BBC Scotland - Air Traffic Control " needs massive modernisation."
 

The following article was included in the BBC Scottish News on 30 June.

Air traffic control 'needs massive modernisation' - BBC News

My home on PPRUNE is in Spectators' Gallery but I thought the article might be of interest to those employed in the industry.

Incidentally, I am intrigued as to what, in practical terms,the author of the sentence ( 4th paragraph ) " But it says government support is needed to improve the network of "ageing" flightpaths", is hoping to achieve.

It is a very high level comment that means that the government needs to grow a pair and stop the public taking control of saying "no". Naturally, no one wants to have new routes flying over their houses so every time a new proposal is consulted, there is an overwhelming resistance from the public so the proposals are denied. The current route structure cannot handle the amounts of traffic that are expected to be flying in the very near future so needs to be changed, either that or there will be outrage (from the public) about the amount of delays caused by ATC.......

A similar theme is repeated here. I'm not really surprised either. What is surprising is that our current method of looking at ATC has not really changed that much over the past few years. Unfortunately the solution depends on a fresh thinking and a great dollop of imagination and this had shown to be lacking in the upper levels of NATS.

There are some immediate gains, but admittedly small ones, that can be made now. From the top of my head we could be given less micro-management of headings. A fair degree of headings just mimic our planned track which we would follow without intervention. Another is the constant statement of our passing of our passing level and readback of cleared level on handover. In a Mode S world these things are known or at least should be.

As for the future how about airways? I say ditch every one of them. What purpose do they serve? And SIDs and STARs. Do we really need them? And providing there is little extra noise, let's keep the public out of this. So once we have traffic going in-interrupted from A to B let it go, only interfere if it is going to bump into something. And even then, only get one to change. Then to back-up decision making, flow prediction software should then be able to predict times for arrivals and departures at boundaries. The difficult and complex job of controllers will still be weaving the arrivals and departures into the "flow", but at least they will have less to listen to and less to say.

Hopefully such things are being worked on now. I'll know some big thinking is happening when "big thinking" decends to trivia such as ATIS information. Do I really need to know "there is increased bird activity at the airfield" at 10:30pm (and increased by how much; 7% or 43%? Or threshold elevation. What on earth do I do with that number?).

The above is not me having a pop at ATC. I find UK ATC a helpful and pragmatic bunch but always feel they are constrained by some pretty limiting rules. Not until these change will improvements be possible.

PM

PM, I think you'll find every one of your suggestions, and many more, are already being worked on, and have been for many years.

Gonzo - That is some good news I was hoping to hear.

PM

Gawd build 'em a new control centre a few years ago and they're moaning already!

Radar separation should not be attempted unless all the relevant aircraft are on radar headings. Having one on a radar heading against one on its own navigation is asking for trouble. There is NO GUARANTEE at all that an aircraft its own nav will follow its planned track.

Ditch AIRWAYS and fly DIRECT, wonderful in theory, just try to get the military to agree.
I wish I have a penny for every wasted mile flown by airlines going around "active" areas in the North Sea which were actually empty.
As for SIDS and STARS, even with the latest generation of very quiet aircraft, try to convince the NIMBY brigade, even though they are the most likely to be those actually flying from their local airport.
Luckily for me, those frustrations ended a year ago, but I am sure my PC colleagues have exactly the same issues on a daily basis

The over crowded skies don't worry me, it's the under crowded ops rooms that are giving me the greatest concern.

Gawd build 'em a new control centre a few years ago and they're moaning already!


Surely time to close it down and move to Swanwick.

Nimmer,
Delighted to come and help out if need-be.

A few of us saw this coming about 25 years ago. Mentioning it at a 'team-building awayday' mangement-thingy, about 10 years back, the HR bod present didn't seem interested.

And Talkdownman is spot on.......As one of our best unit OJTIs used to say...."For separation purposes, radar headings come in pairs".

Oooh...perhaps that was me...

Could be, Tdm.......Does the waypoint 'YARGO' sound familiar?

Nah. WATFORD, yes...

This is the point I was trying to make about changing the way we work. You believe the above to be true. I totally disagree, the above just a rule and liability issue. Just because you have said "Heading nnn" the chance of us deviating remains unchanged although one could argue it is actually increased. When given "Direct xxxxx" we do just that. We don't wander around the sky for the hell of it, we just let the plane follow the magenta line. And believe me it follows it. Changing wind speed or direction, changing airspeed makes no difference the straight line track (OK, Great Circle) followed across the surface of the will alter the track by a few metres or so. Providing of course we have pressed NAV. Besides, our clearance is to go 'direct to xxxxx' and if we want a variation we have to be cleared. We also have to remember to press HDG if given one. So using your "guaranteed" method you believe you get what you want, but it's just an illusion of control. The downside of micro-managed headings is the constant R/T. Give us a "Direct xxxxx", one readback or CPDLC confirmation and that's it.

PM

Piltdownman, respectfully, I disagre. We are already making steps in the future (well, outside UK at least)

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes...te-airspace_it

https://www.canso.org/merging-free-r...fra-and-seafra

and this is only the small part

PM,

You've highlighted an area where the current regulatory environment doesn't allow what you're proposing, which is why we have to use headings.

It's being worked on. We have to ensure it's safe, conduct simulations and trilals, and that all 'stakeholders', to use that hateful term, are 'aligned', to use another.

We just can't decide to do it tomorrow.

K - For enroute projects this has to be the way to go. Free, direct routing has to be more efficient. But the best plans come unstuck and the challenge will be putting it back together after a disturbance. A couple spring to mind but from a drivers' viewpoint, the worst that happens to us is a missed slot combined with these wretched CDM systems. The moment you get on the wrong side of these things your day goes down the toilet. A more complicated system will give a greater opportunity for the computer to say "No!" If you are involved in the design, would it be possible for the final version to be transparent? At the moment we, like the local controllers, are virtually in the dark when it comes to delays. We are given a story from a faceless, totally unaccountable system that we are unable to reason with. It might not reduce the delay, but at least we have something to tell our passengers (i.e. the ones who actually pay!) as to why they are going to miss their connections, trains home or four hours of holiday.

PM

PM

This maybe the case with yourself and at your airline. Is this the case with every single aircraft in the sky? Definitely not. Hence why headings are used.

Towards the end of the year the UK will get its first PRNAV1 routes which will allow for routes to be put closer together and lessen the use of headings between aircraft which are suitably equipped. However, although this will reduce the use of headings a bit, expect the use of headings within the UK for a long time to come yet.

Would that be the Watford near Garston?