SRATCOH Question
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Madrid FIR
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SRATCOH Question
You have done your 2 hours on console, and are enjoying a coffee in the rest room. After 20 minutes there is an unexpected surge in traffic and you are called back into the Ops room. How do controllers at your unit handle this situation?
a. Tell the Supervisor to nob off as you have not had a 30 minute break iaw CAP670.
b. Tell the Sup you will technically be breaking SRATCOH, file a bust, and ensure your new period of Operational Duty starts ten minutes early.
c. Shrug, plug in, and get on with the job as the coffee was cold anyway.
a. Tell the Supervisor to nob off as you have not had a 30 minute break iaw CAP670.
b. Tell the Sup you will technically be breaking SRATCOH, file a bust, and ensure your new period of Operational Duty starts ten minutes early.
c. Shrug, plug in, and get on with the job as the coffee was cold anyway.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What comes around, goes around.
If its a very occassional occurance, get on with it and take option 3.
If it happens more than once a fortnight, take option two.
If it happens more than once a week, nob off to a decent unit.
If its a very occassional occurance, get on with it and take option 3.
If it happens more than once a fortnight, take option two.
If it happens more than once a week, nob off to a decent unit.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Rebel HQ
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you do 'C' then you possibly break the law. Brushing that under the carpet or simply getting the Supervisor to make an entry somewhere won't be much of a defence if SRG hear about it. What other laws might such a controller feel he is also entitled to break ? Separation standards ?? Speed limits ??
Your only protection, if you decide to break the law for good reason, is to file a SRATCOH bust form and send it to SRG. Unit management (and yourself, should you wish) can then argue with SRG as to whether it was justified or not and whether you made the situation safer or not by coming back early. Someone having a serious incident and requiring an immediate relief from the sector might be a set of circumstances which you can argue is justified. Turn backs on the scale of those during the September 11th incidents might be another. Covering management ineptitude might not be
In any case, if you do return early, you must ensure that you take the pro rata break period you missed.
Note the extensive use of the word 'shall'. That is mandatory and doesn't allow controllers to pick and choose whether to do something or not.
Your only protection, if you decide to break the law for good reason, is to file a SRATCOH bust form and send it to SRG. Unit management (and yourself, should you wish) can then argue with SRG as to whether it was justified or not and whether you made the situation safer or not by coming back early. Someone having a serious incident and requiring an immediate relief from the sector might be a set of circumstances which you can argue is justified. Turn backs on the scale of those during the September 11th incidents might be another. Covering management ineptitude might not be
In any case, if you do return early, you must ensure that you take the pro rata break period you missed.
2.2.1 Breaks in Operational Duty
2.2.1.1 No operational duty shall exceed a period of two hours without there being taken during, or at the end of, that period a break or breaks totalling not less than 30 minutes during which period a controller does not exercise the privileges of their licence.
2.2.1.2 Breaks shall include all measures necessary to ensure that controllers will not be suffering, to any extent as a consequence of their duties, mental or physical fatigue whilst exercising the privileges of their licence. Such measures are expected to include a certain detachment from the operation, e.g. rest areas, some of which shall afford the individual 'quiet space' and facilities for adequate refreshment.
2.2.1.3 At units where workload for any part of the day is judged to be low and the activity is spasmodic rather than continuous, periods of operational duty, at these times, may be extended to a maximum of four hours, provided that the following break is taken pro-rata (e.g. 45 minutes after 3 hours or 60 minutes after 4 hours).
NOTE: Judgements on unit workload are to be made by unit managers in consultation with the appropriate Regional Manager ATS Safety Regulation in the case of Airports or the Head of En-route and College Regulation in the case of Area Control Centres.
2.2.1.1 No operational duty shall exceed a period of two hours without there being taken during, or at the end of, that period a break or breaks totalling not less than 30 minutes during which period a controller does not exercise the privileges of their licence.
2.2.1.2 Breaks shall include all measures necessary to ensure that controllers will not be suffering, to any extent as a consequence of their duties, mental or physical fatigue whilst exercising the privileges of their licence. Such measures are expected to include a certain detachment from the operation, e.g. rest areas, some of which shall afford the individual 'quiet space' and facilities for adequate refreshment.
2.2.1.3 At units where workload for any part of the day is judged to be low and the activity is spasmodic rather than continuous, periods of operational duty, at these times, may be extended to a maximum of four hours, provided that the following break is taken pro-rata (e.g. 45 minutes after 3 hours or 60 minutes after 4 hours).
NOTE: Judgements on unit workload are to be made by unit managers in consultation with the appropriate Regional Manager ATS Safety Regulation in the case of Airports or the Head of En-route and College Regulation in the case of Area Control Centres.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talloway.. I must have done it a million times and nothing ever happened to me. An excellent defence would be that you possibly saved a potentially dangerous situation. I accept that there is a different culture now in ATC than when I was working but I'd never stand around arguing the toss about SRATCOH when a colleague was going under.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Madrid FIR
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is obviously a degree of pragmatism here, but TALLOWAY hints at the darker, legal side.
