Spanish ATC

[samotnik]

Has something changed, apart from the Spanish dispute (that I am finding increasingly difficult to support).

Yes, a lot has changed!

Airlines are pushing ANSP to cut costs. In the good old times, which are gone, ATC staffing could be arranged with some margin. Even if forecasted traffic was to open 70% of sectors, there was enough 'spare' ATCos on shift to man another 10%, just in case. If there was no need, it resulted in a bit longer breaks, i.e. 1h10m instead of 1h. Of course, you have to hire more ATCos, or pay them overtime. But there was enough margin for any action you, as a pilot, would like to have.

Nowadays, airlines are 'working together' (i love this term) with ANSP to cut costs and they would like ATCos not to have breaks at all, and sector capacity pushed to the limits with no spare ATCos to take some load off of their colleagues in case the traffic flow is other than predicted. The cheapest solution. It works only if you stick close to CTOT windows and flight plan routings (every aircraft arrives on time) and flight plan levels (every aircraft arrives to proper sector).

It's just your companies that made your life difficult. Maybe some day they will realize that it's cheaper to pay higher ANSP rates, than to struggle with cost saving effects - which are slot times, no direct routings, flight plan levels and generally, no flexibility. No flexibility because there is no room left for it, because everything is pushed to its limits due to cost saving!

I hope I've explained it clearly. This is not Spanish ATC problem. I know this is a thread about them, but you should look at it in a broader context. It's pan-european now and getting worse. Germans, Swiss and other praised ANSPs will end up with this style of providing their service really really soon, because it's not about a single ATCo, it's not about their T&C, it's about economical crisis and lack of money in airline business!

Remember: stupid, penny-wise cost saving: REASON. Zero flexibility: EFFECT.

[Blockla]

...of course, ATC are quite entitled to refuse such a request.

but you don't seem to see 'system integrity' as a valid reason for denying the request. Where I work we have little impact on the 'CFMU' level adherence processes as aircraft are usually still on climb to cruising levels, except for RYR aircraft that file at 260 or 280...

We certainly don't check every aircraft for level adherence before giving away requested levels. It would be impossible to do so across the board particularly for flight originating on the West side of the Atlantic etc.

We have very limited information in our electronic copy of your flight plan due to data issues; most of the route beyond one or two points outside our FIR is removed; thus we have almost no way of checking RFLs further down the line. We tend to ask the next unit if it looks like you are requesting something significantly different, if they say yes then we go for it; but this in no way represents 'how it should be done'.

We don't have management that the Spaniards currently have either, I have never heard of a controller here being asked by a manager why they gave a level not filed. Of course there will be an incident at some stage that will change this, I'm sure...

fireflybob, the level adherence is becoming ANSP SOPS, if your company SOPS said don't exceed 270 IAS below FL150 would you accept an ATC request for 310IAS till 20 DME from touch, or would you say unable to exceed 270IAS below FL150; even if you have been doing that regularly for the last 20 years? Unfortunately the CFMU level adherence system is going to be subjected to much higher scrutiny and 'auditing' and there will be "please explain"(s) made from various ANSPs. Welcome to the new world.

However, the problem with Strategic flow, ie sector workload protection by numbers of aircraft filed is it doesn't measure complexity. I have worked sectors over the last 20 years with 35+ aircraft on frequency and felt under no pressure and others with only 4-5 aircraft and felt under the pump; because of what is going on. The CFMU level adherence only attempts to regulate traffic the reality I feel, is far from perfect; ten aircraft at non-filed levels may be no problem on one day yet on anther day (or hour) just one may be too much... It also doesn't consider tactical reality, weather / turbulence, airport delays or anything short notice. etc.

Because Spanish ATC are implying the rules doesn't mean they haven't got a clue, perhaps they are just playing by the rules imposed; don't like it, bad luck, file at your "real" optimum flight level and see what you get then. We all know that certain airlines do file to get around the current CFMU system, they are playing the game, if the answer to the game is "no" then that's just the way it is, even if there is 'no apparent reason', no point bitching about it, especially here; you rolled the dice, you rolled snake eyes, see you next leg.

