Sector Numbers vs. Names

[BEXIL160]

If this has come up before here and people have had enough, sorry....

Any opinions on the use of NERC sector numbers instead of names? In my own opinion this is at best unwise in an aviation environment where we have enough numbers to confuse.

It all seems to be NERC driven (again) and I seem to get the impression that SRG (nice people though they are, Phil) are willing to let NATS have their own way regardless. Maybe they are fearful of getting any blame for futher NERC delays or being accused of being "uncooperative"? Either way this isn't the tough SRG (ATSSD) that we'll need post PPP (but that's another subject).

The response in FEEDBACK to the reporters concern was not encouraging, but if the problem (if there is one) is not aired fully NOTHING will ever be done.

Opinions please....

[identnospeed]

Bex,

I agree.

I am sure that in time we will all get to know the sector numbers, but its a real bitch at the mo.

There are cheat sheets stuck on the canopies in TC, but its still a pain.

INS

[Not Long Now]

Sector numbers are crap! It was much easier for my poor brain to cope with pushing the HRN R1 button if I wanted to talk to Hurn rather than looking on the cheat sheet to find it's S21 (is it?).

And while we're at it, when they changed all the phone panels in TC to the numbers instead of the sector names, we weren't told until we noticed it for ourselves. Two days later, we get a cheat sheet stuck up on the sector somewhere. Very nice. Thanks.

And then, again, this time for the introduction of Capitol, they not only change the buttons to accomodate new lines to Capitol (fair enough, might as well talk to them if they're there), but move the positions of the ones that stayed.

Quite unnerving thinking 'oops, better just tell so and so about that quick' to then not be able to find the button because someone's moved it.

[BEXIL160]

I'm not alone then! The FEEDABCK article also suggested that Sector Numbers are regularly in use at LATCC (AC) now, which is a bit of a Porky isn't it?

How many people ACTUALLY USE the sector numbers now? It's all very well issuing a TOI saying you SHOULD prefix every phone call with "sector XX" but how many people default to NAMES (like me)... Most, I would suggest.

If you look in the NERC part two (there are 2 copies in the LATCC library) there is an example of strip marking for inter-sector coordination. Say you are coordinating level 200 with SFD, it shows something like:

C200S18

where the "S" for sector looks suspiciously like a "2" written in a hurry. Now all OUR strip marking is perfectly ledgible isn't it, so we're never going to have this problem are we??

More please....

[Numpo-Nigit]

I'm sure that, by now, everybody knows the reason we are stuck, at least for now, with sector numbers at NERC. For those that may not be aware, it is another manifestation of the "cock-up" theory.

Apparently, at a fairly early stage of NERC design, there was a typical ATC-Tels meeting where neither side spoke the other's language. In desperation, after trying to explain something to do with sectorisation, one of the ATC team drew a diagram "on the back of a fag packet" and numbered the sectors. At last, success, Tels and ATC understood each other, and the meeting broke up. Some weeks/months later the ATC team was horrified to discover that the hastily-drawn sketch with sector numbers was now the basis for the whole Tels plan. I guess that they were so embarrassed that they didn't admit the mistake early enough to repair the damage.

Now it seems that everybody, except one Basil Fawlty look-a-like, agrees that sector numbers are a big "no-no" for a whole host of excellent reasons, but, once again, the tail (NERC) continues to wag the dog (LATCC).

SRG are, as stated above, taking a relaxed view about the issue. I think that they are hoping that enough people will make enough noise about the subject, so that sector names will be re-instated.

Names will certainly be used for the band-boxed configuration at NERC, and a well-placed source down there admits that changing a sector number like 07 to a letter combination like HW for Hurn West (yes, I know it is almost certainly the wrong number, but I'm keeping to names that I know and ignoring sector numbers) is extremely easy. Sadly, he has not yet been officially approached by NERC management to even ask how easy it would be.

So, join the resistance. Use names and ignore sector numbers - you know it makes sense!!!

[daft fader]

When I answer the phone on a heavily bandboxed sector, do I add the sector numbers together, or multiply them to identify myself? I`ll stick with names until somebody decides I`m no longer valid.

[AyrTC]

Years ago when they resectorised the Scottish TMA it was introduced as TMA IN and TMA OUT (again I think to help non ATC staff)
We got the sectors 'phones etc (it was before the phrase VCS was invented :) ) eventually renamed TALLA and GALLOWAY I can't remember how we did it but I think the tech commitee was involved.

It was the last straw when they changed the sector idents as I was still trying to cope with the removal of the colours from the airway system. :)
AyrTC

[NudgingSteel]

....and I could cope with P and E, but Tactical and Strategic? Sounds like WW3 manoeuvres. Mind you, that's what my work often looks like....

[Take3Call5]

There were/are technical reasons for the numbering of NERC sectors and its to do with 'signing on' the workstations, 'electing' and 'opening' sectors etc. IMHO I suspect that names will always be used (they still are at NERC!), although you need to know the numbers to figure out the coordination sequence on strips, sectors to phone etc. Plus (and especially) when you're going to bandbox/split out.
There is a very useful sectorisation map on SIS (with a direct access button!).

[Over+Out]

In TC all sectors have numbers which are used by Tels and ATC use names. Why can this not be done at NERC? I find the numbers confusing and have no meaning. Using numbers only is an icident waiting to happen.

