Airfield departure times

[splitduty]

Can somebody educate me please! (Someone from EBBR flow control would be ideal.)
Situation - Departing Spanish airport yesterday for flight to UK. No slot (ctot) issued.
Passengers arrive early for 1200 departure. Perfect!
Arrive at holding point at 1153. No other aircraft about. Given a time check and told to hold position as earliest airborne time is 1200.
I understand that if we had a slot of 1200 we must depart between 1155 and 1210.
But why do we have to wait till 1200 if we have no slot? I thought plus or minus 15 minutes was the requirement in this situation?
Only seems to happen in Spain. Why? What are the actual rules?

[rennaps]

Go to the thread "Spanish ATC-Feedback requested" and read item 51

[Akhorahil]

Because you have to comply with your slot at 12:00. Can depart -5 +10 min only if there is TFC using the rwy, that window of 15 min is used only by control.

[coolbeans]

I think he said in this situation there was no Slot issued.

Working tower I've received releases for aircraft with the proviso "not before time xxxx", could be whats happened here and the time only coincidently matches the fp time.

[splitduty]

Thanks for the replies.
With respect - you have not understood my question.
There was NO slot - so why the delay?

[CheekyVisual]

Spainish ATC are sticking absolutely rigidly to thou shalt no take off before your STD slot or no slot. My understanding of this is that they are saying that in the absence of a CTOT your STD becomes your CTOT. Not sure if this in an official rule or something the Spanish have made up, probably the latter.

I was told by someone, so this is second possibly third hand, that Spanish ATC management were fighting the work to rule by totally enforcing the work to rule. I.E. Instigating discipilinary action should they be broken. Hence no directs or earlier departures. "Overloading sectors with unplanned or extra movements" I believe is the official reason.

I just assume my earliest airborne is now my STD. If you're early just tell the pax it's the dirty dagos again and have another cuppa !

I've given up getting annoyed by the Spanish it is a pointless exercise they aren't going to change no matter how irrate you get with them. All you do is wind yourself up which is exactly what they want. As Clint would say "Don't give the ******** the satisfaction !".

[chevvron]

If no slot issued, you must still take off +/- 15min either side of your filed departure time, but the Spanish seem to make up their own rules!

[splitduty]

CheektVisual,
Thank you for that. What I need is a link to the actual, official rules for this situation. If the Spanish are so intent on complying with regulations then they need to know what they are - and so do we!

[splitduty]

Chevvron,
+ or - 15 mins is my understanding of the situation. Seems to apply everywhere except Spain. Can you be a real star and guide me to the official document. Thanks.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Splitduty.... There are many reasons why your "problem" could have occurred. Local traffic, for example. Just because the runway is empty does not mean anyone can just take off. Most times one can, but there will, inevitably, be times when other traffic will dictate what happens. Where I worked there were numerous aerial activities which sometimes delayed our traffic - military surveys, police and ambulance helicopters, Royal flights, even loonies doing sky-diving! Crews never questioned us because they knew would get them away as fast as poss.

I know that things are different in other countries, but where I worked there was always a perfectly good reason for how the traffic was handled and the only people who knew the reason were the controllers.

[chevvron]

splitduty: it's in the UK AIP, in the ENR section I think. I'll try to have a look but I'm FISOing at the moment.

[splitduty]

HD,
Had the Spanish Controller explained any of the hypothetical reasons you mention above that would have been acceptable.
However, he made it perfectly clear that we were not departing because our FPL time was on the hour and as it was time 53 when we arrived at the holding point, we had to hold.
I am trying to ascertain if he was complying with the rules or not.

[blissbak]

It's just time for the guess what, next time ask them for the reason

[chevvron]

ENR 1.9 page 2 para 5.1. sub para e. says it's a European requirement that any modification of EOBT more than +/_ 15 mins shall notifiy the change to CFMU through EFPS, which implies if you're within +/_ 15 you can go.

[splitduty]

Blissbak - we did ask the reason and were told our earliest departure time was on the hour because that was our FPL departure time. I repeat - no slot.

Chevvron - thank you again for your efforts. What I now need to find is some more detail :-
1) is this purely a British procedure,
2) does the + or - time apply to off blocks time or to an airborne time?

I think this may be the crux of the problem. I am hoping someone with flow control knowledge will supply the answer and reference to this.

[BrATCO]

splitduty,
Your scheduled depature was at 1200, you took off at 1200...

You did fly your flight plan route to the French entry point, got a 450NM direct to the UK entry point, which saved you a bit less than 1 min, got another direct with UK, which saved you another minute.

