Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1842943
Nothing new in Oz.

Perth Centre was closed and Area ATC operations moved to Melbourne in the 1990s.

Also in Europe, last time I looked, France also had plans to reduce its number of ACC's. One of the ideas involved closing Reims ACC and combining its operations with Brest. Unsurprisingly this was being met with very stiff resistance from the French Unions, and, given this is France, seemed unlikely to actually happen.

DFS in Germany were looking at something similar and....

Well, the UK has two ACC's. Scottish (in Prestwick) and London (at Swanwick). Is there really a need for two?

BEX
#1843036
BEX wrote:Nothing new in Oz.

Perth Centre was closed and Area ATC operations moved to Melbourne in the 1990s.

Also in Europe, last time I looked, France also had plans to reduce its number of ACC's. One of the ideas involved closing Reims ACC and combining its operations with Brest. Unsurprisingly this was being met with very stiff resistance from the French Unions, and, given this is France, seemed unlikely to actually happen.

DFS in Germany were looking at something similar and....

Well, the UK has two ACC's. Scottish (in Prestwick) and London (at Swanwick). Is there really a need for two?

BEX

You yourself must remember when there were 3 ATCCs plus additional radar units in the UK (London, Preston, Scottish) with 'contingency' plans to 'share out' the traffic between units should one of these units get knocked out , then this became 2 ATCCs plus Manchester 'sub' centre before the present 2 ATCCs.
If you reduced to one in the UK, a suitably placed bomb or other terrorist activity could paralyse aircraft movements over the entire country.
On my one visit to Swanwick, I was amazed to see how vulnerable it could be to an 'attack' of some sort.
User avatar
By rikur_
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1843043
BEX wrote:Well, the UK has two ACC's. Scottish (in Prestwick) and London (at Swanwick). Is there really a need for two?

But also raises the question of what further efficiencies do you get by going to one?

I've seen a lot of consolidation chasing the theoretical efficiencies of fewer larger sites that fail to deliver in practice.
kanga, Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1843077
chevvron wrote:On my one visit to Swanwick, I was amazed to see how vulnerable it could be to an 'attack' of some sort.


On my one visit to Swanwick, I was amazed to see how vulnerable it was to even a couple guys getting the flu. Rather than being impressed by technology, what hit me was how dirt cheap and understaffed the approach was.
#1843087
I've seen a lot of consolidation chasing the theoretical efficiencies of fewer larger sites that fail to deliver in practice.


The simple one is running costs. One building is rather less than running two separate ones

BEX
#1843094
RisePilot wrote:
On my one visit to Swanwick, I was amazed to see how vulnerable it was to even a couple guys getting the flu. Rather than being impressed by technology, what hit me was how dirt cheap and understaffed the approach was.


Others have perhaps thought similar...

CAA Project Oberon - Final report

Oberon Report Indicators

Can't get the linking to work for this one due to the complicated url I think so, CAA Project Palamon - Final Decision...

https://tinyurl.com/wwxyzt5n
User avatar
By rikur_
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1843111
BEX wrote:The simple one is running costs. One building is rather less than running two separate ones

When merging two already sizeable sites this is often tiny in practice compared to the cost of consolidation, and the inflationary impact on salaries of being able to recruit in fewer markets.

For sites over 500 people I'm sceptical that many organisations achieve the theoretical efficiencies they expect.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1843182
Prestwick combines Manchester Area, Scottish Area and Oceanic control into one building. There used to also be military onsite too, although that function was moved to Swanwick in 2013.

When I did the tour 10 or so years ago, they did comment on the redundancy from Swanwick also. There was a plan (including moving the controllers up to Scotland or vice versa) but details were sketchy and there would be considerable disruption over a long time. The military leaving would, I guess, have left console space available but the different areas had different equipment so it wasn't like they could just hot desk.
#1843218
SteveX wrote:Why is one named after a city still, which covers a tiny country, yet areas well away from that city? Should be 'British Centre' to recognise the Welsh whilst not affecting anything should Scotland ever go independent.


Because London is the only city that really matters in the UK; rest are a bunch of villages of varying size. :D
Charles Hunt liked this
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1843230
The use of what buildings will forever remain a debate that will not go away.

We have on one hand approach controllers that sit at the airport (Southend / Farnborough), and on the other hand approach controllers that sit in the same centre (Swanwick). Soon to come are virtual towers.

In today's technology driven world with broadband, video-conferencing and instant-messaging, it probably doesn't matter where anybody really sits providing the facility and communication lines are secure and reliable.

But for staff morale it would be nice to have colleagues to interact with as well as not having to relocate one's family all the time once the job is established.