Mil ATCOs - Working Time Directive
Thread Starter
Mil ATCOs - Working Time Directive
Right chaps and chapesses, I would like to test & pick your brains please.
Yes I've read it for myself and have my own opinions, but how are others implementing the EU working time directive? Obviously in area world it's easy, but how about the rest of you at airfields?
My interpretation has always been that, unless operationally essential, we should try to keep within the spirit of the agreement. So roughly speaking a 9 hour day shift with a lunch break and no more than an 8 hour watch if any part of it extends past 2300L. Yes, there's always the support to ops caveat that can be waved in your face, but as I understand it we should only apply that as the exception rather than the rule.
Thoughts? If needs be please PM me! TVM
Yes I've read it for myself and have my own opinions, but how are others implementing the EU working time directive? Obviously in area world it's easy, but how about the rest of you at airfields?
My interpretation has always been that, unless operationally essential, we should try to keep within the spirit of the agreement. So roughly speaking a 9 hour day shift with a lunch break and no more than an 8 hour watch if any part of it extends past 2300L. Yes, there's always the support to ops caveat that can be waved in your face, but as I understand it we should only apply that as the exception rather than the rule.
Thoughts? If needs be please PM me! TVM
Thread Starter
While I realise this was said in jest......
Let's say that I know a group of ATCOs thoroughly in the dwang who need to find some solutions fast before an incident occurs, caused by overwork/under-staffing. This is a very serious request from a sorely tested ATCO who wants to meet as much of the operational task as possible, without threatening flight safety. I want/need to see how what we're doing compares to other units.
Please, no more cr*p lines, especially BD when your voice is one of the more sane on here!
Let's say that I know a group of ATCOs thoroughly in the dwang who need to find some solutions fast before an incident occurs, caused by overwork/under-staffing. This is a very serious request from a sorely tested ATCO who wants to meet as much of the operational task as possible, without threatening flight safety. I want/need to see how what we're doing compares to other units.
Please, no more cr*p lines, especially BD when your voice is one of the more sane on here!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 180INS500
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why should an EU directive make any difference? Either what you are doing now is safe - in which case there is no need to change, or it is not safe in which case as professionals you should be able to take the issue through the appropriate channels with supporting evidence - CHIRP, DASC, ATCEB, Air Cmd etc.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please, no more cr*p lines, especially BD when your voice is one of the more sane on here!
BD
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: swanlake
Age: 54
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whomwhenwhy...i sympathise with you. This was an ongoing problem at latcc 7 years ago, and i know many units are also i the same situation. Neededsomeone to stick head above parapet and say it how it is to the aoc, backed up with ammo and detailed safety case. however, bypassing your boss....well that is a career breaker. Also too many in seats telling those above it is working.(or they make it work at cost to others) and gain promotion on back of it. Like said before and as many procedures and legislations have been written.....change not till after the event
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Somewhere in England!
Age: 67
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously in area world it's easy
WTD should apply to all during normal operations I seem to think Waddington managed it by not opening at weekends for LARS until controller numbers/endorsements improved.
Pie
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In the South !
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to remember something about 'where possible' to adhere to the spirit of the WTD but I also remember something about controllers not being rostered to work more than 14 hours in any 24 hour period - ( Afternoon, morning night shift!)
Is there not something about WTD in ATC Orders?
Fred.
Is there not something about WTD in ATC Orders?
Fred.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I lay my head is home.
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
non-established tasks
I think the key requirement for working time policy here is empowering the Mil ATC community with the power and right to say “NO” and the adoption of a common approach to non-established tasks.
Mil ATC establishment is well suited to providing the required levels of service to home base military customers and LARS etc within core-working hours (0800-1700 as a rule). The problem lies with Mil controllers who are exposed to excessive periods of duty as a result of additional air traffic ie civil airlines outside of these times. I know Mil controllers who are working far in excess of legal civil guidelines (SRATCOH) and are only controlling civil traffic. Not a military aircraft in sight.
WTD are used to good benefit for civil controllers – they are law. Civil terminal units have off-loaded traffic to terminal Mil controllers on a stand-by sleeping shift because they are out of hours. The same Mil controller could equally be out of hours by their rules but is/feels unable to refuse the traffic.
Military personnel are prepared to work extra long hours to support military and operational air traffic. That is what we joined for. Everything else we do is based on spare capacity that is becoming less and less. This includes FOAs whose numbers are currently critically low across the RAF.
