How stable is EFPS?

[GT3]

Has EFPS remained stable since introduction at SS or have there been any crashes/failures? Just curious

[Vlad the Impaler]

Its been as smooth as a baby's bum. Some early issues with the link to NAS have been sorted and with a few tweaks here and there it has been very reliable.
Sorry !!

[White Hart]

Vlad

Why "sorry"?

[Vlad the Impaler]

I'm not sorry for me as I have to use it day in and day out. It does seem to me that whenever anybody asks about it they ask a negative question like "has it had any crashes/failures" rather than "is it a marvellously reliable piece of kit". Just strikes me that ammunition is being sought. Maybe thats just my natural suspicious mind and paranoia !!!!!!!!!!!

[White Hart]

Vlad,

I do not think GT3 is alluding to EFPS being a bad piece of kit - just voicing the same concerns that many at LL have about it. It's been covered in depth on other postings already, but the fact remains, we are not being provided with any contingency or back-up in the event of EFPS failure.

For any airfield, let alone EGLL, this should be a major concern for those who have to use the equipment. Safety is the name of the game, and contingency goes hand in hand with it.

Or at least it should!

[Jerricho]

In best Rain-man voice

"Yeah, yeah. EXCDS/EFPS never crashes. Yeah."

[Vlad the Impaler]

presumably LL anf KK will get the same contingency that we have. There is a wee laptop in the corner of the VCR which in the event of a catastrophic failure can be used to print strips onto this fangled new stuff called paper. Apparently the controller then has to arrange this so called "paper" to represent the traffic situation. If you ask me, it will never catch on.

[White Hart]

Vlad

I'm surprised that none of our recent LL visitors to your VCR have remarked on this. Hang on, I'll just check the date in case it's 1st April already!

[Vlad the Impaler]

It is detachable and we can lug it over to the ECVCR to print strips over there as well.

[Gonzo]

Vlad,

We are not getting any contingency, apparently.

No laptop.

No printer.

In fact, they've already ordered the last batch of blank paper strips.

[Vlad the Impaler]

I thought that the main unwavering principle of EFPS was that it is the same for everybody, if they wont give you a simple contingency that is already built into the system then reject it. Point it out to point 7, I'm sure he'll fix it for you.....

[White Hart]

Unfortunately, P7 is subject to the same "regime" as we are. The "regime" makes (and breaks) the rules - none of us have any input - we're only told of their decisions. The two Unions are starting to make noises, but they're still falling on deaf ears.

As Gonzo said, we are informed that there is no EFPS contingency on offer for the new VCR, hence our concern. What with the Oct06 deadline getting ever nearer, time is most definitely running out if this issue is going to be properly addressed and sorted.

[GT3]

issues at LHR properly addressed and sorted! I would say concorde is more likely to lead a fly past for the arrival of the A380 than things to get sorted out here.

[Jerricho]

Unfortunately, P7 is subject to the same "regime" as we are

*Jerricho shakes his head in disgust*

:E

[Vlad the Impaler]

I don't understand..........we all get the same kit with the same spec, supposedly....any changes to our system have to be agreed by LL & KK for that reason. The laptop will probably be a nightmare if we ever have to use it in anger but at least it is there. Having no contingency is downright dangerous, you guys and gals need to start jumping up and down a lot. Find out why you can't have it.
Ridiculous.
I'm sure some of our shiny new destinations are safety related, perhaps our new lord and master would like to buy you a laptop !!

[Gonzo]

It would be interesting to know just how much the airlines know of all this.

[PPRuNe Radar]

NATS Safety Management system dictates that equipment is subjected to safety assessment and hazard analysis before being introduced in to service. This includes the provision of a 4 part Safety Case.

The Safety Case will determine what failure modes can happen, how critical the equipment is to the operation, and how failures are mitigated.

The people involved in bringing in the project will have access to this document and thus will know what things have to be put in place to provide contingency.

I find it hard to believe the rumour that nothing is allowed for or will be provided to meet the requirements for failure. These would be a fundamental issue in the Safety Case, since complete failure is usually the top of the list for things to be analysed for hazards. Has anyone posting actually seen it, or is it purely conjecture from the rumour mill that it has not been addressed ??

