|
Originally Posted by good egg
(Post 9856077)
An interesting point. But, realistically speaking, I can see the day (not too far off) when Approach Control is basically a monitoring function - for when sh*t happens.
Every ANSP wants to squeeze costs, which is done by more aircraft with same/less "controllers". Yes, in bad weather, arrival rates will suffer but in "normal weather" (which, statistically speaking, is the norm) then the reliance will be on technology, with minimal ATCO input. It's what the world (customer) wants....cheap fares, OTP, etc., etc. Same goes for Tower controllers....more (accurate) info on arrival touchdown times with warnings provided about when it's safe to clear a departure for take-off etc, until it too is a monitoring function. Technology creep, first "tools" to assist controllers, then automation/ATC being "monitors". Not always a bad thing, however - humans make random errors (I'm human, I make them). We're closer now to the "monitoring function"/"only take over in emergency situation" than we've ever been. Ye olde controllers will say "yes, but when I started X years ago we were all told that we'd be (effectively) out of a job in 20 years" due to this 'techno creep'. Now, more than ever, this is true. Less ATCOs, less cost. 90% of the time it'll work better/more efficiently/with less cost, and equally safely (if not better). It's what happens with the other 10% that matters... |
And exactly how current will you be to jump in when the **** hits the fan after sitting on your *ss and monitoring for 90% of your working hours?:hmm:
|
Originally Posted by Surferboy
(Post 9856159)
And exactly how current will you be to jump in when the **** hits the fan after sitting on your *ss and monitoring for 90% of your working hours?:hmm:
|
I've already tested a tool on our electronic strip system that will tell the controller the earliest time of rotation to achieve wake separation based on the rotation time of the leader.
It's part of a SESAR 2020 project. When we go to pair-wise wake separation for departure, no controller is going to be able to cope without tool support. |
Originally Posted by Gonzo
(Post 9856210)
I've already tested a tool on our electronic strip system that will tell the controller the earliest time of rotation to achieve wake separation based on the rotation time of the leader.
It's part of a SESAR 2020 project. When we go to pair-wise wake separation for departure, no controller is going to be able to cope without tool support. ...if only there were more like you on here (within recent working memory...) |
Sadly our job is not to keep our job fun.
If it was I'd still be doing bandboxed ground in the old tower with paper strips, or 09R Deps passing out non-standard CPTs with ten conditionals. Our job is to safely move the traffic, and try and cone up with ways of doing it better, cheaper, quicker and making that flow of traffic more predictable. |
Originally Posted by Gonzo
(Post 9856210)
no controller is going to be able to cope without tool support
Originally Posted by Gonzo
(Post 9856314)
If it was I'd still be doing bandboxed ground in the old tower with paper strips, or 09R Deps passing out non-standard CPTs with ten conditionals
|
Originally Posted by Gonzo
(Post 9856314)
Sadly our job is not to keep our job fun.
If it was I'd still be doing bandboxed ground in the old tower with paper strips, or 09R Deps passing out non-standard CPTs with ten conditionals. Our job is to safely move the traffic, and try and cone up with ways of doing it better, cheaper, quicker and making that flow of traffic more predictable. |
TDM, if you think you could remember a vortex table which is a 96x96 matrix, with departure separations in 10s increments for each individual type pairing, no more categories, can we use you in the sim?
For example, B772 followed by A321 might be 80s, but followed by an A320 it might be 90. Stick a B773 in the lead, and it becomes maybe 90s and 100s respectively. |
Originally Posted by good egg
(Post 9856200)
That's what regulations are for...
Because regulations have immediate effect? :ugh: And try explaining that to our 'customers' the airlines. :ok: |
Originally Posted by UNIFO
(Post 9856567)
2 Questions:
1. Any change to landing rate and delay when a airport change from vectoring to point merge? 2. If ATCOs are sitting all day to monitor until **** happens, can the ATCO still provide reasonable service? I imagine if an atco is sitting in front of the machine for a few years and all of sudden he/she needs to provide conventional service or radar vectors, can the atco still provide a safe atc service? 1. Almost certainly no improvement 2. It will probably lead to the same de-skilling among ATCOs that has led to "the computers won't allow this aircraft to crash" mentality in some less experienced pilots. It seems some posters are drinking too much SESAR Kool Aid! |
Originally Posted by Gonzo
(Post 9856554)
TDM, if you think you could remember
Happy to leave it all to you blokes in waistcoats and cravats. You're doing a grand job. Gotta go, the nurse is coming... |
Originally Posted by Talkdownman
(Post 9856681)
Not whilst coffin-dodging in Alzheimersville...
Happy to leave it all to you blokes in waistcoats and cravats. You're doing a grand job. Gotta go, the nurse is coming... |
If you're cleared altitude is the platform altitude I.e 26L 2000ft you will be given 'cleared ILS approach'
If descended to something other than that such as 3000ft which we usually are, then you will be given 'when established on the localiser, descend with the glide path 26L'. |
"Oh don't sound so dreary about it...I think it's called "challenge".....;)"
Excellent post good egg........'Challenges' and 'Solutions'.......Top management 'buzz-words'.........I bet the phrase 'Going Forward' features in your vocabulary too....With monotonous regularity? |
Originally Posted by ZOOKER
(Post 9857356)
"Oh don't sound so dreary about it...I think it's called "challenge".....;)"
Excellent post good egg........'Challenges' and 'Solutions'.......Top management 'buzz-words'.........I bet the phrase 'Going Forward' features in your vocabulary too....With monotonous regularity? |
Well, my viewpoint is trying to preserve The U.K's reputation as the best 'Global ANSP'.
Because, if EGLL keeps trying to squeeze 2 Quarts into a Pint Pot, one day it will go t*ts-up big time.......And our reputation as a 'Global Leader' will be gone.........Forever.. |
Originally Posted by ZOOKER
(Post 9857485)
Well, my viewpoint is trying to preserve The U.K's reputation as the best 'Global ANSP'.
Because, if EGLL keeps trying to squeeze 2 Quarts into a Pint Pot, one day it will go t*ts-up big time.......And our reputation as a 'Global Leader' will be gone.........Forever.. |
"Global leader"!!!! I think we are behind already. The companies Innovation is good, however the development are implemention stages tend to be, shall we say challenging!!, (management speak).
Not having the staff to develop ideas is most definitely causing problems, resulting in under training, and implementation of equipment and procedures that are not fit for purpose. Back to the topic, RNAV routes, point merge etc etc, will help the approach sequence, however ATC will never be just a monitoring job. Why do we have inbound and outbound bulges of traffic, because that's when people want to fly. Airlines are not in the business of flying empty planes just to ensure ATC can sit back and monitor a lovely sequence. Question on the vortex wake tool that was mentioned. This will obviously increase time between departures, how does that fit in with the current ethos at Gatwick of 60 movements an hour off the single runway??? |
Originally Posted by ZOOKER
(Post 9857485)
Because, if EGLL keeps trying to squeeze 2 Quarts into a Pint Pot, one day it will go t*ts-up big time.......
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:31. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.