UK Upper Sectors......

[Ben Sargeaunt-Thomson 8348]

Hello,

 

Recently with all the changes going on within London Airspace I wanted to pose the question, what direction are we going in?

 

We recently had the EURI trial pushed through, whether we like it or not – a small elite group of controllers have decided it’s now here to stay. Despite numerous people raising issues, many of which went unanswered its now been approved.

 

Recently we had the CC / BR event. During which I controlled TT_S. We had no TT_N and only LON for about an hour and a half. When underlying coverage was there, TT was a dream, allowing plenty of time on freq to split and separate aircraft, I extended my cover north of Birmingham to bridge the gap into MAN. As soon as LON went however we are back to the multiple aircraft calls from outside the sector (in the OTR corridor and TT_N sectors).

I remembered that night why I don’t control that often on enroute anymore, and it is because of the lack of adjacent cover.

 

Earlier in the same week I controlled LON. I was working medium traffic levels, however had no LL, SS or GW cover. However, KK was manned with a GND, TWR, F_APP and INT_APP. We also had KA manned with a TWR and APP. Whilst I commend the dedication, a number of these members could have covered LL instead, helping the enroute controllers, rather than a high number of controllers providing a service to very little traffic.

 

This has become the norm now, with highly experienced controllers opening (with all due respect) minor positions.

 

I noticed that tonight we have a controller on Oxford, how much traffic will he expect to receive?

 

Now I guess there is a case here that I am marginalising the VFR traffic we get on VATSIM but saying what’s the point of opening the minor positions, Biggn, Shoreham, Cambridge and Gloucester. However, we still have fields like Cardiff, East Mids and Birmingham where VFR can still be achieved. I don’t want to touch on training and standards too much, but it is my opinion that the majority of controllers on VATSIM are unable to handle VFR correctly anyway!

 

The LWG was reinstated recently and within 4 weeks, 16 people (I don’t know who they are) have proposed a trial removing TMA positions, going top down and increasing the sectors numbers by 1.

My first point is who are these 16 people! Because they are not mentoring or controlling?

My second is that the previous LWG discussed issues at great length, training, sector loading etc.. Most of the questions I have asked so far have been met with the response – well 16 people wanted it, so we are trialling it. But let me ask these questions here.

 

Q1 – The oLWG (Old London Working Group) took the decision to remove top down cover from TT. Why was this done? Well it would allow students to come onto the TT positions and learn enroute control, and by that I mean learn how to separate aircraft, and learn the techniques involved without the underlying cover of Aerodrome and Approach positions. The majority of students currently do not have Heathrow ratings, or possess the skills or capacity to also cover underlying positions. This is not a dig…. I’m sure if push came to shove they might be able to swim on the position, but it would be at a detriment to the application and understanding of separation’s etc. Plus as we know in a training environment you need time to discuss issues as they occur. My question, Why has top down been brought back to TT?

 

Q2 – What is the reasoning behind removing the London TMA?

 

Q3 – What is the new training scheme or philosophy behind this new structure? What is the progression of a student under the new scheme? Are they just expected to log on TT and cover everything from day one?

 

 

To conclude, I cannot see how this trial benefits the UK division. The issues in my opinion that we face,

 

- A lack of mentoring

- A lack of people covering major underlying positions

- Pilot/Viewer software not accurately showing TT airspace

- Retention of experienced controllers on TT (I believe that point 2 and 3 might go a long way to retain and bring people back to enroute)

 

To me this trial does not address these issues. I also feel that trying to mentor under this trial will be counterproductive for the students and I would recommend that students do not undergo training on the new sector and so delay their training.

 

We need to return back to covering the majors.......

 

Maybe I’m just an old fart, but it would be nice if we could see a reasoning behind what the UK enroute trials are trying to achieve……..

 

Kind regards,

 

Ben

[Gary Oliver]

...

[Gunnar Lindahl]

Hi Ben,

 

Recently we had the CC / BR event. During which I controlled TT_S. We had no TT_N and only LON for about an hour and a half. When underlying coverage was there, TT was a dream, allowing plenty of time on freq to split and separate aircraft, I extended my cover north of Birmingham to bridge the gap into MAN. As soon as LON went however we are back to the multiple aircraft calls from outside the sector (in the OTR corridor and TT_N sectors).

I remembered that night why I don’t control that often on enroute anymore, and it is because of the lack of adjacent cover.

 

You're right, at the moment the UK has a shortage of area controllers.