[BrATCO]

DjerbaDevil,

Assuming those journalist's figures are true, I would like to calculate them in an other way, that's :
200000€ / 1750€ = 114€/h
Is that gross or net ?

Another tricky calculation :
25 planes per hour (average traffic load for 24h on an average sector)
114€/h / 25 planes = 4€/h/plane

4€ per hour, that's what a company pays to get an ATCO's service for one plane in Spain. That's cheaper than a pint in a pub (my beer-flow is two pints of stout per hour...)
Figures can be tricky. Furthermore when read in a so-called newspaper.


Samotnik,
Checking the SLAPs (SLot Allocation Procedures) is what we do in France, since our high up beancounters reminded us that a rule has to be stuck to.
Being French, we're also a bunch of rebels. So we change the levels again.

Each time a plane requests a level change, we check the strip (we still have them, that helps a bit) for RFLs on the route. Then if there's a doubt, we check with the FMP(Flow Management Position), the ones who deal with regulations, real-time, in the control room.
That's a real big lot of huge amounts of workload increase !
We don't respect RFLs each time, but we try to stick to the sectors. The limit to this method being, as you wrote, that we could overflow a sector somewhere in Europe that shouldn't have been flooded, as everyone should have been on RFLs.

So much for the ones who will take off later... They will probably have to stay lower, or wait for their CTOT.

Same for directs : we ask first, and we (most of the time) don't enter unexpected sectors anymore, hoping the directs we give won't save more than 8 minutes through France (half the CTOT allowance). Most of our routes are already quite straight and, often, a direct doesn't save more than few seconds, but if that helps pilots...
In order to make the answers quicker and more efficient in regard of the "Whole Thing", I think a solution would be to put a CHMI (CFMU Human-Machine Interface) on each control position. And, of course, a controler more to deal efficiently with regulations (that would cost 4€/h more...)

FireFlyBoy
Requesting different FLs is not "cheating", I see it just a bit unfair for the pilots who "stick a bit more to the rule".
And some of your collegues still haven't understood we could refuse a level change and why. Sometimes, when I refuse higher, or even when I accept not higher enough, the tone in their voice makes me think i'm a lazy, bad moody ATCO. So, if I've got time for that, I explain the reasons why not higher.
That's a workload more and time I won't use to provide safety service to other planes. Is that a more professional behaviour than wandering in the control room for a few seconds ?

[samotnik]

samontik, you are misinterpreting what I am saying. When I said "Personally, I don't see this as "cheating" merely a flexible response to the current system." what I mean by that is what is wrong with filing a Flight Level which minimises slot delays? Are you saying this is illegal? Of course, if I am filed for a level I should be fully capable of flying that level boths in terms of performance and fuel planning etc?

Nothing is wrong with it. It's even good for everyone, since it reduces the overall daily load at upper sectors. But you should fly on this level and not expect that you will get a higher one. If you plan yourself a few levels down, you are routed through completely different sectors, one or even two sectors below the one handling the 'optimum' FL.

Instead I read here over and over again things like 'stupid, overpaid ATCo didn't approve my climb from FP FL260 to FL380. I think these chimps should all be fired right now!'.

It should be like this instead: 'some wonderful, helpful ATCo disregarded my flight plan level of FL260, working against his SOP and Eurocontrol guidelines, and approved climb to FL380. I should send him a bottle of Scotch as soon as I get on the ground, because for my comfort of no CTOT he overloaded his colleague in the next FIR without a blink of an eye.'. ;-)

I fully understand that whilst enroute if I ask for a level other than flight plan it may not be available for a myriad of reasons. Is it illegal to ask for a different level?

Nope. It's legal. But you don't simply ask and accept a refusal. Later you spoil tons of your frustration all over the Internet. Many people will believe you that it's the nasty controller who does everything he can to ruin your flight and not you, who tries to exploit some weaknesses of this system, which is bad for all airspace users (remember that an overloaded ATCo provides bad service for everybody, not just you!!!).

