Swanick

[zoink]

Interesting article on Swanwick and a recent incident..

http://shortLink.us/2076

[DtyCln]

I may be wrong...........................but when I drove in today it was called SwanWick. :)

[TrafficTraffic]

Its like when an airline has an accident they change their name - so you guys are losing a W

[ModernDinosaur]

Hey - I've got an idea! Let's make the world would be a better place! Should be easy if all we need to do is lose a Dubya behind the Bush...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

MD.

[Yankee_Doodle_Floppy_Disk]

There is another thread on this over at Rumours and News:

Swanwick Software Update After 2002 Near- Miss?? (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=116070)

It will probably get moved to this forum in the next day or two.

[BlackSword]

NATS News at:
http://www.nats.co.uk/news/news_stories/2004_01_20.html

Says:
"Nats responds to media comments on 2002 airprox

A number of newspapers, radio and TV stations report today on an airprox involving a Virgin 747 and a Delta 767, in which track data blocks for the two aircraft were inadvertently swapped on-screen. Today's coverage highlights changes due to be introduced next month to the software at NATS' en-route centre at Swanwick in Hampshire.

It is important to note that this airprox actually took place in November 2002 and was subsequently assessed by the UKAB as category C (no risk of collision). The UKAB report was published in October 2003.

In fact, there have been no risk-bearing incidents at Swanwick since it became operational two years ago. Immediately after this particular incident, an instruction was issued to controllers reminding them of the correct procedure to follow when individual track data blocks are re-positioned, in order to prevent a repeat of these events."

While on P.18 of the UKAB Report:

"http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/423/Analysis of Airprox in UK Airspace Report No 9.pdf"

They classify the level of Risk as B (Safety Not assured).

Ooohh! Errrrr!

[AREA52]

With regard to this incident, there were legal goings on, which probably delayed it's publicity.

Aside from that, it is worthy to note that I and several others have filled in observations with regard to label overlap and re-positioning of TDB's. Probably even before this incident.

The new labels and struts are far better, however, it has taken a lot longer than first hoped to bring them onto the system (hopefully in a month or so). They were originally planned to come in last April I think, then it was November and now Feb/Mar time. The last major build however had to include the Lakes changes which probably meant that they didn't have the bandwidth to include other significant changes? For the record, I would rather have had the labels than the lakes changes, and I don't think I'm alone:rolleyes:

Also, at the moment if you "hook" a datablock, it supresses the strut of other labels which have been moved which can be very dangerous if left "hooked" in error (which they do say you shouldn't do)

They obviously don't appear to consider this a safety issue, but then again it probably costs money:rolleyes:

[digidave]

Also, at the moment if you "hook" a datablock, it supresses the strut of other labels which have been moved which can be very dangerous if left "hooked" in error (which they do say you shouldn't do)
It should be the responsibility of those writing/commisioning the software to ensure that what "you shouldn't do" can not be done.

When I was writing software (not safety critical) I was very aware that for every idiot proof system there was a system proof idiot! Test, test and test again - then get someone else to have a go.

dd
p.s. I am so glad I didn't become an ATCO after all.

[wlatc]

I ran across this link last week - a parody of the incident at Swanwick.


http://deadbrain.co.uk/news/article_2004_01_20_5549.php

Rich

[Lon More]

Area 52 One step forward, two steps back.
I remember comments being made on this in about 1997? when some Maastricht controllers, from the New ODS Group visited.

[AREA52]

LM, Couldn't agree more, but it would be better if the step forward was somewhat larger than the two backward ones:ok: