What about the Entente Cordiale ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: N 43° 39' 54'' E 7° 12' 53''
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about the Entente Cordiale ?
Here's something from the french major atc union:
In French
DITES NON AUX ESPACEMENTS DEMANDES PAR LONDRES !! Les directives européennes qui vont s’appliquer dans les mois qui viennent sont une préoccupation majeure pour le SNCTA. La mise en concurrence des prestataires de service du contrôle aérien est le symbole des évolutions que nous refusons. Malheureusement d’autres prestataires européens adoptent déjà des stratégies agressives pour se positionner sur un marché qu’ils veulent prendre d’assaut. Le prestataire anglais (NATS), premier privatisé en Europe, est pionnier en la matière. La concurrence s’appuie sur la conquête de parts de marché au détriment des autres entreprises, et tous les moyens sont bons pour y parvenir. En se tournant vers les Irlandais à l’Ouest, les Espagnols au Sud, il serait surprenant que les velléités expansionnistes d’un modèle compétitif ne se tourne pas également vers l’espace aérien français qui, par sa place centrale en Europe, est aujourd’hui le plus gros prestataire européen. Pour les Anglais, la France est surtout une source importante de redevances en-route. Tout en cherchant à augmenter son efficacité, le NATS souhaiterait-il également réduire celle de la DSNA (prestataire français) ? Après avoir attribué une plus grande charge de travail au CRNA/O de Brest en leur faisant porter une plus grande responsabilité dans les retards, les Anglais cherchent à faire porter le chapeau aux contrôleurs de CDG. Il y a quelques mois, le NATS a demandé au CRNA/N d’augmenter les espacements entre les avions sur les trajectoires OPALE et AMOGA pour atteindre 10 voire 15 NM pendant certaines heures : ceci leur permettait d’éviter de poser des régulations sur les secteurs britanniques. Cette demande a été ensuite répercutée à Roissy. Etant données les difficultés que cela créait, le chef de tour de CDG avait catégoriquement refusé (mais nous ne devons pas nous tromper de coupable, ce sont bien les Anglais qui agissent, le CRNA/N et Roissy qui subissent). Ces demandes avaient alors cessé. Or, des demandes similaires ont de nouveau été reçues à plusieurs reprises cet été, et pour les dernières fois Samedi 24 et Dimanche 25 septembre : preuve que les Anglais ne se privent pas d’appliquer les termes d’accords encore inexistants (en discussion) et que leurs velléités n’ont pas été refroidies. Pour la section locale, il est hors de question de céder à de telles pratiques et de devoir subir le courroux des pilotes au point d’arrêt qui, en l’absence de créneaux CFMU, devraient attendre des dizaines de minutes, simplement pour que le NATS remplace la régulation de trafic pour des raisons de sécurité par de la régulation économique que nous paierons au final. De plus, la section demande à ce que CDG soit invité à participer aux discussions sur un éventuel accord qui nous concerne directement. Ce cas est un autre exemple des ambitions de nos collègues anglais, qui pour éviter de payer des amendes et redorer leurs statistiques, essayent de nous faire endosser la responsabilité des retards qu’ils créent. Gardons à l’esprit que les retards générés font parties des indicateurs de performance qui alimentent les statistiques de la Communauté Européenne, mais à terme ils serviront de base à la comparaison de l’efficacité des différents prestataires de contrôle européens dans le cadre de la mise en concurrence qui se dessine. Pour le confort de notre travail, pour l’équité vis-à-vis des délais générés, et surtout pour la préservation de l’intégrité de notre espace aérien et sa gestion par la DSNA, tant qu’un accord n’est pas trouvé, nous vous invitons à refuser toutes les demandes de ce type que les Anglais nous feront parvenir.
