approch sequencing tools

[astina]

hi all,

im currently doing a project about approch sequencing tools,may i know what are the tools available in the market today?and how are those tools from a controller point of view?

any discussion welcome

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Are there any in serious use anywhere? In the UK we trialled two types but both were rejected for a number of reasons. In the end, a well-trained, experienced controller could equal and usually beat the performance of the system. There were a number of safety aspects which gave rise to concern too.

One problem was the additional workload imposed on the controller. Each system we trialled required input and that added to the control task. The Final Director task at a busy airport requires a very high degree of concentration and to disturb this process by introducing the distraction of operating the sequencing tool defeated the object.

[Gonzo]

They're going to try again, HD. In the next few years a new tool is going to be developed where final approach spacing is worked out and applied with reference to time and groundspeed, rather than distance and airspeed. Needless to say, many of us are not enthusiastic. To achieve the required spacing at touchdown against a strong headwind which decreases in windspeed as you get lower, planes will be flying one and a half miles apart at ten miles! :}

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Hi Gonzo.. I shall watch this with great interest as, I suspect, will aircrews!

I wonder which banana-head dreamt up that scheme?

[atcea.com]

In the 1990s in the U. S., a system was tested at KDFW called Final Approach Sequencing Tool (FAST). Controller acceptance was low due to difficulties in seeing the displayed data and unreliability in certain weather conditions.

A newer system, p (passive) FAST, was devised to be more advisory in nature and is currently in use at KDFW and Southern California (SoCal) TRACON.

For details, see the links section on ATC Technology. (http://atcea.com/countries/tec/tec.html)

[Gonzo]

FAST was tried over here too, although I'm not sure if it's the same system. As HD said, our approach ATCOs were regularly outperforming it, and a few years down the line it would been eroding skills, especially for trainees who used the system from the off.

[atcea.com]

Gonzo

You note that one of the objections to this type of technology is the erosion of controller skills.

I recently noted a flury of posts on our facility bulletin board about scanning - how to do it and how to keep scanning in various traffic situations.

I couldn't help but recall that when I began controlling, we pushed little plastic "shrimp boats" along over the target blips and scanning was never an issue - you kept your eyes and hands moving at all times and that kept your attention moving.

It seems the more we develop technology in this business, the more individual controller skills fall by the wayside.

[goldfrog]

Gonzo
FAST was tried over here too, although I'm not sure if it's the same system. As HD said, our approach ATCOs were regularly outperforming it, and a few years down the line it would been eroding skills, especially for trainees who used the system from the off.

The FAST trialed in TC was an entirely home grown NATS product.

[Gonzo]

atcea,

You mean you physically moved objects around on top of the radar screen?

Never heard of that one before, but you're right, I guess it would ensure everybody kept the scan going!

[BEXIL160]

aha "shrimp boats".... Never actually used them myself, but heard all the stories.

Gonzo, did you ever wonder why the radars in the LATCC "En-Route" room were flat tops? Now you know!

Rgds BEX:ok:

[atcea.com]

Here's a photo of guys pushin' shrimp boats. Times change!

Shrimp boats (http://web.mit.edu/6.933/www/Fall2000/mode-s/atc.html)

[Fly Through]

Have heard that magnetic shrimp boats, on a vertical screen, were once used in Oz. With the aid of a spray can of water, you could really ruin someone's day!

Back to the topic in question. Calgary TCU use the Converging Runway Display Aid which helps controllers vector to crossing runways and can be used when only one runway in use, as well. This was originally developed in America as a departure tool and after certain mods is used for enroute & arrivals. Vancouver centre use it as well as a couple of places in the States. For more details pm me.

Rgds
FT

[Gonzo]

BEX,

I thought they were just designed to give you guys bad backs :confused:

[cossack]

NavCanada's website (http://www.navcanada.ca) gives a description and a demonstration of CRDA.
I couldn't get the hyperlink directly to the page to work, so just type CRDA in the search box.

