Gatwick Flow Rate?
 

Seems as though there are a ton of cancelled/delayed flights at LGW, with numerous diversions to LTN/other airports. Reportedly down to lack of ATC personnel.... anyone know more?

Confirmed as a shortage of ATC staff by Gatwick airport twitter. Apparently short notice staff absence.

To have no spare/ standby/ slack for one controller going sick is really poor. Massively understaffed at LGW - you’d like to think the CAA would get involved.

Seems to happen quite often now. Does it have anything to do with the change in contract a while back for LGW ATC service?

not the first time it’s happened at Gatwick in the last 12 months or so.. getting a bit tiresome now

What exactly could the CAA do to all the shortage problem? There is no magic solution. It requires good quality trainees in adequate numbers -but not too many many that there aren’t enough training seats! And still it takes many months to validate them.

Typically organisations that employ controllers are driven by someone who watches a spreadsheet. Activities such as COVID, 9-11, contract renewals always concentrate the mind on the bottom line. Little relevance is given to the time it takes to train and the actual number of seats available to train in. This latter is normally the major problem.
Years ago we were training controllers in a European country and were told how many we had to provide classroom/simulator training for that year - All for one tower. It turned out that the actual On Job Training capacity was about 10% of the numbers receiving basic training.
Sadly the magic solution is always some years back - bean counting rarely looks further than the CEO's KPI's and bonus needs and normally they have moved on (with bonus) before the crises occurs.

or fewer flights

This is indeed par t of the problem. The bean counters generally cater for the average numbers of flights , not the peaks. In addition if an airline decides to move its hub from an airport for another one, the balance of traffic is sudden , meaning from decision to first flights can be weeks ( or even days in some cases. ) Recruitment to fully ops controller in a major airport is anything from a year ( for transfers) to up to 3 years for ab initio. So you'll always be behind.
Another unspoked factor is part time. Due to the ( welcomed) feminisation of the job , since it is rather well paid, many are requesting part time after their first kid, so you might have the numbers on paper but not available 100% of the time ,

That said, if a single controller call in sick and its supervisor is unable to immediately find a stand by duty to fill the gap, and this is causing the kind of disruptions we have see in EGKK, then it shows how tight their operations are .

Er, stop NATS firing all 127 of its trainees during Covid (some were two weeks away from qualifying)? It's not as if this isn't a recurring problem for NATS, that they should have got on top of by now, and having taken a £1.5bn loan the 'speadsheet' argument is mute - this was straight mismanagement, hence: 'https://travelweekly.co.uk/news/air/ryanair-calls-for-resignation-of-nats-chief-after-latest-gatwick-flight-disruption' (the 7-figure bonus won't have helped)!

Doesn't this issue go back several years when NATS lost the ATC contract at Gatwick?

The new Gatwick company did such a 'great' job that they eventually handed it back for NATS to run. NATS inherited all the problems and a lot of them don't get resolved overnight, particularly with staff shortages.

Not that NATS are squeaky clean. Their recruitment and training policies over the last few years leave a lot to be desired.

NATS only got the contract back 11 months ago, the rot set in under ANS.

Neo380 or MoL pointing the finger at NATS are way off the mark.

https://travelradar.aero/nats-gatwick-airport/



The underlying problem generally with Air Traffic staffing is you have a small number of qualified people doing the job.
Say you need 4 or 5 ATCOs to run a radar bank or tower, to add another for contingency adds 20/25% to cost base. The sums are very different for an airline with 100s of pilots qualified on the same equipment.

Not way off at all - sacking all 127 trainees, when there was no financial need - and then complaining that you are short staffed, when you’ve just done the exact same thing a few years ago, is dysfunction.

NATS (staff) can take just as much blame for the ANS contract as anyone - failing 21/23 trainees (at one point) might have been because of the £1,000/day overtime rates, but it was also always the intention to force the contract back into NATS hands.

So be honest, and check your facts, please - this was a situation of NATS making.

So they should have kept the trainees on in case they won a contract 2 years later?
A contract that shouldn’t have been available until end of 2025?

You might think that’s a great way to run a business but it’s not something the customer would be happy to pay for.