Voici quelques précisions sur des points importants : POURQUOI LE NATS NE VEUT PAS POSER DE REGULATION ? Pour bien comprendre, il faut savoir que le NATS est pénalisé par son régulateur quand il génère des délais cause contrôle. C’est donc le moyen idéal : ne pas mettre de régulation, demander aux Français de faire le travail pour eux et les délais sont alors imputés à la France. LES RETARDS A BREST A CAUSE DU NATS : Plusieurs nuits par mois, le NATS sous-loue son calculateur au profit de sociétés anglaises pour émettre les fiches de paies. Pendant cette période, c’est le CRNA/O de Brest qui voit sa charge de travail augmenter considérablement juste pour que les anglais fassent encore un peu plus de profits. Du coup, c’est la DSNA qui paie indirectement une partie de la facture. POURQUOI REFUSONS-NOUS CETTE DEMANDE ? Voici un extrait du compte-rendu du GT capacité à l’époque des premières demandes : Demandes ACC de Londres (extraits) l'ACC de Londres demande à livrer les avions vers TN avec 10 à 15 NM de séparation. Ces demandes visaient à ne pas mettre de régulation et à gérer le trafic en tactique. Il n'est pas possible d'accéder à ces demandes (difficulté de gestion du point d'arrêt, intégration des départs du Bourget, doutes quant à l'envie de nos collègues anglais d'assumer leur part des délais en posant des régulations...) Une réunion sur le sujet s'est tenue avec la FMP Paris, qui s'est fait notre porte-parole auprès de l'ACC Londres. Depuis ce jour, les demandes ont, à notre connaissance, cessé. 10 à 15 nautiques se traduisent par 5 minutes entre 2 départs sur la même trajectoire. Quand les TRACKS atlantiques sont Nord (départ vers OPALE) on peut atteindre 20 départs heures sur cette trajectoire. Ce qui pourrait donner jusqu'à 1h30 d’attente pour certains avions sans le moindre créneau délivré par la FMP. DISCUSSIONS CRNA/N – NATS : Des discussions sont en cours entre le CRNA/N et le NATS pour créer des procédures donnant-donnant de ce type : espace plus important ménagé sur AMOGA et OPALE contre espace plus important sur MERUE. En effet, l’utilisation de MAESTRO et la pratique de l’attente linéaire imposent parfois le même genre de contrainte à Londres. Cependant, aucun accord n’a pour l’instant été signé. Une réunion aura lieu le 10 octobre entre les chefs FMP de Paris, Londres et Maastricht afin de trouver une issue à ces problèmes d’interface. Nous souhaitons qu’un représentant de CDG y assiste et qu’une solution acceptable pour tous soit trouvée.
And in english translated by google and me, so sorry for the possible mistakes...
Say No to SPACINGS REQUESTS BY LONDON!!
The European directives which will apply in the following months are a major concern for the SNCTA (main union for air traffic controllers). Competition of air control services providers is the symbol of the evolutions which we refuse. Unfortunately some other European ATC services providers have already adopted aggressive strategies to position on a market which they want to take by storm. The British provider NATS, first privatized in Europe, is pioneer on the matter. Competition is based on the conquest of market shares to the detriment of the other companies, and all the means are good to reach that point. While turning to the Irishmen in the West, the Spaniards in the South, it would be surprising that expansionist inclinations of a competitive model do not also turn to the French airspace which, by its central place in Europe, is the largest European ATC services provider today. For the British, France is mainly a significant source of en route taxes. While seeking to increase its effectiveness, would the NATS also wish to reduce the one of the DSNA (French ATC services provider)? After having allotted a greater workload to the Brest ACC in making them take a greater responsibility in the delays, the British seek put the blame on to the controllers of CDG. A few months ago, the NATS required of the Paris ACC to increase spacing between planes on trajectories OPALE and AMOGA to 10 or even 15 Nm during certain hours: this enabled them to avoid posing regulations on the British sectors. This request was then transferred to Roissy. Being given the difficulties that this created, the person in charge of CDG ATC had categorically refused (but we should not be mistaken, NATS acts and then the Paris ACC and Roissy have to undergo the consequences). These requests had then ceased. However, some similar requests were again received on several occasions this summer, and for the last times Saturday 24 and Sunday September 25: proof that the NATS do not deprive itself to apply the terms of still non-existent agreements (under discussion) and that their inclinations were not cooled. For the local section, it is out of question to endorse such practices and to have to simply undergo the ire of the pilots at the holding point who, in the absence of CFMU slots, should wait tens of minutes, so that the NATS replaces the regulation of traffic for reasons of safety by economic regulation which we will pay with the final one. Moreover, the section requires that CDG should be invited to take part in the discussions on a possible agreement which concerns us directly. This case is another example of the ambitions of our British colleagues, who to avoid paying fines and to have better statistics, try to make us endorse the responsibility for the delays they create. Let’s keep in mind that the generated delays belong to the indicators of performance which feed the statistics of the European Community, but in the long term they will be used as a basis for the comparison of the effectiveness of the various European ATC services providers within the framework of competition which seems to be our future. For the comfort of our work, for equity with respect to the generated delays, and especially for the safeguarding of the integrity of our airspace and its management by the DSNA, as long as an agreement is not found, we invite you to refuse all the requests for this type that the British will forward to us.
