Terminal Control (Approach Radar)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Terminal Control (Approach Radar)
So, without hopefully descending into excessive banter (or worse; insults
), what is the consensus on the benefits of grouping the Approach Radar function for several airports in one TMA together in one ops room?
For those who don't know, the London Terminal Control Centre, as well as 'area' sectors, also includes the Approach Radar function for Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, City and Biggin. Also low-level radar positions for traffic in and around the London Control Zone around Heathrow and City airports.
The idea to put them all in the same room was to make co-ordination between them and the preceding TMA sectors more efficient.
I've been at Heathrow Tower for nine years now, and I've noticed an increasing 'disconnect' (to use management speak!) between us in the tower and Heathrow Approach...even more so since LTCC has moved down to Swanwick, 70 miles away, rather than just a few miles from Heathrow. There is a feeling in the Tower that increasingly that Approach fail to appreciate our problems.....I'm quite sure Approach feel the same in return.
How do the Approach guys and girls feel about this?
What about those in a similar situation in other countries?
What can be done to address this?
), what is the consensus on the benefits of grouping the Approach Radar function for several airports in one TMA together in one ops room?For those who don't know, the London Terminal Control Centre, as well as 'area' sectors, also includes the Approach Radar function for Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, City and Biggin. Also low-level radar positions for traffic in and around the London Control Zone around Heathrow and City airports.
The idea to put them all in the same room was to make co-ordination between them and the preceding TMA sectors more efficient.
I've been at Heathrow Tower for nine years now, and I've noticed an increasing 'disconnect' (to use management speak!) between us in the tower and Heathrow Approach...even more so since LTCC has moved down to Swanwick, 70 miles away, rather than just a few miles from Heathrow. There is a feeling in the Tower that increasingly that Approach fail to appreciate our problems.....I'm quite sure Approach feel the same in return.
How do the Approach guys and girls feel about this?
What about those in a similar situation in other countries?
What can be done to address this?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quick reply from one of your 'customers'.
There seems to be an awareness of the relevance of 'Ally Pally' for us rotary types routing onto the Heathrow zone from the North. Essex quite frequently give us a direct Ally P without any previous request.
I'm guessing doing the rounds of various approach positions helps spread the word - if so I'm all for it.
Keep up the good work!
There seems to be an awareness of the relevance of 'Ally Pally' for us rotary types routing onto the Heathrow zone from the North. Essex quite frequently give us a direct Ally P without any previous request.
I'm guessing doing the rounds of various approach positions helps spread the word - if so I'm all for it.
Keep up the good work!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got an idea....
How about combining Tower and Approach/Approach Radar into the same building.....say, a Control Tower?
Centre could release the arrivals by telephone.
How about combining Tower and Approach/Approach Radar into the same building.....say, a Control Tower?
Centre could release the arrivals by telephone.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But we like the desert! The beer is cold, the women aren't, and we have oodles of flunkies! 
The downside is when you return to the real world, and spend 5 minutes infront of a door, wondering why the hell it hasn't been opened for you...
Edited to add a sensible opinion! I'm in favour of tower as a first validation, in large part because I think it makes for a better radar controller in the future. That alone takes co-location of TWR and APR. The biggest argument though, is that the relationship between TWR and APR is more immediate than that between APR and area. Admittedly things could be different in the London TMA, but TWR and APR are still the ones who most closely affect each others' work.
The downside is when you return to the real world, and spend 5 minutes infront of a door, wondering why the hell it hasn't been opened for you...
Edited to add a sensible opinion! I'm in favour of tower as a first validation, in large part because I think it makes for a better radar controller in the future. That alone takes co-location of TWR and APR. The biggest argument though, is that the relationship between TWR and APR is more immediate than that between APR and area. Admittedly things could be different in the London TMA, but TWR and APR are still the ones who most closely affect each others' work.
Last edited by Scooby Don't; 31st May 2008 at 08:14.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<The idea to put them all in the same room was to make co-ordination between them and the preceding TMA sectors more efficient.>>
But the original idea of integrating the positions didn't work, as proved by simulation, so the Approach controllers still sit quite separately from the TMA people.
I moved with Heathrow Approach to TC and spent 10 years there before retiring. Apart from a fairly nice coffee bar and a bigger car park I never found any logical reason for going to LATCC. On the contrary, the extreme lack of radar awareness of the new Tower controllers at Heathrow often concerned me. Probably the Heathrow people found that the newer radar controllers showed an ignorance of their problems too.
Sure, we sat in the same room as the TMA people, but not close enough to converse directly so all liaison was carried out by telephone, as when we were at the tower building. We might see the odd (some very odd!) TMA controller in the rest-room or canteen but conversation did not always centre on "work" so there was little benefit in that direction.
Nobody has ever provided me with a truly sensible ATC reason/argument for splitting the Approach and Tower functions but I'm still listening (just out of curiosity now). Some (me included) found tower work harder as we got older and radar was far more leisurely... but others had opposing views.
But the original idea of integrating the positions didn't work, as proved by simulation, so the Approach controllers still sit quite separately from the TMA people.
