Changes to working practices at LACC

[zygote]

PROSPECT are in discussion with LACC management about changing some of the working practices for the summer. I think in the main we should agree with the proposals and pull together to get through a difficult summer. But I fear I may be in the minority. Anyone care to comment ?

[Numpo-Nigit]

zygote

I fear that this summer will be difficult enough with or without accepting the revised working practices, so why make things more difficult for ourselves to try to get management out of a hole of their own making?

It may be that you see things from a different perspective. Perhaps you could explain your thinking a little more?

NN

[250 kts]

This is what I was trying to get at in my recent thread about summer 2003.

There is no doubt that they need us to help them out but it is important that the staff let their negotiators know what is and isn't acceptable and what recompense,financial or otherwise,is required for the bail out.

[BEXIL160]

I can see the managements need for "changes" this summer but I also have to agree with Numpo and 250 kts.

Questions that need to be answered:

What's in it for us, the operational workforce?
What changes are we going to see in the attitude of the management towards us?

Let's not forget that the current mess at LACC is entirely due to the incompetance of NATS management and has nothing to do with the operational staff.

Just why should we bail them out AGAIN? You see, I'm fairly happy with WPP as it stands, and it's not me or my colleagues that need a change, it's the management.

What would I like to see, personally? Simple. An Admission from NATS management that they have completely messed up (despite warnings from their own staff). An Admission that the ONLY way out of the mess is with the help of the operational staff. Only then would I consider any changes. (and only then after some LARGE financial reward for doing so).

You might contend that such admissions of incompetance will do nothing to help. You'd be wrong. Morale (and willingness to help) would improve dramatically.

There is an argument that draws a parallel with an alcoholics attending an AA meeting. You cannot be helped until you admit you have a problem. NATS management have yet to admit THEY have a problem. Just bailing them out all the time is akin to giving the alcoholic another drink. Nobody gets any better.

Rgds
BEX

[250 kts]

Bex, you're absolutely right. But I think we have to assume that there is no great financial reward available. So we have to think of other things which MAY be acceptable as a short term sweetener prior to,hopefully,gains from the forthcoming re-structuring.

There is no doubt they are in the s**t and let's be honest if there is little improvement this year there is a real chance NATS will go under. That is no good for anyone-most of all the operational staff as the managers will be gone with a nice pay-off.

So for those of us with 30 years to go-do we bite the bullet and help them out with the potential of something next year or possibly let them go under??

We need to think a bit differently in terms of recompense eg. we are owned by 7 airlines that happen to have lots of seats-mainly at the front of the plane!!- available most of the time. Would this type of recompense be acceptable as a one-off? :cool: :cool:

I don't know the answer to this summer but don't fancy taking the chance that we are owned by the mob from Basingstoke if it goes wrong because we were reluctant to see the longer/bigger picture.

[Loki]

Perhaps I`m being naive, but I always thought that a union existed in order to support its members. I hope Prospect are not the managements poodles and that they won`t sell us down the river. I would have thought we were in a very strong position, and that we could get all manner of concessions from management.

[BDiONU]

At a recent meeting I attended we were told that there are measures being considered to incentivize the workforce and recognise those who are making a greater contribution than others. Whether they'll happen or ..........:rolleyes:

BTW Its no longer Working Practices but "Lifestyle Choices" :yuk:

[250 kts]

Loki,

What sort of concessions would you be happy with assuming financial is not possible at this time. There must be a serious debate over this to see just what the mood really is. Also what do you consider being sold down the river?

[TrafficTraffic]

Would the POMS please send us posters who can read the Forum titles and then put their posts in the right one ??

It's spelt ..... N A T S

...you guys wanted it so use it...

[250 kts]

Traffic.

This is NOT just a NATS issue as it involves the busiest and biggest ACC in Europe possibly making major changes for the coming summer. It will therefore impact on just about other unit in western Europe.

