Untie my hands
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Untie my hands
Many units are now desperately short of fully rated controllers. As a consequence reduced manning levels (so we are not talking NATS here) are becoming the norm along with reduced levels of service.
This results in pilots having to revert to technology developed in the 40’s and 50’s in order to carry out instrument approaches.
Is it not possible for the powers that be to see that giving radar assistance, with the use of the ATM to an approaching A/C or simply initiating a centrefix approach would be far safer than the use of less up to date equipment/ procedures.
Granted restrictions would have to be applied to prevent less scrupulous management taking advantage and reducing staffing levels event further,
For example
USE of ATM for radar vectoring.
1) Approved by CAA to overcome temporary shortages (reviewed 6 monthly)
2) Only to be used by controllers with current APS rating
3) Procedure limited to within 15nm of airfield.
4) During the hours of darkness only.
5) Procedures to be used to facilitate no more than two A/c
6) The controller shall not issue instructions to any other A/C on the ground following commencement of the procedure.
Self Positioning of A/C
In order to assist an arriving A/C controllers may initiate a centrefix approach provided:-
1) Both Pilot and controller are familiar with the “Centrefix “position
2) Pilot shall maintain relevant MSA until established inbound on final approach.
More could be put in place but I’m sure you get the idea.
I would be very interested in people’s thoughts
This results in pilots having to revert to technology developed in the 40’s and 50’s in order to carry out instrument approaches.
Is it not possible for the powers that be to see that giving radar assistance, with the use of the ATM to an approaching A/C or simply initiating a centrefix approach would be far safer than the use of less up to date equipment/ procedures.
Granted restrictions would have to be applied to prevent less scrupulous management taking advantage and reducing staffing levels event further,
For example
USE of ATM for radar vectoring.
1) Approved by CAA to overcome temporary shortages (reviewed 6 monthly)
2) Only to be used by controllers with current APS rating
3) Procedure limited to within 15nm of airfield.
4) During the hours of darkness only.
5) Procedures to be used to facilitate no more than two A/c
6) The controller shall not issue instructions to any other A/C on the ground following commencement of the procedure.
Self Positioning of A/C
In order to assist an arriving A/C controllers may initiate a centrefix approach provided:-
1) Both Pilot and controller are familiar with the “Centrefix “position
2) Pilot shall maintain relevant MSA until established inbound on final approach.
More could be put in place but I’m sure you get the idea.
I would be very interested in people’s thoughts
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if you were only giving a radar service to one aircraft at a time, I doubt you'd be able to pay sufficient attention to the aerodrome outside the window at the same time. Even though there might not be any aircraft moving, you still have vehicles, wildlife, lighting systems (all of which have infringed / failed / generally tried to ruin a quiet shift for me!). Don't forget the radar monitoring to check for terrain and airspace compliance, any pop-up traffic to call etc etc on the inbound, and that's without even doing the vectoring.....
I do agree that it's desperately frustrating to be watching the inbound on the ATM without being able to expedite their arrival, but I reckon in this case the regulator is absolutely right to insist on a separation of the two tasks of APR and ADC. (Consider the attempts to reduce operational distractions both in ATC and on the flightdeck, and it seems impossible to then justify imposing a fairly significant task, removing attention from the primary ADC task, purely to a customer's economic benefit).
The answer is for the airlines to be making noise about this at management level, and insisting that they receive the service that they have paid for, and are entitled to.
I do agree that it's desperately frustrating to be watching the inbound on the ATM without being able to expedite their arrival, but I reckon in this case the regulator is absolutely right to insist on a separation of the two tasks of APR and ADC. (Consider the attempts to reduce operational distractions both in ATC and on the flightdeck, and it seems impossible to then justify imposing a fairly significant task, removing attention from the primary ADC task, purely to a customer's economic benefit).
The answer is for the airlines to be making noise about this at management level, and insisting that they receive the service that they have paid for, and are entitled to.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chili;
Even though I completely agree that less is not good when it comes to staffing, the LEX accident had NOTHING to do with one controller in the tower.
regards
Scott
Even though I completely agree that less is not good when it comes to staffing, the LEX accident had NOTHING to do with one controller in the tower.
regards
Scott
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scott
Yes - fully realise that. However as an example of a "break" in the safety chain it's still a relevant point in my opinion. As has been said before - UK practice is you provide a tower service, or an approach radar service - you can't provide both (unlike the ATCO at Lexington) and it should stay that way. What airac is proposing, albeit it with conditions (until someone calls you and starts badgering you on the ground when vectoring - see how long you can impose those conditions then) is no different, and as such is a break in the chain.
