Common Strip Display

[pikman]

Anyone else think this is a complete pile of horse****?
I have a method of strip management that I have developed and fine tuned thru 18 years in the business (probably not too dissimilar to your own!) and am now being told by management that I have to change over to the new common display or else! How is this safe? I understand that after the manch incident the company are trying to introduce a bit of accountability but this is going too far. How am I,or any of my colleagues, supposed to operate in the increasingly busy summer period when faced with an enforced system that leaves us all disorientated and confused??? There is no coverall common strip display so forget this crap and let us get on with our jobs!!! And that means you mr "barstool" Barron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[niknak]

I have some sympathy, although I was bought up on the standard display system, some of my colleagues have positively bizzare strip board methodology which I wouldn't understand if I spent the rest of the week thinking about it.

That said if you are working at a busy unit with people taking over from you every two hours, its only reasonable to have standard system so that your oncoming colleague doesn't have to spend five minutes rearranging the strip board before they get the full picture.

Try using your method with an electronic strip display system.:eek: :p

[Lon More]

Try using your method with an electronic strip display system.
FWIW when we introduced a stripless environment, back in the 1980s, part of the problem in getting it accepted by everyone was the fact that it was percived as strips being presented electronically. When they got away from this mind set the change was no great problem. For a period both systems ran parallel, then strips were produced, but no requirement to update them, then they were produced , but no longer distributed, then the printers were switched off.
I spent some ime at NERC during the trials and was not very impressed by the adherence to the strip form of display.
I know that a totally paperless environment is impossible to acheieve - where else could you put the coffee orders? - but with the introduction of data links, etc. updating paper is just a duplication of workload. Also with an electronic system there is only one way of doing it.

As I said, personal opinion from a retired controller

[Gonzo]

Niknak,

I believe that pikman was referring to the 'Common Strip Display' that NATS are introducing across all units (just towers, or is it radar too?). The idea is that Aberdeen will have the same marking and movement as Luton etc etc. I don't believe there's a unit that has different methods of stip movement and display within that unit.

[Data Dad]

And there is the rub.....

Aberdeen and Luton Towers have about as much in common as Chalk and Cheese. Luton 1 runway Aberdeen 5 (all crossing and/or intersecting) plus the ability to "sectorise" (Line up at an intermediate point and land one behind.) Yes I know 40- 50% are "helicopters" but they all have an FPS and they all need to occupy the Runway bay. On a calm day it is entirely possible to have 4 cleared for take-off at the same time. Go figure how CSD works for that!

As for reversing the methodology - we currently work on the deps "floating to the top" at which point they are clear for take-off, (CSD = move to bottom) well I wouldn't like to sign off the safety accountability for when an ATCO under pressure looks at the board, sees the dep at the top and clears it for take-off when there are still others on the runway but at the bottom of the bay.

Personally I think they are barking up the wrong tree - I believe there are over 30 (33 was mentioned?) different strip layouts in use throughout NATS - if they want to standardise start there!

(There was a thread on this subject in the NATS forum a while back)

[Standard Noise]

Horsesh!t is being too kind, but you can lay odds what's coming next..........when this common strip display comes in, there'll be a raft of incidents as people get used to it, then the company can have a new initiative and witch hunt to stamp out the errors which, after all, will be put down to controller error. Then they'll look proactive for dealing with the problem promptly. Same as the recent "when is a level bust not a level bust" trial.

We teach a strip display layout here at Brizz when we have a new trainee. They are expected to use the same format as the rest of us, albeit, there are minor differences between individuals. But then, after the fuss has died down, everyone will 'adapt' the common display to suit themselves. So what's the point?:confused: :ugh:

[throw a dyce]

It is possible to have sometimes 5 strips in the runway bay at Aberdeen,quite legally.As Data Dad states the combinations are endless.Where do circuit helis fit,or ones doing rejects? Where to helis hovering on 23 fit in on CSD?
The whole thing is completely the opposite to what we do.You may as well have blues for inbounds,and buff for outbounds just to finish the job.
If CSD is implemented at Aberdeen then they can stick the tower rating up their backsides.I'll just sit on radar.It too dangerous and someone will make a big mistake.We don't get paid for it anyway being a sleepy little airstrip where nothing happens.(5 terminals,4 runways,20% monthly increase in traffic zzzzzzzzz):mad:

[SATCO]

I get the gist... and I'm 'yes' and 'no' for the CSD.

First off, for a tower there's nothing like a GRAPHICAL representation rather than a strip bank display. I've used both at different times and both worked.

