PDA

View Full Version : What do you know about SACTA???


Vic Rattlehead
29th Aug 2006, 11:06
That's the question. What do you pedal guys know about SACTA???

PPRuNe Radar
29th Aug 2006, 11:13
SACTA

Sistema Automatio de Control del Trafico Aéreo (Automated Air Traffic Control System) integrating all ACC, TMA and Control Towers in a coordinated and automated manner.

This system has been conceived in close collaboration with Aena with a view to speeding up ATM procedures, allowing the capacity and flow of air traffic to be increased with maximum levels of safety.

SACTA is a unique system that integrates all Air Control Centres (ACC), Terminal Control Centres (TMA), Approach Control Centres (APP) and Airport Control Towers at national level, exchanging data with overseas systems by means of international standards. This makes the system an unarguable point of reference for the future "Single European Sky".

The fundamental elements of this system are the Flight Data Processing System (FDPS), the Surveillance Data Processing System (SDPS), the Meteorological and Aeronautical Information Processing System (AMIS), the Dynamic Support and Simulation Sub-systems (ADS), the Supervision Sub-system (SS) and the Voice Communications System (VCS).

More info here:

SACTA (http://www.indra.es/servlet/BlobServer?blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobwhere=1121970027795&blobcol=urldata&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=Content-disposition&blobheadervalue1=inline;filename=SACTA%20III%20engl.pdf)

Did I pass ???

Vic Rattlehead
29th Aug 2006, 11:25
Guess you deserve an A+ :D
What about its implementation throughout the UK???
Is it installed and running at any facility yet?

PPRuNe Radar
29th Aug 2006, 12:33
Not expected in the UK (operational) much before Winter 2010.

Development and training versions will appear before that in various locations (CTC near Southampton, Prestwick Centre, and Manchester Centre).

loubylou
29th Aug 2006, 14:11
Go to the top of the class and have yourself a gold star P RAD!!

louby

BDiONU
29th Aug 2006, 16:04
P RAD I'm very impressed, you get a big cigar :) I'm working on a bit of it at the moment.

BD

anotherthing
29th Aug 2006, 16:17
P Rad, you really do need to get out more!!

PPRuNe Radar
29th Aug 2006, 16:38
Google is your friend ..... :ok:

Plus I have used the system in a few simulations. It had a few failings but was easy to use and intuitive.

It will probably be a heap of crap once the NATS engineers get their hands on it and give us something they think we want instead of what we actually asked for. :(

Gonzo
29th Aug 2006, 16:45
For an extra ten points, Mr. Radar, can you tell me if SATCA will integrate with EFPS? :cool:

goldfrog
29th Aug 2006, 18:17
Google is your friend ..... :ok:

Plus I have used the system in a few simulations. It had a few failings but was easy to use and intuitive.

It will probably be a heap of crap once the NATS engineers get their hands on it and give us something they think we want instead of what we actually asked for. :(
As one of the NATS Engineers I can assure you we always try deliver what ATC asked for, if it was only what they wanted. I spend my life trying to get "the right answer" for what to deliver but ask 5 ATCOs get 6 opinions which will change the next time you ask!

PPRuNe Radar
29th Aug 2006, 18:53
Too true Goldfrog, but there does seem to be a juggernaut of an engineering empire building a head of steam on the CASPIAN project, many of whom I detect have their own personal agendas and ideas of what the project should be, ATC just being seen as a minor player and an irritant in their aspirations. Of course, it is incumbent on ATC to specify the system functionality they need correctly in the first place, so removing the ability of anyone to give us something which is not suited or wanted for the ATC task. There's a lot of work gone in to that part of the project so far, but I'd be a fool to claim we have everything 100% baselined and cast iron, not least because the aviation world is constantly getting busier, methods of operations are changing and evolving, as is technology.

There are some very clever and innovative people in NATS Engineering who should be at the forefront of helping adapt the things in SACTA for the benefit of their ATC colleagues (and ultimately the pilots and passengers they serve). But there's also some who always want to reinvent the wheel and tamper too much with something simply because it 'wasn't invented here'. So turning our Commercial Off The Shelf procurement policy in to a joke and once again ensuring that everything we get is of gold plated Rolls Royce status, along with the resultant massive time and resource costs that entails, when what the customer (be that ATC or airlines) wants is something which is simple, does the job, is cost effective, and is reliable.

Gonzo

If it speaks OLDI, it is compatible. If not, then I see the options are that EFPS/SACTA is adapted accordingly, or EFPS is junked :p

BDiONU
29th Aug 2006, 19:04
Too true Goldfrog, but there does seem to be a juggernaut of an engineering empire building a head of steam on the CASPIAN project, many of whom I detect have their own personal agendas and ideas of what the project should be, ATC just being seen as a minor player and an irritant in their aspirations. Of course, it is incumbent on ATC to specify the system functionality they need correctly in the first place, so removing the ability of anyone to give us something which is not suited or wanted for the ATC task.
Please don't think that this project is engineering driven or run because there are a lot of ATC people onside and on the project who want this to be ATC oriented.
what the customer (be that ATC or airlines) wants is something which is simple, does the job, is cost effective, and is reliable.
unfortunately what the ATC user perceives to be simple, does the job, is cheap etc. at the front end doesn't necessarily have the same aspects on the engineering side of the glass. Its always a compromise with the exception of safety.

BD

BEXIL160
30th Aug 2006, 10:49
there are a lot of ATC people onside and on the project who want this to be ATC oriented.


And how many are actually valid, currently operational ATC people from the whole spectrum of NATS ATCUs ?

I don't recall ANYONE on my watch (or the watches I spin with) being asked to get involved from the start.

History tells us that when projects go wrong in CAA / NATS it's because nobody asked the REAL end user what was required at the begining and called them for their opinions when it was too late to do anything.

BEX

BDiONU
30th Aug 2006, 10:54
And how many are actually valid, currently operational ATC people from the whole spectrum of NATS ATCUs ?
I don't recall ANYONE on my watch (or the watches I spin with) being asked to get involved from the start.
History tells us that when projects go wrong in CAA / NATS it's because nobody asked the REAL end user what was required at the begining and called them for their opinions when it was too late to do anything.
BEX
End users are being consulted at Manch, ScATCC, TC and AC. Slow start at LACC because of difficulties in getting people together.

BD

BEXIL160
30th Aug 2006, 11:38
Slow start at LACC because of difficulties in getting people together.
BD

No change there then... Unfortunately this lame excuse has been trotted out too many times before. It is also Truly indicative of managements very poor record of "commitment" to long term projects in favour of short term-ism.

History repeating itself?

BEX

BDiONU
30th Aug 2006, 12:54
No change there then... Unfortunately this lame excuse has been trotted out too many times before. It is also Truly indicative of managements very poor record of "commitment" to long term projects in favour of short term-ism.
I'm sorry Bex but I don't understand your carp. Its at least 6 years until this is due to be rolled out at Swanwick. There is time for the ATC 'need' to be ascertained and this is being done. CASPIAN1 will be rolled out at Prestwick first and whats learnt there will be incorporated in CASPIAN2 for Swanwick.

In my experience a difficulty with Swanwick is due to the focus on the introduction of iFACTS. This doesn't mean that the rest of the company is not trying its level best to deliver a product designed for the controllers. The workstation is already designed and as the processors will be remote they're more like simple desks than the bulky monsters currently in use.

BD

BEXIL160
30th Aug 2006, 22:57
Its at least 6 years until this is due to be rolled out at Swanwick. There is time for the ATC 'need' to be ascertained and this is being done.

Once again, History repeats itself. Virtually the self same justification was trotted out durring the NERC fiasco. The end user WAS NOT consulted at an early enough stage (i.e. the begining). The result? :ugh:

BTW we are STILL waiting for Departure CCTV in the Swanwick ops room, something many of us asked for durring the NERC development phase... but by the time any OPERATIONAL people got invloved it was all too late. I know, cos I was there.

