TIBA Procedures - Timely refresher
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TIBA Procedures - Timely refresher
TIBA Procedures (AIP Reference)
Have noticed this is getting common each day in Australia now.
Where are all the Air Traffic Controllers? On holidays or something? (Do nav-charges get refunded?)
Have also noticed that many (like me) are just not familiar with TIBA, so thought I would post the link in the interests of survival.
GEN (25 NOV 04)
5. TRAFFIC INFORMATION BROADCAST BY AIRCRAFT
(TIBA)
5.1 TIBA Procedures
5.1.1 TIBA procedures are intended to permit reports and relevant
supplementary information of an advisory nature to be transmitted
by pilots for the information of pilots of other aircraft in the vicinity.
5.2 Frequency
5.2.1 Aircraft must maintain a listening watch on the appropriate TIBA
frequency (128.95MHZ, at or above FL200; 126.35MHZ below
FL200). Where VHF is used for air-ground communications with
ATS and an aircraft has two serviceable VHF sets, one must be
tuned to the appropriate ATS frequency and the other to the TIBA
frequency.
5.3 Listening Watch
5.3.1 A listening watch must be maintained on the TIBA frequency 10
minutes before entering the designated airspace until leaving this
airspace. For an aircraft taking off from an aerodrome located
within 10 minutes flying time of that airspace, listening watch must
start as soon as practicable after take-off.
5.4 Time of Broadcasts
5.4.1 Broadcasts must be made:
a. 10 minutes before entering the designated airspace or, for an
aircraft taking off from an aerodrome located with 10 minutes
flying time of the airspace, as soon as practicable after take-off;
b. 10 minutes prior to crossing a reporting point;
c. 10 minutes prior to crossing or joining an ATS contingency
route;
d. at 20 minute intervals between distant reporting points;
e. 2 to 5 minutes, where possible, before a change in flight level;
f. at the time of a change in flight level; and
g. at any other time considered necessary by the pilot.
5.5 Acknowledgement of Broadcasts
5.5.1 Broadcasts should not be acknowledged unless a potential
collision risk exists.
Index ENR TOC AD TOC GEN TOC
GEN (25 NOV 04)
5.6 Changes of Cruising Level
5.6.1 Cruising level changes should not be made within the designated
airspace, unless considered necessary by pilots to avoid traffic
conflicts, for weather avoidance or for other valid operational
reasons.
5.6.2 When changes to cruising level are unavoidable, all available
aircraft lighting which would improve the visual detection of the
aircraft must be displayed while changing levels.
5.6.3 When a change of level is anticipated or initiated, a change of level
report must be made. When the new level is reached, a report
advising that the aircraft is maintaining the new level must be
made.
5.7 Collision Avoidance
5.7.1 If, on receipt of a traffic information broadcast from another
aircraft, a pilot decides that immediate action is necessary to avoid
an imminent collision risk to the aircraft, and this cannot be
achieved in accordance with the right of way provisions or TCAS
resolution, the pilot should:
a. unless an alternative manoeuvre appears more appropriate,
immediately descend 1000FT if above FL290, or 500FT if at or
below FL290;
b. display all available aircraft lighting which would improve the
visual detection of the aircraft;
c. as soon as possible, reply to the broadcast advising action
being taken;
d. notify the action taken on the appropriate TIBA frequency; and
e. as soon as practicable, resume normal flight level, notifying the
action on the appropriate TIBA frequency.
5.8 Position Reporting
5.8.1 Normal position reporting procedures should be continued at all
times, regardless of any action taken to initiate or acknowledge a
traffic information broadcast.
5.8.2 A position report must be made on the next CTA/FIA frequency 15
minutes prior to leaving airspace in which TIBA procedures apply
to obtain a clearance or re-establish SARWATCH on the
appropriate ATS frequency.
Have noticed this is getting common each day in Australia now.
Where are all the Air Traffic Controllers? On holidays or something? (Do nav-charges get refunded?)
Have also noticed that many (like me) are just not familiar with TIBA, so thought I would post the link in the interests of survival.