[BEXIL160]

Gonzo,

nah, you're thinking of the Swanwick "Bananas":uhoh:

Rgds Bex

P.S. There are other ways of getting a bad back;)

[DirtyPierre]

Have heard that magnetic shrimp boats, on a vertical screen, were once used in Oz.

Not magnetic, shrimp boats were held to the screen by the surface tension of the water. Used in Oz til about 1996 when eventually the old "bright" displays were replaced. Did my first enroute and arrivals ratings using shrimp boats. Glad they're gone.

Shrimp Boats had a habit of falling off the screen, knocking several others off, at the worst possible time. Required all aircraft to be re-identified. Then try using shrimp boats while holding ....aaarrgh! Give me a labelled display anyday.

Oz has a approach sequencing tool called Maestro. Works fairly well, but still requires a controller to oversee. Of course, completely useless with any sort of significant weather diversions.

[astina]

thanks for all the inputs,

seems there's not many tools in operational use today,or is it because controller refuse to use it?

[JustaFew]

In 23 years of ATC, the best tool I've seen is a trained and experienced brain...

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<In 23 years of ATC, the best tool I've seen is a trained and experienced brain...>>

I found the same during my 35+ years in the job. Unfortunately some of those above the level of "operational controller" do not possess such attributes!

[Gonzo]

The problem surfaces when these tools start to allow the gradual degradation of skills.

For example, the UK FAST system that was under trial at Heathrow Approach told the ATCO when to turn the a/c on to a standard base leg and then when to turn it on to a standard closing heading, etc.

All well and good, but those ATCOs who start training on the system will be only used to doing things as standard, being told when to turn a/c. What happens when the system is u/s? What happens if there's weather around that precludes half of the airspace? And as mentioned before, the ATCOs were regularly outperforming it anyway. Why should they need it?

We in the tower have a similar problem with our surface movement radar. It runs off Mode S data now and thus has labels, and the inbounds have their parking stands on the labels too. Those ATCOs who trained using this sometimes concentrate far too much on the radar screen in front of them rather than looking out of the window. This is dangerous. Many of us switch the radar off in good weather so we don't deverlop bad habits. To illustrate the loss of skills through introduction of new technology.......A few years ago we used to have a primary only SMR. That meant that the lighting operators didn't have the benefit of labels at all. Recently the link from our radar to the airport's stand information system went down, and the a/c labels just showed callsign, and not the parkiing stand. It was requested because of this to enforce 4 mile spacing inbound, to avoid overloading the lighting operators. Bearing in mind that only two years before the situation was even worse than this wityh primary only, but now we had to have inbound spacing. That demonstrates a loss of skills to me, and to rely on new technology means that when it fails, everything stops.

Before anyone flames me I have the utmost respect for our L/Ops, and I know I couldn't do their job with all the technology in the world helping me!

edit for spelling

[ebenezer]

Interesting...Tony Goldman who at one time was Director General, Civil Aviation in the former Department of the Environment, Transport and The Regions, and is now I think involved in a role within the JAA or Eurocontrol, was about eight years ago quoted as saying that controller computer-based support tools "...will enable all controllers to achieve the performance of the best".

Since this notion was obviously fed to the DETR at the time, one can speculate as to the Government's real objective particularly as Gonzo says, ...The ATCOs were regularly outperforming it anyway....

Perhaps it also has something to do with workforce supply and demand...? After all, a declining pool* of 'star performers' whether in ATC, Formula 1 or on the soccer pitch can command premium rates of pay...

:hmm:

* retirements/emigration/medical cancellations, etc

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I believe that with one particular system the idea was to market it world-wide so it was really a money-spinner rather than a tool which would do the job as well as a trained ATCO at the unit where it was trialled.

I'm not saying which system or which unit.

[GroundBound]

I think Frankfurt Approach has been using an approach sequencing tool for some years - called COMPAS.

I offer no comments on its efficiency over the controller. ;)

GB

[Self Loading Freight]

The shrimp boat link doesn't load here...

Here's another, which does - shrimp boats (http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Museum%20dual%20radar%20console%20close%20up.htm) - and also mentions a dastardly trick.