As for RADAR, that's a different flagpole altogether. When London Mil first moved to plasma panels, there was a huge kickoff over 'electronic flight strips'. Personally, I thought it worked darn well! (Next door in Civil was a cleaner's nightmare - more strip ends on the floor than strips!)

On the other hand, I can write and think and talk and watch all at the same time. (How big a slab does one want?)

As for standardisation, my strip marking was the same everywhere, in accordance with instruction. If it's standard markings then I say go for it! Might counter the oft-times illegible markings of fellow colleagues!

[chevvron]

Pikman - I sympathise with you. I was taught a display method at my unit over 30 years ago (straight from the college) and after all this time I'm expected to change to a TOTALLY different and illogical method in less than a month, with the left hand bay packed full of pendings, taxy's and starts and very little in the right bay (we only have two bays and there's no room to expand).
My method was so simple; left bay pending, right bay live!

[Talkdownman]

Pikman et al, I know how you feel!
At my APC unit we have two methods of identifying whether strips are inbound or outbound. They are: colour of FPS holder and ALSO format of FPS. After nearly four decades using 'outbounds blue, inbounds buff' for CDS reasons we have had to reverse the FPS holder colours for inbounds and outbounds. I think we have all overcome it but I still find a tendency to 'revert to type' especially when the FPS supplied is of the incorrect format. This leads me to conclude that the significance of the holder colour has now been degraded and that the FPS format provides the greater cue. The next CDS move, apparently, is to mix time order and vertical in the same display. The apparent intention is as follows: The inbounds will be displayed using the time-honoured 'lowest and earliest' method but the outbounds, however, will be displayed inversely, ie 'highest and earliest', and bear a departure sequence number, which, to all intents and purposes, is 'vertical'. This becomes even more confusing when the departure sequence is changed by TWR. I believe that this undermines proven lowest and earliest techniques and that the changes are frought with risk. Fortunately I won't have to endure these misguided directives for much longer.
Chevvron, you did well to adapt from the clipboard and 'blank chits'........:)

[throw a dyce]

In Hong Kong they used blue holders for inbounds and buff for outbounds.On single runway this was vey confusing,as your brain is programmed for the opposite.The only thing that saved my ass was going back to the system taught in the college 26years ago,the system I use now.Trouble was that others used a different system again so handing over could be a problem.But I never had an incident on any runway at CLK.
This CSD system is crap.I tried it because I've seen different systems etc.This is the worst and completely unworkable at Aberdeen.The most important strip,the one in the active bay is out of sight down by your navel.But still no-one can tell me how you can show a heli departing 34 from the north end,one lined up behind halfway,a fixed wing lined up 34 threshold,2helis landing on 32 at the same time,and one doing a hover check on 23.That's 6 strips in the ''Runway active ''bay.But which runway?
Come on Nats boffins,show me how you display that on CSD.:ugh:

[chevvron]

Precisely; it's obviously a 'knee jerk' because of a certain incident and the so-called safety experts homed in on EFPS displays and tried to copy them unsuccessfully for paper strips, and so those of us who use paper strips have to suffer.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Presumably the NATS Safety Management System was followed before introduction, and appropriate Hazard Analysis was carried out utilising operational staff at some point ........ this analysis would hopefully identify the problems being flagged up here and offer mitigations against them being unsafe, or deem them not to be risks (with appropriate justifications documented).

Why not ask your unit management to let you have sight of the safety paperwork and see exactly how your fears have been mitigated ??

There is no coverall common strip display so forget this crap and let us get on with our jobs!!! And that means you mr "barstool" Barron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think you are a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic if you believe that the 'Baron' had any role to play in the introduction of an operational system or procedure. He employs people in NERL and NSL to do that kind of stuff for him surely ??

[Hootin an a roarin]

"Come on Nats boffins,show me how you display that on CSD. "

They can't. It's as simple as that. That is a local problem of which your training department will have to come up with a solution. Your display will then be different from everyone elses and will then not be common. Pointless!
We in southern Scotland are in a similar situation.

The thing that irritates me is we are being sold this as a 'safety issue' rather than the truth of it needs to come in before introducing the EFPS to make things simple. I agree the whole thing is Bu****it. Each unit is different but once on unit everyone uses the same strip display. The Manc incident was an error. They happen. When we were being presented with the CSD, Rob S showed us that it couldn't happen with the new system, but it wouldn't happen with the old system either, IT WAS AN ERROR!

