Heathrow Director
 

Quick question about Heathrow Director frequency 119.725.

Was flying into LHR the other night around 7pm, LHR was reasonably busy and while on Director frequency there appeared to be two seperate controllers working the frequency. Curious if this is standard practise or if was just a shift change or controller under training.

Can't recall having ever previously heard two controllers simultaneously controlling one frequency like that before. Both controllers controlling the same flight as well, with instructions following for the same callsign from both controllers, not just one talking to north traffic and one for south traffic.

Thanks in advance.

One of the voices is that of the Approach controller who will be present when it is particularly busy or, for various reasons, the frequency for BNN/LAM is combined with the frequency for OCK/BIG. He/she will answer your first call e.g if holding is required or to issue descent clearance if you are already in the hold. This controller also liaises with adjacent sectors and can fine tune the approach sequence to minimize wake separation on final approach.

The other voice is the radar controller, known as the Intermediate Director, who will issue all the heading/speed instructions.

Thanks for the information, that does seem to correspond to what I heard on the radio alright.

Out of interest though in times of high levels of holding how come the frequency isn't just split into holding and intermediate approach like at other airports with a holding controller?

Also how does two controllers work in practise, I assume they are both sitting next to each other? Who decides who gets to talk next, and how the plan is going to work as the frequency is full, there's hardly a gap to be had in transmissions for there to be time between the two of them to liaise.

Just curious as it seems like a rather unusual set up with two controllers, although obviously it works very well, LHR is the best controlled airport in the world in my experience, and perhaps if there are advantages in having two controllers work the same frequency it's a model that could be copied to other, less organised airports, but I'm at a loss at the moment to see why the frequency couldn't be split.

EI-DVM,

I may be out-of-date here, but I always understood the the 2 'intermediate' approach control positions for EGLL were manned by 2 ATCOs per frequency.....These were, or maybe still are, the positions that control the holding-stacks and the a/c leaving them. BNN/LAM and OCK/BIG. The 'final director', responsible for the final turn on and approach spacing, was usually single-manned.

Another possibility is that the 2 voices could have come from an ATCO trainee, and his/her instructor/mentor?

If anyone who's current on EGLL approach could tell us how it works at the present time, it would be interesting to catch up.

Also, many of the U.K. area frequencies have 2 ATCOs on them, called Radar/Co-ordinator, or Tactical/Planner. It is usually the Radar/Tactical's voice that you hear, but the Co-ordinaor/Planner, occasionally transmits messages.

Funnily enough was only reading this thread the other day - I think this explains the dual controllers heard on a single frequency.

http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/306...-director.html

For occasionally, read never, especially in London en-route. I don't know if they do at Scottish and I know they do it in Ireland, but not for London

Used to up until Feb 1971; the procedural contoller was at West Drayton and the radar controller was at Heathrow (north side where Compass Centre now stands) then we moved into the new control room at Drayton. I was on the last watch on the 'old' system. We closed down the radar unit at Heathrow after the evenng watch took over, then next morning we took over from them at West Drayton.
It was the old 4 watch system in those days where you did an afternoon then a morning, then a 12 hour night watch the same day ie A-M-N-sleep-day off over 4 days then repeated.

Surprised to hear that, Tentacles, and many thanks for the update, sejo.

When March' went from Mediator to NODE-M in the early 1990s, both the ATCOs were allowed to use the frequency, and this continued until at least 2011, after the move north.

Under the Mediator system, there was usually only one ATCO per freq', as the Chief Sector Controllers didn't wear headsets.

When EGCC got very busy in the late 1980s there was a facility to 'man-and-boy' each position, where another bod would plug in to help, in addition to the CSCs.

I think P and E was introduced at Atlantic House, round about 1979.......I picked up a copy of 'Airway' at my final selection board that year, and remember reading about it.

I thought when LATCC moved to Swanwick, with the 3 bods on each 'banana', it was a similar set-up. ScATCC had evolved largely to a one ATCO per frequency system by the time nPC came on-stream.

NOBODY at West Drayton ever worked the full 4 watch system, it was carved up so that if you were working the N you usually got the M off and if you did the M you got the N off. I know 'cos I woz there.

Ah, the good old Sector 8!

Ah, the good old Sector 8!

Aye, happy days.

On 'D' Watch you did, but the 'N' was split up as 1st Half (2000 - 0300), Second Half (2000 - 2230 and 0300 - 0800) or Long Sleep (2000 - 2300 and 0600 - 0800)
I know cos I was there too!
Lindholme, where I did my Area Radar endorsement, did an extra day between the 'M' and 'N'. They also used a procedural 'D' man, but this time at Barton Hall (Preston) up until both places were closed in about '74 or '75; I was there in '73.

On 'D' Watch you did,


I would suggest that your colleagues might have been taking advantage of your good nature

I can assure you that on 'D' watch, both controllers and assistants worked the hours I stated, the only concession being that less people were required for the N so a few (very few) got an N/R (Not required)

Chevvron - I think Barton Hall closed in 1975. I worked there between '70 and '73 and remember Sector 25 (high level) was the first to be transferred to W Drayton.

Great place, great people, great times.

I was an ATCA on B Watch, & can remember doing both M & N duties on the same day. True, we often either did the M OR the N - but not both. But, there were times when we did both. At other times, as Barry said, we had the good old sector 8. I remember that we had a shortage of ATCO 4s which resulted in those that we had doing M & N together quite often.