GEN (25 NOV 04)
5. TRAFFIC INFORMATION BROADCAST BY AIRCRAFT
(TIBA)
5.1 TIBA Procedures
5.1.1 TIBA procedures are intended to permit reports and relevant
supplementary information of an advisory nature to be transmitted
by pilots for the information of pilots of other aircraft in the vicinity.
5.2 Frequency
5.2.1 Aircraft must maintain a listening watch on the appropriate TIBA
frequency (128.95MHZ, at or above FL200; 126.35MHZ below
FL200). Where VHF is used for air-ground communications with
ATS and an aircraft has two serviceable VHF sets, one must be
tuned to the appropriate ATS frequency and the other to the TIBA
frequency.
5.3 Listening Watch
5.3.1 A listening watch must be maintained on the TIBA frequency 10
minutes before entering the designated airspace until leaving this
airspace. For an aircraft taking off from an aerodrome located
within 10 minutes flying time of that airspace, listening watch must
start as soon as practicable after take-off.
5.4 Time of Broadcasts
5.4.1 Broadcasts must be made:
a. 10 minutes before entering the designated airspace or, for an
aircraft taking off from an aerodrome located with 10 minutes
flying time of the airspace, as soon as practicable after take-off;
b. 10 minutes prior to crossing a reporting point;
c. 10 minutes prior to crossing or joining an ATS contingency
route;
d. at 20 minute intervals between distant reporting points;
e. 2 to 5 minutes, where possible, before a change in flight level;
f. at the time of a change in flight level; and
g. at any other time considered necessary by the pilot.
5.5 Acknowledgement of Broadcasts
5.5.1 Broadcasts should not be acknowledged unless a potential
collision risk exists.
Index ENR TOC AD TOC GEN TOC
GEN (25 NOV 04)
5.6 Changes of Cruising Level
5.6.1 Cruising level changes should not be made within the designated
airspace, unless considered necessary by pilots to avoid traffic
conflicts, for weather avoidance or for other valid operational
reasons.
5.6.2 When changes to cruising level are unavoidable, all available
aircraft lighting which would improve the visual detection of the
aircraft must be displayed while changing levels.
5.6.3 When a change of level is anticipated or initiated, a change of level
report must be made. When the new level is reached, a report
advising that the aircraft is maintaining the new level must be
made.
5.7 Collision Avoidance
5.7.1 If, on receipt of a traffic information broadcast from another
aircraft, a pilot decides that immediate action is necessary to avoid
an imminent collision risk to the aircraft, and this cannot be
achieved in accordance with the right of way provisions or TCAS
resolution, the pilot should:
a. unless an alternative manoeuvre appears more appropriate,
immediately descend 1000FT if above FL290, or 500FT if at or
below FL290;
b. display all available aircraft lighting which would improve the
visual detection of the aircraft;
c. as soon as possible, reply to the broadcast advising action
being taken;
d. notify the action taken on the appropriate TIBA frequency; and
e. as soon as practicable, resume normal flight level, notifying the
action on the appropriate TIBA frequency.
5.8 Position Reporting
5.8.1 Normal position reporting procedures should be continued at all
times, regardless of any action taken to initiate or acknowledge a
traffic information broadcast.
5.8.2 A position report must be made on the next CTA/FIA frequency 15
minutes prior to leaving airspace in which TIBA procedures apply
to obtain a clearance or re-establish SARWATCH on the
appropriate ATS frequency.
Last edited by FabulousBakerBoy; 1st Feb 2005 at 03:41.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As ML Centre is, to use Airservices own figures, around 20 ATC's short of minimum staffing requirements, and because management are on a strict "productivity" contract, this will become even more common (in southern district anyway). Managers who blow out their overtime budgets don't get paid a bonus, and even when they do call out an emergency replacement/overtime shift for a controller who has called in sick for example, the chances are the person they are callling has already worked 8 or 9 shifts in a row and will tell them to shove it. Its a catch 22, no staff, lots of overtime, increasing absenteeism, more overtime. The ultimate result is TIBA/restricted airspace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are joking aren't you?
How can you say you are short of controllers because of productivity? You are a bloody service industry! You have to have people to provide the service to get the productivity surely?
