UK ATC Direct Routings late at night
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: U.K
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're going to be patronising Le Penguin, at least read the post properly first. You're missing the point. We're talking about en-route ATC here, conditions don't change THAT much to all of a sudden deny a standard direct route 
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the mention 30W
Like our Swanwick friends, most of our controllers will also offer direct routeings where they can (although we are not limited to just doing it at night
). The important point though, is that those who are not offering them are not doing anything wrong, they are just not offering pilots any sort of bonus.
Some won't do it for bloody mindedness, which although within the letter of conformance and procedures, is not in the spirit of an ATC service in my opinion.
Some won't do it because they are scared of the consequences if it all goes wrong. For those who say we do it all the time and it's not unsafe, there are incidents which disprove that. A very very small percentage versus the number of aircraft handled, but it's there nonetheless. For those controllers, it would benefit both NATS environmental goals and allay the fears of these individuals if proper procedures were analysed for hazards, mitigated, and then introduced. It's exactly what happened for the Night Time Fuel Savings Routes which were done unofficially for tens of years but then became formalised. Apart from occasional lapses where some controllers still want to try and cut even more corners, they work pretty well.
Some won't do it for operational circumstances which exist at the time and are unknown to external agencies and possibly even other sectors which are adjacent. The refusal of co-ordination is of course the receiving controllers chance to let everyone know why it's not going to happen. Whether they all do this, is another thing.
And finally some won't do it because the probability of the guy way down the line sending a pilot direct and telling him he will have to drop outside Controlled Airspace is almost zero. The controller receiving the aircraft is then left with asking the pilot what service he requires and on the receiving end of some grumpiness when the pilot says he can't accept ATSOCAS or demands a higher service than available.
The best way forward is to formalise any commonly used routes after appropriate consultation and deliberation. It's then in procedures and conforms. It also has an analysis which shows it is safe. And finally, it makes the airlines happy, as well as the occasional grumpy sod in ATC
Like our Swanwick friends, most of our controllers will also offer direct routeings where they can (although we are not limited to just doing it at night
). The important point though, is that those who are not offering them are not doing anything wrong, they are just not offering pilots any sort of bonus. Some won't do it for bloody mindedness, which although within the letter of conformance and procedures, is not in the spirit of an ATC service in my opinion.
Some won't do it because they are scared of the consequences if it all goes wrong. For those who say we do it all the time and it's not unsafe, there are incidents which disprove that. A very very small percentage versus the number of aircraft handled, but it's there nonetheless. For those controllers, it would benefit both NATS environmental goals and allay the fears of these individuals if proper procedures were analysed for hazards, mitigated, and then introduced. It's exactly what happened for the Night Time Fuel Savings Routes which were done unofficially for tens of years but then became formalised. Apart from occasional lapses where some controllers still want to try and cut even more corners, they work pretty well.
Some won't do it for operational circumstances which exist at the time and are unknown to external agencies and possibly even other sectors which are adjacent. The refusal of co-ordination is of course the receiving controllers chance to let everyone know why it's not going to happen. Whether they all do this, is another thing.
And finally some won't do it because the probability of the guy way down the line sending a pilot direct and telling him he will have to drop outside Controlled Airspace is almost zero. The controller receiving the aircraft is then left with asking the pilot what service he requires and on the receiving end of some grumpiness when the pilot says he can't accept ATSOCAS or demands a higher service than available.
The best way forward is to formalise any commonly used routes after appropriate consultation and deliberation. It's then in procedures and conforms. It also has an analysis which shows it is safe. And finally, it makes the airlines happy, as well as the occasional grumpy sod in ATC
Topjet, if you don't want to be patronised don't be first to use the head banger smiley?
As 10W sagely says there are reasons that aren't evident externally. Aside from sheer bloody-mindedness (the stated cause here) a few others come to mind. Gun shyness having been bitten recently by direct tracking & you see a similar scenario, wanting to keep ones nose clean due to another incident, a supervisor with a bug up his arse. Been there done all that.
The best way forward *is* to formalise it, then everyone knows where they stand.
You might find the "lawyer card" boring but managers don't, it's the lingo they understand. If a procedure isn't officially sanctioned you *will* be hanged by it when the wheels fall off.
As 10W sagely says there are reasons that aren't evident externally. Aside from sheer bloody-mindedness (the stated cause here) a few others come to mind. Gun shyness having been bitten recently by direct tracking & you see a similar scenario, wanting to keep ones nose clean due to another incident, a supervisor with a bug up his arse. Been there done all that.
The best way forward *is* to formalise it, then everyone knows where they stand.
You might find the "lawyer card" boring but managers don't, it's the lingo they understand. If a procedure isn't officially sanctioned you *will* be hanged by it when the wheels fall off.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Out of a bag
Posts: 659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly sounds like it!
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Informa...ice2012031.pdf
Originally Posted by The CAA Website
The CAA has become aware that ad-hoc procedures may be being used, for example, during periods of low traffic such as those that can occur overnight.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Down South
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as i'm concerned i am using a procedure that is approved and risk assessed. Its called "co-ordination" where everyone agrees and knows what is going on.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: U.K
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAPIX-WELIN+REFSO-WELIN are night time fuel saving routes as written down in MATS part 2 and have laid down procedures so as long as we're within 5nm of these routes then we are still good to give these directs I will be.
I will be.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got a 43metre shortcut....what you complaining about 
1985 - Well said, but you should know the good old days of co-ordination to actually do something that was either good for you or the customer are probably kicking their final death throes in these days of corporate liability, systemisation and non-conformance.
I fondly remember the caveat which allowed you to do anything as long as you co-ordinated...."Nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in any particular circumstance".
As more tools become available there will be less room for manoeuvre, less direct routing and more tools to help us maintain a "flexible" ATC system.
1985 - Well said, but you should know the good old days of co-ordination to actually do something that was either good for you or the customer are probably kicking their final death throes in these days of corporate liability, systemisation and non-conformance.
I fondly remember the caveat which allowed you to do anything as long as you co-ordinated...."Nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in any particular circumstance".
As more tools become available there will be less room for manoeuvre, less direct routing and more tools to help us maintain a "flexible" ATC system.
