UK/Ireland FAB
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK/Ireland FAB
Hi,
Was browsing the NATS 'Media' section earlier:
Frequently asked questions - NATS
There is a question about the UK/Ireland Functional Airspace Block, this became operational on 14th July.
However, my question is, is this actually 'operational' as an FAB is a 'sector of airspace managed and operated as a single unit'. Is this so? NATS still controls the UK airspace (as far as I know
) and the Irish Aviation Authority still controls the Irish airspace - so is this FAB really operational.
Maybe I have missed something here, if so, I apologise in advance!
Was browsing the NATS 'Media' section earlier:
Frequently asked questions - NATS
There is a question about the UK/Ireland Functional Airspace Block, this became operational on 14th July.
However, my question is, is this actually 'operational' as an FAB is a 'sector of airspace managed and operated as a single unit'. Is this so? NATS still controls the UK airspace (as far as I know
) and the Irish Aviation Authority still controls the Irish airspace - so is this FAB really operational.Maybe I have missed something here, if so, I apologise in advance!
Guest
Posts: n/a
'sector of airspace managed and operated as a single unit' doesn't necessarily mean controlled from one place. Using the same rules within the block is considered by some to be the more significant factor. Under this criterion, the airspace under the control of Maastricht ACC fails the test - shame really 'cos Eurocontrol liked to say it had the first.
But does the UK/Ireland one pass?
But does the UK/Ireland one pass?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southampton
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a London WestEnd ATCO perspective there has been absolutely no change in cross boundary procedures since the introduction of the FAB.
Separation standards have not been reduced and tactical streaming
has not been improved.
Whatever this agreement means - it means nothing to us!
Separation standards have not been reduced and tactical streaming
has not been improved.Whatever this agreement means - it means nothing to us!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tactical Streaming?
Tactical streaming my friend is a two way thing!We lest we not forget,are NOT approach controllers.Where and when is "tactical streaming" ever applied in a westbound scenario?Wouldn't it be nice for a change to have all westbound traffic streamlined in such a fashion that vectors and speed control in order to facilitate assigned oceanic level changes,would become a thing of the past.
As professional ATCO's we used to pride ourselves in providing an efficient and orderly flow of air traffic.The word efficient seems to have been mis-interpreted in recent years.More and more we are hindered in what can only be described as antiquated procedures such as enforced level capping and ridiculous re-routes to name but a few.It is almost embarasing.We all have the skills and equipment necessary that should in all honesty render these so called necessary procedures null and completely void.
As professional ATCO's we used to pride ourselves in providing an efficient and orderly flow of air traffic.The word efficient seems to have been mis-interpreted in recent years.More and more we are hindered in what can only be described as antiquated procedures such as enforced level capping and ridiculous re-routes to name but a few.It is almost embarasing.We all have the skills and equipment necessary that should in all honesty render these so called necessary procedures null and completely void.
Guest
Posts: n/a
millerman, the argument goes, if a unit uses different procedures for different sectors and aircraft/controllers are subject to different legislation depending on where they are (i.e. over the territory of which State), then it's not really a 'sector of airspace managed and operated as a single unit'.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok - as Maastricht only controls in upper airspace ( FL245+ ) I can see your point, but if you just look at the upper airspace - it is the perfect FAB.
The same rules and procedures apply for four different states - who says a block has to start from ground level?
The same rules and procedures apply for four different states - who says a block has to start from ground level?
Guest
Posts: n/a
miller, I'm assuming that you work at MUAC so I'll bow to your greater knowledge of how things work but I had been led to believe that the legal basis for providing services - say, the Rules of the Air and differences filed to ICAO - is different over each territory.
While this may not have any effect on day-to-day operations, I can understand why some my consider that it is not a true FAB.
I've heard similar suggestions that, as a piece of airspace, it does not really 'enable optimum use of airspace, taking into account air traffic flows' but, rather, is an administrative arrangement which essentially results in a number of previously established sectors being brought under one service provider and management structure. Again, I can see their point.
I have no strong views myself. I just find it interesting that the EC introduced a concept that is defined in a very broad way, and supposedly the Commission is very keen to see the concept implemented sooner rather than later, quite possibly at significant cost (at least in Press Releases if the UK/IRL experience is anything to go by). And no-one really seems to know what it really is.
Taking my cynical hat off, I guess all successful things have got to start somewhere - and probably with something far less successful at the that time. We'll have to wait and see whether there are any real benefits to be had....
While this may not have any effect on day-to-day operations, I can understand why some my consider that it is not a true FAB.
I've heard similar suggestions that, as a piece of airspace, it does not really 'enable optimum use of airspace, taking into account air traffic flows' but, rather, is an administrative arrangement which essentially results in a number of previously established sectors being brought under one service provider and management structure. Again, I can see their point.
I have no strong views myself. I just find it interesting that the EC introduced a concept that is defined in a very broad way, and supposedly the Commission is very keen to see the concept implemented sooner rather than later, quite possibly at significant cost (at least in Press Releases if the UK/IRL experience is anything to go by). And no-one really seems to know what it really is.
Taking my cynical hat off, I guess all successful things have got to start somewhere - and probably with something far less successful at the that time. We'll have to wait and see whether there are any real benefits to be had....
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ireland
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is that the NATS/IAA FAB is a fudge. Rather than be forced into it by the EU, NATS/IAA are claiming that their relationship is close enough already to count as a FAB.
As for the 'sector of airspace managed and operated as a single unit' definition - there have been legal changes wherein each provider is responsible for each others airspace, though in practice neither intends to operate in the others airspace any more than they do so already - at least not yet.
As for the 'sector of airspace managed and operated as a single unit' definition - there have been legal changes wherein each provider is responsible for each others airspace, though in practice neither intends to operate in the others airspace any more than they do so already - at least not yet.
