhere in the region of £xxx per year. Of course the downside with inefficient use of airspace (something you, our lovely customers are always badgering NATS about) is that you fine chaps will have to fly further and for longer. The cost to you chaps will most likely be more than the saving to NATS.

Hows about it then, fine customers???"

Why not do some number crunching then approach them? Hell if their fuel bills etc are more than NATS would save on a handful of controllers, they'd probably pay the wages out of their own pockets...

The night-time window that the skies over the UK are quiet enough for procedural control not to have a big impact is so small that this must surely be a non starter.
The fact that the window will fall well within nighttime manning hours, as laid down by SRG, means that we will still have to employ ATCOs on bona fide nightshift either side of the window, with all the ramifications of SRATCOH that incurs.

Just where is the benefit to NATS and the customers?

Procedural control is a wonderful thing, but it is used where radar is unavailable or not viable, not as a replacement because it is a better system :ugh:

NATS once had pride in being one of the foremost ANSPs. Reducing the efficiency of our service is yet another backward step that is only seen as good by number crunchers, their sycophantic yes men, and people who have either never controlled, or haven't controlled for years.

As for hare-brained schemes, surely we would be cheaper employing 50 chimps with typewriters - they might not come up with a Shakespeare play, but they stand a good chance of coming up with a more realistic way ahead for NATS.
Hell, we only need to source 40, the other 10 can come from the chimps who currently write the OPNOTs that appear on EBS every day.

[The Fat Controller]

I have had an even better idea, in addition to keeping our customers in a procedural environment for longer, let's TURN OFF all our radars and enroute navaids along the west coast of the UK and save a bit on the electricity bill at the same time.

After all, the US provides GPS for free and the pilots NEVER input the wrong way-points so they WILL all be safe, albeit burning more fuel because they are flying further at a lower than optimal altitude.

One more thing, let's close ALL the Advisory Routes just in case we might have an incident and only provide Basic Service below FL195, that'll save a few bob in ATCO salaries and reduce our corporate liability.

[DC10RealMan]

Gentlemen and Ladies.

This "Clear Blue Sky" thinking is not a new phenomenon. At West Drayton we once had the Chairman of NATS ask why we needed so many people on a night shift as Heathrow is closed at night!

HURRAH!! Bonuses all round!!!!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Probably the same cretin who, on his first visit to LATCC, asked "what time do you close?"

[intherealworld]

Debated this on a nightshift recently. Can't see how this is an improvement to the current services provided especially when a/c are piling off the ocean at 3am in trail at most levels above FL300. How will procedural cope with that?

Or if it's maybe for the 2 hour block where it, sometimes, is quite quiet, I can't see how that will be more cost effective for anyone involved considering the setup costs, validations, training, lack of directs, and on all sectors I can think of where it could be used, a sector team will still be needed to handle a/c requiring descent into the uk airfields and dublin/amsterdam (i.e. those that start descent in London FIR)

[BDiONU]

Debated this on a nightshift recently.

Thanks for a thought out reply instead of a kneejerk "Can't possibly work", all things the great and good will have to think about.

BD

[anotherthing]

the kneejerk reactions you refer to had already stated the arguments what 'intherealworld' mentioned - he or she just added their weight to the replies...

Post number 2.


Let's have all our customers flying extra miles at non-optimum levels in procedural airspace just so we can save a couple of ATCO salaries.




...when we go into PC we are likely to need just as many on nights, if not more, as the band-boxing options are going to complicate things.



Post number 3



...the whole concept of ATC regulation and licensing would need to be bypassed or overhauled...

...the amount of arrivals, especially until 3am (ish) is actually fairly significant.

Of course, no thought is made of the extra manning required up north to work the initial start of the transatlantic arrivals with the extra workload of London FIR traffic...

Also, not thought to the licensing requirements that state an early shift cannot commence before 0530 - therefore night shift manning will still be required.



Post number 14


The night-time window that the skies over the UK are quiet enough for procedural control not to have a big impact is so small that this must surely be a non starter.
The fact that the window will fall well within nighttime manning hours, as laid down by SRG, means that we will still have to employ ATCOs on bona fide nightshift either side of the window...


Maybe next time other respondents should say they debated the facts for you to take them seriously or consider them worthy of having an opinion... heaven forbid one person on their own can come out with reasonable arguments

[Del Prado]

We hope to save NATS somewhere in the region of £xxx per year. Of course the downside with inefficient use of airspace (something you, our lovely customers are always badgering NATS about) is that you fine chaps will have to fly further and for longer. The cost to you chaps will most likely be more than the saving to NATS.

