Terminal Control (Approach Radar)
Well! And there was me thinking I was 'before my time'! (There is a first for everything). Next you'll be telling me they've invented an electronic version of the flight progress strip!!! Ha Ha Ha...Gulp!
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commercially it makes sense for NATS to have the Approach units in the Area Centre. If they lose the contract for an airport, it's much harder for who ever takes over to wrestle the Approach task from them, since it's an integrated part of a complex TMA/App set up.
The cynic in me says this is more likely the reason for TC than technical ones.
The cynic in me says this is more likely the reason for TC than technical ones.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRuNe Radar is (not very surprisingly) pretty close to the truth, as is Chevvron.
Indeed at a certain SATCOs meeting in the mid 1980s (do they still happen?) CAA / NATS, as it was then, floated the idea of doing approach for ALL regional airports from one central location, be they "state" or "non state".
It didn't happen. Not for technical reasons, the idea was perfectly feasible, but for the two reasons above.
One, it would give CAA / NATS a monopoly whcih would be difficult to revert back from.
and Two,
My own 2ps worth? The big advantages of the close operating environment that was lost when APP RADAR was moved away, was not made up for by the physical closeness to the TC Controllers. (HD's Hugs excepted!)
Question. How many TC AREA controllers hold APP RADAR validations and vice versa?
Rgds BEX
Indeed at a certain SATCOs meeting in the mid 1980s (do they still happen?) CAA / NATS, as it was then, floated the idea of doing approach for ALL regional airports from one central location, be they "state" or "non state".
It didn't happen. Not for technical reasons, the idea was perfectly feasible, but for the two reasons above.
One, it would give CAA / NATS a monopoly whcih would be difficult to revert back from.
and Two,
one well placed bomb knocks out a whole host of airfields instead of just one!
Question. How many TC AREA controllers hold APP RADAR validations and vice versa?
Rgds BEX
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Higher Voltage
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is quite apparent that as time goes on even those with both twr and apc are becoming less aware of the others problems. However, there is a greater understanding of TMA issues. I would be curious to know if the TMA people feel traffic presentation is better, and co-ordination easier, because the apc controllers have a better appreciation of TMA now they're in the same centre.
Although the original idea may have been to ease co-ord between TMA and apc, there is a definate advantage to face to face co-ord between SS, GW and Thames. It's a shame Thames isn't adjacent but the odd strip and ident is done in person.
Although the original idea may have been to ease co-ord between TMA and apc, there is a definate advantage to face to face co-ord between SS, GW and Thames. It's a shame Thames isn't adjacent but the odd strip and ident is done in person.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: London Area
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question. How many TC AREA controllers hold APP RADAR validations and vice versa?
When LL APC moved to WD the idea was that we would sit next to the TMA controllers, co-ordinate directly and holding would be minimised. Also it gave the oppurtunity for controllers who held all ratings to cross train to the other skill.
However only 3 LL apc guys did cross train and validate (2 TMA STH and 1 TC NTH) , one is now a non valid supervisor, one retired and one gone back to LL twr.
As for TMA training on APC, I think a few attempted, even fewer passed and at present (I think) there are no cross valid TMA/APC controllers in TC.
The original idea of APC's and TMA together really did not work as was envisaged from day 1. At first EGLL APC was split into 2 where APC NTH sat next to TC BNN and APC STH with FIN sat on the other side of the room with TC BIG, this lasted a very short time and the LL APC was again co-located, all sitting together.
There was serious talk a few years ago about splitting the APC from TC and returning them to the Towers, this could have worked for LL in the old tower that had a functioning Radar unit but since the move to the new tower this will now never happen.
A very sad day when EGLL APC and EGLL TWR went their seperate ways.
When LL APC moved to WD the idea was that we would sit next to the TMA controllers, co-ordinate directly and holding would be minimised. Also it gave the oppurtunity for controllers who held all ratings to cross train to the other skill.
However only 3 LL apc guys did cross train and validate (2 TMA STH and 1 TC NTH) , one is now a non valid supervisor, one retired and one gone back to LL twr.
