A message to pilots flying into Heathrow and Gatwick
Throughout my time in Aviation, I considered & still do, that the standard of Air Traffic Controllers & the job they all do within UK airspace, to be the very best by far.
If any of these folk are unhappy at all with any of the tools of their trade, please continue to speak up. Possibly a Notam rather than Prune would be the better way to go, but whatever method is used to highlight any short commings within the ATC system, you can rest assured, you continue to have the total support & respect of all who use your services. Well done & many thanks.
If any of these folk are unhappy at all with any of the tools of their trade, please continue to speak up. Possibly a Notam rather than Prune would be the better way to go, but whatever method is used to highlight any short commings within the ATC system, you can rest assured, you continue to have the total support & respect of all who use your services. Well done & many thanks.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may appear childish to suggest that if the new equipment gives an EAT it should be quoted to the arriving aircraft; if it then changes rapidly that should be conveyed too. Eventually aircraft will divert and commanders will complain; I would hope that would cause NATS management to investigate why the sequence of events occurred.
As ever, as long as aviation professionals attempt to deal with inadequate equipment/systems they actually create air safety issues rather than cure them.
Thank you AnotherThing for drawing this to our attention, I am personally very disappointed that NATS management are so one-eyed about this situation. Good effective safety-minded management must investigate complaints of users even if they think they are exaggerating as unless they do so they will never find out the truth. Come on NATS, we pilots expect better of you!
As ever, as long as aviation professionals attempt to deal with inadequate equipment/systems they actually create air safety issues rather than cure them.
Thank you AnotherThing for drawing this to our attention, I am personally very disappointed that NATS management are so one-eyed about this situation. Good effective safety-minded management must investigate complaints of users even if they think they are exaggerating as unless they do so they will never find out the truth. Come on NATS, we pilots expect better of you!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 64
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
System not yet in use at HK - just doing the training now - whole project delayed - my 2c worth is it will not work well in the HK environment until the airspace is further developed and even then we'll work around it - expect problems in HK airspace once it comes on line. The HK holds are too far away from touchdown to allow a system like this to do the intended job - tail will wag the dog.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ireland
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many thanks for the heads up guys. I have always found London's EAT's first rate and have planned accordingly. Conversely, I have found German EAT's, when given, wildly conservative and have had to divert. I had assumed, quite unfairly, it was part of their national culture I am pleased to be relieved of that piece of bigotry and disappointed that London TMA has bought their software.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: southampton
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say from an AC point of view that the idea is good (knowing the landing sequence and being able to stream or start the stream to achieve this) but the kit is rubbish.
It doesn't pick up the aircraft far enough out for us to start the sequence it wants before we've already decided it. If it could see them far enough away we could get other ACC's to apply speed control thats more economical so holding is alot less.
The EAT's jump around so much i haven't even bothered uttering one. The EAT's AFAIK are based on the landing rate which is to say the number of aircraft that have landed in the last hour not the actual landing rate (not a problem at 2pm when the landing rate has been 38 for the last 3 hours but definatley a problem at 6am when its been 7, and the landing restrictions at EGLL have been lifted.
Oh and i know of one ATCO that was involved but he is office based (keeps a validation though) "apparantley" he has been telling them this stuff but they don't seem to be listening. Its been pushed through to meet some deadline that it wasn't fit for.
It doesn't pick up the aircraft far enough out for us to start the sequence it wants before we've already decided it. If it could see them far enough away we could get other ACC's to apply speed control thats more economical so holding is alot less.
The EAT's jump around so much i haven't even bothered uttering one. The EAT's AFAIK are based on the landing rate which is to say the number of aircraft that have landed in the last hour not the actual landing rate (not a problem at 2pm when the landing rate has been 38 for the last 3 hours but definatley a problem at 6am when its been 7, and the landing restrictions at EGLL have been lifted.
Oh and i know of one ATCO that was involved but he is office based (keeps a validation though) "apparantley" he has been telling them this stuff but they don't seem to be listening. Its been pushed through to meet some deadline that it wasn't fit for.
I think we might see some interesting things happening if EATs slip drastically during holding. If a fair number of aircraft have committed to LHR and then get another 20mins out of the blue, then there are going to be more than a few PAN calls due to fuel state, possibly turning into MAYDAY's later. A few occurrences of that should focus the attention of the CAA/NATS... 
It may appear childish to suggest that if the new equipment gives an EAT it should be quoted to the arriving aircraft; if it then changes rapidly that should be conveyed too.
