It's time for me to stop watching and start talking. For the users of Halifax Terminal, this is the reason you may get holds/delays in the near future.

It was finally announced by management that Halifax Terminal would change from a stand alone terminal unit and be merged into an existing low level enroute sector in Moncton Centre. All controllers from low level (many who have only worked en route for their entire career) will be required to "train" in the terminal sector and vice versa. Contrary to the advice from controllers that this would not be simple task and not everyone is cut out to be thrust in to a situation they are not used to, management is adamant that atc is atc and if you cannot do both terminal and en route, you should not be a controller (ie: "You drive a car on a highway therefore there is no reason why you cannot drive this F1 car safely")

Management has stated time and again, that there should be no decrease of level of service to the users and so they have not informed the airlines that use Halifax on a daily basis. Management has also said that if traffic level is such, that the normal in trail spacing that is currently provided (3/4/5/6 miles, 10 miles for CatII, 12 miles for LVOP) is unable to be attained by the enroute controller now working the Halifax airspace, they would accept that the controller puts aircraft into holds until they are able to clear the aircraft for approach. A method that is used, and is acceptable, at smaller airports in an enroute sector. In other words, enroute controllers being trained to work in the Halifax airspace would not need to demonstrate minimum spacing between arrivals as would any other trainee in the past (ie. "you can't vector for 3 miles, why don't you try for 6 miles. At least you won't have an incident.")

No one has asked, but I'm sure the same would apply to a terminal controller (who is used to working a radar environment) training in the enroute specialty who is not comfortable using non radar techniques at CYGR and leaves the second departure on the ground for an extended time because they are not used to procedural separation standards ("Well, at least you didn't have an incident").

Training, so far, has not gone as smoothly as management has liked. Trainees have been, so far, held to a standard that is dictated in the UQTP (unit qualification training plan) and those that have had issues in qualifying, the instructor has been blamed for holding the trainee to standards higher than what management has seen as required. As a result of this, management has decided, from this point forward, to ignore the UQTP and the trainees need only to demonstrate that they have the ability to keep aircraft separated and they do not need to show the ability to run an operation with minimum arrival spacing. If these trainees need to hold aircraft because final has been extended due to increased spacing, that is acceptable. If they are unable to use two runways for arrivals, then they are to use one runway only, to keep it simple. This has not been acceptable in the past.

Quite simply, we controllers are a proud bunch. We like doing our job well. We recognize that not all air traffic control is the same. There are those who succeed in towers, those who do well controlling high level, those who thrive in a non radar environment, and those who enjoy working in a terminal environment. Many have tried a different specialty and found they are unable to do the job while at the same time being an excellent controller in a different specialty or unit. Our concerns about a management "efficiency" initiative have been ignored and we are not upset because this is a managerial decision, but we can see the level of service to our users being diminished and our quality of work decreasing. This hurts. We feel we have been, proudly, providing a good product so far and this will not be a better operation.

We are not fooling ourselves in comparing our specialty to terminals like Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary etc. but we do have an eclectic mix of traffic. Mixing Sea Kings flying IFR approaches while sequencing 737's behind him is no easy feat. Helicopters coming back IFR from the oil rigs with minimum fuel are vectored for approaches with little delay and at the same time the airlines are put in behind them without being greatly affected. Running arrivals on crossing runways with minimum separation is definitely an acquired skill that requires constant polishing. And lets not forget the ever present fog. Working this mix is not for everyone. It is also a skill that requires working it every time a controller "plugs in" in order to keep one's skills tuned.

My reason for this post is that I am afraid that the company has most likely not informed the users that there will be a change of service. Or if they have consulted them, management has assured them that there will be no change. This is contrary to the statement that management has told the controllers where holds and increased spacing is acceptable.

Rant over!

Sorry for the dumb question but I'm new to all this: what is the primary advantage for management in this? Reduced costs I assume, but how?

What we have been told, so far, is that they require efficiencies. I would assume that refers to a reduction in staffing requirements for the 2 speciaties. They haven't really told us other than telling us it would benefit our schedules, leave availability, access to overtime, and improve our overall air traffic control skills. Any savings they may acquire in the future are currently being eroded due to the overtime required currently to backfill the vacancies while training is ongoing.

RXSarsaparilla, i agree almost entirely with that you are saying. We are seeing the same kind of procedures being applied here in YUL ACC these last 2-3 years, with the merging of two en-route low level sub-units into one. Bottom line is, management doesn't care about flight efficiency, only monetary efficiency !

Us controllers however, as you say, are a proud bunch and for us, efficiency is important.

RXSarsaparilla wrote:management is adamant that atc is atc and if you cannot do both terminal and en route, you should not be a controller (ie: "You drive a car on a highway therefore there is no reason why you cannot drive this F1 car safely")

Here in YUL, management understood the point that en-route and terminal controllers should not be mixed. We used to have a low level sub unit that was doing enroute and YQB terminal, kind of like your new setup at Moncton Low will be. I was training in that unit back in the day, and when YOW TCU and Cobden sector (now Concordia) came to Montreal, management decided to merge YOW and YQB terminals into one sub-unit, and give Cobden to the old West sub-unit (low level en-route).

Even a few years ago, when all this talk of merging sub-units came about, merging TCUs and en-route sectors was immediately brushed aside.

