On designing air traffic systems.

[masseygrad]

A slightly different question, hypothetical, for any designers of air traffic systems, that might be out there...

Who would you include in a group (i.e. what specialists) to plan the modernisation of an existing air traffic system? Also, what organisations should be responsible for development of such a plan?

Thanks.

[Scott Voigt]

The minimum start would be the engineers who are going to build the system. The operations folks who are going to use the system and then human factors folks who will tell you what will work and what wont when designing the displays and work stations...

regards

[BEXIL160]

You will notice that Scott has quite properly omitted anyone wearing a suit. :)

Rgds BEX

[Great Unmanaged]

A representitive cross section of the following;

The people that are going to use it. ATCO's

The people that are going to develop it. Sotware engineers and other computer / ATC systems specialists.

The people who are going to maintain it. Hardware engineers.

Safety specialists.

No suits - no accountants - no 'senior' management who 'used to know about these things'.

[Iron City]

When you do the human factors get a representative group of ATCOs to advise on colors shapes and sizes of blips and text and symbols. Put them in a room with the contractor without adult supervision and let them give the contractor direction. Do this every 3 months or so with a slightly different set of ATCOs. After 2 years pay IBM's claim for millions of dollars and sell off to Loral (oops, CSC, oops LM, oops...)

Seriously. Make sure you have some people who really know how to do development programs for complex engineered systems. Sometimes they wear suits but if not hamstrung by politicized executive management and other BS they can keep your b*&&^%$s out of a crack and save you time and money.

[Arkady]

Interesting that no one has thought to invite the airspace users to the party.

Start with the ATCOs and Pilots who will have to use the system and then when they have designed your airspace and developed a method of operations invite in the engineers to build a structure that supports your design. Otherwise the users end up supporting the system rather than the other way around. (Force Offer that any way you like).

[Arkady]

Apologies to Scott, he did include the airspace users.

[CUNIM]

Wow - you really know how to ask a good question. The successful and on time, on budget implementation of a new ATC system is a rare thing indeed. Usually the delay problems all come down to believing industry when they say their system works, over specifying the system you think you want rather than what you really need, not including the necessary specialists who have already been identified in the other posts here and most importantly, having a decent open minded moderator to lead the discussions with all the actors.

Then, develop an approach to lead through the maze of systems and procedures needed. First look at your current system - it is "Safe". Any changes being implemented in the new system will be inherently "Unsafe" until proven. Small difference equals no real problem, large difference equals serious examination needed and training problems in the future prior to implementation. So after the examinmation of current systems used, make up the shopping list as "Statements of Need". This is the first step in the approval process. Once past this point start on Operational Requirements and Safety cases. During this phase, some sort of proof will be needed as to potential efficiency or lack of it! Usually Fast-Time and Real-Time Simulations. Then the process of Functional Specifications starts which leads to the call for tender.

I suppose that my message is - Whilst the people are essential, you really need a wary and wiley leader of the team to lead through the necessary logical steps and to cover everything, and I mean absolutely everything to do with the project. If industry says we can provide it, tell 'em - prove it!

All the best

[BDiONU]

Actually the VERY first thing you need is an unlimited pot of money. Every and any thing you want to do hinges on how much you are able to spend on doing it.

[Loki]

Whatever you do, don`t believe the contractor who promises you the Earth at a bargain price!

[ZIP250]

How about starting with a little bit of research? Look at what Eurocontrol and ICAO (EUR) region have in their archives, examine who made the inputs to that research, look at the follow up (eg EATCHIP) and then start designing.

The point I am making is that, for many years, folk have tried to look forward and lay down guidelines for future Air Traffic Management systems only to see individual states go down their own roads when new systems are specified.

The Eurocontrol ACG and the ICAO FEATS reports are still worth reading even though the former is now fifteen years old. If only the concepts laid out there had been fully implemented we just might find that things were better now!!!

Z

[Erm OK probably]

Very interesting topic. Clearly those at the sharp end have strong views on the types of specialist needed to define a new ATC system. I would suggest though that the views of the various specialists arew weighted - controllers getting the highest weighting followed by ATC engineers, then pilots etc. At the bottom of the list should come the software engineers who will build the system.

Only this way will you ensure that the operational needs do not get overridden by the limitations of the software and its implementation.

[Great Unmanaged]

Just a point on this complex subject - and just to prove it is! What if the software is incredibly expensive to maintain? So the ATCO's like the system, the engineers can be further reduced in number but - the software code and adaptation are a nightmare. This may apply to the Ozzies with a Raytheon system - I think.

[masseygrad]

I'd just like to say thank you for your intelligent and interesting replies.. .. .Cheers.