What about weather avoidance? What about turbulence? Surely any ATC should have a degree of flexibility. Only last week Swiss asked me if I could climb to a higher level for traffic reasons which we accepted but this was not the Flight Plan level - is that cheating?

It's pointless to discuss with someone comparing level change due to turbulence with exploiting flow system.

[kick the tires]

Nowadays, airlines are 'working together' (i love this term) with ANSP to cut costs

Samontik, thanks for taking time to explain that; I appreciate it. From your explanation, it seems that the airlines are asking for reduced eurocharges (sorry, dont know the correct terminology) and this is driving the work to rule with flight plans. We at easy have suffered from the penny pinching Andy Harrison, our now gone (thankfully) chief executive who cut the cost base to get his bonus. Of course, now we are paying the price with lack of crews and infrastructure. We call it reinventing the wheel!!

Its the first time 'working together' has been mentioned on here, unless I have missed it (in which case I'd better apologise to Avman first!).

I understand your reasoning though, thanks.

What I struggle with is the alienation of non national aircraft here in Madrid; the bias shown to the flag carriers by your fellow controllers is nothing short of embarrassing. To then have people like perez say that it doesnt happen, sorry, rarely happens, is just folly.

This turns me away from supporting your action on the 15th.

[BrATCO]

What about weather avoidance? What about turbulence? Surely any ATC should have a degree of flexibility.

When the system works, capacities are not the same when the weather is CAVOK as when there are CBs, turbulence, active military airspaces... (around 20-30% less)

But a SLAP is effective only after 2 hours. So ATCOs have to deal with unexpected weather for 2 hours before being protected (at last !).
If the sector happens to be already overloaded when it occurs, then the other solution is to immediately stop all departures towards this sector.

[BrATCO]

KTT,

I havent referred to they French dispute as they have them every year!!

In fact, we French have been encountering the same(ish) kind of big problems as in Spain for the last 11 months.
Personally happy you don't feel it too much now, but this story is really not over yet.
The "thumb down" thread on French ATC could be dug out some day... And it will be for the same reason as one year ago.

[fireflybob]

Nope. It's legal. But you don't simply ask and accept a refusal. Later you spoil tons of your frustration all over the Internet.

samotnik, Iim not sure who you mean by "you" here! If ever I am refused a higher level I have always graciously accepted so although I have heard others on the frequency questioning why? I am also not aware that I have "spoiled tons of frustration over the internet" but when for many years one has been used to asking for a higher level and it being granted it's a significant change when such requests are now routinely denied mainly, in my experience, in Spain and France.

Surely one purpose of this forum is exchange of information. It is quite natural that pilots and controllers see things from a different perspective. As a pilot I don't claim to know everything (or hardly anything! LOL) about flow control. Perhaps the aviation authorities need to spend some time disseminating this sort of information in a manner which is easily understandable instead of reverting to documentation which requires a degree in nuclear physics to begin to understand.

Thankyou for informing me of things from your side which has been useful.

fireflybob, the level adherence is becoming ANSP SOPS, if your company SOPS said don't exceed 270 IAS below FL150 would you accept an ATC request for 310IAS till 20 DME from touch, or would you say unable to exceed 270IAS below FL150; even if you have been doing that regularly for the last 20 years?

Blockla, obviously if it's written like that in my Ops Manual then I wouldn't be able to comply but such an "instruction" would probably explain circumstances where it was permissable to do so. For example, greater than 250 kts is permitted, at the Captain's discretion, in certain circumstances. Are the ANSP SOPS that inflexible?

[Blockla]

Are the ANSP SOPS that inflexible?

They certainly can be, might be something like "without coordination to all effected units RFL must not be exceeded"; if it's a long flight then it's impossible to complete the coordination so the answer will be unable... (Normally you only have buttons to your direct neighbours). But most instructions are "shall not's" etc.