It seems from an end users viewpoint that NATS project managers have learned very little......

I don't understand your carp. No change there then either :rolleyes:

BEX

vespasia
30th Aug 2006, 23:41
I was asked to look at SACTA versus EFPS for Tower suitability as an operational ATCO - and my views were listened to. I know NATS' reputation for not involving operational staff, but in this case I know they did!:D

vespasia
30th Aug 2006, 23:45
PS for Gonzo - I was told that it should integrate with EFPS without any problems!:ok:

BDiONU
31st Aug 2006, 05:43
Once again, History repeats itself. Virtually the self same justification was trotted out durring the NERC fiasco. The end user WAS NOT consulted at an early enough stage (i.e. the begining). The result? :ugh:
The result is a system (fully aided and abetted by the staff who operate it of course :) ) which moves a sight more traffic than West Drayton ever did or could.
I think your concern is more about how you're going to interface with the system than about what the wiggly amps are doing down the back. Lessons have been learnt since NERC and Human Factors are now involved every step of the way.
BTW we are STILL waiting for Departure CCTV in the Swanwick ops room, something many of us asked for durring the NERC development phase... but by the time any OPERATIONAL people got invloved it was all too late. I know, cos I was there.
So was I and we've had this debate before. It wasn't put in because a certain operational manager decided it wasn't required. Now you've been operating without it since 'O' date thus proving (to senior management) that you can do the job without it.
It seems from an end users viewpoint that NATS project managers have learned very little......
Over the next few years I sincerely hope you'll find that PM's have learnt a lot from the mistakes of NERC. The transition onto iFACTS should (I hope) give you the first indication that end user acceptance and buy in is very important to projects. This should be the stepping stone onto CASPIAN2/SACTA/iTEC.

BD

goldfrog
31st Aug 2006, 08:47
The other major problem with getting ATC buy-in is finding a concensus as to what is "right". I spend my life asking groups from ATC what they want but find great difficulty getting "the right answer" as there are invariably many wish lists which cannot be reconciled and a lack of leadership to select a solution.

BEXIL160
31st Aug 2006, 09:25
The result is a system (fully aided and abetted by the staff who operate it of course ) which moves a sight more traffic than West Drayton ever did or could.
.... and cost how much? and was how late? and still relies on NAS which is HOW old?

OTHER systems were available at much less cost and were proven, but would have mean junking NAS. Those same systems have been in use in Europe for some time now, and offer the unique facility (to NATS) that they don't have to be shut down on a weekly or monthly basis. Swanwick of course, isn't quite so advanced.

Lack of CCTV information has been implicated in safety related incidents since Swanwick opened (the latest last week) Lack of it has been cited in many incident investgations and yet it's still not provided. You seem to be saying that management think that this situation is acceptable beacuse MOST of the time we get by without it. Doesn't sound much to me like a committment to safety :rolleyes:

iFACTS does seem to be getting it right. It has had operational ATC people involved from the beginning.

The rest of the systems you mention have not (by your own admission). PM seems to be a bit hit and miss then.

LEADERSHIP, as goldfrog mentions is something that ATC sorely misses. The problem for NATS is that any leadership tends be stiffled by the current management because it doesn't fit "company style". Getting consensus can be very difficult among a group of controllers, they will however tell you as one, when you've got it wrong.

BEX

goldfrog
31st Aug 2006, 14:45
Getting consensus can be very difficult among a group of controllers, they will however tell you as one, when you've got it wrong.
BEX
And that's what makes being a project engineer so worthwhile and life enhancing!

ex-EGLL
31st Aug 2006, 15:15
Just make the PM a controller, so much more fun:uhoh:

BDiONU
31st Aug 2006, 18:41
.... and cost how much? and was how late? and still relies on NAS which is HOW old?
It cost however much building a new bespoke ATC platform cost, which is why SACTA/CASPIAN/iTEC is a colloborative project with AENA to share the costs :) . Only the senior management put about the ridiculous date, everyone on the project kept telling them it was not realistic. The original concept of NAS may be old but it is still doing the job, still being updated with all the airspace changes and coping with it all very well. There's a saying 'If it ain't broke then don't fix it'. Aside from that a new FDP system is going to cost an absolute mint, hence iTEC-eFDP which is another collaberative project which will share the costs.
OTHER systems were available at much less cost and were proven, but would have mean junking NAS.
This is your opinion and obviously not generally shared.
Lack of CCTV information has been implicated in safety related incidents since Swanwick opened (the latest last week) Lack of it has been cited in many incident investgations and yet it's still not provided. You seem to be saying that management think that this situation is acceptable beacuse MOST of the time we get by without it. Doesn't sound much to me like a committment to safety :rolleyes:
Management decision, management carry the can in the event of an SSE attributable to a lack of equipment which could have been foreseen. We've had this discussion already.
iFACTS does seem to be getting it right. It has had operational ATC people involved from the beginning.
Not from the beginning thats the domain of the engineers, don't think ATC would be interested or compenent to work out the wiggly amp bits. Yes there has been strong ATC input for over a year now, where we are in the ATC user phase but this has been around for about 4 years.
The rest of the systems you mention have not (by your own admission). PM seems to be a bit hit and miss then.
SACTA/CASPIAN/iTEC are approaching but not yet at the ATC input stage. When they reach that stage then you'll see just the same commitment as there is currently with iFACTS. Right now we are agreeing the ATC goals (formerly known as requirements) amongst the 4 ACC.
Getting consensus can be very difficult among a group of controllers, they will however tell you as one, when you've got it wrong.
600 controllers = 620 different answers ;)

BD

Minesapint
2nd Sep 2006, 11:03
:eek: One of the biggest problems I have working on a number of large projects around NATS, is convincing some elements of the engineering world that the ATC requirement is king. Big mistakes were made in the NERc project as the shutters went up and fingers plugged ears, there is an element of that in the CASPIAN project - not in the ATC side though. Seriously, if you have any questions concerning this then there are groups of people at Swanwick that can answer your questions, or refer you to people who can. I agree that ATC Ops are NOT involved early enough but exactly when is a really difficult call.

If SACTA cannot interface with EFPS I will be stunned!

Can SACTA meet the ATC requirement? Time will tell. Same answer for delivering on time :eek:

Minesapint
2nd Sep 2006, 11:06
BTW, completely agree with BDIONU, gather requirements for a new ATC system from ScACC and LACC and you would find that you need two completely different systems!!!! So, coming up with a common platform will not be easy! Even at LACC, if you get 5 controllers in a room and say "what do you think of this then?" you will get a minimum of 5 different answers..... Always been the same, will never change.

London Mil
2nd Sep 2006, 11:54
BTW, completely agree with BDIONU, gather requirements for a new ATC system from ScACC and LACC and you would find that you need two completely different systems!!!! So, coming up with a common platform will not be easy! Even at LACC, if you get 5 controllers in a room and say "what do you think of this then?" you will get a minimum of 5 different answers..... Always been the same, will never change.


..... and don't forget the TC guys:rolleyes:

BDiONU
2nd Sep 2006, 12:01
:eek: One of the biggest problems I have working on a number of large projects around NATS, is convincing some elements of the engineering world that the ATC requirement is king. Big mistakes were made in the NERc project as the shutters went up and fingers plugged ears, there is an element of that in the CASPIAN project - not in the ATC side though. Seriously, if you have any questions concerning this then there are groups of people at Swanwick that can answer your questions, or refer you to people who can.
Not many at Swanwick working on CASPIAN yet, their focus is iFACTS. Most of CASPIAN is with OS&D over at the CTC but I'm Swanwick based and doing some work for ATC User assurance, PM me if you've questions.

If SACTA cannot interface with EFPS I will be stunned! Not so much SACTA as the FDP system which is being worked under iTEC-eFDP.

Can SACTA meet the ATC requirement? Time will tell.
If it doesn't it won't be through lack of effort or trying by the ATC people directly involved in the project.