[Numpo-Nigit]

Apparently, according to at least one Watch Manager, those of us who oppose the introduction of sector numbers on valid safety grounds are "trying to sabotage NERC". If only it was that easy .........

[daft fader]

Dear Numpo,

All the more reason for doing it then!

[BEXIL160]

Sabotage NERC.. NO NO NO not me. I WANT to work in a pleasant environment. LATCC, mainly because of it's age doesn't exactly lift your spirits when you walk thru the tradesmans entrance that most of us use.

I also want to work somewhere where the equipment is at least as good as LATCC and a darn sight more ergonomic. Oh, I'd also like the equipment to actually WORK.

As has already been mentioned NERC planning / enginneering KNEW about ATCOs disquiet way back in the MSS (multi-sector Suite) trials... 1993ish. They have had A LONG TIME to do something about it. Feigning surprise that this is a problem is unfair and misleading. It is time that somebody took responsibilty for this "cock-up", as ATCOs do every day of their working lives... Stands down from soap box to... silence (probably)

[karrank]

In Australia we have just gone from numbers (each Center had a Sector 1) to names. You learn the numbers that affect you pretty easy, but the names you don't use a lot stick in your memory much easier. We use them for sector names, log-on codes and system processing.

A new system with numbers? I thought we had it bad....

------------------
"Station calling Centre, grow a head..."

[Take3Call5]

Why does NERC use sector numbers?

Well the fable that it was a ‘cock-up’ and instigated by being written on the back of a fag packet, is, I’m afraid, just that, a fable. There are 2 reasons but one ‘caused’ the other.

The first reason is that NAS has ALWAYS used sector numbers, not names. For the past 3 years those sector numbers have corresponded to the NERC sector numbers (from 1-40), previously they were just random numbers.

At LATCC when you bandbox sectors the FPRS supervisor combines the sector printer using a CS (Combine Sector) message. This uses the sector numbers to instruct NAS to combine the sectors, although this has been simplified by the use of a ‘read’ message, rather than raw numbers.

To understand why NERC continues to use numbers you have to understand how the system works. NERC relies a sophisticated electronic system that gives electronic co-ordination based on a 3D model, which the system has of the airspace for each sector. So that rather than being able to open a sector using any old radar on any old workstation and directing FPRS to instruct NAS to generate strips for that sector to that workstations printer, NERC workstations need to be told which sector is being opened. At a NERC workstation you ‘elect’ and then ‘open’ a sector using the sector number and the NERC system feeds you the correct strips specific to that sector. Additionally all the electronics applicable to that sector are available, for example automatic acceptance and co-ordination out of standing agreement flights, your sector tracks becoming foreground (green), the ability to edit the flight plan at your workstation, the ability to do electronic co-ordination etc.
The use of names instead of numbers is not particularly feasible because some sectors consist of more than one individual sector. Clacton consists of 3 sectors (Daventry consists of 4!), so how would you (for NAS)differentiate between them? The use of, say, Daventry North High or Daventry South Low seems rather more complex than Sector 34 and Sector 27.

OK it’s a change and everyone dislikes change but its one imposed by NAS.

Having put my head above the parapet I’m waiting for it to be shot off!! Over to all you tanks and snipers!

[Numpo-Nigit]

Take3Call5

Yes, we're all aware that the current LATCC, and the one before it, and even the pre-Mediator SATCC had sector numbers. In simpler, less hectic, times there was no problem. We also understand that the computer needs some system of sector numbers for its own internal machinations.

What we totally disagree with is the imposition of these numbers into the real-life world of ATC. Surely it is not beyond the bounds of technology, at the start of the 21st century, to create a look-up table so that, when I input Hurn Low the computer knows I mean sector 22 (wrong number again ???)?

After all, if we take your argument to its logical end, we can't have callsigns on the strips - just 0s and 1s 'cos that's what computers use, isn't it?

Come and find me on Sector 23 (that's now called Berry Head / Lands End) if I'm not on a sector 8 (no explanation needed, I trust!!!).

[DB32]

It's fascinating to see the folklore develop here regarding the choice of numbers and names!

Without wishing to offend Take3, your response is indicative of the joys of working on ATC projects.

What the computer 'needs' is totally irrelevant; it is no justification for giving this to the ATCO/ATSA as a fait accompli!

You build the system such that the ATCO/ATSA get what they need and understand(i.e. names....given the way Swanwick is at the moment) and write a little bit of software to convert names into numbers and vv.

Reminder: Military (LJAO) sectors at Swanwick have names, not numbers.

If they can have this, then so can Civil (given money, time and a Change Form).

[BEXIL160]

Herein lies the problem....

Because NERC or NAS or whatever "requires it", we as ATCOs are told we must accept sector numbers without question.

Well no. This is a SAFETY ITEM. It has easily recognisable Human Factors implications. Why don't ATSSD recognise this?

Why have NATS or CAA HF people not raised this? I do not want to have to say after an incident occurs "I told you so".

To our Flight Deck colleagues: How would you react if you told your airline, the CAA and the a/c manufacturer that you were concerned that the equipment on your shiny new wiz jet had a serious HF flaw, AND THEY IGNORED YOU or told you that IT HAS TO BE THAT WAY??

Answers please....

