THE
CONTROLLER December 2013
Journal of Air Traffic Control
4 I FATCA’s Regional Meetings
4 VFR in Iran and Bosnia-Herzegovina
INTER-
4 Solar Impulse Across the USA
TION OF AIR TRAFF ERA IC C FED
LLERS’ ASSNS. TRO ON
4 ATC in Gibraltar
NATIO NAL
Also in this Issue:
Less noise, less heat, more space and easier operation make me smile!
Listens . Understands . Solves
Our Support
Providing space in your working environment. Reducing noise and heat and enabling 24/7 operation and high concentration for your challenging mission. G&D provides KVM products allowing operators and computers to be separated by moving computers from towers and flight control centres into dedicated areas. Access the remote computers in realtime over existing cables without any loss in quality and performance. This also enables computer maintenance without disturbing ATCOS.
Ask your technical personnel for the G&D solution! Meet us at the World ATM Congress 2014: Stand 337
Guntermann & Drunck GmbH Dortmunder Strasse 4a D-57234 Wilnsdorf Phone: +49 (0) 27 39/89 01-333 E-mail: sales@gdsys.de www.gdsys.de SILVER ASSOCIATE MEMBER
photo: photo: fotolia fotolia
ht tp: // atc.gdsys.de
Leading the way in digital KVM
KVM Extender | Switches | Matrix Switches photo: photo: DFS DFS Deutsche Deutsche Flugsicherung Flugsicherung GmbH GmbH
Contents
THE
CONTROLLER
December 2013 Volume 52 Issue 4 – ISSN 0010-8073
THE
CONTROLLER December 2013
Journal of Air Traffic Control
4 IFATCA’S REGIONAL MEETINGS
4 VFR in Iran and Bosnia-Herzegovina
INTER-
TION OF AIR TRAFF ERA IC C FED
LLERS’ ASSNS. TRO ON
4 Solar Impulse Across the USA
NATIO NAL
Also in this Issue: 4 ATC in Gibraltar
In this issue:
Cover photo: John Wagstaff
EXECUTIVE BOARD OF IFATCA Alexis Brathwaite President and Chief Executive Officer Patrik Peters Deputy President
Duncan Auld Executive Vice-President Technical
Scott Shallies Executive Vice-President Professional
Darrell Meachum Executive Vice-President Finance
Keziah Ogutu Executive Vice-President Africa and Middle East John Carr Executive Vice-President Americas (a.i.) Mike O’Neill Executive Vice-President Asia and Pacific Željko Oreški Executive Vice-President Europe
Philippe Domogala Conference Executive
Tatiana Iavorskaia Office Manager and Secretary
The editorial team has endeavored to include all owner information, or at least source information for the images used in this issue. If you believe that an image was used without permission, please contact the editor via http://www.the-controller.net
Foreword ...…………………………………………………………... 4 Editorial ...…………………………………………...……………… 5 Asia-Pacific: Regional Meeting ...…………….……………….…….. 6 Flying VFR in Iran ...………………………….………... 9 Americas: Regional Meeting ...…………………..……….…….... 10 NATCA Mourns John Thornton ...…………………... 12 Funding the National Airspace System ..……..…… 13 Africa & Middle East: Regional Meeting ...…………………..……………..... 14 Europe: Regional Meeting ...…………………..……………..... 15 Opinion: EASA & Safety ...………………….............. 18 Altimetry System Error ...…………………................ 19 Massive Diversion Process ...…………………........... 21 Shared ATS System ...…………………..……………... 22 ICAO: Advanced ATM Symposium ...…………………......... 23 ATC Service Priority ...…………………..…………….. 24 ATC in Gibraltar ...………………………………………………………………......... 26 Solar Impulse: Mission Across America 2013 ...………………..……………........ 28 45 Years in ATC: What a Ride .…………………..……………..…………..…..…... 30 Feature: Supersonic Passenger Aircraft part IV ...………………………………. 31 Charlie’s Column ...……………………………………………………..…....…..….. 34 PUBLISHER IFATCA, International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers‘ Associations 360 St Jacques · Suite 2002 Montreal, Quebec · H2Y 1P5 · Canada Phone: +1514 866 7040 Fax: +1514 866 7612 · Email: office@ifatca.org
REGIONAL EDITORS Phil Parker, Asia Pacific Serge Tchanda, Africa & Middle East COPY EDITORS Paul Robinson, Jez Pigden, Brent Cash, David Guerin Alasdair Shaw & Helena Sjöström
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Philip Marien Van Dijcklaan 31 B-3500 Hasselt, Belgium email: bm@the-controller.net
LAYOUT & PRINTING LITHO ART GmbH & Co. Druckvorlagen KG Friesenheimer Straße 6a D 68169 Mannheim GERMANY
Deputy EDITOR Philippe Domogala email: dp@the-controller.net
Tel: +49 (0)621 3 22 59 10 Fax: +49 (0)621 3 22 59 14 email: info@lithoart-ma.de
CORPORATE AFFAIRS Thomas Fraenzl, frequentis e-mail: thomas.fraenzl@frequentis.com DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this magazine are those of the International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers’ Associations (IFATCA) only when so indicated. Other views will be those of individual members or contributors concerned and will not necessarily be those of IFATCA, except where indicated. Whilst every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in this publication is correct, IFATCA makes no warranty, express or implied, as to the nature or accuracy of the information. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or used in any form or by any means, without the specific prior written permission of IFATCA, except where indicated (e.g. a creative commons licence).
VISIT THE IFATCA WEB SITES:
www.ifatca.org and www.the-controller.net
THE
CONTROLLER
3
Foreword
From the Executive Board
^ by Duncan Auld, IFATCA EVP Technical
representatives from NATCA (USA) and myself, represented IFATCA. From a controller’s perspective the most important outcome from the assembly was the endorsement by the ICAO member States of the latest version of the Global Air Navigation Plan (GANP). This plan defines the next 15 years of aviation development as a kind of roadmap, comprised of a series of 5 year ‘blocks’ each containing various ‘modules’ of technologies, procedures and concepts. Sometimes I wonder how they did it. The persistence and hard work of my predecessors on the Executive Board, and of course all of our volunteers, has established IFATCA as a respected and authoritative voice on air traffic management. Not only do we have a coveted position on the Air Navigation Commission, but also on many panels and groups at ICAO. Our representative’s views are sought after for conferences, seminars, and workshops, to draft procedures or even entire documents and more. It is through these opportunities that we can represent the interests of air traffic control as a whole and lobby for safe, effective, and equitable change. During the period 24 September to 4 October the 38th General Assembly of ICAO was held in Montreal. Our ANC representative Dr Ruth Stilwell, supported by several
The GANP provides direction for the future of ATM, and defines the expected extent of change in aviation. While it is commonly said that air traffic controllers are resistant to change, we are not. We may be resistant to unnecessary or unjustified change but is that such an undesirable quality? Controllers love good change and embrace change that is justified and has a demonstrable benefit. It is unfortunate that controllers are generally out of sight and are thus out of mind. We are often not considered when new concepts are developed and the end result of this is usually shortcomings which are then patched with ad-hoc procedures rather than designing issues out in the first place. So IFATCA has a challenge; we must ensure we remain in the position to influence the implementation and outcomes of this
IFATCA on the Move! After 16 years in University Street, the IFATCA office in Montréal has moved. From December 1st 2013, it relocated closer to the ICAO and IATA offices, near the Old Port (Vieux Port). The new address is as follows: International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers' Associations IFATCA 360 St Jacques Suite 2002 Montreal Quebec H2Y 1P5 Canada Phone (same as before): +514 866-7040 Fax (same as before): +514 866-7612 office@ifatca.org
4 The new IFATCA office is on the
20th floor of this building. Photo: PP
roadmap of change. There are many concepts contained within that are yet to be fully developed, and we should constantly reassess whether these concepts will deliver on their promises, and push for those that cannot to be redesigned or replaced. We cannot just accept the introduction of poor concepts with technologies and procedures that are either not fit for purpose, or that do not deliver any benefits. To accomplish this end IFATCA policies must be promoted inside and outside the federation. While our dedicated representatives at ICAO are guided by our policies, it is also the responsibility of each Member Association to promote policies in its nation. It requires a concerted and forceful effort to establish policies into the real world. Without these external initiatives, our policies remain nothing but words in a book and this hardly serves any useful purpose. IFATCA must maintain its position at the global ICAO level but more importantly we have to develop an increasingly hands on approach at the regional level. It is at the regional level where the implementation takes place, and many of our IFATCA regions lack the required manpower to achieve all they possibly can. The federation is based on collective power, and together we can do more than any single Member Association could, but we need more volunteers. It doesn’t matter if your association is small or new and inexperienced; everyone has skills that can be developed and everyone must start somewhere. There are many tasks such as attending implementation workshops, developing guidance material or assisting with training or procedure development, all of which require volunteers from our Member Associations. Many associations know what their problems are and they know where they want to be, they just don’t know how to get there. This is exactly what the Federation is for. I encourage anyone that is interested in becoming involved to have your association contact your regional Executive Vice President and see where you can help, even if it is just to see what happens in IFATCA. It is only with this support that we will be able to manage the change that will evpt@ifatca.org come. ^
THE
4
CONTROLLER
Editorial
The Lowest Common Denominator ^ by Philip Marien, Editor It’ll be a shorter editorial this time, due to some service announcements below. This issue has reports on the four regional meetings. These remain an extremely important platform for the Federation to learn of the issues specific to a region or to individual Member Associations. In addition, they often offer an excellent opportunity to resolve issues at working level rather than having to wait for managers/ politicians to solve our everyday issues. Another article pokes holes in the approach Europe appears to be taking when it comes to safety: in desperately trying to create a ‘Single European Sky’, our political overlords appear to have gone down the path of the lowest common denominator: by allowing individual States to come up with alternative means of compliance,
they’ve opened the door to lowering the high safety standards that have evolved over the past 50 years. These are rapidly being eroded by lobbyists, who appear to be calling the shots these days when it comes to decisions of the European Institutions – right up to the Parliament. If the recent decision on the work-rest times of European pilots is indicative of what’s to come for controllers, we are all in deep trouble... In that sense, it’s rather hypocrite of the European Commission to refer to the USA as the reference for efficiency: in a lot of areas, they are applying ever stricter rules, forcing the industry to invest in safety measures, such as additional training requirements and rest times for pilots. And as the continuing budget issues of the Federal Government in the USA illustrate, their model is not ideal either.
As always, in the USA, Europe and the rest of the world, it’s the controllers that make it work, in spite of political decisions… However, there is an end to that: the system needs to have a certain resilience to cope with ignorant and uninformed decisions, which are often based on what accountants think and dream. Erode this resilience and the system will come to a grinding halt. This has been demonstrated often enough in the past and is set to happen again… There’s only so many times that Federations such as IFATCA, its MAs and ATCO Unions can point this out. Sadly, at least in Europe for the moment, it would seem that the ‘powers-that-be’, (mis-)guided by a strong industry lobby, seem to think they know better. Time will tell…^
editor@the-controller.net
The Controller apps – Download yours now! IFATCA and the editorial team of The Controller are proud to announce the availability of the magazine in electronic format for both Apple and Android devices. Functionality on both is comparable: single issues can be accessed for $0.99, while a one-year subscription will cost you $9.99. The latter allows you to access all issues available in our online archive: currently, some 50 issues can be accessed – the oldest one from 1962! We're adding older issues of The Controller as we find them and hope we'll eventually have the full collection available. If you have old issues (pre 2005) and want to help out (by either scanning them or lending them for scanning), please contact the Editor.