The key here is distinguishing between military/operational interests and commercial/profit making interests. I don’t believe that Mil controllers should routinely be asked to “go the extra mile” and essentially risk their own neck for the sake of a commercial airline. They must be able to say no and given the authority to do so. Especially given the reasoning behind the civil controller working times.
At a local level, guidelines on the refusal of service can be adopted. Perhaps a system along the lines of the aircrew duty time could also be effective.
I don’t think things are much better in area. I know colleagues in the area radar world who are continually battling to refuse traffic that might wish to cut corners, go off-route etc that the civil insist they should take. Certain airlines are notorious for this. At least they have a formal priority system and the ability to refuse a service. Something currently lacking across RAF terminal.
SID
Mil ATC establishment is well suited to providing the required levels of service to home base military customers and LARS etc within core-working hours (0800-1700 as a rule). The problem lies with Mil controllers who are exposed to excessive periods of duty as a result of additional air traffic ie civil airlines outside of these times. I know Mil controllers who are working far in excess of legal civil guidelines (SRATCOH) and are only controlling civil traffic. Not a military aircraft in sight.
WTD are used to good benefit for civil controllers – they are law. Civil terminal units have off-loaded traffic to terminal Mil controllers on a stand-by sleeping shift because they are out of hours. The same Mil controller could equally be out of hours by their rules but is/feels unable to refuse the traffic.
Military personnel are prepared to work extra long hours to support military and operational air traffic. That is what we joined for. Everything else we do is based on spare capacity that is becoming less and less. This includes FOAs whose numbers are currently critically low across the RAF.
The key here is distinguishing between military/operational interests and commercial/profit making interests. I don’t believe that Mil controllers should routinely be asked to “go the extra mile” and essentially risk their own neck for the sake of a commercial airline. They must be able to say no and given the authority to do so. Especially given the reasoning behind the civil controller working times.
At a local level, guidelines on the refusal of service can be adopted. Perhaps a system along the lines of the aircrew duty time could also be effective.
I don’t think things are much better in area. I know colleagues in the area radar world who are continually battling to refuse traffic that might wish to cut corners, go off-route etc that the civil insist they should take. Certain airlines are notorious for this. At least they have a formal priority system and the ability to refuse a service. Something currently lacking across RAF terminal.
SID
Thread Starter
When I said that it was easy for area, I only meant that you have it drummed into you from the start about 2 hours on, 20 minutes off, 8 hour night shifts etc. I've also seen that pushed to approaching the limit of the WTD wording when LATCC(Mil) was somewhat short of people. The difference between the area and terminal, as we are reminded when we do the TRC, is that there's no stop button. It's also totally customer driven, as opposed to area where there is a little more latitude for give and take.
Obviously I've got to be a little careful as I don't want anyone to find out that I'm an ATCO at Cranwell but the impression that I'm getting is that with which I started. We should stay within the realms of WTD unless we are acting in direct support to ops and that it is not a normal occurrence. Therefore we should have the personnel to man WTD compliant shifts and still take leave, do courses and stuff.
BD as soon as I can afford to, I shall follow your gratefully received advice!
Obviously I've got to be a little careful as I don't want anyone to find out that I'm an ATCO at Cranwell
but the impression that I'm getting is that with which I started. We should stay within the realms of WTD unless we are acting in direct support to ops and that it is not a normal occurrence. Therefore we should have the personnel to man WTD compliant shifts and still take leave, do courses and stuff.BD as soon as I can afford to, I shall follow your gratefully received advice!
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Where's Odiham? Don't they fly those ghastly noisy helicopters there? I've heard it's expensive to live down there.
It's much nicer here in Lincolnshire - so many people to point and stare at
It's much nicer here in Lincolnshire - so many people to point and stare at
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So roughly speaking a 9 hour day shift with a lunch break and no more than an 8 hour watch if any part of it extends past 2300L.
If you work more than six hours you are entitled to a 20min break, that is a break that allows you away from work, not where you are kept on standby for a PAR whilst you have a sandwich in the crewroom - (in fact if you are called for a PAR after 19mins you are then entitled to another uninterrupted 20mins).
Night shifts should not avearge more than 8hrs, if more than 3hrs is normally worked between 2300 and 0600 - so you could be asked to work twelve hours from 1400 until 0200 (the wording on averaging night working is somewhat ambigious and must be read carefully).
Working week shall not average more than 48hrs, averaged over a 17 week period. In which you are entitled to one day of each week, or two consecutive days each fortnight.