Same answer for delivering on time :eek:
No comment ;)

BD

BDiONU
2nd Sep 2006, 12:04
BTW, completely agree with BDIONU, gather requirements for a new ATC system from ScACC and LACC and you would find that you need two completely different systems!!!! So, coming up with a common platform will not be easy!
Ahem, not forgetting that this is also a collaberation with AENA and and it has to work for them as well. iTEC-eFDP is even more complex given the additional involvement of DFS.

BD

BDiONU
2nd Sep 2006, 12:06
..... and don't forget the TC guys:rolleyes:
Nope, they'll be included just the same as the other 3 current centres as we eventually get down to 2 centres on one common system and one FDP system. Of course the military will just have to take what they're given :E

BD

Minesapint
2nd Sep 2006, 13:42
Never forget TC := we treat all our customers with the same high quality of service :yuk: always polite :p never assuming :cool: and always ready to help/support :D
Implementing any new FDP system is a mammoth task, just look around Europe and see the fun they are having. There is one common thread - every ANSP is trying to do too much too quickly with dwindling resources. Some of the smaller service providers are having a big rethink and looking at what can be realistically achieved.
The NATS programme is suffed full for ever, at least working in the opsroom, and I know how challenging that is, you go home, usually on time and get reasonable breaks. Us "backroom boys" are paid less (usually :suspect: ) and tend to work the msot unsociable hours - ALL OF THEM! Does anyone in this area have just one job anymore? :ouch:

DFS will be introducing the Vaforit system in its UACC's

BDiONU
2nd Sep 2006, 15:06
DFS will be introducing the Vaforit system in its UACC's
But it doesn't include CORA yet does it?

BD

London Mil
2nd Sep 2006, 15:50
Of course the military will just have to take what they're given :E
BD

Usual third rate, "value for money", crap then. :*

BDiONU
2nd Sep 2006, 16:13
Usual third rate, "value for money", crap then. :*
At Swanwick LJAO have the same kit as Civil. LMARS are moving down into a shiny new Ops room and shiny new A&FC but the cunning plan is to bring LMARS into the AC Ops room as soon after Prestwick Centre goes live as possible. You will be assimilated!
FMARS will all be on the same kit as civil AC and will move onto SACTA/CASPIAN when AC does (and the same FDP system because EDDUS won't be supported), with TC to follow.
I was twisting your tail :E, the military are equally as important to NATS/NERL as AC/TC and Oceanic and the new contract makes that explicit. Have a read of the NATS MOD Team website (what I constructed ;)) on the intranet or the article in the latest Pulse. :)

BD

Gonzo
2nd Sep 2006, 20:04
Minesapint,

Can SACTA meet the ATC requirement?

EFPS doesn't, why should SACTA be any different? :}

BDiONU
2nd Sep 2006, 20:11
EFPS doesn't, why should SACTA be any different? :}
Who says that EFPS does not meet the user need? Gatwick seem very happy with it and its not in LL yet. Besides which SACTA is for area not aerodrome :}

BD

Gonzo
2nd Sep 2006, 20:30
As for other units it depends to whom one talks.

As for Heathrow, are you saying that we will only know if a piece of kit meets our requirement when it's installed and we're working it? Seriously?:confused:

Who says that EFPS does not meet the user need?
Those who should know, the ATCOs. :ugh:And especially the ATCO EFPS instructors.

And that answer would come from someone who had just played with it for 30 minutes in a classroom, or even just by reading about its 'features'. :yuk:

BDiONU
2nd Sep 2006, 20:50
As for other units it depends to whom one talks.
Of course! Ask 600 ATCO's about what they want you get 620 answers. I missed the visit to EGKK to look at EFPS but from what my workmates tell me its a resounding thumbs up.
As for Heathrow, are you saying that we will only know if a piece of kit meets our requirement when it's installed and we're working it? Seriously?:confused:
No not quite. What I'm saying is that there is always resistance to change, thats perfectly natural and a part of the human condition. God only knows we had enough of that when AC moved from West Drayton to Swanwick but after 3 months no one wanted to move back! Funny that! What the project teams try (very hard) to do is ensure it meets the need but its impossible to ascertain whether the need is met, in the real world, until its working with real controllers in the real world.

You can simulate and build scenarios as much as you like but that never ever achieves meeting the real world goal because different people use the system in subtly different ways. Not to mention that is is absolutely impossible for any one person, or even a whole team of people, to envisage every possible scenario and every possible circumstance that will challenge every new system or working practice.
Those who should know, the ATCOs. :ugh:And especially the ATCO EFPS instructors.
And that answer would come from someone who had just played with it for 30 minutes in a classroom, or even just by reading about its 'features'. :yuk:
I assume you're only talking about EGLL? So if there is such a HUGE level of concern I would assume that these people are feeding this back into the project? They're the only ones who can make the project aware of these perceived difficulties and ensure they go on the risk register.

Strangely enough project teams do not want to impose or force down your throats systems which patently don't work for the operational staff (Apart from anything else the business just wouldn't accept it). However what they do have to do is work out the fine dividing line between what is everyday bellyaching and carping about the change engendered by a new system and the real, concrete and measurable concerns that its not going to work operationally.

BD

goldfrog
2nd Sep 2006, 21:07
However what they do have to do is work out the fine dividing line between what is everyday bellyaching and carping about the change engendered by a new system and the real, concrete and measurable concerns that its not going to work operationally.

BD
I wish I had said that, in fact I probably will.

Minesapint
2nd Sep 2006, 21:10
I have been to Gatwick and asked the controllers two questions -
1. Do you like EFPS?
2. Would you prefer paper strips?
Answer 1 "Hell yes"
Answer 2 :mad:

They did say that Heathrow would need everything to be totally different :E

London Mil
2nd Sep 2006, 21:15
BD, I really didn't know i was about to be assimilated.:O Bit of trumpet blowing going on here?

Gonzo
2nd Sep 2006, 21:45
BD,

Of course! Ask 600 ATCO's about what they want you get 620 answers.
I'm not talking about 620 different answers, I'm talking about one of two answers. Yes or no. It depends on who you talk to, it also depends whether it's off the record, or more official, or if a manager is present. Even getting people to sign letters informing management of concerns gets difficult if some people have future aspirations for promotion. Oh, they agree with you in private, but don't want to damage their prospects. :ugh:

I have no problems with the project team in general. It is those 'in charge' who are more concerned with deadlines, budgets and their own workload rather than the ATC requirement and from that safety and service provsion, that I have a problem with.

You can simulate and build scenarios as much as you like but that never ever achieves meeting the real world goal because different people use the system in subtly different ways.
And what if the simulations show that the ATC requirements are not being met? Should we then dismiss them as simulations and see what happens in the real world?

So if there is such a HUGE level of concern I would assume that these people are feeding this back into the project? They're the only ones who can make the project aware of these perceived difficulties and ensure they go on the risk register.
We are. We have been doing that for, what, two years?

Firstly we were told we were being anti-change and that it was just lack of familiarity. Then we were told to wait until the start of our training in the sim and see what we felt then. Then we were told to wait until we got to level 2 (busier) in the sim, and see how we felt. Then we were told to wait until level 3 (even busier) in the sim, and see how we felt. Then we were told to wait until after our shadowing (following through real traffic and R/T in our new tower with EFPS) and see how we felt. Funny how we're still saying the same thing. Funny how EFPS instructors, like me, have now literally hundereds of hours using EFPS at Heathrow, and still we're told it's a lack of familiarity. Really funny. We've been laughing about it for two years. :ugh:

Check your PMs.

BDiONU
3rd Sep 2006, 05:18
BD, I really didn't know i was about to be assimilated.:O Bit of trumpet blowing going on here?
Thats the high level, wet finger-in-the-air, plan. No trumpet blowing, I'm just involved in a lot of different things.