As for TMA training on APC, I think a few attempted, even fewer passed and at present (I think) there are no cross valid TMA/APC controllers in TC.
The original idea of APC's and TMA together really did not work as was envisaged from day 1. At first EGLL APC was split into 2 where APC NTH sat next to TC BNN and APC STH with FIN sat on the other side of the room with TC BIG, this lasted a very short time and the LL APC was again co-located, all sitting together.
There was serious talk a few years ago about splitting the APC from TC and returning them to the Towers, this could have worked for LL in the old tower that had a functioning Radar unit but since the move to the new tower this will now never happen.
A very sad day when EGLL APC and EGLL TWR went their seperate ways.
In years gone by, some Manchester Controllers were valid on Area, APC and Tower. Seemed like a very efficient and happy set-up at the time, but I believe specialisation is the norm now.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bristol
Age: 40
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Research query....
I'm sorry to sound naive, but am doing my research ready to apply to NATS.
My father is a RAF Controller and he holds tickets for all positions in the Tower, approach, tower and ground (also talkdown, zone but not director as he is only an SNCO). I assumed all tower / aerodrome roles were the same.
I knew that London airport's approach was done at LATCC but is it the same with all NATS airports? Is approach completely separate to Tower / Ground?
I appreciate that upon sucesful entry to the college, you get little or no choice on area or aerodrome but I assumed that were I selected for aerodrome that I would be able to validate in tower and approach.
Sorry to sound totally ignorant.
My father is a RAF Controller and he holds tickets for all positions in the Tower, approach, tower and ground (also talkdown, zone but not director as he is only an SNCO). I assumed all tower / aerodrome roles were the same.
I knew that London airport's approach was done at LATCC but is it the same with all NATS airports? Is approach completely separate to Tower / Ground?
I appreciate that upon sucesful entry to the college, you get little or no choice on area or aerodrome but I assumed that were I selected for aerodrome that I would be able to validate in tower and approach.
Sorry to sound totally ignorant.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I knew that London airport's approach was done at LATCC but is it the same with all NATS airports? Is approach completely separate to Tower / Ground?
Apologies to any others I've forgotten. (and to the great chaps in Gib)
Question. How many TC AREA controllers hold APP RADAR validations and vice versa?
BEX
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bex... Several Heathrow ATCOs validated on the TMA but no TMA people came to Heathrow while I was at TC.
"My father is a RAF Controller" Don't worry, GavReal - he'll probably get over it!! Worst thing I ever saw in my life was in the Approach Room at Luqa, Malta. A senior NCO (in rank and age) who was much respected by his colleagues was given a major dressing down in front of everyone because one of his shoes was dirty from having been on the airfield. The dressing down came from some little spotty-faced squirt of a Pilot Officer who looked about 16. It's things like that that put me right off the RAF so DON'T ever think of joining up.
"My father is a RAF Controller" Don't worry, GavReal - he'll probably get over it!! Worst thing I ever saw in my life was in the Approach Room at Luqa, Malta. A senior NCO (in rank and age) who was much respected by his colleagues was given a major dressing down in front of everyone because one of his shoes was dirty from having been on the airfield. The dressing down came from some little spotty-faced squirt of a Pilot Officer who looked about 16. It's things like that that put me right off the RAF so DON'T ever think of joining up.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: U.S.
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O.K. first an admission, I am American, and know we are disliked here but I am going to throw two cents worth in here anyway.
For the management from a purely cost viewpoint combining up numerous approach controls combined up into the same building makes tremendous economic sense. All approach controls will have numerous pieces of equipment, interphone communications lines, scopes, computers, etc. If all are grouped together there is less maintenance staff needed. Fewer buildings to maintain. Theoretically a more streamlined training program. Easier and cheaper to transfer between facilities or different areas. Also allows lower pay for the tower only people as a separate entity than would be normal under a combined traffic count profile. May allow for combining functions and a reduction in required manpower. These are all tangibles that are easy to quantify.
