Computerized ATC

[dcoded]

There are lots of talks today about the pilotless/single pilot airliners to cut costs.

Although it's hard to believe that the common man will set foot in such an airline in the near future, it's quite probable that our industry / jobs will change in the future.

But is there any ongoing work to replace the ATC? Surely the technical capabilities exist for such a feat? At least, it seems to me that the ATC guy and girls are facing the same level of complexity we pilots need to face in our daily duties.

I think the common man would have an easier time stepping into an two pilot airliner today which is flying through a computer controlled airspace.

What are your thoughts?

[eagleflyer]

Not in my lifetime! It´s still and will be for a long time way too complex and somebody has to pay for it, too.

[kcockayne]

I joined ATC in 1971. I was informed by a chap who owned a “computer production” business, at the time, that I would soon be out of a job. 37 years later, I retired.....& still no hint of ATCOS being replaced by computers. I’m pretty sure it will eventually happen - but not in my lifetime, either.

[dcoded]

Not in my lifetime! It´s still and will be for a long time way too complex and somebody has to pay for it, too.

Why do you think it's more complex than automatic flying?
Is it more complex than for example the Russian Buran spacecraft making an automatic glide landing from space? This was accomplished few decades ago even.

Sure I agree it will be costly.

But don't you think that the common man, would have it easier to accept to fly through automated Airspace, than to fly on a pilotless drone?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

We had a chap at Heathrow who had been tasked with automating ATC. I told him to automate the EG list which was infinitely more complex!

[dcoded]

One difference in the examples that you cite is that only one vehicle is involved. ATC is pretty easy when the controller only has one aircraft to deal with - introduce other aircraft and the interactions between each very quickly becomes very complex.

Glide landing a spacecraft involves a high number of unknown variables. Sure it involves one craft, with a specific target of Landing on a specified spot.

In ATC there are also an finite number of unknown variables with a specific target of avoiding collision and providing an "efficient" flow.

I fail to see how automated airspace Is more complex?

The computer can know beforehand approximately how much traffic is expected, what routing it will follow and so on, and on a global scale could probably coordinate more direct routings over larger distances than today?

I don't intend this thread to be a fight between controllers and pilots as to which profession will "die" first.

[le Pingouin]

You're comparing automation of a single aircraft that doesn't have to interact with anything else with automating a whole system.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

.... or weather, or just achange in the wind, or the sudden closure of a runway, or a million other reasons.

[zed3]

Let's just watch this driverless car business (2022?) and take it from there... should be interesting.

[good egg]

There are various areas where the ATC function could be "assisted" by computers - whether it's Area, Approach or Aerodrome control. Each area has to be rigorously studied for every eventuality and hence the slow "progress" in these areas.
When everything is "standard" it's quite easy to see the benefit of automation, in practice there are so many variables (some of which will never have been seen before) that even the cleverest level of artificial intelligence would struggle.

That's not to say that humans don't also struggle in new situations, and certainly don't always make the right decisions.

One of the huge issues is, of course, if the computers are determining minimum separations in order to squeeze as much traffic as is possible through the system then what happens when something non-standard happens. Artificial Intelligence is making huge bounds, and will continue to do so, but it relies on the quality of its data. There are huge limitations associated with raw data, the transmission of data, the timeliness of data, the number of sources of data, conflicting data and so on.

How do you quiz a computer about its actions at a subsequent board of inquiry? Who's to blame? The programmers?

Confidence will grow, in time, following many many trials of computer-assisted decision-making but it's still a long way off, in my opinion, before you can remove the human ATCO (for all its failings) from the system. In the short-medium term I can see that ATCO numbers will be reduced, with the functions becoming more and more reliant on computer-assisted decision-making and "tools" but with contingency for human recovery.

It may well take the "fun" out of the job...but will almost certainly be more efficient. In some ways the computerisation may even assist teaching ATCOs - faster and more efficiently that just a human OJTI could.

[Tarq57]

good egg, regarding your fourth paragraph, once you have computers making most of the decisions regarding sequencing and spacing, in the event that a "contingency for human recovery" becomes necessary, it simply ain't going to happen.