BD

BDiONU
3rd Sep 2006, 05:26
BD,


I'm not talking about 620 different answers, I'm talking about one of two answers. Yes or no. It depends on who you talk to, it also depends whether it's off the record, or more official, or if a manager is present. Even getting people to sign letters informing management of concerns gets difficult if some people have future aspirations for promotion. Oh, they agree with you in private, but don't want to damage their prospects. :ugh:
Hhhhhmmmm. The culture in NSL must be very different to that in NERL where we openly encourage people to tell us the problems.
And what if the simulations show that the ATC requirements are not being met? Should we then dismiss them as simulations and see what happens in the real world?

Nope, we never do that. If its obvious that it doesn't work in the sim then its blindingly obvious that it won't work for real, so we fix it or come up with a valid workaround.


Firstly we were told we were being anti-change and that it was just lack of familiarity. Then we were told to wait until the start of our training in the sim and see what we felt then. Then we were told to wait until we got to level 2 (busier) in the sim, and see how we felt. Then we were told to wait until level 3 (even busier) in the sim, and see how we felt. Then we were told to wait until after our shadowing (following through real traffic and R/T in our new tower with EFPS) and see how we felt. Funny how we're still saying the same thing.
By the time you're shadowing its too late to change things.
Check your PMs.
Got it thanks, will reply later.


BD

BEXIL160
3rd Sep 2006, 14:22
Sorry can't let this pass...The culture in NSL must be very different to that in NERL where we openly encourage people to tell us the problems.


.... but then those problems are IGNORED in NERL because fixing them isn't expedient, or would mean some sort of delay or re-budget. Yes, I am am on the shop floor, not the fluffy world of the fourth floor, and that IS how it REALLY is.

All the claptrap about how NERL "listens" is just that, claptrap. Believe anything else and you are fooling yourself.

By the time you're shadowing its too late to change things. More b**locks. It's NEVER too late to stop a program and revert to what actually works. It does however put egg on the faces of those so important managers and that will never do, will it?:=

BEX

BDiONU
3rd Sep 2006, 14:51
Sorry can't let this pass...
.... but then those problems are IGNORED in NERL because fixing them isn't expedient, or would mean some sort of delay or re-budget. Yes, I am am on the shop floor, not the fluffy world of the fourth floor, and that IS how it REALLY is.
All the claptrap about how NERL "listens" is just that, claptrap. Believe anything else and you are fooling yourself.
I'm sorry Bexil but your view differs to mine and I'm working on several projets delivering to LACC. Lets take the example of the workstation upgrades which have literally just started but should have started in April. Delayed due to problems. I can't help but wonder if the NERC move has somewhat skewed your view?
More b**locks. It's NEVER too late to stop a program and revert to what actually works. It does however put egg on the faces of those so important managers and that will never do, will it?:=
It can be too late at times, in the case of actually going into shadow mode then it is too late IF you're going to meet the implementation schedule. There would be much more egg on managers faces if:
a) What was implemented didn't work.
and/or
b) What was implemented caused a service delivery impact which was ongoing (ie it was worse than the thing it replaced).

BD

BEXIL160
3rd Sep 2006, 16:42
So everything is rosy then?

then it is too late IF you're going to meet the implementation schedule.

But thats the point. If the kit is poor no-one seems to be taking any notice because of the drive to meet the schdedule, the thall shalt not miss schedule. No one seems to have the guts to pull the plug. See EFPS and EGLL.


I'm sorry Bexil but your view differs to mine and I'm working on several projects delivering to LACC. Yeah, well it would, wouldn't it. I'm a mere operational ATCO, and what would I know?

BTW was DATALAND on SIS one of yours? I'm guessing it was.

Rgds BEX

BDiONU
3rd Sep 2006, 16:59
So everything is rosy then?
Everything has a challenge and some projects are more challenging than others.
But thats the point. If the kit is poor no-one seems to be taking any notice because of the drive to meet the schdedule, the thall shalt not miss schedule. No one seems to have the guts to pull the plug. See EFPS and EGLL.
And if the kit proves to be poor in operation and the audit trail shows that management were aware of the deficiencies its those managers who will pay the price, quite literally for some as their bonuses will be lost. NATS is now more business focussed than its been in its entire history and there are professional business managers who won't tolerate poor implementation of projects just to meet a date. As witness iFACTS which has slipped a year now. So they could also lose their jobs as well as their bonus.

Yeah, well it would, wouldn't it. I'm a mere operational ATCO, and what would I know?
You know your job and your job, with the greatest respect, isn't in projects.
BTW was DATALAND on SIS one of yours? I'm guessing it was.

LOL! You've got a fixation on yea olde NERC project. Nothing to do with me but coincedentally I was talking about it with one of its authors last week. The problem with it was in its implementation. It was designed to be dynamic but SIS is a static system DOH! Thats why its so pathetic but by the time they realised that it was too late to take it out as would have required a change to the code, so it was left in.

BD

Vic Rattlehead
3rd Sep 2006, 17:26
Have any of you had the chance to visiting any of the spanish ACC and see SACTA fully operating on site?

Does this practice of visiting foreign locations exist on any of both directions (either ESP/UK or UK/ESP) ??

Rgds.

BDiONU
3rd Sep 2006, 17:39
Have any of you had the chance to visiting any of the spanish ACC and see SACTA fully operating on site?

Does this practice of visiting foreign locations exist on any of both directions (either ESP/UK or UK/ESP) ??

Yes to both questions :) NATS has a team in Espana on the Joint Venture and several Spanish controllers have seen the iFACTS demonstrator at Swanwick and participated in one of the simulations at Bournemouth.

BD

Numpo-Nigit
3rd Sep 2006, 18:48
What I'm saying is that there is always resistance to change, thats perfectly natural and a part of the human condition. God only knows we had enough of that when AC moved from West Drayton to Swanwick but after 3 months no one wanted to move back! Funny that!

BD

On just what do you base this statement? I recall no vote, questionnaire, or even informal dialogue. I suggest you have swallowed "the NATS management line" again, hook, line and sinker!!

Of course, we all know that there was never going to be such a vote. The option was never there, as the old ops room had been vandalised with indecent haste to prevent such embarrassing thoughts being aired.

Even if a vote had been held, there were so many factors which would have come into play that I suspect "going back" would not have been the winning option. By that stage most "shop floor" staff were so heartily sick and tired of the constant disruption to their lives that it was a relief to sit still, even in such an uncomfortable environment as Swanwick.

However, there was by no means 100% acceptance of the NATS vision of a better life. Why else would controllers who had been posted to the utopian Swanwick opt to return to old-fashioned West Drayton with such alacrity? Can it be a coincidence that nearly all of those operational staff "of a certain age" decided to take early retirement rather than enjoy a few more years of the glorious south-coast life-style, despite management pleas to stay on amidst long-term staff shortages?

I realise that there will be a few smirks, and a warm feeling that "the whingers have left", but, both on here and from my continuing contacts with serving members of staff, I have the distinct feeling that nothing has really changed in the implementation of new projects. It is still reminiscent of the first day of the Somme, where the Generals have a glorious vision of a "cake walk across no-man's land" and the PBI end up in the midst of the muck and bullets.

In the words of Black Adder, "Good luck everybody!".

NN

BDiONU
3rd Sep 2006, 19:34
On just what do you base this statement? I recall no vote, questionnaire, or even informal dialogue. I suggest you have swallowed "the NATS management line" again, hook, line and sinker!!

