Fair point BEXIL. The 42/60 I alluded to in respect ot the Galloway sector is indeed the TSF. We are told that this is set at 80% of the sector capacity. If we could be assured that traffic is evenly presented to us over a given 60 minute period we would be able to handle the sector capacity of 51 without much problem. Of course that doesn't happen, there are always 'clumps' of traffic and also the possibility of something unusual happening like an emergency.

"Good explaination of the rather ridiculous Talla sector split we have at the moment. The frequency of Talla North is shared with Deancross North (not high) so it is a case of fingers crossed that we don't need both sectors open at the same time. How they've got away with this half-arsed arrangement God only knows."

Balix, I've read many of your recent posts with interest. Some points you make are well said but some of them cause me concern, and the above certainly does. I find your comments offensive in that they do not recognise the professional manner in which your TTCs protect the whole operation and ensure that keeping "fingers crossed" is not a factor in maintaining safety. By all means point out the shortcomings of the system, but do not scaremonger.

And as for MDIs always lasting less than an hour.....

CC has a permanent MDI for all HONILEY and LISTO departures (1 per 3 on each route) every day between 0700L and 0815L.

I would like to believe that this was nothing to do with meeting destination whatever-it-is (and everything to do with protecting the sectors) but I'm afraid that I can't make that leap of faith! We are always under trenmendous pressure not to flow traffic in or out of CC at any time - but MDIs are frequently imposed during the traffic surges, and often for more than an hour.

Thats nothing-MACC have a long term MDI that lasts for 3 HOURS in the morning and 3 HOURS in the afternoon, 1 every 5 out of EGNX northbound!! 30 mins my a*$e!!!

Talla Radar

Apologies for sending out the wrong signals. Believe me, I'm not having a go at the TTCs or indeed any of the watch management teams that have to somehow cope this part time piece of sectorisation. Indeed, the 'fingers crossed' comment was not alluding to the safety of the system but the hassle that we all face, TTCs, sector controllers and ATSAs in running part time sectors. I have a lot of sympathy with the TTCs.

When it gets down to it, though, Talla should have been properly resectorised, properly equipped and properly staffed. I'm not scaremongering, simply frustrated.

Right now we have NO access to the flight deck and it doesn't look good for getting it back anytime soon...

regards

Scott

"I would say that 99.6% of the paid pilots couldn't be bothered to come out on a day off."

Operative term, day off. When ATC used to fam with us, it was on guv time. If it was a day off they were headed to Vegas or family reunions, etc. Just as with controllers, my time off is my time off, I try not to think about aviation unless I'm being paid to do so.

Balix,

When you have finished your nasty scaremongering, can I enquire whether you will be employing those finely crafted suggestions from the new, anonymous TMA working group? :8

I, for one, feel that by not removing speed control, keeping aircraft on the SIDs and by not allowing anyone else to phone me for coord I can deliver the extra capacity to more easily manage that exciting morning rush on GAL. Not. :mad:

I think that generally we are well protected by our TTCs (although we lack a little consistency between watches); however, with our TLA split we have only addressed half the problem with the TMA. As it will need money to find an effective, holistic solution, I think that it is unlikely that we will see any improvement.

Cynically yours with a flat strip board,

Sad

Oh Sad One...

I think you are even more cynical than I am :rolleyes:

Seriously, I didn't used to be a grumpy old man. But time has taken care of the 'old' bit and recent developments in our ops room have not done anything to delay the onset of grumpyness. Oh, and I'm not looking for promotion so I don't mind if I piss off unit management by moaning about it on Pruune. I'm certain they know who I am...

But Talla Radar has a point and I should have expressed my concerns in a way that didn't appear to the casual observer that safety is in the hands of the gods. And no, I don't mean the Watch Managers :}

Oh, and my strip board is always propped up with a strip holder. But I'm ever so glad that it has been pointed out to me by the ops boys that the bottom two inches of the display are no longer visible if I do that. I wondered where they had gone :E

It was not like that in my day:E .But hey lets drag Tay down because the TMA are trying to use a less than perfect system:mad: Is it really that difficult for a "P" man to answer a telephone and say climb approved.

AyrTC

Would I be right in thinking that Scottish imposing MDI,s is the equivalent of EDI holding at Tweed and Stira.

I see this thread is titled 'today at EDI and always....'

Could I ask EDI ATC two quick questions?

1. You always used 6 miles before you got your Runway end taxiways 'in case someone misses the turn and has to backtrack'. Now the RET's are operational it's still six. Why no change?

