|
Originally Posted by HEATHROW DIRECTOR
(Post 10294754)
Good God. What is happening to the UK ATC Service?
|
1985,
Spot on, and it was a lack of 'appropriately-qualfied' buttocks on seats that produced both Zagreb and Uberlingen. |
It is up to working ATCOS to stop these sort of “convenience” changes to cherished principles & safety standards. These sort of developments would not have been allowed in the past ; either by the ATCOS or the SRG - where are they in all of this now ?
|
Heathrow Director,
It sounds to me that you joined a SERVICE as I did. Around the turn of the millennium the term The Company started to be used and that's when I could see the future course that the job was going to take. Luckily I was fortunate to be able to bale out and took that opportunity with both hands. No regrets but disappointed for our colleagues. |
Originally Posted by ZOOKER
(Post 10294908)
and it was a lack of 'appropriately-qualfied' buttocks on seats that produced both Zagreb and Uberlingen.
|
Originally Posted by kcockayne
(Post 10294936)
These sort of developments would not have been allowed in the past ; either by the ATCOS or the SRG - where are they in all of this now ?
I think individual controllers are kicking up a stink, along with the union but if a safety case is proven and the regulator signs off on it, how does the individual atco justify not doing it? Very wooly area the "I don't like it" argument. |
Er isn't it still called 'SARG' (rather than SRG) or did I miss another change of title?
|
1985.....Another accurate and truthful post :D |
Er isn't it still called 'SARG' (rather than SRG) |
Originally Posted by 1985
(Post 10295325)
SRG has been neutered due to lack of staff/money as well. NATS if they can prove a safety case, which they will, will convince them that's it ok and they don't need to look at it themselves. I personally think that's it alot down to the numbers of ex military ATCOs in SRG/CAA that, with the greatest respect to them, don't understand civil atc. Their way of thinking/working is different (btw I'll also throw that at a lot of senior management in NATS).
I think individual controllers are kicking up a stink, along with the union but if a safety case is proven and the regulator signs off on it, how does the individual atco justify not doing it? Very wooly area the "I don't like it" argument. |
Originally Posted by Reverserbucket
(Post 10295743)
SRG = CAA Safety Regulation Group
|
SRG/SARG, what does it matter ? Seem to be pretty much emasculated & ineffectual , if 1985 has his facts straight. A very poor state of affairs ! |
Sounds like a similar situation to Radar in the Tower, which is a procedure now in use at a few UK airports. At the college we were taught that you can NEVER use the ATM as a Radar while in the tower or the universe would explode. Now, thanks to a "Risk Assessment" it's deemed fine. So we now have the situation where a single Tower controller is covering 3 positions during the night, the usual TWR/GMC things, vectoring on the ATM, dealing with WIP on the airfield, Weather Observing, answering the Assistants Phone and whatever else needs done. Individuals have voiced concerns but it falls on deaf ears. All about the money these days tbh, and it's going to take a serious incident before the people running the show (most of whom have never worked traffic in their life these days) wake up to the situation.
|
1985...I agree totally. Having spent time in both CAA (though not SRG) and NATS I witnessed what you describe extensively. And as someone else further up said, the changes coming in after the turn of the century is where the rot started. I got out 18 years ago and it pains me to read these posts....
|
These developments appear to be aimed at treating the symptoms (arrival regulations) rather than the cause (low/understaffing) in order to keep the ATC cost down. The continuous squeezing of costs is driven by the airlines (who have a stake in the major ATC provider), passengers and the regulator. Old-school rules are being challenged in all areas (En-Route, Approach & Towers) in the quest for “progress” down this route. The above posts are testament to that - and add to that proposed ‘remote tower centres’. “Operational and efficiency benefits” is a phrase more popular than ever in certain circles. Out of all the players the regulator certainly has an interesting role - how on one hand to demand ANSP cost-cutting whilst on the other hand improve on an already impressive safety record (or, at least, not diminish it). Every rule bent introduces some new risk simply because it hasn’t been done before - by one ATCO. Sure technology can help to mitigate the new risks but the more eggs (good or otherwise!) that you put in one basket the greater the risk of breakages. Palatable at the supermarket perhaps, less so at the pointy end. |
:D
Could not agree more. The myth of the PPP (public-private-partnership) as it was sold at the time. Sure, there were inefficiencies across the operations, but what happened to "Safety Is No Accident" and "our top priority?" The danger of leadership bleeding in without deep enough understanding. "ATCO capacity is just an HR issue, right? Like checkout operators? What's so different about that????" In the late 90s we used to joke about Heathrow approach suddenly only being reachable by 0898 premium rate phone line following "the change". And then sitting in the phone queue being told "your call is important to us". Reading this recent stuff makes me think we may not have been that far of the mark |
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....74df3f1199.jpg
One picture is worth 1,000 words. Well this one certainly is. The day I started at CATC was one of the best days of my life. Not only because my 'careers teacher' told me it was beyond my ability to get there, but on that day I met some pretty amazing people. On day 1, I remember seeing this display, showing the nations that had sent their students to Hurn for ATC training. That instilled a sense of pride, because not only had I been invited to study there, but countless nations had sent students there also. Recently I read with great sadness that the current NATS training facility can't even meet the demand to train it's own ATC staff, (let alone those of other nations), and sends students to sub-contractors in Gloucester and Jerez to meet capacity.....Or lack of it. What on Earth is going on? Why have we 'lost the plot' in a field we once lead The World in? |
Zooker, I believe part of the reason the college could not cope with the required domestic volume was that it still had to fulfil contracted
foreign training requirements... |
Originally Posted by Not Long Now
(Post 10300276)
Zooker, I believe part of the reason the college could not cope with the required domestic volume was that it still had to fulfil contracted
foreign training requirements... We now have the situation that not only can NATS not train at the college but it can't release people from the units to go to the college as instructors, so those that took VR have been asked to come back. Quite a few have accepted. |
Zooker
Laurie Shields there on the left of your photo', we bumped into him on the beach in Penang in 1988 - it must have been the 'lightbulb moment' when our then 15 year old son thought ' Being in ATC must be a good career if 2 ATCOs are sunning it in Malaysia ! '. Senior moment, I can't recall the names of the other two in the photo'. Said 15 year-old son, having now been an ATCO himself since 1996, echoes several of the comments made above, particular those about too many ex-military ATCOs being in senior positions without much knowledge of how civilian ATCOs work, think and like to be treated. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:26. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.