 

Earlier in the same week I controlled LON. I was working medium traffic levels, however had no LL, SS or GW cover. However, KK was manned with a GND, TWR, F_APP and INT_APP. We also had KA manned with a TWR and APP. Whilst I commend the dedication, a number of these members could have covered LL instead, helping the enroute controllers, rather than a high number of controllers providing a service to very little traffic.

 

This has become the norm now, with highly experienced controllers opening (with all due respect) minor positions.

 

I noticed that tonight we have a controller on Oxford, how much traffic will he expect to receive?

 

Now I guess there is a case here that I am marginalising the VFR traffic we get on VATSIM but saying what’s the point of opening the minor positions, Biggn, Shoreham, Cambridge and Gloucester. However, we still have fields like Cardiff, East Mids and Birmingham where VFR can still be achieved. I don’t want to touch on training and standards too much, but it is my opinion that the majority of controllers on VATSIM are unable to handle VFR correctly anyway!

 

But we have to remember that it's whatever the controller wants to man. If someone wants to do Shoreham instead of Heathrow, that's their personal preference. They're there to enjoy themselves, not just to maximise the ATC coverage available for pilots.

 

Q1 – The oLWG (Old London Working Group) took the decision to remove top down cover from TT. Why was this done? Well it would allow students to come onto the TT positions and learn enroute control, and by that I mean learn how to separate aircraft, and learn the techniques involved without the underlying cover of Aerodrome and Approach positions. The majority of students currently do not have Heathrow ratings, or possess the skills or capacity to also cover underlying positions. This is not a dig…. I’m sure if push came to shove they might be able to swim on the position, but it would be at a detriment to the application and understanding of separation’s etc. Plus as we know in a training environment you need time to discuss issues as they occur. My question, Why has top down been brought back to TT?

 

Your reasoning for the removal of top-down from EGTT is correct, and in theory the idea seems to work. Over a year down the line though, it became clear that the new setup did not work. Students were not able to get the traffic required on the upper sectors to learn the basics of area and mentoring did not increase. In essence, we had (and still have) students stuck being mentored on EGTT_S_CTR with minimal traffic during the sessions they can get (TT_S just as an example).

 

Q2 – What is the reasoning behind removing the London TMA?

 

To see whether the EGTT sectors can feasibly control during peak times, top-down, without the underlying TMAs. If this is not the case, then we need to rethink our strategy to ensure controllers do not get overloaded on a regular basis on these sectors. I don't think there's any plans to permanently "delete" the TMAs, there's no reason why they should not exist. We're just trialling these new sectors without the underlying TMAs.

 

What is the progression of a student under the new scheme? Are they just expected to log on TT and cover everything from day one?

 

After their consolidation of all the underlying APP positions and background reading, they would go on either S, W, C or N, dependant on where their APP exam was.

 

Hope this answers some of your questions at least partially. It's quite late here but I'd be happy to answer any further questions tomorrow.

 

Cheers,

[Dave James 1018738]

.

Edited February 20, 2011 at 04:57 PM by Guest

[Michael Benson]

Ben is unable to do this as the staff have seen fit to permanantly suspend his access to the UK forum.

[Ben Sargeaunt-Thomson 8348]

Hi Gunnar,

 

Many thanks for taking the time to reply.

 

Whilst I agree on the most part with your post as it seems we are in agreement. Yes we can’t dictate where people log on, this does effect the amount of enroute cover we get in the UK.

 

Your reasoning for the removal of top-down from EGTT is correct, and in theory the idea seems to work. Over a year down the line though, it became clear that the new setup did not work. Students were not able to get the traffic required on the upper sectors to learn the basics of area and mentoring did not increase. In essence, we had (and still have) students stuck being mentored on EGTT_S_CTR with minimal traffic during the sessions they can get (TT_S just as an example).

 

This is where I disagree. And I’ll make this disagreement on fact. The current setup does work if people picked up mentoring sessions. During the past 4 weeks I have been totally selfish, self centred and an [Filters are here for a reason and not for trying to circomevent with intentional misspelling. If you know something isn't allowed please rethink your choice of words. NB 870575] mentoring on TT_S, there have been numerous great teaching situations. I’m not going to support this on an open forum as I do not have the students permission to post mentoring reports on here. But I will direct you to those reports to support this statement. These prove that the system DOES work, and contradicts your comments above. There are plenty of situations to demonstrate enroute seperations and techniques.....

 

All I’m saying is that I fail to see the rationale behind the reason for this trial, the removal of TMA even for this trial seems strange, especially as you imply in your post that it prob won’t be removed full stop.