Then you had to turn once or twice for the sequencing at arrival (here, you lose 2 mins)... and you're just on time to see a departing plane vacate your gate, for him to depart just on time...
This is a part of the big picture.
That's the way flow management works.
With or without CTOT. Your flight is counted, even though not slotted.
If you're too early on an almost overloaded sector, then slot allocations will be implemented for those who are still on the gate. One of them could be the one who is at your gate...

If you're early, you will probably have to wait on arrival. For your gate if you're on the ground, for the runway if you're still airborne.


PS : I reckon there's a +/- rule in every CFMU country. At least, there should be.

[splitduty]

BrATCO,
I thought for a moment you were agreeing with the Spanish operation until your PS comment that all CFMU countries should have a + or - departure rule.
That is my point entirely - we were not allowed to depart early. Why not?

[chevvron]

I would hazard a guess it's just Spanish controllers annoyed with being shafted by their employers and trying to make a point.

[blissbak]

The +-15' is not British but a IFPZ procedure applied to the EOBT, thus your taxi must be in accord and your departure within ETOT and by any chance not earlier than EOBT -15'.
If you wonder why, that's 'cause CFMU process your flight according the time you give him and the system decide whether you need to be regulated or not, any time the schedule is not respected the system got ******.

My guess, maybe spanish require you to be airborne exactly at your ETOT .....:sad:

[BrATCO]

Splitduty,
I don't agree, nor disagree. I just wouldn't like being in their shoes.

You complain about Spanish service... wait for SESAR and its semi-automated control system. I forecast that the rule will be +/- 1 min all over Europe, otherwise the system will screw.
Don't worry, this is not for tomorrow.

[splitduty]

Guys,
Thanks for all the replies. I understand all the possible reasons why our Spanish friends might behave the way they do - but that is not good enough.
I need to know with what authority they act the way they do. Can a Spanish controller please advise where it is written that no aircraft can depart before its FPL time? Where are your operating procedures coming from? Are you complying with them and if not, why not?

[aldegar]

I'm a radar ATCO. The rules have changed many times lately and I'm tired of rereading all the changes so I tend to overlook the aerodrome parts and focus on what I really need to know (APP and en route), so I won't answer your question.

However, so that you get an idea of AENA's attitude, when I came to work last monday there was a new sheet of paper in the APP position titled "Report of non-compliance with the SID procedures of Spain's AIP for LExx". It must be filled EVERY time an aircraft doesn't fly the full SID and at the end of the day it must be attached to the superviser's daily report folder.
We must write the time, call sign, reason (only four possible reasons to select: traffic separation, meteorology, navaids calibration and air works, no option for the "we're running a bit late, any direct available?") and comments.

So I wouldn't be surprised if my twr colleagues are also being forced to fill a similar paper everytime an aircraft doesnt comply with the exact departure time or CTOT.

So yes, we are working to rule... forced by the company to do so and being called to the office if we don't.

[fireflybob]

aldegar, that's interesting and thanks for the information.

As professional aviators and controllers our lives seem to be plagued by more and more bureaucratic nonsense, more often than not spewed out by someone in the EU.

Roll on the Revolution - Orwell must be looking down on us and laughing or maybe even weeping.

[splitduty]

Aldegar,
I thank you as well for your reply.
What is now required is a similar response from one of your ADC controllers confirming that they act in accordance with the rules when they delay departures in similar circumstances to the situation I was in.
Anybody?

[CancelIFR]

You "gents" do know that the UK AIP does not apply in Spain? check the spanish one, its all in there. One has never been able to depart before their EOBT in Spain as long as ive flown there.

[splitduty]

CancelIFR,
I have spent ages trawling through the Spanish AIP! I can`t find it. I need the reference. My very first post said `I need to be educated`. I still do.
But nobody seems able to give me the refernce!.

[aldegar]

splitduty,

I worked in a twr from 2000 to 2008. Back then we had an internal document from our regional flow office (which management posted all around the twr) stating two things: The first one, that if there is no departure sequence all acft must depart at the exact CTOT time (can't make use of the -5/+10). The second one, that no acft can depart before the EOBT time, the explanation given for that was that the taxi time couldn't have a negative value. I don't remember if there was anything about it in the spanish AIP.

But I still haven't answered your question, because as I said before I'm not updated, I'm just telling how things were before but changes have been going on.