In my experience, a lot (although not all) of fears and opinions often arise because operational people tend not to know much about NATS' Safety Management system and the processes which it contains.

Why not ask someone on the project if you can see the document or be briefed on what anlysis has been done ?

[eddyboog]

In my experience a NATS safety case is written by, or for management to acheive one purpose- satisfy SRG.

They are normally only a box ticking exercise where in the absence of substantial evidence of reliability, figures are just made up (estimated by professionals!)

Safety is not delivered by documentation or a management exercise.

It comes from initial concepts, design, application and unbiased monitoring, all sadly lacking from EFPS

[PPRuNe Radar]

Box ticking or not, the document still has to detail what mitigations are in place to cover hazards. SRG get a copy and have the ability to follow up to make sure that what you say will be put in place actually is.

Saying that something will never happen in the systems lifetime isn't a mitigation because the event could happen as soon as the system goes live. Mind you, you maybe then have no more failures for the next 1000 years or so according to the probability figure ;)

Don't you guys use operational controllers during the hazard analysis process anyway who could address things from an informed viewpoint ?? If not, why not suggest it to management as part of your unit Safety Management culture ?? It happens already at many places up and down the country and a lot of them ain't even Premier Band 5 units :cool:

[Gonzo]

because the event could happen as soon as the system goes live


'Aint that the truth! It is impossible to be tested with live data plugged in to NAS. The first time it's plugged in is when it will go live.

[Vlad the Impaler]

Gonzo,
That is the issue that many of us had before we went live. The system (I think) can be considered reliable with the NAS link and all the other kit that interfaces with it. From that point of view we were the guinea pigs and you don't have that concern, it IS stable and very reliable. I still have grave concerns over your lack of contingency. We have had no cause to use it in three months or so but past performance is no indication of future performance..........BUT....if it goes tits up, and lets face it, for any number of unforseen circumstances it could, you NEED some kind of back up. I cannot believe as our esteemed moderator says that the safety case does not provide for this eventuality. Seriously guys, get it sorted. EFPS is a damned good system, easy to use, easy to learn and when you get used to it, generally a labour saving device but nothing is perfect. With paper strips, as you all know, nobody can take them away when the kit fails. With electronics, if the screen dies or both servers have simultaneous epileptic fits, however unlikely and we all know that **** happens, YOU NEED A BACKUP.
OK. I think point made, back in my box now.....

[Jerricho]

or both servers have simultaneous epileptic fits, however unlikely

Oh yes, just ask those at Winnipeg Centre about that :rolleyes:

And it wasn't just the tower (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/11/18/winnipeg-outage041118.html)

[Gonzo]

Vlad, I know your system works as it stands now. However, ours will be on different servers, with (maybe) different processors, different memory, different drivers for hardware, different interfaces with BAA for stand information etc. How do we know that all that won't cause a conflict?

[Vlad the Impaler]

I take your point but I cannot see why vastly different kit would be used (but then again its that common sense word again) when what we have is fairly well tried and trusted. There will always be an element of doubt when the switch is thrown and I believe that if it doesn't go when they hit the button then there is a window of a couple of hours when it can be switched back (does EFPS intro coincide with your house move? if so, disregard my last !). The most important thing for LL & KK controllers is to accept that it is coming, learn as much as possible about it and then try and influence what goes on from a position of knowledge rather than a lot of what happened here with a number of frightened cavemen banging sticks and chanting incantations around the fire !!!

[Gonzo]

Vlad, yes it all happens at the same time.

[Yellow Snow]

Gonzo,
fella I've bit my lip long and hard about this for a while.
Where are you getting your information from? Are you just making it up.

I know your system works as it stands now. However, ours will be on different servers, with (maybe) different processors, different memory, different drivers for hardware

Absolute rubbish, it's all built to the same spec. The SS KK and LL systems will be identical in the above respect

There are two independant Uninteruptable power supplies for the system, the odds on the these both simultanousley failing are as low as everyone giving birth to a ginger baby.

Each installation will have two data mangers (servers) one running back up to the other at the same time, so if it fails it will auto kick in and you won't notice a thing.