[karrank]

All this talk of progress requiring numbers, not true. Eurocats 2000 we use here copes fine with names. Each Voice swith role and identity is identified with a three digit "name" such as WRA for Woomera. Each logical position for the Situation display and strip postings is identified by the same names. Each workstation has a number, say MCO D06 (Melbourne Center, row D, workstation 6) On a quiet night shift D06 might have the roles WRA, NUL, ASP, TOD & OPL; combined under the identity of WRA. If somebody calls NUL on the intercom or hands-off an aircraft to OPL, the call/hand-off is routed to WRA on D06 and nobody has to play with numbers.

This from a system that is half-baked in a heap of areas, don't accept less than this from yours.

------------------
"Station calling Centre, grow a head..."

[Shazbat]

There is definitley a safety issue here, to which SRG, and NATS managament are (may I say "as usual" ?) turning a blind eye.

Anyone heard of weather ? Aeroplanes don't like it particularly....so if one decides to scoot off, and looks like entering a sector that isn't expecting it, what's the first thing to do ?

YUP ! PHONE the sector involved.....

.......and which sector are you going to call ?....errrr......29.....or is it 35.....crikey, perhaps it's 42 ????????

Come one you engineers, and you so called "safety conscious" managers.......GIVE THE OPERATIONAL CONTROLLER WHAT HE/SHE NEEDS......SECTOR NAMES !!!!!!!!!!!!

[BEXIL160]

Top of the "New Horizons" principles list is something along the lines "We regard safety as THE most important priority", or something very similar.

To use a current phrase, All spin and NO SUBSTANCE. So you see, New Horizons people, you lack credibility on THE most important topic to ALL ATCOs. How can we have any faith in the rest of your twaddle?

[Hedge End Estate Agent]

I understand that the use of sector numbers was discussed with the ATC planners working in the NERC project many years ago - they agreed to it; so who should we blame. You know who they are.

[Take 5]

I was involved in the NERC project in a very small way in the early stages when fast time simulations were being run to test the concept and make a case for the "new" centre (location then not decided). Sector numbers were used then as the NERC sectors being simulated were quite different from the then LATCC sectors. There was no LUS,LMS, Clacton split, Lakes , Wirral etc yet, so the sectors were called by numbers as many didn't correspond to the early 1990 LATCC sectors. It was however the stated intention to revert to names as and when the LATCC and NERC sectors evolved and came to be the same. Unfortunately by then the numbers had been used by the software people for so long, the change back to names has been forgotten.

I also find it disturbing that SRG appear to be ignoring this issue, which has been alerted to them on several occasions. They only have to listen to the telephone calls at LATCC to see how we are identifying ouselves now. Despite being told to use the numbers - they are hardly ever used . A procedure which is so often completely ignored is a bad one and should be looked at with a view to changing it. Come on SRG, we look to you to stand up for safety issues. If you can't do it on something with NATS where most people are ignoring it, what chance is there of you not getting walked over by SERCO or the like.
Please take this issue seriously.

[Postman Pat]

On the subject of confusion has anybody worked out why the Clacton (that's sectors 12,13 & 14 by the way) crew chief has 17, yes seventeen, different direct telephone lines to Maastricht.

PP

[Bigears]

BEXIL160, In defence of my HF colleagues, the ones I know/knew work very hard to point out flaws in the system (no names, no packdrill!). However, if management choose to ignore them, then there isn't too much that they can do (think about it!). This is hypothetical of course, because we know that Management are also in the safety business- aren't they?
Don't forget that HF people fly too, and also know people who do. They certainly are not sitting back, as you seem to imply.
Oh yeah- forgot to add, I agree with you about the use of numbers- it also seems the Scots agree, as they will have names (albeit abbreviated).
The above opinions are my personal ones.

[This message has been edited by Bigears (edited 08 March 2001).]

[Blame_NERC]

OK an engineers point of view.

As was pointed out by HEEA, someone within ATC must have approved the use of numbers.

Now I appreciate the change is annoying but as for being unsafe anecdotal evidence is against you.

Do you have to look at a telephone book before you phone home or another regularly used number? The vast majority of people ( and I hope all ATCOs ) don't. If you can remember telephone numbers then sector numbers should be easy, its a lot shorter.

I'm now going to hide in a bunker!

[Numpo-Nigit]

Blame_NERC

Thanks for putting the engineers' point of view, although it is probably of limited value in the HF debate currently raging.

Yes, you are correct in stating that I can remember my home phone number, and those others that I use frequently. I can also remember my staff number (because it has to go on my T&S claims), my house number, my car number and a whole lot of other (useful) numbers. However, because I never phone myself, I can never remember my mobile telephone number, and have to look it up before giving it to other people.

That is the REAL point of this debate. I'm sure that, given the will, I could learn and remember the numbers of the NERC sectors that I will use all day, every day. However, those sectors which I don't normally need to contact, except in an emergency, will NOT be remembered. With all the stress of such a situation, the last thing I need is to be desperately trying to remember "what the **** is the number for Daventry?".

To use your analogy, Blame_NERC, I'll guess that you have used your dentist's telephone number several times over the years. Now, imagine you've suddenly got severe toothache - can you honestly say that you can instantly recall his number? No, of course not! But I'm sure you can remember his name, can't you?

[Take 5]

Blame NERC...