The reason I posted was because our union rep has just returned from a meeting with the Comrades. He posed the question about flexibility in applying SRATCOH, and was told that any controller involved in an incident while operating outwith SRATCOH would receive no support from the union. I wonder how strongly NATS would support a controller who broke the rules in an effort to help the unit out of a sticky traffic situation.
The reason I posted was because our union rep has just returned from a meeting with the Comrades. He posed the question about flexibility in applying SRATCOH, and was told that any controller involved in an incident while operating outwith SRATCOH would receive no support from the union. I wonder how strongly NATS would support a controller who broke the rules in an effort to help the unit out of a sticky traffic situation.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the greatest respect to those that said (c), you are encouraging someone to technically break the law and not to inform anyone it has happened.
My advice would always opt for (b). If someone is struggling to cope with the level of traffic then it is a safety matter that you plug-in and help. You are also required to file a STRATCOH bust which ensures it goes recorded both on the unit and with SRG. This enables the unit to see if it happens often and to investigate why and make any rostering/flow changes required to mitigate it in the future. It also sends a signal to SRG that the rules are being correctly applied and will flag up any unit which continuously puts the ATCO in such a position.
It is not a problem for a unit if someone files a STRATCOH bust, in fact it should be positvely encouraged by any business that takes the law and safety seriously. It is such reports that can prevent accidents by highlighting problems before they become serious or common place.
Quite frankly, I am amazed that there are those recommending to ignore the bust!
My advice would always opt for (b). If someone is struggling to cope with the level of traffic then it is a safety matter that you plug-in and help. You are also required to file a STRATCOH bust which ensures it goes recorded both on the unit and with SRG. This enables the unit to see if it happens often and to investigate why and make any rostering/flow changes required to mitigate it in the future. It also sends a signal to SRG that the rules are being correctly applied and will flag up any unit which continuously puts the ATCO in such a position.
It is not a problem for a unit if someone files a STRATCOH bust, in fact it should be positvely encouraged by any business that takes the law and safety seriously. It is such reports that can prevent accidents by highlighting problems before they become serious or common place.
Quite frankly, I am amazed that there are those recommending to ignore the bust!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: a galaxy far, far,away...
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think there's any "technically" about it. Suppose you break SCRATCOH then, and something happens. Suppose someone is injured or worse, and suppose an amount (size doesn't matter!) of blame could be laid at your door.
1. Will your company back you?
2. Will their insurance company back them?
3. Will the police see it from your point of view?
4. Will the relatives of the victims understand your position?
5. Will the CAA leave you with a licence?
Big can of worms, I agree! I'd be very interested in #2 if there are any experts here!!!
ap
1. Will your company back you?
2. Will their insurance company back them?
3. Will the police see it from your point of view?
4. Will the relatives of the victims understand your position?
5. Will the CAA leave you with a licence?
Big can of worms, I agree! I'd be very interested in #2 if there are any experts here!!!
ap
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd go with jonny b good's answer. It also gives the Supervisor a chance to perhaps consider finding someone else, if there other controllers around who won't be breaking SRATCOH by plugging in.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: On a radial
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another for jonny b's answer.
Like others have said i am quite shocked that some would even consider option c . The rules are written down as law, and god forbid anything should happen (and murphy's law dictates this will be so) its your a**e and licence in the sling. In the subsequent MOR's and tape replays it can become easy to see you haven't had your full break.
With regards to watching your colleague "go under" this should never be allowed to get to the stage where this can happen. TRM (yes i know its dirty words to some, but i for one agree with the principle) should allow the early recognition of a situation developing and measures implemented to lower the risk of this happening. Sounds like there maybe a couple of issues,
1: Staffing numbers; there should be enough staff working to split a sector if required whilst others are on breaks
2: There should not be a fear of filing a SRATCOH bust. All it will do is highlight the fact that something didn't quite work as planned. This allows a record to be kept so that any patterns can be identified, and procedures and staffing required to stop a reoccurance can be investigated. However, as said above ensure a pro rata break is taken when possible.
No i'm not management, neither am i a union rep. We all have to jump through new hoops presented to us almost daily, so dont put yourself at risk from people trying to weave around the edges of said hoops.
81
Like others have said i am quite shocked that some would even consider option c
. The rules are written down as law, and god forbid anything should happen (and murphy's law dictates this will be so) its your a**e and licence in the sling. In the subsequent MOR's and tape replays it can become easy to see you haven't had your full break.With regards to watching your colleague "go under" this should never be allowed to get to the stage where this can happen. TRM (yes i know its dirty words to some, but i for one agree with the principle) should allow the early recognition of a situation developing and measures implemented to lower the risk of this happening. Sounds like there maybe a couple of issues,
1: Staffing numbers; there should be enough staff working to split a sector if required whilst others are on breaks
2: There should not be a fear of filing a SRATCOH bust. All it will do is highlight the fact that something didn't quite work as planned. This allows a record to be kept so that any patterns can be identified, and procedures and staffing required to stop a reoccurance can be investigated. However, as said above ensure a pro rata break is taken when possible.