We are not getting any contingency, apparently.

No laptop.

No printer

Sorry are we in lala land again. Who told you this was it one of the cleaners polishing trap 2 whilst you had a dump in 3?
Each unit will have this contingency as it is part of the spec and safety case.

Seriousley mate, I know your watch didn't have the most productive of visits to EGSS prior to 'O' date, but the system works. Suggest you go and speak to the people involved with the project and not make uninformed conjecture on here.

Make no mistake EFPS introduction at EGLL is going to be a difficult process due to the complexity of the operation and the requirement upon us ATCOs to change oh no I said it. But it is coming so I suggest you get involved with the way it's going to be implemented constructively.

Apologies for the rant , but I'm bored of hearing people on the unit moan moan and not do anything about it.

I haven't even had a drink today.:D

[Gonzo]

Yellow, thanks for your reply. All information I have on EFPS is from Stansted itself or from our Ops.

Absolute rubbish, it's all built to the same spec. The SS KK and LL systems will be identical in the above respect

Ok, that's why I put 'maybe' in there.

So when EFPS gets installed into the new tower, it'll be on exactly the same brand/type computers with exactly the same hardware setup as at SS? If that's the case then I will gladly concede the point.

What about the BAA stand information? Is that all sorted?

Each unit will have this contingency as it is part of the spec and safety case.

Ok. Good. I had been told that this wasn't the case.

And it is a fact that no more blank paper strips have been ordered...'because you won't need them in the new tower'. Maybe someone should tell the person responsible!

the odds on the these both simultaneously failing are as low as everyone giving birth to a ginger baby.

Shame, would improve the world no end! :ok:

but I'm bored of hearing people on the unit moan moan and not do anything about it.

I have been, believe me. However, with all due respect to those involved, one operational ATCO (plus Ops ATCO) and the Manager 'Projects' is nowhere near enough people working on Heathrow side. Two people? How many ATCOs did Toronto have working on it prior to introduction? Even though all those involved are making great efforts, the very fact it's a small group means the watches are going to be more resistant, purely because they're not included. Added to the fact that nobody tells us anything, and when I do get some information from Ops about it, then spread it around the watch, I get singled out because what I was told 'wasn't for public consumption'!!!!!!!!!!!!:confused: Jeeez, it's like a whole big secret!!!!!

The onus is put on the operational ATCOs to go to SS on our days off, go down and talk to Ops during our breaks, when I have 101 other things to do, as well as have a break, and if we don't we're told we should stop complaining.

It is symptomatic of the whole relationship between Ops and the coal face over the past few years. In my mind, ATCOS should be able to go to Ops, either in the Tech Com or not, and say 'we need this/this piece of kit needs this function/how can we achieve this?' And Ops should then try and come up with a solution working with the ATCOs. Rather, the answer is now so often: 'impossible, sorry.' Or:
'Here's a new peice of kit, the engineers and designers think it's great, you can do anything you want with it, there are fifteen different ways of carrying out this function!'
'Cool, can it do such and such?'
'No.'
'So can it still do this?'
'Yes but you need to open that menu, and then press that button, and then thids button three times.'
'But it would be really helpful if we could do this with it...'
'No, it can't do that....'

The number of things that have been introduced recently as a 'fait accompli' is ridiculous.


Make no mistake EFPS introduction at EGLL is going to be a difficult process

I couldn't agree with you more, but without the ATCOs on side, it will be a whole lot more difficult. That process should be starting now.

You in on Saturday?

[PPM9]

A few facts about EFPS

a) To date, EFPS at SS has proven to be more reliable than the previous paper system that suffered from occasional NAS aborts and workstation lock ups.

b) The hardware and software for LL will be the same as used at SS and KK.

c) All main servers have a secondary back up should the primary fail.

d) Mains power to the EFPS system will be backed up by an UPS should the mains supply to the TWR fail.

e) A laptop and strip printer will be provided for SS, KK & LL for use in the event of a total EFPS failure. I suggest FM have stopped ordering the existing paper strips because the new printers required different paper!