I moved with Heathrow Approach to TC and spent 10 years there before retiring. Apart from a fairly nice coffee bar and a bigger car park I never found any logical reason for going to LATCC. On the contrary, the extreme lack of radar awareness of the new Tower controllers at Heathrow often concerned me. Probably the Heathrow people found that the newer radar controllers showed an ignorance of their problems too.
Sure, we sat in the same room as the TMA people, but not close enough to converse directly so all liaison was carried out by telephone, as when we were at the tower building. We might see the odd (some very odd!) TMA controller in the rest-room or canteen but conversation did not always centre on "work" so there was little benefit in that direction.
Nobody has ever provided me with a truly sensible ATC reason/argument for splitting the Approach and Tower functions but I'm still listening (just out of curiosity now). Some (me included) found tower work harder as we got older and radar was far more leisurely... but others had opposing views.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo,
I can only speak for HK abroad.The ATC centre had everything combined,Tower,Approach and Area.When the new airport opened we were streamed,much the same as Nats does.However the people being streamed all had over 10 +++ years experience in multi disciplines.
Although I,as a tower person was not qualified on radar,I had a damn good idea of their problems,and we had a beer in the plaza afterwards.(HK TRM course
)
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.How to solve it? Perhaps some runs in each others simulators,and a general love in.
Overall experience is very valuable,but something the NATS doesn't seem to want to recognise anymore.It's all about missions,targets,destinations and perhaps giving students a very narrow,limited training isn't the best way.
I can only speak for HK abroad.The ATC centre had everything combined,Tower,Approach and Area.When the new airport opened we were streamed,much the same as Nats does.However the people being streamed all had over 10 +++ years experience in multi disciplines.
Although I,as a tower person was not qualified on radar,I had a damn good idea of their problems,and we had a beer in the plaza afterwards.(HK TRM course
)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.How to solve it? Perhaps some runs in each others simulators,and a general love in.
Overall experience is very valuable,but something the NATS doesn't seem to want to recognise anymore.It's all about missions,targets,destinations and perhaps giving students a very narrow,limited training isn't the best way.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mauritius,soon or latter
Posts: 542
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My two cents..
We have examined some solution for new ATM system. One is to have APP room at present position.Below TWR cab,and another one to locate app position in ACC a few km away. Both solutions have advantages and disadvantages. The main disadvantage for separate solution is staffing.
In case it is "co-located" it is easier to organize shift at twr/app. Because everyone (or it will be aim) will be multi rated (TWR/APP) and people could work 2 hours on TWR than take rest,than 2hours in APP or any other combination that seems appropriate. Also we do not belive that it is possible to train people only for APP position without TWR experience . Thre are examples in different direction but we strongly believe that APP ATCO must have current TWR rating. Having such approach to problem there is no possibility for someone to become TWR OJTI withour APP rating. So each TWR OJTI must have APP rating . ESSAR 5(and local interpretation of it) clearly states that OJTI must have some nuber of hours at live traffic in order to be qualified to train students. With such requirements it is easier to mainatin required level of " live traffic work" in case of TWR/APP in the same building. It is also possible to do it when facilities are separated but life for SATCO will be much easier.
Co-location of TWR/APP costs more,because the main system is in ACC but few cables (maybe wireless) more is not huge costs. People and organization will cost more.
Thank you for your inputs in this thread it will help us.
We have examined some solution for new ATM system. One is to have APP room at present position.Below TWR cab,and another one to locate app position in ACC a few km away. Both solutions have advantages and disadvantages. The main disadvantage for separate solution is staffing.
In case it is "co-located" it is easier to organize shift at twr/app. Because everyone (or it will be aim) will be multi rated (TWR/APP) and people could work 2 hours on TWR than take rest,than 2hours in APP or any other combination that seems appropriate. Also we do not belive that it is possible to train people only for APP position without TWR experience . Thre are examples in different direction but we strongly believe that APP ATCO must have current TWR rating. Having such approach to problem there is no possibility for someone to become TWR OJTI withour APP rating. So each TWR OJTI must have APP rating . ESSAR 5(and local interpretation of it) clearly states that OJTI must have some nuber of hours at live traffic in order to be qualified to train students. With such requirements it is easier to mainatin required level of " live traffic work" in case of TWR/APP in the same building. It is also possible to do it when facilities are separated but life for SATCO will be much easier.
Co-location of TWR/APP costs more,because the main system is in ACC but few cables (maybe wireless) more is not huge costs. People and organization will cost more.
Thank you for your inputs in this thread it will help us.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to agree with you on this one Gonzo. I for one would love to be dual valid at a London tower.
I think perhaps, more importantly, was the decision a couple of years ago for approach students at the college NOT to do aerodrome first...and vice versa of course. I was fortunate enough to be on the very last course where everyone did aerodrome before being streamed for tower/approach/area. I have since found this to be more than useful in understanding what you guys do.Also helped that Seaton Intl bears more than a little resmeblance to my airfield, minus the pesky flying club of course! By the same token, some of the tower guys that have never done app radar have a lack of understanding of what goes on our end....not their fault at all, more a product of a flawed system.