However now you know what the thread is about you won't need to go near it again will you;) ;)

[Fallows]

I would agree wholeheartly with the comments equating "The Management" with AA. We have just had our first year at LACC, also we have just had a major change in the form of a new roster, I would like to suggest that we operational staff reject the managements proposal for at least a year to allow for some stability in our personal lives. I believe the major shareholder is still the government who is spending billions of pounds on armaments for the proposed war against Iraq!.

[BDiONU]

Concur with Bex's comments. It does seem curious that on the one hand the management have steadfastly maintained that there has never been any problem or mismanagement with the opening of NERC and the staffing difficulties. On the other they're saying there were problems with delays last year and the main focus must be to improve this summer, please help us out.
I do believe that acknowledgement that senior management erred would be a HUGE step forward and a good sign to the workforce. However, with Cheese & Ham and those of his ilk at that level, it has to be the first one to blink that would apologise or acknowledge (or accept) blame. They've all been at this game far too long to blink and they know they'd be the sacrificial lamb if they did. So I'm afraid to say that unless the hole in my backside heals up we'll never see any change in attitude in NATS senior management. They are too set in their ways, too entrenched to change. Debate in this forum is, I'm sorry to say, knocking on the door of closed minds.

Fallows:
Sorry but I don't see the relevance of the possible war on Iraq to NATS. :confused:

[Lon More]

TT has a point. It looks like degenerating into a Whingeing Pom thread, more like terms & endearments than working practices.

However with the summer schedules only about eight weeks away it looks like someone is going to have to pull a bloody large rabbit out of the hat. :rolleyes:

Maybe giving everything N of DTY to ScATCC would solve a lot of the problems :} or is it soon going to be, "Radar service terminated, contact London on W. T." ?

Lon More; Still more than an ATCO

[PPRuNe Radar]

TT would have a point ... except the Forum is called ATC issues ... and this presents an issue for both ATC in Europe and also to our airline brethren who read this Forum. An issue related to ATC.

If we'd wanted TT to be a Moderator we would have asked him. As usual he attempts to be the smart arse and wind people up .... well, we have rules to deal with people like him.

And the despotic Admin sections decision on that is final and comes right from the top.

I get very few complaints about posts in this Forum, but one poster always guarantees to make a few appear in my mailbag. It's hassle I can do without and there is a simple solution which I might one day exercise. Mainly because I and all other PPRuNe Admins have far more important things to spend our time dealing with and much bigger fish to fry. :*

If anyone wants to take issue or discuss this aspect then email me .... I won't be entering into any debate or further discussion here.

Now, play the ball .......

[ATCO Two]

BDiONU

You said, "Sorry but I don't see the relevance of the possible war on Iraq to NATS". Probably Fallows was alluding to the fact that the government seems toi have around £1 billion plus to spend on waging war on Iraq, but nothing to invest in the ATC infrastructure.
If I am wrong then I am sure that Fallows will elucidate. You must have a very narrow mind if you can't see the relevance of such a war to NATS. Did you work during the Gulf War? Traffic figures were dramatically lower, meaning a huge drop in revenue for NATS. It didn't "matter" quite as much then as we were a government quango and didn't have to pay our way. We are now firmly in the commercial world where NATS is required to make money to survive. The loss of revenue caused by a war would be crippling, and many airlines would go to the wall. A secondary factor would a huge hike in fuel prices which again would cause airlines to drastically cut back on their schedules, with a further consequent reduction in revenue. I hope you can see now that war with Iraq would have a very real impact on our livelihoods. Just pray that commonsense will prevail and a war can be averted.

[Checco]

Thanks for this thread.

NATS performances are worrying European readers, because they impact on European traffic.

Would it be possible to make a brief description of working practices, that would relieve the situation? What changes the management things about?


What role the regulator (UK-SRG) plays when changing working practices ? When the UK-SRG is consulted? Before or after reaching the agreement between Prospect and NATS?


