Compte Roller
Yes, The New Model draws on the conclusions of projects such as ERATO and CORA which propose advisory information. Many of us were exposed to these ideas and others during the production of the eFDP Requirement Set. The New Model was created because many of these projects were conceptually incomplete owing to their fixed terms of reference. The New Model acknowledges these projects as having demonstrated that the fundamental ideas of automation are sound.
PPRuNe Radar
I’m not sure exactly which system you are referring to. EATMS became ATM2000 but that was a very broad set of specifications. It is perfectly possible to run sectors at high capacities under simulated conditions. At ATMDC it has been shown that controllers can handle twice their normal workload without any tools at all. Of course, safety in the real world would not be guaranteed. I have run the New Model at three times the SWE sector capacity and four times current levels is not difficult to imagine if the VHF channel is simulated with near-perfect quality. There are no particular difficulties at all, never mind insurmountable ones. Just, at the moment, a lack of will.
055166k
In the USA, the UK and in Europe I believe that most people who are trying to improve ATC are looking at more rather than less automation. ANSPs that are arguably ahead of us (Nav Canada and Airways New Zealand) depend on automation. I am well aware that many projects can seem very badly formulated by the time the user is asked to take over. Unfortunately, there are users (you) and there are engineers (me) but both sides have their own managers with their own agendas. I think Swanwick (which does use some strips) proves that cheap strips do not lead to cheap systems. And, having worked for suppliers throughout Europe I can say for certain that a manufacturer loves nothing better than to sell an old system with a new badge. R&D costs money. But I’m listening, and the PPRuNe forum has enabled us to discuss these issues directly. The New Model for Air Traffic Control is not owned by anybody and I can be certain that it meets the requirements for Eurocontrol’s future European Flight Data Processing System. It is now in the public domain so that the end user (the controller) does have a chance to speak.
Scott Voigt
I’m pleased to see the US view expressed. I’m very aware of the human factors issues. At this stage I can only say that I have not identified an example of beneficial automation being rejected because of human factors. It is well know that crews go to sleep on the flightdeck. Supposedly ‘what’s it doing NOW’ is often heard on the voice recorder and the Cali B757 accident could be said to have been CAUSED by automation. In the UK our main railways are signalled fully automatically and train drivers have very little to do. Our worst accidents in recent times have come about because of the interface between the human being and the automated system. And yet, despite all of these problems, automation has actually increased the safety of our transport systems. I conclude that we will use more automation and that it is up to those of us who think we understand the issues to help in managing the risks.
Has anybody tried running the downloadable demonstrator? Has anybody noticed how little it would cost to build a small prototype network to cover the London TMA?