[radarman]

splitduty,

I'm still trying to wade through some Spanish legal documents posted on another thread. It's heavy going, but as far as I can make out Spanish controllers are now hung out to dry by AENA for any action or decision they make that results in an irregularity of any sort. This is regardless of whether the incident happens in their airspace or further along the line. So let's imagine the controller who made you wait had been a good egg and cleared you for take off when you arrived at the holding point. You are now 7 minutes early. So some time later you arrive at a very busy sector boundary 7 minutes before they are expecting you and this contributes to an overload. When complaints are made AENA trace your flight and find you departed early. Who gets shafted for causing the overload? Under the new rules it's the poor Spanish controller who generously allowed you to depart before schedule. As BrATCO said, CFMU calculations are based on FPL departure times. Depart early or late and these calculations (and all other flights) get screwed. So the only way for Spanish controllers to safeguard their jobs is to take every conceivable action to ensure their @rses are covered, even if this means inconveniencing flights under their control. There is probably no particular Spanish regulation saying you can't depart before your FPL dep time, just the controller worried there could be a come-back if he let you go early. Making you wait till 1200 made sure he cleared his backside and kept his job.

[splitduty]

Aldegar,
Interesting. Do you think that Spanish tower controllers are still complying with outdated rules. If they are then they are not complying - and I thought complicity is what they demand.

Radarman,
I have been expecting this excuse from somebody at some time.
If I had been subject to a CTOT, I could accept your argument. However, I was on an UNREGULATED flight. If, indeed, there was a problem with overloads further down the line I would expect to be issued with a CTOT. Is that not the whole point of flow control? So I cannot accept your reasoning.
Other countries do not appear to have a problem with unregulated aircraft departing before FPL time.
So, I am left thinking:_
1) Are the Spanish complying with some rule that nobody else needs to comply?
or
2) Are standards so low they do not understand what they are doing?
or
3) Are they simply being bloody minded and deliberately trying to disrupt flights, costing operators time and money?

Which ever way you look at it, seems like non compliance to me!

[10W]

CFMU Handbook

5.1.4. EOBT Requirements
It is a requirement for both ATC and ATFCM, that the EOBT of a flight shall be an accurate EOBT. This applies to all flights, whether subject to a flow management regulation or not.

Any change to the EOBT of more than 15 minutes for any IFR flight within the FPM distribution area shall be communicated to the IFPS.

Therefore I read that as no requirement to file a DLA or CHG message with IFPS (and thus CFMU) if you are +/-15 minutes from EOBT. Outwith the 15 minutes, or if you have a slot, then you do have to make the changes known as per the CFMU Handbook. However, it does not directly mention whether the CTOT has a similar tolerance.

4.4.3. Slot Revisions

Revisions to CTOTs should, where possible, be coordinated between the AO and the CFMU using the ATFM message exchange procedures. However, it may be the case that last minute revisions to CTOTs and slot extensions when the pilot is in direct communication with ATC, are more easily or efficiently coordinated with the FMP/CFMU by ATC.

Now, this is something which can be used and is a CFMU 'rule', so it will keep the Spanish happy. The aircraft is allowed to taxy 15 up to minutes early (with no slot) as per 5.1.4 above. ATC should therefore be able to work out how early the aircraft might be able to depart and can 'easily or efficiently' co-ordinate this with FMP/CFMU. Simple. You make a call and then the Flow people give you the 'permission' you need to let the flight go early. Everyone is in the loop, especially in the wider ATCFM sphere, and the pilot is happy. It's called providing a service. AENA, the Government, and anyone else with an axe to grind can't do anything against the ATC controller. He has complied with the European wide procedures. If Spain (AENA or the Government) don't want to abide by the European procedures laid down, then don't bother to be part of the CFMU system. Sort it out yourselves. That would of course be a very backward step, but if you're in the game, you should play by the rules which are available to you in order to provide the best and most efficient service to your CUSTOMERS.

[Akhorahil]

Flight plan adherence:

Why a campaign and even a trial ?

http://www.eurocontrol.int/gallery/design/content/spacer.gifWhen investigating those occurrences described earlier, it is found in most cases that the additional flights entered the concerned sector as a result of: http://www.eurocontrol.int/gallery/design/content/spacer.giful.firstlevelbulletlist, ul.secondlevelbulletlist {list-style-image:url(/gallery/design/content/square02.gif);} .firstlevelbulletlist {padding-left: 30px} .secondlevelbulletlist {padding-left: 20px}

not flying at the initial requested flight level (RFL); or,
departing at times different from the original estimated off block time (EOBT) or calculated take off time (CTOT); or,
arriving in the sector earlier or later than originally planned; or,
deviating from their original planned route; often direct routeing (DCT).
You can see the rest of the info in Eurocontrol website:
EUROCONTROL - Flight Plan & ATFCM Adherence (http://www.eurocontrol.int/dmean/public/standard_page/FPL_ATFCM_adherence.html)

So the departing time should be as acurate as possible. And the exact time is the most accurate possible!