My major gripe is that we have a date of implimentation for this. I and others will not be signing up for this if we are not ready and as previously stated we are to be trained during the busiest period of the year. We don't have a lot of flexibility in the workforce and I am not signing ready until the old ways have been wiped from my brain. Same old story if I embarass myself I will get no back up from above. :rolleyes:

[throw a dyce]

Hootin,
Well the solution at the moment is that you stick all the strips in the giant runway bay and look out the window.But when you change the order that the strips are moved ,then the scope for clearing a fixed wing for takeoff,before a heli has vacated on a cross runway has increased a lot.This is because the strips are right the old way,but wrong the new way.When you get busy,then the old way takes over.All helicopter movements have to use,cross,or infringe rwy 16/34.
The whole operation at Aberdeen has evolved over years.All the helicopter rules are in Mats part 2,not part 1.The whole operation is non standard (heli wise),yet a Common display which is DANGEROUS,could be imposed on us. Most of the people in Nats making these decisions don't even know where Aberdeen is,let alone what the operation is.

[Hootin an a roarin]

throw a dyce

Totally agree mate. As far as NATS airports are concerned everything stops at Manchester!

[Gonzo]

I'd venture that those responsible for this initiative in NATS airports are so far removed from the coalface that they wouldn't know what a headset was. Or, heaven forbid, was it an engineer's idea????? :ugh:

[chevvron]

Let's face it, every airfield has its own little quirks that need a unique variation on strip display. At my airfield, there are so many vehicles likely to operate on or near the runway that we have to find room to store over 30 vehicle specific FPS'!!
I asked about hazard analysis for CSD and came up against a wall of silence, so I don't know if a specific one was done, or if they just assumed the one for EFPS was valid.

[Hootin an a roarin]

"I'd venture that those responsible for this initiative in NATS airports are so far removed from the coalface that they wouldn't know what a headset was. Or, heaven forbid, was it an engineer's idea????? "

Gonzo

It was your ex Head of Training's idea wasn't it? He's certainly doing the rounds attempting to promote it and claiming part responsibility.

[Gonzo]

Hootin', that's who I'd heard it was, yes.......:p

[letMfly]

Many years ago, prior to the introduction of Emirates Control, the management of Abu Dhabi International ATC thought it would be a good idea if we had a "Common Strip Display" to help those who would be working Area and Approach.
Their solution was to have all sectors (including Tower) use a Eastbound and Westbound system instead of inbound and outbound i.e. Blue FPS for West and buffs for East.
The resulting fiasco was like trying to ride a bike with reverse steering! Mistakes were made all the time, even in very quiet periods. One week and several embarrassing incidents later the change was scrapped.
Having tried the CSD CBT and seen my Unit's attempt at adapting the CSD to fit our purposes (which makes it non CSD anyway), my fear is that it will lead to a disaster that will make the Manchester incident seem very insignificant.:=

[throw a dyce]

LetMfly,
Well they must have introduced again cos it was there in 92.Yep it was also mega confusing.It's very difficult to use a brand new system especially when colours and strip orders are changed.
Wait til we get fog with no SMR.Milan lessons obviously not learned then.I am not going to use it,and if the powers that be don't like it,then they can withdraw my tower validation.:ok:
I'd rather keep Joe Public safe,and myself out of prison:D

[2 sheds]

So what did all the NATS human factors "experts" have to say on the subject? Were they earning their keep?

[floydie]

I sincerely hope that you don't assume that human factors experst are always listened to. They are not the decision makers, they just give their professional opinions and than often shake their heads when these opinions are disregarded.

[2 sheds]

I was indulging in the "lowest form of wit"!

I sincerely hope they are not always listened to.

2 s

[Dances with Boffins]

throw a dyce

it's just up the road from the Lawson's factory.:E

2 Sheds

A bit harsh on HF. You should always listen to people. Only then can you choose to ignore them.:rolleyes:

[throw a dyce]

Dances with Boffins,
Lawson's factory:confused: It's a big hole in the ground now rapidly to be filled with houses,getting drowned out from helis on 23.:(

[Dances with Boffins]

Bugger. They made good sausages.