http://goo.gl/ZPRCP2
http://goo.gl/J0sDgp
THE
CONTROLLER
5
4 Asia-Pacific
Asia Pacific Regional Meeting
4 Tehran City, host to the Asia-Pacific Regional Meeting. Photo: DP
Tehran, 27–29 October 2013
^ by Philippe Domogala, Deputy Editor This year’s Asia-Pacific (ASP) Regional meeting was organised by the Iranian Member Association. Similar to the other regional meetings, the first day was dedicated to the IFATCA Seminar on Systemic Safety, which I had the pleasure of introducing. Amazingly, over 400 people attended this first day and about half of them were Iranian controllers! Joining them were crew from several airlines and management from those airlines, the Iranian CAA and the service provider. The number and quality of questions during the debate afterward clearly indicated that this subject really is a hot topic, triggering interesting debates just like we had during our Annual IFATCA Conference in Bali. The meeting was officially opened by Dr Noorian, Vice-Minister of Road & Transportation and attended by
6
many dignitaries and Iranian aviation officials. The minister and most officials also stayed for the first part of the seminar, adding prestige to the event. About half of the 17 member associations in the region attended the meeting. Despite this, between 120 and 150 people were present, as many Iranian colleagues also participated. Our Executive Vice President ASP, Mike O’Neil, expertly chaired the meeting, assisted by our EVP Technical Duncan Auld. IFATCA PCX and CEO Alexis Brathwaite also attended the meeting. The main subjects debated were Just Culture, go-arounds and of course working conditions for controllers, which really need to be improved in the entire region. The Asia-Pacific region is the one with the highest economic, and thereby air traffic, growth. Yet the infrastructure is underdeveloped in many places and its Air traffic Controllers are often not recognized. This means they are unprepared to meet the challenges before them. As such, proper training was a recurring issue that was seriously debated and identified as a key issue. In addi-
tion, a sufficient number of controllers need to be recruited to face these challenges. Just culture is definitively a subject close to the hearts of the controllers (and the pilots) in the region. As evident from the debates, a “Blame Culture” is still very much the norm in many countries and moving to a more mature safety culture, and higher safety levels will only be possible if and when that hurdle is removed. Outside of the meeting, visits to the nearby Meharabad (Tehran) ACC were organized (see the separate article) as well as a visit to the huge AVICO maintenance hangar at the airport. This company also construct a number of types of aircraft, giving us an idea of the “other side” of the aviation world. After the meeting, those who could stay a day longer were transported to Shiraz and Isfahan to have a quick look at some of Iran's most important and impressive historical sites. Many thanks to Ali Haghighi, Ebi Moradi, Rahbar Modami and their team of enthusiastic volunteers in the Organizing Committee that made this visit to Iran more than memorable! ^ dp@the-controller.net
4 Attendants to the ASP Regional Meeting. 4 Rahbar Modami, President Iran ATCA, Photo: A. Nikbakth
addresses the meeting. Photo: Faezeh Dalirian
4 Asia-Pacific Tehran ACC
4 Quick reference booklets. Photo: DP
Pocket ATC Handbooks An inventive and enterprising controller from Yazd airport has summarised all a controller needs to know in 2 small pocket books called S.A.D.R. (for Standard phraseology, Abbreviations, Definitions & Radio-telephony. Mostly based on DOC 4444 and other ICAO documents, it is an impressive piece of work. If you’d like to get a copy, you’re welcome to contact the author, Hassan Dorostkar via hassandorostkar@gmail.com ^
Iranian Television During the regional meeting, Ebi Moradi, former President of IRAN ATCA and manager of the regional meeting, was asked to participate in “Khabar”, a TV show on Iranian national television. It’s a very popular talk show, which follows the main news at 22:00. Mr Moradi requested IFATCA President Alexis Brathwaite and myself to accompany him. We were driven to the Iranian television studios and after a visit to make up, were put live on air being bombarded with questions during one hour. Our answers were simultaneously translated in Farsi. We were told the show normally has an audience of 10 to 20 million people in Iran. Everyone was pleased with the result and the three of us enjoyed a little Iranian television-star-status after that! ^
4 The regional meeting was an opportunity to cover ATC on national television!
Despite being a very large country (1,6 million km2), Iran is served by only one ACC. It’s located in Tehran city, at the old Mehrabad airport, which is now restricted to domestic flights. The ACC covers the whole FIR, which shares its borders with 11 other FIRs/countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Oman, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq and Turkey. Some contacts with neighbouring ACCs are easy, others are anything but. Coordination with Turkmenistan is only via a landline telephone (as opposed to dedicated lines). There’s no contact at all with Afghanistan, despite traffic crossing the border. They have direct lines with Pakistan, but these suffer regular outages. Despite having a border with Iraq that’s over 1000Km long, the hot lines do not work most of the time. Fortunately, it’s sometimes possible to use satellite phones. For the moment, all traffic to/from Iraq is routed via Kuwait in the south or Turkey in the north. Tehran ACC has around 1200 movements per day, which includes some 600 overflights. It has 7 sectors, manned by 185 controllers working shifts of 12h followed by a 48h rest period. The salaries are low so many controllers have a second job to make ends meet: a totally unsatisfactory situation in this day and age! The country also has over 200 prohibited and danger areas, so direct routes or even dual airways are not possible. While their current
4 Tehran ACC working
position, showing the restricted areas. Photo: DP
ATC system is old, it still has some relatively advanced features such as short-term conflict alert (STCA) and minimum safe altitude warning (MSAW). With radar coverage lacking in the east of the country, along the Afghan-Pakistani borders, only 6 sectors have radar coverage. A long-range Thales radar was purchased but this cannot be delivered due to the international economic sanctions enforced by the United Nations against Iran. ^
ATCO Uniforms The Iranian Controllers’ Association wanted to have a distinctive brand to promote their profession and decided to create a controller uniform. They contacted a known designer and tailor in Iran and together, they came up with a very nice design: a smart black suit with golden bars with stylized letters ATC above them. One bar is basic ATS; two are for a tower controller; three for an APP or ACC procedural controller; and four for an ACC and APP radar controller. I must say it looks very good. The design is not restricted to Iran and if you want to order one, it is possible. Just contact the tailor, who will gladly make one to measure and ship it to you. The price is very reasonable. Contact Miss Kian at info@kiandookth.com ^
4 Ali Haghighi and Ebi
Moradi of the Organising Committee show the new uniform. Photo: DP
Photo: eIRIB.ir
THE
CONTROLLER
7
4 Asia-Pacific
4 Mr Seyedi, Director General of Shiraz 4 Shiraz approach room. Photo: DP
airport in his office with an eagle that caused a bird strike few years earlier to an Airbus from Mahan Air.
Photo: DP
Shiraz TMA There are 5 large TMAs controlled in Iran. With the kind help of Iran Air, some of the foreign participants to the regional meeting had a chance to visit one of them, in Shiraz. The airport is a joint civil-military one and although the number of civil movements is not that high, the military operations combined with the mountains all around the airport makes it an interesting place to work. The radar system is modern and adequate. Mr Seyedi, Director General of the airport, kindly welcomed us and arranged a special visit of the facilities. In addition, a trip to the ruins of Persepolis, about an hour away, was arranged. ^
4 Citadel Arg of Karim Khan in Shiraz. Photo: DP
Iran Air To reach Tehran, I used Iran Air both ways and was both times welcomed in the cockpit for most of the flight. This proved very interesting and I had some very valuable discussions with the crews. Although the aircraft were fairly old (an A310 on the way in and an A300 on the way back), the crews were extremely professional.
4 Isfahan approach sector. Photo: DP Isfahan TMA Again thanks to Iran Air, some participants got the opportunity to go to Isfahan to visit the ATC facilities and have a quick look at the beautiful architecture in the city centre. The airport TMA is, just like in Shiraz, controlled using modern radar equipment. Mr Ghasem Zadeh, General manager of the airport, welcomed us and helped us visit the ATC facilities.
Many thanks to Captain Emadi and Captain Aftabdary for arranging the cockpit passes; and Captains Yar Bakhti and Zorieh for the flights themselves. And of course to Iran Air for the experience, who also made sure other Regional meeting participants travelling with Iran air got to enjoy similar flight deck experiences. ^
4 On the flight deck of the Iran Air Airbus A310.
Photo: DP
The city of Isfahan itself is a marvel of old buildings, whose local architects and craftsmen also helped to build the Taj Mahal in India. ^
4 The Masjed-e Imam, also known as the Blue Mosque of Isfahan, is a UNESCO World Heritage site.
8
Photo: DP
THE
CONTROLLER
4 Asia-Pacific
Flying VFR in Iran Philippe Domogala, ^ by Deputy Editor While it is possible to fly VFR in Iran, it is a bit more complicated than in other places. Anyway, Ali Haghighi, from our Iranian Association, lives in Shiraz and got me in touch with the local branch of the Civil Aviation Training Centre (CATC). They have a couple of Pa28 Cherokees and a TB20 Tobago. They kindly allowed me to fly in one of their PA28s together with a local instructor, Captain Kargaran. Together, we made a 1,5h flight around Shiraz, towards the Persepolis ruins and to a well-known table mountain, some 100Km away. Shiraz airport is a joint civil-military airport at nearly 5000 ft. altitude. The traffic mix is ‘interesting’, consisting of Sukhoi 24s, Boeing 747s and... PA28s. The runway is 4000m long so taxiing takes longer than take-off! Fortunately, it was only around 20°C on the day of our flight, so take-off went well, despite our full fuel tank. We took off on runway 29R, which brought us directly over the city at 500 ft. We then made a turn towards a mountain pass, having
4 The PA28 parked near a Boeing 747-100 from Iran air about to depart for Jeddah. Photos: All DP
to climb to 8000ft to clear the terrain around. This is all inside the TMA, under radar control and following ATC instructions to keep clear of other traffic. About 20 km into the flight, we passed Zarghan airport, which is used for
Ultra Light flying. After about another 25 km, we spotted Persepolis. The ceremonial capital of the Achaemenid Empire was built by legend-
4 Overflying Shiraz city 500ft after take off.
THE
CONTROLLER
9
4 Asia-Pacific 4 Closer to the table mountain.
ary Persian king Darius and his son Xerxes around 550 BC. UNESCO declared it a worldheritage site in 1979. The 2500-year-old ruins lie at the foot of a mountain and overflying them is restricted. Despite this, we got a good look before turning northwest into a valley that brought us to what very much resembled the Grand Canyon and Monument Valley. After a while, we got our first glimpse of the table mountain, near the Kuh-elDashtak mountain range. It’s largely surrounded by mist and gives the whole scene an eerie outlook.
4 The table mountain rising from the mist.
When we got closer and flew around it, I was amazed to see that the top is so flat, you could actually land on it! In sharp contrast, there’s a lake at the foot of the mountain and the 2000ft high near-vertical cliffs are extremely impressive. Without wind on the day of our flight, the old PA28 handled very well. We headed back to Shiraz across the mountains and over the pass. We then descended slowly to 6000ft to join downwind for runway 29R. There were no Iranian Air Force fighters or civilian airliners on approach at the time, so we made a standard circuit and a smooth landing on the long runway. This completed yet another perfect flight in a totally different environment to what I am used to. Flying VFR here appears relatively easy, but the sheer number of prohibited and re-
stricted areas in Iran (over 200!) makes navigation difficult, even for IFR traffic. Flexible use of airspace has not yet reached Iran! At around € 0,40 per litre, fuel is incredibly cheap in Iran. Unfortunately, only very few airports across the country are open to General Air Traffic. Also, as vast areas make up some of the hottest deserts on earth, it’s probably best to avoid overflying them in a single engine aircraft. Can anyone do this? No, you need local contacts and even then, the CATC training school do not normally rent aircraft to private pilots. But I was told that the Ultra light schools are less restricted, so my advice would be to try and do this instead. Big thanks to Ali, Mr. Moghaddam, Mr. Seyedi, Mr. Abbasi and of course also to Capt. Mehran Shafakhah for arranging this unique experience. ^ dp@the-controller.net
4 Overflying Persepolis.
THE
10
CONTROLLER
4 Americas
IFATCA Americas Regional Meeting 2013 Cancun, Mexico, 22ND – 25TH October 2013 Patrik Peters, ^ by IFATCA Deputy President Cancun greeted the participants of the 24th Americas Regional Meeting with tropical hot and humid weather. Regular thunderstorms provided warm showers and a little cool-down – just sufficient to keep participants indoors to follow the proceedings of the meeting. First though, on Tuesday evening 22nd October, a wonderful outdoor reception preceded the official opening and welcomed all delegates and guests of our meeting and the co-organized 8th General Assembly of the Colegio de Controladoes Transito Aereo Mexico (COCTAM). The opening ceremony next morning began with an impressive demonstration of a Mexican marching band and live music, followed by opening remarks from several dignitaries. Government and State representatives of Quintana Roo as well as military officials welcomed directors and delegates of both meetings. This was followed by a cheerful ceremony recognizing a number of Mexican air traffic controllers for 20, 25, 30, 35 or 40 years of service. The day continued with four technical presentations; Rodrigo Briceno, Mexico ATC Services, reported on their system. Victor Hernandez Sandoval from the Mexico Regional Office of ICAO made a presentation on their structure and methodology. After lunch, Patrik Peters, IFATCA's Deputy President, invited attendees to the annual IFATCA seminar with this year's theme: ‘Systemic Safety’. Patrik gave a presentation on this new approach to safety, explaining ‘Systemic Safety’ versus the older and often applied ‘linear’ approach to safety and its restrictions regarding the investigation of highly complex incidents and accidents. Alexis Brathwaite, IFATCA PCX/CE, followed up with a presentation on the ICAO Global Aviation Safety Plan.
and the introduction of John Carr, newly appointed ‘acting IFATCA Executive VicePresident Americas’. Eleven of the twenty six MAs in the region were present during the roll call, with Honduras and the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) attending as observers.
to a short presentation by St. Lucia on preparations they have made to host the 2014 AMA Regional Meeting; more information on this event will be provided at the annual conference in Spain.