TBH, I'd rather they brought in all these ill conceived and badly thought out procedures and I hope everyone will do their damndest to not make it work. It's only when the airlines start to see the costs (fuel and staffing) on their bottom line that they'll actually sit up and take notice of just how badly this company is being run.


and before BDiONU et al sit up and quote delays and profits, I'm talking about the sustainabliity of the present system which rewards short termism with hefty bonuses, pays dividends through asset stripping and can now barely staff some of the busiest ATC locations in the world through overtime.

And don't even get me started on reporting delays due staffing as weather regs or claims the AMAN debacle did not cause any diversions.

[ImnotanERIC]

had a lot of breaks from looking at your emails today havent you bd.

[mr.777]

I debated this at work today with some colleagues and we all thought it was s**t. That is also a well thought-out answer to this c**p.

Seriously, anyone with half a brain can see it will never work. Are you involved with this project BD?

[BDiONU]

I debated this at work today with some colleagues and we all thought it was s**t. That is also a well thought-out answer to this c**p.
Right, thats a very well thought out response and is bound to make everyone in management sit up and debate the very serious points you make.
Seriously, anyone with half a brain can see it will never work. Are you involved with this project BD?
Nope, don't even think its a project stage, as I said before I'm just trying to offer up some glass half full responses as opposed to all the glass half empty. :)

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that all of the upper airspace, lets say anything above 300, from 10W to the Danish, Dutch border was procedural at night with direct tracks (RLong helps here). Whats the impact? Descenders into UK airspace and Netherlands. Could this be handled proceduraly, it used to be in yea olde days. Just a thought :)

BD

[BDiONU]

had a lot of breaks from looking at your emails today havent you bd.

Breaks? I'm not on SCRATCOH mate :}

BD

[opnot]

How are we supposed to get our procedural ratings back, if you had one in the first place, or will it be you have done 10 mins in the sim, you are safe

[Mister Geezer]

So with more procedural airspace, I take it you guys will be using HF too? :}

One frequency and one controller for many sectors. They will be able to get rid of some 'tels' guys too won't they? Bandboxed.... what on earth is that?

[terrain safe]

Opnot raises a really important point. What about a procedural rating? who has them any more?

[mr.777]

So will going procedural relieve the amount of staff required to operate the airspace?
Surely the same amount of people will be required, particularly if they only intend to do this for 2 hours out of a night shift?
That's hardly making a dent in night shift staffing is it? Bandboxing as many sectors as possible on the other hand......(not that I am for one second advocating this....as if.)

[BDiONU]

Opnot raises a really important point. What about a procedural rating? who has them any more?

Oceanic staff do.

BD

[BDiONU]

So will going procedural relieve the amount of staff required to operate the airspace?
Surely the same amount of people will be required, particularly if they only intend to do this for 2 hours out of a night shift?
That's hardly making a dent in night shift staffing is it? Bandboxing as many sectors as possible on the other hand......(not that I am for one second advocating this....as if.)

What if the Ocean had that airspace, say midnight to 0530 ish? What would the savings be in en route high level sectors?

Oh and I'm not advocating this either, except in a devilish way :)

BD

[DTY/LKS]

BDIONU

When was the last time you sat and watched the eastbound oceanic rush at 3.30am onwards?

This is one of the worst ideas ever! So much for progress....

[The Fat Controller]

Procedural all the way to Masstricht/Copenhagen/Stavangar, ROFL, no :mad: way !

It is complete and utter nonsense.

So BD, would all the night charter traffic have to come in UNDER the transatlantics ?

Come and have a look at the real world between 0300 and 0600, then make a SENSIBLE suggestion.

[Rogdabbit]

[QUOTE][There are rules in place now of what you can and can't do on a night shift to amuse yourself (more to the point, stay awake) in the wee dark hours - you know the 0300 to 0500 when the body is at its lowest ebb. For instance, you're allowed to read a book, but not allowed to watch a DVD on your laptop (even with volume very low and your RT on loud speaker).
/QUOTE]

And aren't these rules in place because of an incident that took place with with radars in use??
But, it'll be OK now coz there's less traffic blah blah blah :mad:

Do you remember the propaganda from NATS/the Union during the pay talks? "We won't get much sympathy from the public if we go on strike during a recession, the press will have a field day"

I'm sure they'd have a field day over the headline "Air Traffic Control switches off Radar at night to save money"

[throw a dyce]

Isn't this coming from the same company that had the press in to show a Multi Lat system at Aberdeen,to get away from procedural,increase coverage and safety.:hmm:
Lots of trumpets blowing that day.:}
I remember Hong Kong did a similiar thing on night shifts.They reduced the night shift numbers on ER,because there was less traffic at night into HK.However they completely forgot about all the overflying traffic.The guys said it was often some of the busiest traffic of the day.But because it's the middle of the night when management are in their beds,then it doesn't exist.:mad:

[Rogdabbit]

Isn't this coming from the same company that had the press in to show a Multi Lat system at Aberdeen,to get away from procedural,increase coverage and safety.