[songbird29]

.... the problem in getting it accepted by everyone was the fact that it was percived as strips being presented electronically. When they got away from this mind set the change was no great problem. For a period both systems ran parallel, then strips were produced, but no requirement to update them, then they were produced , but no longer distributed, then the printers were switched off.
I spent some ime at NERC during the trials and was not very impressed by the adherence to the strip form of display.
I know that a totally paperless environment is impossible to acheieve - where else could you put the coffee orders? - but with the introduction of data links, etc. updating paper is just a duplication of workload. Also with an electronic system there is only one way of doing it.
As I said, personal opinion from a retired controller
Lon More's contribution highlights three essential points :
1) Human Factors specialists have a tendency to replicate paper strips electronically. Unfortunately the HF people do this on advice from ... ehum ... controllers. Mostly not the controllers who have gone through the experience, but controllers without too much exposure to automation, in the worst case selected by management for their tractability. Management usually think the replication of strips is an excellent idea, at least it is something they can recognize, but invariably it leads to failure. The data presentation and data handling needs to be adapted to electronic means, also in accordance with local circumstances rather than centrally dictated. What is intuitive on a paper strip is not any longer intuitive on a screen. The funny thing is that almost every ATC establishment, with only few exceptions, makes the same mistake, or if you prefer, learning curve. In particular the ATC units with a large bureaucracy want to reinvent their own wheels, despite the frequent meetings at Eurocontrol or elsewhere. And industry has no problem to deliver, the more repair actions, the higher the profits. Of course the price tag to such mistakes is considerable and worst of all sometimes blamed on the conservatism of controllers. Oh, how do I hate this.
2) Keeping two systems running for a period until full confidence is reached, as described by Lon More, is wisdom. An investment worth its money.
3) Updating paper in stripless environment is adding workload and counterproductive. In the early days of URET, just when the system was accepted by the controllers majority in Indianapolis and Memphis Centres, there was an order from their HQ to keep updating paper strips. The controllers refuted the workload duplication and told management to chose between annotation of paper strips or withdrawal of URET. Since URET was one of the few remnants of the failed 5 billion $ ATC full automation project of the early nineties, management drew back and condoned the use of URET without paper strip annotation. A few controllers did not want to work with URET, for them paper strips had to be made up, but I guess that was a minor inconvenience between controllers.

For the rest, I mustn't think of the horrors of changing blue and yellow strip colours. I thought I had seen funny things in my career, but that ain't funny anymore ! Asking for disaster, I'd say.

[Scott Voigt]

Most of us are quite happy with URET as a strip replacement. As a conflict probe (what they spent all the money on) it stinks, but as a replacement for paper it is very nice. It however can NOT be used for non-radar and you still must use strips for that. They are working on it, but it is still not perfect...

regards

Scott

[grim_up_north]

ATCOs at my unit are currently being "trained" in the use of Common Strip Display. Training consists of 1-2 hours live time in Tower, followed by an instruction to "go play with the traffic". The new system is basically an upside-down, back to front version of that which we've all been using for the last umpteen years...imagine being told that tomorrow morning we'll all be driving on the wrong side of the road....and by the way we've swapped the accelerator and brake pedals!! Explanation does not = training. People are wary of filing, but everyone I have spoken to is unhappy with the situation, and the attitude from Management is "this is what we have to do....so get on with it". On paper we are allowed as much familiarisation time as we need, however logistically if everyone insisted on 3 months monitoring the unit would shut!! I can see that this is "I told you so" waiting to happen, but I can't make anyone listen....what should I do? Can I file a 4114 on other people's behalves? What happened to our open and honest safety culture?? (Excuse me whilst I pmsl!!) :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[Gonzo]

Definitely file on it. What else is there to do?

[ogogog]

Most of us are quite happy with URET as a strip replacement. As a conflict probe (what they spent all the money on) it stinks, but as a replacement for paper it is very nice. It however can NOT be used for non-radar and you still must use strips for that. They are working on it, but it is still not perfect...

regards

Scott


how can you say people are happpy with URET, one URET was never ment to be a strip replacement and it dose a horribal job of it. only one controller can use it at a time, if you have a d-side the radar controller can not use it because of only one entry method with the track ball and their is only one. most of the time when you are busy all you d-side is doing is asking question about what you have done, it removed the nonverbal part that strips gave you. the whole point of URET was that it IS a conflict probe, but some one decided to replace strips with it. the ACL list is a joke and its hard to find the info in it, id love for some one to show me the human factors that was done on it!!!!! their WAS NONE.the only reason URET came was thet indy center controller were too lazy to use their strips .most of the controllers at ZAU that liked URET were the weaksticks that couldnt seperate the cheeks of their asses with both hands, but after a while most controller just gave in.at ZAU he had a very good radar team using strips that had evolved over 50 years and URET destroyed it in a few short months.i could go on but lets just say that URET was the main reason i left for C90 and iam much happyer that i did. URET is ATC for the criminally stupid, and just so you know i spent 20 years at ZAU so i know what iam talking about.you can paint a turd to look like a rose but its still a turd.

[LN-ATC]

Will I find an online description of the NATS "Common Strip Display"?

