NATS problems, why the queues?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NATS problems, why the queues?
The media is having their normal feeding frenzy with the latest NATS screwup and we are seeing horrendous queues outside the building of T3 and everywhere at T5.
I do understand that this means a lot of airplanes are not taking off, or landing. But why the queues? Processing of arriving passengers should not be impacted by airplanes not leaving, should they? Why not process them normally, get them through security and into the bars and shops.
Sure you might end up with a billion or so beyond security, but so what? Isn't it better having them indoors in the warm, rather that outside in the cold?
I don't see the logic in this.
I do understand that this means a lot of airplanes are not taking off, or landing. But why the queues? Processing of arriving passengers should not be impacted by airplanes not leaving, should they? Why not process them normally, get them through security and into the bars and shops.
Sure you might end up with a billion or so beyond security, but so what? Isn't it better having them indoors in the warm, rather that outside in the cold?
I don't see the logic in this.
Paxing All Over The World
If a flight may be cancelled - the pax will stay landside, Only once they are sure a flight will go - would you take through the process.
It is not just accepting the pax airside - as they can more readily be sent back but the luggage. the systems is designed to be one way! If a flight is cancelled - not just postponed - then all the bags have to be processaed as if the flight was going - but then manually returned AND you have to get the pax to an area where they can collect them. Depending on the destination, that may be airside.
Consequently, you keep Pax + Bags landside until you know.
As to the fault, having spent 27 years in telecommunications - and having known the man who was responsible for the (govt) BAA who ran the system - I have some guesses as to what went wrong.
Of course, systems go wrong and a contingency is needed but that has failed and any guess of mine revolves around Money and Outsourcing. but then, I'm a cynic and spent too long watching the process.
It is not just accepting the pax airside - as they can more readily be sent back but the luggage. the systems is designed to be one way! If a flight is cancelled - not just postponed - then all the bags have to be processaed as if the flight was going - but then manually returned AND you have to get the pax to an area where they can collect them. Depending on the destination, that may be airside.
Consequently, you keep Pax + Bags landside until you know.
As to the fault, having spent 27 years in telecommunications - and having known the man who was responsible for the (govt) BAA who ran the system - I have some guesses as to what went wrong.
Of course, systems go wrong and a contingency is needed but that has failed and any guess of mine revolves around Money and Outsourcing. but then, I'm a cynic and spent too long watching the process.
and having known the man who was responsible for the (govt) BAA who ran the system - I have some guesses as to what went wrong
Incidentally, it's being suggested on the ATC forum that the system failure may be not unconnected to this NOTAM:
E) AT 0100 ON 07 DEC 2013 SCOTTISH AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTRE MILITARY(SCOTTISH MIL)(SCATCC(MIL)) WILL TRANSITION TO SWANWICK AND ASSUME THE TITLE LONDON AIR TRAFFFIC CONTROL CENTRE MILITARY (LONDON MIL)(LATCC(MIL)) NORTH, THERE WILL BE NO CHANGES TO SERVICE PROVISION ARRANGEMENTS OR INITIAL CONTACT FREQ. ALL LATCC(MIL) SECTORS WILL ASSUME THE VOICE CALL SIGN 'SWANWICK MILITARY'. A SINGLE UK FLIGHT PLAN ADDRESS, EGZYOATT WILL BE USED FOR ALL OPERATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC FLIGHT PLANS.
LATCC(MIL) NORTH CTC DETAILS:
E-MAIL: LATCCMILNORTHSUP(AT)NATS.CO.UK FAX: 01489 612942. TEL - SUPERVISOR /AIR TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL TEL NETWORK (ATOTN): 7 590 5430 / MIL: 95586-5430 / CIV: 02380 401509. ASSISTANT SUPERVISOR / ATOTN: 7 590 5431 / MIL: 95586-5431 / CIV: 02380 401515. OPERATIONS ASSISTANT CIV: 01489 612944
Paxing All Over The World
Yes, DaveReidUK, I meantto clarify that everyone was cutting back and outsourcing, thanks.
The NOTAM does look as if system being combined may have a finger in this.
The NOTAM does look as if system being combined may have a finger in this.
I have asked before but I am curious why pax on bus gates need to go back backwards through the security control and not just bussed to an arrival gate, when a flight is cancelled?