One thing that can be done, as discussed in our watch safety meeting recently, was more liaison visits between yourselves and us Swanwick monkeys...but with our staffing levels, I can't see that happening for a while
I think perhaps, more importantly, was the decision a couple of years ago for approach students at the college NOT to do aerodrome first...and vice versa of course. I was fortunate enough to be on the very last course where everyone did aerodrome before being streamed for tower/approach/area. I have since found this to be more than useful in understanding what you guys do.Also helped that Seaton Intl bears more than a little resmeblance to my airfield, minus the pesky flying club of course! By the same token, some of the tower guys that have never done app radar have a lack of understanding of what goes on our end....not their fault at all, more a product of a flawed system.
One thing that can be done, as discussed in our watch safety meeting recently, was more liaison visits between yourselves and us Swanwick monkeys...but with our staffing levels, I can't see that happening for a while
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vercingetorix... But some USA controllers who visited Heathrow when the move was being initially discussed warned us emphatically not to do it!!
<<One of the benefits, at the time, was that both APP & TMA controllers got to know who the voice at the other end was. e.g. if you saw 'XXXXX' sitting on EGLL APP you knew how close, or how far apart, you could offer traffic. >>
Well I do recall one of the lovely ladies who had been doing LAM inbounds running over and giving me a huge kiss because I'd brought everything off but I don't think management would have viewed that as a benefit!! Over at Heathrow we'd often answer internal phone calls with our names or initials so we'd know who we were dealing with but when we did that at LATCC it was heavily frowned upon - understandably I suppose; it was hardly "book standard".
The 20+ years I did at Heathrow working both TWR and APC were the happiest days of my working life and I think it was a tragedy when the split took place.
<<One of the benefits, at the time, was that both APP & TMA controllers got to know who the voice at the other end was. e.g. if you saw 'XXXXX' sitting on EGLL APP you knew how close, or how far apart, you could offer traffic. >>
Well I do recall one of the lovely ladies who had been doing LAM inbounds running over and giving me a huge kiss because I'd brought everything off but I don't think management would have viewed that as a benefit!! Over at Heathrow we'd often answer internal phone calls with our names or initials so we'd know who we were dealing with but when we did that at LATCC it was heavily frowned upon - understandably I suppose; it was hardly "book standard".
The 20+ years I did at Heathrow working both TWR and APC were the happiest days of my working life and I think it was a tragedy when the split took place.
giving me a huge kiss because I'd taken everything off
Gonzo, I do feel we've become more 'disconnected' since TC changed shifts to tie up with AC days (and so out of step with tower shifts)
Also since the move to Swanwick and the advent of the GS Airports position, there are (TMA valid) supervisors who don't have a clue about airfield operations.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Supervisors who 'don't have a clue about airfield operations' were there long before the move to 'Swanwick' (whatever 'Swanwick' is......I havn't got a clue...... )
)
Once upon a time there was a unit that had Aerodrome, Approach Radar, AND Area controllers. They all worked on the same watches, knew, and socialised with one another. Unsurprisingly this worked really well and the understanding of one anothers problems meant that morale was very good. Unfortunately this is all being changed and the Area people will be moved away from the airfield functions. Strange eh?
And before anybody gets steam up about the various 'moving to Scotland' arguments. I'm an ADC and Approach RAD guy who is just surprised that the TC concept was totally binned in the Manchester situation as, to a small degree, we'd always had it!
And before anybody gets steam up about the various 'moving to Scotland' arguments. I'm an ADC and Approach RAD guy who is just surprised that the TC concept was totally binned in the Manchester situation as, to a small degree, we'd always had it!
Last edited by Spiney Norman; 1st Jun 2008 at 10:14.
As vercingetorix said, it is an American idea. I read about a visit to 'New York Common IFR' by some LATCC controllers when I first joined and thought 'it could never happen here'. Then in the early 80s the 'Beeker Plan' came along (named after its authors, Dave Beech and Al Parker) and so here we are. What it failed to take account of was the dissimilar setups of ATC Operations here and in the USA; over there it was unusual to have a RAPCON (radar approach control) co located with the tower which it serves, whilst over here it was always the 'norm', so what you guys are lumbered with is a system which really was adapted to our needs rather than formulated for our needs from the word go.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so what you guys are lumbered with is a system which really was adapted to our needs rather than formulated for our needs from the word go.
I'm just waiting for some promotion crazed manager to suggest that all the Aerodrome controllers are put together in a centre. Big Plasma screens fed from batteries of remote HDTV cameras......Could never happen. Blimey! I should have realised you never say never in this game!
Guest
Posts: n/a
approach would never like to go back to working at the towers they came from.... none of them would take the pay cut.
luton approach now band 5 the same as the TMA and AC, but the tower band 3 or something..... theres clearly no better feeling to getting spanked all day and looking over at busy ol' luton approach with headset off and reading the paper. oh how the company could save buckets of money if only they had the balls....
luton approach now band 5 the same as the TMA and AC, but the tower band 3 or something..... theres clearly no better feeling to getting spanked all day and looking over at busy ol' luton approach with headset off and reading the paper. oh how the company could save buckets of money if only they had the balls....