From the controller perspective there are many intangibles that are extremely important for an efficient movement of traffic. All controllers know that it is beneficial to have intricate, in depth knowlege of what others are doing an why they are doing it. This would normally occur in a breakroom or an afterwork type of establishment. This interaction is important for all concerned but it is an intangible that is difficult to quantify. We have seen numerous times that the split of a Tower/Tracon into separate facilities will eliminate this interaction. It makes no difference is the two facilities are still located on the airport, but in separate buildings, or if they are many miles apart.
Once the interaction ends the passing of knowlege will also end. In a fairly short time, those that have the knowlege from their pre-split days will forget all about it and the animosity between the two facilities will begin. It will become a downward spiral with essentially no end.
One side no longer has any idea of how they might be hurting the other side, and no longer care. It soon degenerates to telling on each other, which leads rapidly to CYA being more important to moving the traffic.
The bigger/busier the airport/approach the faster it will happen.
This might explain why the previous Americans advised not to do it. Unfortunately, you organization will only focus on the the costs and tangible evidence just like ours did. The end result will work, just not as well as it used to.
For the management from a purely cost viewpoint combining up numerous approach controls combined up into the same building makes tremendous economic sense. All approach controls will have numerous pieces of equipment, interphone communications lines, scopes, computers, etc. If all are grouped together there is less maintenance staff needed. Fewer buildings to maintain. Theoretically a more streamlined training program. Easier and cheaper to transfer between facilities or different areas. Also allows lower pay for the tower only people as a separate entity than would be normal under a combined traffic count profile. May allow for combining functions and a reduction in required manpower. These are all tangibles that are easy to quantify.
From the controller perspective there are many intangibles that are extremely important for an efficient movement of traffic. All controllers know that it is beneficial to have intricate, in depth knowlege of what others are doing an why they are doing it. This would normally occur in a breakroom or an afterwork type of establishment. This interaction is important for all concerned but it is an intangible that is difficult to quantify. We have seen numerous times that the split of a Tower/Tracon into separate facilities will eliminate this interaction. It makes no difference is the two facilities are still located on the airport, but in separate buildings, or if they are many miles apart.
Once the interaction ends the passing of knowlege will also end. In a fairly short time, those that have the knowlege from their pre-split days will forget all about it and the animosity between the two facilities will begin. It will become a downward spiral with essentially no end.
One side no longer has any idea of how they might be hurting the other side, and no longer care. It soon degenerates to telling on each other, which leads rapidly to CYA being more important to moving the traffic.
The bigger/busier the airport/approach the faster it will happen.
This might explain why the previous Americans advised not to do it. Unfortunately, you organization will only focus on the the costs and tangible evidence just like ours did. The end result will work, just not as well as it used to.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North of 50N
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the problem you are talking about,could be coming from people who haven't validated a radar/tower rating,or don't even have one.
The first relates to the gradual atrophying of skills when APS is separated from TWR and the controllers doing the respective jobs finally become disconnected with the other ~ as is happening across the board at the UK's London airports. The situation is exacerbated by the move even further away i.e. to Swanwick which makes the logistics of liaison visits difficult.
The second relates to the so-called 'skill specialisation' whereby trainees coming out of the 'college' training regime no longer have APS and TWR ratings and so have minimal understanding of each other's tasks and operating environment.
The third relates to the 'streamlined' training that's now fashionable whereby trainees no longer spend several weeks at centres, approach units or towers as part of their basic training.
The only demonstrable advantage that this policy has is a financial one (and has been said earlier) a contractual one; operationally, the pros and cons are almost impossible to objectively determine.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
iahsatcs
As said above, in ATC circles Americans are very definitely NOT disliked. Indeed some of us here have very close ties with certain ex FAA controllers and NATCA Safety Reps. (I still have my NATCA denim Jacket!)
Anything you bring to the discussion here is very welcome, and from what you have written and what I have seen with my own eyes in the US, we ain't so different when it comes down to it.
Best rgds
BEX
I am American, and know we are disliked here
Anything you bring to the discussion here is very welcome, and from what you have written and what I have seen with my own eyes in the US, we ain't so different when it comes down to it.
Best rgds
BEX
