Beginning of European ATC crises or only an Italian business plan?

[caciara]

Look at the attached file and give your opinion. Thanks!!

[kcockayne]

Is it safe to :- 1. Drastically reduce the workforce in this manner ?
Reducing the workforce is not, necessarily, "unsafe". But, if it is achieved by requiring one ATCO to work two, or more, positions simultaneously then it must create a situation which did not occur before, & which carries with it a possibility of compromising the ATCO's ability to safely control the traffic at two (or more) different locations.
2. Force employees to uproot their families.
No, it is not, in my opinion, unsafe to do this. ATCOS have always had to do this as a regular requirement of the job. Although this this has usually only involved individual ATCOS, this is just an expansion of what has always occurred.
3. Force a Controller to work in such a situation.
I have no knowledge of the practical efficacy of such a system (simultaneous multi-position working), but every ounce of my experience tells me that, potentially, this is not a safe practice. It has been specifically banned in the past (where ATCOS might have wished to combine Radar & Tower or TWR & GMC); & for good reason - on safety grounds. Although, it must be admitted that "bandboxing" was widely used by ATCOS when it suited them - but always subject to the proviso that they were able to "de-bandbox" when the traffic built up to possibly unmanageable levels. It should not be sanctioned now, in the manner suggested, simply because it suits Management / the Company (who, in my opinion, do not fully understand & appreciate the principles involved, or what they are doing).
4. Does anyone know how safe the remote towers really are?
I would suggest that no one does KNOW how safe this practice is - because it has never been done before at busy locations ; or long enough (where it has started to be done) to formulate a definitive answer to this question. In the minds of its supporters, the technology is wonderful & is all that matters, because it allows previous, costly, constraints to be abandoned.. In my mind, it only opens up another avenue (regardless of the capacity of the new technology) for distraction & confusion of the ATCO who is trying to juggle two (or more) traffic streams at unconnected locations.

[northeast]

Hopefully, correct application of the SMS at the various affected units will show what is doable and what is unsafe or dangerous. The State Safety Policy, Unit Safety Policy and application of the SMS by Unit Safety Officers, Safety Managers, and Safety Director, if applicable, and correct application of the Change Management Process and Risk Assessment Process should give all the answers for the MD or CEO (who is ultimately responsible for Safety) to make an informed decision.

[caciara]

Hopefully, correct application of the SMS at the various affected units will show what is doable and what is unsafe or dangerous. The State Safety Policy, Unit Safety Policy and application of the SMS by Unit Safety Officers, Safety Managers, and Safety Director, if applicable, and correct application of the Change Management Process and Risk Assessment Process should give all the answers for the MD or CEO (who is ultimately responsible for Safety) to make an informed decision.

Thank you Northeast and Kcockayne for your opinions. We know that the right application of the SMS in cases like Italian ATC rocking, could be useful to make the right decision. But the problem is not just this. This kind of reorganization of ATC service is realized to allow strong savings for the airlines and strong earnings for all the lobbies involved in this technological process. To allow this kind of process it needs of a political support, because all the european civil aviation competent authorities of each european state, are supervised by their governments.
In fact in Italy, this kind of process is causing strong political divergences, on one side who thinks to pay more attention to the right ratings about the safety of air transport and the ATCOs employment, and on the other side who thinks only in terms of profits.
This sudden and drastic process is started in Italy facilitated by the partnership between State and private shareholders, but could become a European process if European Government, Eurocontrol and EASA, don't supervise and regulate after prescribed studies and simulations...

[EastofKoksy]

Caciara,
I can't see anything wrong with reducing the number of ATC centres. Other countries have done it with no adverse impact on safety.

As far as digital towers are concerned, their use up to now has been so limited there is no significant evidence to demonstrate safe or unsafe operations. However, as your post suggests, industry has been lobbying politicians and airport owners hard with the prospect of digital towers making big savings in operating costs. For that reason I can see them becoming more common over the next two or three years.

I share your concerns about a dash for technological quick fixes to staffing and capacity issues but it would be a mistake to play the 'safety card' as anyone that does will just be dismissed as scare mongering. Better to gather evidence and hope nobody gets hurt in the meantime!

[caciara]

Caciara,
I can't see anything wrong with reducing the number of ATC centres. Other countries have done it with no adverse impact on safety.

As far as digital towers are concerned, their use up to now has been so limited there is no significant evidence to demonstrate safe or unsafe operations. However, as your post suggests, industry has been lobbying politicians and airport owners hard with the prospect of digital towers making big savings in operating costs. For that reason I can see them becoming more common over the next two or three years.

I share your concerns about a dash for technological quick fixes to staffing and capacity issues but it would be a mistake to play the 'safety card' as anyone that does will just be dismissed as scare mongering. Better to gather evidence and hope nobody gets hurt in the meantime!

Could you say which european countries similar to Italy have reduced their ACC to only 2? About our concerns, they should be the concerns of all the people involved in the aviation development, and not just to guarantee our workplace, but over all to guarantee the standardization of all the procedures everywhere, especially when they are Closely related to similar technological upheavals

[caciara]

.... it would be a mistake to play the 'safety card' as anyone that does will just be dismissed as scare mongering. Better to gather evidence and hope nobody gets hurt in the meantime![/QUOTE]

In fact we expect the European Commission of transport, Eurocontrol and EASA to reassure us, as well as ATCOs, also pilots and all users about the safety of similar implementations, after having published the necessary studies and simulations that all European states will have to implement

[Not Long Now]

Wel, the UK may be slightly different to Italy, air traffic wise, but we only have 2 ACCs...