Thank you for your analogy with telephone numbers. I don't know any friends telephone numbers, they are always programmed into a 2-digit memory (just like a sector number).
Can I remember the 2-digit code - NO, fortunately I have 10 smart buttons with NAMES on them. Are they easy to use - YES, for the 2-digit codes I have to refer to a crib sheet. Difficult - No not at all - Quick in an emergency - No. Perhaps I'm a bit thick - but a lot of us are !

[BEXIL160]

ummmm.. Bigears...

Okay, yes I accept that you and your HF colleagues saw this one coming and yes, you can't force management to DO anything.

Here's the "but": But you CAN put your observations in writing to both managemnet AND SRG.

SRG DO have the power to get involved, but appear reluctant. The appearance of doing nothing to upset NATS management does little for ATSSD's credibility and in the run up to PPP this is a serious concern.

If I recall correctly a previous Captain of the Herald of Free Enterprise had written a memo to management about the lack of a warning system for the Bow doors on his vessel. That same document became part of a corporate responsibilty court case.

So yes, I urge you Bigears to put your findings IN WRITING.

[Take3Call5]

Soz for the time taken to write a reasoned reply to the many posts here but I’ve been nosing around to get credible answers!

First though for Postman Pat:
The largest number of direct lines at NERC to Maastricht on one sector is 5. This is because that single UK sector interfaces with 5 different ones at Maastricht. At NERC when you bandbox if the bandboxing sectors have direct lines to the same place then you’ll only have one direct line displayed on the comms panel for that external sector (or sectors). At LATCC I believe (please correct me if I’m wrong) that if you bandbox a sector that has 5 lines to one place with another sector which has 5 lines to the same place then you need 10 lines at the bandboxed sector.


Now for Shazbat, Bexil 160 et al.

Some slight misunderstanding needs clearing up first. It is quite correct that it is feasible to change numbers for names at NERC. As pointed out LJAO have it but so do some feed sectors e.g. Maas, LFRR, EGFF etc. It would actually not be a tremendously difficult job to have the software ‘translate’ numbers into names. Although there would be a host of other effects on the system which would not interest you all.
However to do so, and get management to spend the money, requires justification. The justification used in this conference is Safety. This would require a safety case to be written and we would need grounds for it. I’m sure you’ll all quickly point out the error of my ways but so far the only grounds I can see are that you’re all set in your ways of using names and, although Professionals working in a dynamic and ever evolving industry, don’t want to learn the ‘new’ numbers. Well how did you come to ‘know’ the sectors by names? It wasn’t a primeval instinct and you just knew them, you had to learn them. Just as the 20+ ATCO T&D’s who have come straight to NERC from the college are learning the sectors by number not names.

My second point:
Previous posts have mentioned emergency situations requiring you to ‘know’ the sector name if you have a plane suddenly head off toward someone else’s sector.
Shazbat says “.....and which sector are you going to call ?....errrr......29.....or is it 35.....crikey, perhaps it's 42 ????????”. Leaving out the fact that at NERC you would probably need to send electronic data to a different sector, how do you know which sector to call? Daventry! has been the cry but which Daventry? Daventry North High, North Low, South High, South Low?? Where is the split - FL290? If its not your sector how do you know? Very simple at NERC to know because at each workstation you have SIS and a single mouse click will give you the full sectorisation map of the London FIR/UIR, another mouse click will bring up any sector map you want defining the lateral and vertical limits (plus a host of other info). 2 mouse clicks.

Third point:
If names were used then what names and how would you abbreviate them? To use the example of Daventry again. Say we used these for arguments sake - Dty Nth Hi, Dty Nth Lo, Dty Sth Hi, Dty Sth Lo. The number equivalent is 27, 28, 32, 34. Now I’m imagining a comms panel with names on and a reasonable bandbox and all I can see are letters! Letters everywhere, I have to read those letters to choose the sector I want to talk to. 2 digit numbers with the lowest first and so on seem (to me) infinitely simpler to ‘see’ from a Human Factors perspective.

Fourth (Safety) Point:
Soz Shazbat, seem to be picking on you here but you said “There is definitely a safety issue here, to which SRG, and NATS managament are (may I say "as usual" ?) turning a blind eye.”
“Come one you engineers, and you so called "safety conscious" managers.......GIVE THE OPERATIONAL CONTROLLER WHAT HE/SHE NEEDS......SECTOR NAMES !!!!!!!!!!!!”
Well I can assure you that no-one on the ATC team at NERC are willing to compromise on safety, after all many members are operational ATCO’s and will work at NERC post ‘O’ date (not the only reason I hasten to add!). Also do you all SERIOUSLY think that ATSSD are IGNORING a safety issue??
Lets go back 10 years to the project before serious ATC involvement. Take 5 made the point that the project used numbers because the sectors were different to LATCC and had no names (not forgetting that its much easier to use numbers in a systems project!). So 10 years ago the telephone system was specified using numbers and the order made to Frequentis.
Now we have an excellent and intuitive phone system and its made easier by the use of numbers. In fact it’s SAFER because of numbers. ‘Why’s that?’, I hear you cry. Imagine that you’re busy and your phone panel falls down. ‘Oh my God!!! Help! Got to talk to Billy on North Sea about that Sabena!!!! Christ what’s his extension number?!?’ Frantic look around the desk for the scribbled bit of paper with the sector phone numbers on it (ignore the SIS screen for the purpose of this exercise). At NERC there are effectively 2 ways to phone. Use the direct lines (although they’ve just fallen down in our scenario) or you can directly dial anyone on any sector and you only need to know the sector you want. If Billy was the North Sea planner then you would dial 4 (to dial within the Ops room) 33 (Sector 33 North Sea) 2 (for the planner, it goes 1 for Tactical, 2 for Planner and 3 for Asst), so 4332.
For safety it is a BAD idea to use names. Constant use of the numbers means familiarity and when you’re in that tight situation where everything’s turning to worms you will barely have to THINK about who where or how, you’ll know it.

