SRATCOH new rules
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Reading
Age: 58
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SRATCOH new rules
Just heard that SRATCOH may will be scrapped next year. Can anyone confirm or deny this madness. ..and what will replace it....if any ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Reading
Age: 58
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My concern is that ...as far as I'm aware...every unit can do their own thing. Bloody stupid idea . I know smaller units will keep the pants out of it . That's the way its going to be irrespective of what SMS says.....limited breaks longer hours...time to retire lol
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I am aware there will be approved SCRATCOH from CAA (EASA?) which will if introduced be an 'acceptable means of compliance' however units will be able to modify to suit their own needs using the SMS and risk assessments etc. And yes I can see it will be open to abuse by less scrupulous operators.
As a retired ATCO, I have no axe to grind; but as a concerned ex professional, I cannot believe what I see & hear in these pages in regards to the continuing potential attrition of safety standards. On another forum, you have the suggestion that separation standards be abandoned in order for a/c to fly in formation & save fuel; & on this one, you have the suggestion that safety regulation should be watered down in order, apparently, to save money. I have to say that I resisted the imposition of SRATCOH for many years at Jersey - on the grounds that it would have left us working more often & at more unsociable times. We lost that battle & had to accept SRATCOH. But now, forget all the reasons why you had to adopt it chaps; it is no longer necessary because the operators find that it is too inflexible & costing them too much money. Or, have I got this wrong ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Reading
Age: 58
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are correct some airfields want cheap ATC to maximise profit....fair enough . But we have had protection for years now from fatigue thru sratcoh. Changing that in any way will allow unsafe practices to slide in under the radar....pardon the pun.
it's a shame that the authorities who come down hard on us for breaking these rules over the years have now capitulated to allow more flexible hours , which will undoubtedly cause safety issues.
Profit should never override peoples safety...let's hope not !
it's a shame that the authorities who come down hard on us for breaking these rules over the years have now capitulated to allow more flexible hours , which will undoubtedly cause safety issues.
Profit should never override peoples safety...let's hope not !
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Down South
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are correct some airfields want cheap ATC to maximise profit....fair enough . But we have had protection for years now from fatigue thru sratcoh. Changing that in any way will allow unsafe practices to slide in under the radar....pardon the pun.
it's a shame that the authorities who come down hard on us for breaking these rules over the years have now capitulated to allow more flexible hours , which will undoubtedly cause safety issues.
Profit should never override peoples safety...let's hope not !
it's a shame that the authorities who come down hard on us for breaking these rules over the years have now capitulated to allow more flexible hours , which will undoubtedly cause safety issues.
Profit should never override peoples safety...let's hope not !
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: roundabout Milton Keynes
Age: 76
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the problems is that SRATCOH is/was a very large sledgehammer to crack a very small nut. When the committee reported, they found ,overall, very little evidence of fatigue being a cause of incidents. But, having measures in place to prevent the possibility seemed sensible. Hence, we got SRATCOH. In the regulatory environment at the time, it was probably the best that they could do.
It is proof positive that one size can't fit all. As Keith rightly said, his unit worked harder (hmm) and longer under under the rules. Could quote several other units that suffered too. Wish I could list all the names I was called at the time for being the poor sod trying to implement it!
Theoretically, a good SMS system should allow units to tailor the requirements to better suit their operations. Interesting to see how that works.
Last thought; the regulatory regime these days is based on "hands off regulation", i.e the companies know their business better than the regulator and should be trusted to apply their SMS correctly and safely. Worked well at Boeing!
It is proof positive that one size can't fit all. As Keith rightly said, his unit worked harder (hmm) and longer under under the rules. Could quote several other units that suffered too. Wish I could list all the names I was called at the time for being the poor sod trying to implement it!
Theoretically, a good SMS system should allow units to tailor the requirements to better suit their operations. Interesting to see how that works.
Last thought; the regulatory regime these days is based on "hands off regulation", i.e the companies know their business better than the regulator and should be trusted to apply their SMS correctly and safely. Worked well at Boeing!
One of the problems is that SRATCOH is/was a very large sledgehammer to crack a very small nut. When the committee reported, they found ,overall, very little evidence of fatigue being a cause of incidents. But, having measures in place to prevent the possibility seemed sensible. Hence, we got SRATCOH. In the regulatory environment at the time, it was probably the best that they could do.
It is proof positive that one size can't fit all. As Keith rightly said, his unit worked harder (hmm) and longer under under the rules. Could quote several other units that suffered too. Wish I could list all the names I was called at the time for being the poor sod trying to implement it!
Theoretically, a good SMS system should allow units to tailor the requirements to better suit their operations. Interesting to see how that works.
Last thought; the regulatory regime these days is based on "hands off regulation", i.e the companies know their business better than the regulator and should be trusted to apply their SMS correctly and safely. Worked well at Boeing!
It is proof positive that one size can't fit all. As Keith rightly said, his unit worked harder (hmm) and longer under under the rules. Could quote several other units that suffered too. Wish I could list all the names I was called at the time for being the poor sod trying to implement it!
Theoretically, a good SMS system should allow units to tailor the requirements to better suit their operations. Interesting to see how that works.
Last thought; the regulatory regime these days is based on "hands off regulation", i.e the companies know their business better than the regulator and should be trusted to apply their SMS correctly and safely. Worked well at Boeing!
Dunregulatin
Were you my mentor on the 'wings' at LATCC on LIC, DTY and CLN plus FIR in '74. If so, you have so much to answer for!!! If not - beg your pardon! Brian W.