Obwan must have been an A watch person. Their culture of minimal manning continued in the 5 watch age.
B watch kept fully manned so the card school could keep going. C watch was on another planet anyway and D had a magic system for sector 8s.
I may have been there - if only I could remember.

Do we still have to advise Heathrow director of aircraft type on initial contact. Don't see that info in the Jepps anymore.

What, if any, are the advantages of having the Approach/Radar controllers for the London airports located at Swanwick rather than the individual airports, like it used to be ?


Given that Southend is regarded as a London airport nowadays, what are the chances of its Approach/Radar function being ensnared by Swanwick ?

Re your firat para Mooncrest. You'd better ask NATS Management. Speaking as a Heathrow ATCO at the time, not all of us wanted to move but in the end it worked pretty well. It's all to do with bean-counting.

Thanks HD. The question of money is never far away. And for Heathrow Approach controllers, at least West Drayton wasn't much change travel-wise. Not so for the other London airports. Luton controllers got a new employer in NATS as well.

Bren,

I always thought the bean-counters must have been livid when they saw how many extra bums in seats were required for the various 'splits'.

If IIRC before the split LL O/R was 75 valid ATCOs plus the hangers-on, to achieve the split required 45 TWR & 45 APC, an increase of 20% and 5 of the latter received promotions to be Group Sups. If the figures were the same for KK & SS that must have meant another 10 or so ATCOs.

I expect the same happened when LATCC split into Terminal and En-Route.

Personally I thought it was a complete waste of time and money to put the Approach functions into West Drayton, and I can't believe management in their wisdom were looking ahead to when, in LL's case, there would be a new tower - I think work on the latter ( regarding furniture, manning etc ) didn't start until later in the 90s.

I don't believe that for one moment! I opted to move to TC, yet after all the effort of validating on LL APC I was held back because it was over-subscribed! I have a letter telling me that I would have to wait eighteen months for a transfer! It never happened!

Nil unless NATS gets the contract to become ANSP at Southend.
Even then it's unlikely because:
NATS would have to pay the Southend controllers for a house move.
NATS would have to pay the Southend controllers who move the same salary band as other Swanwick controllers.(The highest NATS salary band)
Those Southend controllers who move to Swanwick would be required to cross train on at least one other sector there (eg Essex Radar) in order to provide flexible manning.
Those Southend controllers who stay at Southend would 'lose' their approach radar C of C and be unable to provide combined TWR/APS during 'quiet' periods if it was approved by SRG.
The only plus is that NATS could operate the Southend Airport contract using controllers who only hold ADV/ADI ratings as at Luton, Stansted and City.(and pay them the lowest salary band)

TDM

Malc, I think you're right - I can think of at least another 3 who wanted to go with APC - Mike Turner ( who did make it across a few years later ), Kevin Day and Darrell Brindley. Bobby Cowell ( RIP ) went a couple of years later as he was fed up with his WM!

Plus some queue-jumping too. All very poorly managed...

A slightly more realistic answer might consider that all civil ATC in the UK is provided by (to one extent or another) private companies. Each company will have its business objectives and will, all things being equal, seek to achieve those objectives. Amongst those objectives there will be some related to finance and others to market profile. To take the example of Southend, it is possible to imagine that NATS could provide approach services at a lower cost than the operators of the airport are able (economies of scale and the like playing a part). Of course if such a situation were to be investigated, set against a reduced cost the airport operator would consider many things including whether it loses anything of substance - including reputation - by giving up its ability to operate approach services independently and whether NATS could meet its service level requirements. Assuming minimum service levels could be assured, any such non-monetary losses would be weighed up against the cost savings and the business objectives. The same sort of debates would be had by NATS in order to evaluate whether it would be interested in seeking to provide those services to Southend.

Issues such as staff redeployment are secondary and would not necessarily require a single organisation to operate all facilities involved although, admittedly, it is likely to make things easier and to offer additional tangible benefits.

There is a final, complicating factor which could come into play where the UK, as a State, determines that combining service provision in the way you suggest might better enable limited airspace resources to be used. The CAA has the power to 'direct' changes to be made to the way that services are provided. Whilst these powers are rarely used and are traditionally focused on ensuring safety of aircraft operations, performance obligations and targets might equally be drivers for use of these powers. Of course, the performance scheme is a European Commission initiative and may not be of concern either to the UK or Southend from 30th March.

LookingForAJob
Could you please edit this as it credits all the quote to Mooncrest, whereas it is actually mine.
I was merely answering Mooncrests query re the provision on APS for Southend from Swanwick. No doubt NATS have looked at taking over as ANSP at Southend, however their bid will be for the cheapest solution and as the airport operator has, in recent years, spent loadsa money upgrading the provision of ATC, I don't think they would be very happy if a new ANSP decided to abandon all the expensive radar and other equipment which has been installed in the last few years.

Thanks for all the input folks. My question was purely hypothetical and I hadn't expected such detailed responses. Interesting reading.

Who was the ATC provider at Luton prior to the Approach function being transferred to Swanwick ? I believe it was in-house until relatively recently.

I'm sure Southend would get to hang on to their new radar and whatever other landing aids they have, in the unlikely event of NATS coming along. The Approach/Radar controllers would still need them, they would just be seated in front of a console somewhere else.

ATC was provided in house, originally the staff were employed by the local authority, then by the airport company when the authority transferred it over in the mid 1990s. That contract was taken over by NATS in Autumn 2000.

That's what I thought. Thankyou.