Gatwick aren't the only airport short of controllers

NATS regret it. And NATS created ANS because one of its MDs couldn’t put up with the internal dysfunction any longer.
So yes, I do think you honour your commitment to a trainee when they’re 98% through training.

True, and not true as well. Especially considering that having a generous standby level at all times is cash wise peanuts considering the rest of the cost of running ATC at the worlds busies single runway airport. And even more so considering not doing so will increase the pressure to legislate financial responsibility in for a service promised and not provided, a service airlines have to pay handsomely for. After all, they are liable for measures they have to take to accommodate their customers. And for exactly that reason airlines nowadays actually play for peaks, not averages, and usually a higher than normally needed crewing level. You can operate a shorthaul aircraft on a full schedule at 3,5 to 4 crews per aircraft. However, it is usually done at 6 to 7 as that allows a much higher stability of the operation. Which is needed, in part due to ATC systems all over europe having not the required personnel and no financial incentive (liability) to provide it.

As already stated NATS raised £1.5bn (BILLION!) mid-Covid, which more than covers the remainder of trainee costs (they were on apprentice rates already!) - the 'spreadsheet' excuse for what is now a serious issue just doesn't work.

NATS can't subsidise the NSL operations with NERL money. Whether or not it should have kept the En-Route trainees is one debate. Whether or not it should have kept any Airport trainees is far more complex and a different debate.

If NATS had emerged from the Covid crisis with a retained pool of trainees it would arguably have given them an unfair advantage over other suppliers such as ANS. Although of course those trainees, even if they fully completed the college, are a long way off providing any solution to the current issue. From ab-initio to the world's busiest single runway airport is quite a jump.

There is a well crafted excuse for every piece of mismanagement in this organisation, but the truth is we’re back in ‘famine’ now, so ‘feast’ will follow and ‘famine’ will follow that.
It’s a cultural problem, as if succession planning is ‘something we don’t do here’.

Indeed. In most industries if such a high proportion of staff failed to reach the point at which they provided any payback on the investment made then you'd spend a lot of time refining that system until you remedied that problem. In ATC that "failure" has always been painted as success because we obviously only want the best people to succeed.

Feast and famine is a little harder. The airline business is tied to the world economy. Setbacks and in particular the length of them are difficult to predict. The setbacks after 9/11 and Covid were much shorter than most people expected. That after the 2008 crash was much longer. Somebody has to pay for that period you keep training controllers ready for the inevitable upturn and nobody wants to, least of all governments. The government funded ANSPs after 2008 cut back far more than the one funded by its customers that you dislike so much.

It might have been the big wheelbarrow full of cash too. 🤷‍♂️

Its not a matter of liking or not liking eglnyt; it’s a matter of getting to the truth, and not just trying to ‘spin’ your way out of every predicament.

Another piece of crumbling infrastructure in the Uk., it seems to me interesting that an airport the size of Gatwick grinds almost toa halt because a couple of people get sick at the same time , the peopel running ATC services there have a simple mission, provide the service , not make as much moneyas possible from doing so. It seems like a gulf has opened between the management world and reality. Managers across the board only looking at the short term or their own paychecks, Directors are their partners in crime as well.

Obvioulsy this industry like many has ups and downs and years back the downs were accepted as part of doing business, you didn't make much profit, perhaps a loss, that year but after a couple of years back in the black again. That seems to be a crime nowadays and entities have to make a profit or minimal loss every year with the result that there is no long term planning or slack in the system and many key aspects of the business do not have a quick fix, Training ATCOS pilots and Licensed engineers takes time and money and the people cannot be made to appear as if by magic.

Same with Drs, hospitals, police etc etc etc.

Until we come to understand that the L on a P&L account is sometimes unavoidale and soemtimes must just be sucked up for the good of the business then we will continue to have these failings . In my own industry , telecoms, BT sacked/made deundant thousands of technical guys and girls because modern digital equipment didnt go wrong as much as the old stuff . Within a couple of years along comes the internet and need for second phone lines and oh dear we ahvent got any staff to install lines and upgrade exchange equipment bcuase the becuase the previous regine got rid of them all.and the exclelent training programmes BT gave their people.

How do we stop short termism causing massive disruption just so a few people can get bousses for doing the wrong thing for the user/ customer.??