Humans are usually poor at monitoring systems. I'd say this is particularly true of controllers. We get bored, quickly, when not engaged. If a situation arises requiring human intervention, it's highly unlikely that the people doing the monitoring will (a) be 'on to it' in time, or (b) have the currency or experience required to take an effective course of action.

Once you open the bottle of that genie, it's staying open, and forget about going back.

[big_head]

Even if someone created the software brains today (still no easy task), we would be a long long way off being able to provide the processing power. It would be phenomenal, in the too hard basket for a generation or 2 i would imagine.

[EastofKoksy]

Air transport contains too many variables e.g thunderstorms, malfunctions etc to risk taking competent humans (well trained and current) out of the loop. Although there are lots organisations that are prepared to take other peoples money in order to try!

[tczulu]

Had a single engine piston going from the Continent to Bournemouth.Approaching SE of Gatwick asked me about distance to go. Something in his voice made me wonder. Asked",do you have a fuel issue?" Reply,"maybe". I said" I can send you to Gatwick if you want?""Yes please ".All ended happily, could a computer do that?Pilots don't always let on how serious a problem they have. Reference the Avianca (I think )crash at New York after running out of fuel while holding.

[ZOOKER]

good egg,

According to a book I'm currently reading, the human brain is one of the most complex structures in the known Universe. Each ATCO comes complete with one of these, fitted as standard.

When you have a computer that can cope with the situations mentioned above, and also......

Compose music.
Paint pictures,
Build a house,
Write several books,
Restore an Aston Martin,
Ride a horse,
Climb Helvellyn
Fly an aircraft
Complete an OU degree course while safely carrying out the ATC task.....

etc, etc

Then, we may be on our way to having an automated system capable of replacing ATCOs.

[good egg]

Hey Zooker,

Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a long way off - if it becomes possible at all.

But “technology creep” is here.

It’s not difficult to see the pattern of using technology to squeeze more aircraft into the system with the same, or fewer, number of ATCOs.

Continue this pattern and where do you end up? (Rhetorical)

[good egg]

...once you have computers making most of the decisions regarding sequencing and spacing, in the event that a "contingency for human recovery" becomes necessary, it simply ain't going to happen.

Ummmm, computers are already doing this.

[good egg]

tczulu,

Sure that would be an issue until such time as the plane’s computers were talking to the ATC computer...(admittedly more likely to start with the big commercial operators than Mr/Mrs C172).

PLANE determines low fuel. PLANE informs PILOT and ATC.
PLANE determines viable options - diversion airfields/priority approach etc and offers to ATC.
ATC determines which options could “fit”, or be made to “fit”, and offers these back to the PLANE.
PLANE offers PILOT viable solutions.
PILOT selects appropriate solution i.a.w. operator protocols and informs PLANE & ATC.
All in the blink of an eye.
[Where “PLANE”, “PILOT” and “ATC” are all computers.]

Pie in the sky? Sure, in today’s world but I reckon that’s where system architecture is heading - at first by “assisted decision-making” with humans remaining in control of the decisions.
From there it’s a small leap to leaving the computers to take the decision, but monitored by human with executive authority to intercede.

[kcockayne]

Hey Zooker,

Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a long way off - if it becomes possible at all.

But “technology creep” is here.

It’s not difficult to see the pattern of using technology to squeeze more aircraft into the system with the same, or fewer, number of ATCOs.

Continue this pattern and where do you end up? (Rhetorical)

In the sh*te !

[zonoma]

Every time this topic gets raised it makes me chuckle, thanks once again for another chuckle.

Fully automated will never happen unless you make aircraft that never have anything even as minor as a technical issue and find a machine to suck up all the nasty weather.

[good egg]

Every time this topic gets raised it makes me chuckle, thanks once again for another chuckle.

Fully automated will never happen unless you make aircraft that never have anything even as minor as a technical issue and find a machine to suck up all the nasty weather.

You can’t see a time when the plane will diagnose itself when it has a problem?

[terrain safe]

It’s interesting that all the scenarios are to do with radar. Tower is always ignored. Why? Beyond the fact that towers try and get aircraft as close together and sometimes make pilots do things that they may not want to do so quickly. Never mind GMC!