Yes - fully realise that. However as an example of a "break" in the safety chain it's still a relevant point in my opinion. As has been said before - UK practice is you provide a tower service, or an approach radar service - you can't provide both (unlike the ATCO at Lexington) and it should stay that way. What airac is proposing, albeit it with conditions (until someone calls you and starts badgering you on the ground when vectoring - see how long you can impose those conditions then) is no different, and as such is a break in the chain.
What - Nothing?
I am reluctant to make detailed comment on an incident before the official report, but is it not a fact that the controller was involved in other duties? If that is correct, then with more appropriate staffing and distribution of duties, the controller might have observed the pilots' error before it became a disaster.
I am reluctant to make detailed comment on an incident before the official report, but is it not a fact that the controller was involved in other duties? If that is correct, then with more appropriate staffing and distribution of duties, the controller might have observed the pilots' error before it became a disaster.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting discussion - I too have sat in front of an ATM working procedurally.
I have to say that I am totally against vectoring whilst carrying out ADC duties. What may be possible however is a procedure that radar derived information can be used to assist in carrying out procedural control i.e. instead of sitting there waiting for a report that an aircraft has passed XXX reporting point, then you can just observe it on the ATM.
I personally think that Procedural Control is not as safe as it used to be. I have sat in front of an ATM loads of times working procedurally and noticed that aircraft have 'overshot' clearnce limits. I find it a comfort being able to observe it all on the ATM.
I have to say that I am totally against vectoring whilst carrying out ADC duties. What may be possible however is a procedure that radar derived information can be used to assist in carrying out procedural control i.e. instead of sitting there waiting for a report that an aircraft has passed XXX reporting point, then you can just observe it on the ATM.
I personally think that Procedural Control is not as safe as it used to be. I have sat in front of an ATM loads of times working procedurally and noticed that aircraft have 'overshot' clearnce limits. I find it a comfort being able to observe it all on the ATM.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
clarification
Ok so the majority appear to be against it. In an ideal world I would agree, however, whilst I totally agree with you Chilli, single manning is not desirable, it is however a situation that is faced regularly at several units.
I believe even your unit struggled to attract the normal number of applicants last time round. How would you solve the problem?
Nudging, good point but even if I maintain a permanent watch I'm not going to stop the odd hare ( that’s why its a hare field) infringing my runway, vehicles like A/c would not move and terrain is taken care of under the existing RVA arrangements .
I am not proposing cutting corners merely utilising all the available aids to provide a safe and expeditious flow etc.
Tower ranger, Why is it not safe? Please inform me of incidents directly related to the apparent misuse of the ATM; in fact I believe headings are issued at one unit already in the event of a go around.
This is a crisis , the point you make is also valid.
However why cant we as controllers make the most of modern technology these procedures were established BEFORE the advent of daylight displays, when it was obviously impossible to do the same task
Nobody has mentioned the self positioning of A/C using Centrefix. What’s wrong with doing that?
To simply say its not done that way because it never has been is not good enough, technology moves on so should we . Each case should be looked at separately and generalisations as per the MATS pt one should, if possible, be avoided.
Lets face it when was the last time you heard of a B747 inbound to Heathrow adopting the Bog off procedure in the event of etc.
I believe even your unit struggled to attract the normal number of applicants last time round. How would you solve the problem?
Nudging, good point but even if I maintain a permanent watch I'm not going to stop the odd hare ( that’s why its a hare field) infringing my runway, vehicles like A/c would not move and terrain is taken care of under the existing RVA arrangements .
I am not proposing cutting corners merely utilising all the available aids to provide a safe and expeditious flow etc.
Tower ranger, Why is it not safe? Please inform me of incidents directly related to the apparent misuse of the ATM; in fact I believe headings are issued at one unit already in the event of a go around.
This is a crisis , the point you make is also valid.
However why cant we as controllers make the most of modern technology these procedures were established BEFORE the advent of daylight displays, when it was obviously impossible to do the same task
Nobody has mentioned the self positioning of A/C using Centrefix. What’s wrong with doing that?
To simply say its not done that way because it never has been is not good enough, technology moves on so should we . Each case should be looked at separately and generalisations as per the MATS pt one should, if possible, be avoided.
Lets face it when was the last time you heard of a B747 inbound to Heathrow adopting the Bog off procedure in the event of etc.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airac,
Unless you're at an extremely quiet airport, could you really stop any other movements (including aircraft taxying, operations vehicles carrying out runway / taxiway checks, any other service vehicles free-ranging on taxiways where they might possibly infringe the runway)? It's fine expediting the inbound's approach, but you'd then be possibly delaying a departure by several minutes beyond the point at which you could have released it anyway procedurally!