 

I don’t believe fully that this trial has been fully thought though. Also the opinions of experienced controllers have been marginalised……. Can I ask you if experienced controllers where asked why they don’t log on?

 

Many thanks Dave for pointing me to the UK forums, but because I had the cheek to ask a staff member to apologise for insightful remarks made by them on the UK forum, the staff decided that I should no longer have access……….

 

I wish you all the best with the trial and hope that the outcome is not the same as the EURI trial…..

 

Kind regards,

 

Ben

[Ben Sargeaunt-Thomson 8348]

I come back to see the trial has gone ahead, with no answers to my factual questions……

 

I guess because it was a reasoned argument, supported by fact it doesn’t really deserve an answer….

 

A few more facts though, no mentoring has taken place on TT for the last 2 weeks.... and no sessions have been booked for the rest of this month.

Only 1 person has a request in for training on TT_S now this trial has started, out of a pool of 6-7 before it...... So already this trial has had the effect of completely stopping students training on enroute!!!!

 

Anyhow, I will be unable to control Openskies as I will be unable to learn these new sectors in the timeframe..... Plus the sector loading without LON will be too great to make it any fun......

 

Good luck with the trial, see you in a couple of months when normallity is hopefully restored.......

 

Ben

[Gunnar Lindahl]

I come back to see the trial has gone ahead, with no answers to my factual questions……

 

Were you expecting the trial to be delayed until your questions were answered? I have been very busy with moving into halls over the last week but I'll do my best to address your issues.

 

I guess because it was a reasoned argument, supported by fact it doesn’t really deserve an answer….

 

Yep, that's the one.

 

A few more facts though, no mentoring has taken place on TT for the last 2 weeks.... and no sessions have been booked for the rest of this month.

Only 1 person has a request in for training on TT_S now this trial has started, out of a pool of 6-7 before it...... So already this trial has had the effect of completely stopping students training on enroute!!!!

 

The trial started on Saturday, so your statement would imply that little training takes place on these sectors anyway.

 

Anyhow, I will be unable to control Openskies as I will be unable to learn these new sectors in the timeframe..... Plus the sector loading without LON will be too great to make it any fun......

 

Sorry to hear that, hopefully you can join us next time.

 

Going back to your original thoughts...

 

This is where I disagree. And I’ll make this disagreement on fact. The current setup does work if people picked up mentoring sessions. During the past 4 weeks I have been totally selfish, self centred and an [Filters are here for a reason and not for trying to circomevent with intentional misspelling. If you know something isn't allowed please rethink your choice of words. NB 870575] mentoring on TT_S, there have been numerous great teaching situations. I’m not going to support this on an open forum as I do not have the students permission to post mentoring reports on here. But I will direct you to those reports to support this statement. These prove that the system DOES work, and contradicts your comments above. There are plenty of situations to demonstrate enroute seperations and techniques.....

 

Fair enough, but we'll have to agree to disagree there. I have had first hand experience of mentoring on TTS with the top-down coverage removed, both as the mentor and student. As a student, I spent countless hours being mentored on TT_S until we eventually realised that doing so was completely pointless, after which I spent the remainder of my sessions on LTMA. I'm glad you had a good experience whilst mentoring on TTS, but in general it does not get the traffic to provide a fulfilling mentoring session, in my opinion. I'm not trying to disprove your point though, I read through the mentoring reports you refer to and it looks like the student gained a lot. That's good.

 

I don’t believe fully that this trial has been fully thought though. Also the opinions of experienced controllers have been marginalised……. Can I ask you if experienced controllers where asked why they don’t log on?

 

...and the opinions of experienced controllers have also been taken onboard to help us construct these sectors. In fact, the sector structure for this trial was designed with the help of a real world controller. We aren't trying to "marginalise" your opinions just because we don't agree, and additionally there are many experienced controllers in the division who fully support the trial and its aims.

 

Hope this helps, if you want to discuss it further I'd be happy to in this thread, have some more time now I'm all settled in.

 

Cheers.

[Dave James 1018738]

.

Edited February 20, 2011 at 04:57 PM by Guest

[Gunnar Lindahl]

So far, the aims of the trial havent been published in any area, is it just a resectorisation of airspace ? Is the main aim to make it easier for controllers to come through the ranks....how ? Is it now quicker to come through the ranks....how ? Is it more appealing for S3's to want to train to do Area....Why ?

