"Off the Shelf" puts engineers on the shelf

[BEXIL160]

Like most of my ATC colleagues I have deep respect for the engineers that provide and maintain the equipment we NEED to do the job. They are usually an unheralded lot who do a damn fine job and don't go about singing their praises.... more's the pity.

Anyway there is a well written article in this months PROSPECT magazine explaining their plight under TAG and the "new" NATS.. With acknowledgement here is part of it:

.... exposes the falsehood behind the plans to slash NATS' own workforce. When privatisation was sold to Parliament, it was touted as the way for NATS to build on it's technological skills, to penetrate overseas ATC markets and reap rich profits.

But instead of encouraging it's own workforce to develop ATC systems or techniques for sale to other countries, the Airline Group wants to lay off it's own engineers and buy equipment on the cheap, largely from foreign companies.... NATS has the people and the skills, but is going to pay someone else to do it instead. It is a huge missed opportunity as well as a human tragedy

Now two things occur to me here.

One) Bang goes any rationale behind PPP (was there any in the first place?)

Two) WHO exactly is going to support and maintain this "off the shelf" kit?? I have visions of ringing systems in the middle of the night to get something fixed and being met with "If there is a star key on on your telephone etc etc...."


Comments?

Rgds BEX

[Flight Plan Fixer]

A good and intelligent question, Bex, and thanks for caring!

The whole concept of COTS software is a double edged sword.
On the one hand, the arrival of state-of-the-art commercial software (hey, can't wait for Microsoft Flight Plan Simulator 2005 !) will make most of talented Tels a wee bit less frustrated at having to work on second-generation hardware and first-generation software.

On the other hand, it means that NATS will lose a thousand engineers and have to employ a load of old dogs (I'm sure there's a wisecrack there, fellas) to bite the hands of those that remain in case they touch anything.

The whole issue is really a moot point;
.....there AREN'T any COTS products that come anywhere close to emulating the complex way in which air traffic works yet;

....the old stuff (NAS "features" aside) seems to work;

.....if NATS can't afford printer cartridges, it sure as hell can't afford new software and the technology to exploit it;

.....and a lot of engineers seem to want to go anyway. The money came through this week to let 18 engineers go from West Drayton, and they couldn't get out of the door fast enough.

Interesting point off topic here; the guys that are being paid off (last day mid June) are also having their shares bought off them for £1000 or thereabouts. So they ARE worth money!:D

[NERC Dweller]

An interesting question indeed


.....there AREN'T any COTS products that come anywhere close to emulating the complex way in which air traffic works yet;

I don't think that is true, after all ScACC is currently operating on a COTS system (Skyline). Admittedly it is modified but it is COTS based. How long would it have taken to have written that system from scratch? 5-6 years at least.

Two) WHO exactly is going to support and maintain this "off the shelf" kit?? I have visions of ringing systems in the middle of the night to get something fixed and being met with "If there is a star key on on your telephone etc etc...."

I don't think this will ever be the case. NERC was developed by external suppliers but system control is still manned 24 hours 7 days a week.

[BEXIL160]

System control may well be manned, but who do they call to get things fixed "outside office hours" if everything is COTS based?

What "expertise" to sell is NATS left with? How to dial a helpline number?

BEX

[NERC Dweller]

BEXIL - They don't need to call anyone. The processors are just big PC's. If it breaks and its not something simple, put a new one in and get IBM to repair the broken one. Would you attempt to fix the circuit board on your PC?

NATS expertise would be in the specification and running of an ATC system, not the building of it.

[BEXIL160]

NATS "expertise" in specifying an ATC system? Errr NO. Considering all that's happened at NERC (font sizes, displays that don't meet HSE specs, Crap RTF, poor headsets etc etc etc) would YOU want the same team specifying a new system. Maybe how NOT to do it ;)

I was told once that the most sophisticated computer at NERC was the Pentium PC in the library. True or false?

BEX

[160to4DME]

I remember doing a BA fam flight in the late 80's on a BA BAC 1-11.

The crew joked that the flightdeck was modernised over the years by bolting decca here, INS there, infact anywhere there was space for a cheap fit, the new kit would go.

Then I look around LACC, MACC, TC and see the same.... a 'cheap' system here, an economically attractive phone system there (the fact it's not compatible with other NATS systems is a mere inconvenience), Rolling TIDS which don't roll (But heck, they were cheap to buy).

It's testament to our team of engineers across the company that the system keeps running.

They don't receive the recognition or the reward they deserve, and I hope they stand with us in the forthcoming days and nights whilst we all fight to improve the conditions for a united workforce.

Respect.

160

[Dungeon dweller]

:mad: :confused: :mad:

I am ALL for solidarity and am with you completely. As one of the guys who system control call on, and who ensure it keeps working by monitoring it and ensuring the new software is up to scratch I find the whole COTS strategy strange and mystifying.

You need people who understand the operation and can react correctly under problem conditions. What you will get with COTS is System Control (1 or 2 people) and a telephone help line like that you get with the Non Ops IT from that well known support company whose name starts SS**A. I rest my case and may resort to ground based travel.

Let's fight this one on solid ground. Together ATCO's, ATSAs and ATCEs make up the bulk of the company workforce. Together we can be strong and secure the right workplace to do this thing right, not on the cheap. You pay peanuts... you get monkeys... And I don't like bananas!!

[NERC Dweller]

Bexil - The processors inside the workstation enclosures aren't particularly sophisticated (Motherboard, Hard drive memory etc etc). Nothing that wasn't made by IBM for anybody that wanted it.