By the way, it seems to me that it was not simply a management failure, but also the government choosed the wrong moment for privatisation. Additionally no one in Europe would have afforded to go into privatisation without the consensus of trade unions. Changes in governance (from public sector to corporate agency) was agreed in Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland. So they went smoothly.

[BEXIL160]

There is a continuing assumption when discussing NATS future that it will "fold" if things don't look up. Indeed NATS management actively encourage this line of thinking probably in order to un-nerve the staff.

Well, it occurs to me that with HMG as the MAJOR shareholder (49%) this cannot happen. Bail out money will always be available. Therefore the only people who are really un-nerved by NATS possible financial failure and renationalisation (like RailTrack)are the existing management.

It's their jobs that are looking less than secure, not the operational staff.

rgds BEX

[A I]

Of course, if, God forbid, there is conflict in Iraq and the expected downturn in traffic occurs, then NATS attributable delays are likely to go down significantly this summer. Does this then trigger huge bonuses for Cheese 'n Ham etc?

[055166k]

I suggest that all ATCOs in non operational positions, irrespective of grade, are redeployed to the Ops room for the summer. From my own perspective and since moving to NERC I have had no fam flights, no liaison visits, no courses, just continuous and unrelenting work. The last thing I want right now is a change to working practices. After discussion with colleagues it seems that controller burnout is a very real possibility. Anyway...my suggestion to close the offices for the summer months is surely worth consideration!

[Loki]

There are precious few valid ATCOs in offices these days matey.

[055166k]

If a person is paid as an ATCO and holds an ATC licence it is surely not unreasonable to expect that person to control aeroplanes. Even though there are those who hold a diploma in work avoidance I am sure that in these times of need a sense of duty will prevail. The planner task can be picked up fairly quickly. No one who holds an ATCO licence, however covered in cobwebs it may be, should be beyond consideration. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to work this kit. THINK POSITIVE!

[Big Nose1]

Sorry 166k, but i can`t agree with you. To suggest that any ATCO at Swanwick can be returned to the Ops room before the summer traffic hits us is fanciful to say the least.
The majority of ATCO`s at LACC already believe that the planner onlys are a hinderence and they have been operational for the last few years.
To get a non operational ATCO up to an acceptable level would take many months IMHO. In the mean time what would you do with the many trainees already in the system, and waiting to join the system?
To get back to the original post, I have no desire to offer any changes to my WPP agreements, my working day is already difficult enough as it is, and I agree with you that Controller burnout is already a problem at our unit, and will only get worse.

[Undercover]

"From my own perspective and since moving to NERC I have had no fam flights, no liaison visits, no courses, just continuous and unrelenting work. "

~~ Is that not what you're paid to do?!?! ;)

From my own perspective as neither operational or management, it seems to me that the operational staff are in a strong position as it's clear the company needs every one of them and more.
If it was me I certainly would be wary of allowing in any changes to my working life - even "short-term" - which were clearly detrimental to me, my home & family life etc. I work to live... not vice versa.
However, I also don't think it reflects too well on the operational staff as a whole if we get a repeat of the "let's screw them for everything we can before we lift a finger to help" mentality. You can't spend as much time as people do on here pressing for a greater management effort to show respect and appreciation for their employees if you then want to turn round and treat them just as badly in return.
A bit of give and take on both sides seems easily the best approach... just be careful what you give first! :=

[BEXIL160]

.... except the management aren't prepared to "give" anything, let alone admit to the fact that the mess is of their own making.

No, UNTIL I see some positive signs of change in managements attitude I see absolutely no reason to even contemplate any alteration in our WPP.

It isn't me, or my colleagues that have been "letting the side down". We have been doing exactly what are paid for : Moving aeroplanes safely, orderly and expeditiously. Difficult though that task is, it has been made harder by the crass decisions that our management have made particularly in the last 5 years.

I don't want to " treat them (the management) badly in return". What I want is good managers that can actually manage. Then they might gain some respect.