[ZOOKER]

terrain safe,

Towers have 'windows'........No, no the Gates Windows........Real glass, that ATCOs look through, using a fully serviceable pair of 'stereoscopic-eyeballs'.

No wonder 'Reduced Separation' is such a hit.

Keep up the very good work.

[2 sheds]

You can’t see a time when the plane will diagnose itself when it has a problem?

If Peugeot write the software, No.

2 s :-)

[ZOOKER]

good egg,

Many thanks for the usual considered replies......And for getting up at the Crack Of Sparrow's F@rt, on a Sunday, to add them.

If you ever need an assistant, please give me a call. As 'opposites attract', I'm sure You and I would get on like a Plane.....Sorry......House on fire.

Oops......But, Seriously, I'm always interested in the future.

[TC_Ukraine]

IMHO: it's near and inevitable future.
All aircraft in the sky are in same network, sharing with it (and each other) wind/turbulence/icing/weather radar info.
Scenario: CPDLC>CPDLC (where first C is computer)>CCDLC. for a/c without DLC automated voice speech could be used.
Human controller can't issue two separate instructions at the same time. Computer can. infinite number.
What we will have: ultra-precise horizontal separation on final (multi-instruction speed control, or uncommon speeds 162, 157, etc), lower delays, marginal fuel savings, possible use of Optimum Flight levels (like a/c will fly 3 minutes at 330, then 3 minutes at 331, 3 at 332 and so on).
computer is able to do ATC stuff way better than human. but not yet)

[obwan]

If" computer can do it way better than human but not yet" then how do you know it can do it?

[TC_Ukraine]

If" computer can do it way better than human but not yet" then how do you know it can do it?
I mean that present hardware is powerful enough to substitute ATC, but there is no proper software. YET!

[good egg]

Terrain safe

I doubt very much that towers will be exempt from technology creep - particularly those at airports with little/no vfr traffic to speak of.

Digital/remote towers, artificial intelligence, safety prompts (e.g. Oi, Tower controller, I sense the departure isn’t rolling yet and the next arrival will be over the tarmac before your departure gets airborne...gonna do something about it??).
And before anyone shouts about “but that’s what you have eyes for!” then why do we already have RIMCAS, SAMAX, etc, etc, etc...

[good egg]

Hey again Zooker

It’s the sleeplessness caused by future developments
(or maybe by a toddler...) ;)

[ZOOKER]

Ah,

And I thought you were a shift-working ATCO........."What a mistaker to maker".

[Satellite Man]

There's also the political cost. Who would support the "computerized ATC"? Who would risk to be blamed for the first accident it caused?

[Satellite Man]

IMHO: it's near and inevitable future.
All aircraft in the sky are in same network, sharing with it (and each other) wind/turbulence/icing/weather radar info.
Scenario: CPDLC>CPDLC (where first C is computer)>CCDLC. for a/c without DLC automated voice speech could be used.
Human controller can't issue two separate instructions at the same time. Computer can. infinite number.
What we will have: ultra-precise horizontal separation on final (multi-instruction speed control, or uncommon speeds 162, 157, etc), lower delays, marginal fuel savings, possible use of Optimum Flight levels (like a/c will fly 3 minutes at 330, then 3 minutes at 331, 3 at 332 and so on).
computer is able to do ATC stuff way better than human. but not yet)

And the backup systems? What if the computer fails? What if the radio or data signals fail to reach the aircrafts? What about bad weather, or emergency traffic? How do we integrate all airspaces in different countries to pursue the road of computer-based ATM? Would politicians ever agree to go for an ATM system run by computers?

[good egg]

At this time it’s hard to envisage. But it’s a steady creep....more traffic, less ATCOs...more reliance on computers to squeeze the gaps (arrivals/departures/en-route).
This trend is only likely to continue with advancements in technology. On the upside for those left in work it ought to be highly highly paid....

[parishiltons]

Already happens. Aircraft computers automatically downlink things like assigned altitude (Mode S), routine ADS-C reporting, and proposed new routing in DARPs to name just a few, which is then processed by ATC computers.