Terrain separation is theoretically taken care of when an aircraft flies the centrefix approach, as the crew and the FMC should be aware of the MDAs throughout. But they should also be aware of MDA or approach descent fixes on, say, a VOR approach. Two recent(ish) and publicly reported descents below minimum altitude on final approach were resolved; one by ATC monitoring and go-around instructions, the other by GPWS. That's surely enough for the regulator to avoid changing the status quo for the moment, in my opinion anyway...
Unless you're at an extremely quiet airport, could you really stop any other movements (including aircraft taxying, operations vehicles carrying out runway / taxiway checks, any other service vehicles free-ranging on taxiways where they might possibly infringe the runway)? It's fine expediting the inbound's approach, but you'd then be possibly delaying a departure by several minutes beyond the point at which you could have released it anyway procedurally!
Terrain separation is theoretically taken care of when an aircraft flies the centrefix approach, as the crew and the FMC should be aware of the MDAs throughout. But they should also be aware of MDA or approach descent fixes on, say, a VOR approach. Two recent(ish) and publicly reported descents below minimum altitude on final approach were resolved; one by ATC monitoring and go-around instructions, the other by GPWS. That's surely enough for the regulator to avoid changing the status quo for the moment, in my opinion anyway...
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok so the majority appear to be against it. In an ideal world I would agree, however, whilst I totally agree with you Chilli, single manning is not desirable, it is however a situation that is faced regularly at several units.
I believe even your unit struggled to attract the normal number of applicants last time round. How would you solve the problem?
1) Invest and bond - notwithstanding the debate of whether bonding is legal or not the time is here when the supply of NATS failures with an ADC rating has dried up. Airports have to bite the bullet and spend money on training staff for the future, or throw money at the mercenaries out there to tempt them to move. Both these solutions however mean the rich survive, the poor die. Your management has to decide whether they want to be a player, and spend the money accordingly, or realise aviation isn't cheap and seriously think how they want to proceed if they haven't got the funding.
OR
2) Sub-contract APS services to an adjacent airfield who can guarantee the staffing, and accept the fact that you are a tower only aerodrome. If you have an adjacent, fully staffed, international airport next door (
) then maybe it's time to start talking - even to the extent that you could be encompassed in their class 'D' (should they have any).
Nobody has mentioned the self positioning of A/C using Centrefix. What’s wrong with doing that?
Last edited by Chilli Monster; 3rd Apr 2007 at 22:53.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 sheds;
From what was put together from other sources, and not from the NTSB (like you still waiting for the final report.) the way that the runways are lined up (looking at it in the dark) about the soonest the controller could have possibly noticed that the lights weren't going quite in the right direction (nav lights) was about going through the intersection... Probably to late to do anything about it, especially if you think about the time it takes to see something (after working almost a full mid shift.) and then getting to the mike and saying something and for the pilots to comprehend it...
regards
Scott
From what was put together from other sources, and not from the NTSB (like you still waiting for the final report.) the way that the runways are lined up (looking at it in the dark) about the soonest the controller could have possibly noticed that the lights weren't going quite in the right direction (nav lights) was about going through the intersection... Probably to late to do anything about it, especially if you think about the time it takes to see something (after working almost a full mid shift.) and then getting to the mike and saying something and for the pilots to comprehend it...
regards
Scott
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chilli
Yes we all know what management should do to solve the root problem but until the CAA determines the numbers required to sustain a particular operation, as they do for the RFFS then NOTHING will ever change. I am sure many years ago when the engineer was dropped from the flight deck people cried foul, but it didn't stop them going, because the technology had changed and was deemed (quite rightly) not to be a safety issue.
The ATM , under stringently laid down procedures, could be used safely.
Nudging Steel, movements are restricted during LVP's so what’s the difference? What I am saying or proposing if you like is that procedures are looked at and changed where possible and blanket refusals are a thing of the past.
At the end of the day we all know the "profession” is under threat from improvements in technology, we either adapt or get replaced by something that doesn't need, breaks, pensions, salaries etc
This is not about the erosion of safety after all was it considered unsafe to do away with the need for an approach procedural ticket at certain units? No
Of course it wasn't.
Yes we all know what management should do to solve the root problem but until the CAA determines the numbers required to sustain a particular operation, as they do for the RFFS then NOTHING will ever change. I am sure many years ago when the engineer was dropped from the flight deck people cried foul, but it didn't stop them going, because the technology had changed and was deemed (quite rightly) not to be a safety issue.
The ATM , under stringently laid down procedures, could be used safely.
