Evening ATC operations question!
 

Hi Guys,
I've just noticed that from the turn of this year ATC operations at my local International Airport has change in that at night, the same controller works both radar and tower communications at the same time and passes flights between the two frequencies.
Is this normal and does it work without problems or is it a cost cutting exercise?
And does it mean that the one controller operates from the tower with a visual of the airfield whilst also having a radar screen to refer to?

Depending on the local operating procedures of the ATC unit, be it Tower, Approach and/or Area, sectors (and subsequent frequencies) can be combined day or night depending on the operational requirements.
As long as the ATC is qualified/rated on each sector, that is.

Southampton?

Sorry, it is in the UK at EGNT.
Obviously the workload is lighter at night with fewer arrivals and departures but it seemed only to have started this year. Is it to cut costs or simply an operational decision?

To cut costs. Suddenly, what used to be considered, for good reason, to be unacceptable is now justified on an individual unit basis. You start with the desired outcome and work the logic backwards to justify it.

2 s

Is this way of working ever likely to be unsafe?
Could it, in practice, ever jeopardise the safety of an aircraft and it's cargo?
Presumably the 'powers that be' have done an in depth study to prove not?

Seems to have happened at EGPK too.

It was a significant - perhaps the major - contributing factor relating to a middair at Uberlingen a few years ago.

Where I work, combining positions at the same sector or unit is normal, and acceptable, in light traffic.

Combining two completely different sectors I'd consider to be unduly risky. Because the combination of factors that could bring about "undue risk" might only happen a few times a year (or month), I guess the bean counters have decided it's acceptable. Safety cases tend to be internal, and can have quite subjective interpretations, depending on who is doing it.

To anyone who finds themselves having to work two sectors, try and keep a robust scan going. If you can combine the required info onto one display, or at least displays at one operating position (rather than having to lean or walk from one to the other) and combine the frequencies, that can help.

In my experience, we aren't that well trained in how to manage the unusual, or high-demand situations. A few tips and tricks from those who have had to do it are worth a bit.

Hit nail firmly on the head there 2 sheds. That's the way it had been going for the past several years where I used to work (I'm now retired thankfully).

A classic example 'of one size does not fit all'!

How ridiculous that a Unit awaiting one aircraft should require two controllers, one in tower and one in radar. A radar rated tower controller with modern radar displays can easily position an aircraft on to an ILS.

The rule was invented in the days of radar controllers working in darkened rooms. It was clearly an appropriate rule in those days but not in 2015!

The use of radar by a tower controller merely requires appropriate risk management, followed by strict application of the procedures so designed.

I would rather have the tower controller providing a limited radar service [to limited traffic] than have the tower controller reading a newspaper, watching TV or merely immersed in conversation......all possible distractions to the job in hand.

H49

...thus failing to observe the runway incursion occurring at the same time!

2 s

Wasn't the Tower ATCO at Lexington doing something else when Comair 5191 lined up on the wrong runway?

I have found this thread interesting.

While there is possibly a case to be made in limited circumstances (subject to a safety case) where an ATCO holding both ratings (APP Radar and AMC) could perform a "safe" operation.

Aviation is safe primarily because it uses evolution with harsh lessons to develop and refine its procedures.

All too often today the subtleties get lost in the mix.

An increasing number of decision makers lack practical experience in real life ATC operations.
Their understanding of the practical use of; application of and the imitations of technology being the most obvious.

One only has to look at some of the comments in other threads about the lack of understanding in some quarters as to what is possible/feasible/realistic or even safe.

I believe it's just a trial allowed by the CAA at certain airfields with low traffic density ie late at night/early morning; it's not (yet) a permanent thing and won't happen during 'normal' daytime traffic levels.

The airports which are trialling this have presumably installed approach radar equipment in the VCR, or is it being done on the aerodrome traffic monitor?
Do modern ATMs display Mode S information?

Zooker, they can do, yes.

But then not all approach radar displays show Mode S downlinked data.

Pretty standard now in a few UK airports at night.....here's the Newcastle and Edinburgh NOTAM


Q) EGPX/QSPLT/IV/BO/A/000/999/5502N00141W005
B) FROM: 14/12/23 21:30C) TO: 15/03/31 07:00
E) RADAR AND TOWER MAY BE PROVIDED AS A COMBINED FUNCTION. INBOUND AND
TRANSIT AIRCRAFT SHOULD CONTINUE TO CALL ON 124.375 MHZ, AND
OUTBOUND AIRCRAFT ON 119.7 MHZ.
SCHEDULE: 2130-0700
C6537/14
Q) EGPX/QSPLT/IV/BO/A/000/999/5502N00141W005


E) EDINBURGH RADAR AND TOWER MAY BE PROVIDED AS A COMBINED SERVICE
WITH COUPLED FREQUENCIES. INBOUND AND OVERFLYING AIRCRAFT SHOULD CTC
EDINBURGH RADAR ON 121.2 MHZ. OUTBOUND AIRCRAFT SHOULD CTC EDINBURGH
TOWER ON 118.7 MHZ.
SCHEDULE: 0000-0530
A4162/14

UK MATS Part1 CAP493 is fairly clear on this:

Funny how many of the rules no longer apply when they are too expensive to be convenient.

The units doing it have a dispensation from the CAA to trial it. I guess with a view that the rules will be changed in due course. It is subject to risk assesments and strict procedures and training. And its been common practice in other European countries for some years.

Also, it was the UK's largest ANSP that drove this change with the CAA.

Ah yes, of course. I can't speak for the CAA, but I do know at first hand that where I worked these "risk assessments" etc. were more often than not conveniently manipulated in order to ensure the necessary results.