I was one of the HMI instructors during OCT and I was one of the helpdesk team post 'O' date. So I heard all the moans first hand, as if every difficulty was my fault personally. Approx 3 months after 'O' date as we were closing down the helpdesk I asked at least 60 controllers if they would move back to West Drayton, not a single one said yes. :bored:

BD

Numpo-Nigit
4th Sep 2006, 10:15
Approx 3 months after 'O' date as we were closing down the helpdesk I asked at least 60 controllers if they would move back to West Drayton, not a single one said yes
BD
"We asked sixty controllers ..."
"Our survey said ..."
Methinks you're confusing a user satisfaction survey with an episode of Family Fortunes. How apt!!! Perhaps NATS should employ Les Dennis as a project manager. At least he admits to being a comedian. :E

BDiONU
4th Sep 2006, 10:17
"We asked sixty controllers ..."
"Our survey said ..."
Methinks you're confusing a user satisfaction survey with an episode of Family Fortunes.
I personally asked people. Methinks you have an axe to grind but I'm not rising to your bait ;)

BD

BEXIL160
4th Sep 2006, 12:11
Okay BDINOU,

Since you seem to trot out the management line at EVERY opportunity, rather than REALITY that I, and my Operational colleagues, actually experience every working day, what projects has NATS absolutely completely screwed up in the last few years? Or is NATS asolutely perfect?

Ref the closure of the help desk. People just got fed up with being told "it can't be changed". Try not to confuse users resignation at being stuck with less than good system, with user acceptance..... or are you gonna carry on fooling yourself? (No change there then)

BEX

BDiONU
4th Sep 2006, 14:33
Okay BDINOU,
Since you seem to trot out the management line at EVERY opportunity, rather than REALITY that I, and my Operational colleagues, actually experience every working day, what projects has NATS absolutely completely screwed up in the last few years? Or is NATS asolutely perfect?
Ref the closure of the help desk. People just got fed up with being told "it can't be changed". Try not to confuse users resignation at being stuck with less than good system, with user acceptance..... or are you gonna carry on fooling yourself? (No change there then)
BEX
Sigh. Yes Bex you're absolutely correct, projects are dreadful, they never deliver anything workable, things have gone totally downhill since the move from West Drayton and monitoring values have halved. We should sack everyone connected with a project and carry on in the good old traditional ways. We're doomed Captain Mainwaring! Doomed I'm telling yea!!

BD

BEXIL160
4th Sep 2006, 16:48
Too tough a question for you was it?

BEX

goldfrog
4th Sep 2006, 19:44
Too tough a question for you was it?

BEX
I expect BD just gave up an un-winnable argument, I'm on his side after trying and suceeding in delivering projects in NATS. The only common thread is you can't satisfy all the people all the time, and ATC will whinge incessantly whatever you do to meet their wishes.

BEXIL160
5th Sep 2006, 07:13
.... But there have been project that ended up complete cock ups haven't there? That's what BD is trying to avoid answering.

I'm all for trumpeting successes, but that has to be temepred by the admission that quite often it goes badly wrong. I don't very much like the "everything in the garden is rosy" propoganda put out by BDIONU and management. I prefer reality.

Now if BD had said yep, this project or that project was a heap of c**p, but we've learned from it and were not doing anything that like again, that would be a result. Instead we're treated to the same old claptrap.

BEX

yesspam
5th Sep 2006, 20:15
And how many are actually valid, currently operational ATC people from the whole spectrum of NATS ATCUs ?

I don't recall ANYONE on my watch (or the watches I spin with) being asked to get involved from the start.

History tells us that when projects go wrong in CAA / NATS it's because nobody asked the REAL end user what was required at the begining and called them for their opinions when it was too late to do anything.


BEX

ATC requirements should always be based both on the REAL end users current system, and forecast future needs. Some operational staff simply won't say what they think until they can get their hands on an advanced version that is close to the final system, and that they can actually use. Ask them too early, and they simply don't have the system knowledge to give a useful answer. (If they give an answer at all.) Of course, early evaluation, and early feedback must be done, and projects will take notice of what is said, but there are staff who simply won't get interested until it is too late in the day for them to have any real influence on what is in the final system.

ATC project staff pray for operational staff, who will make the effort to get involved, and not only give their opinion, but just as importantly, listen to the background as to why project decisions have been made, and who can help make hard choices about change. Those who make the effort will be listened to. Sometimes, unfortunately, it's just a case of 'show me how it works, so that I can tell you where you have gone wrong.'
The interaction between project staff, and operational users must be a two way one, and I am often astounded by the hard work, and effort that is put in, by those who do get involved, both by operational, and non operational staff.

:cool:

BEXIL160
6th Sep 2006, 09:58
Wise words, and I agree with them....

Ahem, the problem is whilst some of us "operational people" would very much like to get involved at an early stage, we are being prevented from doing so.

Rgds BEX

Gonzo
6th Sep 2006, 10:18
That's true BEX,

And you know what? The one peice of kit that operational ATCOs have been involved with from day one at my unit looks to be absolutely cracking, it apears to do everything we want it to do, and will be a considerable improvement on the kit it's replacing.

There's more: Allowing the operational ATCOs to have more 'ownership' of the project, means that it is not being going operational until it's working at 100%. One would think that would be a stipulation for every project, of course, but oh no! :ugh:

yesspam, in the early stages of the project to which I refer, some ATCOs were sent on the same training courses set up by the manufacturer as our own engineers and project managers. Enlightened thinking by someone there. Allows us all to understand the capabilities and limitations. It also allows the project to be aiming towards ATC requirements as the priority.

BDiONU
6th Sep 2006, 20:50
.... But there have been project that ended up complete cock ups haven't there? That's what BD is trying to avoid answering.

BD has been away in Manchester and Prestwick working out user requirements for the SACTA system. Only just got home, which is why I've not replied earlier. I'm not aware of any project that was totally useless, apart from OPM at Swanwick perhaps ;) Oh and Livelink :yuk:

BD

BEXIL160
6th Sep 2006, 21:30
I'm not aware of any project that was totally useless, apart from OPM at Swanwick perhaps Oh and Livelink

Contradiction in terms. think harder.

Bex

Gonzo
6th Sep 2006, 21:34
I'm not aware of any project that was totally useless, apart from OPM at Swanwick perhaps ;) Oh and Livelink :yuk:

I can give you a list of five or six, or are we just talking NERL here?

Minesapint
6th Sep 2006, 22:14
Yesspam, totally agree about the "pray for operationally valid staff to get involved" and I do think that there is far too much of an engineering solution presented to ATC when its too late. However, how many operational ATC staff posess the project and detailed FDP systems knowledge? There is no simple formula, its a mix!

SACTA in 2010, yeah right - now where is my flying pig................... :E Actually my flying pig is probably looking for a working iTEC!

The current method of managing projects does not seem to work.

Minesapint
6th Sep 2006, 22:18
EFPS seems good to excellent.
NAS upgrade - most resilient NAS has ever been.
Most if not all adaptation deliveries seem spot on
Swanwick must be a success as it shifts more traffic than anywhere else
LTCC is a ^%$&*&g excellent busy unit with a fantastic Mode S toy - first in the world - well done!

SACTA - er no
iTEC - er less

what have I missed?

ex-EGLL
6th Sep 2006, 23:01
Yesspam, totally agree about the "pray for operationally valid staff to get involved" and I do think that there is far too much of an engineering solution presented to ATC when its too late. However, how many operational ATC staff posess the project and detailed FDP systems knowledge? There is no simple formula, its a mix!
SACTA in 2010, yeah right - now where is my flying pig................... :E Actually my flying pig is probably looking for a working iTEC!
The current method of managing projects does not seem to work.

This is a two way street; absolutely, current operationally valid staff (not has beens) need to be involved from a projects inception, but also the PM and Engineering staff should also be treated to a few weeks in an Operational Environment. This would stop a lot of the silly "why do you do it this way, it would be a lot better if you did it that way" dialogue that occurs. Often "that way" is perfectly logical in the eyes of an Engineer, but absolute [email protected] from an Operational viewpoint.


Never did get a bite on msg#23:{

ex-egll

BDiONU
7th Sep 2006, 05:51
Contradiction in terms. think harder.
You're obviously thinking of something specific, so turn the stone and put a finer edge on that axe. Which projects, in your opinion, have been total abject failures?