I work at an airport with intersecting runways, and we are currently looking for better ways of presenting possible runway conflicts. It doesn't sound like the CSD is worth considering, but I am a bit curious...

[Data Dad]

Grim,


followed by an instruction to "go play with the traffic".

I find an absolutely terrifying suggestion! Who pays if you screw it up?:ugh: :ugh:

File on it, CHIRP it, put it in writing (e-mail or paper) to your GM/MATC, copy it to PC over at Stirling!! Make sure you point out that you are unhappy with the system and lack of training and state that you believe that there is a very real likelihood of a mistake happening - if it does you can then produce the written evidence and say "SEE, told you so".

What do your LCE's think of it?

Who has signed off the Safety Case? and what's the mitigation for Controller error causing a horrendous incident?

I still cannot get my head round the quote above - so much for a safety first organisation.

DD

[chevvron]

Data Dad - I asked about a hazard analysis back in June and was met with stony silence!

[throw a dyce]

There will be a Teneriffe or Milan disaster if CSD is imposed on us.The primary concern of an ATCO in a VCR is to look out the window.What is the point in telling ATCO's with years of experience,to shuffle strips arse over face,and screw up whats going on outside.
Thats just the fixed wing side.Here at ISZ we have a vast amount of helis on 4 runways.It just CANNOT be done with CSD.OK make all the helis behave like fixed wing and cut capacity by 40%.Explain that to the Helicopter and Oil companies.CSD is designed to prevent what we do every day.:ugh: :mad:
Ps IF CSD comes they can have my Tower validation,stuck right up their A:mad: SE

[vintage ATCO]

We (Luton) went over to common strip display some time ago (a year? :confused:) and for our operation - single runway but quite busy - I think it works well. I wouldn't do it any other way now.

And it was all to prepare us for Electronic Flight Progress Strips and that goes live this weekend . . . ;):):):)

[eastern wiseguy]

single runway but quite busy



That surely is the point being made......:ugh: :ugh:

[vintage ATCO]

Indeed. I was not attempting to decry the argument.

[millerman]

What are strips?:D
Only joking, But I'm glad I don't have to use them - I would rather spend all my time looking at the radar screen:ok:

[pikman]

I'm working on a play about all of this. Below is the first act. any ideas or feedback please post or PM me.
OPERATION "COMPLETE SODDING DISASTER" ...A farce
Introduction
It is the year 2006. NATS Services Limited has been infiltrated and taken over by the criminal organisation SPECTRE headed up by its tyrranical leader Ernst Blofelt, and his evil sidekick Colonel Klebb, a former KGB agent gone mad and bad.
The staff of NSL are completely unaware of the change in nature of their leadership, or its sinister intention to wreak havoc, death and destruction in the civil aviation world.
Act 1 Scene 1
In an underground bunker somewhere in Hampshire Blofelt and Klebb are meeting for their weekly status report.
Blofelt. Good morning Colonel Klebb. What progress do you have to report to me today?
Klebb. Good morning number one. Our plans are all proceeding on schedule. The changes we have made in the ATCO training courses should in due course mean that less Trainee ATCOs will validate and that those that do will be of a lower quality. In addition to this we have reduced their salaries to such a low level that they can only afford to eat once a week. This has dampened their resistance considerably to the extent that they are a spent force. Our introduction of the STAR reporting system has ensured that we can monitor all safety reports, even the confidential ones, in order to flush out trouble makers. In addition to all of this, our long term strategy of placing inept managers in positions of responsibility is coming to fruition. In short, we now have complete freedom to do as we wish with the NSL organisation.
Blofelt. Excellent work Klebb! You and your department have done well. Now it is time to up the ante and move towards our final goal, to bring about a complete aviation disaster through the deeds of our unsuspecting ATCO staff. This must be caused by something that they do as part of their jobs, and I have an extremely cunning plan in mind. A plan so cunning and yet so simple that it cannot fail and they will never suspect our real intentions. We shall call this plan "Operation Complete Sodding Disaster".
Klebb. Boss, I'm sure that your plan is excellent, but even the GMs are not so stupid that they would fall for a plan with a name like that.
Blofelt. Dummkopf! Naturally we shall change the name of the plan, but to something similar. We shall introduce it to them as "Common Strip Display", then both parties, them and us can refer to it as CSD for short.
Klebb. How silly of me to think that you would make such a basic error of judgement. Pray tell me of this plan and how it will work.
Blofelt. Well, the plan is quite simple in its concept. All ATCOs rely on their flight progress strips and the way that they are laid out in order to carry out their tasks safely. I have devised a new strip display which we shall compel them to use, where everything that they have been used to doing for years and years is turned upside down. It is rather like swappin the gas pedal and the brake pedal on a car. You can tell the driver a hundred times over that you have done this, but put him under pressure and a crash is guaranteed! We will introduce this new system over the winter months while the traffic levels are lower. This way the ATCOs will gain confidence in the system whilst it is quiet, but come the summer when it gets really busy and they are under pressure......SMASH!!! I Guarantee it. (Laughs demonically)
Klebb. This is truly a work of genius. They will never suspect our involvement. Do you anticipate any problems with introducing it?
Blofelt. I have already given this much thought. We will introduce it in a hurry and give them a deadine for completion that doesn't give them time to complain about it. Also, we have a few agents in management positions at unit level who we can use to bully and coerce any ATCOs who are being, shall we say, problematic.
Klebb. Inspired thinking boss. Besides which, most of those ATCO people are far too concerned about their pensions to rock the boat and risk dismissal.
Blofelt. Ah yes Klebb. About the pension scheme, I have been having a few ideas on that subject...........