Here some precise details on significant points:
-WHY THE NATS DOES NOT WANT TO POSE REGULATION? To understand well, it should be known that the NATS is penalized by its regulator when it generates delays due to control problems. It is thus the ideal way of coping: not to put regulations, to require the French to make the job for them and the delays are then charged to France.
- DELAYS IN BREST due to NATS: Several nights per month, the NATS sub-leases its calculator with the profit of British companies to emit the cards of pays. For this period, it is the Brest ACC which sees its workload increase considerably just so that Nats makes a little more profits. Then, in fact it’s the DSNA that pays part of the invoice indirectly.
-WHY DO WE REFUSE THIS REQUEST? Here an extract of the report of the capacity WP at the time of the first requests: the London ACC requires us to deliver the planes towards TN with 10 to 15 Nm of separation. These requests were aimed at not putting regulation and managing the traffic in tactic. It is not possible to accept these requests (management difficulty at the holding point, integration of the departures from Le Bourget, doubts concerning the desire of our Nats colleagues to assume their share of created delays by posing regulations...) A meeting on the subject was held with the FMP Paris, which was made our spokesman to the London ACC . From this day, the requests, to our knowledge, have ceased. 10 to 15 nautical result in 5 minutes between 2 departures on the same trajectory. When the Atlantic TRACKS are Northern (departure towards OPALE) there can be 20 departures an hour on this trajectory. It then could create up to1h30 of delay for certain planes without any slot being delivered by the FMP.
-DISCUSSIONS Paris ACC - NATS: Discussions are being held between the CRNA/N and the NATS to create procedures give-giving of this type: more significant spacing on AMOGA and OPALE against more significant spacing on MERUE. Indeed, the use of MAESTRO and the practice of linear waiting impose sometimes the same kind of constraint in London. However, no agreement has for the signed moment. A meeting will take place on October 10 between heads FMP of Paris, London and Maastricht in order to find an exit with these problems of interface. We wish that a representative of CDG assist to with it and that a solution acceptable for all is found.
Please don't shoot the messenger! I don't work in Paris. Just interested in any possible comment from the other side of the Channel ?