BD

BDiONU
7th Sep 2006, 05:55
SACTA in 2010, yeah right - now where is my flying pig................... :E Actually my flying pig is probably looking for a working iTEC!
As the Spanish seem to be retreating from any hint of collaboration we could go direct to INDRA and have SACTA in time for PC ;) As for FDP we could buy the version DFS are working on with INDRA ;) There's a common thread developing here that doesn't include the letters L or M ;)


BD

Gonzo
7th Sep 2006, 05:56
EFPS at Heathrow :yuk:
New ASMGCS at Heathrow :yuk:
RIMCAS at Heathrow :yuk:
VCCS at Heathrow :yuk:
OPM at Heathrow :yuk:
New ATM at Heathrow :yuk:
AFDAS GP at Heathrow :yuk:
AGLCS at Heathrow :yuk:

Anymore for anymore?

Actually, there must be one consistent factor in all these projects...........Damn, what can it be???

London Mil
7th Sep 2006, 06:55
EFPS at Heathrow :yuk:
New ASMGCS at Heathrow :yuk:
RIMCAS at Heathrow :yuk:
VCCS at Heathrow :yuk:
OPM at Heathrow :yuk:
New ATM at Heathrow :yuk:
AFDAS GP at Heathrow :yuk:
AGLCS at Heathrow :yuk:

Anymore for anymore?

Actually, there must be one consistent factor in all these projects...........Damn, what can it be???



New radars are really good ::mad: :mad: :mad: Better off with a Type 82................

Vic Rattlehead
7th Sep 2006, 08:40
As the Spanish seem to be retreating from any hint of collaboration we could go direct to INDRA and have SACTA in time for PC ;) As for FDP we could buy the version DFS are working on with INDRA ;) There's a common thread developing here that doesn't include the letters L or M ;)


BD

What do you mean 'the Spanish seem to be retreating' and 'we could go direct to INDRA'??
Can you be more explicit??

Rgds.

BEXIL160
7th Sep 2006, 14:31
BD...

You've mentioned two failures (and how many project or other managers were retrained / redeployed / sacked after them? I'd be very supprised if anyome carried the can)

Try SIS. It does not have the functionality of the CCTV system or canopy maps it has replaced. A waste. It's not possible to even search it unless you know EXACTLY what you're looking for.

TLPD... Not really fit for purpose, is it? Named as a causal factor in how many incidents so far?

There may a misconception . Swanwick "works" because of the LArge number of operational people that make it work, not the electronic vagaries that we've all learned to live with.

It has always been protrayed as a glowing success. Repeat it often enough and some people start to believe that fiction.

Do the electronic coordinations (as they have been since Jan02) REALLY help us handle more traffic?

I wonder what would have happened if we were able to use the NERC Screens, with a mini strip board, and instead of a Planner, put a CSC in the seat to do all the non standing agreement co-ordination, leaving level plannin to the ASC? (luxury, One CSC to One SC)

Labour intensive? No more so than Swanwick is now. Cost? MUCH MUCH MUCH cheaper and very little risk.

Swanwick was very late, way, way over budget, badly managed right up until opening and still doesn't meet the end users needs.

So, one of the biggest f**k ups of all time. I give you the NERC project, which I am forced to use on a daily basis (except when there's a shut down, or DDand C....How many other centres SHUT down in EUR every weeK? .:ugh: )

Rgds BEX

BDiONU
7th Sep 2006, 14:32
What do you mean 'the Spanish seem to be retreating' and 'we could go direct to INDRA'??
Can you be more explicit??
I could be but that would be somewhat indelicate right now on a forum open to the whole world.

BD

Minesapint
7th Sep 2006, 15:23
One has to ask is the problem with projects or with - dare I say it - Heathrow ATC :eek:

Germany are implementing Vaforit in their upper area ACC's, that is the Spanish system with a liberal sprinkling of Raytheon - very good apparently. The question I still have is how/when to replace TC. Do we do it after LACC, same time, before? After and TC will still be on Node/NAS in the middle of another FDP system, before - reverse, same time - EEK.

Ex EGLL - I totaLLY agree with you, current valid controllers on project teams BEFORE the engineering fait accompli (I bet I didn't spell that correctly but we are ATC so who cares :ooh: ). There are FAR too many engineering solutions 'presented' and then the arguments start - 'what's wrong with it then, on;y cost £127,000,000 mate!

BDiONU
7th Sep 2006, 15:29
BD...
You've mentioned two failures (and how many project or other managers were retrained / redeployed / sacked after them? I'd be very supprised if anyome carried the can)
NATS and NERL are a business someone is held accountable.
Try SIS. It does not have the functionality of the CCTV system or canopy maps it has replaced. A waste. It's not possible to even search it unless you know EXACTLY what you're looking for.
Built before we had the internet browsers we have today, if only that technology was available then you'd have a similar system. Its going to be replaced by nSIS but not until CASPIAN.
TLPD... Not really fit for purpose, is it? Named as a causal factor in how many incidents so far?
TLPD is a casual factor or the FACT that the user is not using it as they should be?
It has always been protrayed as a glowing success. Repeat it often enough and some people start to believe that fiction.
Do the electronic coordinations (as they have been since Jan02) REALLY help us handle more traffic?
Well with monitor values up 50% on West Drayton, delays down, SSE's down etc. etc. and a centre moving more traffic than anywhere else in Europe I personally would say its a resounding success.

So, one of the biggest f**k ups of all time. I give you the NERC project, A marvellous success for the reasons above :)
which I am forced to use on a daily basis
No ones forcing you to work there. You can always resign ;)

BD

BEXIL160
7th Sep 2006, 16:38
NATS and NERL are a business someone is held accountable
A nice bland statement. Who then?

Well with monitor values up 50% on West Drayton, delays down, SSE's down etc

Both incorrect statements.... Overloads of course are UP. (WD had no MVs, but did have TSFs). Night staffing at Swanwick requires more people, not less. Hence regular sector closures when sickness happens. Didn't happen at WD.

SIS...Built before we had the internet browsers we have today. WRONG. IE was released in 1995 .Google fully available 1999. NERC opened 2002. (no attempt to ditch SIS).

TLPD is a casual factor or the FACT that the user is not using it as they should be?

Nope, TLPD has been WRONG. It has also given warnings after the event. A bit like GPWS going off AFTER the a/c has hit the ground.

Please answer the question. If NERC is so wonderfully advanced, how come it has to shut down so often? Colleagues at BREST/ BRUSSELS/ AMSTERDAM/ MAASTRICHT would all like to know.

No ones forcing you to work there. You can always resign

A course that I (and others) may well take in the near future. NATS isn't the only ATC provider, nor is it a regulator. CAA SRG is in the market for a few NATS Savvy ATCOs, as are Antipodean Providers in the Land of the long white cloud.

I know of no-one who isn't leaving, or retiring as soon as they can financially. The garden is not all that rosy.

Of course, NATS could start being HONEST about successes, as well as failures. It COULD start getting operational staff involved inprojects from the begining and engineers on the ops room floor..... but I'm not holding my breath as Empires have been constructed. It's certainly not happening right now, despite the propoganda.

Bst rgds
BEX

BDiONU
7th Sep 2006, 17:12
A nice bland statement. Who then?
Whomever is accountable :)
Both incorrect statements.... Overloads of course are UP. (WD had no MVs, but did have TSFs).
But do they invariably lead to an SSE?
SIS.... WRONG. IE was released in 1995 .Google fully available 1999. NERC opened 2002. (no attempt to ditch SIS).
SIS is integral to the NERC system to remove/replace it would be a very large change, particularly if it were at a very late stage in the development of the NERC system. A stable system was required for testing to give assurance that it was fit for purpose long before it was required to conduct OCT.
Additionally if you expect to have cutting edge technology introduced in every project then nothing would ever get completed because technology changes all the time.
Nope, TLPD has been WRONG. It has also given warnings after the event.
However you must surely know which managers are currently subject to warnings because of recent overload? Hint: they don't work outside of the Ops room.
Please answer the question. If NERC is so wonderfully advanced, how come it has to shut down so often? Colleagues at BREST/ BRUSSELS/ AMSTERDAM/ MAASTRICHT would all like to know.
Its been explained often enough. Thats the solution which was implemented despite the ATC element wanting to do upgrades without having to switch the system off. The other solution was vastly more expensive.