For example, why would I as an airline / individual pay you IFR navcharges if you tell me it is TIBA?!
The cost of all that lost revenue makes a mockery of your perceived 'productivity' bonuses doesn't it?
As far as I am concerned get rid of the bloody managers and put someone in the ATC seat.
No bugger really knows what to do when this happens. Is it going to take a mid-air to wake you all up?
How can you say you are short of controllers because of productivity? You are a bloody service industry! You have to have people to provide the service to get the productivity surely?
For example, why would I as an airline / individual pay you IFR navcharges if you tell me it is TIBA?!
The cost of all that lost revenue makes a mockery of your perceived 'productivity' bonuses doesn't it?
As far as I am concerned get rid of the bloody managers and put someone in the ATC seat.
No bugger really knows what to do when this happens. Is it going to take a mid-air to wake you all up?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ex Zachary
FBB,
Like Lodown wrote, its no use giving Hempy a blast. The ATCO's don't determine their establishment numbers. Give Airservices a rocket. They are the ones running(?) the ship
You could always refuse to pay the bill if they didn't provide you with the service you paid for.
On another note, I reckon we're gonna see some cancelled services from certain airlines in the not-too-distant future as a shortage of aircrews kicks in. Don't blame the pilots, blame the companies that have devalued the profession so much that people go to other (better paying) industries, rather than learning to fly. I guess we could say similar about air traffic control.
Kick the dog. Eventually it'll bite you on the arse.
Like Lodown wrote, its no use giving Hempy a blast. The ATCO's don't determine their establishment numbers. Give Airservices a rocket. They are the ones running(?) the ship
You could always refuse to pay the bill if they didn't provide you with the service you paid for.On another note, I reckon we're gonna see some cancelled services from certain airlines in the not-too-distant future as a shortage of aircrews kicks in. Don't blame the pilots, blame the companies that have devalued the profession so much that people go to other (better paying) industries, rather than learning to fly. I guess we could say similar about air traffic control.
Kick the dog. Eventually it'll bite you on the arse.
...and what a Hugh Jarse it is! Boom boom.
You are spot on Hugh. When the dust settles on the Patricks' VB "take over" there must be some expansion planned. CvC did not buy Skywest just to sit on it either.
That is why I started the thread on ATPL numbers. I do not think that there will be enough at the top of the GA tree to fill the seats the way things are going. Unless of course entry requirements are relaxed.
Boom boom.You are spot on Hugh. When the dust settles on the Patricks' VB "take over" there must be some expansion planned. CvC did not buy Skywest just to sit on it either.
That is why I started the thread on ATPL numbers. I do not think that there will be enough at the top of the GA tree to fill the seats the way things are going. Unless of course entry requirements are relaxed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK. Fair enough - I wont blame the controllers themelves - truth is they do a good job, better than the third world service levels of our neighbours.
But honestly, who is running the show? Why the hell is a government department manager getting a bonus anyway? It should not be for profit - it should be for safety.
Surely having a bonus system for some ill conceived 'productivity' increase (by whose measure BTW? Not mine chum!) is just a form of profiteering at the expense of a culture of safety or at least chipping away at the safety infrastructure?
If any of my family are involved in an accident as a result of non-availability of an essential safety service because some chair warmer is boosting his paycheck - and I can in some way prove it - I will engage a pro-bono lawyer and go the lot of them. I don't like the litiguous society, but there are some things they respond to.
To think about 6 months to a year ago we were all arguing about the airspace reforms downgrading C to E - and now we are getting G on the high level airways regularly and nobody seems to care?
Maybe I dished out the third world label a bit too quickly!
But honestly, who is running the show? Why the hell is a government department manager getting a bonus anyway? It should not be for profit - it should be for safety.
Surely having a bonus system for some ill conceived 'productivity' increase (by whose measure BTW? Not mine chum!) is just a form of profiteering at the expense of a culture of safety or at least chipping away at the safety infrastructure?
If any of my family are involved in an accident as a result of non-availability of an essential safety service because some chair warmer is boosting his paycheck - and I can in some way prove it - I will engage a pro-bono lawyer and go the lot of them. I don't like the litiguous society, but there are some things they respond to.