Over to you guys for some cogent (please) safety argument.

[Numpo-Nigit]

Take3Call5

Thank you for a well-argued, well-written, explanation of your views. However, despite the presentation, I must confess that I still consider you totally wrong in your interpretation of the Human Factors interface here. You may be completely happy with your numbers-based environment, but you are in a minority.

To take your last paragraph in a little detail. You envisage a scenario where the direct telephone panel has failed. Ignoring the lack of faith that this reveals in the NERC hardware, I still take issue with your idea that controllers will remember the sector number, and add a prefix to it, to contact the appropriate controller. You are obviously aware that the same concept has been around at LATCC for the military consoles for years - I think it's something like take the middle two digits from the SSR code to get the console number, preface this with a 5, and add a suffix of 1 for the controller or 2 for the assistant. Why aren't I 100% sure? Well, as with most "clever" ideas it isn't much used - I just phone the MAS ALLOC line and ask for controller 31.

Call me reactionary, conservative or a luddite if you wish, but I still genuinely believe that sector numbers are a real safety issue, as do those many other controllers who have raised the matter by 1261, Safety Observation Form, letter to SRG and by direct contact with many levels of management.

By the way, thank you for admitting that a change to sector names is not too difficult in system terms. That itself is a breakthrough. Previously it has been dismissed as totally impossible.

[BEXIL160]

Take3call5, Yes, thanks for your reasoned arguments but I personally (and others) do not agree.

For a safety case to work I was under the impression that any new system, procedure, whatever, had to be at least as safe, if not more safe than the system,procedure, whatever, it replaced. As you have read here the HF people don't agree with you that numbers are safer than names.

Let me expand on the HF issue a little. When I telephone an adjacent sector for a higher level for one of my a/c the sector I call announces their identity using a NAME. Then we do "an act between controllers" (coordinate) and I get my higher level.

Under the sector number system the recieving sector says, for example, "Sector 23". This is where the HF bit comes in. Human nature being what it is, it is all too easy for that sector to just say "23", which I take to be FL230, because that is what I am expecting to hear. My a/c is climbed to 230 and hey presto we're all filling in CA1261s that could have been avoided.

Remember we are all SUPPOSED to be using the numbers at LATCC already, but the vast majority of people don't. Not because they can't learn the numbers, but because it isn't a safe procedure.

Now you tell us that engineering wise what we would like isn't too much of a problem, which is useful to know. All I can assume therefore is that money IS affecting Flight safety, which we're constantly assured doesn't and will not in the future.

Not very reassurring is it?

[Not Long Now]

Take3, I 'instinctively' know the names of the sectors because, for example, and strangely enough, North Sea consists of large bit of airspace over the North Sea, Daventry a bit over Daventry (OK, it's TC down low), Bristol a bit over a big city in the West Country, etc., etc..

Now I may be wrong but I have yet to meet anyone who lives in '25', '14' or '32' (thouhg I used to live in a house numbered 20 if that helps).

If I don't know if it's north/high/low/south I'll ring the chief.

Purely personally, as I've said before, it seems to be change for change's sake, and yes, I'd like my controlling made as easy as possible please!

[Blame_NERC]

Numpo - If your direct access telephone panel has failed then 2 things

1) You shouldn't be at that workstation. You should have moved to the spare suite which is provided for each LAS.

2) As the telephone panel (which is totally separate from the rest of the system) serves all G/G comms you won't be able to dial either!

I do however understand that you are uncomfortable with the change but it has been gone through very carefully and considered to be safe.

PS If I thought I was bringing an unsafe system into service I wouldn't do it, after all I do fly from time to time.

[Take3Call5]

Numpo-Nigit,
Thanks for your response, nice to know I’m not knocking on the door of a closed mind!
As to the LATCC Mil use of squawks for phone numbers, they have a similar system at ScATCC (Ooops ScOACC!). The problem for civil being that there is no allocator to ask!!!
I have no lack of faith in the NERC hardware but it’s an engineering system and like everything it can go tech.

Bexil160
The point of the NERC system is to use electronic co-ordination and cut down on the phone calls! But just to expand on HF a little (BTW the HF people that I know on the project disagree that it’s a problem). Answering the phone as you say people will, when they shouldn’t be, is pretty sloppy professional work. The RAF’s equivalent of SRG (the ATCExamining Board) were very hot on correct identification on landlines and if you were slapdash on their visits it was possible to be suspended. So perhaps it simply needs a little something to concentrate the mind more on being professional.

Engineering wise the system can be changed, after all it’s simply a computer programme. So you could change the phone lines to display names, and the sectors to display names, the ‘windows’ could be changed as well (what else would you want?). But the underlying bits in the flight data system are heavily reliant on NAS and would still use numbers for the sector co-ordination sequence etc.