 

The sole aim is to try out a new system to see how successful it is because the current system (by current I mean the non-trial setup) does not work. How doesn't it work? Well, manning in EGTT has been at an all-time low, as has training. The current sectors are not attractive to control for current C1+ controllers; you either have the choice of covering a TMA, which was fine, but you are prevented from being able to control up to the airspace ceiling of the FIR and to the FIR boundaries for little or no operational reason. This provides less enjoyment for the controller and a diminished coverage area for pilots. The other choice was of course to cover the high level sectors... here you can control up to the FIR ceiling/boundaries but have to drop aircraft to UNICOM as they enter the TMAs (where providing an air traffic service is most crucial). Of course, this system could work if the human resources existed for LON+TTS and MAN+TTN to be opened regularly together, but the fact is that the shortage of controllers makes this system annoying at best.

 

The previous arrangement had 6 (Six) TMA positions that could be operated (LON - TMA - N, S, E, W and MAN W and E).

Additionally, TT CTR boasted 3 upper sectors N, S and W.

Thats a total of 9 (NINE) positions available to operate by C1'S.

 

The UK now has only 4, TT - N, S, C and W.

 

You make that sound like it's a bad thing. The current system requires five controllers (LON+MAN+TTS+TTN+TTW) to provide "full" enroute cover to the EGTT FIR - that is, to provide a service to everywhere inside CAS within EGTT. If we exclude TT bandboxed, the trial system only requires three (TTS+TTN+TTW). That means that with three controllers we can provide the same level of coverage as with five. This means we can make better use of our human resources and that the "left over" controllers can either open the optional C sector to split with S, or open up an underlying approach position such as Heathrow to provide a better experience for pilots. A total of nine positions available to be operated by C1s sounds great, except that none of these positions were opened very often at all, with the possible exception of LON.

 

"If" this is supposed to make it more attractive for potential candidates, it might be a benefit for all to actually explain as to why this is so ?

 

Well I'm sure potential candidates can figure out for themselves whether this is a more attractive setup. Undoubtedly some people would like it, and some wouldn't. For me, I would find the trial setup more attractive because

 

1) The progression route is less "blurred" - it is very simple what position you will be [Mod - Happy Thoughts]essed on and there probably won't be any switching of positions half way through exams.

2) Controllers learning in the Essex/Mids and SERTS RTSs have the option of opening C and S respectively without S bandboxing the C sector at first. This allows them to ease into enroute controlling with less airfields to think about. It also means that they can train on one of these sectors whilst spending their own time getting familiarised with airfields in the other sector.

3) Guaranteed good levels of traffic during mentoring sessions. I fully appreciate that Ben had a good experience with his students a couple of weeks ago but I can confidently say from a personal point of view that from when this EGTT setup was brought in to my area exam in November 2009 I spent many pointless hours on TTS with a mentor looking at a blank screen, whilst traffic filled the TMA underneath me (with nobody controlling it). I was, of course, required to learn the high level sector for my training so there was no option to move down to the TMA at the time. Eventually we abandoned the high level stuff and accepted that LTMA was the only position there was any point with manning. I only put up with this incredibly slow rate of progression (although I received my C1 in an APP exam through the old system, I was "technically" an Approach Controller, S3, for over two and a half years) because I was adamant to come out the other end with a C1 rating. Not many people would be as sad as me and put up with something like that for so long. To put it bluntly, my progression onto enroute was not fun.

4) Easier for pilots. Pilots know when to call, you don't have to worry about saying "BAW123, sorry I don't cover top down monitor UNICOM" etc, you cover the airspace you cover with no ifs and no buts.

5) You don't need to sit an exam on TTS or TTN to gain your C1 (like some have done) and then wait endlessly for a validation on the underlying TMA. Whilst these controllers waited, they did some TTS/TTN every now and then but eventually realised that the sector is not fun without the top-down. Then you lose motivation and a potential TMA controller is lost. I'm sure people like Callum McLoughlin (who I believe did his C1 on TTN without the MAN validation) can testify this was the case.

6) A less complicated validations system.

7) At the end of it, an option to open a bandboxed sector (EGTT_CTR) of the whole FIR during off-peak times (not realistic to open at other times). Good fun to do late evening and early morning, and provides more coverage to pilots.

Mentors should be more interested in mentoring on busier positions as it means less hanging around looking at an empty scope. Sure, theory and discussion is needed a lot in the first few sessions to cover basics, but at the end of the day a student needs traffic for a mentoring session to be a success.