[splitduty]

10W,
My understanding of the situation exactly. Just need clarity on what time I can get airborne.

Akhorahill,
You still do not understand the situation. Let me put it in a practical situation for you.
1) A CTOT flight must be airborne within -5 to +10 of the slot . No problem.
I understand and am happy to comply with that
2) An UNREGULATED flight can TAXI + or - 15 mins from FPL time. As I am sure you are aware taxi times at most airfields vary. EG.Malaga. Taxying for RW13 takes far longer than taxying for RW31 from the GAT. So I comply with the rules and am off blocks 15 mins early. Taxi time is short and I arrive at the holding point 5 mins later ready to depart. There are no other aircraft around, I have NO CTOT, I am an UNREGULAED flight - so why does the Spanish ATCO appear to take great delight in making me wait another10 minutes for departure. It would not happen anywhere else in our European CFMU region, so why in Spain? That is the simple question I asked many posts ago and nobody can give me a simple and definitive answer. OVER!

[BrATCO]

Splitduty,

so why in Spain?
There could be no purely-technical reason for your departure "on time" from Spain, but you might find a part of the answer here :
http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/459677-spanish-atc-feedback-requested-4.html#post6667292

Not sure they take any delight...

[radarman]

10W,

If Spain (AENA or the Government) don't want to abide by the European procedures laid down, then don't bother to be part of the CFMU system.

Can't fault your impeccable NW European logic, but it doesn't apply much when you get south of Paris. Unfortunately Spain, along with some other Mediterranean characters, sees compliance with international regulations as optional. Very nice to have the rules to hide behind when they suit you, but otherwise ignore. There are pages of commercial and business EU regulations which we Brits slavishly follow, only to see our fellow Europeans shrug and carry on doing things their own way. Same applies to aviation unfortunately. Seems to be directly proportional to the amount of garlic and olive oil in the local cuisine. :E

[10W]

So the departing time should be as acurate as possible. And the exact time is the most accurate possible!

Yes, it should be as accurate as possible. So Spanish controllers should be picking up the phone and organising improvements with FMP/CFMU when they can. The flight can then depart early and CFMU has an accurate 'revised' CTOT. If your workload permits, why wouldn't you ? Or maybe your management can't read and understand the simple procedures in the CFMU Handbook ?

And I don't buy an excuse that a 'Royal Decree' won't let me comply with CFMU rules. If the 'Royal Decree' tells you to disregard what is published for the CFMU Region, then Eurocontrol and the European Parliament needs to start taking serious action against the Spanish Government or AENA. Perhaps withholding Route Charges for a period might be appropriate until the apparent Spanish non-compliance is dealt with ? Or Spanish Controllers can be proud of their profession and hold up the CFMU Handbook in front of their management and ask why they are not allowed to comply with the rules which are published ?

Let's also be clear about capacity in the system. There is approximately 30% more capacity available than the declared Traffic Volume. That is there to allow for emergencies and other contingencies, as well as to cater for the fact that traffic delivery is not an exact science. Even when a volume is regulated, the aircraft entering it can (simply by the rules of the system) be anywhere within a 15 minute 'slot' around the calculated time of sector entry and this is deemed acceptable by the system. Unregulated traffic should therefore be expected under the same criteria. Until we get precise 4D flight management, in the ground and the air, that's the way it has to be.

[bookworm]

Therefore I read that as no requirement to file a DLA or CHG message with IFPS (and thus CFMU) if you are +/-15 minutes from EOBT. Outwith the 15 minutes, or if you have a slot, then you do have to make the changes known as per the CFMU Handbook. However, it does not directly mention whether the CTOT has a similar tolerance.

Can we just be clear on this? If the reason for your being 15 mins or more later than EOBT is a CFMU imposed slot, you don't need to send a DLA message. If that slot is subsequently cancelled, leaving you unable to get off blocks within 15 mins of the original EOBT, then you do need to send a DLA.

[Daermon ATC]

Hadn't seen this thread before

First of all, spanish regulation regarding departure times is exactly the same as in civilized Europe (that is ETOT +/- 15) ... since aproximately two months.

Don't nail me on the exact date but around the last week of June there was a norm stating that in Spain no aircraft could be airborne before its EOBT.

As an example, if you are in an airport with 5 min taxitime and you filed ETOT at 1200 then in Spain you could not have been airborne before 1155. In the rest of Europe and nowadays also in Spain the earliest airborne would be 1145.

From a strictly normative point of view the ATCO did therefore not act correctly.