The Irish instruction says something like "shall not exceed the RFL unless it's required for separation". ie the RYR that departs via LND from Kerry conflicting with the RYR that departs via LND from Knock converging just South of Cork; if both have filed FL280 we can put one higher... That said we normally ask London and if they say yes, happy days...

[Nightstop]

Patience with MAD Controllers

We called "fully ready" on MAD Delivery this morning, having been stepped on deliberately multiple times by Iberia (or that little airline masquerading as Iberia...Air Nuseum or something?). Told curtly to "standby, I'll call you back". 8 minutes later the same controller asks if we're fully ready! "Yes", we said, "we told you we were fully ready 8 minutes ago!". "Well", she said, "I couldn't give you clearance 8 minutes ago but now I can, and that's why I'm asking if you're fully ready".

Give me strength, and continuing patience to work with these people please

[maggot738]

On stand for the usual 25 minute turnaround on time at 1020. Scheduled departure time for the next flight was 1045. CTOT 1050. Called for push and start at 1048. Request denied by ATC as buried in the Spanish rules and regulations is a little known regulation that a start clearance must be requested 15 minutes before the CTOT. The aircraft must be fully ready to push when requesting start clearnce. therefore any CTOT less than scheduled departure time plus 15 minutes becomes unworkable. Now before you say they are the rules and we must adhere to them etc, a few days later in very similar circumstances, the controller approved our push and start. It appears to me that there are some Spanish ATCO's who are almost militant in enforcing the "Rules" while others are a little more practical and accomodating. ATCO's in Madrid are generally more accomodating than ATCO's in Alicante or Seville etc. I am based in Spain so deal with this rubbish on a daily basis. Maybe the airlines should send the controllers concerned the bills for additional fuel burn etc. I'm sure then their rules and regulations would be a lot less rigid.

Maggot

[samotnik]

maggot, minimal CTOT is EOBT plus taxitime. In this case it looks like the taxitime was 5min. Since it should include pushback time, it's very very short - are you sure of these times you mentioned? But in case of such short taxi time, forcing crews to be fully ready at some fixed time is wrong. Crew should be fully ready with pushback tug and so on at CTOT-taxitime. That's what CFMU manuals say. Or if they are before, they should request ready message, which in my opinion can not be denied by ATC, unless in some non-standard situation at the aerodrome. Taxi times of course are variable depending on stand, so it requires some understanding both from crew and ATC. Unfortunately, in real life, there are crews that abuse such flexibility offered by ATC. And that's a problem - how to recognize a crew that will be ready on time when requesting startup after CTOT from a crew that is just hoping that once they are cleared for pushed back, ATC will have mercy and let them depart well after CTOT window... Because there MUST be some rules, otherwise there would be a complete chaos and no ATC required anyway.

And yes, airspace users should cooperate with ANSP. But unfortunately this whole 'cooperation' looks like they just demand ANSPs to be cheaper and that's it. Sometimes it ends up with higher costs due to extra fuel, missed flights, compensation to pax and so on.

I'm not defending my Spanish colleagues here. There might be individuals among them who provide poor service. But viewed from the other side - such situations are at least as complex, as seen from the cockpit. And no easy solution.

[Greenpilots]

I think we all had our fair share with Spanish controllers.