Not Long Now
Yes North sea consists of the large bit over the North Sea, but its 3 sectors (33,11,10), so you need to know which bit is which. Sorry but there is no ‘Chief’ to ring anymore, unless you ring the local area supervisor? I suppose he might not go around taking the piss that you don’t know your airspace…….. maybe.


Blame-NERC
Your VCS panel can fail but there’s no immediate requirement to ‘up sticks’. You can use the compact keyboard to dial using the facility on the main display. Hence my previous comment. Have another read through of your MMI manual.

[BEXIL160]

In reply,

I agree, sloppy RTF or telephone technique needs to be stamped on. However that should not be your only defence against human error. There is a viable alternative available and that is the use of sector NAMES.

NERC may well work very well with numbers and electronic coordination, but we are supposed to be using numbers NOW at LATCC. This in my opinion is WRONG. There has been NO operational trial and the use of numbers AT LATCC has been imposed on us. Complaints have been made to no effect.

[BEXIL160]

A small P.S.

Are the telephone lines from NERC to the various TC sectors identifed by Names or sector numbers that all TC sectors have and are used by Tels (but not TC)?

???

[AyrTC]

Ref Sectors at at London over the North Sea. When I am on Montrose Sector at Scottish I can only remember the correct split by saying the following rhyme.

"Sector ten over the land,thirty three over the sea" When it's bandboxed I'm f&$%£D

Rabbie Burns eat your heart out.

I don't know if this says more about names/numbers or me!(probably me :))

your life in my couplet's.

AyrTC

[Take3Call5]

Bexil 160

TC lines have the TC names, as do Maas, Paris, Brest etc. etc.

[Shazbat]

I have read, and understood, the arguments by the engineers and planners concerning their need to introduce sector numbers.

However, call me old fashioned, but I DO believe a system that is introduced should be USER friendly.

So far, I have seen NO comments from the people who are going to have to work the system (ie the OPERTAIONAL controllers) that are FOR sector numbers.

Also.....and I should be grateful of comments from the "pro-numbers" lobby here......why have all the complaints about sector numbering been completely ignored ?

The OPERATIONAL people....those that will have to face the music when something happens....want sector NAMES. THAT should be the end of the story !

[Hydroforming Bushmaster]

take3

1 You do seem obsessed with the technical side of the system requirements, not the people side of the system requirements.

2 Just because Military people are happy with numbers doesn't mean that Civil people are.

3 To be honest, I have yet to hear a cogent argument for changing to numbers from names. All I hear are reverse engineered justifications based on what the system needs!

4 What was specified to Frequentis 10 years ago....perhaps there was a good reason for the civil ATC team asking for numbers then (i.e. in coordination perhaps it was proposed to type numbers into the system by a numeric keypad so you didn't need a full alpha- keyboard?....just using some intuition) The point is that there doesn't appear to be a watertight reason now.

5 It is easier for people to transition to a new system without fundamental changes. So there is a definite safety risk here which outweighs any benefit that you believe results from the change.

6 The impact of the change is upon much of northern Europe; Maastricht find it quite bewildering (why not just call S33 the TOPPA sector they ask).

7 If your assertion that numbers are safer is truly NERC policy, then may I suggest that you create a job at Eurocontrol and change every other ACC's sectors to numbers? The prospect of having a sector 15 at TC, Manch, ScOACC, Maas, Brussels, Paris etc etc I assume you would find agreeable.

8 The basic rationale for names for sectors at NERC is the same as for people. We could refer to each other as 123456F (staff number) but we don't.

9 If there's valid ATCOs on the ATC team and they truly find the numbering easy, I'm told that the canopy sector numbers on the Clacton suite at LATCC were the wrong way round for nearly a year! Case in point...I bet if they said 'CLNW Lo' 'CLNW Hi' someone would have spotted the error. The person who put them up was confused, the staff are confused and the ATC team people didn't notice either.

HB

[Postman Pat]

HB

A VERY good post. Let's hope that those in charge can read or maybe they can only recognise numbers!

PP

[Shazbat]

HB and PP

Here Here !!!!!!

Or should that be hear hear ?????

No....p'raps not....it's a favourite planners/management statement isn't it ? "Yes, we hear what you are saying !!!!!!"

[Mr Chips]

Didn't we have to re-name some of west end to get rid of sector numbers - Sectors 23 and 20?

[smooth approach]

What was the TV series?

"Who is number one"

"You are number seven"

The case rests, me lord

Smoothie

[BEXIL160]

Not sure about exactly what you are getting at, however we don't use the full names now on the existing phone panels, HRN R1 obviously the HURN R1 position, BRS R1 is Bristol R1 for example.

Your co-ordination sequence with numbers looks like a bank sort code and makes as much sense to me. The one with the letters is fairly obvious. You don't need to use the full names, the accepted (current) abbreviations would be adequate (LND,BHD,BRS, LUS etc) and it's easy to spot errors.

I alluded to the fact that TC aren't refered to by sector numbers and we are going to have to co-ordinate with them from NERC. Surely if you have that much faith in the number sysytem TC should be forced to follow suit?

They of course will also want to coordinate with various AC(NERC) sectors BY TELEPHONE. Sorry to bring the HF thing up again but when they are expecting to hear a flight level, even though you actually use the word "sector" it is likely that they will only hear the numbers they want. This is a HF event avoidable by the use of names.

It is not possible to eliminate risk, saftey cases are supposed to be about minimising risks. The use of numbers does not reduce the risk of error and I can't see how it maintains the risk at the current levels.

