NATS latest "brainwave" to save money
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I debated this at work today with some colleagues and we all thought it was s**t. That is also a well thought-out answer to this c**p.
Seriously, anyone with half a brain can see it will never work. Are you involved with this project BD?
Seriously, anyone with half a brain can see it will never work. Are you involved with this project BD?
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously, anyone with half a brain can see it will never work. Are you involved with this project BD?
Lets say, for the sake of argument, that all of the upper airspace, lets say anything above 300, from 10W to the Danish, Dutch border was procedural at night with direct tracks (RLong helps here). Whats the impact? Descenders into UK airspace and Netherlands. Could this be handled proceduraly, it used to be in yea olde days. Just a thought
BD
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So with more procedural airspace, I take it you guys will be using HF too? 
One frequency and one controller for many sectors. They will be able to get rid of some 'tels' guys too won't they? Bandboxed.... what on earth is that?
One frequency and one controller for many sectors. They will be able to get rid of some 'tels' guys too won't they? Bandboxed.... what on earth is that?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 24/7 Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So will going procedural relieve the amount of staff required to operate the airspace?
Surely the same amount of people will be required, particularly if they only intend to do this for 2 hours out of a night shift?
That's hardly making a dent in night shift staffing is it? Bandboxing as many sectors as possible on the other hand......(not that I am for one second advocating this....as if.)
Surely the same amount of people will be required, particularly if they only intend to do this for 2 hours out of a night shift?
That's hardly making a dent in night shift staffing is it? Bandboxing as many sectors as possible on the other hand......(not that I am for one second advocating this....as if.)
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So will going procedural relieve the amount of staff required to operate the airspace?
Surely the same amount of people will be required, particularly if they only intend to do this for 2 hours out of a night shift?
That's hardly making a dent in night shift staffing is it? Bandboxing as many sectors as possible on the other hand......(not that I am for one second advocating this....as if.)
Surely the same amount of people will be required, particularly if they only intend to do this for 2 hours out of a night shift?
That's hardly making a dent in night shift staffing is it? Bandboxing as many sectors as possible on the other hand......(not that I am for one second advocating this....as if.)
Oh and I'm not advocating this either, except in a devilish way
BD
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Near VTUU or EGPX
Age: 65
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Procedural all the way to Masstricht/Copenhagen/Stavangar, ROFL, no 
way !
It is complete and utter nonsense.
So BD, would all the night charter traffic have to come in UNDER the transatlantics ?
Come and have a look at the real world between 0300 and 0600, then make a SENSIBLE suggestion.
way !It is complete and utter nonsense.
So BD, would all the night charter traffic have to come in UNDER the transatlantics ?
Come and have a look at the real world between 0300 and 0600, then make a SENSIBLE suggestion.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Whats it to you?
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE][There are rules in place now of what you can and can't do on a night shift to amuse yourself (more to the point, stay awake) in the wee dark hours - you know the 0300 to 0500 when the body is at its lowest ebb. For instance, you're allowed to read a book, but not allowed to watch a DVD on your laptop (even with volume very low and your RT on loud speaker).
/QUOTE]
And aren't these rules in place because of an incident that took place with with radars in use??
But, it'll be OK now coz there's less traffic blah blah blah
Do you remember the propaganda from NATS/the Union during the pay talks? "We won't get much sympathy from the public if we go on strike during a recession, the press will have a field day"
I'm sure they'd have a field day over the headline "Air Traffic Control switches off Radar at night to save money"
/QUOTE]
And aren't these rules in place because of an incident that took place with with radars in use??
But, it'll be OK now coz there's less traffic blah blah blah
Do you remember the propaganda from NATS/the Union during the pay talks? "We won't get much sympathy from the public if we go on strike during a recession, the press will have a field day"
I'm sure they'd have a field day over the headline "Air Traffic Control switches off Radar at night to save money"
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't this coming from the same company that had the press in to show a Multi Lat system at Aberdeen,to get away from procedural,increase coverage and safety.
Lots of trumpets blowing that day.
I remember Hong Kong did a similiar thing on night shifts.They reduced the night shift numbers on ER,because there was less traffic at night into HK.However they completely forgot about all the overflying traffic.The guys said it was often some of the busiest traffic of the day.But because it's the middle of the night when management are in their beds,then it doesn't exist.
