Scottish Airports EFPS
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BD,
You say that ATC has to be brought kicking into the 21st century, maybe there is a reason why it is kicking. Where does safety sit with regards to cost in the EFPS debate? Has anyone asked for a current procedure to be brought in only to be told the system cannot support this and the cost to make this happen is to restrictive? Are we adapting a 21st century system to accommodate our needs or are we adapting to accommodate a computer system?
From your posts you strike me as either naive or blinkered. Yes EFPS will bring many improvements but there are areas that are detrimental to current safe and accepted working practices. Which will give in, the current practices or the new system, you know the answer, now ask yourself if this is making a safer ATC environment or not?
You say that ATC has to be brought kicking into the 21st century, maybe there is a reason why it is kicking. Where does safety sit with regards to cost in the EFPS debate? Has anyone asked for a current procedure to be brought in only to be told the system cannot support this and the cost to make this happen is to restrictive? Are we adapting a 21st century system to accommodate our needs or are we adapting to accommodate a computer system?
From your posts you strike me as either naive or blinkered. Yes EFPS will bring many improvements but there are areas that are detrimental to current safe and accepted working practices. Which will give in, the current practices or the new system, you know the answer, now ask yourself if this is making a safer ATC environment or not?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Costa Packet
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EFD delayed at PC by three months ?
Can anyone shed any light on the rumour at PC that EFD will be delayed at Prestwick Centre till March 2011. If so, how will they manage when 20 or so ATSA's go in November this year ?
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Costa Packet
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PC EFD
March 2011 is now an optimistic "O" date ..........
The rumour is now reality
Can anyone shed any light on the rumour at PC that EFD will be delayed at Prestwick Centre till March 2011. If so, how will they manage when 20 or so ATSA's go in November this year ?
March 2011 is now an optimistic "O" date ..........
The rumour is now reality
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BD
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think you totally understand the point behind safety cases. To say that any system is safe is not the same as to say everyone should have it. The business case still needs to stack up.
For example, let's say my car doesn't have any seatbelts - we all know seatbelts improve safety, so I should install them in all 5 seats in my car. However I never ever have any passengers in my car, so it wouldn't be cost effective to install all 5, so I save a few hundred quid by just installing a drivers belt. (OK, I know there is certain UK legislation which would be breached, but it's just an illustration!).
We have to use our Business and Safety cases in conjunction, neither can stand without the other. Our industry is one of risk management, the ultimate safety argument would be to stop issuing clearances (think ash), but the business would fall and none of us would get our pensions!
As for the use of ATSAs - I used to do that job, and there was nothing more soul destroying than having my skills and knowledge being wasted on "eastbound - buff... westbound - blue" ad nauseum! Yeah, lets allow some of our ATSAs who want to go to go, and lets get real value and contribution out of the rest who want to be there.
Finally - What is all this crap about a level playing field? Are people actually suggesting that we turn off electronic coordinations, mode C and S and TLPD just because not everyone has it? BD has hit the nail on the head, we need to change wee bits at a time, different units have different requirements, and there are a lot of hard working people both in the units and in narnia who are working hard to make sure those requirements are met!
Right rant over.
For example, let's say my car doesn't have any seatbelts - we all know seatbelts improve safety, so I should install them in all 5 seats in my car. However I never ever have any passengers in my car, so it wouldn't be cost effective to install all 5, so I save a few hundred quid by just installing a drivers belt. (OK, I know there is certain UK legislation which would be breached, but it's just an illustration!).
We have to use our Business and Safety cases in conjunction, neither can stand without the other. Our industry is one of risk management, the ultimate safety argument would be to stop issuing clearances (think ash), but the business would fall and none of us would get our pensions!
As for the use of ATSAs - I used to do that job, and there was nothing more soul destroying than having my skills and knowledge being wasted on "eastbound - buff... westbound - blue" ad nauseum! Yeah, lets allow some of our ATSAs who want to go to go, and lets get real value and contribution out of the rest who want to be there.
Finally - What is all this crap about a level playing field? Are people actually suggesting that we turn off electronic coordinations, mode C and S and TLPD just because not everyone has it?