 

Further, if the trial works (which in my opinion it cannot and will not fail), at a later stage when new C1's are with us, there is a fantastic choice of operating less than half of the previous sectors and those sectors will be mandatory top-down.

 

Operating less than half of the number of sectors, but covering the same area.

 

On another point, I take it that a true top-down service for each sector will include the candidate, before being graded C1 will have exceptional knowledge of "every" airport/airfield and its procedures that falls within the AOR of that sector. Anything less must be a degradation in the quality of service.

 

As has always been the case, they need to know the underlying fields as this is part of the sector they control. Not sure what you mean about a "degradation of service" - a CTR controller in general cannot be expected to provide the same level of service as, say, a TWR controller if he is busy. For example, if I'm controlling the TMA and it's busy with no underlying Heathrow control, I won't necessarily give taxiway routings unless I need to to aircraft on the ground as I'm too busy. This isn't a degradation of service, it's just taking into account workload and prioritising those in the air. That doesn't mean I don't know Heathrow to the level I need to know it, I'd like to think myself as a competent controller at Heathrow.

 

What is the minumum time that a STU3 has to have on each and every position in the AOR before being accepted for training as a C1 ?? Has this been finalised in the training docomeentation or training plan that goes with each sector?

 

There is no minimum time. They need to know the airspace they are controlling. S3s should be able to learn independently and know when they are ready for enroute training. If they get their first session and their competence at the fields they haven't controlled as part of their TWR/APP training isn't adequate, then naturally (as it's always been done) they'll be asked to go back and look at it a bit more. C1 training is a big commitment and takes lots of time to complete; this will never change in any EGTT setup. It's a complex airspace and there are a lot of aircraft crossing it every day.

 

Has there even been a structured training plan for each new sector drawn up ?

 

Do we know what we are doing with those currently training on EGTT? Yes. Have we written up exactly how it works? No. Why? Because, at present, mentoring is very slow and there are a sufficiently small number of people in the system to deal with it on an individual basis. For example (I don't think he'll mind), V[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ily R was previously training on TT_S, where he received very little traffic during the very few sessions he got. I emailed him the other night saying I was prepared to pick up his EGTT_S_CTR session when he had had time to consolidate on the underlying approach sectors. He'll get back to me when that's done, and then we go from there. See my point? Nobody should be confused as to where they are in terms of their enroute training, it's quite self explanatory.

 

Hope this helps...

[Dave James 1018738]

.

Edited February 20, 2011 at 04:58 PM by Guest

[Ben Sargeaunt-Thomson 8348]

Hi Gunnar, thanks for that…..

 

So your reasoning for this trial is based on the 4 sessions you had in the period 26/11/08 to 04/03/09. I can see that back then, over a year and a half ago……. that you did not have enough traffic whilst you where training….

However as I said, in the 11 mentoring sessions in the period 18/08/10 until 07/09/10 we only had 2 session that where mid-week sessions early in the evening that did not have enough traffic.

 

So as I said the FACTS show that your information is out dated and incorrect. This is supported by the statistics……. as I have shown.

 

Anyway, more to the point, I hope that after the shocking display at the weekend this trial will be canned…… I hope that instead of coming up with excuses based on old, out dated information…… its finally time that there is a realisation that the standards in the UK have dropped and that that is due to the lack of structured training. That the system does work if time is put into mentoring, but will only work if people put the time into it……….This is encapsulated with the lack of an enroute training structure, but not only that, a lack of training structure across the division……

 

Ben

[Ben Sargeaunt-Thomson 8348]

Just a quick suggestion given Mr Wrights..... I've got a copy of the London MATS Pt 2...lets copy the real world splits..... suggestions similar to what we had 10 years ago..... It doesn't work, and whats the point in having a two tier normal and extra split positions setup.

 

As demoed at Heathrow, unless you open positions and training properly on a regular basis...... it just doesn't work.....

 

Can these stupid waste of time trials..... and get back to mentoring.....

 

Hate to say I told you so about the new sectors, but given the openskies performance...... told you so

 

Ben

[Gunnar Lindahl]

Can these stupid waste of time trials..... and get back to mentoring.....

 

And get back to having a 90% dormant EGTT? I don't think you're quite understanding that existing controllers do not man the current (non-trial) setup because it is not fun, ergo the sector setup does not work. As I've said on countless occasions, having positions which do not cover top-down works fine when there are people to man them, but when there are less controllers there must be an option to cover the position top-down! Otherwise we are doing our pilots a disservice by never actually having any full manning! If I am the only enroute controller who logs on one night, and I am limited to either covering the TMA *or* covering TTS but NOT the TMA, I simply will not log on, simple as. What is the operational reason for controllers not being able to cover a whole sector top-down on a normal night? It's just pointless. Completely pointless. The great manning levels, minus some because of novelty, are a testament to that people actually like these sectors and are willing to staff them.