BD

Minesapint
7th Sep 2006, 19:32
One point worth considering concerning the number of shutdowns/DD&C is conntected to the rate of systems change, which is simply phenominal. You want to upgrade something you gotta shut it down.

To quote a colleague who works there the Maastricht system is "garbage"; again for France, Merde! Guys, you ops controllers are all the same! You do a terrific job but FDP is as much of a job as being a controller - its ^&%$)(g complicated stuff. When a system does not meet your needs offer to make it better, suggest improvements. If 'management' won't let you - write to the chief exec and let him know.......... If he fails to listen then we are doomed!

I like what (I have heard) the Swiss are doing. They are chopping their change programme down to a managable level comensurate with their available resources. What a wonderful idea! If NATS did that we could go back to having one job each instead of my current four! :rolleyes: :=

Plumaveloz
21st Sep 2006, 22:02
I work with the SACTA everyday. If you have any practical questions, I may help, but I am not a technician, just an ATC whith basic software/hardware knowledge.

Regards from the sun, :}

Á.

PD. By the way, I like the system. We have two nights ago changed (at the same time in the whole country besides Canary Islands !) from version 3.4 to 3.5, and there were some local problems, but worked well.

One pic:

http://www.plumaveloz.com/Archivos%20varios/Focucs_archivos/image002.jpg

Sonnendec
22nd Sep 2006, 00:31
besides Canary Islands !) from version 3.4 to 3.5


...because we already had the 3.5 version installed in Canarias, Angel :E

Best regards.

Plumaveloz
22nd Sep 2006, 00:36
...because we already had the 3.5 version installed in Canarias, Angel :E
Best regards.

I knew it. You told me :}

Besos compi.

Á.

London Mil
29th Sep 2006, 10:41
As the Spanish seem to be retreating from any hint of collaboration we could go direct to INDRA and have SACTA in time for PC ;) As for FDP we could buy the version DFS are working on with INDRA ;) There's a common thread developing here that doesn't include the letters L or M ;)
BD


I just love optimism. In the meantime, I'm quite happy with the stuff we already have.

Minesapint
30th Sep 2006, 09:14
I know about SACTA - its boned!!!

London Mil
30th Sep 2006, 09:20
I know about SACTA - its boned!!!


Sorry, I thought that there had only been an adjustment to the 'roadmap'.

Minesapint
30th Sep 2006, 09:42
Yup, adjusted so much its boned ... Maybe another system for Prestwick, now what's it called again :E

London Mil
30th Sep 2006, 09:54
Is is NAS, EDDUS or both.......?

AyrTC
30th Sep 2006, 10:25
At least when the Manch boys ( and girls ) come to PC they wont have to learn a new system because they will be bringing their old one with them:ok:

Well done NATS. ATC in the 21st Century.

Can we have the locus 16 back please????:mad:

AyrTC

Minesapint
30th Sep 2006, 15:29
NAS is round 33 years old - if you take the original. Its in 21 (I think?) centres in the USA and has been continually developed to deal with the busiest airspace in the world.

SACTA is 20 years old and has not.

That is why its boned.

Its a bit competing in the Porshe GT series in a Mondeo diesel. :ok:

BALIX
30th Sep 2006, 21:49
Love the way that our earstwhile managers have tried to put a positive spin on it - this is good news as the Manchester boys won't have the stress of retraining to add to the stress of moving 200 miles north.

If I were a Manchester controller, I'd be seething - not only would I have to move somewhere I would rather not be but when I got there I'd be using the same old pishy equipment that I'd left behind. So what exactly is the point of moving?

Still, we are told the canteen will be nice :ugh:

BDiONU
1st Oct 2006, 12:10
Is is NAS, EDDUS or both.......?
FDP through NAS Midi (eliminates the shelf problem), Scottish Mil will probably now get EDDUS, RDP through node. Nice shiny new kit though, workstations and flat screens ;)

BD

Minesapint
1st Oct 2006, 14:52
Be interesting to see what the airspace design will look like, the shelf may be retained but managed differenly in system terms.

Stupendous Man
2nd Oct 2006, 11:07
NATS and NERL are a business someone is held accountable.
BD

I look forward to the announcements about who is being held accountable over this farce. If any ATCO/ATSA did their job as badly as the people running this we'd be out on our arses.
Brand new flagship centre - one half of NATS' 2 centre strategy and we get to use archaic equipment. :* :* :*

London Mil
2nd Oct 2006, 11:12
It may be archaic, but from a mil perspective we quite like NAS/EDDUS ;) . Does this mean we will still have to go 'sectorised'? Great for civil ops but a right royal pain in the more 'unpredictable' military environment.

Stupendous Man
2nd Oct 2006, 11:33
I meant archaic as in old suites, displays and equipment. How long has that kit been at TC?

Sadly it'll still be better than the stuff we have to use at Scottish at the minute (costs too much to use anything from the 1980s onwards you see - especially when we are getting a nice shiny new building and equipment therein......oops).

Still at least we'll all feel valued and recognised when we get our hand-me-downs sent up in an aid parcel.

And what are the plans for the future? Or are we going to be left with the TC/MACC kit??

BALIX
2nd Oct 2006, 13:27
Not so sure it is any better than what we've got at Scottish at the moment. Sure, the size of the display is better than the dreadful Skyline displays we have but I'd rather see the new place equiped with the BARCO displays we have on the TMA and Deancross. They are more user friendly than the Node displays for a start.

Still, that's progress for you...

BDiONU
2nd Oct 2006, 13:30
I meant archaic as in old suites, displays and equipment. How long has that kit been at TC?
Sadly it'll still be better than the stuff we have to use at Scottish at the minute (costs too much to use anything from the 1980s onwards you see - especially when we are getting a nice shiny new building and equipment therein......oops).
Still at least we'll all feel valued and recognised when we get our hand-me-downs sent up in an aid parcel.
And what are the plans for the future? Or are we going to be left with the TC/MACC kit??
Uuummm, its the wiggly amp bit behind the glass which will remain the same in PC. For the ATC user you'll have the new workstations which have large flat screens for the radar and smaller flat ones for auxiliary information. New voice comms interface, new support information systems etc. For ATC it'll Essentially be all new, you can see a prototype of the workstation with all its displays,strip printer etc at Prestwick. Not sure why people think that old equipment from previous units would be re-used.

BD

London Mil
2nd Oct 2006, 13:42
BD, I suppose the real question should be - does the change of system affect the manner in which we will do business? Certainly for the military, SATCA was going to generate a new CONOPs/MOPs; will this have to be re-visited?

BDiONU
2nd Oct 2006, 13:48
I'd rather see the new place equiped with the BARCO displays we have on the TMA and Deancross. They are more user friendly than the Node displays for a start.
Still, that's progress for you...
But you will have the new displays, node is to do with the radar processing, LACC uses node and are upgrading to new screens.

BD

BDiONU
2nd Oct 2006, 13:51
BD, I suppose the real question should be - does the change of system affect the manner in which we will do business? Certainly for the military, SATCA was going to generate a new CONOPs/MOPs; will this have to be re-visited?
I dare say, bit too early to know exactly how things are going to be different. At least you should now get EDDUS in ScOACC :)

BD

BDiONU
2nd Oct 2006, 13:54
I look forward to the announcements about who is being held accountable over this farce. If any ATCO/ATSA did their job as badly as the people running this we'd be out on our arses.
The answer is quite political.
Brand new flagship centre - one half of NATS' 2 centre strategy and we get to use archaic equipment. :* :* :*
Why do you think that? You'll have all the new shiny Gucci kit and the wiggly amp bits will be the same as LACC/TC will be using.

