Thames/Heathrow - G-LIZZ: It weren't me, honest!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: HANTS
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I'm afraid Mad Jock you are still talking total crap.The jobbing ATCO has no say over getting up late or getting away early or any of the other spurious bs you've seen fit to try and legitimise with the use of quotation marks.You may well want to address management regarding staffing provision but I couldn't possibly comment.
As for your dismissal of HD 's comments,well they are actually completely relevant to the present day operation.
As for your dismissal of HD 's comments,well they are actually completely relevant to the present day operation.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJ,
We used to encourage the GA community to go flying early (7am) on a Sunday morning,and not once did they ever take it up.The ATCOs were there due to the opening hours of the airport and minimum staffing.Our break was a day shift and NO fat in the system.
The answer I got one more than one occasion was that they were recovering from their hangovers the night before.Yet they would complain when messed around at busy times during the week.
We used to encourage the GA community to go flying early (7am) on a Sunday morning,and not once did they ever take it up.The ATCOs were there due to the opening hours of the airport and minimum staffing.Our break was a day shift and NO fat in the system.
The answer I got one more than one occasion was that they were recovering from their hangovers the night before.Yet they would complain when messed around at busy times during the week.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One (hopefully) final thing.
If the controller I spoke to would like to call on my mobile 07785 503543
If the controller I spoke to would like to call on my mobile 07785 503543
- I will apologise in person for any upset.
- I will explain the situation from my side.
- I will not tell anyone that you have done so, unless you clear me to do so.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timothy,
When I was in Nats any problems had to go through Watch Management.
I would raise a STAR report,submit it to Watch Management and that would go to training and ops for investigation.It would be then published with the findings etc.I'm sure the process is similar in other units.
If the controller chose not to file then I think you will have a long wait.I certainly would not stray from that process.
When I was in Nats any problems had to go through Watch Management.
I would raise a STAR report,submit it to Watch Management and that would go to training and ops for investigation.It would be then published with the findings etc.I'm sure the process is similar in other units.
If the controller chose not to file then I think you will have a long wait.I certainly would not stray from that process.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the investigation has been very thorough and I am expecting to receive a letter from NATS management explaining it in detail. I am very impressed by, and grateful for, how seriously senior NATS management have taken this.
I think that we all agree that the fundamental issue was that the Class D zone itself was undermanned, in that one position was dealing with two zones and an area.
Thus, I could not get access not because there was not "room" in the Zone, but because the individual position was too overwhelmed by unrelated traffic to provide service in the City Zone and had been instructed not accept pop-up traffic, as a matter of procedure and principle, rather than based on airspace capacity.
The question, and I do think that this is a question for the CAA and DfT rather than NATS, is whether that's "OK".
I think that the GA community feels very strongly that access should be provided if the airspace has capacity, and that the duty on the controlling authority is to ensure that the lack of capacity is not limited by controller workload.
So the question moves on from what happened last Sunday, which cannot be changed now, to a matter of policy.
The GA community is already aware of one Zone/Area where agreements have been made to bandbox APP and TWR to the detriment of Zone access, and we are acutely aware of the threat to GA in the South East if the Farnborough airspace comes into being and then access is limited by anything other than physical airspace and IFR/IFR and IFR/VFR separation.
If there is a move towards, on the one hand, undermanning zones and, on the other, over prescriptive VFR/VFR separation resulting from "Duty of Care" considerations, then this must be a matter of consultation and debate, not of a gentle slide of culture.
I do understand that Thames/Heathrow has acute problems arising out of training for the LL Class D reclassification, and the wider adoption of SERA, and, under those circumstances there are bound to be periods of thin staffing, but I would say that if that is a case a NOTAM should be promulgated announcing that there are service reductions.
I have done my personal bit to mitigate future problems by filing an NSF, but that is not the principle issue. We must have a robust mechanism for dealing with reasonable pop-up requests as well.
The person I do feel sorry for is the controller at the time.
We've all done it. We know that the employee we are dealing with at the time...the call-centre operator, the waiter, the nurse, whatever...is powerless themselves to provide a better service, being tied down by company policy and procedures, but, nonetheless, we have flown off the handle at that person because they are the only point of contact with the organisation and the only possible source of an immediate remedy, as opposed to a long-term solution, which doesn't ameliorate the situation at hand.
And, later, having had the encounter, and having calmed down, we are all sorry that we have flown off the handle at someone who is not to blame.
It is that sorrow and apology that I would like to extend to the individual controller, whichever end of the bargepole he wishes to sit...so either this is my apology, or it is available by phone...his choice
I think that we all agree that the fundamental issue was that the Class D zone itself was undermanned, in that one position was dealing with two zones and an area.