[grim_up_north]

Data Dad - thank you very much for your comments, they are much appreciated. In answer to your questions....

Most of the LCEs at my unit have spent less time using CSD than the people they're supposed to be monitoring - we're talking operational hours in the single figures. Indeed a few LCEs are yet to complete their training - some have expressed their own concerns about the "training" system and CSD itself.

As for a safety case or hazard analysis, questions at my unit have been met with the same stony response as chevvron's - we assume that the safety case for electronic flight progress strips is being used. This is ridiculous, as the strips we're using haven't changed, so the new system looks both reassuringly familiar and terrifyingly different! People are beginning to take positive action though, so hopefully all is not lost....

[pikman]

Act 1 Scene 2

M(atc) has called the ATCOs together for a meeting in the conference room.

M(atc). Good morning all. Thanks for turning up. I've gathered you all together to tell you about a change to our operations that we will be introducing over the coming weeks. It's called the NATS Common Strip Display and once we are all using it we'll never have an ATCO created collision on the runway again.
Bond (an ATCO). Hang on a minute boss, we've never had an ATCO created runway collision here in the past, so why the need to change things.
M(atc). If you'll let me finish and describe the system to you, you'll realise that this system is much better than the one you are now using, and it will be impossible for you to make a mistake. M(atc) then goes on to describe CSD to assembled ATCOs.
M(atc). So, any questions or comments.
Various mutter. Bollocks, rubbish, bag of ****e etc.etc.
Bond. So how long do we get to train on this before we go live?
M(atc). You'll get as much training on it as you feel you need before we change over to it next month!
Moneypenny (an ATCO). So is the training in the simulator?
M(atc). No. You will get a demonstration in the simulator and will then train with live traffic on your own license with an OJTI watching you.
Various mutter. Bollocks, rubbish, bag of ****e etc.etc.
Bond. So who came up with this idea of turning all of our confliction triggers upside down. This whole thing looks like an accident waiting to happen.
M(atc). Shut up Bond. It's happening so get used to it and get on with it. Even an armed incursion into Hampshire isn't going to stop this one. Besides it was devised by a group of MATCs with literally hours of recent operational experience. We didn't get where we are by being stupid. Anyway. it will be a procedure in the MATS part 2 so everyone will have to do it, and that's that. M(atc) ends rant!


Thanks for all the PM's. Some of the content you will recognize in scene 2. Other input will appear in forthcoming output. Keep it coming. Scene 3 is in the writing. Who gets fired...you decide!!!

[Gonzo]

Surely one of the responsibilities of being a licenced ATCO is that if one feels that one has not received enough training time on the new system, then one cannot and should not allow oneself to work until further training has been undertaken.

[chevvron]

We've suddenly been lumbered with having to give holding point designation with all line up instructions; MATS Pt 1 says you only need it with intermediate departures not full lengths; in my opinion it adds unnecessary RTF loading to an already busy frequency in addition to having to try to get CSD right for the LCE.

[2 sheds]

It will also totally undermine the impact that use of the holding point designator should have when it is (correctly) used at an intermediate intersection.

[grim_up_north]

Surely one of the responsibilities of being a licenced ATCO is that if one feels that one has not received enough training time on the new system, then one cannot and should not allow oneself to work until further training has been undertaken.

Well said Gonzo....I have been making this point for months. However, when 1/3 of the ATCOs on a unit are Managers, and all of the LCEs are Managers, then a certain pressure can be brought to bear. It seems that our loyalty should not be to the responsibilities and values that come with our validations, but to Management's next "big idea". When it comes down to it, everyone is capable of moaning, but very few are willing to stand up and be counted (and if the GM asks, it's a grrreat idea). I say again :ugh:!

