Air traffic regulator removes screen rule

[Buster the Bear]

Safety regulator the Civil Aviation Authority is facing accusations that it has watered down its rules on the regulation of display screens used by air traffic controllers.

The CAA has removed a clause in its CAP 670 requirements for air traffic control systems which had said that the display screens used by controllers "shall be designed to meet the relevant Health and Safety Regulations for visual display units".

The removal of the clause comes amid a continuing controversy over whether screens at an air traffic centre at Swanwick, Hampshire, are unclear and a possible risk to the safety of aircraft.

Computer Weekly has learned that the Health and Safety Executive is continuing its investigation into whether the screens at Swanwick meet its regulations, even though the owner of Swanwick, National Air Traffic Services, installed new software in November last year which improved the clarity of the displays.

The Health and Safety Executive has no direct responsibility for flight safety, but where it considers that non-compliance with its screen regulations could pose a risk aircraft, it will raise the matter with the CAA. In a letter to Tom Brake, transport spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, Roy McNulty chairman of the CAA confirmed that the Health and Safety Executive had raised the issue of flight safety with the CAA.

However, McNulty said the screens posed "no safety significant risk to aviation" so it was a matter between Nats and the Health and Safety Executive.

Brake was surprised that the CAA had removed the clause. He said, "It is astonishing that, with the concerns being expressed about the legibility of visual display units at Swanwick, the CAA has deleted a reference to the need for displays to meet relevant health and safety regulations."

The CAA said the removal of the clause was "merely a tidying up of regulations". But some controllers believe that the CAA is breaking a promise given by the government that the partial privatisation of Nats would not lead to any watering down of safety regulations.

Assuring MPs that the high standards of safety and regulation would be maintained after the part privatisation a government statement in March 2001 said, "There can be no question of those standards being watered down."

Last year some controllers warned Nats in internal reports leaked to Computer Weekly that they were misreading text and numbers on their screens.

[Llamapoo]

I can't remember the last time I moved the goalposts during the game.:suspect:

Seriously though, I wish the backside-covering would stop and everyone would work together toward overall improvement.

Rather than remove the display clause, why wouldn't the CAA invite the HSE to become an integrated part of the approvals process? We can't ignore the legal requirements just because we find them difficult to comply with. The CAA, as a regulator, should recognise that it is better to work within the system to find a better solution, than to just ignore the problem in the vain hope it will go away.:hmm:

Or has my brain frozen?:8

[Lost_luggage34]

What gives the CAA the right to circumvent H&S legislation wrt VDU screens ?

The H&S rules were brought in for very good reason.

If anything, they should be more strictly governed for any ATC kit.

A tad more important for an ATCO to be comfortable and able to see what they are doing than an office worker typing an Email me thinks.

[Scott Voigt]

Sadly, I don't find it surprising to hear about what you are having to go through. It never ceases to amaze me how many govt. entities spend more time and effort to fight any sort of change instead of just trying to spend a bit of energy on doing it right.

I've seen what they use at Swanwick and for the most part the kit is very nice. Just enlarge the fonts a bit ( make them selectable with about three or four size selections ) and make everyone happy so as to conform with all the different visual abilities that we have. Then turn down the damn overhead lights that you use. They really are terrible.

good luck

Scott H. Voigt
NATCA Southwest Region
Safety and Technology Chairman
Fort Worth ARTCC

[Spitoon]

It looks like I'm going to be in the minority on this one - but I don't see what difference it makes?

THE CAA has rules about keeping airplanes apart etc, the HSE has rules about keeping people safe, there's someone who checks that electrical wiring is done properly, anf there's someone else who makes sure that the food we buy is safe to eat. We live a world awash with regulations and where there are regulations there is some regulatory agency that checks that the rules are followed.

The HSE checks that display screens meet the rules. Why should the CAA book say anything about stuff that the HSE is interested in. Or if it does, why doesn't it also mention all of the other regulations that might be applicable?

It doesn't seem to me that anything has changed. The rules are still there and NATS and everyone else still have to comply with them.

Llamapoo it doesn't appear that the CAA is working outside or against the system or even trying to find a better solution. They've just removed something from their book that they were never going to regulate because it's not their responsibility. One might ask why it was ever put in there.

Lost_luggage34 same arguement really. I can't see why you think that the CAA is circumventing H&S legislation. They are no more circumventing H&S legislation by not mentioning it than they are the building regs because they're not mentioned either.

If the screens give you a problem controlling traffic then there are procedures to follow. Raise it locally or put in an MOR. The CAA is there to keep aviation and ATC safe and these are the ways of raising concerns. If you think the screens don't meet the H&S legislation you can tell the HSE. I'm not saying you haven't done these things. And I'm not saying that the system is perfect but don't confuse who is responsible for what.