[ZOOKER]

I wonder whether that's what caused Monarch to go down the pipe good egg? A reduction in those in "highly highly paid" work, so fewer folk unable to afford what was allegedly a high-quality product?

[kcockayne]

I wonder whether that's what caused Monarch to go down the pipe good egg? A reduction in those in "highly highly paid" work, so fewer folk unable to afford what was allegedly a high-quality product?

That is what is going to cause all of us to “go down the pipe”; computerization etc. No one will be left in meaningful & rewarding work. Therefor, no one able to afford anything. Except the robots !

[parishiltons]

At this time it’s hard to envisage. But it’s a steady creep....more traffic, less ATCOs...more reliance on computers to squeeze the gaps (arrivals/departures/en-route).
This trend is only likely to continue with advancements in technology. On the upside for those left in work it ought to be highly highly paid....

Sure I can see a day with less ATCOs, just like flight decks now have only 1-2 crew. But what has happened is that computer assistance and semiautomation has significantly increased the productivity of each controller such that each individual can now manage far more flights simultaneously than in the past. I'm thinking electronic flight strips, automated coordination through AIDC messaging, improved surveillance with ADS-B automatically fused with and prioritised against other position information sources. All information displayed and automatically updated on a couple of screens, including a graphic PPI for all flights, including non-surveillance.

So really, for ANSPs embracing automation, at this point of development the number of ATCOs is relatively static, give and take, in an environment where the number of flights is increasing year on year.

[good egg]

Thanks all for pointing out my grammatical error. I shall beat myself up about it later.

In any case the natural progression, using technological advances, is fewer ATCOs per “X” number of movements. Can the number of ATCOs ever be reduced to zero?

As “tech” becomes cleverer (/more clever)/cheaper/more prevalent will we see the end of the ATCO? (And the pilot?)

Still, there’s Brexit, potential for a nuclear war, climate change, bitcoin boom & bust, etc, etc.
Failing that, there’s always the regulator’s hoops to jump through (quite rightly).

I’d guess ATCOs (& pilots) will be around for a while yet.

I mean it’s not as if they’d let driverless cars/trucks/UAVs on the road/in the sky is it?

*Coughs*

[cdtaylor_nats]

We once designed the perfect ATC Ops Room. Everything computerised and working away. In the corner is a big glass case with an ATCO in it. A notice hangs on the case next to a hammer. It reads

IN CASE OF BLAME, BREAK GLASS

[Gonzo]

We once designed the perfect ATC Ops Room. Everything computerised and working away. In the corner is a big glass case with an ATCO in it. A notice hangs on the case next to a hammer. It reads

IN CASE OF BLAME, BREAK GLASS

Nonsense!

The notice was actually a computer display, and the ATCO played with the HMI before entering the case. S/he changed the font, the menu display, the mouse pointer and the background all to black, so nobody could read it..........

[T250]

From an aerodrome/tower perspective:

- ASMGCS Level 4, automated taxi routings & guidance (follow the greens)
- Automated AGL
- Automated sequencing for holding points
- Automated (DMAN/AMAN) sequencing for departure/arrival
- Datalink pushbacks
- Datalink clearances
- CPDLC for majority communications - lots of potential for further automation
- AUTO METARs
- DTAXI, GBAS, ADS-B, drones...

All from a remote tower with 1 ATCO now merely monitoring multiple airports on a split screen, it's the future folks!! :cool::hmm:

[Reverserbucket]

Quite T250, and despite the earlier question about who would shoulder the blame politically in the event of problems, SESAR is an entirely political initiative.

[good egg]

Quite T250, and despite the earlier question about who would shoulder the blame politically in the event of problems, SESAR is an entirely political initiative.

Political/economic?

[ZOOKER]

T250,

Surely you mean 1 'ATMO'?

Have 'Prospect' started working on the details of ATMO Pay-scales yet?

Will the calculations involve 'Square Roots'?

[good egg]

T250,

Surely you mean 1 'ATMO'?

Have 'Prospect' started working on the details of ATMO Pay-scales yet?

Will the calculations involve 'Square Roots'?