Keith
If I remember rightly GATCO pressed for hours regulation after finding that some poor sods at some airfields, particularly in SW England, were working 70hrs plus a week due to staff shortages. Personally at LL I hated the introduction of Scratcoh - it took away the flexibility to do duty swaps, particularly for long distance commuters like me i.e. I sometimes did an afternoon duty then slept at the tower and did the following morning as it saved travelling up and down the A303/M3.
Ayr TC
I'm always bo**ocking the off-spring and his wife for doing overtime at Swanwick - pays for more holidays they say!
Were you my mentor on the 'wings' at LATCC on LIC, DTY and CLN plus FIR in '74. If so, you have so much to answer for!!! If not - beg your pardon! Brian W.
Keith
If I remember rightly GATCO pressed for hours regulation after finding that some poor sods at some airfields, particularly in SW England, were working 70hrs plus a week due to staff shortages. Personally at LL I hated the introduction of Scratcoh - it took away the flexibility to do duty swaps, particularly for long distance commuters like me i.e. I sometimes did an afternoon duty then slept at the tower and did the following morning as it saved travelling up and down the A303/M3.
Ayr TC
I'm always bo**ocking the off-spring and his wife for doing overtime at Swanwick - pays for more holidays they say!
Last edited by Brian 48nav; 25th Nov 2019 at 08:45. Reason: spelling
dunregulatin
Good to hear from you G - I've thought of another sin to add to your penance collection - you did my one day LCE course at LL! As I recall 4 of the candidates were ex-LATCC C Watch, Ray and Mary ( sadly both no longer with us ) and Brian Jones.
I've never forgotten your stories about the Barnsley QNH factory! Rivetting!
All the best
BW
Good to hear from you G - I've thought of another sin to add to your penance collection - you did my one day LCE course at LL! As I recall 4 of the candidates were ex-LATCC C Watch, Ray and Mary ( sadly both no longer with us ) and Brian Jones.
I've never forgotten your stories about the Barnsley QNH factory! Rivetting!
All the best
BW
Brian, I totally agree with you. There can be no doubt that some units needed (& still do) SRATCOH protection - no argument there. But at others (as in my case), ATCOS ruled the roost & fatigue protection was never anywhere near required. In my case, the unit was staffed for very busy Summer weekends. That left an excess of staff at other times. Basically, we had 9 rostered on Sat/Sun & 7 on weekdays. Only a max of 5 were required during the week, so EGs & duties in name only were plentiful. We worked rostered split morn/eve shifts - but it was very rare to work both; & if you did, you came in late & went home early. My record was 8 & a half hours one 7 day period. The average working week was in the region of 25 hrs. No day duties & we finished a duty period (5 days) on an am duty , having started on a pm every other cycle. There was absolutely no barrier to swaps. No wonder no one wanted SRATCOH - which resulted in lots of day duties, no swaps, no EGs & much longer shifts. In the end, we had to accept it because SRG said that they were no longer prepared to license & regulate the aerodrome unless we did. Now, as a result of an apparent whim, ATC can go back to the old system. Good luck to them.
If I remember rightly GATCO pressed for hours regulation after finding that some poor sods at some airfields, particularly in SW England, were working 70hrs plus a week due to staff shortages. Personally at LL I hated the introduction of Scratcoh - it took away the flexibility to do duty swaps, particularly for long distance commuters like me i.e. I sometimes did an afternoon duty then slept at the tower and did the following morning as it saved travelling up and down the A303/M3.
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: far far away
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but are unit ORs not determined by the calculation as listed in CAP670? This lists the positions to be manned and the hours etc. In the smaller units management will now be able to say that less staff are needed and therefore the unit OR can be reduced. Voila - current ATCO shortage cured overnight - simples! The larger ANSP in the UK has various agreements with its staff, starting at certain times for morning shifts restricts the number of hours that individual can work for example. If SRATCOH disappears then I'm sure Prospect will be happy to give up the various agreements that were brought in to prevent fatigue and ensure controllers were fresh for duty. This will be a wet dream for management and bean counters!
Guys, you need to read the organisation requirements in Annex IV 'Part-ATS to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2017/373. I think that it's the' 300 series' organisation requirements which cover fatigue and rostering.
The EU will require ATC service providers to develop a fatigue risk management policy and associated watch rostering system. The CAA plans to publish a new 'human performance' CAP which will include, amongst other items, most of the content of SRATCOH from CAP 670. The plan (as someone mentioned earlier) is that this will act as guidance material for service providers. If they base their policies on the guidance in the new CAP then it gets the rubber stamp. If they want to develop something new then they can but it will be subject to greater scrutiny.
As mentioned earlier, SRATCOH was designed to deal with the Heathrows of this world, in other places it's too heavy handed. The challenge will be for the inspectors to keep an eye on those who might seek to use this as an opportunity for skullduggery.
The EU will require ATC service providers to develop a fatigue risk management policy and associated watch rostering system. The CAA plans to publish a new 'human performance' CAP which will include, amongst other items, most of the content of SRATCOH from CAP 670. The plan (as someone mentioned earlier) is that this will act as guidance material for service providers. If they base their policies on the guidance in the new CAP then it gets the rubber stamp. If they want to develop something new then they can but it will be subject to greater scrutiny.
As mentioned earlier, SRATCOH was designed to deal with the Heathrows of this world, in other places it's too heavy handed. The challenge will be for the inspectors to keep an eye on those who might seek to use this as an opportunity for skullduggery.