To think about 6 months to a year ago we were all arguing about the airspace reforms downgrading C to E - and now we are getting G on the high level airways regularly and nobody seems to care?
Maybe I dished out the third world label a bit too quickly!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sadly the government, both side dont see the Airservices/casa/ Aviation as a service industry. they see it as a source of revenue! so the managers do their best to make a "profit" on their community services!
i always thought we pay TAX, and crippling amounts of it in NSW, to PAY for these "non profit" community services as these services are part of a modern society!
i always thought we pay TAX, and crippling amounts of it in NSW, to PAY for these "non profit" community services as these services are part of a modern society!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: brisvegas
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news ladies and gentlemen but due to to Air traffic Control shortages we will be making two rather large orbits at cruise level before continuing our flight to Melbourne today. Yes , you heard it here first, it`s only a matter of time before the continual "productivity" enhancements result in the remaining controllers finally throwing in the towel and no longer proping up the system. Most of us are so disillusioned with the continual cutbacks that it`s only a matter of time before somebody gets a large orbit or two a bloody long way prior to top of descent. WHY? because the next sector is too busy and hasn`t had a decent break for more than two hours and has worked 13 days in the last 14. Management refuse to make any attempt to look forwards ( most sectors are a significant % up movement wise year-on year, with no signs of a leveling off ) and are only capable of reviewing last years data.Guess what , last year you didn`t open the console enough so now you lose it.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as a note, i thought the controllers at Sydney this evening around 6.30/7.00pm did a great job with all the cr-p weather. Pretty much allowed us to fly wherever we needed.
Cheers.
Cheers.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blue loo, If you went north that was me and a couple of the other blokes who read here. Cr@p indeed. Got to the point where aircraft were cancelling their requests as it got better in the time it took us to organise it. Pretty poor form but what can you do.
The bit I work on has gone with no staff 3 times in the last 2 years on night shifts. We don't go TIBA (correct me here) in Oz but declare a temporary restricted area (well my bit does). There was an instance where a certain group nearly went into this situation last week because a manager did not want to set a 'precedent' by paying a person the extra dollars to come in and work a night shift instead of the morning they were rostered for.
It is all about the dollar and the sub 100 IQ retards that are our management are to blame. We staff for best case only and if Thunder Storms roll in we call people on their days off to come and open the closed sectors and hope they will. Don't get me wrong, this only happens pretty much over summer but I was to believe our motto was 'Safety First'. If safety=safety of managers bonuses then we are doing a bang up job.
The bit I work on has gone with no staff 3 times in the last 2 years on night shifts. We don't go TIBA (correct me here) in Oz but declare a temporary restricted area (well my bit does). There was an instance where a certain group nearly went into this situation last week because a manager did not want to set a 'precedent' by paying a person the extra dollars to come in and work a night shift instead of the morning they were rostered for.
It is all about the dollar and the sub 100 IQ retards that are our management are to blame. We staff for best case only and if Thunder Storms roll in we call people on their days off to come and open the closed sectors and hope they will. Don't get me wrong, this only happens pretty much over summer but I was to believe our motto was 'Safety First'. If safety=safety of managers bonuses then we are doing a bang up job.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: TheEdgeofInsanity
Age: 53
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Media interest?
I wonder if this is an issue for someone to "leak" to the media to take on and beat up..
It may be one way of attracting the attention of public & pollie alike to the nature of ours skys at present
It may be one way of attracting the attention of public & pollie alike to the nature of ours skys at present
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A21J, I don't know about any media leakage, but it wouldn't make a difference.
The fact is that the Government, always looking to sell a good asset, decided circa 1995 that The Civil Aviation Authority (essentially a public service) would become ASA, a "Government Business Enterprise", turn a good profit, and make all the books look rosey for any prospective buyer (Serco
etc). Since then, no decision has been made in that organisation without express permission from a bean counter. If it is better for the books to restrict airspace than to call in an ED stand-down, they will restrict the airspace.
Air Traffic Control in this country is no longer about what's best for Airlines/Pilots/Passengers, it's about what's best for the shareholders (read the government).