In French
DITES NON AUX ESPACEMENTS DEMANDES PAR LONDRES !! Les directives européennes qui vont s’appliquer dans les mois qui viennent sont une préoccupation majeure pour le SNCTA. La mise en concurrence des prestataires de service du contrôle aérien est le symbole des évolutions que nous refusons. Malheureusement d’autres prestataires européens adoptent déjà des stratégies agressives pour se positionner sur un marché qu’ils veulent prendre d’assaut. Le prestataire anglais (NATS), premier privatisé en Europe, est pionnier en la matière. La concurrence s’appuie sur la conquête de parts de marché au détriment des autres entreprises, et tous les moyens sont bons pour y parvenir. En se tournant vers les Irlandais à l’Ouest, les Espagnols au Sud, il serait surprenant que les velléités expansionnistes d’un modèle compétitif ne se tourne pas également vers l’espace aérien français qui, par sa place centrale en Europe, est aujourd’hui le plus gros prestataire européen. Pour les Anglais, la France est surtout une source importante de redevances en-route. Tout en cherchant à augmenter son efficacité, le NATS souhaiterait-il également réduire celle de la DSNA (prestataire français) ? Après avoir attribué une plus grande charge de travail au CRNA/O de Brest en leur faisant porter une plus grande responsabilité dans les retards, les Anglais cherchent à faire porter le chapeau aux contrôleurs de CDG. Il y a quelques mois, le NATS a demandé au CRNA/N d’augmenter les espacements entre les avions sur les trajectoires OPALE et AMOGA pour atteindre 10 voire 15 NM pendant certaines heures : ceci leur permettait d’éviter de poser des régulations sur les secteurs britanniques. Cette demande a été ensuite répercutée à Roissy. Etant données les difficultés que cela créait, le chef de tour de CDG avait catégoriquement refusé (mais nous ne devons pas nous tromper de coupable, ce sont bien les Anglais qui agissent, le CRNA/N et Roissy qui subissent). Ces demandes avaient alors cessé. Or, des demandes similaires ont de nouveau été reçues à plusieurs reprises cet été, et pour les dernières fois Samedi 24 et Dimanche 25 septembre : preuve que les Anglais ne se privent pas d’appliquer les termes d’accords encore inexistants (en discussion) et que leurs velléités n’ont pas été refroidies. Pour la section locale, il est hors de question de céder à de telles pratiques et de devoir subir le courroux des pilotes au point d’arrêt qui, en l’absence de créneaux CFMU, devraient attendre des dizaines de minutes, simplement pour que le NATS remplace la régulation de trafic pour des raisons de sécurité par de la régulation économique que nous paierons au final. De plus, la section demande à ce que CDG soit invité à participer aux discussions sur un éventuel accord qui nous concerne directement. Ce cas est un autre exemple des ambitions de nos collègues anglais, qui pour éviter de payer des amendes et redorer leurs statistiques, essayent de nous faire endosser la responsabilité des retards qu’ils créent. Gardons à l’esprit que les retards générés font parties des indicateurs de performance qui alimentent les statistiques de la Communauté Européenne, mais à terme ils serviront de base à la comparaison de l’efficacité des différents prestataires de contrôle européens dans le cadre de la mise en concurrence qui se dessine. Pour le confort de notre travail, pour l’équité vis-à-vis des délais générés, et surtout pour la préservation de l’intégrité de notre espace aérien et sa gestion par la DSNA, tant qu’un accord n’est pas trouvé, nous vous invitons à refuser toutes les demandes de ce type que les Anglais nous feront parvenir.
Voici quelques précisions sur des points importants : POURQUOI LE NATS NE VEUT PAS POSER DE REGULATION ? Pour bien comprendre, il faut savoir que le NATS est pénalisé par son régulateur quand il génère des délais cause contrôle. C’est donc le moyen idéal : ne pas mettre de régulation, demander aux Français de faire le travail pour eux et les délais sont alors imputés à la France. LES RETARDS A BREST A CAUSE DU NATS : Plusieurs nuits par mois, le NATS sous-loue son calculateur au profit de sociétés anglaises pour émettre les fiches de paies. Pendant cette période, c’est le CRNA/O de Brest qui voit sa charge de travail augmenter considérablement juste pour que les anglais fassent encore un peu plus de profits. Du coup, c’est la DSNA qui paie indirectement une partie de la facture. POURQUOI REFUSONS-NOUS CETTE DEMANDE ? Voici un extrait du compte-rendu du GT capacité à l’époque des premières demandes : Demandes ACC de Londres (extraits) l'ACC de Londres demande à livrer les avions vers TN avec 10 à 15 NM de séparation. Ces demandes visaient à ne pas mettre de régulation et à gérer le trafic en tactique. Il n'est pas possible d'accéder à ces demandes (difficulté de gestion du point d'arrêt, intégration des départs du Bourget, doutes quant à l'envie de nos collègues anglais d'assumer leur part des délais en posant des régulations...) Une réunion sur le sujet s'est tenue avec la FMP Paris, qui s'est fait notre porte-parole auprès de l'ACC Londres. Depuis ce jour, les demandes ont, à notre connaissance, cessé. 10 à 15 nautiques se traduisent par 5 minutes entre 2 départs sur la même trajectoire. Quand les TRACKS atlantiques sont Nord (départ vers OPALE) on peut atteindre 20 départs heures sur cette trajectoire. Ce qui pourrait donner jusqu'à 1h30 d’attente pour certains avions sans le moindre créneau délivré par la FMP. DISCUSSIONS CRNA/N – NATS : Des discussions sont en cours entre le CRNA/N et le NATS pour créer des procédures donnant-donnant de ce type : espace plus important ménagé sur AMOGA et OPALE contre espace plus important sur MERUE. En effet, l’utilisation de MAESTRO et la pratique de l’attente linéaire imposent parfois le même genre de contrainte à Londres. Cependant, aucun accord n’a pour l’instant été signé. Une réunion aura lieu le 10 octobre entre les chefs FMP de Paris, Londres et Maastricht afin de trouver une issue à ces problèmes d’interface. Nous souhaitons qu’un représentant de CDG y assiste et qu’une solution acceptable pour tous soit trouvée.