R

[Scott Voigt]

Ground Bound;

I've seen COMPAS and it looked alot like FAST or PFAST that was being designed by NASA. NATCA was able to show that it didn't do any better if not worse than the controllers doing it manually. NASA said for XX millions of dollars they could improve it. NATCA stated that the money could be better spent elsewhere and the program was canned.

regards

Scott

[astina]

anyone heard about MAESTRO? currently used in Paris ACC, Orly Airport and de Gaulle airport,any comments?

[Zones]

From my recollection, Maestro, Compas and pFAST were all 'sequencing' tools, whereas NATS FAST was/is a 'spacing' tool. Subtle differences in their design and intentions of how to aid controllers (or not;) ).

Maestro developed by Sofreavia in France, sold to the French ATC and also Oz plus I think elesewhere as part of bundled packages...the French have a way of doing this....:rolleyes:

Compas developed by DFS for themselves.

NATS FAST developed by NATS for NATS at Hurn.

I think all of these products have been displayed at various conferences ATCA / Maastricht etc...

Not a controller so I couldn't / wouldn't comment on any of their effectiveness.... :ok:

[DirtyPierre]

Self loading Freight,

That's the equipment I started my ATC career on. Thank god it's in the museum.

[ILS 119.5]

Only one thing as a tool "experience". There is no book which can tell you how to do it. The only book I have read is the Approach Radar book at CATC. Only basics, experience is th only way.

[APP Radar]

Went recently to Zurich to see CALM - Computer Assisted Arrival and Landing Manager based on Barco Othoghon'OSYRIS Arival Manager.

Tool is working for two to three years and looks rather nice.

Barco Orthogon has also installed it in Euroicontrol Training Facilitry at Bretigny.

Im looking forward to have another look at t in ATC Maastricht 2005 in February.

[SM4 Pirate]

Down here in sleepy hollow we use MAESTRO for Brisbane Sydney and Melbourne; with plans to roll out to other locations as/when needed.

It's a bit cumbersome at times; but it does give us a reasonably accurate 'tactical' display of the sequence. It's capable of calculating SIMOPS, Crossing runways or parallels, optimising flows when using parallels etc.

It attempts to share delays across TMA and Enroute; the first minute of calculated delay gets assigned to TMA, the next two to Enroute, the next back to TMA for one more minute then all the rest back to Enroute.

A one minute dalay would be TMA only.
A two-four minute dalay would be TMA and Enroute sharing equally (sort of)
A five or more minute delay the bulk of the delay would be done by enroute.

These of course do vary depending on runway set-up / configuration etc.

Still it needs one flow to manipulate it; where we used to have one flow 'picking the sequence'. Often there was more 'logically decisions' to the traffic sequence before MAESTRO; i.e. wake turb considered against acceptance rate; also when it optimises it just simply gets it wrong and needs manual overridding.

The best thing about MAESTROis that there is no longer sudden unexpected holding (excluding aerodrome emergencies) you can see it coming; it even gives us clues as to when to start holding, blue colours for speed and vectors, yellow for holding...

We can get in as early as 400+ miles from touch and start 'tactical' sequencing; of course if you do get in too early the configuration will change and/or the acceptance rate; thus the sequence will change dramatically and you've caused problems not solved them.

Other major problem with it is Sydney; MAESTRO says give 5 minute delay in enroute (2 inside TMA); you achieve 4.5 of that delay and hand off to Approach who say track DCT outermarker increase speed... This happens a lot because the 'acceptance rate' is lower than is being achieved. This often happens because of the 'political' limitation of 80 movements an hour yet on some configs 120+ would be achievable... I think it looks very unprofessional when enroute are acheiving the delays and slowing everything to have approach speed them up and track direct; but hey that is the system...

[Scott Voigt]

Pirate;

That is what our CTAS does... PFast was a part of CTAS which we stopped using for the sequence. However, CTAS does work quite well for metering aircraft to the airport. NASA is now working on metering from one center to another. Right now we in Fort Worth help meter flow into Houston Center. They are also working on multi center metering as a test in the northeast.

regards

Scott