London 133.07
Guest
Posts: n/a
London 133.07
I often work this frequency. I have never found it anything less than frantic.
The pace at which the controller has to issue instructions, and the lack of any gap into which one can even call in on first contact is extraordinary.
I take my hat off to the controllers, but various questions arise:-[list=1][*]How can a controller stay sane when life goes at this pace?[*]How can he or his Assistant keep up with the amount of writing required?[*]How can a controller even talk to other controllers to hand people off or accept new flights joining if the moment he even pauses for breath someone thumbs the tit and the ATCO then has to listen to them?[*]How can he take the time to brief his replacement when it's time for a cuppa?[*]If anyone had an emergency what hope would there be that a Mayday would be heard?[/list=a]
Does anyone else consider this state of affairs to be anything remotely approaching satisfactory? Will this sector be subject to a substantial amount of rationalisation when Swanwick is up and running? Or sooner?
The pace at which the controller has to issue instructions, and the lack of any gap into which one can even call in on first contact is extraordinary.
I take my hat off to the controllers, but various questions arise:-[list=1][*]How can a controller stay sane when life goes at this pace?[*]How can he or his Assistant keep up with the amount of writing required?[*]How can a controller even talk to other controllers to hand people off or accept new flights joining if the moment he even pauses for breath someone thumbs the tit and the ATCO then has to listen to them?[*]How can he take the time to brief his replacement when it's time for a cuppa?[*]If anyone had an emergency what hope would there be that a Mayday would be heard?[/list=a]
Does anyone else consider this state of affairs to be anything remotely approaching satisfactory? Will this sector be subject to a substantial amount of rationalisation when Swanwick is up and running? Or sooner?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well Hugmonster.......
Glad to know you appreciate all the hard work we do !
The answer to your last question is easy.......there will be no difference when Swanwick is up and running (at least I HOPE not, but then again who knows what effect the introduction of the new Swanwick sectors will have on operations !!) as 133.07 is a Terminal Control sector, not an Area Control one, and it's AC that is moving to Swanwick.
By the way......this sector is supposedly "flowed" to take out the worst of the traffic peaks ! Mind you, it does mostly work.......however, I AM just left to wonder what pressure will be brought to bear to "decrease delays" now that we are privatised ?
Something to ponder on, eh ?
Glad to know you appreciate all the hard work we do !
The answer to your last question is easy.......there will be no difference when Swanwick is up and running (at least I HOPE not, but then again who knows what effect the introduction of the new Swanwick sectors will have on operations !!) as 133.07 is a Terminal Control sector, not an Area Control one, and it's AC that is moving to Swanwick.
By the way......this sector is supposedly "flowed" to take out the worst of the traffic peaks ! Mind you, it does mostly work.......however, I AM just left to wonder what pressure will be brought to bear to "decrease delays" now that we are privatised ?
Something to ponder on, eh ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Unfortunately 133.07 is a TC frequency and TC will not be moving down to NERC at least to start with anyway.
As it stands at the moment the way the frequency splits the traffic on this sector at the moment is very uneven, not an uncommon problem but for now it is difficult to find another solution.
Roll on the summer !!!
None of TC is due to move to NERC in the near future so it will continue to operate as is for now, what difference will NERC make? We will have to wait and see..
As it stands at the moment the way the frequency splits the traffic on this sector at the moment is very uneven, not an uncommon problem but for now it is difficult to find another solution.
Roll on the summer !!!
None of TC is due to move to NERC in the near future so it will continue to operate as is for now, what difference will NERC make? We will have to wait and see..
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK - if 133.07 will not be moving, I would suggest that something ought to be done about it, because at the moment it is potentially extremely dangerous.
I heard a forecast late last year that we are in danger of having a midair in the SE of England within 12 months. I think I know where I would put my money on it occurring! (but I hope and pray it won't.)
As FSO in my company, I am supposed to be proactive in promoting safety, safety-consciousness, and general safe practice.
Perhaps NATS should also be a little proactive in having something done in this and any other similarly congested frequencies before the statistics leap up and bite them in the bum?
I heard a forecast late last year that we are in danger of having a midair in the SE of England within 12 months. I think I know where I would put my money on it occurring! (but I hope and pray it won't.)
As FSO in my company, I am supposed to be proactive in promoting safety, safety-consciousness, and general safe practice.
Perhaps NATS should also be a little proactive in having something done in this and any other similarly congested frequencies before the statistics leap up and bite them in the bum?
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK, hands up, I'm one of the controllers who continually babble away on TC Cowly.
Just for geography's sake it's not really SE England, so presumably the 'disaster' can't happen there. More a sort or oblong thingy from Bovingdon to Compton to Grove to Lichfield and back to BNN, and part of TC Midlands. But then those from the black country would hardly call Oxford 'the Midlands', so let's just ignore the names.
To be honest, the number of planes is no greater than lots of other sectors, 120.52, 119.77, 134.12, 118.82 to name but four. Personally, I think the RT loading is so high as nearly every standing agreement contains a 'level by', nearly doubling the length of every tx., 150 L CLIPY, 150 L 25 DME BNN, 150 L 25 DME CPT, 190 L COWLY, 190 L 10 DME CPT.
Also, although being a relatively large amount of airspace for a TC sector, the amount of time a/c are on frequency, and the miles flown before transfer to another frequency can be extremely short, so 'condensing' the a/c 's experience to 2 instructions immediately after each other, followed by QSY.
This probably adds to the hectic impression.
All that said, yes it does get B****y busy at times, and yes, if an emergency cropped up, it really would be quite 'interesting'.
Perhaps more flow restrictions are needed?.