Unlike your colleagues at SS and KK you have the advantage of having the project team in the same building, speak to them, you might even find out more facts
;)

[Gonzo]

PPM9,

I try to, but the 'project team' works office hours, I work shifts. And the number of times I've gone down to speak with him when I've really had more important things to do on my break is great, and I've rarely managed to track him down, at least not recently.

This is exactly the problem I was trying to highlight. Personally, I think that more information should be flowing to the ATCOs from the 'project team'. We shouldn't have to go and try and find somone involved to ask for information/have our concerns addressed.

[SilentHandover]

You could always spend a few hours talking to them when you have been given an EG.:E :E :E :E

[GT3]

they would either be at lunch or have gone home so that wont work

[White Hart]

Yellow Snow

Do you have access to published information about EFPS contingency plans for EGLL? If yes, then where can the rest of us see them?

[Yellow Snow]

White Hart,
no mate because no such published plans exist.

If you were to ask for a copy of the SS safety case put to SRG via internal e-mail I'm confident LL will be similar.

EGLL will have a laptop and printer, What follows isn't confirmed.

I'm told the old tower (current) will be retrofited at some point in late 06 early 07 with EFPS, so if we have power problems or whatever with the new tower away we go. Before that retro fit the old tower will still be a paper strip contingency.

As I say unconfirmed.

Gonzo a fair and measured reply sir, bar the ginger kids:p
If you do have time speak to Paul Johnson, he the man as they say. Also there is a big LL EFPS meeting in the middle of FEB you might want to get some details of.
If I don't see you in the next couple of days, give us a ring.

[Gonzo]

I thought that was the most reasoned part!

:E

[White Hart]

Yellow Snow

thanks for the info - I shall ask for a copy of the SS safety case info via my PCS rep next week. FYI, your reference to the laptop and printer at LL is the first time, either officially or unofficially, that this has been mentioned, to me at least. When I have asked previously, this info has never been divulged to me.

Whilst I welcome the "Gang of 3's" sensible provision of a paper backup (even if they have kept it a secret!), I shall be interested to see their explanation and solution as to exactly WHO will be responsible for the provision and dissemination of such info to the working ATCOs if/when EFPS fails. Also, a look at how this info is going to be presented to the ATCOs will also be worthwhile. (No strip bays in the new VCR - so post-it notes on the defunct screens, perhaps? :E)

Any ideas/info on this part of the master plan?

[hooplaa]

A proposal!

When the system was being developed/tested/taught/broken and fixed - not necessarily in any particular order - EGSS ran a series of FAQs (frequently asked questions), and gave answers in response. The majority of questions posed on this and similar threads on the NATS forum could be answered by getting hold of these nuggets of information. Ask your Ops department for a copy - they are only an email attachment away.

ps - to the moderator. Why do the threads on EFPS within the NATS forum keep disappearing within a day or two of responses being written? :suspect:

[LateLandingClearance]

exactly WHO will be responsible for the provision and dissemination of such info to the working ATCOs if/when EFPS fails

White Hart...

It saddens me to hear this sort of comment from, I guess, an operational ATSA. Have you heard of the principles of TRM?

In the, apparently vastly unlikely, event that EFPS should suffer a catastrophic failure, I'd like to think the last thing people in the VCR are doing is having a hastily arranged union meeting to decide who presses the "print strips" (or whatever) button on the laptop, then who passes those strips to whom. :rolleyes:

[Gonzo]

LLC,

Not wanting to hijack what he's said, I think the point that White Hart was making was that at the moment there are two ATSAs in the tower. In the new tower there is only provision for one. I think that getting strips out to five or maybe six ATCO positions in the event of a failure would be a challenge in that case.

[PPRuNe Radar]

ps - to the moderator. Why do the threads on EFPS within the NATS forum keep disappearing within a day or two of responses being written?

They don't. There is a thread there which was last added to on the 14th Jan and one where the last addition was 19th Jan.

There is probably a clue in the options you have set for PPRuNe. The bit about the number of days worth of postings you want displayed. :} If you have set this at 2 days (or less), then funnily enough they WILL disappear from your browser after a couple of days. ;) They are still there, just your preference setting is telling PPRuNe you don't want to view them :ok:

[LateLandingClearance]

Gonzo...
Seriously? Only one ATSA?
Having thought about it, though, I guess that's just the lighting op as you aren't doing met obs yourselves are you, unlike the rest of us. Is that how it plans to stay, still paying out for the met office chap(ess) to do them?