Edgar Díaz, Regional Education Coordinator of ITF, presented “The Role of Associations and the Global Unions.” Patrik Peters followed with a comprehensive summary of the Federation’s activities since the last conference. It was confirmed that the next regional meeting of the Americas Region would take place 29th until 31st October 2014 in St. Lucia.
A brief discussion was held on any activities MAs conducted to mark “The International Day Of The Air Traffic Controller.” DP reminded MAs to pass along any details and photos for possible inclusion in an article for the magazine.
Most MAs provided verbal updates on issues in their countries: Jamaica described their collective bargaining process; and Antigua reported on sight line issues concerning the new tower. A number of written reports were also discussed. DP urged greater participation by MAs in reporting challenges and successes to IFATCA to trigger timely support where necessary.
The afternoon was spent in closed session discussing MA issues in greater detail.
PCX followed with a presentation on the ICAO Organization Regional Air Navigation Plan. There are several task forces formed through GREPECAS; our challenge will be to determine regional priorities, how to participate, and finding volunteers among the 26 regional MAs. DP presented the idea of moving the Federation's journal ‘The Controller’ online and introduced the new ‘app’ for accessing the magazine as a first step towards the digital era. He also briefed delegates on the 2014 annual conference in Gran Canaria, Spain on 5th – 9th of May 2014. This presentation led
On Friday morning DP presented his CISM briefing, including information on training and requirements to become a CISM peer. This led to an extensive question and answer session concerning resources, tools, and any material available for education and training. The well-organized 24th Americas Regional Meeting ended with an enjoyable gala dinner, which unfortunately due to forecast thunderstorms, had to be held indoors. ^ dp@ifatca.org
4 Head table at the 2013
Americas Regional Meeting. Photos: PP
Thursday morning began with remarks from Vicente Cuevas Quijada, the Mexican Liaison Officer to IFATCA, Patrik Peters, IFATCA DP,
THE
CONTROLLER
11
4 Americas
NATCA in Mourning THE LOSS OF A Founding Father, John Thornton Doug Church, ^ by NATCA Director of Communications “NATCA is profoundly saddened at the loss of one of the union’s founding fathers,” said NATCA President Paul Rinaldi. “He gave this union the foundation on which to build, and he set the tone that NATCA was a different union with different goals. Without John Thornton, NATCA may never have existed. We extend our deepest condolences to his family and friends. He will never be forgotten.”
4 John Thornton in 1987 on
national television, on the eve of the vote making NATCA the sole bargaining union for US Air Traffic Controllers.
Photo: screencapture of NBC News archive
The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) is mourning the loss of John F. Thornton, a gifted and influential leader and organizer whose passion for representing the interests of the U.S. air traffic controllers began with the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO), and continued as a national organizer and founding father of NATCA. Mr. Thornton passed away on Monday, November 4.
PATCO called a strike on August 3, 1981, seeking improved working conditions, an increase in pay and reduced work hours. Over 13,000 controllers across the country went out on strike, including Thornton. The strike was viewed as illegal under the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, an act prohibiting organized government workers from striking. ThenPresident Ronald Reagan fired 11,345 controllers for not returning to work. On October 22, 1981, the FLRA decertified PATCO, leaving its members without representation. Thornton took to the picket lines with his union brothers and sisters, and he was among the handful of controllers who were arrested; he served 10 days in jail. Two years later, air traffic controllers looking to organize a new union sought Thornton’s help. Despite the pain and damage caused to him by the strike, Thornton overcame his emotions and accepted the offer. Thornton’s organization efforts culminated on June 11, 1987, when 70 percent of air
4 Following President Reagan firing more than 11,000 ATCOs, John Thornton was amongst those arrested and jailed for their protest. Photo: © labornotes via Flickr
traffic controllers voted in favor of NATCA as their sole bargaining union. It was an extraordinary turn out, and telling of the times – that conditions in the nation’s air traffic facilities weren’t getting any better, and concerns about air safety were growing. “John paid the sacrifice in 1981 so he could better the profession and workplace for future generations of air traffic controllers,” said NATCA Executive Vice President Trish Gilbert. “He used his past to help us build a better future. It is leaders like him that set the bar for us, instilling in us to never give up and always strive for improvement. He is forever cemented in this union’s memory.” Said NATCA Executive Director and President Emeritus Barry Krasner: “John was probably the most tireless of advocates on our behalf, pushing one person at a time to build this great union that we know as NATCA. John Thornton was the founding father of this Union and has touched the lives of all we have represented from that time forward.” Former two-term NATCA President John Carr, IFATCA’s Acting EVP Americas, called Thornton a patriot in the purest sense of the word. “In the PATCO strike of 1981 John was fired for his beliefs, yet he rose from that injustice to become a visionary, a leader and perhaps the most dignified man I ever met," Carr said. "In the years leading up to NATCA's certification, John was the face and voice of NATCA. After our certification, John mentored the new officers, helped draft our first constitution and contract, and smoothly guided a diverse group of very opinionated individuals into the most powerful Union in the federal sector.” Former two-term NATCA EVP Dr. Ruth Stilwell, IFATCA’s observer to the ICAO Air Navigation Commission, fondly remembered Thornton. “We were lucky to have had him when we did,” she said. “He was the right man at the right time, and he helped make us who we are today. He will be missed but his legacy will continue.”^ dchurch@natcadc.org
THE
12
CONTROLLER
4 Americas
Funding the National Airspace System Ongoing USA Budget Woes Stress the Need for Change
Photo: © Ellah | Dreamstime.com
Doug Church, ^ by NATCA Director of Communications The ongoing government budget crises in the United States have prompted many discussions about how the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS) is funded, and if alternatives should be considered. NATCA was at the forefront of those discussions in 2013 following the furloughs of air traffic controllers in April that resulted in thousands of flight delays, as well as a nearly year-long hiring freeze that has depleted the controller workforce at a time when 20 percent of it reached retirement eligibility. NATCA believes the time has come for an important conversation: How can we establish a stable source of funding for the U.S. NAS so that it is no longer victimized by political battles over the federal budget? On October 21, during the Air Traffic Control Association’s (ATCA) annual conference, NATCA President Paul Rinaldi participated in a panel convened to examine alternative funding options and how they may or may not work with the U.S. system. Rinaldi discussed how privatization is viewed negatively within NATCA’s membership, but that everyone agrees that the only way to continue and advance the U.S. aviation system is to change the current funding system. That system, he said, is clearly broken. “Air traffic control is a team sport, and for 16 days (in October 2013 during the government shutdown) we took the field with about 40 percent less of our team out there,” Rinaldi said. “We were able to run a safe and efficient system, but at the end of the day, it does wear on you; it does have an impact. We basically have been through the wringer in this industry. My organization pivoted into this dialogue because I no longer have the luxury to say everything’s fine.” Rinaldi said to ensure NATCA members get on board with a change to funding mecha-
nisms he would need to ensure safety conditions, employee compensation and guarantee a steady stream of future air traffic controllers into the workforce. During the ATCA Conference panel discussion, Rinaldi asked NATS U.K. Managing Director of Operations Martin Rolfe and NAVCANADA President and CEO John Crichton what struggles the U.S. should expect if it ever made the switch in funding systems. Crichton said that when NAV CANADA was implemented, there was a tough time for labor relations because of the culture change it required. He added that they implemented the change slowly, leaving operations alone for the first couple of years and when they did make changes, did so with a “scalpel, not a hatchet.” Today NAV CANADA has more air traffic controllers than before the change from governmental control.
Photo: © NATCA
If nothing is done in the U.S. to alter the funding equation, more damage could be done, Rinaldi said. Under current law, sequestration will remain in place for the next nine years. This could lead to a longer hiring freeze and setbacks for safety and modernization projects at a time these need to be ramped up. Between the Federal Aviation Administration shutdown in 2011, sequestration, and the October 2013 government shutdown, NATCA believes the U.S. federal government has reached a critical juncture. It’s never been more important to engage in a conversation with lawmakers and other U.S. authorities about how U.S. ATC can stand separate from the funding battles on Capitol Hill and protect the country’s aviation assets. There’s broad agreement within the aviation community that something needs to be changed, as the panel discussions in 2013 demonstrated.
4 NATCA members marched
on Capitol Hill on October 10th to demand an end to the government shutdown. Photo: © NATCA
To be clear, Rinaldi stressed that NATCA is not signing up for privatization of the U.S. air traffic control system, nor is it committing to a specific answer. What NATCA is saying is, let’s talk about a better way. ^ dchurch@natcadc.org
THE
CONTROLLER
13
4 Africa & Middle East
IFATCA Africa & Middle East Regional Meeting 2013 HAMMAMET, TUNISIA, 06TH – 08TH NOVEMBER 2013 Patrik Peters, ^ by IFATCA Deputy President The 24th Africa & Middle East Regional Meeting under the theme ‘Human factors and upcoming challenges for ATCOs’ was held in Hammamet/Tunisia 6th until 8th November 2013. Hammamet is a resort town on the coast of the Mediterranean southeast of the capital of Tunis. It was the last of the four IFATCA regional meetings for this year. Keziah Ogutu, IFATCA Executive Vice-President Africa & Middle East, chaired the meeting, supported by Brahim Rahali, Chairman of the Organizing Committee and Executive Board member of the Tunisian air traffic controllers’ association and myself as IFATCA Deputy President. The Tunisian association greeted all guests with a colourful opening ceremony, followed by a welcome address by Keziah Ogutu and other dignitaries and honourable guests of the meeting. Paul Neering, IFATCA representative and liaison officer to the European Union, had been invited to replace Zeljko Oreski, IFATCA Executive VicePresident Europe, who due to work commitments was unfor-
14
tunately unable to attend. Paul briefed the meeting in detail about developments in the European Union concerning our profession. He presented the IFATCA point of view regarding the challenges and changes we are facing today and in the future. The roll call on the second day revealed twenty of the 46 member associations in attendance. Libya and the Agency for Aerial Navigation Safety in Africa and Madagascar (ASECNA) were registered as observers. Several presentations followed, including those of the regional ICAO office and the International Air Transport Association (IATA). ASECNA gave a presentation highlighting the dangers of fatigue and the necessity of well-rested and healthy air traffic controllers. A doctor of a Tunisian university researching stress levels of air traffic control staff picked up on this subject, supporting the Federation's call for adequate remuneration and conditions allowing ATCOs to live a life without having to take up secondary jobs. Her presentation linked naturally to my briefing about Critical Stress Management (CISM). This first block of Human Factors related subjects was followed by a lively question and answer session, where discussions continued even during lunch. The afternoon continued with human factors and the annual IFATCA seminar with this years’ theme: ‘Systemic Safety’. DP explained ‘Systemic Safety’ as a new approach to understand safety. He talked about the so far often-applied ‘linear’ approach to safety and its restrictions regarding the investigation of highly complex incidents and accidents.
Several shorter presentations about The Controller magazine, an update on the annual conference 2014 in Gran Canaria, Spain and the Executive Board report to the regional meetings kept the delegates busy. DP furthermore explained the necessity to update the IFATCA Information Handbook (IHB) and the IFATCA Address List (A55). The remainder of this busy day was filled with reports by MAs and debating concerns and shortcomings in closed session. Friday morning, delegates were greeted by the Tunisian Minister of Transport who addressed some of the worries of our host Member Association, which earlier this autumn led to IFATCA intervention and a letter of concern of the Executive Board. The need for improved working conditions and better recognition of the air traffic control profession as a requirement for safe operations necessary for the entire region. A short visit to the new Enfidha-Hammamet airport, an welcoming presentation by IFALPA and closing remarks by a representative on behalf of the Director of Air Navigation of Tunisia, Mr Abdessalam and the General Director of Civil Aviation, Mr Kamel ben Miled as well as IFATCA DP Patrik Peters and EVP AMF Keziah Ogutu concluded the meeting. In the evening we celebrated this busy 24th Africa & Middle East Regional Meeting with an lively gala dinner and continued discussions and more TV interviews…. ^
4 Europe
IFATCA European Regional Meeting 2013 18TH – 20TH OCTOBER IN SARAJEVO, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
4 Željko Oreški, EVP Europe
chaired the meeting. Presenting one of the many topic here is Tony Licu, Eurocontrol.