 

Hate to say I told you so about the new sectors, but given the openskies performance...... told you so

 

Apologies, but I don't really understand that sentence. The last few weeks have shown that the trialled sector setup works far better than the old system. Why? Because the sectors have been manned far more than they ever have been in the last two years and therefore we are providing a far better service to pilots who visit our airspace. Openskies on Sunday showed that we need to make changes to accomodate large-scale events like that one as we struggled, as you constantly remind us. That does not mean that the new sector setup doesn't work, it means we need to make adjustments to accomodate the times when we get high levels of traffic. On normal nights (which happen about 98% of the time? Let's say we have some sort of event every 50 days) the sectors work great so your point there is not valid. Just my opinion.

[Wygene Chong 1089621]

May I just put in the perspective of a pilot (which is in turn influenced by the majority of the pilot base in the virtual airline I help run): these new sectors have done wonders for the area and upper level control centres in the UK.

 

Previously, the situation was as Gunnar has pointed out below:

If I am the only enroute controller who logs on one night, and I am limited to either covering the TMA *or* covering TTS but NOT the TMA,

The EGTT RTS has quite an extreme lack in manpower which has for some time now resulted in pilots not getting full service. With this trial, one controller can cover the whole of England top-down with upper level control as well, which is perfect for low traffic. When there is moderate to high traffic, 5 controllers can cover England top-down with upper control.

 

Pilots then get considerably more ATC for their flights. Yes, there needs to be a rethink of the sectorisation when it comes to very high/extreme traffic levels, which are being discussed at the topic here - http://community.vatsim-uk.org/index.php?showtopic=21533

 

Also, Ben you're correct that controller standards have fallen, I have seen that myself as a student controller. However, with the lack of manpower (and there definitely is a lack of manpower) we just have to make do with what we have at present. We need to get as many students through and controlling. They will gain experience on their positions and continue their mentoring towards a higher level. But we can't simply mentor to that perfect standard beforehand because there aren't enough mentors with enough time.

 

Thus we are trying new things (with all these trials - Eurocentre vACC, Upper sectors etc...) in order to find some 'stable ground upon which to build'. The current mentoring system is in a sorry state, it's taking way too long for students to get through and the ratio of students to mentors is out of proportion. I've been told by a few European controllers that its faster and simpler just to go through another country's training system to learn the ATC basics, then transfer into the UK as a S3 or C1 to learn local procedures. But I've stuck by the UK and hopefully all will change for the better

[David Saunders 818672]

 

I've been told by a few European controllers that its faster and simpler just to go through another country's training system to learn the ATC basics, then transfer into the UK as a S3 or C1 to learn local procedures. But I've stuck by the UK and hopefully all will change for the better

 

 

This is precisely why i actually gave up as EGLL RTSI, this is what I pointed out, but was told this didnt happen within Europe and to get my facts rights by VATEUD1,

[Anthony Lawrence]

 

I've been told by a few European controllers that its faster and simpler just to go through another country's training system to learn the ATC basics, then transfer into the UK as a S3 or C1 to learn local procedures. But I've stuck by the UK and hopefully all will change for the better

 

 

This is precisely why i actually gave up as EGLL RTSI, this is what I pointed out, but was told this didnt happen within Europe and to get my facts rights by VATEUD1,

 

We've heard this a million times already. You point this out in any topic you see fit. If you've got such a problem with it then email Gunnar, Kyp, whoever; just stop dragging down decent threads!

 

In relation to training within EGTT; from a personal point of view, I'd rather see us gain 10 controllers that can control a sector to a decent standard with average traffic levels as oppose to one controller that can handle any number of aircraft thrown at them. Otherwise we're never going to get out of this "rut" that we're currently stuck in when it comes to wanting perfect standards for TT controllers.

 

Regards,

A...

[David Saunders 818672]

Anthony

 

For information second time I have mentioned this and yes i did email. And maybe you would enlighten me to all the posts I have made, I never made it public the reason why I gave it up.

 

BUT if you dont think that isnt worrying then maybe this is why VATUK is in the state its in.

