Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Congestion in the skies above Europe; it's not getting better

2»

Comments

  • #32
    notharrypotter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,112 ✭✭✭notharrypotter


    faoiarvok wrote: »
    Higher aircraft are easier to reach, not harder. The range of their line of sight is increased just as the horizon appears further away when you stand on a mountain.

    VHF frequencies are protected by not been reused where there is a danger of overlap by an aircraft at extreme range with 2 ATS units.
    So the higher you fly the further apart this buffer must become.
    Only certain frequencies are available for ATS use.
    Each ATS unit will have a finite number of frequencies from which they can use.


  • #33
    faoiarvok
    Registered Users Posts: 644 ✭✭✭faoiarvok


    notharrypotter wrote: »
    VHF frequencies are protected by not been reused where there is a danger of overlap by an aircraft at extreme range with 2 ATS units.
    So the higher you fly the further apart this buffer must become.
    Only certain frequencies are available for ATS use.
    Each ATS unit will have a finite number of frequencies from which they can use.

    That’s surely not likely to be a concern on a par with staffing though is it, especially with 8.33kHz spacing?


  • #34
    Chris_5339762
    Registered Users Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    Wasn't Free Route Airspace the reason for a whole pile of French strikes not too long ago? Didn't they really lose the plot?


  • #35
    AnRothar
    Registered Users Posts: 540 ✭✭✭AnRothar


    faoiarvok wrote: »
    That’s surely not likely to be a concern on a par with staffing though is it, especially with 8.33kHz spacing?
    To open a sector you need 2 things, staff and a frequency.
    There is a limit in terms of the number of aircraft that can be safely handled by a sector.
    It is limited by size/complexity and the number of aircraft on the frequency.
    Data-link was intended to reduce much of the routine transmissions by using a fixed message set.
    Has not been as successful as hoped.


    So more aircraft need more sectors which in turn need more frequencies.

    Wasn't Free Route Airspace the reason for a whole pile of French strikes not too long ago
    No.


  • #36
    HTCOne
    Registered Users Posts: 869 ✭✭✭HTCOne


    Ah yes CPDLC. Works great for automatic stuff like squawk assignment, but they thought I'd be able to plan, evaluate and assign 2 totally independent clearances simultaneously by voice and CPDLC. Maybe I'm a bit slow but my brain isn't capable of doing that in a complex sector.

    "Datalink will relieve a congested frequency, increasing efficiency"...completely misses the fact that when the frequency is busy you don't have the spare brain power to use datalink much.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    arccosh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 624 ✭✭✭arccosh


    marketty wrote: »
    . Having said that, paying students and allowing older candidates hasn't solved the problem in the UK either, which I believe is probably exasperated by the fragmentation of the UK ATC services among several private companies.


    Not necessarily, all training is standard and regulated by the CAA... obviously NATS is the main training source, but the smaller airport groups train their own (or send to NATS to train).



    Problem is, they weren't allowed hire for a number of years, and the training program from student to qualified controller was taking nearly 3 years to complete (There were some stories of up to 4 or 5 years due to controllers not being released to train students so they were left in limbo until they could get someone to rate them). Throw this in with an existing controller shortage and a controller demographic of 30-40% of people close to retirement age (55 and with a DB pension) and you have yourself a bit of a manpower nightmare.


    This was about 3-4 years back, since then the hiring and training has been streamlined (they reackon they can get a controller from apllication to controlling planes in just under 2 years), but obviously you won't see the fruits of this for another year or two.


  • #38
    AnRothar
    Registered Users Posts: 540 ✭✭✭AnRothar


    but the smaller airport groups train their own
    All training must be done by a certified training organization in compliance with the above regulations.
    Apart from NATS there used to be 2 other organizations in the UK that did private training but not sure how many are left.


    all training is standard and regulated by the CAA
    All training must comply with EU Regulation.
    From October all the UK CAA will do is replace the words EASA with UK CAA.


    For a small airport (relatively speaking) recruitment is ad-hoc and expensive unless part of a larger ANSP.

    Get it wrong and you have wasted the slot and are a year or more behind again.



    Usually they try to poach from elsewhere.



    Problem is, they weren't allowed hire for a number of years, and the training program from student to qualified controller was taking nearly 3 years to complete (There were some stories of up to 4 or 5 years due to controllers not being released to train students so they were left in limbo until they could get someone to rate them). Throw this in with an existing controller shortage and a controller demographic of 30-40% of people close to retirement age (55 and with a DB pension) and you have yourself a bit of a manpower nightmare.
    I presume this is more UK specific?


  • #39
    arccosh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 624 ✭✭✭arccosh


    AnRothar wrote: »
    All training must be done by a certified training organization in compliance with the above regulations.
    Apart from NATS there used to be 2 other organizations in the UK that did private training but not sure how many are left.



    All training must comply with EU Regulation.
    From October all the UK CAA will do is replace the words EASA with UK CAA.


    For a small airport (relatively speaking) recruitment is ad-hoc and expensive unless part of a larger ANSP.

    Get it wrong and you have wasted the slot and are a year or more behind again.

    Usually they try to poach from elsewhere.


    I presume this is more UK specific?


    Off the top of my head, Manchester Airport Group, IOM Airport group, Jersey Port Authority, all do some training internally, but do need to ship them off for some ratings (NATS ?) ... ANS who are part owned by DFS do internal training of ATCO's (not sure if they get sent to Germany).

    Not to mention cross training candidates from the Navy and RAF.



    You can look at it either way... you are rated by the CAA currently, who work under EU regulation .... even though they break away, EASA will still govern to a certain extent.


    Also, there are different grades of controllers. For example in the UK, the toughest job is London Terminal Airspace control.. not all controllers are qualified to work on that airspace, and some will never be.



    But that doesn't stop you from being a really good upper airspace controller, or aerodrome controller. So an airport hiring and training a controller for airport ops, once they pass their entry tests and show interest, probably have the same risk as hiring someone else in the company.



    Whereas say NATS for example...they may need a requirement for a load of TC controllers, you could pass all the entry tests and find out half way through training you're not up for the job (although the newer tests are designed to try stop this from happening), which yes, is a risk.



    And yes,all of the previous is UK specific, as the quote was UK specific.


Advertisement