BOH

There is some very clever software I have seen for rostering train drivers that takes into account their permitted working hours (with statutory breaks), holidays, route knowledge, type of train qualified to drive, the scheduled timetable and actual on the day, sectors and routes drivers can be put on ensuring they will not go out-of-hours etc etc. This also takes into account real-time train delays and cancellations and constantly re-calculates if for example, a train is running late meaning that the driver could not then do his rostered return route as would run out of hours.it also takes into account of course where the fleet needs to be at the end of the day to ensure the next morning peak service can run - this is really important as at the end of the day many drivers will be running out-of-hours so constant prediction and re-optimisation is vital whenever there are changes during the day,

It also re-calculates / re-rosters when sickness occurs, either for the whole day or if someone falls ill during the day plus a whole host of other things, it it quite remarkable how quickly it will re-calculate the optimum roster and immediately flag up upcoming conflict when a driver will be run out-of-hours later in the day due to an unforseen problem. Hundreds of drivers and trains, hugely complex timetables (particularly in and around London) but it will instantly show where a rostering conflict will occur hours out from any point....and also show the optimum way it can be resolved with the minimum of staff changes and inconvenience.

BertieBadger

Absolutely. I claim no expertise but aren't scheduling problems often variations of the "travelling salesman" problem?

Simple on the face of it, and a rabbit hole when you beyond that

​​​

BertieBadger

Thanks T8191​​​​​​, that was very interesting. Avoided quoting whole post for reasons of space, but please do continue with such contributions ^

Regardless of how people may have interpreted the written word, as an unashamed geek (I may have mentioned that before) my thanks to all who contribute.

Except PETER01 obviously
​​​

T8191

Interesting, BOH ... although my old requirements were simple in comparison, I would have loved to have something similar instead of having to do it all in my head!!

RGS5526

Scheduling is a variation of the "Knapsack" or "machine loading" problem, rather than the "travelling salesman", but both are classed as "hard" computational problems with no easy general solution. Brute force (and perhaps a bit of experience) is needed in general, although a solution somewhere near the best can often be found in less than polynomial time.

BertieBadger

Thanks. Not my area of expertise as I said. Is it known (estimated / proven) in "Big O" notation? With specific reference to airlines rather than spherical bovine

Thanks in advance

PETER01

Yes I agree and thanks UncleT, must have been interesting times and lots of manual calculations back then!

Oh, I just like to ask the odd question here and don't have any BA staff knowledge, well maybe just a tiny bit here and there but certainly not enough to contribute to this thread

T8191

Gosh, I didn't think I was that interesting

A couple of nocturnal afterthoughts, then.

1. The BIG difference between Civ and Mil ATC is that Civ tend to get posted to one location [and indeed sometimes one control role] and stay there for years. Mil do ALL roles in the Tower, and get posted to a new location every 2 1/2 years to broaden their experience and fit them for a variety of other roles (such as Area Radar). On posting, their controlling endorsements are automatically cancelled, and they have to start local training again at the new unit before being validated to operate in each control position. Obviously the more experienced ATCOs will [usually!] take less time to endorse at subsequent units, but local training [On Job Training = OJT] consumes a lot of time overall, and makes rostering more complex.

2. Returning to my 50-controller unit [Eastern Radar] and the Watch Roster.
All the above from memory of the late 70s

Heathrow Tower

For current civil ATCs in the UK there are many requirements.
Currency (how often/how much). For example, at LHR Tower, we have to do 12hrs of 'Air' (either of the two runways) and 12hrs of 'Ground' (any Ground Movement Control position, or Ground Movement Planner (what flight crew know as 'Clearance Delivery') every 45 days. If we don't achieve that we have to get signed off by an examiner again.

There is also refresher training (and assessment) on unusual situations/emergencies. Although an annual requirement, we usually split them up so that we do them every six months.

Then there is the competency assessment, which is continual. Each controller is allocated to a competency examiner who is responsible for building up (at the very least once every quarter) a body of written evidence to prove the controller's ongoing comptency. RT samples will be taken every quarter and graded, as well as the examiner carrying out a live assessment (sitting at a spare desk and listening and monitoring the working practices) on the staff working in the tower about once a month. Any safety reports or observations made by the controller will be discussed and any further work identified if needed.

As I work in the office for most of the time, and therefore don't work in the tower as much as 'normal' controllers, I also have to do a six-monthly check, so I'll have my examiner plugged in with me for a whole shift every six months, along with an verbal examination.

T8191

Very interesting, Heathrow Tower. ^

I guess you guys formalised (rightly) what our ‘management’ in the old days did by gut instinct. And indeed perhaps Mil ATC does something similar there days ... any current/recent Mil ATCOs in here?

A lot of effort by the ‘competency examiner’ required, though. Quis custodes ipspos custodes?

PETER01

Thank you very much Heathrow Tower, really appreciated ^

A very rigorous testing and assessment periods as well as quite reassuring how high the standards are.

Keep up the posts here if you can and when you can.

Many, many do like reading this particular thread which is one of my favourites and I am sure many other members here feel the same

Shuttle_Endeavour

As a current Mil ATCO we still operate to very similar guidelines to ensure we remain up to standard. In essence we have an hours requirement over a 30 day period for each endorsement we hold. Also we are subject to standards checks every 6 months, which includes a theoretical exam (that must include altimetry and knowledge of publications questions). Every 3 years we are required to undertake a Professional Knowledge examination, which is more in depth. Those in training and standards team roles are also examined every 6 months (or perhaps annually- I forget!) in these roles to ensure they are doing that element to the appropriate standard.
We also have to maintain 90 day currency in the more unusual elements of controlling, of which some is done synthetically (such as equipment failures when conducting a talk down) and some is briefings. Every controller must also undertake Human Factors training and periodic refresher training.

Overall we are quite a regulated bunch when it comes to being at, and maintaining, the appropriate standard.

rapidex

There are further complications with pilots, notwithstanding that some destinations require special training (like Funchal). Some pilots also have a restricted medical, such as pilots returning after a heart attack or bypass surgery. There are a number of other conditions which cause a restriction. 2 restricted pilots cannot fly together so calling out a standby requires caution. The crewing officers will have all the required information computerised, but just borrowing a pilot of annother crew is not always the correct answer.

BertieBadger

To that end, for such airports I assume initial training would be done in the simulator, but would the pilot be accompanied by a check pilot for their first actual landings or would they be otherwise assessed by the Captain as part of the certification?

Thanks

RB211

I think the hand-grenade analogy is a good one. Having done rostering in the past (not UncleT type past, a little more recent that that) albeit with the help of some fairly primitive computers, even when it appears simple, it is quite complicated. When it isn't anywhere near simple (e.g. pilots, flight crews etc) it quickly becomes a mess. Much better to de-optimize a single flight than crater half the operation.

I for one appreciate the posts made by Waterhorse and all others (staffers or not) and surely hope they continue with the details and expositions. This would be a much poorer place if responses were reduced to yes, no and maybe.

rb211.