Lots of trumpets blowing that day.
I remember Hong Kong did a similiar thing on night shifts.They reduced the night shift numbers on ER,because there was less traffic at night into HK.However they completely forgot about all the overflying traffic.The guys said it was often some of the busiest traffic of the day.But because it's the middle of the night when management are in their beds,then it doesn't exist.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Whats it to you?
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't this coming from the same company that had the press in to show a Multi Lat system at Aberdeen,to get away from procedural,increase coverage and safety.
Oh my god!! Have I just done us out of a job?
Just out of interest PC chaps/chapesses. How many meeting rooms are there at PC/NPC? Just a question as I believe a meeting took place yesterday at the SAS Radisson in Glasgow to discuss NPC - obviously must be cheaper there than at NPC - silly me.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rogdabbit
I've asked the question about meetings before when they have been held at a hotel in fareham, a stones throw from CTC.
The (pathetic) excuse is that if it is off site, people won't be disturbed
I've asked the question about meetings before when they have been held at a hotel in fareham, a stones throw from CTC.
The (pathetic) excuse is that if it is off site, people won't be disturbed
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Which could have maybe been done cheaper using Multiple SBS units available on the hight street, all running down the internet on FREE/NEARLY FREE (not Millions) software called PlanePlotter - spotters have been using it for a few years now!!>>
Yep, great substitute for radar. Yesterday morning I watched an American 767 "landing" just north of Slought and a BA 777 "landing" just north of Windsor! Inrtegrity is not it's best point.
Yep, great substitute for radar. Yesterday morning I watched an American 767 "landing" just north of Slought and a BA 777 "landing" just north of Windsor! Inrtegrity is not it's best point.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's an interesting phenomena, this 'cost-shifting' from ANSPs to airlines. Because that's what it is- reducing costs for the ANSP (such as staff trimming) without heed for the subsequent increase in costs to the airlines as they experience inefficient flight levels/routes, delays etc.
I'm amazed that more airlines, seemingly demons at watching costs, haven't woken up. Virgin seems to be, in Australia
Virgin Blue to pursue AirServices Australia for compensation for its air traffic failures – Plane Talking
I'm amazed that more airlines, seemingly demons at watching costs, haven't woken up. Virgin seems to be, in Australia
Virgin Blue to pursue AirServices Australia for compensation for its air traffic failures – Plane Talking
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southampton
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Lets say, for the sake of argument, that all of the upper airspace, lets say anything above 300, from 10W to the Danish, Dutch border was procedural at night with direct tracks (RLong helps here). Whats the impact? Descenders into UK airspace and Netherlands. Could this be handled proceduraly, it used to be in yea olde days. Just a thought"
"What if the Ocean had that airspace, say midnight to 0530 ish? What would the savings be in en route high level sectors?"
I can see why this might seem like a plausable method to reduce staffing levels at night to the uninformed. Frankly I'd support anything that meant I had to do less nights so I'd be all for this if it was practical. However.........
You could do as BD suggests and extend the non-radar upper level sectors across the UK (FL300+) and effectively move the Oceanic exit points to our Eastern FIR boundary. We'll ignore the problem of Paris, Brussells and Amsterdam inbounds requiring descent before the FIR boundary for the moment. Below FL300 we continue to provide a radar service for the night flights that arrive and depart the UK. So far so good (other than the Paris, Brussells, Amsterdam inbounds). A major part of the implementation of this scheme will be getting all the surrounding FIRs to agree to descend ALL UK inbounds below FL300 before our FIR boundary rather than hand them over in the cruise. Similarly they will recieve all the outbounds below FL300 and have to climb them. I can just imagine what Pierre and his mates would say when we ask him to work harder so NATS can save money. Actually this is not insurmountable. A night time route structure could be developed to allow climbing and descending in and out of the (non-radar) Upper sectors but it would be very restrictive, no direct routes or delayed descents, so it would certainly cost the airlines more money. I can just imagine what Captain Phil Bovingdon-Stack and his mates would say when we ask him to burn more fuel so NATS can save money. But would NATS save money? The controllers who previously provided the radar services above FL300 are still coming in to do night shifts because they are also providing the services below FL300, at Swanwick at least (Prestwick may be different). We would need more, specially trained, staff (remember, NATS stopped training radar ATCOS in procedural control about 15 years ago) to work the new upper air as well as the infrastructure to support them. And we would still have to get the agreement of the surrounding ATS units to sort out the traffic coming off the oceanic track structure (a job previously done by London) all so NATS can save money. I can just imagine what President de Gaulle and his mates would say to that!