And in english translated by google and me, so sorry for the possible mistakes...
Say No to SPACINGS REQUESTS BY LONDON!!
The European directives which will apply in the following months are a major concern for the SNCTA (main union for air traffic controllers). Competition of air control services providers is the symbol of the evolutions which we refuse. Unfortunately some other European ATC services providers have already adopted aggressive strategies to position on a market which they want to take by storm. The British provider NATS, first privatized in Europe, is pioneer on the matter. Competition is based on the conquest of market shares to the detriment of the other companies, and all the means are good to reach that point. While turning to the Irishmen in the West, the Spaniards in the South, it would be surprising that expansionist inclinations of a competitive model do not also turn to the French airspace which, by its central place in Europe, is the largest European ATC services provider today. For the British, France is mainly a significant source of en route taxes. While seeking to increase its effectiveness, would the NATS also wish to reduce the one of the DSNA (French ATC services provider)? After having allotted a greater workload to the Brest ACC in making them take a greater responsibility in the delays, the British seek put the blame on to the controllers of CDG. A few months ago, the NATS required of the Paris ACC to increase spacing between planes on trajectories OPALE and AMOGA to 10 or even 15 Nm during certain hours: this enabled them to avoid posing regulations on the British sectors. This request was then transferred to Roissy. Being given the difficulties that this created, the person in charge of CDG ATC had categorically refused (but we should not be mistaken, NATS acts and then the Paris ACC and Roissy have to undergo the consequences). These requests had then ceased. However, some similar requests were again received on several occasions this summer, and for the last times Saturday 24 and Sunday September 25: proof that the NATS do not deprive itself to apply the terms of still non-existent agreements (under discussion) and that their inclinations were not cooled. For the local section, it is out of question to endorse such practices and to have to simply undergo the ire of the pilots at the holding point who, in the absence of CFMU slots, should wait tens of minutes, so that the NATS replaces the regulation of traffic for reasons of safety by economic regulation which we will pay with the final one. Moreover, the section requires that CDG should be invited to take part in the discussions on a possible agreement which concerns us directly. This case is another example of the ambitions of our British colleagues, who to avoid paying fines and to have better statistics, try to make us endorse the responsibility for the delays they create. Let’s keep in mind that the generated delays belong to the indicators of performance which feed the statistics of the European Community, but in the long term they will be used as a basis for the comparison of the effectiveness of the various European ATC services providers within the framework of competition which seems to be our future. For the comfort of our work, for equity with respect to the generated delays, and especially for the safeguarding of the integrity of our airspace and its management by the DSNA, as long as an agreement is not found, we invite you to refuse all the requests for this type that the British will forward to us.
Here some precise details on significant points:
-WHY THE NATS DOES NOT WANT TO POSE REGULATION? To understand well, it should be known that the NATS is penalized by its regulator when it generates delays due to control problems. It is thus the ideal way of coping: not to put regulations, to require the French to make the job for them and the delays are then charged to France.