And also about the one way baggage system; why not handling the bags of a cancelled flight as an incoming flight?
And also about the one way baggage system; why not handling the bags of a cancelled flight as an incoming flight?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its different areas in the baggage bays sometimes a completely different part of the building. Also you have to get someone to move them which is always at a cost.
And I don't really understand why they don't just circle the pax. Some airports do, and others just open a door and move them through while checking boarding passes. And others they make them go back through security, some times getting rescreen other time just through a side gate.
There have been various reasons given to me.
Airport security policy.
pax tax.
Bus availability.
Immigration rules.
Customs rules.
But more than likely it comes down to handling fee's
And I don't really understand why they don't just circle the pax. Some airports do, and others just open a door and move them through while checking boarding passes. And others they make them go back through security, some times getting rescreen other time just through a side gate.
There have been various reasons given to me.
Airport security policy.
pax tax.
Bus availability.
Immigration rules.
Customs rules.
But more than likely it comes down to handling fee's
I was listening to a radio broadcast last night where the CEO of one of the LCC's was expressing his concern that there was only one 'supplier' of ATC navigation services in the UK area and that they didn't seem to have a viable fallback/failsafe position for when the SHTF. He might have a point when you consider that the UK airspace is arguably the busiest in the world.
That wasn't said, perhaps due to time constraints, but in the financial world most of the trading desks have a failsafe plan in place, such as distanced location from main place of business, parallel telecoms and computer systems ready at a moments notice to kick-in and keep the trading positions open etc. I'm sure that the employees of NATS did a sterling job to manage the disruptions and get things back on track (pun intended) however those responsible for contingency planning might want to have a rethink as to how such disruptions can be alleviated in the future.
True, but what about NATS split into two, separate but complimentary suppliers as it were ? A NATS North and a NATS South and each with the capability of taking over the whole for short periods if/when a disruption occurred.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So presumably at any given point NATS North would have to have as many controllers as NATS South just sitting around waiting for the call and vice versa ? I wonder what the LCA CEO would have to say when asked to pay for that ?
Perhaps not as many controllers as now in NATS, each half would have half the compliment of controllers (as they would be controlling half the area) but with a built in pool of standby controllers (a percentage of the total that would be reasonable) to help take the strain in a short lived disruption of the whole. I'm sure that the unions and the accountants would scupper any such plan though. The disruptions are seldom enough not to cause a change in the system, it's just when it does the costs both financial and personal are huge. All the stranded passengers and the back logs this week will be remembered by those affected which is not good for business.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but with a built in pool of standby controllers (a percentage of the total that would be reasonable)
I don't want anything apart from a system that works, albeit at a reduced capacity during a disruption. The percentage would have to reflect the perceived risk factor and the accepted disruption to the whole. You seem to have an interest in NATS, so perhaps you would know if they have to pay compensation to the airlines who in turn will be out of pocket to their customers ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think having two suppliers would work, too much duplication etc.
What why can't there be two systems - driven by different servers but using the same workstations. Day to day the systems would be alternated - switching over early morning when loads are lowest - if/when something goes pear-shaped the back-up system could be brought on-line with a flick of a switch (or at each workstation??)
What why can't there be two systems - driven by different servers but using the same workstations. Day to day the systems would be alternated - switching over early morning when loads are lowest - if/when something goes pear-shaped the back-up system could be brought on-line with a flick of a switch (or at each workstation??)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't want anything apart from a system that works, albeit at a reduced capacity during a disruption
compensation to the airlines
the back-up system could be brought on-line with a flick of a switch
SHJ,
Very good point that all disciplines should look at others for possible solutions to their own problems, e.g:
Argentinian mechanic invents baby extractor:
BBC News - Odon childbirth device: Car mechanic uncorks a revolution
and, for balance, engineers may discover that natural selection solved an engineering problem 100k years ago.
in the financial world most of the trading desks have a failsafe plan in place, such as distanced location from main place of business, parallel telecoms and computer systems ready at a moments notice to kick-in and keep the trading positions open
Argentinian mechanic invents baby extractor:
BBC News - Odon childbirth device: Car mechanic uncorks a revolution
and, for balance, engineers may discover that natural selection solved an engineering problem 100k years ago.