BD has hit the nail on the head, we need to change wee bits at a time, different units have different requirements, and there are a lot of hard working people both in the units and in narnia who are working hard to make sure those requirements are met!Right rant over.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BD
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Rebel HQ
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hopefully all those ATSA Support staff who are leaving in October/November, because of EFD, will throw NATS' derisory offer to stay till EFD comes in, back at them.
At which point Prestwick Centre's current operation officially becomes stuffed.
NATS 'generous' offer is for ATSAs to stay on for their existing pay during the extra few months, but this means that due to the tax laws on lump sums, etc, it will cost those staff around £22K for the taxman if they stay on. And NATS expect them to take this up ?
At which point Prestwick Centre's current operation officially becomes stuffed.
NATS 'generous' offer is for ATSAs to stay on for their existing pay during the extra few months, but this means that due to the tax laws on lump sums, etc, it will cost those staff around £22K for the taxman if they stay on. And NATS expect them to take this up ?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Rebel HQ
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure you understand fully Yahoo, so here's a clarification
The ATSAs who are going want to do so. They will get a nice payout and can retire early or head off and do something else. They are all volunteers.
The existing operation requires a certain number of ATSAs to run the Ops Room. That number is currently stretched, with some of the former Manchester sectors struggling to keep their heads above the water.
NATS management agreed that EFD could reduce the requirement and volunteers were obtained and given pay off dates which met the original November implementation date. On that date, as things stand, these people will leave NATS.
BUT, when these people leave we will not be moving on to EFD for 2 (or more) months. The Ops Room which requires X ATSA staff to function today (just!), will now be running at X-Y (where Y is the number of staff given the 'early go). In other words, the current opertion will be compromised as there will not be enough staff available on the Support side.
NATS are therefore in the embarrasing position of having to try to fill a gap which they created.
ATSA staff who elect to stay on to help out, having been given their lump sum settlement, will actually lose money for staying, in the order of £20K. This is because they will go over the Inland Revenue tax threshold and so attract 40% tax, not only on their lump sum, but the rest of their earnings as well. Now why would NATS expect them to help them out and do that ?
The ATSAs who are going want to do so. They will get a nice payout and can retire early or head off and do something else. They are all volunteers.
The existing operation requires a certain number of ATSAs to run the Ops Room. That number is currently stretched, with some of the former Manchester sectors struggling to keep their heads above the water.
NATS management agreed that EFD could reduce the requirement and volunteers were obtained and given pay off dates which met the original November implementation date. On that date, as things stand, these people will leave NATS.
BUT, when these people leave we will not be moving on to EFD for 2 (or more) months. The Ops Room which requires X ATSA staff to function today (just!), will now be running at X-Y (where Y is the number of staff given the 'early go). In other words, the current opertion will be compromised as there will not be enough staff available on the Support side.
NATS are therefore in the embarrasing position of having to try to fill a gap which they created.
ATSA staff who elect to stay on to help out, having been given their lump sum settlement, will actually lose money for staying, in the order of £20K. This is because they will go over the Inland Revenue tax threshold and so attract 40% tax, not only on their lump sum, but the rest of their earnings as well. Now why would NATS expect them to help them out and do that ?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Costa Packet
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe they already need 800 o/t shifts to cover the normal operation till November. My source tells me they cant fill o/t at the moment and they are constantly working short 
Some have been banned already from doing o/t due to excessive numbers of shifts and no time off ( 1 day off in 30 for example)
Clearly management have screwed up somewhere
Some have been banned already from doing o/t due to excessive numbers of shifts and no time off ( 1 day off in 30 for example)
Clearly management have screwed up somewhere
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dearie. Best you wait till friday night 
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your comment strikes me very much along the lines of the MACC move to PC when posts in this forum were stating that hardly anyone was going and it was doomed doomed! How many never made the move in the end, roughly? Fingers of one hand.
BD
BD
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BDI.......well would you stay on with that deal........I think not.....I think NATS management must think the PC assistants sailed down the Clyde on a bannana boat to give them a deal like that!!!!