No i'm not management, neither am i a union rep. We all have to jump through new hoops presented to us almost daily, so dont put yourself at risk from people trying to weave around the edges of said hoops.
81
StandupfortheUlstermen
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of Wurzelsetshire
Age: 53
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Option D - tell the Sup to go plug in him/herself. Let's face it, they probably need the hours and the practice. Then go to the unit manager and complain to them about their Sup's inability to run the watch properly (in all aspects - flow reg, staffing, sorting breaks etc).
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UAE
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the current climate of corporate liability being the main emphasis (ie who can we blame) any breaking of rules or procedures cold have you standing in court facing a clever lawyer asking you to justify why. As you look around for the company reprasentatives that are there to help you, you will see their heels as they run for the hills. This applies to anything in ATC these days. I can hear it now "For the court sir, could you explain why you were giving a service in uncontrolled airspace when the airline had filed and was paying for controlled airspace?"
NATS want to know SSE scores before incidents have even been investigated, for the BOARD, to apportion blame (my interpratation). You can see quite clearly the no blame culture is very much about who to blame
NATS want to know SSE scores before incidents have even been investigated, for the BOARD, to apportion blame (my interpratation). You can see quite clearly the no blame culture is very much about who to blame
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Up North
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few years ago I would have agreed with Heathrow Director but with the current crop of NATS management cowboys, in my opinion putting costs before safety, I would have to say tell the supervisor to nob off.
There should be inbuilt capacity/safety/whatever and the first controller should not have worked for 2 hours leaving this potential situation to develop.
It's poor planning etc which is why front line manpower cuts are not the way forward or this will happen more and more.
If a situation occured the guy at the top could face criminal charges, but more likely get a reprimand or a black mark against them. But the poor sod left to deal directly with the busy situation could be scarred for life. Our weak union are little or no help either and its down to individuals to stand up for themselves and don't leave themselves open. There is little faith at my NATS unit in the senior management. If anything were to occur the blame will be put on the person breaking Scratcoh for whatever reason, not the person encouraging them.
There should be inbuilt capacity/safety/whatever and the first controller should not have worked for 2 hours leaving this potential situation to develop.
It's poor planning etc which is why front line manpower cuts are not the way forward or this will happen more and more.
If a situation occured the guy at the top could face criminal charges, but more likely get a reprimand or a black mark against them. But the poor sod left to deal directly with the busy situation could be scarred for life. Our weak union are little or no help either and its down to individuals to stand up for themselves and don't leave themselves open. There is little faith at my NATS unit in the senior management. If anything were to occur the blame will be put on the person breaking Scratcoh for whatever reason, not the person encouraging them.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree with Hootin.
If you plug in and control, busting your hours, even with the best of intentions you're asking for trouble.
If you bust your hours and had an incident.....
you would be in a world of poo. The buck would well and truly stop with you.
Like many things in air traffic the responsibility is the ATCO's.
LCE lapses? ATCO fault
Medical lapses? ATCO fault
Bust hours? ATCO fault
And it will be you and you alone that sits in front of SRG and justifies your actions should you have had an incident whilst out of hours.
The ultimate responsibility falling with the ATCO is why we're often seen as quite militant. You need to be pretty hard skinned and able to stand up for yourself and say 'NO' when you are asked to do something that could endanger your license and ultimately your job!
As Hootin and a Roarin said, this situation should never happen, and staffing levels should always have some sort of contingency.
If you plug in and control, busting your hours, even with the best of intentions you're asking for trouble.
If you bust your hours and had an incident.....
you would be in a world of poo. The buck would well and truly stop with you.Like many things in air traffic the responsibility is the ATCO's.
LCE lapses? ATCO fault
Medical lapses? ATCO fault
Bust hours? ATCO fault
And it will be you and you alone that sits in front of SRG and justifies your actions should you have had an incident whilst out of hours.
The ultimate responsibility falling with the ATCO is why we're often seen as quite militant. You need to be pretty hard skinned and able to stand up for yourself and say 'NO' when you are asked to do something that could endanger your license and ultimately your job!
As Hootin and a Roarin said, this situation should never happen, and staffing levels should always have some sort of contingency.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like many things in air traffic the responsibility is the ATCO's.
We have a VCCS that does not work as advertised and is of inferior quality to the old system.
We have AMAN which is still not working as advertised.
We have EFD coming - it will arrive regardless of functionality, future projects (iTEC) rely on it and NATS have committed to these projects already.
Back on topic - despite protestations to the contrary, I don't think any ATCO would sit and watch a colleague get mullered just because they had not had a full break - it's not in the nature of an ATCO.
Unfortunately, management are well aware that we have a higher work ethic than they do, and they use this to their advantage.
Management turn around and say that the implementations are successful, but this is only the case because the operators work around the faults - we do that because we have to to get our job done and because safety is our number one priority, closely followed by service delivery.
Meanwhile, management pat each other on the backs for yet another 'great' project.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Up North
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all the monitoring equipment in place before I retired, should the Sup or Bank Sup not have seen the surge coming and planned staffing accordingly?
