Swanwick problems ?

[slingsby]

Just heard on local radio about problems with Swanwick ATCO's not being able to read screen information, misreading heights and even sending aircraft into wrong zones. Even mistaking Cardiff for Glasgow. Please tell me this is wrong and just another media classic.

Hmm, sounds like a mis-information Pfopar. Maybe but would like to hear from those ACTUALLY IN THE KNOW.

[stickyb]

BBC on-line are also carrying the story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_2003000/2003701.stm

[Konkordski]

The article is based on actual controller reports submitted by ATCOs working at Swanwick. So you'll have to decide whether you believe the ATCOs or whether you think the paper in question (Computer Weekly) has its knickers in a twist.


Ah...Moderator, this is Thread XXX....request permission to transfer to ATC Issues forum...

[Capt H Peacock]

This was one of the first complaints from the controllers, the small font size on the screen. Apparently it is Arial Narrow 8pt or something similar. Steely eyed aces with eyes like razors have no problem, but after a while even the best sighted people can have problems. It is literally a 'health and safety' issue since it deals with conditions in the workplace in the same way as office lighting and comfortable seating.

Is it a Flight Safety issue? Well it clearly doesn't help.:cool:

[BEXIL160]

There were SEVEN issued raised in the HSE report.

Anybody seen NATS' response yet? No, me neither.

Another great communications failure!

BEX

[clipped_wings]

Arial Narrow 8pt!!!

I hope the ATCOs that have to work with this have good LOL insurance because they'll be a lot of claims on poor eyesight.

I find it hard to believe in this day and age that a so called responsible company can subject it's workers to this ...and
even more incredible that the workers have so far let them get away with it :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Sobelena]

I've heard that Maastricht has the same problem with their new ODS which they hope to introduce in November. It's a known problem but it looks unlikely to be rectified prior to the kick-off.

[twistedenginestarter]

An air traffic controller sent a Glasgow plane to Cardiff after misreading small computer text at the new control centre at Swanwick in Hampshire, it has been reported.

I know journalists get a pasting on this channel but, you know, is it any wonder when they come out with this utter drivel....

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

No... just relax... it's all nonsense. How do I know? Because in my trusty newspaper today it says:

"Last night NATS, the air traffic controllers' union Prospect and the CAA denied that the problems posed a safety risk."

Prospect said the problems were not safety related..

So now we known...

[nighthawk117]

the reason for the mistake was that the airport codes are displayed using the 4 letter system. The controller mixed up EGPF (Glasgow) with EGFF (Cardiff). Apparently some other incidents involved a controller believing a plane was at FL300 when it was at FL360 and caused him to fly into the wrong airspace.

All i have read is the bbc article, but my copy of Computer Weekly should be coming through the postbox within the next hour so ill get the full story...

[Fallows]

I am a little confused about what consitutes "safety related". I use this equipment and would concur with the problems that have been discussed. Accidents are caused by a series of things coming together at the same time. If one of the things is related to ATC personnel puting into the computer, wrong level, routing, dest, etc and an accident happens, then is it not safety related?

[Nogbad the Bad]

There was a thread concerning this EXACT issue before Swanwick opened.

Before Swanwick opened, Controllers had complained bitterly about the font sizes, only to be completely ignored by Management because of the need to save political face and get Swanwick up and running on time (on time, but 6 years late remember !!!!)

In fact, our wonderful "management" had stated, quite openly, that the equipment was not subject to HSE regulations !!!!!!

So now - as always - the truth will out. And yes, I do believe there is a safety issue here.

I hope you pilots continue to read this thread now that it's in the ATC forum.......we NEED you to know just what goes on !!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[2 six 4]

twisted engine .. You'll have to untwist on this one. Each aircraft return has a Track Data Block (TDB) associated with it on the radar screens. One of the vital pieces of information the radar controller always displays is the aircraft intention code(destination) in the TDB. Misreading FF for PF would mean the radar controller was preparing to route the aircraft a completely different way. If they made assumptions about climb and descent of other aircraft was based on the expected track of West rather than the actual track of North there could be a serious problem.

This does affect both Planner and Tactical (radar) screens so what the heck does Ian Findlay know about it ?




Moderator I think this belongs in the general pilots area because they should be aware of the problems here. They could just be the one directly affected.

[sony backhander]

Did we not discuss this display stuff a while back?
Why is everyone so suprised?

[BDiONU]

Oh My GOD!! Don't tell me there are problems with font sizes at Swanwick!!!!!!!! I hope that place isn't operational yet, nor handling 110% of LATCC TSF!!
Good Grief!


There is a protyping session tomorrow (Friday) for new Fonts, so here's hoping there's some consensus amongst controllers on what they like.

[Bigears]

Take3Call5, so here's hoping there's some consensus amongst controllers on what they like , ask 10 controllers an opinion, and you'll get 20 different answers :p

[BEXIL160]

110% of LATCC TSF? Errr .. not exactly...

The initial TSFs at NERC were largely LESS than those at LATCC. The 110% you mention is relative to those rates, not the LATCC ones.

E.G. SFD TSF at LATCC 50/60 (subject to certain conditions). S18 TSF at NERC 48/60... no explanation, except perhaps giving room for "artificial" rises to spin into "good" news.


Further... LATCC used staff a lot more efficiently than Swanwick EVER will.

Rgds BEX

[Route BIG-KOK]

I'm in the know.
The trouble is that the screens at Swanwick were designed to be read from a distance of 50cm. Ergonomic design of the console dictates that it is impossible to sit any closer than 90cm, without constantly leaning forward and giving yourself an achy back.
The reason for the discrepancy stems from the fact the Swanwick was designed to be a paper stripless environment, however, due to timescales paper strips are still used and the workbench had to be made larger to accomodate the strip boards. This was done with no thought about the increased distance from ATCO to screen.
Just one of the many things that only came to light too late:rolleyes:

[BEXIL160]

Hmm... Very interesting.