As I've said above. I, and my colleagues HAVE been doing OUR job. The management HAVE NOT being doing theirs. Now it's all falling down around THEIR ears, we are being asked (again) to bail them out. It is my opinion that bailing them out again will not lead to sustainable and much needed change.


Rgds BEX

[Fallows]

I would agree wholeheartedly with most of what has already been said, at the risk of repeating myself we are not "Operational Resourses" but Human Beings who over the past six or seven years have been subject to tremendous upheavals in our domestic lives to fulfil our obligations to NATS as employees. We should now be allowed to have some stability in our lives after the opening of NERC, roster change, punitive restrictions on leave, ten days notice of the publication of our monthly rosters, endless changes to procedures on the sectors, etc etc!!!. One further thing, yet another change to our conditions which we will never get back, however "temporary", might just be the straw that breaks the camels back for a number of our more senior colleagues who might decide that it is not worth the hassle and take early retirement instead bringing us back to square one!.
I would agree with an earlier posting which said that we work to live, not live to work.

[IThink]

Am I the only one in NATS that isn't sick of NERC giving the rest of us a bad name. No doubt the spineless management will give them another bung for doing exactly what the rest of the company has been doing for the last 7 years - trying to make a bad system better.

How much of a bung does Manchester or ScATTC get for the traffic that NERC cannot or w'ont work?

How much of a bung have airport ATCOs got for regulating the traffic to meet the NERC requirements, or for accepting just as much new technology?

And I w'ont even start talking about what TC puts up with to cover the collective NERC rear end!

Standing by for a blasting.:* :* :*

[250 kts]

IThink-what a complete load of BALIX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-it just goes to show how ill informed you are.:mad: :mad:

[A I]

IThink,

Have you ever been down to "The Dome"

We'd love to see you, please don't be shy.

AI :D :D :D

[Loki]

IThink:

It`s usually won`t , not w`ont.

[BEXIL160]

I Think.....

Understandably you may have missed the point. What has happened at Swanwick is not the fault of the ATCOs and ATSAs who are there. It is wholly the responsibilty of NERC management

Indeed the operational ATCOs actually at Swanwick are just as pee'd off as you are, if not more so. In most cases they have uprooted and moved further south. "Mobile grade" I hear you say. Yet how would you like being told that NERC would open in 1996, move your family accordingly, and then spend SIX YEARS of unneccesary commuting. It creates more than a little stress, believe me.

All through the build up to the opening of NERC, the management were told repeatedly of the system failings from the ATCOs view (font sizes / ledgibility / reflections / manpower requirements / poor RTF/ poor telephones / headsets etc etc). THEY DID NOTHING.

Can you now understand the sheer frustration of the operational workforce at Swanwick?

You are probably right that other units have had better technology installed. The Swanwick system is an ergonomic nightmare and is not user friendly or indeed simple to use. That's why we had to spend nearly a year on OCT. The simple fact the Swanwick operational staff make it work AT ALL is staggering.

TC, MACC and Scottish are only being asked to fill their available airspace with aeroplanes. Why? Because the sectors at LACC ARE FULL. Not because Swanwick controllers "don't fancy working today" or are as you seem to infer, somewhat less than willing.They are busy with what they have got.

You seem to think that TC, MACC and Scottish require some sort of recompense for filling their sectors to TSF levels. At Swanwick this is the norm.

Airport ATCOs have indeed had accept lots of new technology in recent years. The difference is most of it works, is relatively easy to use and is user friendly. All the opposite of Swanwick. Juggling slots is not a new issue for TWR and GND people. Go back to the mid/late 1980s. There were more slot problems then I assure you and they were just as difficult to resolve. (Anybody remember the tents erected at EGKK when pax were delayed for DAYS?)

I repeat, Swanwick is a difficult system being run with too few staff. If you want someone to "blame" look at the management, not the frustrated operational staff, all of who are doing their level best despite the management

Rgds BEX

[Over+Out]

I heard that someone with the name of a bird has a lot to be blamed for. Is this true? If so why is he still working there?
I hope you guys at NERC have some of the answers.