[BEXIL160]

I posted the above in reply to a message from one of the NERC people. That message appears to have been removed.... I wonder why? :confused

[Take3Call5]

Hi all,
518924D here again! One thing I want to clear up. I'm not NATS management nor particularly pro (or anti!) NERC. I am an ex-ATCO who is familiar with the NERC system and have access to the experts to try and answer some of the questions posed in here and clear up some of the misconceptions going around.

Firstly Hydroforming Bushmaster your points in order:

1) Obsessed with technical and systems? Well yes, that’s my job.
2) Who's talking about Military (other than someone about the phone lines)? Military at NERC will have names.
3) It would be reverse engineering to put in names now. The system was ALWAYS designed around numbers. But as I've said it can be done.
4) 10 years ago no one knew what the sector names were going to be, hence numbers. Since then its always been numbers.
5) Outside my area.
6) I don't know. Why not call it Outer North Sea?
7) I don't work at Eurocontrol, I work at NERC.
8) Rather a disingenuous remark since the NERC system only uses the numbers between 1 and 40.
9) Your point is what? That the LATCC staff were to apathetic to point things out? Why not ask your colleagues who work here or who are on the NTT what they think of the system. Better still wait until you can judge for yourself when you've done your NERC training.

Bexil 160:

Co-ord sequence with numbers is simpler to read than names as names are much longer. When you quote BHD which bit do you mean 9 or 6? LUS East or West, 1 or 2, LMS East or West, 25 or 26? Worthing 18, 19, 20 or 21? DVR 15, 16 or 17? CLN 12,13 or 14? DTY 27, 28, 32 or 34?

Why force TC to follow suit when they have a system that works perfectly well? If it ain't broke don't fix it (yes I'm sure that'll be quoted back at me).

Cannot comment on your HF question, outside my area.

Anyway enough from me in this thread. Some of you may be instructed by me when you come down on the A modules so we might get a bit more of a chat. Most people so far haven't found it quite as scary as they thought.

[BEXIL160]

I was Identifying the Suites with their Generic abbreviations. The indiviual sectors are EASILY identified. For example SECTOR 1 is LUS W, SECTOR 2 is LUS E and so on. These Names have real meaning, are easy to assimilate NOW and are unlikely to be confused with any other numbers used in ATC.

"If it aint broke don't fix it", to quote back to you (you ask, I act) WHY then are we (AC)having to go to sector numbers when we have a perfectly SAFE system that works?? Oh yeah, beacuse "the system" requires it... It must be okay then.

I must say again. We are supposed to be using numbers NOW at LATCC and we aren't. A system that has already fallen into disrepute bears some serious examination by ATSSD.

[Zarg]

I must say that I agree with karrank about the introduction of sector names to replace sector numbers.

Under TAAATS in Australia there are approximately 60 Sectors covering the country divided between two FIRs, Melbourne and Brisbane. When I have to coordinate as part of my SAR duties with my opposite number, when they refer to "Huon Sector" I know they are referring to the Low Sector covering Tasmania. Likewise I know that "Horn Sector" refers to the Torres Strait area of North Queensland.

TAAATS changed from a numbers system to a name system without - to my knowledge - any technical problems at all, including bandboxing.

If I were you guys and gals I would fight this backward step tooth and nail!

Mind you, I have to admit that a "Sector 8" assignment at LATCC was my favourite number!! :)

------------------
Be CAREFUL out there!

[Janet 301]

What's a sector 8 then???

My guesses...

(a) Supper at the Six Bells
(b) Stress relief in the cargo lift with a cleaner and/or the Maltesers trick
(c) An early morning visit to trap 3

Janet

[Heading 365]

Janet 301

It goes back to the days when sectors had numbers, Sector 8 was never opened or didn't exist (I can't remember which) so if you were allocated Sector 8 on a night duty.....

[Janet 301]

Thank you for revealing the secrets of sector 8!

On a pedantic point, I see that the phones at LATCC are labelled S2 LUS EAST etc. This is momentarily confusing as S2 is the term used for the wings position on the right hand side of the suite.

I'm told that NERC sectors are called S0n (e.g. S02) in the system there. Is this correct, and why have an extra zero when I can't see any need for it....over to you Take3 for an answer pls.

[Take3Call5]

Hi Janet,
Yes S02 is LUS East. All the sectors at NERC are 'Sector 2 numbers'. Why S01, S02, S03 etc. I don't know. I would imagine it was so they logically looked the same. Makes no difference, in computer system terms, with numerics if its 1 or 01. But it would if it used strings (names).
No wings at NERC but provision for 187 assistants. On a slightly different thread, there is quite a 'debate' about whether ATSA's can be replaced by technology. Is the cost of the introduction of EPS over the long term actually going to save NATS money?

Sorry I couldn't answer your question more fully!

[Bigears]

Take3,
I can answer your last question though- No, NoWay, NoSir!
Not by itself anyway, but maybe combined with FACTS.......
It must be the biggest 'pet project' on the planet. A case of 'lets spend £xxxM to save £xxM and put lots of ATSAs on the dole'. Good business and moral case there!
EDited to clarify that ATSA's on the dole is NOT a good thing- what I meant was that the Private Partner would cancel EPS as there is no business case (prove me wrong).
The views above are my own and I'm sure don't reflect those of Management. Come PPP though...hey, maybe there's SOMETHING good about it!