The square route of the number of jobs the new ‘ATMO’ roll used to need? Might be interested...esp if it’s based at a Band 5 unit...

[ZOOKER]

I remember one of my colleagues challenging 'Red' over 'Pay Banding' nonsense......A splendid piece of research.

Said colleague arrived at a 'Bar-Stool Session' armed with flip-charts and lots of good info.

'Red' almost c*cked himself.

[good egg]

I remember one of my colleagues challenging 'Red' over 'Pay Banding' nonsense......A splendid piece of research.

Said colleague arrived at a 'Bar-Stool Session' armed with flip-charts and lots of good info.

'Red' almost c*cked himself.

Ah, who could forget Manfred Albrecht Freiherr von Richthofen....

[ZOOKER]

It was a pleasure to watch.

But how can you have the square-root of a plane?

[good egg]

It was a pleasure to watch.

But how can you have the square-root of a plane?

Hate to be a pedant *coughs*
But really? Is that the best you can do?!?

[ZOOKER]

No hate involved, good egg,

It was a pleasure to watch.

But I can't ever remember vectoring the square-root of a plane.

Did an ATC presentation recently.......Lots of interest from the audience in 'digital towers'. :ok:

[good egg]

I’ll bet Zooker.

Lots of interest in reducing cost. The bigger question is in service provision and what the contract stipulates...

[ZOOKER]

But the biggest question of all is safety.

"Safe, Orderly, and Expeditious", good egg.

The words we all had drummed into us from 'Day 1'.

[ZOOKER]

And of course, that famous quote from my all-time favourite 'movie'..........

"It's a false economy to invest in cheap goods".

Oddly enough, the only person who mentioned 'reducing cost' was me!

[good egg]

But the biggest question of all is safety.

"Safe, Orderly, and Expeditious", good egg.

The words we all had drummed into us from 'Day 1'.

None of those are questions. That’s part of a statement about Aerodrome Control Services...[CAP493]

Are you still working? Only I think the current wording for the provision of an air traffic service says it “should be based upon expedition consistent with safety”....

[good egg]

Fewer ATCOs, not less.

Cost savings come as a result of not having as many controllers, not from performing liposuction on them.

With all the “hot-desking” planned the ATCOs won’t be able to sit still long enough to have a suction tube attached...

[ZOOKER]

I'm fairly certain that line has always been MATS 1, good egg?

I have my original one up in the loft somewhere, if I can find it, I'll check.

[good egg]

I'm fairly certain that line has always been MATS 1, good egg?

I have my original one up in the loft somewhere, if I can find it, I'll check.

Yup, as I said, it’s still there in ADC section.

[amberale]

You may be able to automate some aspects of ATS however you won’t move any more traffic until you either build more runways or build aircraft that don’t need runways.
Aircraft recieve minimal delays enroute these days.
They get delayed trying to get on/off that strip of hotmix.

[parishiltons]

From an aerodrome/tower perspective:

- ASMGCS Level 4, automated taxi routings & guidance (follow the greens)
- Automated AGL
- Automated sequencing for holding points
- Automated (DMAN/AMAN) sequencing for departure/arrival
- Datalink pushbacks
- Datalink clearances
- CPDLC for majority communications - lots of potential for further automation
- AUTO METARs
- DTAXI, GBAS, ADS-B, drones...

All from a remote tower with 1 ATCO now merely monitoring multiple airports on a split screen, it's the future folks!! :cool::hmm:

- Autoreleases
- TBS for arrivals

it goes on and what next? Adding ADS-B assigned self separation to arrivals and departures?

[parishiltons]

You may be able to automate some aspects of ATS however you won’t move any more traffic until you either build more runways or build aircraft that don’t need runways.
Aircraft recieve minimal delays enroute these days.
They get delayed trying to get on/off that strip of hotmix.

In some places the bottleneck is the airport, in others it is the airspace in between airports. There's lots of ways to squeeze better utilisation out of existing runways - see T250's and my recent posts above.

[mgahan]

Build all the runways you like - it's the way you manage the terminal airspace and the surface operations that eventually determines capacity.