'How not to build a system' is a lot better than 'never tried to build a system'.

[Undercover]

Fair point..."better to have tried and failed"... and all that.

Whenever I think of the world of ATC as being hi-tech I remind myself of the question asked by my old flatmate when he returned from an enjoyable tour of the control tower at one of our lovely airports...

"I thought it'd be like Star Trek in there... but they see planes coming and note the number down on a bit of paper!! I reckon these guys get paid to be professional plane spotters!!"

OK so maybe I haven't shared flats with the nations intelligencia... but the boast about the Library's Pentium is probably true.. ;)

[Bigears]

Consider that if the equipment at LATCC had simply been replaced, piece by piece, with COTS- it would have be cheaper, easier to train on and more reliable.
Now think where we are today- Swanwick staff coping as best they can with a system that costs customers money, (have a look at how expensive we are Unit Rates (http://www.eurocontrol.be/dgs/activities/crco/download/files/ur0205.pdf) and think how much of that is down to NERC), costs NATS money through lost income, causes ill-will from pax and embarassment to staff.
Pity that lessons aren't learned and that the future is more electronics- IMHO, all you need is pen, paper, R/T, phones, FDP (as simple as practical) and RDP, oh- yeah, and dedicated staff like those sorting out the mess today :mad:

[BEXIL160]

Aha we agree....

Fixing LATCC, bit by bit, would have been a far better option. An evolutionary approach, rather than a risky revolutionary solution.

Look across the Atlantic, to the USA, and you'll see what COULD have been achieved. Remember LATCC operated much like US ARTCCs and TC much like a TRACON. "Piggy-backing" on the US Upgrades would have been a cheaper, more reliable option.

Too late now.... or IS it? ;)

BEX

[Iron City]

Where to start on all this and not kill the thread?


Fact of the matter is that for the underlying hardware (CPU, display, memory, mass storage, LAN, power supplys etc) and operating systems and other basic software off the shelf is the only way to go unless you have boatloads of money. It just doesn't make sense to design from blank paper. Hate to tell you but even in USA with "all the money in the world" (ha) everything isn't designed from blank paper. The keyboard/trackball at NYTRACON is a UK product that costs the earth (were 5,000 sterling a go when new) and several must be replaced every month as ATCOs spill their coffee in them. Scott should tell you about flight strip printers someday and I don't know what all else.

Also hate to tell you that IBM sold you the system that they developed for us for Swanwick. Except they didn't develop it completely. The sexy new TRACON system here, STARS, is years behind schedule, will be a billion or so dollars over budget (what is a 100-200% cost overrun among friends) and still doesn't meet all the requirements.

For ATC "peculiar" requirements you either start with requirements and write code/bend metal or you look around and find something to adapt or modify from off the shelf. This assumes that requirements can be described. Here is where the ATCOs play engineer and the engineers play ATCO and many times each is convenced that the other's job is so easy. Sorry it isn't true. Each party should decide going in that they are not going to get everything they want, work together honestly and live with it.

[techofish]

The most powerful computer isn't the Library PC (but it would be in the top 5)

I want to know, who let IBM write a requirement for Swanwick, that said it had to use IBM equipment from the 1980s and then let IBM sell the project contract. Leaving the engineers to maintain a 'new' system with antique equipment

Clever of IBM, when you think about as Swanwick has had to buy 2nd hand equipment as spares for last few years.

Give me the dosh, and it'll be "do you want fries with that?". But I'll be happy

[BEXIL160]

Iron City...

Thanks for you overview of the US systems, and yes I'm aware that FAA has "peculiar" system procurement problems. I didn't know that teh TRACON upgrades were so far behind. Not as behind as NERC was though.

I'm also well aware that Swanwick is a Bastard Relation to AAS, that you dropped many years ago. (Sensibly)

As regards "what might have been", well DSR works, and works well as far as I'm aware. It's what we SHOULD have had instead of NERC.

Flight Strip printers have never been much of a problem "over here". If you're stuck there are a couple of dozen Wenger printers lying idle at LATCC. One careful owner and very reliable.

Agreed, ATC and systems engineers need to get together at the BEGINING of any project, and STAY WITH IT until it's operational, compromising and working TOGETHER. Note: No mention of "suits" here. I thought that's what NATCA's article ?? people were for?

Rgds BEX

[NERC Dweller]

BEXIL - I think STARS is even later than NERC and they didn't even need to build the centre! :eek:

[Scott Voigt]

BEX;

You are quite correct, our article 48 reps work on the projects and we try to interface with our engineer bretheren and work the issues... It isn't the garden of eden by any means, but we are at least getting some workable systems out of it. DSR, (yeah it could have been better) works and we are slowly upgrading it. The HOST or actually HOCSR computer is finally going to get it's software and hardware replaced. Slowly, safely and with a deliberate method. Our VSCS communications system in the centers works well but now needs expandability for our busier facilities. The same goes for our back up switch... But they are all issues that we are trying to work and also to convince FAA management that these things need to be done and to start writing a budget to take it all into account...

But then, we also have to worry a LOT about staffing too. So we all have some LARGE issues to work in the coming years. Not to mention to continue working VERY HARD to fight privitization from happening here...

regards

[Iron City]

Don't think the FAA "requirements problems" are particularly peculiar. Have seen this type of thing in complex systems for military and civil use in government and commercial. It's just that something like NATS (or NAS) is very obvious if it isn't working.

Amazing how many different reasons for it not working and how many experts have the solutions and they are all different. Maybe thats why expert is defined as "ex" as in has been and "spurt" as in large drip.