The above is probably the sentence you wanted to read and I must stand to it but would like to offer 2 caveats:
1) As Heathrow Director already said, there could be other reasons for the delay.
I do not know the specifics about the airport where you had this issue, perhaps it is customary in order to avoid conflict with whatever other issue... nevertheless I take from your posts that you already questioned the ATCO to verify that.

2) ATC situation in Spain is not what it should be, not by a long way. Do you know how I was informed of that regulation change? By an RYR pilot who also was not precisely happy to have his departure delayed.
We had recieved about 2 months earlier an internal memo from AENA in which the change of procedure was mentioned, but it did not include any fixed date and in any case we took it as yet another internal change. Since there was a written norm stating otherwise we asked for clarification stating that obviously between a company norm and spanish law we would follow the latter.
Never heard again of that untill that conversation with the pilot and afterwards it took me about an hour to get confirmation of that change.

Does this excuse the delay you suffered? Not really but it does offer explanation on how this deficiences in service may arise... other than the controller simply trying to overcompensate an acute inferiority complex.

Let me apologize on his/her behalf and in any case I would ask you for some patience. If this should happen again I kindly ask you to ask precisely why you are being delayed and to inform the atco if the explanation offered does not apply to you ... prefereably not on the main frequency. It will probably not help you but might be of value to the next flights when the atco has time to reflect on what you said.

[Sonnendec]

Yes, it should be as accurate as possible. So Spanish controllers should be picking up the phone and organising improvements with FMP/CFMU when they can. The flight can then depart early and CFMU has an accurate 'revised' CTOT. If your workload permits, why wouldn't you ?

And we try to do so, but AENA has taken away even that. All the flow management decisions are now taken in an office in Madrid, and not in the Ops Room. Surprised?

And I don't buy an excuse that a 'Royal Decree' won't let me comply with CFMU rules. If the 'Royal Decree' tells you to disregard what is published for the CFMU Region, then Eurocontrol and the European Parliament needs to start taking serious action against the Spanish Government or AENA.

That´s in its way already. About two months ago two spanish controllers were in the EU PETI Comission to speak for us about the situation in Spain. They took note and submitted the issue to the EU Parliament for an investigation. But the EU is slow, and we (and you) have to deal with this everyday.

Perhaps withholding Route Charges for a period might be appropriate until the apparent Spanish non-compliance is dealt with ?

I definetely would vote for you.

Or Spanish Controllers can be proud of their profession and hold up the CFMU Handbook in front of their management and ask why they are not allowed to comply with the rules which are published ?

We do that almost everyday with no effect. Any other suggestion?

Let's also be clear about capacity in the system. There is approximately 30% more capacity available than the declared Traffic Volume. That is there to allow for emergencies and other contingencies, as well as to cater for the fact that traffic delivery is not an exact science.

You should see how AENA determines the sector capacities here. Let´s say they are... "imaginative".

Even when a volume is regulated, the aircraft entering it can (simply by the rules of the system) be anywhere within a 15 minute 'slot' around the calculated time of sector entry and this is deemed acceptable by the system. Unregulated traffic should therefore be expected under the same criteria. Until we get precise 4D flight management, in the ground and the air, that's the way it has to be.

You are completely right, and no controller should be pursued or menaced because of that. Agree?

Best regards.

[10W]

Thanks for the further information Daermon ATC and Sonnendec. You are truly in a poor situation, thanks to your management and government. It is indeed a shame that the European beaurocracy which could help you and the customers is such a slow and impotent beast :(

Bookworm, you are right, but the scenario being discussed was for a non regulated flight. :ok:

[bookworm]

Bookworm, you are right, but the scenario being discussed was for a non regulated flight.

It was your ", or if you have a slot," that confused me. Sorry if I misunderstood.

[splitduty]

bookworm - ref your post nos 36.

If CFMU issue a CTOT a pilot does not need to have a DLA message sent UNLESS he wishes to delay his flight further. (ie. company operational reasons).
On my most recent flight my CTOT changed 7 times! No way could I keep sending DLA messages in those circumstances.!

[splitduty]

10W. Thank you for your valuable contributions to this debate. I was beginning to think that nobody understood the situation I found myself in. You obviously do. This situation is happening all over Spain every day and it seems pilots have given up trying to sort it. That cannot be allowed to happen.
You also touched on the subject of `providing a service to customers`.
On my last flight from Spain, CAT was forecast for the whole route. Not particularly unusual, but on that day it was continuous moderate to severe at most cruising levels - which is quite rare. Lots of requests for ride reports / level changes etc. Too many replies from Spanish controllers of the usual - `station calling say again `
We checked in with London Control at the FIR boundary and his first reply was - `expect mod/severe turbulence 20 miles ahead - do you wish to climb?`
Now that, my Spanish friends, is what I consider to be part of an ATC service. In one transmission he demonstrated he KNEW the problems we were facing, he ANTICIPATED what we would want, he PROVIDED an EXCELLENT solution and he was being HELPFUL! He did not need to do this - but his professional training and pride in the job produced this result.
Put simply - he provided a service to his customers.
Do you think you do?