 

Sorry for pointing things out,

[Gunnar Lindahl]

 

I've been told by a few European controllers that its faster and simpler just to go through another country's training system to learn the ATC basics, then transfer into the UK as a S3 or C1 to learn local procedures. But I've stuck by the UK and hopefully all will change for the better

 

 

This is precisely why i actually gave up as EGLL RTSI, this is what I pointed out, but was told this didnt happen within Europe and to get my facts rights by VATEUD1,

 

Dave,

 

You gave up because it takes too long for people to progress or because people come over from Europe as S3/C1s? If the first, then what would you suggest to be a solution to cure the chronic lack of human resources? We already have some ideas which we're looking at (more self study material, online "modules" to be taken by students which should result in less mentoring input required in the long term, mastercl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]es etc) but if you have anything you want to add, please do.

 

Sorry for OT, just interested.

 

By the way, contrary to popular belief I was not CC'd in on this apparent ring of emails between Dave and whoever so I don't actually know what went on.

[Dave James 1018738]

.

Edited February 20, 2011 at 04:58 PM by Guest

[Ben Sargeaunt-Thomson 8348]

Ok, going to be brief as I have had along morning…….

 

Paragraph removed - leave that stuff out of here. NB870575

 

Back on track,

 

On reviewing your trial objectives, this trial in its current format has not worked, and I hope that on 31st October normality will be restored and a further consultation will take place, hopefully including everyone…..

 

George has suggested multiple sectors along the lines of the real world. This system has been in place before, back in the days of Vince H as training director I believe (but may be wrong). It doesn’t work, and it doesn’t work in the same way Heathrow APP doesn’t work on VATSIM because people never work split positions day to day and think they can wing it for events….. this is not the case. Also the manning for events, you never get more than a few enroute controllers anyway…so I don’t think that you would even be able to man all those sectors, let alone further splits.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

After ploughing through the mountains of posts, the key points I have picked up on are the following,

 

# Gunnar thinks the enroute sectors are not challenging enough

# Pilots (like Mr C[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ey) like a wider service at off peak times

# Mr Gunn provides a wide coverage at off peak times

 

Taking these points and applying them to the south of England (south of Brum) which is the only area I feel qualified to talk about, we currently under the old system have,

 

EGTT_W_CTR

EGTT_S_CTR

EGTT_CTR (N S and W)

EURI_CTR (N S and W – basically TT)

 

LON_N_CTR

LON_S_CTR

LON_CTR

 

I believe this system works. The agreements are good, the vertical splits between TMA and Upper work extremely well, and we know from past experience these sectors CAN handle busy event traffic situations. The training plan, does work, allowing students to learn enroute control without covering top down on the TT_S position.

 

The proposal I wish to make is similar to the Eurocentre concept…. As much as it pains me to say it.

 

The creation of a new sector name, EGXX, and three new sectors, These have the exact boundaries as there TT counter parts but cover top down.

 

EGXX_N_CTR

EGXX_S_CTR

EGXX_CTR

 

I would also create the new enroute position, that covers TT_S and TT_W combined.

 

EGTT_SW_CTR

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The idea

You have a fully workable system straight out the box. No changes to LoA’s etc. During off peak and even peak times, for those people that want to can open the positions including top down. When other units come on below them, they hand over to the TMA controller. There is no need to log off and change the callsign either, as TMA’s pick up the traffic if online.

 

During events when enroute controllers can’t cover top down due to workload, this system allows the controller to not get overloaded by under lying control.

 

Its easy for pilots, XX –> top down TT-> high level only. The letter denotes the area covered. All this backed up by a standard ATIS. TMAs remain the same.

 

Training

Students can still learn the art of enroute control without being over loaded. Also to speed up the process and get people manning positions, once people are of a competent level but not exam standard, they can be given a validation to man the TT sectors. So in this case 2 of the guys I was mentoring pre-trial had picked up the concepts of enroute, and could “self diagnose” situations, they could control the TT sectors and get experience.

This would increase manning without detriment to the standards -> Plus students would be able to control solo quickly without the need to cover under liying position, I.e. get there Heathrow validations etc…….

 

Students would then be able to log onto TT solo and have mentoring on LON. Then when ready exam on TT, LON -> OR <- XX depending on traffic levels.

 

Resources

These need simplifying – what happened to the LoAs on a map…… it was easy to read and clear to see….. now we have a long and pointless, and overly complicated docomeent for the LoAs….. lets make it simple and easy to control, remember at the end of the day this is a hobby.