"What if the Ocean had that airspace, say midnight to 0530 ish? What would the savings be in en route high level sectors?"
I can see why this might seem like a plausable method to reduce staffing levels at night to the uninformed. Frankly I'd support anything that meant I had to do less nights so I'd be all for this if it was practical. However.........
You could do as BD suggests and extend the non-radar upper level sectors across the UK (FL300+) and effectively move the Oceanic exit points to our Eastern FIR boundary. We'll ignore the problem of Paris, Brussells and Amsterdam inbounds requiring descent before the FIR boundary for the moment. Below FL300 we continue to provide a radar service for the night flights that arrive and depart the UK. So far so good (other than the Paris, Brussells, Amsterdam inbounds). A major part of the implementation of this scheme will be getting all the surrounding FIRs to agree to descend ALL UK inbounds below FL300 before our FIR boundary rather than hand them over in the cruise. Similarly they will recieve all the outbounds below FL300 and have to climb them. I can just imagine what Pierre and his mates would say when we ask him to work harder so NATS can save money. Actually this is not insurmountable. A night time route structure could be developed to allow climbing and descending in and out of the (non-radar) Upper sectors but it would be very restrictive, no direct routes or delayed descents, so it would certainly cost the airlines more money. I can just imagine what Captain Phil Bovingdon-Stack and his mates would say when we ask him to burn more fuel so NATS can save money. But would NATS save money? The controllers who previously provided the radar services above FL300 are still coming in to do night shifts because they are also providing the services below FL300, at Swanwick at least (Prestwick may be different). We would need more, specially trained, staff (remember, NATS stopped training radar ATCOS in procedural control about 15 years ago) to work the new upper air as well as the infrastructure to support them. And we would still have to get the agreement of the surrounding ATS units to sort out the traffic coming off the oceanic track structure (a job previously done by London) all so NATS can save money. I can just imagine what President de Gaulle and his mates would say to that!
Last edited by Arkady; 16th Sep 2009 at 14:20.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Whats it to you?
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, great substitute for radar. Yesterday morning I watched an American 767 "landing" just north of Slought and a BA 777 "landing" just north of Windsor! Inrtegrity is not it's best point.
Also, the "Planeplotter" software uses triangulation from multiple SBS users which makes the plots very accurate.
I would say it would probably have been ideal out over the North Sea for the Heli-chopters that wizz around there. Im not saying use it for LHR
Just out of interest Director, how many did you see that weren't out of place?
ferris
The same phenomenon that has led to AFPEx - a system that got rid of a small number of skilled, qualified but relatively inexpensive aviation experts at Heathrow, but is now run by a similar number of computer systems staff on a help-desk at Swanwick - offloading the required expertise to the hundreds of airfields throughout the country. Bottom line is that NATS saves (arguably) a few pennies, while costing its customers at the airfields ££££s at the same time as service provision/safety reducing.
I apologise for the slight thread drift, but it is all part of the same narrow, penny pinching ignorance that comes out of NATS these days.
Perhaps we would alll receive better safety and service provision if we were not all chasing dividends pyments for short-term bonus schemes for (inevitably) temporary management. Maybe air traffic management could be separated from the market-place and looked after by the state? Oh, that will be why the rest of the world still does it this way and why (dispite the initial interest) they have not all gone down the flawed path of "privatisation".
It's an interesting phenomena, this 'cost-shifting' from ANSPs to airlines. Because that's what it is- reducing costs for the ANSP (such as staff trimming) without heed for the subsequent increase in costs to the airlines as they experience inefficient flight levels/routes, delays etc.
I apologise for the slight thread drift, but it is all part of the same narrow, penny pinching ignorance that comes out of NATS these days.
Perhaps we would alll receive better safety and service provision if we were not all chasing dividends pyments for short-term bonus schemes for (inevitably) temporary management. Maybe air traffic management could be separated from the market-place and looked after by the state? Oh, that will be why the rest of the world still does it this way and why (dispite the initial interest) they have not all gone down the flawed path of "privatisation".