[Sonnendec]

Splitduty,

Do you think you do?

The answer is YES. As i said before, if you want to compare us to the brits, compare everything, and not only the last link of the chain, even if it´s the only one you get to see when you fly. That´s why we are here.

So the complete answer would be: yes, but taking into account that we have to work under lower standards than our british colleagues. For sure, your controllers that day didn´t have any weather radar available, no information from management about the CAT issue, overloaded sectors, 25 minutes roster changing from one control position to another, no professional training at all, etc.

I understand your complaint, of course, and i encourage you to make a report to your company, Eurocontrol and EASA (surprised i don´t include AENA in this list?).

Best regards.

[splitduty]

SONNENDEC,
Here we go again. Everyone`s fault except Spanish ATC,
Lets look at your points one by one and see if they make sense :-
1) you quote ` lower standards than our British colleagues` - My point exactly, but what do YOU mean?
2) you quote `controllers didn`t have weather radar` - I don`t think the British controllers do either. But they are able to build a picture of what is happening from pilot reports. Could you not do likewise?
3) you quote `no info from management about CAT` - this I find incredible. Do you seriously go on duty with no idea of what the weather is? Can you not self brief? There are many Met sites even if management do not spoon feed you the info! Don`t the pilot reports alert you to the weather around? Do you think at all?
4) you quote `overloaded sectors` - this one I might have some sympathy for you. I know pilots cannot judge a controller`s workload from RTF loading. However, it does give some indication! I can assure you the London controller`s frequency was much, much busier than the Spanish ones. Ask any pilot.
5) you quote `25 minutes roster change` - was this a problem when you were all earning massive amounts of money earning overtime?
6) you quote `no professional training at all` - MY POINT EXACTLY.

I repeat - do you still think you provide a good ATC sevice?

[Akhorahil]

Splitduty, if I don´t need to something... I just simply don´t do it.

Will I go home earlier if I am nice? will I earn more? will I have more rest time? The answer is NO, so I have no need to be nice.

There was a time where I provided traffic information when tfc was with less than 10 NM, or climbing to a lower level... now of course I don´t, I follow the RCA, so will only provide tfc info for esential tfc (when the separation is less than published). Same with all other things that are not mandatory. I am unhappy at my work (I have to work 470 hours more each year than I did), so I don´t really care about the work. I just wait untill go home time and try to do as little as I can to comply with the rules. I could provide better service (Tfc info, turbulence info, holding info and so on) but there is nothing for me to win with it.

I could also say I have studied the RAD and I apply it... poor pilots facing turbulence and asking to climb on restricted routes, they will never climb with me. I try to learn all the regulations to know what should I do and what I shouldn´t... maybe if´s revenge for my 470 hours/year lost... maybe.

Good luck over Spain... lots of TCAS TA coming with 5 NM soon.

[splitduty]

Akhorahill,
I feel sorry for you. None of us aviation professionals earn extra money for doing a good job. Only bankers do.(and not necessarily for even doing a good job) But we still provide the best service possible. Even if we earn nothing like Spanish controllers.
You have just admitted what I and all pilots I know have thought for years.
Very sad. Why do you contine to do the job if you are that unhappy?
However, I do not think you can offload your responsibilities so lightly.
I am sure others will have thoughts.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Splitduty, if I don´t need to something... I just simply don´t do it.

Allow me to take this comment in the same context as supplying pilots with information about CAT.

Do you understand the amount of people who you are putting at risk of injury or even, in the worst case, death by not being bothered to give me information about something which is bloody dangerous to everybody on my aeroplane and the hundreds of others in your airspace, just because you don't want to?

You can't wait to go home? Please don't bother turning up in the first place.

I was beginning to feel some sort of sympathy for you lot but I'm afraid that you have just lost it, completely.

[Akhorahil]

I don´t do anything if I don´t have to...
I have to provide info about severe turbulence because it can compromise safety, so I do it (one day on tfc requested descend from FL330 to FL210 because of that), and I warned all the TFCs in the vicinity. But light turbulence does not compromise safety... so I don´t pass the info unless requested.

I do the job because I am paid to do it. You wouldn´t imagine how many ppl is unhappy with his job (at least here in Spain) and continues doing it because the need the money to live.