Which could have maybe been done cheaper using Multiple SBS units available on the hight street, all running down the internet on FREE/NEARLY FREE (not Millions) software called PlanePlotter - spotters have been using it for a few years now!!

Oh my god!! Have I just done us out of a job? :uhoh: :)

Just out of interest PC chaps/chapesses. How many meeting rooms are there at PC/NPC? Just a question as I believe a meeting took place yesterday at the SAS Radisson in Glasgow to discuss NPC - obviously must be cheaper there than at NPC - silly me.

[anotherthing]

rogdabbit

I've asked the question about meetings before when they have been held at a hotel in fareham, a stones throw from CTC.


The (pathetic) excuse is that if it is off site, people won't be disturbed :ugh:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Which could have maybe been done cheaper using Multiple SBS units available on the hight street, all running down the internet on FREE/NEARLY FREE (not Millions) software called PlanePlotter - spotters have been using it for a few years now!!>>

Yep, great substitute for radar. Yesterday morning I watched an American 767 "landing" just north of Slought and a BA 777 "landing" just north of Windsor! Inrtegrity is not it's best point.

[ferris]

It's an interesting phenomena, this 'cost-shifting' from ANSPs to airlines. Because that's what it is- reducing costs for the ANSP (such as staff trimming) without heed for the subsequent increase in costs to the airlines as they experience inefficient flight levels/routes, delays etc.

I'm amazed that more airlines, seemingly demons at watching costs, haven't woken up. Virgin seems to be, in Australia
Virgin Blue to pursue AirServices Australia for compensation for its air traffic failures – Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2009/09/14/virgin-blue-to-pursue-airservices-australia-for-compensation-for-its-air-traffic-failures/)

[Arkady]

"Lets say, for the sake of argument, that all of the upper airspace, lets say anything above 300, from 10W to the Danish, Dutch border was procedural at night with direct tracks (RLong helps here). Whats the impact? Descenders into UK airspace and Netherlands. Could this be handled proceduraly, it used to be in yea olde days. Just a thought"

"What if the Ocean had that airspace, say midnight to 0530 ish? What would the savings be in en route high level sectors?"

I can see why this might seem like a plausable method to reduce staffing levels at night to the uninformed. Frankly I'd support anything that meant I had to do less nights so I'd be all for this if it was practical. However.........

You could do as BD suggests and extend the non-radar upper level sectors across the UK (FL300+) and effectively move the Oceanic exit points to our Eastern FIR boundary. We'll ignore the problem of Paris, Brussells and Amsterdam inbounds requiring descent before the FIR boundary for the moment. Below FL300 we continue to provide a radar service for the night flights that arrive and depart the UK. So far so good (other than the Paris, Brussells, Amsterdam inbounds). A major part of the implementation of this scheme will be getting all the surrounding FIRs to agree to descend ALL UK inbounds below FL300 before our FIR boundary rather than hand them over in the cruise. Similarly they will recieve all the outbounds below FL300 and have to climb them. I can just imagine what Pierre and his mates would say when we ask him to work harder so NATS can save money. Actually this is not insurmountable. A night time route structure could be developed to allow climbing and descending in and out of the (non-radar) Upper sectors but it would be very restrictive, no direct routes or delayed descents, so it would certainly cost the airlines more money. I can just imagine what Captain Phil Bovingdon-Stack and his mates would say when we ask him to burn more fuel so NATS can save money. But would NATS save money? The controllers who previously provided the radar services above FL300 are still coming in to do night shifts because they are also providing the services below FL300, at Swanwick at least (Prestwick may be different). We would need more, specially trained, staff (remember, NATS stopped training radar ATCOS in procedural control about 15 years ago) to work the new upper air as well as the infrastructure to support them. And we would still have to get the agreement of the surrounding ATS units to sort out the traffic coming off the oceanic track structure (a job previously done by London) all so NATS can save money. I can just imagine what President de Gaulle and his mates would say to that!

[Rogdabbit]

Yep, great substitute for radar. Yesterday morning I watched an American 767 "landing" just north of Slought and a BA 777 "landing" just north of Windsor! Inrtegrity is not it's best point.