^ by Philippe Domogala, Deputy Editor
4 Harris and Almir from the Organising Committee. The European Regional Meeting was organized by our Member Association from Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was attended by 37 of the 42 EUR member associations, with over 150 participants. The meeting was chaired by Zeljko Oreski, IFATCA’s Eexecutive VicePresident for the European Region. The organizing Committee, led by Almir did a fantastic job in arranging this meeting. The meeting itself took place in a beautiful, brand new library building restored by the
4 The meeting room, including business class on the front row…
Emir of Qatar and our meeting was the first to make use of these facilities. Sarajevo itself has nearly recovered from the brutal war in the region 15 yeas ago, although some scars are still visible throughout this beautiful city. In addition to nearly all European Member Association of IFATCA, representatives of ATCEUC (European Controllers Unions), European Cockpit Association (ECA), the European Council (EC), SESAR and EUROCONTROL attended as well.
The first day was dedicated to a seminar on Systemic Safety. Tom Laursen presented this emerging line of thinking and fed a very lively debate with some provocative ideas. During the afternoon, Marc Baumgartner went through the maze of Single European Sky policy (SES2) and the controversial Performance targets
A community that became a family The first time I attended the European Regional Meeting was in 2001 (in Zagreb if I remember well) for the RVSM programme. Apart from a 3-year break, the event became an annual rendezvous for me in my role as communications focal point at EUROCONTROL. Year after year, both destinations and topics varied, as did the relationship between our two organisations. It has taken the shape of a strong link based on reciprocal recognition, appreciation and open dialogue. Now that we’ve been nominated as Network Manager, it is even more essential to stay in touch with those who are in charge of network operations every day. Controllers are definitely part of that valuable group! Our participation in the ERM gives us a unique opportunity to stay close to controllers right across Europe. It is the perfect place to exchange views on upcoming major projects, to talk about current and future challenges, to understand your expectations and concerns. Beside the high quality of speeches and topics featuring on the agenda every year, the ERM gives participants the opportunity to benefit from well organised events
where expertise and professionalism are at the top of the list – it also allows them to enjoy the warm hospitality of the ATCO community. More personally, I would say the ERM is the place to meet great people, both well-known and new, and to feel part of the family. Thank you for that! ^ Nathalie Bossiroy, EUROCONTROL Network Manager
THE
CONTROLLER
15
4 Europe that have been set for the so-called Reporting Period 2 (RP2, from 2015 through 2019). These targets – which the European Commission claims will reduce costs and improve efficiency – are causing quite some unrest among controllers, support staff and even the management of Europe’s Air Navigation Service Providers. One of the main problems is that the 5-year performance targets are based on pre-crisis traffic and revenue levels and many consider them totally unrealistic. By the Commission’s own estimate, they will result in the loss of nearly 10,000 jobs amongst staff in Europe’s ANSPs… As if this wasn’t
enough, no clear targets on safety have been set nor has the impact on safety levels been properly evaluated.
Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina. See the separate box on these pages.
Marc explained that for the European Union, the Single European Sky is a spear point for the unification of Europe into a single market, which will affect 500 million people. There’s clearly more at stake than just ATM: it’s highlevel politics, surely a dangerous game when safety might well be affected…
Another (unfortunately recurring) safety issue discussed was the situation in the northern part of the Nicosia FIR between Cyprus and Turkey. IFATCA said that “irrespective of political considerations, safety is still impaired and the meeting called upon ICAO and the responsible authorities to start proceedings and normalize Air Traffic Management in the region according to international law.“
Just culture and legal protection of air traffic controllers were also discussed during the meeting. Legal protection for controllers led to the launch of a common IFATCA and EUROCONTROL Agency initiative to train pool of people that will be able to advise prosecutors in case control staff is implicated in an incident or worse. The meeting also addressed the coming changes in 2014 in controlling the airspace above
It was an excellent meeting, held in a historic city, which if anything, is a stark reminder that uniting Europe into a single body will be far more difficult and lengthy than some people make it out to be. Many thanks to Almir Konjhodžić and Haris Ljubuncic from the Bosnian association for arranging a perfect meeting, also on the social side! ^
dp@the-controller.net
BIG CHANGES IN COMPLICATED BALKAN AIRSPACE EXPECTED IN 2014 Presently, control of the enroute airspace above BosniaHerzegovina is shared between Zagreb ACC (Croatia) and Belgrade ACC (Serbia). For a long time, Bosnia has been planning to change this and have built a brand new ACC in Sarajevo to make it a reality. They are currently finalizing controller training: 35 have been trained and another 10 are in the process.
The changes will affect both Croatia and Serbia, as less over-flights will bring less revenue. On the other hand, re-opening Kosovo airspace, which was until now a no-fly zone,
is likely to bring more traffic into the Balkans, so that the financial impact for those two countries is likely to be reduced… ^
A number of difficulties have delayed the transfer several times over the past years. According to current planning, Sarajevo ACC will now to go operational in October 2014. A similar process is taking place in Kosovo, after it declared (a still disputed) independence from Serbia in 2008. Currently controlled from Belgrade ACC, Kosovo will officially take back its airspace next year. Rather than building a new ACC, they plan to control the airspace remotely from the Budapest ACC in Hungary, starting in April 2014.
THE
16
CONTROLLER
4 Europe
Flying VFR in Bosnia-Herzegovina Philippe Domogala, ^ by Deputy Editor As has become somewhat of a tradition, I managed to arrange a VFR flight in the margins of a Regional Meeting. This time, I had the opportunity to fly with Fahrudin Krestalica. Besides being a controller, he also happens to own a very particular aircraft: a Cessna 172 D Powermatic. It’s one of the rare C172s equipped with a six cylinder continental engine, delivering some 180 HP. This engine runs like a Swiss clock, without vibrations and with little noise. You do not need a headset inside and it’s a real pleasure to fly. As luck would have it, we had picked a beautiful autumn afternoon for our flight: the region often has morning and evening mist, so there’s usually only a small window for VFR in this season: between 3 and 5 pm. We took off from a small GA airfield some 30 Km north of Sarajevo called Visoko (LQVI). The airport is at 1500ft above sea level and is surrounded by mountains, including the famous “Pyramid” nearby. The plan was to climb above the mountains towards the medieval town of Mostar, hoping to catch a glimpse of the famous Stari Most, the famous old bridge across the river Nerevta.
4 The Cessna 172D
with Philippe and Fahrudin.
4 The Mostar valley.
Not many people realise that this region of the Balkan is a very mountainous. The highest peak near Mostar is 2300m, but the ones nearby are also above 2000m. This makes flying through the valleys very impressive. Fortunately there was little or no wind today, otherwise it could be tricky. Following a river into Mostar valley is equally impressive. The old bridge – destroyed during the war 2 decades ago and rebuilt by UNESCO a few years later – links the Muslim part of the city with the Christian side and as such, it’s very strong symbol… In total, we flew nearly two hours along ridges and valleys, before trying to find our airport among the rising evening mist. Flying VFR is Bosnia-Herzegovina is relatively easy. There aren’t a lot of restrictions but the terrain presents some challenges. AVGAS is no longer available in the country, so it’s important to use an aircraft that can accept normal car fuel. Traffic density is still very low in the country, but with tourism becoming more popular, that could change. Sarajevo airport and Mostar airport are for the moment reachable by light aircraft for a modest landing fee. ^
4 The highest Bosnian mountains.
THE
CONTROLLER
17
4 One of the many Herzegovinian valleys.
4 Opinion
European Aviation (cost) Saving Agency? WHAT EASA MEANS FOR SAFETY IN EUROPE?
^ by Philippe Domogala, Deputy Editor The European Aviation Safety Agency, EASA, has relatively recently expanded its reach into European Air Traffic Management. As such, we’re only just getting to grips with what it does and how it does this. But more importantly, we’re also finding out what it doesn’t do… One of the surprises is that their proposed regulations and implementation rules do not seem to result in uniform implementations across Europe. States are apparently allowed great creativity when it comes to adapting the regulations into national implementations. As such, EASA appears to encourage further institutional and regulatory fragmentation: States are allowed to come up with “Alternative Means of Compliance” when they can’t or don’t want to apply a certain rule. This clearly opens the door for them to chip away at widely accepted standards and to even go against what could be qualified as safe.
ated another layer of regulation, further fragmenting Europe’s aviation scene: since the inception of the European Single European Sky (SES), we’ve counted 13 new institutions and bodies! It should be clear that this has done little to improve safety – on the contrary, I’d even argue it has done the opposite!
In addition, while stakeholders like IFATCA or IFALPA are occasionally invited to comment along the way, they are left out of the final decision making process. Rather than safety being the overriding consideration, it’s the interested party that is best placed to lobby EASA, the European Commission and the European parliament that gets their agenda into a final legal framework.
In addition, the duration of the on-the-job training for those controllers in that same State has been set at a minimum of 90 hours and a maximum of 120 hours, or one month whatever comes first! This is quite a departure from the 3 to 6 months that was foreseen before for this practical part of the training. To top it off, a system of “self-assessment” can be used to replace checkouts. The entire training curriculum, which was based on years of best practice and experience, is replaced by one that appears to be purely based on economic considerations…
Particularly worrying is that EASA just seems to have cre-
Let me give you some concrete examples: today in a large European country, a certified ATC training provider trains new tower controllers according to a so-called “low cost model“. The basic training of those controllers has been cut back to 22 weeks, whereas it takes between 30 and 50 weeks in other European Countries. We’re told this “low-cost training” is based on the Eurocontrol Common Core Content and is EASA-compliant. Presumably, it means they apply what is in the EASA draft ATCO training regulation text. This so-called directive will only become applicable in October 2014 and States have a further two years to implement. It specifies what subjects should be covered during the course, but doesn’t consider whether it’s realistic to do this in one day, one week or 22 weeks. That is left up to the school or, more accurately (conveniently?), to the State that regulates the school in question.
EASA argues it conducts audits and inspections of the regulators (called the National Supervisory Authorities), which oversee
these schools and their training methods. However, the results of these audits, including any non-compliances that they find, are confidential! This lack of transparency makes it impossible to have a fair and consistent comparison between the different States on how they apply regulations. If everyone’s training is EASA certified, no matter how flagrant the discrepancies are between the different providers/countries, it leaves only one parameter on which training providers will be selected: cost. A licence issued by a European state is now by definition valid anywhere in Europe. This means that it’s perfectly legal to recruit these “budget” tower controllers to work anywhere without necessarily checking the curriculum this person has followed. Or for ANSPs to outsource their training to the cheapest training provider, as quality is seemingly “guaranteed” by the regulations… EASA appears to be aware of these shortcomings but is powerless to address them. A similar thing has happened on the pilot side. In 2009, ICAO introduced the so-called Multi-crew Pilot License (MPL). This allows cadets fresh from school to fly as co-pilots with some 240 hours of training, but no minimum actual flying experience. Some European States, no doubt pressured by large airline companies,
THE
18
CONTROLLER
4 Europe have implemented this. We’re now seeing student pilots with around 100h of actual flying time (the rest on Simulator) sitting on the right seat of Boeing 737s and A320s as co-pilots in Europe on European registered aircraft. Last November, the FAA re-enforced the requirement for a co-pilot on a commercial aircraft to have a minimum of 1500 hours flying experience. Previously, the requirement in the USA was 250 hours. The FAA estimates this new requirement will cost the US aviation industry around 300 million US$. It’s impossible to say who is correct at the moment, but some recent accidents and incidents involving European flights would strongly suggest that the FAA may well be correct in requiring more flying experience before allowing pilots in the cockpit of a commercial flight. A similar thing has happened with the work and rest times for pilots: the FAA has strengthened these significantly following a series of accidents, while the EU has gone the opposite way, clearly to please a number of airlines…
Many colleagues I’ve spoken to share the same questions and fears: experience and common sense is being sacrificed on the altar of saving money for service providers and the airlines. So what are the real goals of EASA? Are they to serve as an excuse-umbrella for airlines and ANSPs to enable them to lower cost without being held responsible if things go wrong? Or will they develop and enforce strong, common-sense regulations based on accepted practices, respecting expertise and experience? Are EASA-endorsed changes really aimed at maintaining or improving safety? Or will they allow safety to be defined by the lowest common denominator and cost? ^
dp@the-controller.net
4 The EASA Tower in Köln, Germany. Photo: ©Raimond Spekking/CC-BY-SA-3.0 (via Wikimedia Commons)
Altimetry System Error HEIGHT MONITORING PROGRAMMES REMAIN NECESSITY Andy Lewis, ^ by European Regional Monitoring Agency, EUROCONTROL The pilot calls level at Flight Level 340, the mode C readout on the display reads FL340, so it is clear which altitude the aircraft you are controlling is at, right? Normally yes, but in extreme cases you could be wrong. That small paint chip near the aircraft’s static port, the barely noticeable millimetre sized wearing on the pitot probe or the slightly sticky Angle of Attack vane can all lead to an error of several hundred feet between the true altitude and the displayed altitude. This error is known as the Altimetry System Error (ASE), and its effect is invisible to the pilot, the ground controller and even TCAS. So what causes ASE and why has it become more topical in recent years? What is the scale of the problem and what can we do about it?