- DELAYS IN BREST due to NATS: Several nights per month, the NATS sub-leases its calculator with the profit of British companies to emit the cards of pays. For this period, it is the Brest ACC which sees its workload increase considerably just so that Nats makes a little more profits. Then, in fact it’s the DSNA that pays part of the invoice indirectly.
-WHY DO WE REFUSE THIS REQUEST? Here an extract of the report of the capacity WP at the time of the first requests: the London ACC requires us to deliver the planes towards TN with 10 to 15 Nm of separation. These requests were aimed at not putting regulation and managing the traffic in tactic. It is not possible to accept these requests (management difficulty at the holding point, integration of the departures from Le Bourget, doubts concerning the desire of our Nats colleagues to assume their share of created delays by posing regulations...) A meeting on the subject was held with the FMP Paris, which was made our spokesman to the London ACC . From this day, the requests, to our knowledge, have ceased. 10 to 15 nautical result in 5 minutes between 2 departures on the same trajectory. When the Atlantic TRACKS are Northern (departure towards OPALE) there can be 20 departures an hour on this trajectory. It then could create up to1h30 of delay for certain planes without any slot being delivered by the FMP.
-DISCUSSIONS Paris ACC - NATS: Discussions are being held between the CRNA/N and the NATS to create procedures give-giving of this type: more significant spacing on AMOGA and OPALE against more significant spacing on MERUE. Indeed, the use of MAESTRO and the practice of linear waiting impose sometimes the same kind of constraint in London. However, no agreement has for the signed moment. A meeting will take place on October 10 between heads FMP of Paris, London and Maastricht in order to find an exit with these problems of interface. We wish that a representative of CDG assist to with it and that a solution acceptable for all is found.
Please don't shoot the messenger! I don't work in Paris. Just interested in any possible comment from the other side of the Channel ?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bisley
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can assure the French that we work a lot harder as well when -"Several nights per month, the NATS sub-leases its calculator with the profit of British companies to emit the cards of pays"
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eva San
I salute my French brother and sister controllers; you understand more about NATS than most of the workers here. We are not aware of these ridiculous requests which try to shift the blame for delay away from NATS.
Thank you for this interesting news.
Thank you for this interesting news.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could someone please explain what is meant by "Several nights per month, the NATS sub-leases its calculator with the profit of British companies to emit the cards of pays" and also to where the points OPALE and AMOGA are.
As 055166k says, NATS controllers aren't aware of what the bean counters are imposing to make themselves and NATS look good. The report is certainly an eyeopener but not really a suprise, with the way the sector flows are dealt with occasionally in the ops room it is no shock that they also try it with adjacent FIR's. I am curious as to how 10 to 15 nm spacings results in 5 minute departure separation, I'm sure that it could be less than that and still achieve the requirement.
On a different side though, some of our requests are needed on the grounds of safety as flow control isn't a perfect tool to protect controllers and sectors. I know of times where the French have blatently refused to help out in these situations and requests for certain a/c to come at lower levels ignored. In these situations flow control wouldn't have made any difference. There are times when the French do comply but put on a flow rate that is more restrictive than the UK one which negates the need for the UK one therefore it looks as if its only the French have imposed the restrictions. The times these are needed are when we have route/airspace closures due to Danger Area activity. I cannot see the problem ever happenning in reverse due to the fact that many of the routes heading south already have restrictions applied to them, the list of which a/c from which destination can do which route and at what level is simply huge. If we put in procedures as complex for the reverse routes then quite simply the French sectors would have flow on all the time.
To finish, I'm not saying that what NATS has done is right - I do think the opposite - but the picture is never as simple and clear as many may think.
As 055166k says, NATS controllers aren't aware of what the bean counters are imposing to make themselves and NATS look good. The report is certainly an eyeopener but not really a suprise, with the way the sector flows are dealt with occasionally in the ops room it is no shock that they also try it with adjacent FIR's. I am curious as to how 10 to 15 nm spacings results in 5 minute departure separation, I'm sure that it could be less than that and still achieve the requirement.