At a previous ATC unit we were very hard pushed (no names no packdrill) but even at the lowest moments we found we actually were still within WTR limits - I suggest your only recourse would be through "best practice" (i.e. quoting the CAA regulations as exemplary) or playing the flight safety card. Trouble is it will take balls to stand up to your Line Manager and say "I can't cope with this pressure" - (make sure you're no benefitting from any stand-downs - or other such freebies or you might expect your ACRs to tumble!) and to be honest you're are only likely to succeed post-incident/accident (as someone above has said).
Best bet, but finding the right case to argue is the tricky bit - might be the Safety Management Route? This is a hot-topic, and an audit that proves safety is being jeopardised by working practices would have to be signed off, and if not acted upon can be passed onto higher authority (mind you it then might become your word against someone elses!)
I'm not suggesting you aren't being over-worked; BUT do your research, gather your facts and think carefully before you act - trust me, this has all the potential for the classic "shot-in-the-foot".
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The military and STRACOH
The military have always and will always play 'fast & loose' with the WTD, because those in authority know that if they adhered strictly to the regulations then unit establishments would have to increase - something that just isn't going to happen. So it's much easier to accept it in spirit, whilst ignoring what really happens on a day-to-day basis.
However, I have always understood (civil colleagues may wish to confirm this statement) that STRACOH is backed up by a full safety case, unlike any military system for planning ATC manning. Consequently, I think that if a military controller working a civil aircraft towards the end of a long shift had a nasty, a civil enquiry may well conclude that the individual should not have been on console. Who they would choose to blame is another question but, if past experience is anything to go by, no doubt the individual involved would attract most of the criticism.
The military ATC authorities are keen on safety cases backing up other decisions when it suits them, but have ignored STRACOH for far too long and it's high time the issue of military ATC manning and working hours was fully addressed and resolved - but I imagine heads will remain firmly buried in the sand in the hope that this problem will just go away.
Proletarian
However, I have always understood (civil colleagues may wish to confirm this statement) that STRACOH is backed up by a full safety case, unlike any military system for planning ATC manning. Consequently, I think that if a military controller working a civil aircraft towards the end of a long shift had a nasty, a civil enquiry may well conclude that the individual should not have been on console. Who they would choose to blame is another question but, if past experience is anything to go by, no doubt the individual involved would attract most of the criticism.
The military ATC authorities are keen on safety cases backing up other decisions when it suits them, but have ignored STRACOH for far too long and it's high time the issue of military ATC manning and working hours was fully addressed and resolved - but I imagine heads will remain firmly buried in the sand in the hope that this problem will just go away.
Proletarian
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Prol. Continuing on the point about Safety Cases, at the unit I mentioned we wrote a case allowing us to refuse "established tasks" on the grounds that we were not given the full establishment of staff to undertake these duties (seems amazingly logical, doesn't it - and was accepted by Command?)
It worked on a sliding scale, and was weather and aid dependant. I can't remember details but something like - Wx good (Blue/white) ILS available = no training PARs; or, Wx IFR (Green or Worse)) Closing LARS so APP/DIR could be band-boxed (to allow the DIR to do the PARs) etc. Increasing levels of restriction allowed us to operate when down to less that 60% establishment
and proved v.useful when dealing with staff sickness on top of low staff levels. It meant Roster Writers didn't have to ask staff to work unduly long hours (although some "overtime" was inevitable) because the aim was keeping workload within acceptable limits.
The measures were properly documented in Unit Orders, and squadrons/adjacent units advised of any applicable restrictions (NOTAM'ed where necessary). All actions were logged, and followed up to ensure it wasn't being used as a dodge (surely not?)
ISTM JATCC training is always geared rowards coping (where refusal is seen as failure) and not, as it perhaps should be, managing a situation appropriately? (Anyone from CATCC what to pu that point?)
It worked on a sliding scale, and was weather and aid dependant. I can't remember details but something like - Wx good (Blue/white) ILS available = no training PARs; or, Wx IFR (Green or Worse)) Closing LARS so APP/DIR could be band-boxed (to allow the DIR to do the PARs) etc. Increasing levels of restriction allowed us to operate when down to less that 60% establishment
and proved v.useful when dealing with staff sickness on top of low staff levels. It meant Roster Writers didn't have to ask staff to work unduly long hours (although some "overtime" was inevitable) because the aim was keeping workload within acceptable limits.
The measures were properly documented in Unit Orders, and squadrons/adjacent units advised of any applicable restrictions (NOTAM'ed where necessary). All actions were logged, and followed up to ensure it wasn't being used as a dodge (surely not?)
ISTM JATCC training is always geared rowards coping (where refusal is seen as failure) and not, as it perhaps should be, managing a situation appropriately? (Anyone from CATCC what to pu that point?)