ASE is caused by an error in measuring the ambient air pressure, or in the translation of that ambient air pressure into a pressure altitude, which is displayed to the pilot and broadcast to the ground controller and to other aircraft. The physical structure of the aircraft presents an obstacle (known as Status Source Error, SSE) to measuring the true ambient air pressure, but this is normally not a problem. This error is calculated at the design phase and corrections (known as Static Source Error Corrections, SSEC) are built into the aircraft avionics system to compensate. However the slightest change to the airflow over the static port during flight will change the SSE resulting in the wrong corrections being applied. Another, less easily detectable cause of ASE is deterioration in the transducer, which converts the pressure
measurements into digital signals in some modern Air Data Computers.
THE
CONTROLLER
19
4 Europe The Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum programme (RVSM) completed in 2002 provided 6 additional flight levels between FL 290 and FL 410. This was achieved by reducing the vertical separation between flight levels from 2,000 ft. to 1,000 ft. Maintaining aircraft vertical performance accuracy was a necessary contribution to the RVSM Safety Case. Sophisticated Height Monitoring Systems were developed to enable EUROCONTROL, responsible for managing RVSM implementation in Europe, to monitor large numbers of aircraft and to estimate their ASE characteristics. The results, although within safe limits for the implementation to proceed, indicated that in a minority of aircraft the ASE characteristic was not stable, and that the height monitoring programme would have to continue after implementation to ensure that safety levels continued to be satisfied. Further analysis of height monitoring data, which had not been available in such volume before, resulted in ICAO introducing a mandatory requirement for height monitoring programmes in all regions where RVSM has been implemented. The on-going task of measuring aircraft ASE is conducted by the EUR Regional Monitoring Agency (RMA), also operated by EUROCONTROL, using the same height monitoring infrastructure which was established under the RVSM implementation programme. To date, the monitoring programme has provided over 10 million aircraft ASE results, for over 20,000 airframes. The RMA constantly reviews aircraft performance checking for significant changes in ASE, which may be caused by clogged static vents, damaged probes or pressure leaks in the pitot static system. The RMA also looks out for deteriorat-
ing trends in ASE which may be caused by wearing of the pressure transducers feeding Air Data Computers or aging components. Some problems have been observed to be generic in nature, suggesting issues with continued airworthiness procedures or equipment life span. A number of aircraft manufactures have issued service bulletins to counteract the effects of increasing ASE over time detected by the RMA. The scale of the problem is generally small; with very few of the thousands of aircraft monitored each year requiring any remedial action. Since 2007 the EUR RMA has initiated investigations into approximately 300 individual airframes and less than 10 investigations for aircraft types which exhibit poor generic performance. However with the locations of the HMU systems fixed there are a number of operators in Europe which, to date, have not had any of their aircraft fleet height monitored. Since 2010 it has been mandatory for all operators of RVSM approved aircraft to participate in height monitoring programmes. The EUR RMA is actively working with European National Supervisory Authorities to ensure that those operators still to be seen are notified and that they develop plans for future height monitoring. The EUR RMA has also conducted feasibility studies into the possibility of exploiting aircraft ADS-B transmissions for the purpose of ASE estimation. This will enable far more operators to comply with long term height monitoring requirements without the added cost of flying over the existing HMU installations. So what are the implications for controllers? As already mentioned the characteristics are
Photo: Š Pierre Landry | Dreamstime.com
invisible to existing surveillance systems and hence the controller. However any technical problem reported by the pilot may be cause to consider whether the pilot should declare non-RVSM. For example, recently an investigation found an aircraft with a significant ASE of almost 400 ft. during one flight over 2 height monitoring stations. Other flights were found to be within tolerance. It was subsequently discovered that due to a technical fault, the pilot flew the entire journey with the undercarriage lowered. This resulted in not only a huge fuel bill but also completely changed the SSE characteristic, which nullified the Static Source Error Corrections. A last point for consideration; the largest recorded ASE result observed by any RMA is 850 ft.; something to contemplate in reduced vertical separation airspace! ^
EurRMA.Support@eurocontrol.int
A HMU (Height Monitoring Unit) is a ground-based system that determines the geometric height and position of an aircraft. It does this by comparing the time of reception of the SSR responses at different receiver locations. This data is collated to create a track history of the aircraft passing through the area of coverage. The track information is then combined with meteorological data to evaluate the overall value for Total Vertical Error (TVE). The TVE, AAD (Assigned Altitude Deviation) and ASE (Altimeter System Error) readings for each aircraft are automatically transmitted to the EUR RMA at EUROCONTROL Headquarters, Brussels where they are verified and credited to approved aircraft and operators. EUROCONTROL owns and operates 3 Height Monitoring Units in Europe: near LNZ VOR in Austria, NTM VOR in Germany and GVA VOR in Switzerland. They are strategically placed in the densest portions of European airspace and passively monitoring large numbers of aircraft at no cost to the operator. Each HMU has a radius of 45 NM, so that it is not necessary to actually overfly the HMU to get a reading. ^
THE
20
CONTROLLER
4 Europe
Massive Diversion (MassDiv) Process A PRACTICAL APPROACH FROM SESAR Etienne de Muelenaere, Head of Operational Requirements Section, ^ by Network Manager Directorate, EUROCONTROL The Network Manager’s experts are currently developing a standard process in the framework of SESAR Network Operations Work Package 7 (WP7) to support the selection of diversion aerodromes when there is significant reduction of arrival capacity at a major European airport. What will make the difference compared with today’s situation will be the ability to plan massive diversion beyond local plans, based on business requirements and preferences and provide all users with information in real-time. The concept involves all partners (ANSPs, airports, airlines, the Network Manager) and relies on tool-sharing information among the actors. It supports collaborative decision processes to identify the best option for diverting aircraft and preparing for recovery after the situation ends. The project was initiated upon request from Paris ACC and Paris Charles de Gaulle airport. The project aims at improving information sharing and support for CDM at network level.
Photo: © Bodorka | Dreamstime.com
The process, supported by a web-based application, will ensure that the controller and the flight crew are informed, as soon as possible, of the parking availabilities, according to weight category and airline preferences, in a pre-defined set of alternate aerodromes. This information will then be updated during the execution of the diversions to reflect – as accurately as possible – the remaining parking stands available. The process will also increase aircraft localisation visibility and so help expedite recovery once the unusual situation is over. The process is divided into phases as follows: the Preparation Phase allows the actors involved in the MassDiv process to prepare their plans before unusual situations occur. The plans include diversion plans for each major airport (or sets of airports), together with default preferences for airspace users. The Pre-Diversion Phase Measures include local organisation of the OPS room, coordination with approaches, and information for adjacent centres. The Diversion Phase is launched when the unusual situation is confirmed and when aircraft are likely to be diverted. The process will help the flight crew and air traffic controllers select an alternate aerodrome to divert to, in
coordination with the airline for the company’s business needs and the Network Manager for the network impact and the preparation of the recovery phase. Each time an alternative aerodrome is confirmed by a flight crew, a parking stand is booked at the alternate aerodrome and the MassDiv system updated accordingly, ensuring that everyone receives up-todate information about the remaining availabilities. The Recovery Phase is initiated when the unusual situation is clearing up. It allows to prioritise flights that have been diverted and to reposition them to their original destination. It’s the most critical period for the airspace users. They want to get their aircraft back to base as soon as possible to reduce negative impact on their schedules. A concept of operations is currently under elaboration to support a validation trial that should take place before 2015. The operational deployment is planned for the following year. ^
Etienne.de-muelenaere@ eurocontrol.int
THE
CONTROLLER
21
4 Technology
Shared ATS System THE NEXT STEP IN HARMONISING CIVIL & MILITARY ATM Peter Hendrickx, Engineering/Head of ^ by ATM Systems, Eurocontrol Maastricht UAC In September 2013, the Eurocontrol Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (MUAC) and the Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF) achieved a real breakthrough in civil-military cooperation by deploying a so-called Shared ATS System (SAS). The SAS project is a pioneering project of shared ATC data services provided by one air navigation service provider for the benefit of another in the core area of Europe. It paves the way for further harmonisation in air traffic management and helps alleviate the defragmentation of the European network, as required by the Single European Sky. While the cooperation between the different military partners and MUAC has historically been excellent, an opportunity to enhance this good relation presented itself in 2008 when the RNLAF began looking for a new ATM system to replace their endof-life one. Instead of choosing an upgrade or developing something new, they decided
4 Nieuw Milligen controllers. Photo: Eurocontrol
in December 2010 to work together with an existing ANSP on a shared resource. MUAC was identified as the most advantageous option for that. What may have helped is that MUAC had nearly 40 years experience working in-house with the German counterparts of RNLAF: the controllers from Lippe Radar who operate from the same operations room as MUAC’s civil ATCOs. Under the terms of the agreement, MUAC would make the relevant correlated radar and flight plan data available to the RNLAF military ATC centre at AOCS Nieuw Milligen, about 200km from Maastricht, and seven RNLAF airbases. This is done by extending the operational MUAC air traffic control system, establishing a ‘virtual centre’ across the various RNLAF sites. The new cooperation with the Dutch began to take shape in December 2012 when a radar and flight data processing system feed was set up between MUAC and remote RNLAF stations. MUAC delivered hardware and software, fallback ATS capacity (in case of system or connectivity problems), documentation and training. With the initial set-up, 16 remote controller working positions became operational at Nieuw Milligen for the RNLAF approach controllers; this intermediate step paved the way for Full Operational Capability less than one year later: in September 2013, en-route sectors and tower operations, using 32 remote controller working positions deployed at Nieuw Milligen and a further seven at the RNLAF air bases were declared operational. Radar, flight plan and other data are fed through a dedicated 200 km line to the Dutch Air Operations Control Station at Nieuw Milligen and from there, to the seven airbases. The implementation was quite a challenge as the MUAC System had to be extended to serve controller positions at a remote location in a safe and secure way, while it also had to be modified to serve RNLAF’s operational needs in lower airspace and at the regional airports and military bases. For RNLAF controllers, it was a significant move from their paper strip system to a full electronic trajectory-based system and advanced human-machine-interface. The
4 Flight plan and radar data processing
happens in Maastricht, in the south and the data is distributed via dedicated lines to the various RNLAF sites.