Just for geography's sake it's not really SE England, so presumably the 'disaster' can't happen there. More a sort or oblong thingy from Bovingdon to Compton to Grove to Lichfield and back to BNN, and part of TC Midlands. But then those from the black country would hardly call Oxford 'the Midlands', so let's just ignore the names.
To be honest, the number of planes is no greater than lots of other sectors, 120.52, 119.77, 134.12, 118.82 to name but four. Personally, I think the RT loading is so high as nearly every standing agreement contains a 'level by', nearly doubling the length of every tx., 150 L CLIPY, 150 L 25 DME BNN, 150 L 25 DME CPT, 190 L COWLY, 190 L 10 DME CPT.
Also, although being a relatively large amount of airspace for a TC sector, the amount of time a/c are on frequency, and the miles flown before transfer to another frequency can be extremely short, so 'condensing' the a/c 's experience to 2 instructions immediately after each other, followed by QSY.
This probably adds to the hectic impression.
All that said, yes it does get B****y busy at times, and yes, if an emergency cropped up, it really would be quite 'interesting'.
Perhaps more flow restrictions are needed?.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I don't think flow restrictions would help much - traffic would just route a different way, and you'd shift the problem elsewhere.
I think part of the problem is with the shape of airspace and sectors.
In the past, when sectors have become busy, the standard response is to reduce the size of the sectors. This is counterproductive, since the actual number of RT exchanges goes up, since you have to establish communication and hand them off, and in a small sector those become a high proportion of the workload. If you're doing that all the time and aircraft are not working you for long, then you're spending all your time saying hello and goodbye instead of actually handling the traffic, their routes and levels.
Dunno much about it except as a grateful "user", but might horizontal secorisation assist, at least, close in to London? With a ceiling of, say, FL150, so outbound/inbound traffic is limited to that as tops, and above is all the transit traffic? Outbound traffic would get further climb further out where there is less bother...
Okay, it would push fuel consumption up a bit, but at least it wouldn't mean yet more airways slots, congestion at airports and unhappy pax gagging for a chance to slot the crew!
I think part of the problem is with the shape of airspace and sectors.
In the past, when sectors have become busy, the standard response is to reduce the size of the sectors. This is counterproductive, since the actual number of RT exchanges goes up, since you have to establish communication and hand them off, and in a small sector those become a high proportion of the workload. If you're doing that all the time and aircraft are not working you for long, then you're spending all your time saying hello and goodbye instead of actually handling the traffic, their routes and levels.
Dunno much about it except as a grateful "user", but might horizontal secorisation assist, at least, close in to London? With a ceiling of, say, FL150, so outbound/inbound traffic is limited to that as tops, and above is all the transit traffic? Outbound traffic would get further climb further out where there is less bother...
Okay, it would push fuel consumption up a bit, but at least it wouldn't mean yet more airways slots, congestion at airports and unhappy pax gagging for a chance to slot the crew!
Guest
Posts: n/a
We do actually have horizontal sectorisation, Cowly (133.07) narrow as it is has to share this airspace with Cowly west (original name or what) and likewise on the northbound side. One of the problems on Cowly is that at times you just get squeezed for space so even with the frequency split you have the same a/c in the same area.
Level capping unfortunately wont help as if you cap southbound traffic it ends up in the middle of the already congested TMA and how will you get LL and KK traffic down?? Similarly going north you need to get Birmingham traffic down through outbounds once you've done that there is not that much left in the way, just getting everyone the right way round. If we dont climb you northbound you run into manchesters airspace.
This obviously is a difficult problem to solve and people are trying to find a solution more airspace etc.
(Yesterday during one of those very busy sessions there was a Pan call it got in on the RT ok and wasn't a problem, had there been much more traffic around at the time RT congestion may not have been the biggest problem but finding a gap to get them through into the TMA)
Level capping unfortunately wont help as if you cap southbound traffic it ends up in the middle of the already congested TMA and how will you get LL and KK traffic down?? Similarly going north you need to get Birmingham traffic down through outbounds once you've done that there is not that much left in the way, just getting everyone the right way round. If we dont climb you northbound you run into manchesters airspace.
This obviously is a difficult problem to solve and people are trying to find a solution more airspace etc.
(Yesterday during one of those very busy sessions there was a Pan call it got in on the RT ok and wasn't a problem, had there been much more traffic around at the time RT congestion may not have been the biggest problem but finding a gap to get them through into the TMA)
Guest
Posts: n/a
AMEN to that, Viva77......it doesn't help us on the ground when we have to put up with parachute drops from both Hinton in the Hedges AND Weston on the Green. BOTH places have a direct affect on sector operations, yet both places are allowed access.
AND, I might add, the latter even has priority at times ?? Now how much sense does THAT make !!
AND, I might add, the latter even has priority at times ?? Now how much sense does THAT make !!
Guest
Posts: n/a
The thing is, my dear Nuke, that ATC is a national service paid for from a number of sources but then available to everyone flying in the country. At least that's how it used to be.
You may not like it or agree with it but until someone comes up with a better idea we should stick with it. And the sooner NATS (and it's not just the managers!) learns to just accept it the better.
The alternative is too awful to think about. We'll have non-NATS units sending bills when they're given an early handover and heavens knows what else!
I remember that there used to be a time when when you could rely on controllers to shift traffic in the most efficient way (because that's how you get them off your frequency) not in response to the size of the invoice.
You may not like it or agree with it but until someone comes up with a better idea we should stick with it. And the sooner NATS (and it's not just the managers!) learns to just accept it the better.
The alternative is too awful to think about. We'll have non-NATS units sending bills when they're given an early handover and heavens knows what else!
I remember that there used to be a time when when you could rely on controllers to shift traffic in the most efficient way (because that's how you get them off your frequency) not in response to the size of the invoice.