[Hydroforming Bushmaster]

BEX

I think we've got the message that the problems of Swanwick are all to do with 'the management' and that it's nothing to do with you.

I wonder if you accept that the way out of the problems might involve you, as the majority of the 'management' is now different and they are trying to manage a way for us all out of it by using union/management participative groups.

I'm sure that you have already or would advocate 'getting rid of the management' as being the first thing you would do on the road to recovery. As this has effectively happened, what's the next thing to do?

How do you assess that the sectors at NERC are full? They're not full all the time (certainly not to the level that EGLL APC is full I would contend) and wax and wane within TSFs.

[Asda]

No I agree with IThink. We should have a childish fight about all this and totally miss the point.

[BEXIL160]

Hydro....

Yes, you are quite correct that the ONLY way out is participative. I, and most the operational people who are now at LACC have been advocating this for years. It's the management that have not listened..... and look where that has got us.

I disagree that most of the managers "have gone". Most of them are still around, and still behaving in exactly the same way. Indeed the person most responsible is still in a very prominent position at LACC, and still denies that he has made ANY errors.

Some of the new appointees are attempting change. Before they do so, and in order to get the operational staff "on board", they need to acknowledge the FAILURE of the past management. They point blank refuse to do so.

You are of course quite correct, EGLL is full to capacity most of the time. But then, it is an airport with FOUR stacks. They aren't all full all the time. Not that it makes much difference to the FIN DIR, but the North and South Approach aren't always full. And the N/S DIRs can always refuse more releases when the stacks are full.

Flowing Area sectors is somewhat more problematic. The bottom line is that they must be protected from overloads. LACC sectors operate to TSF all of the time. Demand isn't always there, but when demand excedes capacity off-load senarios (to MACC for example) allow traffic to depart rather than get a long delay.

Anyway to return to the point you raised, yes we need to participate. I just don't see much willingness from "the management" and the staff have had so much mis-management over the years that aren't exactly in the right frame of mind to help either.

What is needed? A few BIG and VISIBLE concessions from the "new" management. FIRST.

Rgds BEX

[IThink]

I am sorry if some of you took my comments personally. At least Bex gave a detailed response. My comments were not personal, but just a view point from outside NERC. Life is two way street.

I still don't withdraw what I have said. The pains that I appreciate AC went through have now been bought and paid for. There hasn't been much discussion of the buy back of days in lieu this year and the OCT payments last year. They are behind you, finished and over with.

This perceived need to have managers fall on their sword publicly seems a bit too vindictive. Much of the NERC management has changed and I guess most of the rest will go soon enough - don't worry the "bird man's" guilt is well known. I imagine they feel the big bang change may bee too unstable, so slowly slowly catchy monkey. Even those outside NERC associated with the latter part of the project cannot have much longer to go. Those senior managers that really screwed up in the pre 1999 days are well gone.

I always listen to Bex, he talks sense a lot of the time. But NERC really needs to take care of what the rest of the company is facing and putting up with. It is as if NERC has a great big chip on its shoulder. Get over it, move forward and get on with it. Give a clean sheet of paper a chance.

The whole company hears of your plight, so show some "can do" attitude and produce some results this summer to show your direct managers and directors that you care more about your profession than just a suicidal wish to see the company fail. Show this co-operation and I am sure the "new" managers will move towards the concessions you seek.

Nerc has a unique culture compared to other units I have seen or worked in. It doesn't mean it is the right culture.......

There is no point slamming into me again, as this is the last post I will make on this forum.
Good bye and good luck.

[BEXIL160]

I Think....

Try to rise above it, and continue posting. ALL viewpoints are welcome in my opinion. I personally may not agree, but then that doesn't make anyones viewpoint less valid.

In the end it's the debate that matters.