Thus, I could not get access not because there was not "room" in the Zone, but because the individual position was too overwhelmed by unrelated traffic to provide service in the City Zone and had been instructed not accept pop-up traffic, as a matter of procedure and principle, rather than based on airspace capacity.
The question, and I do think that this is a question for the CAA and DfT rather than NATS, is whether that's "OK".
I think that the GA community feels very strongly that access should be provided if the airspace has capacity, and that the duty on the controlling authority is to ensure that the lack of capacity is not limited by controller workload.
So the question moves on from what happened last Sunday, which cannot be changed now, to a matter of policy.
The GA community is already aware of one Zone/Area where agreements have been made to bandbox APP and TWR to the detriment of Zone access, and we are acutely aware of the threat to GA in the South East if the Farnborough airspace comes into being and then access is limited by anything other than physical airspace and IFR/IFR and IFR/VFR separation.
If there is a move towards, on the one hand, undermanning zones and, on the other, over prescriptive VFR/VFR separation resulting from "Duty of Care" considerations, then this must be a matter of consultation and debate, not of a gentle slide of culture.
I do understand that Thames/Heathrow has acute problems arising out of training for the LL Class D reclassification, and the wider adoption of SERA, and, under those circumstances there are bound to be periods of thin staffing, but I would say that if that is a case a NOTAM should be promulgated announcing that there are service reductions.
I have done my personal bit to mitigate future problems by filing an NSF, but that is not the principle issue. We must have a robust mechanism for dealing with reasonable pop-up requests as well.
The person I do feel sorry for is the controller at the time.
We've all done it. We know that the employee we are dealing with at the time...the call-centre operator, the waiter, the nurse, whatever...is powerless themselves to provide a better service, being tied down by company policy and procedures, but, nonetheless, we have flown off the handle at that person because they are the only point of contact with the organisation and the only possible source of an immediate remedy, as opposed to a long-term solution, which doesn't ameliorate the situation at hand.
And, later, having had the encounter, and having calmed down, we are all sorry that we have flown off the handle at someone who is not to blame.
It is that sorrow and apology that I would like to extend to the individual controller, whichever end of the bargepole he wishes to sit...so either this is my apology, or it is available by phone...his choice
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume that's meant to be funny, but I am simply trying to underline that just because NATS classifies a particular type of activity at the bottom of it's heap, and some may think that "sightseeing" is a marginal activity of no consequence, it ain't necessarily so.
This is the charity involved. It helps people on the street, who may be there because of mental illness, despair or their families have disowned them, by giving them food, clothes, shelter, education and opportunity.
Yes, I raise a fair bit of money for them with these flights, yes that money is very well used and yes, they may well be the losers.
This is the charity involved. It helps people on the street, who may be there because of mental illness, despair or their families have disowned them, by giving them food, clothes, shelter, education and opportunity.
Yes, I raise a fair bit of money for them with these flights, yes that money is very well used and yes, they may well be the losers.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thames/Heathrow - G-LIZZ: It weren't me, honest!
Then maybe the CAA would clear you for Cat B priority for humanitarian purposes? You would have no problem getting access if that's the case.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At a Zone not far from Swanwick, is my understanding.
Squawk 7500, are you convinced that you are adding anything to either the content or the tone of the discussion?
Squawk 7500, are you convinced that you are adding anything to either the content or the tone of the discussion?
The Passage looks like a very worthwhile charity so I had to make a small contribution in compensation for the times I have not been allowed to provide access to available airspace.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now the discussion has moved from London to the south coast I'll not participate any further except to say that at some airfields TWR and APC have been bandboxed since the year dot..
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
northernboyo, things have moved on to wider issues of access to Class D airspace. There are dark rumours (that is to say, I have heard but have no evidence) that access to Solent is being limited, or is going to be limited by controller capacity. That is exactly the issue I had at City, so it is entirely relevant.
Squawk 7500, so long as there is a prioritisation of traffic, the cargo is relevant.
Someone at DAP/SARG and someone at NATS have sat down and decided a hierarchy of priority, with ambulances and presidents near the top and NSF and pleasure flights right at the bottom.
They may feel that that is entirely justified, but in that decision do they have all the information? Yes, someone may die if the ambulance doesn't get through, but reducing funding to a homeless charity has consequences too.
So I say that it is also entirely relevant.
Squawk 7500, so long as there is a prioritisation of traffic, the cargo is relevant.
Someone at DAP/SARG and someone at NATS have sat down and decided a hierarchy of priority, with ambulances and presidents near the top and NSF and pleasure flights right at the bottom.
They may feel that that is entirely justified, but in that decision do they have all the information? Yes, someone may die if the ambulance doesn't get through, but reducing funding to a homeless charity has consequences too.
So I say that it is also entirely relevant.