Photo: IFATCA
system has an important number of tools ranging from trajectory prediction and flight path control monitoring, through short-term conflict alert and near-term-conflict alert, up to full integrated SYSCO (System Supported Coordination) internal and external coordination. Where in the past verbal coordination was used to transfer information between the different units, this process has now been largely automated, bringing with it a significant reduction in workload for both supervisors and controllers at both sites. Using a common system provides important efficiency gains as civil controllers are aware of the status of the military areas and the intentions of the military aircraft operating in these areas, enabling more effective capacity management. The primary benefit is increased safety, due to a closer understanding between military and civil controllers. However, the development also presents clear economic benefits: as MUAC facilities are upgraded and/or developed to SESAR standards, the improvements will automatically flow to the RNLAF virtual military centre served from MUAC. Breaking news: in November 2013, the Belgian Air Force commissioned a study to see whether a similar system could be deployed to serve Belgian OAT operations. ^
peter.hendrickx@eurocontrol.int
THE
22
CONTROLLER
4 ICAO
Advanced ATM Techniques ICAO SYMPOSIUM & WORKSHOP Dr Ruth Stilwell, IFATCA Representative ^ by to ICAO Air Navigation Commission ICAO held its first Advanced Air Traffic Management Techniques Symposium and Workshop at ICAO Headquarters from 4-6 November 2013. The event highlighted a change in approach for ICAO Symposia. Instead of focusing on high-level briefings, describing systems and issues, the event was designed to provide practical skills and implementation assistance to participants. Director of the ICAO Air Navigation Bureau, Nancy Graham summed it up best, “We want people to leave an ICAO event with new skills and tools that can make a difference in their States. It is important to deliver tangible value for the investment they are making to send participants to a symposium. We have an opportunity to demonstrate that ICAO is more than making standards, but an effective partner in helping States implement.” A consistent theme throughout the event was a reminder that Traffic Flow Management, including tools like Consensus Decision Making (CDM), does not necessarily require a technology driven solution. In initial implementation, CDM is a matter of opening lines of communication. It was stressed that States need not shy away from implementing these concepts because they are concerned that it would require costly investment in new systems. Elements of Advanced ATM were discussed in detail, including Continuous Descent Operations or Optimized Profile Descent and Continuous Climb Operations. CDM attracted considerable interest, both in the context of single event Traffic Flow Management and routine operations. The interaction between advanced procedures and flow management was explained, illustrating that effective Traffic Flow Management can be an enabler for new procedures, like CDO. The opening panel, set the stage with a topic titled, “How can our behavior bring change? Advanced Techniques? Killing the Myth.” The idea is that the first step in implementing advanced air traffic management is not the purchase of a new box, but an organizational decision to go down a path that includes a systems approach to ATM. This involves bringing in stakeholders, both internal
and external to build effective systems. The myth they sought to dispel is that advanced techniques are only those that are technology driven. The promotion of non-technical solutions notwithstanding, technology based solutions also featured prominently as many states and providers already have very sophisticated systems to build upon. The perspective of the user community provided valuable insight to the Air Navigation Service Providers. Balancing the different priorities of user groups can create difficult challenges for the providers, but extending CDM to a concept where stakeholder involvement is part of a larger airspace planning process can help mitigate those differences. For example, it is clear that CDO can provide tangible benefits to the airline community, but the Business Aviation community expressed a clear preference for Continuous Climb Operations. While an idle or near idle descent can provide fuel savings to an airliner, a high performance business jet has a better economic profile if it can get to final altitude more quickly. This highlighted another theme in the event, there is no one size fits all solution in ATM.
As part of the hands on nature of the workshop, one of the panels focused on where to start, for States just beginning their traffic flow management efforts. Presenters discussed the path from initial steps to full implementation, developing a proof of concept and defining and managing capacities. States shared their implementation challenges and lessons learned. In addition to building State capacity to manage traffic flows, the symposium also sought ways to build on international interoperability and the need for a path to seamless global traffic flow management. The symposium ended with a commitment from ICAO to assist regional efforts to produce training workshops on advanced air traffic management techniques. ^
ruth.stilwell@gmail.com
IFATCA’S INTERVENTION
At the symposium, IFATCA stressed that advanced ATM techniques are the combination of technology, procedures, airspace design and training but that there is no one size fits all solution. While immediate benefits are possible, this requires the institutional means for operational controllers to feed this information up through the system. Where, when, and how to involve them are important considerations. Failure to engage operational expertise at the problem identification phase can lead to flawed assumptions, for example. While advanced ATM requires a look at the entire system, the value of simple solutions cannot be overstressed: large scale programs can easily miss spotting the benefits of small changes. Similarly, overloading a system with new technology will not necessarily deliver benefits. All stakeholders, including airline operators, need to consider themselves as part of the system. A procedure design that is ideal for one airline, becomes unusable if the other operators are unable to fly it. There is an emerging consensus on service priority that recognizes the value of airspace design to optimize efficiency. This may require a fundamental rethinking of traffic flow and airspace management. Airspace scheduling is not a new concept, but aircraft performance/equipment based airspace scheduling is a new application. It will require effective evaluation to optimize the airspace, but can offer very real near term benefits. ^
THE
CONTROLLER
23
4 ICAO
ATC Service Priority AN EMERGING CONSENSUS Dr Ruth Stilwell, ^ by IFATCA ICAO Representative The evolution of air navigation and airspace design over the last decade has placed increasing emphasis on airborne equipment. From GNSS routes to PBN, efficient airspace utilization requires that sufficient percentages of aircraft be equipped to utilize the advanced routes. This has led to an industry-wide discussion of equipment incentives ranging from financial to operational concepts. Direct financial incentives have numerous legal and commercial barriers, while operational incentives require a rethinking of service delivery in order to implement. Options for operational incentives for airborne equipment have run the gamut from tactical competition between aircraft to exclusionary airspace. As the debates have continued, there appears to be an emerging consensus between controllers, airlines, and air traffic service providers. This consensus centres on an airspace-based model of access and service priority. It is important to capture the operational concepts of this emerging con-
sensus and not be distracted by the terms used to identify it. “Best Equipped, Best Served” has been used colloquially for several years, but more recently, “Most Capable, Best Served” has gained popularity. Neither of these terms are particularly descriptive as best and most are subject to considerable interpretation. What is clear, is that these approaches seek to transition from a model of service priority based notionally on first come, first served, to one that recognizes the operational value of advanced aircraft capabilities and surveillance systems. There are many examples where the equipment on the aircraft dictates which procedures are available and airspace that can be accessed. Operators who are equipped receive operational and economic advantages as a result of their investment. For example, aircraft that are equipped for Cat III approaches are able to access CAT III equipped airports in poor weather conditions while lesser equipped aircraft will be delayed or diverted to other destinations. Similarly, aircraft that are RVSM equipped will have access to RVSM airspace while nonRVSM aircraft do not. These principles of airspace or procedure based equipment requirements are well established and understood in the aviation community. The concept of airspace access based on aircraft equipment is not a revolutionary idea. Fundamental airspace classifica-
Photo: © Lars Christensen | Dreamstime.com
tion is built on this premise. For example aircraft must be IFR equipped and flight crews IFR qualified in order to operate in Class A airspace. A future vision of service priority based on aircraft and crew capabilities is an evolution of existing operational concepts. This evolution can include dynamic airspace designation based on capacity and demand. For example, if a given procedure increases airspace capacity, during peak hours those aircraft equipped to use the procedure will have access to the airspace. During nonpeak hours when the airspace is not capacity constrained, non-equipped aircraft could have access. The outcome of this operational concept would be similar to that of CAT II/III operations, except the limiting factor would be traffic saturation rather than weather conditions. Advanced airspace design and procedures are evolving to maximize airspace availability and efficiency. PBN approaches reduce track distance and can allow aircraft to navigate around terrain in low visibility. Continuous Descent Operations allow operators to maximize fuel economy, RNP standards allow for reduced separation in procedural airspace, increasing capacity and new in-trail climb and descent procedures in en route airspace will allow equipped aircraft to access preferred flight levels. These advanced procedures also have the ability to reduce controller workload. Airspace design that takes advantage of modern aircraft navigation capabilities has the possibility to de-conflict traffic flows, reduce the need for vectoring, and reduce frequency congestion. Advanced airspace design will play an increasingly important role in managing traffic in high-density areas. However, this type of airspace design
THE
24
CONTROLLER
4 ICAO Photo: © Ivan Cholakov & Dima Smaglov | Dreamstime.com
is only of value if the aircraft operating in the airspace are able to use it. Airspace analysis and planning is a critical component in developing an airborne equipment based service priority model. Airspace service volumes should be evaluated to determine if and when benefits can be derived from advanced procedures. The current approach design philosophy of “RNAV everywhere, RNP where beneficial” provides a model for this concept. Airports and airspace that are not high density or capacity constrained can benefit from certain advanced systems, like GPS approaches, particularly where other instrument approaches are not available. But many of these airports do not require more advanced procedures if benefits are not demonstrated. Moreover, aircraft should not be required to equip at a higher level simply to access an airport where equivalent capacity is provided by a lower level of equipage.
tion service providers, this could have the benefit of spreading air traffic activity more evenly across the operational hours.
This evaluation of airspace service volumes should be an on-going process and can aid in the evolution to a dynamic concept of airspace management and access. For many capacity constrained airports, the use of capacity enhancing procedures would only be necessary for certain hours of the day allowing for under-equipped aircraft to access the airport at non peak hours or for a limited number of slots during peak hours. This places the equipment investment decision within the operators’ business model, and moves away from a mandate driven approach. Operators that benefit from peak hour access will derive that benefit through the equipment investment. Operators who do not benefit from peak hour access have the option of designing flight schedules to take advantage of non-peak hours and defer equipment costs. For airports and air naviga-
Airspace access requires a delicate balance of competing interests. It is no more equitable to render an advanced procedure unusable and reducing system efficiency because of the presence of under equipped aircraft than it is to place an under equipped aircraft in holding to allow the better equipped aircraft to pass. In areas where airspace is not constrained, access should not be restricted based on airborne equipment. This is where the dynamic, or time based element of airspace design comes into the evolutionary process. A given airport or volume of airspace is rarely at peak capacity across its operating schedule. The more common scenario is that there are peak hours where an improvement in efficiency offered by advanced procedure can reduce delays and fuel consumption. By allowing traditional and mixed operations in non-peak periods, and restricting only peak
hours to advanced operations, under equipped aircraft are not excluded from the airspace or airport. By granting access to the most efficient procedures and airspace to aircraft equipped to use them, the business model for airborne investment can be made without artificial manipulation. The demand on controllers to manage a new service priority model is mitigated. Finally, while this model can provide an incentive for operators to equip aircraft, for those that want to defer or delay the on board investment, the option of moving flights away from peak periods to unconstrained periods could improve overall system efficiency. ^
ruth.stilwell@gmail.com
Photo: MrFly | Dreamstime.com
THE
CONTROLLER
25
4 Europe
On the Edge of Europe AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL IN GIBRALTAR Philippe Domogala, ^ by Deputy Editor Last October, I visited one of the many oddities in Europe: Gibraltar is a big rock at the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula, just under 15 km away from the northern tip of Africa. Exactly 300 years ago, in 1713, the Treaty of Utrecht was negotiated which ceded control of this strategic piece of land to Britain. Gibraltar has its own airport with an 1800m runway, which is partly built into the sea. It runs along the border with Spain and the main and only access road crosses the runway. This feature alone has made it world famous. Every year, millions of people enter and leave Gibraltar using this road. The airport (LXGB) is a joint civil-military one but the controllers are civil and belong to NATS. I was fortunate to be able to visit the ATC facilities there. It is a relatively standard TWR/ APP facility. Gibraltar is surrounded by class E airspace, which is part of the Sevilla TMA. Controlled by Sevilla ACC, itself part of the Madrid FIR, it’s the main coordination partner for the Gibraltarian controllers and the working principle is control delegation. The operational relation between Sevilla (and AENA, the
26
Spanish ANSP) and Gibraltar is very good. The controllers work well together and they cooperate closely to provide the safest and best possible service in a politically complex and sensitive environment. The ATC unit in Gibraltar has no direct lines with other neighbouring airports or ACCs. All outside ATC contacts go through Sevilla ACC. They can tune into the tower frequency of nearby Tanger airport (Morocco) in case of emergency, but all normal telephone communications are through Sevilla. It is all controller-tocontroller coordination and this works well. The approach unit has a surveillance radar which is used from 20-25 NM out for guidance, as the airport has no ILS and no NDB/ VOR – only a military TACAN. All approaches are therefore visual. If visibility is limited, the Gibraltarian controllers guide traffic with radar up to 3 NM final. If the pilot at that point does not see the runway, he has to go around and divert, usually to Malaga (150 Km away). When winds are above 20kts from the southwest, it’s impossible to land as the peninsula’s main geographic feature, The Rock, creates wind shear (rotors). Fortunately, this only happens 5 or 6 days per year. Normally, the airport receives around 15-20 aircraft every day, a total of 4.500 per year. Most are A320s from 3 larger UK airlines: British Airways, Monarch and Easy jet. In addition, there are regular visits from a few business jets and some military aircraft (e.g. Tornados, Typhoons, Harriers, C17s and the like). Beside the normal scheduled traffic, British Airways operates charter flights for maritime crews commuting to and from the large Gibraltar harbour. “We do not have many night flights, as the airport is only open
until 23:00. There are no high-intensity runway lights, but as all the buildings and the rock are illuminated, the runway is not very difficult to find: it’s the black spot!” says a local controller. The major challenge for the controllers is controlling the road traffic that needs to cross the runway. As one controller explains, the procedure is very strict: “When an inbound aircraft is 12 NM out, we close the pedestrian traffic as they take longer to clear the runway than the cars. At 8 NM out, all vehicles are stopped. Via a loud speaker, nicknamed the voice of God, I encourage the slow walkers to hurry. A special vehicle then checks the whole runway for any debris and to scare off the birds, mostly seagulls. At the same time, barriers and chains are put across the road to prevent any rogue vehicles from attempting to cross the runway. As soon as the aircraft has landed, it needs to backtrack since we do not have any separate taxi ways here. When this is done, I give the go ahead for the road to reopen. The whole procedure takes around 10 minutes which is very long for the road traffic, but we always prioritize aircraft over road traffic!” “Another thing to keep a sharp eye on is the yachts in the harbour: these sometimes wander across the extended centreline of the runway. The big cruise ships used to do the same, but the modern ones all have side-propellers so they can move sideways and avoid getting in the way”, adds the controller. The airfield was built in 1940 during World War II for the Allied invasion of German-occupied Northern Africa. It remained a Royal Air Force base until 1996, when a civil sub-
4 Europe
4 Waiting to cross the
4 View on the road
runway, into Gibraltar.
from the tower.
