Jump to content
Ryan Boulton-Lear

discussion Manchester Tower Booking's

Recommended Posts

Ryan Boulton-Lear

Hello all ! Not wishing to open a can of worms here, but hoping for a bit of clarification regarding the booking of Manchester tower. Now there is obviously two towers "EGCC_N_TWR" and "EGCC_S_TWR" and it's always been a gentlemen's agreement so to speak from North Tower whether they wan't South tower open or not, so it's not really booked. Now I accidentally booked on the CTS "EGCC_TWR" which it let me do, and then another controller booked "EGCC_N_TWR" which it also let them do which overlapped the bookings then. So looking for clarification really on what you should be booking Manchester Tower under. However if there is no official rule my proposal would be:

If someone books "EGCC_TWR" they are band boxing both towers, but if someone wishes to open EGCC_S_TWR they still ask EGCC_N_TWR if that's okay.

If someone books "EGCC_N_TWR" then another controller can book "EGCC_S_TWR" and the controllers do duals for the time that South Tower is logged on with their bookings. 

 

I look forward to any responses and hopefully we can get some clarification on this for the future !

 

Kind Regards,

 

Ryan Boulton - Lear

Share this post


Link to post
Fergus Walsh

image.thumb.png.694690e64e17fbfcf5349d7f7357b92b.pngAlready beaten to it  😉

Share this post


Link to post
Ryan Boulton-Lear
22 minutes ago, Fergus Walsh said:

image.thumb.png.694690e64e17fbfcf5349d7f7357b92b.pngAlready beaten to it  😉

Iv'e seen that already, just wanted some clarification for everyone 😉

 

Thanks

 

Ryan

Share this post


Link to post
Simon Kenyon

The official answer was provided by George Wright a long time ago

 

Quote

As S_TWR is a "split" of your N_TWR position this follows the sector splitting rules. They should ask you if you are happy to split the position, if not you are perfectly within your rights to decline.

This doesn't apply to GND splitting from TWR as this is a separate position in its own right. I hope everyone has the courtesy to ask before splitting but some newer controllers may not realise what they're doing unless it is explained to them.

Thanks for checking.

George Wright 
Assistant ATC Training Director

 

So basically if you book EGCC_N_TWR or EGCC_TWR your permission must be sought and obtained prior to anyone opening South twr irrespective if they have booked S twr.

 

Edited by Simon Kenyon

Share this post


Link to post
George Peppard

As Simon said above.

"When a position split is opened, the first controller to book may choose the split position they will control, regardless of the positions booked on the CT System" - https://www.vatsim.uk/atc/bookings

It's also common courtesy to ask the controller before you log on to the split position. If I'm on EGCC_N_TWR with 10 departures and no arrivals, I may not want a S_TWR - and I'm perfectly within my right to ask them to not open it (although they don’t have to listen to me).

Edited by George Peppard
Corrected wording slightly to make meaning clearer

Share this post


Link to post
Andy Ford
19 hours ago, Simon Kenyon said:

So basically if you book EGCC_N_TWR or EGCC_TWR your permission must be sought and obtained prior to anyone opening South twr irrespective if they have booked S twr.

Whilst members should of course be courteous of others and ask and try to respect other members wishes (we're all here to enjoy ourselves, at the end of the day), there is no provision in the current version of division policy that gives the first controller permission to refuse someone the right to log onto a valid controller position. The only provision for splitting is DivPol 3.8k:
 

Quote

3.8 k When a position split is opened, the first controller to book (or log on if neither have
booked or bookings were made after their log in time) may choose the split position they
will control, regardless of the positions booked on the RTS system, with the exception of:

(i) Controllers wishing to bandbox two or more primary area sectors should book a
single sector and then log on to the bandboxed position. Other members may then
log on to or book the other primary sectors without the need for obtaining the
first controller’s preference, and;

(ii) If a controller does choose to book a position bandboxing the primary area
sectors, other controllers may choose to log on to or book a contained primary
sector without obtaining the first controller’s preference. This action must leave
the bandbox controller with a minimum of one primary sector to control.

I suspect that if you tried to tell someone not to log on in practice and a SUP got involved, you'd probably lose.