Even so, there's still going to be another downstairs who would be only a minute or two from being in the VCR, along with a small clutch of ATCOs on breaks. All hands to the pumps...

[White Hart]

LLC

The concept of TRM is familiar to me - problem is, when it comes to LL ATSAs, it is completely irrelevant - we're not included, and never have been.

Also, current ATSA 2s in the VCR - 2; in the new VCR - 1 responsible for SAMOS. Current ATSA 4s (L/Ops) in the VCR - 2; new VCR - 3, none of which will be doing SAMOS, nor paper strip support for the ATCOs in the event of EFPS failure.

My point was, as Gonzo has highlighted, was the fact that there will be no ATSA 2s in the new VCR to provide paper strip support. We will be doing SAMOS - we have not been included in any plans for the new VCR/EFPS in any other way. This is the current plan for ATSA reductions at LL - a reduction from 30 to a possible maximum of 15 on the Unit. What is going to happen to the other 15, God knows. There is no provision at present for office space below the new VCR, and the Flight Briefing Unit may no longer exist at LL after this date anyway.

Therefore, my observation remains - in the absence of ATSA 2 support, who will provide the manpower for paper strip contingency in the event of EFPS failure? And how is it going to be presented to the working ATCOs at their non-strip based workstations?

[Muppit]

Gatwick will become an ATSA 4 unit, with the LPO's doing met. But from what I've heard, Heathrow will have ATSA 4 LPO's and one ATSA 2.

What their job is going to be I'm not quite sure......?

[White Hart]

Who - the 4's or the 2's?

[LateLandingClearance]

White Hart, I'll use the phrase again - all hands to the pumps in an extreme situation.

Are you suggesting that the SAMOS ATSA2 will sit on their ar$e waiting for the next report to be due. While the operational situation is going through a major crisis, they will sit there and run the "not my job pal, I'm here for met obs" line. Meanwhile the guys on breaks will also stick their heads in the sand? :eek:

As Muppit says above, KK will be a unit without ATSA2s. Don't go crying on about how hard done by you are at LL. Those ATSA4s who at the time are observing the met, I have every confidence will step up if the need arises.

Makes me all the more glad to be working in a unit where the staff (ATCO & ATSA alike) are working as a team to provide our customers with the best possible service, even in the most difficult and unforseen circumstances.

(edit - anyway...we're getting well off the topic title now folks :) )

[Arkady]

LLC

White Hart is quite right to ask who will be RESPONSIBLE for disseminating the information in the event of a failure. It may not be the person actually performing the task - that's where the TRM comes in.

That each task is the responsibility of a defined person or persons is a fundamental part of Air Traffic. To use your own metaphor if "All hands are on the pumps" who's on the helm, keeping a lookout or fixing the leak?

[LateLandingClearance]

As per normal in these type of situations, the person with the "responsibility" will be the Watch Manager/Supervisor. To whom they actually delegate the task to in the event will have to be entrusted to them on their judgement as to what carries importance. I suspect any WM worth their pay packet would jump up, grab the met ATSA and inform them of their priority task to get distributing :ok: . Followed rapidly by a phone call to the rest-room to get any help they can.

Without meaning to get any LL people's back's up, I can't help but think that you're getting a bit bogged down in the nitty gritty of how specific unit instructions will be written for a piece of kit that is going to be installed in a VCR that is still in the process of being built. Remember that by the time you come anywhere near seeing the stuff, between SS & KK there will be something like 2-2 1/2 years of NATS operational experience behind the project. That's not including experience gained from NavCanada. Now, to my view, that's a pretty good soak test for any system to find how the semantics of instruction writing should be handled - don't you think? I'm sure lessons will be learnt by SS which will be acted on by KK, then both KK & SS will learn things that LL will take on board for their implementation. The main thing is that information will be shared - even if it's via this board (although my personal opinion is that technical issues raised about a piece of NATS equipment should be held in the private NATS forum). If information is shared through this board, then it's up to you LL guys present here to go and raise the point to the implemetation team at LL.