Best rgds
BEX

[250 kts]

IThink. I said you were ill informed and I maintain that position.

You were the one who raised the issue of "bungs".

Do you really know why the payments were made to the LACC staff 2 years ago? Well it had NOTHING to do with the system or even a sweetener for the c**p we had to go through. It was a recognition that staff were going to have spend many of their days off away from home accruing Days in Lieu with no prospect of them being able to take such time off and management couldn't afford for us to take those days off without a massive impact on the customers.

Indeed I accrued over 15 days in 2001 just because of my OCT programme, 10 of which I sold at the time and have only just been able to sell the outstanding days. I would much rather have had the time away from LACC with my family but there is no prospect that the WP agreement will allow extra leave columns to allow staff to get their rightful time off-even 2 years after it was worked. The situation at other units is radically different in that staff are able to take time in lieu owed relatively quickly within their roster and so the need to buy back doesn't apply.

I hope this clears up the perceptions within the rest of the company on this matter.

On a slightly different note. It is true that the sectors are not always at capacity but LACC suffered in excess of 50 overloads in it's first year of operation-probably more than every other NATS unit put together. Hardly a case of us not pulling our weight for the good of NATS. In fact I understand the new DGM saw a particularly bad overload for himself recently so at least there will be a realisation in upper levels of the crap equipment and particularly RT quality that we have to put up with.

There is a "can do" attitude at LACC but not at any cost. and if things are so good down here there will always be vacancies for those that volunteer.

[Findo]

The situation at other units is radically different in that staff are able to take time in lieu owed relatively quickly within their roster and so the need to buy back doesn't apply.


Don't think so....... some of our guys are in the process of selling back 15 + days because they cannot get them off. Probably not at the same rate you got either.

[BEXIL160]

probably not at the same rate as you got...

A bit inflamatory, Findo. Maybe it came across wrong. How do you KNOW that the rate is / was different for the buy back of days in lieu? I'm not sure that the rates are so much different.

These rates were agreed between PROSPECT and NATS, so if there is a difference you'll need to ask hard questions of PROSPECT, our (yours and mine) union.

There are many people at Swanwick who have been unable to take all of their rightful ANNUAL LEAVE, due to OCT and the LACC operation limiting the number of validated people on leave at any one time. Is leave at ScOATCC restricted to the same extent?

Further, restrict annual leave and the result? A high sickness rate. Without proper rest or leave people get tired, and are therefore more susceptable to minor illness. Which unit has the highest sickness rate? I don't know, but I'm guessing it's LACC.

None of this makes me proud of NATS. However, I still enjoy my job. I still have every respect for my colleagues, be they at the smallest TWR only place or at Heathrow or on the Ocean or wherever. We ALL do a damn fine job.

A pity then that ALL our contributions still seem to be taken for granted by the management, regardless of where we work.

Want me to be a bit more positive? Easy. Show me a more effective, more participitive management style and I'll move heaven and earth to make NATS better. Until then I'll carry on doing my job, enjoying it and doing nothing more. My, and my colleagues ideas aren't welcome anyway. Recent events have more than proven this.

Rgds BEX

[Findo]

Leave at ScACC is less than half the norm until end of March due training committments.

MACC also short of staff. AVAs being used there to cover essential training.

Not a lot different anywhere you look.

[Rudolph Hucker]

Just to slightly amend some of the statements made by BEX and others - LACC sectors are not always operated at TSF, in fact you'd be surprised just how often in the scheme of things a reg is actually put on.

Also, re overloads, yes we did have 50 or so last year, but if you get into the weeds of it you'll find that it nots necessarily about aircraft numbers - overloads are excessive workload (and we can all think of examples - bad wx with lots of vectoring, etc.).

In an ideal world we'd all have the time and sit down for bit with one of the 'sharper edged' traffic managers on the horseshoe - it was quite enlightening and somewhat amazing that the likes of what I've out above isn't more widely known on the shop floor.