The fact is that the Government, always looking to sell a good asset, decided circa 1995 that The Civil Aviation Authority (essentially a public service) would become ASA, a "Government Business Enterprise", turn a good profit, and make all the books look rosey for any prospective buyer (Serco
etc). Since then, no decision has been made in that organisation without express permission from a bean counter. If it is better for the books to restrict airspace than to call in an ED stand-down, they will restrict the airspace. Air Traffic Control in this country is no longer about what's best for Airlines/Pilots/Passengers, it's about what's best for the shareholders (read the government).
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hey Fab,
Try getting a refund from the ar!eclowns for shutting the airspace down, that would be like getting a refund from the city link thieves in Melbourne for closing the tunnel for maintenance etc. A road that you already own through paying 48.5% tax, 50% fuel tax (sorry it's an excise, not a tax) rego and insurance fees, 10% GST..........The aim of airservices is to turf (privatise) the un-profitable (TMA's and Towers) and keep their cash cow, en-route, they love en-route, makes squillions...... but then again it's an airspace structure that you already own through paying 48.5% tax.............
Try sitting at a console when you're short of staff and you tell one of these idiots up the front to put a notam out saying there may be delays. (just in case, mind you they may not occur) It's just game playing. 'We can't have the industry thinking we aren't efficient' While monitoring the state of their budget for when it comes bonus time. While also inventing projects and mindless re-sectorisation of airspace to also boost their bonus.
There's only a couple of these di#kheads, most of them work pretty hard and have their staff and the industry in mind when making decisions.
Try getting a refund from the ar!eclowns for shutting the airspace down, that would be like getting a refund from the city link thieves in Melbourne for closing the tunnel for maintenance etc. A road that you already own through paying 48.5% tax, 50% fuel tax (sorry it's an excise, not a tax) rego and insurance fees, 10% GST..........The aim of airservices is to turf (privatise) the un-profitable (TMA's and Towers) and keep their cash cow, en-route, they love en-route, makes squillions...... but then again it's an airspace structure that you already own through paying 48.5% tax.............
Try sitting at a console when you're short of staff and you tell one of these idiots up the front to put a notam out saying there may be delays. (just in case, mind you they may not occur) It's just game playing. 'We can't have the industry thinking we aren't efficient' While monitoring the state of their budget for when it comes bonus time. While also inventing projects and mindless re-sectorisation of airspace to also boost their bonus.
There's only a couple of these di#kheads, most of them work pretty hard and have their staff and the industry in mind when making decisions.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand your viewpoint - probably agree , buts its a really simple concept:
You charge me for a service that you dont provide, and then present me with a bill - I ain't paying!
Hey if you want to run the airspace like a third world African state and not charge us, fine! Just don't pretend your the worlds greatest ATS providor with your glossy website and magazine ad's and then charge us for a service that you can't deliver. If I have to take my chances with the competence of my fellow pilots TIBA skills, don't send me a bill for the dubious privelege! (I am probably going to need the money to pay the eventual and consequent increase in my aircraft insurance policies!)
If you work for an airline, especially some of these skin of the teeth profit margin LCC's, you should be telling whoever pays the bill at the end of the sector as well - I reckon Nav Charges would make up a fair whack of operating costs in a LCC. No?
Ergon, Sydney Rail, Telstra etc. have all been forced (after appeal to ACCC by consumers) to refund monies when services could not be provided - the precedent is there - get on board!
The statement about profitable enroute and unprofitable towers is interesting - surely that is just down to accounting practices within the ONE organisation. How easy would it be to reverse the internal beancounting and all of a sudden towers are the profitable ones? It is a total nonsense!
Letters have already gone to AirServices and CC'd to ACCC, DOTARS and that Oxygen thief Anderson. Lets see what the responses are - should be entertaining.
You charge me for a service that you dont provide, and then present me with a bill - I ain't paying!
Hey if you want to run the airspace like a third world African state and not charge us, fine! Just don't pretend your the worlds greatest ATS providor with your glossy website and magazine ad's and then charge us for a service that you can't deliver. If I have to take my chances with the competence of my fellow pilots TIBA skills, don't send me a bill for the dubious privelege! (I am probably going to need the money to pay the eventual and consequent increase in my aircraft insurance policies!)