4 The ATC building in Gibraltar. Photos: DP
contractor took over ATC. Since 2006, UK NATS is responsible for air traffic control. Gibraltar is now a British Overseas Territory, just like the Falklands islands.
Spanish airport. While no commercial flights operate between Spain and Gibraltar, it has enabled General Aviation to transit between the two.
The situation of Gibraltar airport was eased significantly by the 2006 Cordoba agreement. This enables civil aircraft from Spain to Gibraltar and vice-versa, including diversions, which Spain did not accept before. Before, the only way to divert was to land in Morocco and file a new flight plan to get to a
British military aircraft are excluded and still cannot enter Spanish airspace, nor land there if they are/were bound for Gibraltar. They have to fly oceanic, come in from the south and enter Gibraltar on a northerly heading then making a sharp 90 degree turn after the rock for landing. Same for military depar-
tures: they climb to 500 ft and make a sharp turn south to stay clear of Spanish airspace. Special thanks to Julian Olgivie (GATCO & NATS) and Trevor Hammond (GM NATS in Gibraltar) for their help in arranging a visit to this very special place with a very unusual airport and operations! ^
dp@the-controller.net
Photo: Mihael Grmek via Wikipedia
27
4 Technology
Solar Impulse: Mission Across America 2013 Nik Gerber, ^ by Solar Impulse ATC Coordinator
4 HB-SIA overhead San Francisco.
Photo: © Solar Impulse | J. Revillard
4 Mission Control Center. N. Gerber, Y-A Fasel, and M. Masserey, ATC coordinators.
Photo: © Solar Impulse |Ackermann| Rezo.ch
Starting in May 2013 the world’s first solar airplane, able to fly day and night powered solely by the sun, began its Mission Across America. Over the course of two months, HB-SIA made its way from San Francisco (CA) via Phoenix (AZ), Dallas (TX), St. Louis (MO), Cincinnati (OH), Washington D.C. to New York City.
Difficult weather conditions, particularly strong winds, made the landing in Dallas difficult. A violent storm destroyed the roof of the hangar in St. Louis, forcing the team to operate its inflatable mobile structure for the first time during a mission. Finally, during the flight to New York, an 8 ft. / 2.5m tear in the fabric of the left wing forced the plane to land without completing the planned photoshoot around the Statue of Liberty. From an ATC point of view, the mission presented its own challenges. All routes were planned in close collaboration with the weather specialists and the simulation team of Solar Impulse. It then fell on the ATC-Team (Mike Masserey, Yves Fasel and myself) to work the routes from departure to final approach, taking elements such as populated areas and the very special altitude profile – VFR up to FL280 – into account. Four out of the six stages, from Moffett CA to Cincinnati OH, were organized with procedure specialists from each of the Air Route Traffic Control Centres (ARTCC) and Terminal Radar Approach Control units along the way, more than 20 in total! The East Coast
flights on the other hand, particularly the arrival in Washington Dulles and the leg between there and New York, were planned with the help of the Eastern Service Centre as a single point-of-contact. The FAA felt this was best, given the airspace complexity and the traffic density in the region. In all, it took hundreds of e-mails and phone calls between the Solar Impulse team and FAA staff, as well as dozens of teleconferences between Switzerland and the USA. To illustrate some of the challenges that we tackled: certain restricted areas were completely off-limits for HB-SIA, even if it could fly high enough to avoid them… Having picked destinations in, or close to, densely populated cities also complicated our planning: at 30 knots IAS and extremely susceptible to wake vortexes of other aircraft, our arrival and departure routes had to avoid populated areas; we had to stay outside areas with heavy traffic; we were required to delay our approaches until commercial traffic had stopped for the night; and in the morning, we had to make sure to be gone before the start of the morning rush… These constraints and many others were subject of long exchanges, ne-
THE
28
CONTROLLER
4 Technology
4 On crosswind for KJFK on the leg from Washington DC. to New-York City. Photo: © Solar Impulse |Revillard| Rezo.ch
gotiations and discussions and resulted in some pretty complicated routes. As if that doesn’t sound complicated enough, coordinating and monitoring the mission was done from our Mission Control Centre in Switzerland, adding time zone differences of up to 9 hours into the equation. Luckily, we could count on the professionalism and goodwill of everyone involved in this adventure, including that of the authorities on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. In sharp contrast, our stopover in Cincinnati OH was a walk in the park. Despite not part of the original schedule, we were able to organise everything within 2 days. While missing a hanger to store the aircraft overnight, the municipal airport was extremely accommodating, not only to us, but to the general public wanting to see the aircraft as well. It was an important lesson: for the “The First Round-the-World Solar Flight”, planned for 2015, we should try and avoid the main airports as much as possible. Instead, we need to look at destinations where arrangements can be made at short notice, still taking the specific needs of the aircraft, its crew and its mission into account.
Lastly, I’d like to highlight the excellent cooperation from all air traffic controllers and their supervisors along the way. During the flight, we were nearly permanently in contact with the relevant operation room. Our dealings with the people at the operational end were extremely professional, heart-warming and above all cooperative. While weather, wind, turbulence and other unpredictable factors meant we couldn’t always stick to procedures, their flexibility and goodwill meant we never had to compromise on safety during any of the flights.
The challenges and obstacles along the way not only show the team’s resourcefulness and flexibility but it was also a perfect rehearsal for what lies ahead for the circumnavigation of the globe, scheduled for 2015. Thanks to all those who helped to make this possible, and hopefully see you again in 2015! ^
niklaus.gerber@ solarimpulse.com
4 The Solar Impulse aircraft being loaded into a Cargolux B-747.
Photo: © Solar Impulse |Ackermann| Rezo.ch
THE
CONTROLLER
29
4 Asia-Pacific
What a Ride…
Phil Parker, ^ by ASP Regional Editor
CA, especially at Board level, is to serve an apprenticeship working as an IFATCA representative in your respective regions first.
Photos: PhP
4 Tower at the old Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong, which closed in 1998.
They say “if you do a job you enjoy, you never work a day in your life.” I had my last day at work just a few months ago after 45 years in ATC. Therefore, you could say, why have you been paid a salary for all of those years? Highlights would have to include the total of 12 years working at that aviation icon Kai Tak airport as a dual-rated Tower and Approach Radar controller. A great working environment, with fantastic colleagues, small working teams and a can-do atmosphere. There were a lot of problems with that airport including the diabolical weather, windshear, complicated approaches and departures, close proximity to Chinese airspace and the very small apron. However everyone there made the place work safely and efficiently.
4 China Airlines MD11
crashed at Hong Kong International airport during Typhoon Sam in 1999.
4 Participants and instructors to one of the radar courses for Chinese colleagues.
Photos: PhP
The second was being involved in 1988, with an Australian colleague, in teaching the very first comprehensive radar course for controllers in China. The project lasted nearly 6 months. It involved 4 months training in Australia for 8 controllers with follow up training for 7 weeks in China as part of an Australian Government aid project. The experience was fantastic, not only in the relationships we developed, but China was a very different place 25 years ago. Our report for the Chinese administration directly resulted in a change to increase the number of available metric flight levels. Third would have to be being EVP ASP for IFATCA from 1999 to 2003. I started with little idea of what I was doing and some may say I hadn’t progressed very far by the time I stepped down. It was a very steep learning curve, but like most things in life, you seem to get more out of it than what you put in. For me, the best part was meeting with fellow controllers from all over the world, especially those from the developing countries. My only suggestion to other would be controllers seeking election to positions in IFAT-
Overall, I’ve been very lucky to work in the fast-growing ATC environment of Asia. I’m going to miss it. I’ve also had the pleasure of being involved in youth aviation projects. For a place like Hong Kong, it’s very difficult for young people to get an understanding of aviation as a possible future career, not just in ATC, but all aspects including as pilots, engineers, dispatchers etc. For that reason, I’ve lectured in all aviation subjects ranging from principles of flight to meteorology and ATC to jet engines for the Dragonair Aviation Certificate Programme to the Hong Kong Youth Aviation Academy and had the pleasure of seeing some of these young people become controllers and pilots. There have only been two exceptions to these fantastic experiences throughout my career. Both involved me watching people die in aircraft. The first involved a Beech 80 Queenair, which blew up due to an engine fire just after leaving the circuit in Alice Springs, Australia on 20 January 1972. The accident occurred 15 minutes before being relieved off an overnight shift and I was in the tower by myself. The second was the crash at Hong Kong International Airport of a China Airlines, (Mandarin), MD11 on the 22nd of August 1999 during a typhoon when I was the tower controller on duty. This crash resulted in 3 deaths and around 60 injured out of 315 on board. It could have been so much worse as, unknown to the public and press at the time, the MD11 was rolling and burning straight towards a B777-300 opposite on an adjacent taxiway. Quick manoeuvring by the B777 pilot managed to steer his aircraft further from the runway. The burning, upside-down MD11 came to a stop alongside it. We nearly had another Tenerife that day. It was not a nice thing to watch. Although retiring, I still intend to keep my contacts in ATC in Asia/Pacific and hopefully continue to contribute to ‘The Controller’. ^
philatcinhk@gmail.com
THE
30
CONTROLLER
4 Feature
Supersonic Passenger Aircraft Part Four: Concorde – Commercial Nightmare Philip Marien, ^ by Editor In this last instalment of the SST Passenger series, we’ll look at why Concorde never became the success its designers had envisaged, at least not in a commercial sense. Between 1963 and 1966, the joint FrancoBritish consortium secured non-binding options for nearly 100 airframes from the major airlines of the day: Pan Am, BOAC, and Air France were planned to be the launch customers, with six Concordes each. During the 1950s and 1960s, technology developed at an incredibly fast pace and aviation was no exception. In the extremely short time that jet engines had been deployed on commercial aircraft, enormous advances had been made. Passengers could travel faster and more comfortable to any place on the planet than ever before. Supersonic transport was the next logical step and well within reach according to many, given that military aviation had successfully deployed supersonic fighter aircraft.
But by the time Concorde made its first flight in 1969, the post-WWII optimism and can-do spirit had begun to erode. News of conflicts and wars across the globe became increasingly visible with the spread of television. Protest against these and other injustices spread in many of the industrialised nations. And the threat of a global nuclear conflict was ever present. The unity that had won WWII once again made way for protectionism and mistrust. And it would take another 7 years for Concorde to make its first commercial flight. By the time it did, the world’s priorities had drastically changed and there was not a lot of sympathy for a fuel guzzling, loud and expensive piece of technology such as Concorde. Costs had spiralled during development to more than six times the original projections, arriving at a unit cost of US$40 million in 1977, the same price as a Boeing 747, which had been readily available for a number of years. Airline companies around the world
Trivia For several years, pre-production F-WTSA (#102) was painted in British Airways colours on one side and Air France colours on the other, probably confusing tower controllers everywhere...
had been hit hard by the 1973 oil crisis, which started when a number of Arab countries proclaimed an oil embargo, which lasted nearly 6 months. Fuel prices soared and suddenly, fuel economy became a high priority for everyone, including the airline industry. Compared to some of the newly introduced new wide-body aircraft, such as the Boeing 747, Concorde wasn’t looking good: it
4 G-BOAD at the Intrepid Air and Space Museum on the Hudson River in New York City.
Photo: © Lee Snider | Dreamstime.comRezo.ch
THE
CONTROLLER
31
Photo: Boeing
4 Feature
4 Together with the DC-10, the
B747 was much more fuel efficient. This became an important factor following the 1970s oil crisis.