Nudging Steel, movements are restricted during LVP's so what’s the difference? What I am saying or proposing if you like is that procedures are looked at and changed where possible and blanket refusals are a thing of the past.
At the end of the day we all know the "profession” is under threat from improvements in technology, we either adapt or get replaced by something that doesn't need, breaks, pensions, salaries etc
This is not about the erosion of safety after all was it considered unsafe to do away with the need for an approach procedural ticket at certain units? No
Of course it wasn't.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there is one ATCO on and has the use of a fully serviceable ATM and is working just one aircraft how can it be dangerous ?
If there are multiple movements occurring at the time then fair enough but if you have just the one how is it more dangerous than if you provide a procedural service combined with Tower ?
At night time we already have different rules regarding Scratcoh so why not the use of the ATM in quiet periods?
A Blanket ban makes no sense , a local arrangement approved by SRG makes perfect sense to me. Having worked at a unit where only 2 ATCOs are rostered at night it would make a difference to both ATCO and Air Crew if they could either vector using the ATM or legitimately approve Centre Fix approaches monitored on the ATM.
If there are multiple movements occurring at the time then fair enough but if you have just the one how is it more dangerous than if you provide a procedural service combined with Tower ?
At night time we already have different rules regarding Scratcoh so why not the use of the ATM in quiet periods?
A Blanket ban makes no sense , a local arrangement approved by SRG makes perfect sense to me. Having worked at a unit where only 2 ATCOs are rostered at night it would make a difference to both ATCO and Air Crew if they could either vector using the ATM or legitimately approve Centre Fix approaches monitored on the ATM.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had an interesting incident with this.Single night manning,3am and foggy.Clear the a/c to the beacon 7nm north of the field and ask if they are happy to establish localiser from there.Pilot is happy.I then watch the a/c on the ATM turn south and point at the airfield no where near the beacon.The a/c then get to 2nm west of the field,and starts a rapid descent(level bust) towards high ground.It then turns up the finall approach below MSA,does a split a
se turn and eventually on the loc.Vis 2000m.
Now which is safer? Me vectoring using an ATM,or letting the pilot nearly kill himself trying to fly into a hill.Legally I can't intervene because I can't use the ATM.
Ps our ATM can see from Norway to France.5 or 6 radars to chose from.
se turn and eventually on the loc.Vis 2000m.Now which is safer? Me vectoring using an ATM,or letting the pilot nearly kill himself trying to fly into a hill.Legally I can't intervene because I can't use the ATM.
Ps our ATM can see from Norway to France.5 or 6 radars to chose from.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a relatively new ATM user (2 years) we frequently have staff discussions about what it can and cannot be used for. The classic scenario is the one where two aircraft are seen in direct conflict in class G airspace, one is known to you (but obviously not identified in true radar terms) and the other is not. The CAA line is that you can say nothing to alert your known aircraft.
What I want to know is what happens in the resulting coroners court when you are questioned as to why you observed a dangerous situation and did nothing to resolve it.
Air safety could be greatly improved by an ATM assisted FIS, but not providing radar derived avoiding action as that should remain the domain of APS rated controllers (whether on ADI duties or not).
ATM has come a long way from the old DFTI and its abilities should be used to enhance safety.
What I want to know is what happens in the resulting coroners court when you are questioned as to why you observed a dangerous situation and did nothing to resolve it.
Air safety could be greatly improved by an ATM assisted FIS, but not providing radar derived avoiding action as that should remain the domain of APS rated controllers (whether on ADI duties or not).
ATM has come a long way from the old DFTI and its abilities should be used to enhance safety.
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
There are advanced users of ATM which we have approval for.
- Traffic iinformation on catch-up on final approach
- Separation on departure (5 or 3nm in trail)
- Avoiding action for 'piggy back' go-arounds
- Traffic info on transit traffic when identified to TWR by APP
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SATCO Biggin,
As a possible answer to your dilemma you could adopt the method used one (single manned) night (combined Tower/approach) by a former colleague of mine.
TOWER: "ABC123, you know I don't have any radar"
ABC123: "yep"
TOWER: "well if I did have radar, I would now be saying to you "TRAFFIC 12 0'Clock 6 miles opposite direction similar level"" Imho a well deserved
DD
As a possible answer to your dilemma you could adopt the method used one (single manned) night (combined Tower/approach) by a former colleague of mine.
TOWER: "ABC123, you know I don't have any radar"
ABC123: "yep"
TOWER: "well if I did have radar, I would now be saying to you "TRAFFIC 12 0'Clock 6 miles opposite direction similar level"" Imho a well deserved
DD
when theres something i can do to assist.