If you work for an airline, especially some of these skin of the teeth profit margin LCC's, you should be telling whoever pays the bill at the end of the sector as well - I reckon Nav Charges would make up a fair whack of operating costs in a LCC. No?
Ergon, Sydney Rail, Telstra etc. have all been forced (after appeal to ACCC by consumers) to refund monies when services could not be provided - the precedent is there - get on board!
The statement about profitable enroute and unprofitable towers is interesting - surely that is just down to accounting practices within the ONE organisation. How easy would it be to reverse the internal beancounting and all of a sudden towers are the profitable ones? It is a total nonsense!
Letters have already gone to AirServices and CC'd to ACCC, DOTARS and that Oxygen thief Anderson. Lets see what the responses are - should be entertaining.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fab,
Agree with you totally about the charges, and the accounting philosophy. You won't get any arguments from most people on that one.
IMO they split the charges between those separate divisions (TWR, TMA and ENROUTE) so they can maximise returns in one area and get rid of the rest, the thing is who's going to buy a privatised area of business that can't make a profit? You'd have to be incredibly stupid! (understand there's a few of these around in this industry).
Back to the philosophy of privatising a safety organisation in the first place, the taxpayer already owns this mob and deserve a level of protection in this industry that isn't dictated by profits etc. Like I say, good luck getting a refund. Just have to ride out this ridiculous philosophy of economic rationalism!
Agree with you totally about the charges, and the accounting philosophy. You won't get any arguments from most people on that one.
IMO they split the charges between those separate divisions (TWR, TMA and ENROUTE) so they can maximise returns in one area and get rid of the rest, the thing is who's going to buy a privatised area of business that can't make a profit? You'd have to be incredibly stupid! (understand there's a few of these around in this industry).
Back to the philosophy of privatising a safety organisation in the first place, the taxpayer already owns this mob and deserve a level of protection in this industry that isn't dictated by profits etc. Like I say, good luck getting a refund. Just have to ride out this ridiculous philosophy of economic rationalism!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tobzalp is not completely correct when he/she says the managers are ex-ATC's. 90% of the senior managers, those who call the shots on the bonuses for the middle managers, (the ex-ATCs) are accountants.
It's difficult to know whether the middle managers want more controllers, they simply aren't in a position to complain, however I have heard that a line manager (ATC) in one of the Centres has been virtually sacked for refusing to run the Group below it's full complement.
There also seems to be a push to get rid of anyone who has more than two years management experience. Most of the experienced Centre supervisors were given the shove in the last purge and the control tower management have just fired four senior tower team leaders. These people are the ones that grew up in an era when senior controllers did not take any **** from anyone, especially managers. They were responsible for air safety and they took their responsibilities very serously. They are of course being replaced by younger people who are more used to a book based ATC system (MATS is now four times thicker than twenty years ago) and are also used to the concept that "businesses need to be run by professional managers."
You'll have to forgive me but to me a "professional manager" is a dogs body who knows nothing about anything so manages "key performance indicators". Give me a managing professional anytime. Unfortunately they have all left the building.
It's difficult to know whether the middle managers want more controllers, they simply aren't in a position to complain, however I have heard that a line manager (ATC) in one of the Centres has been virtually sacked for refusing to run the Group below it's full complement.
There also seems to be a push to get rid of anyone who has more than two years management experience. Most of the experienced Centre supervisors were given the shove in the last purge and the control tower management have just fired four senior tower team leaders. These people are the ones that grew up in an era when senior controllers did not take any **** from anyone, especially managers. They were responsible for air safety and they took their responsibilities very serously. They are of course being replaced by younger people who are more used to a book based ATC system (MATS is now four times thicker than twenty years ago) and are also used to the concept that "businesses need to be run by professional managers."
You'll have to forgive me but to me a "professional manager" is a dogs body who knows nothing about anything so manages "key performance indicators". Give me a managing professional anytime. Unfortunately they have all left the building.