I believe the procedure from Liège is only allowed in case ACC east closes between certain night hours. So it's more of a replacement than a relieve.mvg wrote: ↑27 Apr 2019, 16:59 Hi Phoenixx,
About Liege corridor, whoever has to decide is it’s open, he is not gonna say “no” if it helps Liege staying open. I meant that that procedure could still be activated to lower restrictions on CANAC east for traffic to Brussels for example. If CANAC doesn’t have to take care of inbounds to Liege, that’s already a few aircrafts less. This only in case of serious shortage at ACC.
Indeed there is no corridor for Brussels but:
- it can easily be put in place via Brussels approach who controls till the Dutch border and could take traffic without using ACC (just an example). If traffic comes from Amsterdam FIR below FL75, there is almost even no need for a procedure: it happens daily and is a simple coordination by the Dutch straight with Brussels Approach. (It’s not nothing either but safety wise it’s simple).
About being suited because you give delays and letting the management do its job: well that’s one way to see things and we respect it but if YOU (controllers) take things in hands and come up with something workable on paper, you can also show your good will to everyone. And mostly to the airlines and the people flying. No airline will suit you for taking 10 planes an hour instead of closing the airspace. It’s only my opinion.
And as you pretend that your management is doing nothing, show them that you can do something. After all, experts (those who design procedures) are ex-controllers and they help you with this.
About new procedures and safety cases: in case of restrictions (in case there are x Atcos present, we accept x planes per hour -> better written than now and without closure) that is not necessary, procedures are not changed. Only the amount of traffic is. And BCAA can also be associated to the process so that they can see that it is very safe.
And if you are talking about BCAA (they review your safety cases), put them in the loop as well for the extra hours you have to work, the too many days you are rostered, and so on and so on. It is much more important for them to react on that than on flow restrictions which are deemed safe by professionals. BCAA is your regulator and it surprises me that they are not reacting to all your problems.
If rules are broken and safety is impaired due to fatigue (as an example) they have to know and react.
Thanks again for your input and let’s hope it all comes to an end soon
But surely better to have this activated than a full closure at Liège, I think everybody agreed on that.
I like your logic, I really do. But the reality is different I'm afraid.
An airline with (as an example) 20 scheduled flights in a night who can now only do 12 (because theres other airlines too for that 6/hour) and has to deal with delays on a daily basis is also losing a ton of money. And while 3 is better than 0, it is not the planned 20 per night. Also, Liège airport will not be happy at all they are so restricted and can not give their airlines the flights they planned. I see no reason why any of these companies or a third party that suffered a financial loss would not take this to court when they know the reason why there are closures.
As long as there is no indication from management that they want to change capacity numbers officially I don't think you will see specific offers or procedures by controllers either.
Secondly, you say the airlines and the public would see our goodwill, same thing there: while I really like your logic, it's not exactly accurate.
We have no right to communicate publicly (our offer goes to management, not the press) and we will still be the bad guy either way. Delays and staffing issues are (just like the closures) still communicated as hidden strikes and fake sick calls. Management avoids all responsibility, bringing it all on us (they actively contribute to this too) in the media and in political regions. They will not stop doing this, believing they might is a naive mindset staff here grows out of in less than 2 years.
Once again, there is a reason why bcaa, management, politics, dglv, ... don't touch this issue. Even though it might seem very useful and logical, im afraid it's not that easy. Putting maximum numbers on your capacity is something shareholders don't want to see (not that we air traffic controllers care too much about them, but they do have a lot of power) because of their numbers and -once again- is something management doesn't want to see because it would be admitting failing at certain aspects of their job.
We write regular Reports to bcaa, we do what we are ought to do just culture and safety wise, so they are aware. But I won't go into the topic safety reporting further though, too confidential.