MJG

[good egg]

Build all the runways you like - it's the way you manage the terminal airspace and the surface operations that eventual determines capacity.

MJG

Interesting point-of-view.

Generally speaking I’d say demand & market-forces (with regulatory oversight - in safety/politically-sensitive industries) generally determine capacity/supply...

[mgahan]

There is a world of difference between "supply" and "capacity" in this discussion.

MJG

[parishiltons]

Build all the runways you like - it's the way you manage the terminal airspace and the surface operations that eventually determines capacity.

MJG

Interesting point of view. Runways are part of surface ops. Runway utilisation can vary from inefficient (making the runway capacity-limiting), or if the terminal airspace is managed badly, it can be the capacity-limiting factor, or the rest of the airport can be badly designed, making it the limiting factor, or the procedures can be rubbish making that the limiting factor, or etc etc.

You can always squeeze more capacity out of airport and terminal ops by incremental tweaks, such as TBS for arrivals, requiring rolling starts on departure, optimising the departure and arrival sequence for wake turbulence, deprioritising GA flights etc etc etc.

[Gonzo]

You can always squeeze more capacity out of airport and terminal ops by incremental tweaks, such as TBS for arrivals, requiring rolling starts on departure, optimising the departure and arrival sequence for wake turbulence, deprioritising GA flights etc etc etc.

Is there any such airport?

[kcockayne]

Surely you eventually come to a point when any more squeezing is impossible. I am thinking of one a/c crossing the holding point leaving the R/W as the next one touches down. That appears to me to be the limit. Or, am I missing something ?

[HM79]

The reliance on technology would provide explicit utilization of separation standards. In some parts of the world that is often called a "by the book slowdown". Removing the human element in atc and leaving it in place in the cockpit would not improve efficiency at highly congested airports, the places where those efficiency gains are most needed.

[parishiltons]

Is there any such airport?

Plenty. Just read the Airport Efficiency Procedures plates in AIP-DAP (Example is AIP Australia).

[parishiltons]

Surely you eventually come to a point when any more squeezing is impossible. I am thinking of one a/c crossing the holding point leaving the R/W as the next one touches down. That appears to me to be the limit. Or, am I missing something ?

There's always something more to be squeezed. Recent implementations are reduced longitudinal separation between two consecutive approaching aircraft from 3NM to 2.5NM, and reduced runway separation minima between an arriving flight and a following arrival (2400m, first aircraft does not need to be clear of the RWY. Conditions apply.).

Earlier initiatives aimed at reducing runway occupancy time include mandated rolling starts (ie no propping or stopping after entering the runway), no backtracking, preferred exit taxiways, generally better and tighter sequencing, adjusting the departure and departure/arrival sequence to achieve minimum wake turbulence delays, regardless of who taxys first, and so on. Automated integrated AMAN/DMAN is coming next to computerise the whole thing.

[kcockayne]

Yes, but these limits have been reached (at the busiest airports). They have reached, or very nearly reached, the point at which there is no further room for SAFE squeezing - haven’t they ? Surely any procedure which requires an a/c to still be on the R/W when another touches down is inherently dangerous ( you might get away with it for a while, but the time will come when you don’t). This certainly flies in the face of all previously accepted separation standards. I, & other ATCOS, certainly ran things pretty close occasionally, but I would be very dubious about building a continuous system on such procedures. Certainly if it was just because the authorities could not be bothered to supply the appropriate infrastructure. I would go so far as to say that such standards would be criminal, cynical & unacceptable in such circumstances.

[parishiltons]

Yes, but these limits have been reached (at the busiest airports). They have reached, or very nearly reached, the point at which there is no further room for SAFE squeezing - haven’t they ? Surely any procedure which requires an a/c to still be on the R/W when another touches down is inherently dangerous ( you might get away with it for a while, but the time will come when you don’t). This certainly flies in the face of all previously accepted separation standards. I, & other ATCOS, certainly ran things pretty close occasionally, but I would be very dubious about building a continuous system on such procedures. Certainly if it was just because the authorities could not be bothered to supply the appropriate infrastructure. I would go so far as to say that such standards would be criminal, cynical & unacceptable in such circumstances.