And as I said, I am always learning new things about the job to comply strictly with the rules. Try to change the rules, will be easier than change me. Good work or bad work... I don´t even try to understand the difference, now it´s only "legal work" for me (remeber the 4,5 million euros fee in Spain for "going against the law").

[fireflybob]

Here's a case in point:-

Departed large Spanish airport a few weeks ago - Moderate/Severe turbulence from 2,000 ft up to FL150 (not forecast). I advise on R/T:-

"XXX be advised for information of other a/c moderate occasional severe turbulence on climb to FL150"

Reply?

"Ah yes, we did have an a/c report that half an hour ago too!"

The sector was NOT busy at all!

[Sonnendec]

Splitduty,

Here we go again. Everyone`s fault except Spanish ATC,

Didnt say that at all.

1) you quote ` lower standards than our British colleagues` - My point exactly, but what do YOU mean?

Well, after lots of posts both here and at the other thread about spanish atc, i thought you would have got that point already. Anyway you can read my last posts to see what i mean.

2) you quote `controllers didn`t have weather radar` - I don`t think the British controllers do either. But they are able to build a picture of what is happening from pilot reports. Could you not do likewise?

Well, it´s not only this, of course, but altogether that makes the controller unaware of a lot more things than you may think.

3) you quote `no info from management about CAT` - this I find incredible. Do you seriously go on duty with no idea of what the weather is? Can you not self brief? There are many Met sites even if management do not spoon feed you the info! Don`t the pilot reports alert you to the weather around? Do you think at all?

I do think, thank you. We could get to those met sites if we had internet at work, which they took away. And we do self-brief, but as i told you before, it´s the whole picture that makes the work difficult, not just one thing. If you put all the issues that we have to deal with every time we sit infront of the scope together, you will get a confused controller, not an efficient one.

4) you quote `overloaded sectors` - this one I might have some sympathy for you. I know pilots cannot judge a controller`s workload from RTF loading. However, it does give some indication! I can assure you the London controller`s frequency was much, much busier than the Spanish ones. Ask any pilot.

What day was that? just look at the everyday´s eurocontrol NOP and compare Madrid FIR with London FIR, so you won´t have to ask the pilots.

5) you quote `25 minutes roster change` - was this a problem when you were all earning massive amounts of money earning overtime?

Of course not, because we didn´t do that absurdity. It´s completely crazy to change every 25 minutes, doesnt matter if they pay you 1 euro or 1 million.

6) you quote `no professional training at all` - MY POINT EXACTLY.

And mine too. We agree. Both happy.

I repeat - do you still think you provide a good ATC sevice?

It seems that you haven´t read ANY of my posts.

Best regards.

[Sonnendec]

Fireflybob,

Here's a case in point:-

Departed large Spanish airport a few weeks ago - Moderate/Severe turbulence from 2,000 ft up to FL150 (not forecast). I advise on R/T:-

"XXX be advised for information of other a/c moderate occasional severe turbulence on climb to FL150"

Reply?

"Ah yes, we did have an a/c report that half an hour ago too!"

The sector was NOT busy at all!

This is bad work. Period. You can´t forget to warn the pilots about that kind of turbulence. On behalf of my colleague, sorry.

[splitduty]

Ye gods. This is going from bad to worse!
I have made my points and shall leave others to judge whether representitives of Spanish ATC have restored confidence in how they operate their system and how professional they are.
Meanwhile, I am off to fill out that survey about them.

[Sonnendec]

Splitduty,

I have made my points and shall leave others to judge whether representitives of Spanish ATC have restored confidence in how they operate their system and how professional they are.

I am not reprentative for anybody but myself, as akhorahil is, and as you are. This is a public forum and and not a technical committee.

And i´m for sure not here to restore anybody´s confidence, but to ask for help so we can change some things that have to be changed. I think you missed that point.

Meanwhile, I am off to fill out that survey about them.

Please DO!! thank you.

Best regards, and calm down a bit, there´s no need for all that hostility.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Akhorahill

I could provide better service (Tfc info, turbulence info, holding info and so on) but there is nothing for me to win with it.

I could also say I have studied the RAD and I apply it... poor pilots facing turbulence and asking to climb on restricted routes, they will never climb with me.

Sorry, you said this but you meant something else?

What's in it for you? Professional and personal pride.

[Sonnendec]

Lord Spandex,

I´m also surprised and still think he was either being ironic (or sarcastic) or trying to say something else.

[Daermon ATC]

"He who is free of sin shall throw the first stone"

As I am not, I shan't.