2. Why do you take no notice of the wind? ie using the 6 mile gap means approaching a/c can take vastly longer to reach the airfield when there is 60kt Head Wind over the Firth than they do when it's still air. I've seen the queue build up some mornings with gigantic pauses between a/c getting cleared to go.

Thanks

BF - You seem to have a very poor memory as both of your EDI questions were replied to in one of your previous topics two months ago: "EDI Approaches".

Although EDI now has a full length taxiway, we still don't have RET's; hence why we still need 5 to 6 miles between landing a/c.

The point about strong headwinds is an interesting one. If we're dealing with medium-size jets (73's/75's/A320's etc) then I agree that final approach spacing could be reduced to 4.5/5 miles. However, as soon as you get Dash 8's, D328's and Saab 340's landing with a strong headwind they end up virtually stopping at the midpoint and then taking a considerable amount of time to vacate the runway. At times like these 6 mile gaps is almost not enough!

As EDI gets busier we're going to need to utilise the runway far more efficiently, employing similar techniques to Manchester and the London airports.

What we need is another one of those Pilot/ATCO forum thingy's where you can tell us what you'd like to see and we can tell you why it ain't being done.

Feel free to drop by the tower anytime for a vist.

Swift

Swift
THanks for your reply. My memory plainly ain't what it was but I still don't see why, since backtracking will not be required due to being able to roll to the end, that you've stuck with the six miles.

Specifically, if there is nothing waiting to depart, I am completely mystified by your assertion that you still need 5-6 miles gap. Even still air. Why? How long do you think it takes for a landing a/c to vacate the runway? (especially as most still dont go to the end anyway!

Thanks for your comments on the wind. I hadn't thought about really slow a/c needing to speed up to get off at the intersection! However you've ignored my q. about taking the wind into account generally.

I agree with your comment about needing to improve your utilisation of the runway. It's painfully slow at the moment. I'll come up to the tower soon for another look round but you need to go somewhere else too and the same for your colleagues because nowhere is as slow as EDI!:{

I see brain fart is still slagging off EDI ATC without justification.
The 6 mile gaps were never "in case one missed the turn". If an arrival was expected to miss the turn (A340, VC10, B741, etc) 6 miles was not enough. Yes, if there a strong headwind there was plenty of room for a landing clearance, but that's not the whole story.
An aircraft taking off into a strong headwind makes less headway than one taking off into still wind. If 4 miles gaps were used between arrivals in strong headwind situations, every departure would lose separation from the departures ahead and behind.

Lock n load.
So you need six mile gaps even if there's not going to be one launched in between. That what you're saying?

Oh for a straight answer.

Well, both are a result of too many aircraft fitting into a given bit of airspace at any one time but there the similarities end. The holding happens when more aircraft arrive at the holding fixes than can be accepted by Edinburgh on a free flow basis. Aircraft enter the hold and await their turn.

MDIs, on te other hand, are a way of spreading out the outbound traffic that could otherwise overload the Galloway sector.

No, brain fart. When I was there, my watch routinely went to 4 mile gaps when there were no departures, and we weren't alone in that.

Lock n' load
There's little evidence of '4' these days but I agree that it happens now and then. On the other hand its not at all unusual for Paris to launch a 747/340 etc when we are at 2.5 miles which is the sort of thing you don't often see at EDI!

I don't quite get what you're saying about loss of seperation. departing a/c move faster than landers so
1. wouldn't seperation be increasing
2. Not a problem elsewhere, as outlined above, so why at EDI?

Wish I'd thought of 'Brain Fart' myself. In British armed forces we use the term 'Ready' instead of the rather girly 'Lock and Load'. Why use three words when one will suffice?

Didn't you see Swifts comment about trying to achieve better runway utilisation? I agree with him. How exactly this is achieved is up to ATC I suppose. I simply pointed out a few obvious things which look to me like areas that might yield some improvement. However, as usual, back comes the usual defensive diatribe. Are you saying it is so hot at EDI that it can't be improved? Don't make me laugh!:confused:

BF - If you have departures you need a 5/6 mile gap, if you don't then 3/4 miles should suffice.

When there are no departures the tower controller should instruct the radar controller to pack inbound a/c to minimum vortex spacing.

However, EDI has still to master the art employed at TC and Manch of pack-one, gap-one (etc), when there are just a few outbounds but a load of inbounds. Although some controllers endeavour to expedite the traffic in this manner there are no procedures/guidance laid down at EDI to facilitate this method of working.':rolleyes:'