NATS don’t actually provide the ATC for Gatwick, it is done by the subsidiary company NATS solutions. Different terms and conditions, but the same amount of planes to control. Basically cheap NATS!!
not sure how the recruitment is going!!

"The Bean Counters have it!, the Bean Counters have it!." with apologies to Mr Speaker.

IG

So you set your airports up as limited companies with shareholders and are then shocked when they behave just like limited companies with shareholders. What did anybody expect to happen?

NATS needs to get back to basics. You can't start training until you're 18, so applicants should have 2 A Levels under their belts. Maths, Geography, Science or computer based. Failing that, 5 GCSE's with 2 years of relative aviation experience. If candidates have a degree, so much the better. Get rid irrelevant 'aptitude' tests and the layers of HR bods with fluffy job-titles. Get ATCOs out there on the recruiting circuit, and, depending what the WEF (et al), have planned, have a BIG look at present staffing & manpower planning.

Is there any evidence to suggest that academic qualification prior to recruitment has any bearing on success in validation at unit ? Just interested. A few years back I got the impression that the percentage of trainees with degrees had increased greatly in the last 20 years but then of course so has the general percentage of the population.

If people keep failing the training, it’s not the people at fault.

just a thought.

eglnyt...We went through in 1979-1982. About 36 on the course, all of which had the qualifications I outlined above. I think there were 4 who didn't qualify/validate. Three ended up as senior ATSAs, one guy left the service completely, a great shame. A couple failed the odd exam, but ended up re-sitting stuff and eventually validating. Of those who validated, 4 left and became senior airline captains. So, about a 90% success rate, in terms of unit validations achieved.

Lots of variables since 1979 though and one group is a small sample. It would be interesting to know what it looks like over a longer period & whether there was a point at which validation rates dropped significantly. I believe 18 year olds now are just as clever and intelligent as they've ever been they just know different stuff nowadays. The intensity at Gatwick in the 1980s was very different to now.

Oh yes. The validation rates/CATC pass rates went down when SHL first became involved. They plugged in with us for 2 or 3 weeks, went away, and came back with a presentation of what they thought NATS needed. A series of 'tests' that bore no relation to what ATC was about. Just the same bog-standard stuff they had sold to the WH Smith/Barclays/Woolworths management-trainee selectors. They gave a presentation at EGCC and many of the seniors ATCOs, some of whom were ex-military aircrew couldn't understand a lot of it. It was totally irrelevant to ATC.

Interesting if there was that drop off. It has always been the story that low completion rates had always been the case and indeed trumpeted as good because NATS has to be so selective.

There were 20 at the start of my Course in 1972. By the end, in 1975, 1 had left due medical fail, only 3 had been chopped & one left to be a pilot. Everyone of the remaining 15 went on to validate. Can NATS achieve a similar pass rate nowadays I wonder ?

Started a 3 year ATCO Cadet course in '71 having been an assistant for 2.5 years.
23 cadets started, one resigned after the 4 week 'Basic' course.
6 got 'chopped', 5 on Aerodrome control and one on Area, 16 eventually graduated in '74. One exam fail and you were chopped, no re-sits allowed after one fail in those days.
In later years it wasn't unusual to have 16 graduate but to do so, they had to 'combine' 2 courses of 20 to 22 each to get that number.

I’m not sure that “academic standards” are that important, rather than “aptitude”. 23 out of 24 completed our Cadet Course. Only a very few were rated “high level” in academic assessment (university degrees). All were ex ATCAs, which is very telling, to my mind. I don’t think so many would have “made it” in modern times.

I always found I had more trouble in training those with degrees than those who were ex ATCAs but the problem is, the aptitude tests 'suit' those with degrees so they get selected even if the're ex ATCAs with lots of experience or even FISOs with hours of experience.
On our terminal course, they set us some aptitude tests; we couldn't understand most of them.

In the 70s, 80s & 90s a far smaller percentage went to University and you were still selecting near the top academically from A level students and those who'd proceeded to A level even if they didn't complete. Nowadays that same level will almost all proceed to university. ATC is now one of the few real alternatives to university and at 18 most won't know that.

Hi Andy,

Glad to see you're still 'on the perch'.

Regards, Brian W

Hi to you also, Brian! Can’t keep an old dog down!! Hope all is well with you..
regards,
Andy