Cheers

Rudolph

[BEXIL160]

re overloads, yes we did have 50 or so last year, but if you get into the weeds of it you'll find that it nots necessarily about aircraft numbers - overloads are excessive workload... so that's alright then. :rolleyes:

I never said LACC sectors are operated AT TSF, but did say they "are operated TO TSF". The TSF is a LIMIT and should be applied all the time, whether or not there is a demand.

Saying it isn't neccessary "because there is no demand" or "we were going to watch the demand and apply it if required", as I was told by one traffic manager, is not acceptable and HAS lead to dangerous situations arising. (MORS have been filed).

TSF is supposed to protect against overloads and is a SAFETY measure. How many flow people lose sight of this aim?

There is a feeling amongst operational staff that FLOW are sometimes reluctant to put on regulation because of delay statistics that "may count against them". I do not know the truth of this. I do know the feeling of "exposure" that sector controllers get because flow has not been applied and the lame excuses that have been offered up after many overload situations.

Overloads are indeed the result of excessive workload. Flow control is supposed to protect against the build up of excessive workload, for whatever reason (Wx, traffic bunching, slot "busting", new procedures etc etc). At the moment it does not seem to be refined sufficiently to do so. Tactical flow control, as used in the USA, is not yet a reality in the EUR region although the TTCs in Terminal Control are a step in this direction.

You see, despite the Mr. Huckers post, I would contend that most operational controllers are well aware of what flow does (or does not do).

Rgds BEX

[Scott Voigt]

Just a quick note... The US does use tactical flow as well as strategic. However, even with it in place it does get out of hand and we too feel at times that we are getting little help. That is partly the nature of our business. Best laid plans sometimes go to doo doo because of other problems that were not forseen. Ahhhhh to have a magic ball that knew just what the weather was REALLY going to do <G>... Then there is the problem of the 10% who can't not make a decision to save any sector from overload...

regards

Scott

[Loki]

Rudolph Hucker:

Sorry, didn`t really understand your post. I gather from a mutual friend that you are presently suffering from a heavy cold. When you are recovered, we must talk about the true nature of overloads; traffic counts are just one factor, sadly the only one the "suits" seem capable of understanding.

Get well soon.

[Rudolph Hucker]

Thanks Loki - it seems the lurgy also caused me to read BEX's post in error, and the last thing I wanted to do was to upset him (sorry BEX!).

Meet me under the clock outside the canteen, usual time/day and carry and rolled up copy of the Watch Tower. I await our chat with interest....

Rudolph (sniff!)

[Findo]

The TSF is a LIMIT and should be applied all the time, whether or not there is a demand.

EH ????? Sector Capacity is a finite number. TSF is 80 % of that figure. If you need to regulate a sector then you firstly consider regulating at TSF - could be less and sometimes more. It is specifically set at 80% of capacity so that unexpected peaks will not breach sector capacity.

Why on earth would you apply Flow all the time "whether or not there is a demand" ? Even if the demand was 50% of the TSF never mind capacity you would delay aircraft. We know our sectors and the capacity reflects the complexity even with odd bunches making the job a challenge.

You see, despite the Mr. Huckers post, I would contend that most operational controllers are well aware of what flow does (or does not do).


errrrr ... don't think so ;) ;)

[BEXIL160]

Ahh Findo, we will disagree here.

"Sector capacity is a finite number"...Nope, can't agree 'm afraid. Sector capacity is a factor of complexity. A sector could be at capacity with say, 5 a/c per hour if the task was complex enough.The same sector could safely handle 25 a/c per hour if they were all at cruise levels and nothing had to be done.

80% of "capacity" is therefore misleading. TSF is A LIMIT.

Why would I apply flow all the time? Because it is the SAFE thing to do. I have been on the end of one of flow's promises that "there is no demand" and so there was no flow on. RESULT: OVERLOAD. I'm not prepared to have that happen again.

Rgds BEX