Thats because we haven't made it mandatory for the aircrew to reset their GPS as part of ADSB

Also, the "Planeplotter" software uses triangulation from multiple SBS users which makes the plots very accurate.

I would say it would probably have been ideal out over the North Sea for the Heli-chopters that wizz around there. Im not saying use it for LHR :)

Just out of interest Director, how many did you see that weren't out of place? :)

[Dan Dare]

ferris It's an interesting phenomena, this 'cost-shifting' from ANSPs to airlines. Because that's what it is- reducing costs for the ANSP (such as staff trimming) without heed for the subsequent increase in costs to the airlines as they experience inefficient flight levels/routes, delays etc.


The same phenomenon that has led to AFPEx - a system that got rid of a small number of skilled, qualified but relatively inexpensive aviation experts at Heathrow, but is now run by a similar number of computer systems staff on a help-desk at Swanwick - offloading the required expertise to the hundreds of airfields throughout the country. Bottom line is that NATS saves (arguably) a few pennies, while costing its customers at the airfields ££££s at the same time as service provision/safety reducing.

I apologise for the slight thread drift, but it is all part of the same narrow, penny pinching ignorance that comes out of NATS these days.

Perhaps we would alll receive better safety and service provision if we were not all chasing dividends pyments for short-term bonus schemes for (inevitably) temporary management. Maybe air traffic management could be separated from the market-place and looked after by the state? Oh, that will be why the rest of the world still does it this way and why (dispite the initial interest) they have not all gone down the flawed path of "privatisation".

[SPRATLEVEL300]

Sounds like a Blackadder episode.

"Baldrick (PB) this is the worst idea since........(insert worst idea of your choice!)

[alwaysmovin]

Surely procedural control is more work intensive than Radar....it is taking a step backwards and the inefficiency will cost the airlines money .. ...just what they need at the moment......

They'll be making you pay for your stools and headsets next :mad:

[Cows getting bigger]

It wasn't that long ago that radar screens were mere 'eye candy' sat in the corners of the CASOR (for the yoofs out there, the bit at West Drayton that preceded LACC). To actually use it was viewed by some as being rather anarchic. :)

How the World turns. :bored:

[LostThePicture]

Likely per annum cost saving to NATS of establishing procedural control over the UK FIR at night: £0

Likely per annum cost saving to NATS of divesting itself of 5 x "Safety and Training Managers": £500,000+

Just a thought.

[blueskythinking]

Spot on 'lost the picture' . Really is difficult to be lectured on cost savings when we continue to create management roles that are clearly pointless and overlapping. When will senior management see that we dont need to be micro-managed to the degree that they think. As soon as the stm role was announced most people questioned the necessity of it and what , if any cost benefit there could possibly be. Once again we were not listened to! That mistake has cost Nats millions and could have easily been avoided.

[Still Wee Jock]

Ahhhh now I'm going back a bit and being really picky - who remembers when LTCC management thought it was a great idea to save money by closing the canteen at weekends? Lasted about....oh a nanosecond or so, that bright idea. At least they are still consistent.

Wee Jock, retired, happy and out of it.

:ok::ok::ok:

[anotherthing]

Still Wee Jock,

Things don't change much...

The TC Simulator is located in CTC - the simulator staff and simulator attendees still work the same shifts i.e. mmmaaaooo.

However there are no canteen facilities for these people outside office hours!

Sorry, I'll qualify that statement - on a weekend, 2 canteen staff come in to provide 'breakfast' - when you first walk into the simulator of a morning, you have to fill in a form stating how many sausages or bacon you want them to cook for you - that's the extent of the cooked breakfast.

After breakfast is over, canteen is closed. No lunch or evening meals.

[Gonzo]

Sorry, I'll qualify that statement - on a weekend, 2 canteen staff come in to provide 'breakfast' - when you first walk into the simulator of a morning, you have to fill in a form stating how many sausages or bacon you want them to cook for you - that's the extent of the cooked breakfast.


Sounds great to me! How about we swap catering arrangements? :}

[anotherthing]

Gonzo -

You haven't tasted the sausages :yuk:

I appreciate that other units have little or no catering facilities as well - CTC was just a (nearly) direct comparison to what Still Wee Jock was talking about.

[Gonzo]

You haven't tasted the sausages http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gif

There's a joke in there somewhere!!!!!

[DC10RealMan]

Operational Resources are not real people, they dont need food and other facilities.

[Canoehead]

In a land far-away land I used to call home, the ANS provider's management-types were rumoured to have the following saying...."If only we could get rid of those nasty controllers, well then we'd have ourselves a really great company!". :{