I must confess though that I'm also a bit astonished at Akhorahill's answer but I will not flame him for that. I think that is not the right attitude but unfortunately I can see where it comes from as I have to remind myself every day that I'm a cualified professional and my job and my duty are to provide the best service I can to my customers to the limit of my ability or possibilities.

That said the human factor relating to a job is now so low I'm pretty confident it will be a case study in years to come... and I'm hoping like mad that the lecture does not end with some charred metal junks on the ground. :uhoh:

There are other threads (the old one about spanish ATC comes to my mind) in which our current working conditions are described. Please don't give me that "but you earn a million euros" again, if you really believe this worth talking about we can open another thread and I' comment extensively on that. In any case here is a link (http://www.limaeco.aero/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13895&sid=ca0d17dd79f102f4dbb92bbcc547e4fc) to an ATCO's payslip.

I know that my working conditions should not affect the service I provide but it does nevertheless. That is the reason why there is a "human factor" at all, because it DOES interfere with you work.

During the last 18 months I've been brandmarked a terrorist, a kidnapper. Scores of people who do not know me have the stone-set knowledge that I am privileged (in a sense, I am) and that somehow their economic or social misery has been caused by me.

I have seen a trap set on us to provide an excuse for the first state of alarm (something not even the terrorist attacks on Madrid managed) in our democracy's history for which many of my colleagues are facing criminal prosecution. (Just as a sidenote, there is a rumor that the president of our labor union was threathened at the government to be considered a criminal and therefore loosing custody rights to an adopted child).

I've seen colleagues fired or exiled to other centres ... just the day after the government's party had landslide losses on local elections... coincidence? I've seen the very same judge that dismissed our claims that our constitutional rights to labor union representation had been violated concede that very same point for other public workers of the royal mint.

I've seen colleagues leave to work to other countries, one of them to Irak. Come on guys! Just think of how the conditions must be for someone to leave our "privileges" and go to start a career in Irak... his blog (http://unalienenbaghdad.********.com/) is an interesting and witty reading (spanish) but never forget the grim facts.

I've been trained to find safety threaths and then every new law I read changes my work in a way that makes me shudder. How many slices of "swiss cheese" are left? Will I be the one who makes a fatal mistake with dire consecuences?

And then I have to think that I'm one of the lucky ones, that I do not jet work at an ACC / TACC which have been the hardest hit.

So while I do not excuse it in any way, I can feel how Ankhorahill has reached that state of mind.

Just for the record:
What's in it for you? Professional and personal pride.
They seared away both some time ago. They are still somewhere, clinging to the gutters resisting to let go.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Daermon,

No matter how you feel towards your employer you shouldn't take it out on your customers. Us.

I regularly get utterly hacked off with my company. Incompetence, poor decision making, extended duties for nothing extra, screwing up my time off etc., etc., etc. But, I do not ignore the needs of my customers. I still try everything I can to ensure that my customers receive the service they expect, occasionally I even exceed their expectations!

I still have pride in what I do even in the face of adversity, at 3am, on the second of my extra two sectors, at the end of a sixteen hour day knowing that I will not be getting home for another five hours, eight hours into my day off, because I have to get a taxi back to my home airport and then drive home because I haven't been able to land at my home airport because it's now closed because of hours of delays but I am ensuring that my customers can get home. I could have said no, by the way.

It would be nice if, one day, I receive a service from Spanish ATC that exceeds my expectations. You really won't have to try that hard.

Now, this isn't aimed at anyone in particular except those people who demonstrate the same attitude as Akhorahill described.

I live in hope.

[10W]

The post by Lord Spandex Master sums up the UK way of doing things. Spanish ATC is not alone in having attacks made on their conditions or having management try to beat them over the head. They only have it at a greater degree, for now.

Look in this Forum over the years and see how NATS staff have had numerous battles to fight. Battles on pensions, pay, new equipment ..... The lists are long. The workforce fight these issues, sometimes winning, but often losing. But, regardless of the battle, we never ever bring the problems on to the controlling position. We don't provide any less of a service, or do only what we have to when controlling. If you claim to be a professional, then that is the only way to behave. We save our fighting energy for where it belongs, that is engaging management and political bodies, primarily through our elected union representatives.

I hope Akhorahill's post has lost something in translation and they have been misunderstood. If however they really do operate that way, withholding flight safety information and making no effort to ensure an efficient ATC operation, because they are pissed off with their situation, then they are dangerous and should not be classed as fit for duty. In that case, please report for your duties as normal but tell your management that you don't feel mentally fit enough for operational sector duties. You may prevent an avoidable incident or accident, and that, my friend, is showing real professionalism. Your customers pay for, and expect, nothing less.