On a different side though, some of our requests are needed on the grounds of safety as flow control isn't a perfect tool to protect controllers and sectors. I know of times where the French have blatently refused to help out in these situations and requests for certain a/c to come at lower levels ignored. In these situations flow control wouldn't have made any difference. There are times when the French do comply but put on a flow rate that is more restrictive than the UK one which negates the need for the UK one therefore it looks as if its only the French have imposed the restrictions. The times these are needed are when we have route/airspace closures due to Danger Area activity. I cannot see the problem ever happenning in reverse due to the fact that many of the routes heading south already have restrictions applied to them, the list of which a/c from which destination can do which route and at what level is simply huge. If we put in procedures as complex for the reverse routes then quite simply the French sectors would have flow on all the time.
To finish, I'm not saying that what NATS has done is right - I do think the opposite - but the picture is never as simple and clear as many may think.
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5miles Plus ca change ..... The computers have been used to calculate salaries for many years. Dates almost back to Linesman/Mediator days.
It was a source of considerable annoyance to surrounding units as when the data link was taken out of service very few estimates were passed by LATCC
It was a source of considerable annoyance to surrounding units as when the data link was taken out of service very few estimates were passed by LATCC
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 to 15 miles between aircraft excessive request???? Could be, depends on why you need it and for how long you need it. I know that we sometimes require even more than that when the holding patterns are full and more aircraft keep coming, but normally if there is nothing restricting the main airport, we keep stuffing them in with at most 10 miles in trail with three streams to merge into one for one arrival corner post...
regards
Scott
regards
Scott
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we talking about 10 to 15nm at the same level or between all a/c via a point whatever the level? The latter is difficult to achieve and the first a standard reduced separation minima so I gather the latter. I cannot see why anyone would NEED it between all levels other than to initiate an approach sequence or reduce complexity due to traffic loadings (which could be solved simply with tactical re-routings or MDI's). I know that occasionally Dover sector has requested in the past that the Paris CDG deps be spaced in trail but as they come at a max of FL260 then speed control can be appied easily.
Scott - I know that your northern collegues that take handover from Toronto Oakville sectors require KORD arrivals 10nm spaced no matter what the level (or at least speeds required to achieve it on the boundary) and that they ask for it 24/7. It was quite an eyeopener seeing it in action when the sectors at Toronto were split 3 ways and the middle guy was going under trying to tell the others the order so they could get on with the streaming!
Scott - I know that your northern collegues that take handover from Toronto Oakville sectors require KORD arrivals 10nm spaced no matter what the level (or at least speeds required to achieve it on the boundary) and that they ask for it 24/7. It was quite an eyeopener seeing it in action when the sectors at Toronto were split 3 ways and the middle guy was going under trying to tell the others the order so they could get on with the streaming!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: swanwick
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a ridiculous request.
How can we expect French controllers to stream traffic 10-15 miles apart when they have problems transferring a/c by a specified point?
What next, transferring a/c on parallel headings if they are bound to the same destination in the LTMA?
Obviously this post is tongue in cheek
Surely we need to help each other as much as possible in our line of work, regardless of any requests from 'bean counters'
How can we expect French controllers to stream traffic 10-15 miles apart when they have problems transferring a/c by a specified point?
What next, transferring a/c on parallel headings if they are bound to the same destination in the LTMA?
Obviously this post is tongue in cheek
Surely we need to help each other as much as possible in our line of work, regardless of any requests from 'bean counters'
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about the customer
If my airline had bought B737/8 equipment [for example] I'd feel a tad p*ssed off if I was continually streamed behind B732's, or even FK70/100's.....and what about the slower exec jets.
Draconian diktat and naive oversimplification in the en-route environment can directly affect an airline's economics, as well as conferring commercial advantage for one operator against disadvantage for another......are ATC managers really empowered to order this?......are "controllers" allowed to do this?
I know it is an alien concept to some......but my loyalty is to the customers......they pay the bills.
Draconian diktat and naive oversimplification in the en-route environment can directly affect an airline's economics, as well as conferring commercial advantage for one operator against disadvantage for another......are ATC managers really empowered to order this?......are "controllers" allowed to do this?
I know it is an alien concept to some......but my loyalty is to the customers......they pay the bills.