Unfortunately in your case, Moncton FIR only has one terminal, so the only place for YHZ TCU to go is with a low-level unit. If only YQM was a bit busier, this way you guys could have replicated what we have here with YOW/YQB.

RXSarsaparilla wrote:My reason for this post is that I am afraid that the company has most likely not informed the users that there will be a change of service.

In all honesty, the companies wont even notice the difference, much less complain about it. When is the last time a flight crew called the manager to complain about the fact that he was vectored 6 miles behind another guy instead of 3 ? Never!

Even here at YOW/YQB TCU, management doesn't want or need us to put 3 nm between aircraft, and honestly, nor is that a requirement for my trainees to check out. I tell them what i've been telling them for the last 10 years, "vector for a consistent 4-5 miles all the time, and you'll get a license !". What i don't want to see is inconsistency ! (3 mile spacing, followed by 8 miles, and then 4, then 10.....) . So, as long as the en-route controllers consistently put 4-5 mile spacing on the LOC, there should be no problem ,especially at YHZ, which last i checked, had around 80,000 movements a year (granted most if not all IFR, but still, that's only an average of 7 arrivals an hour)

RXSarsaparilla wrote:
but we do have an eclectic mix of traffic. Mixing Sea Kings flying IFR approaches while sequencing 737's behind him is no easy feat. Helicopters coming back IFR from the oil rigs with minimum fuel are vectored for approaches with little delay and at the same time the airlines are put in behind them without being greatly affected. Running arrivals on crossing runways with minimum separation is definitely an acquired skill that requires constant polishing. And lets not forget the ever present fog. Working this mix is not for everyone. It is also a skill that requires working it every time a controller "plugs in" in order to keep one's skills tuned.
Rant over!

I agree with you here, and unfortunately, this will be something the en-route controllers will need to get used to. We face similar situations here in Capitals, both in YOW and YQB, with a mix of jets, props, heavies, lights, helicopters, military activity, and lots of training flights (ahh those dreaded full procedure approaches !). Getting the timing right is key. That will only come with time, and a willingness from the controllers to be efficient. Because we sure as hell know management doesn't want or need us to be !

thenoflyzone

Thank you thenoflyzone for some insight in regards to how a project like this was accomplished in YUL. I would like to know how difficult it was merging YOW/YQB into Capitals, if you wish to disclose that information. Management has told us that projects like this that has gone on in other centres has been seamless and without any major issues. But like with anything else they have ever told me, I have my doubts.

You touched on the major issue here in YQM, the movement of the terminal into an en-route specialty. We constantly ask how the company expects us to remain competent in the terminal sector when the majority of each shift, a controller will be working the en-route sectors and, occasionally, working the terminal sector? As you most likely know, we stand by the fact that unless a controller works that terminal airspace almost everyday, those skills will deteriorate. Once the move to a single, low level specialty is in progress and cross training of controllers is in progress (training takes priority), it may be days before controller can work the terminal sector. As you said, it's too bad they couldn't create a terminal specialty, moving the Moncton "terminal" sector in with Halifax.

As for training, I believe I may not have been clear. We, in Halifax terminal believe, like you, that we should be training to a standard. The problem is that management will not admit that any standard is required in cross training. As you say, you don't want to see 3 miles followed by 12 miles followed by 8 miles followed by 10 etc by a trainee. Management, knowing they cannot afford to have any cross trainees not succeed, believe that as long as the trainee demonstrates they can operate without having an OI, they can qualify. Oh well, so much for efficiency in Halifax. Historically, trainees had to demonstrate a standard (like the one you mentioned) before qualifying in Halifax.

I agree with you, management doesn't care about efficient operations only efficient, budgetary projects that may look good on a resume. The users and our pride will be the ones affected.

Rufus

Seamless and without any issues is definitely not how I would describe recent sub-unit mergers.

RXSarsaparilla wrote: I would like to know how difficult it was merging YOW/YQB into Capitals, if you wish to disclose that information.
Rufus

As Braun said, it wasn't easy, but we made it work !

Staffing the unit properly for the first 2-3 years was hell due to all the cross training. Management thought everyone would check out quickly, but that wasn't necessarily the case, as we made sure that training was done to our standards, and every en-route controller switching to Capitals received a proper training. A few terminal controllers that already worked YQB TCU were obviously easier to qualify and had an easier time adapting to the way of doing things in YOW. Several en-route controllers realized it wasn't a walk in the park and returned to their initial unit.

Thenoflyzone

thenoflyzone wrote: As Braun said, it wasn't easy, but we made it work !

Staffing the unit properly for the first 2-3 years was hell due to all the cross training. Management thought everyone would check out quickly, but that wasn't necessarily the case, as we made sure that training was done to our standards, and every en-route controller switching to Capitals received a proper training. A few terminal controllers that already worked YQB TCU were obviously easier to qualify and had an easier time adapting to the way of doing things in YOW. Several en-route controllers realized it wasn't a walk in the park and returned to their initial unit.

Thenoflyzone

Some of us were so scared that we left YUL centre altogether....

(....And went on to work YEG and then YYC terminals, but then the story doesn't sound as grandiose. ) Shit, that's a long time ago, already.