Sure, this is a naturally conservative industry. So accordingly, standards such as this are never implemented unless it's been through ICAO SASP (or similar) to validate the math, proximity probabilities etc. and had the ANSP's SMS rigorously applied, then endorsed by the State's regulator. That's why there are conditions to the application of this standard. Having a runway separation standard published, with defined conditions is way better, safer and more professional than running things pretty close occasionally. Either you have a separation standard or you don't. If you don't then you hold your hand up - that's part of the SMS too, and part of a just culture within the ANSP.

[Eric T Cartman]

Having a runway separation standard published, with defined conditions is way better, safer and more professional than running things pretty close occasionally. Either you have a separation standard or you don't. If you don't then you hold your hand up - that's part of the SMS too, and part of a just culture within the ANSP.

Totally agree. Back in the 90's, I was responsible for getting SRG approval for a 'land after the departing' procedure. Runway utilisation immediately increased dramatically, go-arounds decreased & everyone involved was happy. The criteria used to permit its use were stringent & were no more 'dangerous' than a common 'land after' procedure.
It had nothing to do with the authorities could not be bothered to supply the appropriate infrastructure.

[kcockayne]

In reply to parishiltons, & the statement that "having a R/W separation standard published, with defined conditions is way better, safer & more professional than running things pretty close occasionally. Either you have a separation standard, or you don't". I totally agree. I was not in any way trying to extol the virtues of "running things tight"; merely stating that this was necessary at times. The separation standard involved may not have been immediately apparent, but was generally covered by the old MATS Pt.1 "let out" of, "nothing in this manual shall prevent the ATCO from using his discretion in order to ensure the safety of a/c etc."
I just intended to illustrate that the individual ATCO had, at times, facilitated max. R/W utilization.; &, to indicate that I was not averse to the idea of the very minimum of adequate separation standards. But, I very much doubt that it will be possible to squeeze even more out of a system which is running very much at the tightest of margins.
Simply, we have reached, or very nearly have, the limit at the busiest of aerodromes.. When ATCOS "ran things pretty close", they did it professionally & safely & there was room to manoeuvre if the intended consequence (max. safe R/W utilization) was not going to be achieved. It strikes me that if you run things at their tightest, you will not be left with any alternative action possibilities. There is, despite your faith in "squeezing", an absolute limit beyond which we cannot go.

[good egg]

There is, despite your faith in "squeezing", an absolute limit beyond which we cannot go.

Beyond which we cannot go - yet.

As technology and understanding improves there are ways and means to squeeze more out of any system and still remain safe.
Team Sky were/are legendary with their “aggregation of marginal gains”.

Take squeezing oranges for example. Ever watched those new-fangled machines in cafés and compared them with manually squeezing oranges - both in terms of wastage and output?

[kcockayne]

Beyond which we cannot go - yet.

As technology and understanding improves there are ways and means to squeeze more out of any system and still remain safe.
Team Sky were/are legendary with their “aggregation of marginal gains”.

Take squeezing oranges for example. Ever watched those new-fangled machines in cafés and compared them with manually squeezing oranges - both in terms of wastage and output?

Yes, but the analogy falls down when you get to the point that no more juice can be squeezed out. Or, is that point never reached ? In any event, I think that we will have to agree to disagree !

[LEGAL TENDER]

Beyond which we cannot go - yet.

As technology and understanding improves there are ways and means to squeeze more out of any system and still remain safe.
Team Sky were/are legendary with their “aggregation of marginal gains”.

Take squeezing oranges for example. Ever watched those new-fangled machines in cafés and compared them with manually squeezing oranges - both in terms of wastage and output?

Maybe we need to give equine doses of asthma medication to controllers... ;)

[good egg]

Maybe we need to give equine doses of asthma medication to controllers... ;)

Neigh fear of that with OHS keeping a beady eye...

[mbriscoe]

I just looked here after reading this news item.

Hial proposes centralising air traffic control (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-42608945)

[good egg]

I just looked here after reading this news item.

Hial proposes centralising air traffic control (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-42608945)

Not hugely relevant unless I’m missing something?