TLDR: Split as much as you want, just try not to be a twit about it and be considerate of others and the traffic situation.

Edited by Andy Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Simon Kenyon

Looks like Andy and George Wright  have opposing views.  I wonder who is correct ?

Edited by Simon Kenyon
Confirmed George Wright as more than one George in this conversation

Share this post


Link to post
George Peppard

Not opposing at all. It’s common courtesy - but is also not required by anything.

The fact still stands that the first controller to book gets to choose the position regardless of the position they booked.

Share this post


Link to post
Andy Ford
32 minutes ago, Simon Kenyon said:

Looks like Andy and George have opposing views.  I wonder who is correct ?

Literally pulled what I said straight outta divpol.

Edited by Andy Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Adam Farquharson

Yeah they seem to be agreeing to me. Remember that you do get to chose your position and if you chose AIR N and the other controller logs on AIR S even if you ask them not to then you are the one that choses the runways and even though you can't force them to log off you can select singlies at Manchester making their position pointless.

In the end won't make much difference as normally the other person will respect your decision but if they don't then that's always an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Andy Gaffney
On 02/03/2019 at 18:36, Andy Ford said:

Whilst members should of course be courteous of others and ask and try to respect other members wishes (we're all here to enjoy ourselves, at the end of the day), there is no provision in the current version of division policy that gives the first controller permission to refuse someone the right to log onto a valid controller position. The only provision for splitting is DivPol 3.8k:
 

I suspect that if you tried to tell someone not to log on in practice and a SUP got involved, you'd probably lose.

TLDR: Split as much as you want, just try not to be a twit about it and be considerate of others and the traffic situation.

On this one - Mr Ford is right you cannot tell someone they cannot log on to a position - this is something Supervisors would certainly frown on.

The same situation can almost be applied to LL but there are split restrictions there (2 GND must be on before N TWR etc) - or at least it has been that way for a long time.

Im guessing that Manc has the same sort of restriction? As having 2 TWRs on with no GND makes no sense anyway.

I agree with the majority of people here however it is just common sense, if there’s is little need for a split then it’s probably recommended not to open it, and perhaps look to man another airport in the UK to entice some traffic there. 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Similar Content

    • Simon Conway
      By Simon Conway
      Hi,
      It seems the smartCARS is windows only (an .exe file) which alienates mac users.
      Is it possible to supply all the necessary server details so if for example I were to use Xplane and a Mac (yes, I know!, a double whammy!!) I could use the existing XACARS application and enjoy the new (is it new?) training excercises? 🙂
      Thanks in advance,
      Simon.
    • Callum McLoughlin
      By Callum McLoughlin
      Hi all, can I challenge why both the head of training and manager responsible for ATC training both have a potential of holding S3 ratings? Why is it judged as appropriate for the vacancy for head of ATC training to also have a minimum of an S3 too?
      My question arises as the S stands for "student".
      Open minded, but would be interested in the justification/thought process behind this.
      Have a good weekend 🙂 
    • Jamie Paine
    • Andrew Macleod
      By Andrew Macleod
      So what’s actually happening with Slack channels now. I would have asked in what used to be discussion on slack but didn’t want to get shouted at so I came here, is there going to be any new ones? Or we keeping disciussion to the forums and using slack for minimal purposes now?
    • Andy Ford
      By Andy Ford
      How time flies! It's now been three months since we released the new VATSIM UK tower training syllabus. Since release, we've seen an increase in the number of exams coming through the system, with a strong pass rate.
      Now that we've all had time to work with the new syllabus, it's time to look towards the next iteration and improvement. Therefore, we'd like to invite mentors and students to comment on how they're finding the syllabus and any feedback that they may have.
      With any additions or improvements, we are hoping to retain the current paradigm of "if it's theory, then it's self-taught". If there's something that you've noticed students lacking with regards to theory because we haven't told them what they need and where to find it, please say and this can be added.
      On the practical side, we're interested to know if there's anything that you would want to see added to the syllabus or integrated into an existing criterion. Or perhaps there's something that could be made clearer to aid understanding?
      Once we've collected all the feedback, we'll update the syllabus and release the improved version.
×
×
  • Create New...