[Mad As A Mad Thing]

The way the CSD has been introduced at my unit is nothing short of a disgrace.

Firstly in my opinion the whole thing is full of human factors traps waiting to catch you when your guard is down. Turning the way we work upside down is not something that you just change and then forget. I doubt there will be anyone who doesnt at some point have a momentary relapse. Most of the time it will be of no consequence & the realisation will dawn straight away, but I think the people who put their trust in our services deserve better than "most of the time".

Whose idea was it to put the most important area of the display (ie the runway bay) right at the bottom of the bay in my peripheral vision near my belly button? I thought the idea of being in the tower was to spend as much time as possible heads up looking out of the window at the traffic. You have now made the main focus of my strip display in the most heads down part of the strip bay.

I can't now move the strips into my expected arrival order if i'm not actually talking to all of the traffic.

I can't use my runway blocker strip to physically block the runway bay like I did previously.

We hear so much about the swiss cheese model, well I can tell you that my chunk of cheese now has a lot more holes in it than before, and the worst thing is I know that they are there but I'm not being allowed to do anything about them because its not standard.

Even little things like having both runway designators on the same runway strip (one upside down so you just turn it over when you change ends). I dont see any justification for having any reference to a runway not in use in the strip display. But what makes it even worse is that the upside down runway designator is on the left hand side of the strip. Why??? When in the western world we read from left to right the eye is first drawn to the incorrect runway designator, which although upside down is still easily assimilated by the brain. If we do have to have them both on the strip why not put the correct designator on the left?

Secondly the actual process of introduction has been a farce. A quick demo in the sim, then playing with live traffic with the expectation that a couple of hours is all it takes to get the basics then go off and get used to it on your own. Supposedly no pressure and you will get as much training as you need, but all the time knowing that there is a deadline for implementation. (Which admittedly was later allowed to slip, but nevertheless the unspoken pressure was there).

What are you supposed to do having started training with the new system, but not yet ready to use it unsupervised? Having started operating totally differently I think it is just as unsafe to then go back to using the old system as the brain is now caught in a no-man's land between the two. How can you be expected to instantly assimilate which way up your strips are representing the traffic?

I think we should have all been trained intensively over the weeks IMMEDIATELY before the opeartional date and then the switch should have been made unit wide on one date, not the piecemeal way it has happened.

I keep hearing very disturbing rumours that no proper risk assessment/safety case has been carried out for this. How can that be? If they are untrue, which I really hope they are why doesn't NATS management quash the rumours by making them available. Our safety culture is nothing without openness and transparency.

I am not opposed to change, but I am opposed to poorly thought out and badly implemented change.

[chevvron]

At least you got sim training; we didn't even get that! As I've said before, they just appear to have taken the layout of EFPS and duplicated it with FPS; no hazard analysis or anything, they just assumed the two types of displays are interchangeable which of course they're not. And by 'they' I would guess they're controllers who haven't had any recent actual live traffic experience.
One thing I wonder about; with EFPS, someone calls you and there's no details available, do you have a pen and a piece of paper handy to take down the info?

[grim_up_north]

Mad As A Mad Thing - I agree with everything you've said - "Everyone Knows" it's an accident waiting to happen. You too could win an i-pod by pointing it out to "The Management"! As far as I'm aware, no risk assessment was carried out and Human Factors were totally unaware of the existence of CSD. NATS....top 100 company.....YOU decide:}

[pikman]

Well said Grim.
Hope that anyone that got a "Golden ticket" to reply to the top 100 company survey exercises some genuine honesty in their reply!
CSD bollocks, rubbish, bag of ****e and DANGEROUS!!!!!
PS...PS...PS...Anyone watch Aircraft Crash Investigators? Production team coming soon to an airport near you...

[pikman]

Act 2 Scene 1 coming soon to a PC near you.
Will Bond overcome the evil that is SPECTRE?
Will he shag Moneypenny?
What would the lovechild look like?
Are Klebbs spiky shoes really tipped with poison?
Who will sing the theme tune?
Will the Platinum plated barstool giftwrapped in silk be enough to divert the attention of comrade Barron and his faithful NSL lackey Brendan?
You decide...