BD

Stupendous Man
2nd Oct 2006, 14:24
For ATC it'll Essentially be all new, you can see a prototype of the workstation with all its displays,strip printer etc at Prestwick. Not sure why people think that old equipment from previous units would be re-used.
BD

Well certainly guys at MACC and other people at Scottish seem to think that when TC moves to LACC we'll be getting their kit.

Minesapint
2nd Oct 2006, 15:03
In my opinion the 'old' part of NAS is the ATC interface. New NODE displays with VSL and SFL (Mode S thingies in use at TC), electronic strippery etc and you will not even know that you are talking to NAS at all.

Like I said, NAS is older than SACTA but streets ahead in usability in very complex airspace, flexibility and upgradability.

Will heads roll over this cock up, rumoured to have cost £130M? I doubt it. Chances are that they will be "re-deployed" so that they can make the same expensive mess all over again, and that will be the third time for some of them! :mad: :mad: :mad:

BDiONU
2nd Oct 2006, 15:53
Well certainly guys at MACC and other people at Scottish seem to think that when TC moves to LACC we'll be getting their kit.
Thats really not feasible. Never mind the age of the kit in TC (which means its much more likely to break if its moved) or the lack of spares and maintainability it just wouldn't make sense. The Ops room should be configured as it will be for when SACTA (or whatever) comes in. It would be impossible to replace something with the new workstations then, it has to be done when the Ops room is built (and wired up).
Sounds like someone has the wrong end of the stick and the rumour mill is spreading it.

BD

Minesapint
2nd Oct 2006, 16:20
Above is true but there is probably some bean counter out there trying to make a name for themselves :mad:

I expect the same kit that TC is moving onto with VSL etc - nothing less! Rumour is that TC may be getting electronic strips in 2011(?) Add that to your shopping list!

Stupendous Man
2nd Oct 2006, 17:28
Sounds like someone has the wrong end of the stick and the rumour mill is spreading it.
BD

Fair enough - and I stand corrected.
Its obviously an emotive issue amongst the troops - and yet again there is a lack of communication with regard to the impact this is going to have - good or bad.

But I'd still like to know is whoever has been in charge going to be held accountable for this........

BDiONU
2nd Oct 2006, 17:47
Fair enough - and I stand corrected.
Its obviously an emotive issue amongst the troops - and yet again there is a lack of communication with regard to the impact this is going to have - good or bad.
Probably 'the management' were too busy wondering how to word the statement to think about how what they've said will be implemented. I'd hope that more positive info would be disseminated as soon as, but knowing how details get overlooked.....
But I'd still like to know is whoever has been in charge going to be held accountable for this........
As I say its political and you'd need to look outside of UK.

BD

Spamcan defender
3rd Oct 2006, 14:30
http://www.plumaveloz.com/Archivos%20varios/Focucs_archivos/image002.jpg

OMG!!, thats not a weather radar overlay is it :ooh: :ooh: :ooh: :ooh: :ooh: . I'd give my right arm (OK, my left as I write with my right :) ) for some of that in TC!!!.
Why is it that everyone else gets the nice toys :{ :{ :{ .

:p

Spamcan

London Mil
3rd Oct 2006, 15:00
It might be a wx overlay but the whole workstation looks like a dogs dinner!:hmm:

Gonzo
3rd Oct 2006, 15:35
Looks a lot better than our new tower positions!

Minesapint
3rd Oct 2006, 15:38
I suppose that the difference is that what they are getting works :E

Air.Farce.1
4th Oct 2006, 15:43
Look on the bright side, the ATSA's will probably have a job for the next 10 years. Moral at Scottish has improved no end, and "Spanish night out" p*ss ups are being organised!
We might not have the new toys in PC, but at least the ATSA staff will have jobs.
Just wondering how we should make use of all those Spanish lessons we had at Scottish , :O :O
I know, we could become waiters in the wonderful New Canteen (target date May '07 )
:D :D
Viva Espana :}

Minesapint
4th Oct 2006, 16:39
:= To me it looks like people continually forgot things and added them later, its a real mess.

Air.Farce.1
4th Oct 2006, 17:17
:} The answer is quite political.
Why do you think that? You'll have all the new shiny Gucci kit and the wiggly amp bits will be the same as LACC/TC will be using.
BD
As a NATS shareholder, should I not be informed as to whom is responsible for this mess! :ugh:
ps
does anyone want to buy my shares :} :}

DisplayMan
15th Nov 2006, 16:34
It might be a wx overlay but the whole workstation looks like a dogs dinner!:hmm:
The photo does look like a dogs dinner but the workstations look not so bad in reality...
Having said that, I think the desk-stype positions planed for NP are rather better :cool: but that it is only my opinion and I am sure that some will rubbish them.

London Mil
5th Dec 2006, 06:41
In terms of our relationship with Aena, NATS will now not be proceeding with the Joint Venture to develop SACTA under its original format. However, we continue to explore areas of mutual interest for collaborative product development.

The King is dead, long live the King.

ER_BN
11th Dec 2006, 18:24
The King is dead, long live the King.

London MIL,

From a galaxy far far away, but having looked at the SACTA functionality I could read into this you are saying NATS/AENA SACTA ain't happening.

Can you or anyone else in the "local cluster" confirm exactly??

Thanks,

ER_BN

Minesapint
11th Dec 2006, 19:56
I have heard plan B...... Ye gods will they never learn! Well, to answer my own question - NO. They have had two goes at this (yes 2) and have now been given a third. The current plan is 'challenging' to say the very least.:uhoh:

Minesapint
11th Dec 2006, 19:58
I have heard plan B...... Ye gods will they never learn! Well, to answer my own question - NO. They have had two goes at this (yes 2) and have now been given a third. The current plan is 'challenging' to say the very least.:uhoh: London Mil means that we are looking to Indra amd a fictional system called iTEC, not AENA.

BDiONU
12th Dec 2006, 07:38
London Mil means that we are looking to Indra amd a fictional system called iTEC, not AENA.
iTEC is the future Mr Pint, the Tiger (or is that Tigger? ggggrrooowwwlll) teams say that a complete FDP replacement for NAS can be specified, designed, built, tested and implemented by 2011. Who are we to question their joint wisdom?

BD

Minesapint
12th Dec 2006, 18:19
Absoloutely correct. I have every confidence in the project and remain totally convinced that iTEC will be delivered on time and to budget. Possibly even ahead of time. :cool:

BDiONU
12th Dec 2006, 18:27
Absolutely correct. I have every confidence in the project and remain totally convinced that iTEC will be delivered on time and to budget. Possibly even ahead of time. :cool:
Excellent! Glad to see that you've had your loyalty pill :) iTEC is the future, I've had a demo and its remarkable.

BD

Minesapint
12th Dec 2006, 19:13
I didn't take the bottle!!

I trust it was the usual standalone simulation with a fancy display, no radar, no FDP. I can't wait.:mad:

To add... I think that iTEC is a suped up vaforit. vaforit (to me) was a terrific system when I saw a REAL one recently. I don't doubt the product, just the application and, most definately the proposed time-scale.

Legrandprince
19th Feb 2013, 12:12
I'm sorry for digging up an old thread!

What happened to SACTA in NATS? And what's the current agenda for implementing the new FDPS (iTEC) in NATS' units?

To Spanish controllers, I'm also curious to know where AENA stands in the implementation of SACTA 4 and iTEC in its units.

Cheers!

Plumaveloz
19th Feb 2013, 13:10
We are scheduled to implement SACTA 4 in Spain during 2013. The new features have been developed with little or any ATCos' participation, due to the labour and professional conflict we are involved in.
We expect many changes, lack of instruction, short familiarisation times, useless features and adaptation problems.
Regards,
Á.

landedoutagain
19th Feb 2013, 16:28
many changes, lack of instruction, short familiarisation times, useless features and adaptation problems

We got all that despite being involved in our 'improvements'! :}