Trivia The Concorde that featured in ‘Airport 79’ – one of the most ridiculous disaster films in cinematic history – was F-BTSC. After being in storage for several years at the end of the 1970s, it was sold to Air France for 1 Franc in 1980… On July 25, 2000, it was this aircraft that crashed as Air France Flight 4590 in the small French town of Gonesse. All 109 passengers and crew on board were killed, as well as four people on the ground. It was the beginning of the end for Concorde...
achieved around 16 passenger miles per gallon of fuel. The Boeing 707, which was over 10 years older reached 33.3 pm/g; the Boeing 747 46.4 pm/g; and the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 even 53.6 pm/g. While they cost the same to purchase, the new wide-body aircraft were about 3 times as efficient… In addition, the competition had stuck to proven technolo-
gies, giving confidence to buyers that they wouldn’t be facing surprises in maintenance, training and reliability. Concorde on the other hand was unknown technology and presented a great deal of uncertainty for potential customers. The crash of Concorde’s Russian equivalent at Paris Le Bourget air show shocked potential buyers and the flying public. But possibly the biggest setback for the program was yet to come. As the United States was eventually forced to axe its supersonic transport program in 1971, it kept a close eye on the progress of the European project. Fearing stiff competition for the domestic aircraft industry, the US government set out to make life as difficult as possible for Concorde. And they didn’t have to look far for an excuse to do this. The general public was becoming more vocal about environmental issues, including noise pollution. While initially sonic booms were not thought to be a serious issue, experiments in the mid-1960s such as the controversial Oklahoma City sonic boom tests and studies of the USAF's North American XB-70 Valkyrie proved otherwise. Possibly even a greater problem was the inefficient aerodynamic profile of the aircraft at low altitudes.
Trivia Concorde had livery design limitations to ensure the aircraft didn’t heat up more than needed during flight: the majority of the outside surface needs to be painted in a highly reflective white paint, which reduced the skin temperature by 6 to 11 degrees Celsius. In 1996, Air France briefly painted the fuselage of on of their Concordes predominantly blue as part of a deal with Pepsi. They could sustain Mach 2 for no more than 20 minutes at a time, but there was no restriction at speeds under Mach 1.7.
It was argued that the noise of the engines trying to keep the aircraft in the air during take-off and landing would be unbearable for the populated areas near the airports. In December 1975, US Congress narrowly voted in favour of a 6-month ban on supersonic aircraft flying in the USA. It was a major setback for British Airways and Air France’s who had just started taking reservations for flights following the completion of the airworthiness tests. Plans to operate 6 flights per day to New York and Washington D.C. had to be scrapped. Other countries, like India followed suit by at least partially banning Concorde from operating at supersonic speeds above their territories. Even supersonic operations over the Saudi desert had to be dropped after complaints from nomads whose camels reportedly stopped breeding because of the supersonic boom… Despite the concerns, many found that Concorde was actually quieter than had been feared, partly due to the pilots temporarily throttling back their engines to reduce noise when they overflew residential areas. Concorde was even quieter than several other contemporary aircraft in service. The USA reluctantly eased the ban and by special per-
Trivia French Concordes flew significantly less than their British counterparts: the 10 British aircraft flew a total of 151.343 hours. The 10 French Concordes only accumulated 92.502 hours. A partial explanation is that F-BVFD was taken out of service after only 5 years and used for spare parts. But even eliminating this, the average British Airways Concorde flew over 22.000 hrs, while an Air France airframe averages just over 14.000hrs…
THE
32
CONTROLLER
4 Feature Trivia One of the youngest Concordes (FBTSD) is on display at Le Bourget Air and Space Museum in Paris. In February 2010, it was announced that the museum and a group of volunteer Air France technicians intended to restore F-BTSD so it could taxi under its own power. In May 2010, it was reported that the British Save Concorde Group and French Olympus 593 groups were intending to restore a Concorde to a condition where it can fly in demonstrations. The status of both projects is unclear for the moment…
mission granted by US Secretary of Transportation, William Coleman, two Concordes, one in British Airways livery and the other in Air France livery, flew to Dulles Airport, Washington D.C. on May 24th 1976. Before landing, both aircraft flew over the US capital followed by parallel approaches to Dulles Airport. Both aircraft touched down together, the British Concorde landed on runway 01L and the French Concorde on runway 01R. But the damage had been done and all of the above took its toll on the program. By 1976, only four national airlines remained as prospective buyers: Britain, France, China, and Iran. The latter two cancelled – Iran as late as 1980 following the Islamic revolution and only Air France and British Airways (the successor to BOAC) took up their orders. Both the French and British governments demanded a cut of any profits made to try and recover some of the US$2,2 billion they had invested in the program. It meant that Concorde was never able to grow beyond a niche market: the aircraft was expensive, both to operate and to maintain. As a result of this, it remained an exclusivity and unlike the rest of the aviation industry, it was never ‘democratised’, remaining an exclusive travel option for the rich and famous. The joint development of Concorde eventually lead to the Airbus consortium, one of the major players in today’s aviation industry. Perhaps one day, they’ll be able to revive supersonic passenger transport in an economically viable and environmentally acceptable way…^
Other Operators Singapore Airlines On December 9th 1977, BA and Singapore Airlines started a service between London and Singapore via Bahrain, bringing the travel time down to only 9 hours. This service
Photo: GNU – Steve Fitzgerald via Wikimedia commons
basically was a very early form of code share/ alliance between both airlines. The technical and cockpit crews supplied by British Airways while the flight attendants were 50/50 between the two. The Concorde assigned to the Singapore route was G-BOAD. The left side of the airplane had been repainted in the Singapore Airlines' colours, while the right side were BA’s. Singapore Airlines thereby became the only other airline to operate Concorde in its own livery. The service had to be stopped after only 3 return flight, when the Malaysian government complained about the supersonic boom over the Straits of Malacca, on the West coast of Malaysia. This was possibly in retaliation for denying additional slots for Malaysian Airlines at Heathrow earlier that year. It wasn’t until January 1978 that the flights were resumed on a route that avoided Malaysian airspace. Less than one year later, the service was stopped permanently as it was reportedly running at a loss of US$3.5 per year due to the extended sub-sonic stretches and the disappointing load figures. Braniff Soon after, in early 1979, US carrier Braniff negotiated a deal to operate Concorde on a US domestic route between Dallas and Washington D.C. The arrangement was complex to say the least: as foreign aircraft were not allowed to fly scheduled domestic routes in the USA, the aircraft were ‘sold’ to Braniff every time they landed in Washington. Braniff crews would fly the (subsonic!) legs between DC and Dallas. On return, they were re-sold to BA or Air France. To enable this construction to work, the aircraft were re-registered: G-BOAA became G-N94AA; C-BOAB became G-N94AB and so on. Before the domestic flight, the ‘G-‘ was taped over and the aircraft became USregistered N94AA. The aircraft also received an American airworthiness certificate and Braniff crews were trained to fly the aircraft.
Because of insurance reasons however, they always needed to be supervised by a European pilot and flight engineer. Braniff initially charged only a 10% premium over standard first-class fare to fly Concorde. But limited to subsonic speed of around Mach 0.95, it only meant a 20 min gain on the normal service. The 100-seat Concorde often flew with no more than 15 passengers, while the regular Boeing 727s filled routinely filled up. Concorde service ended after little more than a year. For Braniff, it had been more of a stunt, getting them advertising that could not be readily bought. Although Braniff advertisements showed Concorde in their orange livery, it was in fact never applied to any Concorde, and the aircraft remained in the colors of British Airways and Air France throughout the operation. Iran Air On 8 October 1972, Iran Air placed an order with British Aircraft Corporation for two Concorde supersonic jets, plus one option. One was leased for a few flights from Tehran to Kish Island, but never appeared in Iran Air Livery. These orders were canceled in April 1980, in the wake of the Iranian Revolution, making Iran Air the last airline to cancel its Concorde orders. ^
editor@the-controller.net
THE
CONTROLLER
33
Charlie
Charlie’s Column ^ by Charlie JUST CULTURE
GPS ON APPLE NEW IPHONES 5 Last year, Apple replaced Google Maps on their phones with an application of their own. This hasn’t gone without some teething problems, which the company has been trying to resolve since. It even forced CEO Tim Cook to issue an apology for the issues it caused. But it’s not only the maps themselves that cause problems: people asking the application for directions to Alaska’s Fairbanks International Airport were directed to turn onto a taxiway, which lead to the airport’s main runway. Although the instructions do not direct you to cross the runway, some people did just this to get to the terminal building on the other side… According to the airport's chief of operations, Melissa Osborn, out-of-town drivers have driven onto airport property twice over the course of a few weeks, crossing the runway and driving directly to the airport ramp side of the passenger terminal. “These folks drove past several signs. They even drove past a gate. None of this signaled that they did something inappropriate,” she said. “The map directions concluded by telling drivers to go to Taxiway Bravo, shown as 'Taxiway B' on the satellite image in the app.
A young, too-smart-for-his-own-good controller is called up to his manager’s office about a pilot complaint about the controller’s “style”. After receiving a thorough explanation on frequency discipline, the young controller asks: Sir, I believe we have what is called Just Culture in this company, don’t we? Manager: Yes we do, but that has hardly anything to do with this! Young controller: Well, then can I ask you another question, Sir? Manager: *sigh* Yes, go ahead. Controller: Hypothetically, Sir, if I said that you are an idiot… That would not be covered by Just Culture and I would face disciplinary action, wouldn’t I? Manager: Oh, absolutely! Controller: But under Just Culture, you couldn’t discipline me for what I report and for what I am thinking, right? Manager: I guess not, no, but where is this going? Controller: Sir, I’d like to report that I think you are an idiot, Sir.
OVERHEARD ON FREQUENCY Pilot just transferred from Approach to Tower: ABC 123, 20 Nm north of your field for a visual approach! TWR Controller: Roger, report back 2 minutes before field in sight!
ICAO “BUZZ THE TOWER“ Lobby group “Flying Clean Alliance” caused a stir in Montreal in October: they hired an aircraft and buzzed the 38th Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization. A banner behind the aircraft said: “CAN’T SPELL PROCRASTINATION WITHOUT ICAO”. The fly-by took place as delegates from 191 countries entered the assembly to continue debating measures to curb effects of air traffic on the global climate. “ICAO has been talking about dealing with carbon pollution from airplanes for 16 years, but is doing nothing. They need to know that the world is watching and is expecting action” said the Director of the lobby group. He also quoted a line from the film Top Gun to justify their action: ”Sorry Goose – but it’s time to buzz the tower”. Looking at the photograph, it was more overflying at safe altitude rather than buzzing. Guess they should’ve hired Goose and Maverick for a proper fly-by that would have caused the delegates to spill their coffee! ^
Photo: © Guy Lavigueur
But once drivers reached the taxiway, it was only natural for them to look up and see the terminal on the other side of the runway. So that's where they drove.“ Though the airport has complained to Apple, the navigation app was still routing drivers to the taxiway until recently. Apple’s legal department promised a quick fix. Never trust your GPS...
THE
34
CONTROLLER
ATC GLOBAL 2014 THE ANNUAL MEETING PLACE FOR THE WORLD’S ATC/ATM COMMUNITY IS MOVING TO BEIJING THE PLACE TO DO BUSINESS IN 2014
17-19 SEPTEMBER 2014 CNCC, BEIJING, CHINA As the largest most comprehensive event of its kind, ATC Global has set the standard for air traffic management events worldwide. Having previously attracted over 5,500 industry professionals from 116 countries, the 24th year of the event will see it move to China, the fastest growing aviation market in the world.
@ATCGLOBAL ATC GLOBAL NETWORK WWW.ATCGLOBALHUB.COM