[White Hart]

LLC

Your point about sharing information is what is at the crux of the problem here - we (the EGLL ATCOs and ATSAs alike) are not party to all the information that is available about EFPS at this time (the laptop/printer for instance?). And yes, the idea of us acting on shared info received here on pprune is also reasonable - it's actually already happening at LL with regards to EFPS issues.

The problem we have locally is that we are not getting any answers back from our Project Team. That's why some of us are on here asking questions now, including myself - an ATSA 2. In any contingency plan, everybody needs to know exactly what they are responsible for, and what they should be doing - and that would include the ATSA 2s.

I shall treat your derogatory remarks about the LL ATSA 2s and our own issues with the contempt they deserve. So much for TRM .:*

[Point Seven]

Gonzo

It's about time I returned to the fray (Hello Jer).

1/. Ops do NOT presenrt things to you fait accompli. We can only do the best with what is given to us. WE DON'T get involved in porjects at their inception and the company has a method of buying off the shelf products BECAUSE THEY ARE CHEAPER rather that designing them. If we given rubbish we can't work the miracles that some operational staff seem to think that we can. I've changed my opininon of you and I think you're a good guy but sometimes my hands are just as tied as yours.

GT3

C' mon mate, give us a break. If we're getting on to the subject of work done then I do 20 days dper month....

Good to be back (missin ya Chris)

The mighty P7

[Jerricho]

Nice to see you back mate.

Pitty your spelling and punctuation haven't improved. ;)

[GT3]

C' mon mate, give us a break. If we're getting on to the subject of work done then I do 20 days dper month....


Comment not aimed at yourself or the man with pointed hair. More those whose faces i rarely see in the building.

[Gonzo]

Agree with GT3, I think we'd all concede (perhaps reluctantly:E ) that things have improved since you've gone down there.

If your hands are tied why not tell us all first, rather than waiting for a load of complaints and/or suggestions until saying nothing can be done? Sometimes it's more a factor of what's seen to be done rather than what is actually the case. If Ops are seen to be more 'open' then less criticism will come their way.

And a compliment too? Gosh :O

20 days a month? Does that include this past Sunday??? :E

[LateLandingClearance]

Hart,
I've read back through all my posts and still can't see a put down of LL 2's or their issues - excuse me if you've misread something that wasn't written well, but that's often the way with written forums.

[White Hart]

I understand that there is an EFPS meeting at LL on 14Feb. The LL ATSAs (4s & 2s) as yet do not appear to be invited to send any representatives, either from the Watches, Tech Comm, nor from PCS.

Is this the same arrangement at SS and KK at their EFPS meetings, or have ATSAs been invited to attend EFPS discussions?

[GT3]

WH, I dont believe this is an open to all meeting. I was told that I would have to ask the Hd Projects for persmission if I wanted to attend.

[White Hart]

GT3

I expected as much.:hmm:

[SilentHandover]

As an ATSA at KK we have been as involved in the implementation of EFPS as much as the ATCO's, if we've wanted to be.
Ops and training have given us all the time we want to look over the system and 'play' with it, have encouraged us to get involved and see how the system works, our opinions and ideas have been sought. Any questions we have had have been answered or taken on board and passed on.
The whole watch ATCO's and ATSA's were encouraged to visit SS to see the system in development before it went 'live' and are being encouraged to go back again now it is operational.
Now that operational training is beginning we are slightly less involved at this stage but we are to be involved more so again once our role in operating the system has been decided upon (creating runway crossing strips/ tug movements / overflights etc.)

If you feel you are being left out of the loop at LL I can only suggest you shout louder about wanting to be involved and stop whinging about lack of involvement on this board. As I suggested before spend your early go's with Ops and find out what is going on.

TTFN

[LateLandingClearance]

Is this the same arrangement at SS and KK at their EFPS meetings
Would depend on the meeting. It may not have any effect on yourselves. Could be discussions about schedule, hardware, anything. Without more info, I'd suggest not throwing your toys out of the pram because you haven't been given a personal invite:{

[White Hart]

Silent Handover

Pls chk yr PMs