[throw a dyce]

Well I saw an incident in Hong Kong caused by this problem.They use blue for inbounds,buff for outbounds (why? 10 bucks no idea:ugh: ) and the strip system was similiar to CSD with the live traffic at the bottom.The controller was not used to this set up,but worked it anyway.
He had cleared a Dynasty for take off and lined up a second one behind.However at the last moment he changed his mind (single runway) but because the strips were the wrong way round,he told the a/c taking off to hold position.That's exactly what the a/c did,threw the anchor out and blew the dunlops.
I remember speaking to him about the strip setup and layout,and because the strips were the wrong colour,I just could not change the program in my brain.The only thing that saved me was the old fashioned current strip system.I just couldn't get the strip order and colour changes at the same time.So the strip system won.
This incident should be a heads up to that when you get under pressure,you revert to Mark1 system.That system is very robust,even when the strip are the wrong colour,but confusing the display is very dangerous.
Ps you could always use the i-pod when your sitting in prison,having wiped 2 out on the runway.:uhoh:

[Hootin an a roarin]

" Hope that anyone that got a "Golden ticket" to reply to the top 100 company survey exercises some genuine honesty in their reply!"

Unfortunately you can bet your arse that most of the surveys have gone to the corporate types and pen pushers down at the CTC. I'm sure they believe that NATS is fantastic, nice new buildings, lots of facilities, summer balls etc.

Also probably the place where the CSD was devised!

[Gonzo]

I believe the CSD was thought up in an office in the bowels of Heathrow Tower by a few bods in Airports HQ.

I know of at least ten ATCOs at LL who got surveys, including me, and another ten or so ATSAs. I don't think we need to worry about it not being representative.

[callyoushortly]

Even little things like having both runway designators on the same runway strip (one upside down so you just turn it over when you change ends). I dont see any justification for having any reference to a runway not in use in the strip display. But what makes it even worse is that the upside down runway designator is on the left hand side of the strip. Why??? When in the western world we read from left to right the eye is first drawn to the incorrect runway designator, which although upside down is still easily assimilated by the brain. If we do have to have them both on the strip why not put the correct designator on the left?

Secondly the actual process of introduction has been a farce. A quick demo in the sim, then playing with live traffic with the expectation that a couple of hours is all it takes to get the basics then go off and get used to it on your own. Supposedly no pressure and you will get as much training as you need, but all the time knowing that there is a deadline for implementation. (Which admittedly was later allowed to slip, but nevertheless the unspoken pressure was there).

Point 1 - our runway strip has the runway in use on the left. So not common then......

Point 2 - nice to see you got a demo in the sim. our demo consisted of strips on a board in the MATC's office, with someone from training and ops reading through the SI whilst watching you move the strips as per what he was reading out, then questions anyone? Oh and no pressure to be ready for the date we've set for introduction. :ugh:
Interestingly, the book that was put in the tower for everyone to admit to errors in moving strips has now gone. Who took it? Where did it go? What purpose has it served?

I wonder if the RIMCAS false alert book will soon be filed in the same bin..... :rolleyes:

[Hootin an a roarin]

" Who took it? Where did it go? What purpose has it served? "

I took the liberty of photocopying it before it was taken away, so there is a copy.

:E

[Gonzo]

So I assume that you all refused to work the new strip system unless it was brought in with extensive simulation?

Remember, it's your licence at the end of the day.

[Hootin an a roarin]

No, I hold my hands up and worked the new system.

However I refused to sign the bit of paper that stated that I had received enough training. Most others didn't. It is the same old story that a few people moaning at a unit do not make any difference in the grand scale of things. We do try but it always seems to be the same people, i.e. me and a few others, that can see the faults with the implementation with these new systems and everyone else lies back and lets it wash over them.

I know it is mentioned in another thread but I can see this happening with the pension debate. It will be the same ones threatening to strike and the rest of the 'wets' going along with management for the ride!!!!

[SonicTPA]

I was hoping to bring CSD up at the Airports LCE meeting in Edinburgh on the 4th/5th December. But my unit can't afford the airfare, so I won't be going.

Hopefully someone else will.........

I'll certainly be trying to email my thoughts to someone who'll be there!

On a slightly different note, have any of you had the new NATS phraseology for 'aircraft and vehicles entering the runway' brought in? It's basically the reverse order to what's in the Mats 1.

Sonic

[Gonzo]

Sonic,

I'm going (one of two from my unit). Although we don't have the CSD here, please feel free to PM and I'll let you know my email if you want to give me your thoughts.

[Dan Dare]

None too impressed with the new phraseology, but perhaps thats a topic for another thred (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2977985#post2977985)

[SonicTPA]

Thanks Gonzo,

I'll get back to you when it's confirmed that we can't spare the £100 to get me up there!

Sonic