[caciara]

Wel, the UK may be slightly different to Italy, air traffic wise, but we only have 2 ACCs...

In fact NATS and ENAV have quite the same managment, partnership between public and private...Is it just a randomness?
And what about the Brexit process within the SESAR projects? Uhm....

[Not Long Now]

The fact is, the number of ACCs is pretty much irrelevant, it's the number of controllers in them that make the system work, or not. There are great economies of scale from having fewer centres, possibly to be countered somewhat by the theoretical safety/security issues of putting all your eggs in fewer baskets, and of course the short term issues of relocating the required staff during 'downsizing', but otherwise there are surely few logical reasons not to reduce the number to as few as possible.

[caciara]

The fact is, the number of ACCs is pretty much irrelevant, it's the number of controllers in them that make the system work, or not. There are great economies of scale from having fewer centres, possibly to be countered somewhat by the theoretical safety/security issues of putting all your eggs in fewer baskets, and of course the short term issues of relocating the required staff during 'downsizing', but otherwise there are surely few logical reasons not to reduce the number to as few as possible.

Italian ATCOs are challenging this. There have been Europeans within the SES with number of movements and types of air traffic, very similar to ours, yet they still have an ACC number higher than ours. Why? The case is that UK and Italy, which have private participation providers, reduce the number of ATC entities to a minimum, and therefore the reasoning is very simple: it only affects the savings for airlines and the profit for technology lobbies and safety takes second place, unless European Commission and EASA prove to seriously regulate this kind of reorganization

[Not Long Now]

Obviously it is driven by financial objectives, but reducing the number of centres does not in itself impact safety, except possibly in the doomsday scenario whereby the only centre is destroyed by whatever occurrence, and there is no facility to 'catch' the traffic (although how good a catch any other centre could make is very much a grey area). There is an argument that it may improve safety, by harmonisation of procedures and practices rather than multiple centres interpreting rules in different ways.
There are no doubt many plans in European, and indeed worldwide ATC, that are driven financially and which will have an impact on safety. The question is whether that impact is to an acceptable level. The absolute number of ACCs does not seem to me to be a particularly relevant measure of the safety of a system.
Historic evolved systems are not per se safer systems than new set-ups. They do, however, have a track record on their side. The employees may not like it, but ATC is undergoing somewhat of a revolution. If this turns out to be a good thing or not is yet to be seen, but whilst the driving force is undoubtedly money, how safety is affected is yet to be seen. Unfortunately, it's a rather unforgiving measure of success, and the relationship between financial gain and the prospect of a catastrophic incident destroying the company making the gain is a rather complex one. I only hope it does not take a disaster to determine how far changes can go.

[caciara]

Obviously it is driven by financial objectives, but reducing the number of centres does not in itself impact safety, except possibly in the doomsday scenario whereby the only centre is destroyed by whatever occurrence, and there is no facility to 'catch' the traffic (although how good a catch any other centre could make is very much a grey area). There is an argument that it may improve safety, by harmonisation of procedures and practices rather than multiple centres interpreting rules in different ways.
There are no doubt many plans in European, and indeed worldwide ATC, that are driven financially and which will have an impact on safety. The question is whether that impact is to an acceptable level. The absolute number of ACCs does not seem to me to be a particularly relevant measure of the safety of a system.
Historic evolved systems are not per se safer systems than new set-ups. They do, however, have a track record on their side. The employees may not like it, but ATC is undergoing somewhat of a revolution. If this turns out to be a good thing or not is yet to be seen, but whilst the driving force is undoubtedly money, how safety is affected is yet to be seen. Unfortunately, it's a rather unforgiving measure of success, and the relationship between financial gain and the prospect of a catastrophic incident destroying the company making the gain is a rather complex one. I only hope it does not take a disaster to determine how far changes can go.

I repeat, the Italian ATCOs would like the reorganization of the ATC service in the Single European Sky area, to be applied in a uniform manner among all the member states, and that major upheavals were first studied and simulated by the competent European authorities. It should be a right of all European ATCOs and all users !!

[caciara]

Article a little long dedicated to those who assign to the ATC guilty NOT its about the delays and the lost savings from airlines, a topic so dear in the Single European Sky and sometimes used instrumentally in the reorganization of the service, like in Italy

https://www.forbes.com/sites/currentaccounts/2017/03/23/air-traffic-control-is-not-the-real-cause-of-airline-delays/

[Denti]

Could you say which european countries similar to Italy have reduced their ACC to only 2?


For upper airspace there is only Rhein in germany, so one ACC, of course Maastricht controls quite some area in germany as well. But that is not in germany at all and a different organization as well.

In lower airspace the reduced they number of ACCs from five to three (Frankfurt and Düsseldorf were unified as Langen, Berlin was distributed to Munich, Bremen and Karlsruhe/Rhein). Not quite two, but of course a huge change for the personnel previously based in Berlin and Düsseldorf as those had to move.

[caciara]

The European Court of Auditors refers to US ATC data to ask Single European Sky states to reduce the number of European controllers. The fact is that the United States and Europe are very different geographically, politically and by type of air traffic. A careful evaluation of EASA is necessary to ensure that safety is always guaranteed, considering the Eurocontrol forecast of air traffic increase for the coming years, and italian atcos are just requesting for this before any reorganization.