[This message has been edited by Bigears (edited 21 March 2001).]

[Bigears]

Just learnt that 'editing' means that- u can't add! I tried to say....EDited to clarify that ATSA's on the dole is NOT a good thing- what I meant was that the Private Partner would cancel EPS as there is no business case (prove me wrong).

[Mustafa Slippage]

Take3Call5

There can't be any good reason for having a leading zero to a single digit sector number. Must be engineering logic, not ATC logic I suppose. Start the campaign to get the zeros removed!

Personally I've not had much problem with the sector numbers except for S4 (sorry S04) being above S3 as the original idea was for low numbers to be high sectors so I think S3 should be above S4.

As far as replacing ATSAs; until we get away from paper strips, the need for HCS amendments and knowledge of syntax I can't see it myself. ATSAs are really system experts. Does FACTS do 'everything' then? I assume no paper strips required but how do ATCO inputs get translated into something the underlying system understands? Magic?
At the moment ATSAs are an integral part of the sector team and thankfully are not often the main failure point of the system. As NERC is more or less the same as LATCC (albeit with different ATCO roles) I'm sure they'll stay that way.

Personally, I reckon that technology may replace the Planning task rather than the Asst task and I'd have a Tactical/Support team in future development. This way we might solve the ATCO shortage (as we'd have twice the number currently required) and have the possibility of ATSAs in the Support role. But it all depends what technology can deliver I guess!

M

[Blame_NERC]

2 digit numbers may seem to be pedantic but if you always show 2 digits you don't need to worry about if a single digit is left or right justified when it is displayed.

[BEXIL160]

...... or just type "HRN" or "BCN" or "DTY" etc etc etc.

No confusion whatsoever!!!

[bill]

bexil160

I think as has already been pointed out simply typing DTY or LUS or HRN etc does not differentiate between the internal splits in these suites...
while we're at it how about a campaign to return to the usage of refering to airways by colours, eg, green1, amber34, etc - much safer...
while I'm on the subject you talked about how lots of people at latcc were not using sector numbers as supposed to, how many do you know used sector names as they were supposed to?
this country coped fine with decimalisation and yet you think a couple of hundred air traffic controllers cannot cope with changing a name to a number?
I agree that to ease transition it would have been easier to leave sector names as they are, but it doesn't take a degree to learn the new numbers (and say the word "sector" first to make it safe).

[Numpo-Nigit]

bill

You have my unwavering support for your proposed campaign to re-designate airways and UARs by colour. Just let me now how to help because, as you imply, it would be a major contribution to safety.

You may (or may not) also be interested in my comments on sector numbers in the A1 module topic, but I can't be bothered to type it all out again, and I haven't yet discovered how to cut and paste on PPRuNe.

[BEXIL160]

bill,

As you probably know some people's telephone technique is poor, and yes they do not always identify themselves on the phone using the sector name properly. This is the point.

Human nature being what it is, some people will not use the word "sector" when they are supposed to, and say for example "23". Hey presto, this is exactly what TC were expecting to hear and the a/c they were asking climb for goes up. Instant 1261.

Just saying "hello" or particularly "Yes" also has drawbacks I'll admit. But just putting out a notice to ensure people use the word sector "smacks of yardarm clearing" to quote CHIRP.

Ref the airway colours. You have my FULL support. Bring 'em back tomorrow.

rgds

[Mustafa Slippage]

160

I hear what you say (as those suity people say), but....I worked yesterday with someone that consistently answered the phone using 'sector x,y' phraseology and I had no problem with it whatsoever.

I have also twice recently answered the phone to TC asking for higher on something. I have correctly identified myself as the suite name I'm working. It turns out that they have inadvertantly called the wrong sector, completely disregarded my identification on answering the phone and climbed aircraft blissfully unaware.

I don't wholly support sector numbers over names but we are intelligent human beings and for whatever reason, I don't think it's too much to ask to learn them.

[bill]

bexil: I think Mustafa's post shows that names are no better than numbers, while I believe that the transition could be easier by sticking to names, and, I'm sure there's no major technical reason for going with numbers, I believe that sector names have no proven advantage over numbers...

numpo:
read all your posts about this including the one on A1.
can't be bothered to cut and paste but you're obviously happy using terms sector 23 & 8, what's the problem using them at NERC? I can't imagine a situation where, for example, as a 23 SC you would have to phone the 13 SC in an emergency, just as now you will have direct lines to all the abutting sectors, whose numbers are surely not too much to learn?

[This message has been edited by bill (edited 27 March 2001).]

[Numpo-Nigit]

bill: you are obviously SO convinced that sector numbers are wonderful that you are seeing what you want in my posts, rather than reading the intent. Sure I can say sector 8, and even remember it for a few hours, but that still does not make it a good idea. As to the reference to sector 23, you obviously missed the point that it was a reference to "the good old days" when all Upper Airspace sectors were numbered in the 20s. Some years ago it was re-designated as Berry Head / Lands End, for clarity if I recall. As to sector 13, I neither know nor care where it is - what is its name?

[bill]

numpo (& bexil): to be honest not really bothered either way whether it's names or numbers, I'll learn them anyway.
ok the change way be ill-conceived, but it should be as safe as what we've got now if correct telephone procedures and phraseology are used.