We were the only aircraft on the frequency approaching MAD. Controller clears us for 7000' and sends us to his colleague. We think: cool, we are getting a short cut (minimum altitude is 10.000' I think due to mountains and you would have to turn earlier then, allowing a short approach). We tell the next controller our cleared altitude. After getting nervous that we are flying closer towards the mountains, we called the chap on the radio again, which resulted in loud screaming "Climb immediatly 11.000', you are below my minimum radar vectoring altitude! Later on we are approaching the runway. 18 is in use and we are expecting 18R. But today we are inbound from the east and while crossing the localizer of 18L we ask when to expect our approach clearence for 18R. So the controller screams at us again, saying that it is of course 18L, as always when coming in from the east (yeah, like if I was at MAD every day). All in all, four controllers did a very bad job that day.
The other day we are standing in Barcelona. We had a comfortable ground time and were ready waaaay ahead of schedule. So about 25 mins prior scheduled off-block we are calling in, answer is "no, you can not be airborne before your planned departure time" What? They made us wait another 15 minutes, while about TWO aircraft took off. Is it the law? Maybe. Does it make sense to me? No.
Once again in Barcelona, winds were very shifty that day and 25L was in use for departure. Unfortunately there was a tailwind of nearly than 10 knots from time to time (according ATIS) and we are not allowed to have more than 10kts tailwind on departure. So now I am calling Delivery, asking for a wind check. You think that she understands me? I am not Chinese, Russian or somehwat and speak Englisch fairly well, but there I am, not being understood when asking for the current wind. I tried "Wind check", "Current wind", "wind speed" and "W I N D", but gave up after the fourth call. Is that normal? Definitly not. Did it happen in Spain? Yes.

I know there are people that really do a good job, but the average is really below any European standard. And I am not taking into account that I only understand half of the ATC calls (it is always funny when controllers get mixed up with languages...).

However, the question I really wanted to ask is: When/Are you going to strike?

[Denti]

There might be individuals among them who provide poor service.

That would mean that the majority provides a good service. Sadly it is exactly the other way round. There are some very rare individuals who provide adequate to sometimes even good service, the majority provides abysmal service and in many cases downright dangerous instructions.

[Avman]

Maybe the airlines should send the controllers concerned the bills for additional fuel burn etc. I'm sure then their rules and regulations would be a lot less rigid.

What you obviously fail to grasp maggot is that they are demonstrating to both you the user and to their employers how rigid things do become when the rules are applied. Didn't you know that employers expect their employees to adhere to the rules?! Maybe we should all do it? You'd be sending your excess fuel bills to the wrong people!

[Del Prado]

Quote:
Maybe the airlines should send the controllers concerned the bills for additional fuel burn etc.

good idea. And for every short cut you could send the ATCO concerned the fuel saving.

Across Europe would your airline be up or down on that deal?

[733driver]

@greenpilots

I would agree that often Spanish ATC is not great and sometimes outright dangerous.

However, maybe you could have dealt differetly with the situations you describe? Instead of assuming (never good), confirm that your cleared altitude will keep you save.

Ask for approach clearance or at least the expected ILS way before crossing the parallel approach.

Just listen on the tower frequncy for the current winds. Every t/O clearance comes with a wind check and most if not all aircraft/operators are limited to 10 knots tail wind just like you guys.

Not saying all is well in Spain just giving you some ideas of how to stay safe and minimize frustrations. You will see that this will help a great deal when you transfer to a long haul fleet and fly (far) beyond Europe.

[Greenpilots]

Hi there,

good comment. We did make sure we aren't flying into these mountains, we were above the mountains in a safe altitude still, when confirming our clearence. Point is that they didn't notice it was unsafe (two sectors involved). If you are getting a vector for final and there is constant talk in Spanish on the radio and you can't get through, what do you do? Difficult question. In our mind set it was clear back then, that we would take 18R. I am not saying that pilots are not doing things wrong, as mistakes happen to everyone, but it is often the case when flying to Spain that one wonders what these people are actually paid for. I am sorry to say, but that is the case.

And regarding the wind. Really help a great deal, standing on the runway, knowing the wind is far off limits (not taking into account the performance and safety penalties that go with it). Might be time for a runway change prior to that happening. Part two of the story was me trying to get the other runway instead, but I don't want to bother you with my stories the whole night and I would just get to excited about the whole topic again...

[733driver]

I think you may have misunderstood my suggestion with regards to the wind-check. I wasn't suggesting to wait until you are on the runway. But when delivery couldn't give you a wind check (for whatever reason) you could have just tuned the tower frequency for the departure runway and listened in. The next t/o clearance would have included the wind and you could have worked out your numbers while still on stand.

[TBSC]

minimal CTOT is EOBT plus taxitime

It is not rare to get a CTOT=EOBT+2 mins.