Question. If I was supposed to be sitting closer to the tube, where were my legs and feet supposed to go? There isn't much room now and I'm sitting further away. A point highlighted in the HSE report.

Rgds BEX

[BEXIL160]

A further point comes to mind ref the difficult to see fonts, and the safety implications.

Signal 109 was "difficult to see", but deemed by management not to be an urgent safety problem.

Anybody spot the parallels here? Remember NATS management have KNOWN all about the font problem for a long time and deemed it not to be a problem, just as Railtrack knew all about signal 109 for a long time.

Think about it.

Rgds
BEX

[mysteryman]

Evening

Well after a full day of this and a top up here i think we sould try and get some real answers here (if we really can)

1 Can we confirm that we were given initially wrong information regarding the acceptable size of fonts

2 Kill the rumour that it was promised to use size 14-16 fonts and we are using size 6-8

also the thoughts are that this smells of spin doctor influence by those who know their work well
(not everyone who works on a screen has worked for NATS and some still have friends in Vauxhall house)

Thanks for your time

MM

[BDiONU]

Route BIG-KOK


I'm sorry but your post is incorrect on every count.

The screens were never meant to be read that close, cannot recall the distances off the top of my head but Swanwick is within HSE 'limits'.

It was NEVER designed to be stripless (we are, only now, working on Elimination of Paper Strips but the future does not look too good for that project).
Workbench size was never changed to accomodate the strip boards. You should note that the channels that the strip board holders sit in are part of the design. Originally the strip boards were mounted to one side of the Tactical, after ergonomic problems they are now positioned directly in front of the Tac.

[All Systems Go]

All

Forgive me if I'm wrong, and please tell me why you don't use them tubes this way, but there is a selectable option 2 clicks away that allows you to increase the font size. I did this myself yesterday to sort out a rather wooly tube. Is there some reason why the font size is set to the smallest of the 3 options? Let me know if there is a reason for this, but it seems to me that it would solve all these problems that are happening.

I'm not trying to stir up a hornet's nest here, just asking.

Cheers.

[eyeinthesky]

All Systems Go:

I think what you are referring to is the 'TDB Presentation' option where you can indeed change the size of TDB font from Small to Medium to Large. The problem with setting it to large is that the TDB then obscures or overlaps others making the screen very cluttered.

What most people are complaining about is the size of the font on the Planner's strip bays, the Flight Data Editor and the Full Flight Plan. The font size on these is not changeable, and although I am told I have very good eyesight I have difficulty reading the figures on these. Indeed, I get an eyestrain headache after 90 mins planning (as happens often now since we have barely enough staff). If I return to planning again after a 30 minute break then it gets worse.

Take 3 Call 5:

You surprise me. I had always understood that the intention was to make NERC stripless but concerns about systems failures meant that a method of displaying paper strips had to be devised afterwards.

[Dinosaur]

Signal 169 was "difficult to see", but deemed by manaqement not to be an urqent safety froblem.
Dexil, I'll take issue with that analogy in one reqard: We (the folks you 5hare the car fark with) have been through about one iteration per year of changes to screen fonts and coIours. In each case, we were tolp, "This is what the controllers want." We're qetting quite qood at it, and we like doing it becau5e they fay us.

I see we are about to do the next round. How can we make sure we give you what you want this time?

--Dinofaur

[All Systems Go]

Thanks Eye. I was under the impression that it was the TDBs that were the problem. What you are suffering from is something called "Rainbow Effect". To cut a long story short the space between the characters isn't enough. They tend to merge into one, especially the smaller characters. I've been reliably informed it's being looked into with much gusto and will hopefully be sorted when NERC 2.0 happens (a small engineering joke there...). All we can do I'm afraid at the moment is keep re-setting up the bleepers.

[BEXIL160]

Dinosaur...

Apart from "emboldening" the fonts there has been NO CHANGE in them since the start of OCT, over a year ago. Indeed NERC management DEFENDED them as completly acceptable with no need to change them at all (Source..letter from R Herron. Oct 2001)

If you were told "this is what the controllers want", you have been misled. NOBODY ever asked the operational people at LATCC what they wanted.

There has been a resposnse to the HSE report. It has not been widely publicised. Why NOT?

Rgds BEX

[Dinosaur]

If you were told "this is what the controllers want", you have been misled. NOBODY ever asked the operational people at LATCC what they wanted. Well, no surprise there, I guess.

--Dinosaur

[Nogbad the Bad]

Dinosaur......it seems like management are used to being frugal with the truth.........

I would think that what you were told about the fonts was what management wanted, in order to keep things moving so that they could reach the (VERY BELATED) opening date, and still keep not only their political face but also their bonuses.........

Cynical ???...........Moi ??

[BDiONU]

eyeinthesky:

Fallbacks is only one issue of concern about EFS, there are lots more. The main reason I can see for it falling by the wayside currently is that there is just no business benefit. What do the controllers gain by doing away with paper strips?

Can they handle more flights?
No.
Is it 'easier' to control?
(Currently) No.
Can NATS 'save' on ATSA's.
Not likely.

So not worth the investment at the moment.

[torpids]

House of Commons question on 23 May from Mr. Mark Hoban (Fareham) to Mr. Robin Cook questioning problems with displays.
Response from Mr. Cook "NATS completely rejects these allegations and remains put out that the integrity and competence of its staff have been questioned in such a manner."

And I thought it was the integrity of the equipment that was being questioned. However, I'm so pleased to hear that you are all obviously talking rubbish and there are no problems with reading displays. After all, Mr. Cook wouldn't mislead Parliament would he?