VATSPY & Servinfo – how many pilots use thie to find out who to call….. it needs to be updated to show the sectors accurately!!!!!

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Conclusion

 

This proposal gives the added off peak coverage that it is clear people want, but it does this without detriment to the training process. It allows students to control on the TT positions without the need for underlying validations, and allows them to control the TT positions solo in less time. Also the sectorisation is clear, and as I said before proven to work when dealing with high event traffic levels.

 

And that was the brief version….. any thoughts?

[Ben Sargeaunt-Thomson 8348]

 

We already have some ideas which we're looking at (more self study material, online "modules" to be taken by students which should result in less mentoring input required in the long term, mastercl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]es etc) but if you have anything you want to add, please do.

 

 

Interesting....... whos been going on about that for...... well years now!!!!!!

[Gunnar Lindahl]

Ok, going to be brief as I have had along morning…….

 

I’m not getting into the rubbish that is VATSIM politics….. that’s best left out of the public domain, unless you want emails leaked written by a certain Scottish SUP that blackmailed the division…….. So lets leave of dirt slinging to another time and place….

 

Ben,

 

If you don't want to get involved with politics, then I don't understand why you are dragging this up. You, and you alone, are the only person in this thread who is making this "political".

 

Back on track,

 

On reviewing your trial objectives, this trial in its current format has not worked, and I hope that on 31st October normality will be restored and a further consultation will take place, hopefully including everyone…..

 

Did you read my last post? What part of the trial is not working? As you seem to have ignored the points I made in my last post, I would like to refer you back to them before we continue the discussion on whether the trial is working or not.

 

The proposal I wish to make is similar to the Eurocentre concept…. As much as it pains me to say it.

 

...

 

And that was the brief version….. any thoughts?

 

Thanks for taking the time to write that down, I have a few questions.

 

Students can still learn the art of enroute control without being over loaded. Also to speed up the process and get people manning positions, once people are of a competent level but not exam standard, they can be given a validation to man the TT sectors. So in this case 2 of the guys I was mentoring pre-trial had picked up the concepts of enroute, and could “self diagnose” situations, they could control the TT sectors and get experience.

This would increase manning without detriment to the standards -> Plus students would be able to control solo quickly without the need to cover under liying position, I.e. get there Heathrow validations etc…….

 

Students would then be able to log onto TT solo and have mentoring on LON. Then when ready exam on TT, LON -> OR <- XX depending on traffic levels.

 

This doesn't tie in with how the GRP works -- there is no such thing as letting someone onto a position when they are of a "competent" level but not of "exam standard." Competent and exam standard are the same thing. There is absolutely no difference; once someone is deemed competent to be able to log onto a position solo, they should be provided with the rating to do so, through the means of an exam.

 

The second issue I have is with the stand-alone sentence at the end; this again meets the issue of C1s (in your proposal I think S3s but as I've pointed out there is no scope for validating people on TT sectors without them sitting the exam) being stuck on non-top-down sectors for prolonged periods of time whilst they have to learn the TMA underneath, which takes time. Motivation leaks away... we potentially lose a potential TMA controller.

 

My third question is that I don't quite understand, other than changing various callsigns, how your proposal is very different to what we are trialling now. We have made it quite clear that reintroducing the LTMA as a position (or the alternative of redesignating airspace in the LOGAN sector) is a very real possibility for us, and hopefully we can try out any changes we want to make during the event on the 17th.

 

I think you have some valid concerns about the removal of the ability to NOT provide top-down for area students. In some ways I see exactly what you are saying, but my answer would be that the high level sectors are usually so dead anyway that only the first couple of sessions on such a sector would be of benefit before it really starts to become pointless.

 

Ben, I think you're making valid points here, and I'm quite willing to continue this (mostly) constructive discussion with you if you leave out the political undercurrent that you demonstrated at the beginning of your previous post. I'm sure you'll agree it doesn't do anyone any good and certainly doesn't bring us any closer to finding a setup that works in all situations.

 

 

We already have some ideas which we're looking at (more self study material, online "modules" to be taken by students which should result in less mentoring input required in the long term, mastercl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]es etc) but if you have anything you want to add, please do.

 

 

Interesting....... whos been going on about that for...... well years now!!!!!!

 

And part of the insipiration for a re-juvenation in this area came from you Ben.

[Callum McLoughlin]

Sweatbox sessions can easily cover enroute traffic - helped me to no end. That would be the best of both worlds.

[Dave James 1018738]

.

Edited February 20, 2011 at 04:58 PM by Guest