There are reports going in from ATCOs all the time but if you pilots are dissatisfied with the delay information then I'd urge you to file a report.
NATS will listen to it's customers long before it's own operational staff.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: united kingdom
Age: 63
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How is going today? I heard that there was a change overnight to sort out the problems that were being talked about on here yesterday.
Have they been fixed?
Have they been fixed?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
retired
am i now listening to high tech luddites ?
google or ask elders re "luddites"
apolgies to those who can spell proper
can people at least take one step back and evaluate?
all those who did not assist in inputing opinions about what was required,
take two steps back
"it" the new thing needs always to arrive
the current "we" if surprised by this ,we am "lazy or remiss"
or just ******* up
fill in blanks
google or ask elders re "luddites"
apolgies to those who can spell proper
can people at least take one step back and evaluate?
all those who did not assist in inputing opinions about what was required,
take two steps back
"it" the new thing needs always to arrive
the current "we" if surprised by this ,we am "lazy or remiss"
or just ******* up
fill in blanks
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sweeper,
We are not Luddites, the system has been introduced before it is ready. Other countries, who bought into the system before us, are still developing it... it was rushed in, plain and simple.
As ATCOs working in some of the most complex and congested airspace around, we would welcome any electronic aids, as long as they make our job easier, not more difficult!
This is not a case of Luddism (yes, it is a word), we just want to continue to provide aircrew with one of the best ATC services in the world. We cannot do that with second rate equipment.
We are not Luddites, the system has been introduced before it is ready. Other countries, who bought into the system before us, are still developing it... it was rushed in, plain and simple.
As ATCOs working in some of the most complex and congested airspace around, we would welcome any electronic aids, as long as they make our job easier, not more difficult!
This is not a case of Luddism (yes, it is a word), we just want to continue to provide aircrew with one of the best ATC services in the world. We cannot do that with second rate equipment.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: southampton
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately it now appears equipment and procedures are introduced without fully checking the impact on the operation. Should a controller voice a concern we are just "moaning" or "adverse to change" procedures or kit is then withdrawn suspended or fixed, problem is by then all faith in that system is gone. Recently one of the tech types commented on the fact that the screens had been turned away from the radar so we couldn't see them and assumed it was because we don't like the kit and it was a type of protest, unfortunately they didn't realise that the info had been so far out and confusing we had no choice because it was a huge distraction.
When it works correctly it may well be a fantastic tool but right now it just makes us look like one. Good luck with rebuilding the trust in the system.
I so hope lessons will be learned for the future with the fabled electronic flight strips PRNAV etc etc etc etc etc...........??
When it works correctly it may well be a fantastic tool but right now it just makes us look like one. Good luck with rebuilding the trust in the system.
I so hope lessons will be learned for the future with the fabled electronic flight strips PRNAV etc etc etc etc etc...........??
Guest
Posts: n/a
Luddite-ism, shirley? 
Nowt wrong wee 4 hand looms any road
Bliddy Arkwright
Seriously though, if the ATSD team were part of the approvals process including the 4 part safety case etc., will they be able to look at the issue objectively? I hope so - I just don't know.
Sir George Cayley
Nowt wrong wee 4 hand looms any road
Bliddy ArkwrightSeriously though, if the ATSD team were part of the approvals process including the 4 part safety case etc., will they be able to look at the issue objectively? I hope so - I just don't know.
Sir George Cayley
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Unfortunately it now appears equipment and procedures are introduced without fully checking the impact on the operation.>>
I think we were saying the same thing in the early 70s! Was, is and ever shall be...
I think we were saying the same thing in the early 70s! Was, is and ever shall be...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: south coast
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMAN still broken
We are still regularly being told by our supervisors to ignore AMAN as it is incorrect.
I know the engineers have been working on it, but does not seem to be fixing the problem at the moment.
I know the engineers have been working on it, but does not seem to be fixing the problem at the moment.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Out of the blue
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ohhhh joy.
Isn't it just great that this coincides with a new 'grass cutting' initiative from Nigel's management to interview, and ultimately disciopline, pilots who take more than their flight plan fuel? A system called CIRRUS which aptly describes the wispy reserves envisaged on arrival at Lambingdon and Bockham.
God save us from computers, and the nerds that believe them.
Isn't it just great that this coincides with a new 'grass cutting' initiative from Nigel's management to interview, and ultimately disciopline, pilots who take more than their flight plan fuel? A system called CIRRUS which aptly describes the wispy reserves envisaged on arrival at Lambingdon and Bockham.
God save us from computers, and the nerds that believe them.