Preventing blind spots

[Nock]

Hello dear colleagues,
Talking with other ATCOs, we were wondering if in some countries there were some tools implemented to help prevent blind spots particularly in ACCs. As it is quite a difficult problem to tackle (the goddamned traffic I didn't see and that is just below/above the plane I just cleared to descend/climb), I was wondering if some ANSP had come up with ideas (whether based on human factor or technology) to reduce the risk of occurrence and/or reduce the consequences of this problem.
Thanks a lot for your feedback!
Nock

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Surely you have a data display (old Flight Progress Strips!) which should indicate if two aircraft are close but vertically separated? I worked in busy airspace for most of my life and I do not recall any problems.

[Wacko Jacko]

Our system shows possible short term conflicts by changing the rps color to red when you move the mouse pointer over the cleared flight level (in the menu) you are going to select. Stripless environment.

[confused atco]

prevent blind spots particularly in ACCs

I assume that we are talking about radar gaps.

First, report them.
If they have the data then engineering possibly can track the source.
Many years ago a local "TV" company installed a mast in the vicinity of one of our radar heads.
Once we started reporting the issue then engineering had to check it out.
Mast was removed.

If there is a continuous problem then procedures would need to be drafted to reflect the gaps in coverage.

STCA is another option but this would depend on system parameters, 90 seconds look ahead is typical.

MTCD and "probe" are other tools which depend on your system design.

Does your system highlight the flights yet to enter your sector?

Is there an adjustable altitude/level filter which can be set at a greater tolerance (current say 2000ft, manually change to 4000ft)?

[ShyTorque]

I was wondering if some ANSP had come up with ideas (whether based on human factor or technology) to reduce the risk of occurrence and/or reduce the consequences of this problem.

Put them all on a "basic service"...

[mebur_verce]

Originally Posted by confused atco

I assume that we are talking about radar gaps.

I believe our colleague was rather referring to cognitive blind spots, ie. situations in which you perfectly manage a traffic conflict a few minutes ahead of time, but completely forget an immediate conflict involving the very same aircraft.

Here's an (oldish but still good) Skybrary article about it: http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/38.pdf

Been there, done that...

[Nock]

Thanks everybody for your replies. As mentionned just above, I was definitely talking about cognitive blind spot (radar cover is ok here... well I believe...).
Wako your tool seems quite interesting. How is it parametered? Is it looking for conflitcs in lets say the next 2min? Less? More?
Thanks a lot for your contributions and have a merry Christmas.

[zonoma]

London Area uses a stripless system that can predict conflicts up to 18 minutes ahead. These conflicts are displayed in a window using 5 different colours to give controllers an instant picture as to how close two aircraft may get and how long to that point. This system only works however if the sector knows the details of all aircraft concerned, it doesn't do any predictions against raw squawks or non-transponding aircraft.

[confused atco]

Controller tools which help decision making

We use COOPANS.

We have a number of tools which help decision making.

MTCD displays potential conflicts in either a list or graphic form.
This is in a separate window on the screen.

MINSEP tool where you can plot the closest point for 2 flights.

It is possible to probe the planned exit level in the label which will highlight all possible conflicts while suppressing non conflicts.
This probes all aircraft at the level (s) concerned within coverage.

Also you can probe the route from the label. It probes along the current flight plan path. and it will show conflicting paths in red where the predicted separation distance is below the probe values.
This is not to say that should they continue on their flight planned tracks you would loose separation merely that the predicted values are below the probe settings and you should examine the concerned aircraft paths/levels and de-conflict if necessary.

STCA is there too with 90 sec look ahead.

This functionality is inbuilt to the system.

What system do you use?

[Nock]

Thanks Confused Atco,
So in France, the only stripless system in operationnal use is ODS EEE.
We have:
- a kind of MTCD
- SEP (which is the equivalent of your MINSEP)
- STCA
but nothing to cope with blind spots: when we enter the clearance, there is no tool that check if there's a traffic that could be in conflict with the new clearance. That could really reduce the number of blind spots (maybe creating some false alarms), and I was wondering if this kind of tool existed abroad.

Nock

[confused atco]

Our label on the screen has 3 flight level options.

One is the XFL or exit flight level.
This is the level to wish to change the aircraft to.
This is the useful one.

You can input the desired level here.
Then you probe this level before giving a level change instruction.

So yes this tool exists and is part of the functionality of the COOPANS system.

Regards

[zonoma]

COOPANs sounds rather similar to what London Area have too.

[3miles]

Originally Posted by zonoma

COOPANs sounds rather similar to what London Area have too.

Similar but not the same(yet) and COOPANS is an organisation which contains a bunch of ANSPs and technology providers,not a product as such - it's just that organisation have co developed the ATM tool set in collaboration under SESAR - same as the NATS tool

[confused atco]

COOPANS is an organisation

And coincidentally the name of the system.

TOPSKY is the international version.

[jmmoric]

We have strips, they can predict a conflict several hours in advance