Thames 'DARLEK' Radar

[MikeStanton]

Lately the Thames Radar controllers have started sounding like Darleks! for the last two weeks or so.... did they go to Swanwick?? every now and again their audio fades into a digital darlek type abiss. Strangly not many pilots comment on it unless like this morning when the operator was simply in audible... Surely this needs sorting asap :eek:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

What do you do in aviation, Mike? Just curious as you refer to a professional air traffic control officer as an "operator".

[Jerricho]

"Thank you for calling NATS Thames Radar Operator. We cannot take your call at the moment, and you have been placed in a queue. Your call is important, please, hold the frequency, and we will answer you as soon as we can.........."

[Talkdownman]

"What service do you require........?"
"One moment please.....putting you off...."

[ShyTorque]

No, it's more like "Squawk ****, remain clear of controlled airspace, I'll call you back 'cos I'm also dealing with three on the ILS and some bloke calling tower....and I'm on the phone......exterminate ......EXTERMINATE". :}

But seriously -thanks, Thames - you do a very good job for us mere pilots; as do all the London area controllers. :ok:

[Dizzee Rascal]

And then when you do finally get though to the 'operator' they are useless.;)

[Jerricho]

At least it's not a call center in Bangladesh.........yet.

[Scuzi]

There was talk of outsourcing TC Capital to India.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<And then when you do finally get though to the 'operator' they are useless>

Funny, in 30+ years in UK ATC that's EXACTLY the feeling I got every time I spoke to a PPL!!!!!

[Dizzee Rascal]

HD, did you speak to many PPLs doing Heathrow Director?

[ShyTorque]

Probably not as many of them as he ought to have - quite few wander through the airspace without being on the correct frequency..... :rolleyes:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Dizzee... Ooohh yes. Remember, I'm 3 days older than God and when I startedat LL everything lurking around low level was on 119.9 which was just another operational position in Approach Control. They weren't all bad, though. I distinctly recall one sensible PPL - it was on a Wednesday afternoon in 1976 if my memory serves.......

[Dizzee Rascal]

I can just about remember when Heathrow SVFR was on 119.90 before it changed to 125.625. Redhill Tower is now on 119.90.

Maybe I will read about that PPL you encountered on the Wednesday afternoon in 1976 in the book on Heathrow ATC- The First 50 years that I am about to own! Maybe I could get you and Talkdownman to sign it for me?;)

[ATCO Two]

Redhill Tower is now on 119.6, the old Gatwick frequency.
The SVFR frequency of 119.9 was changed to 125.625 because of regular breakthrough from Beauvais, which also used 119.9. Mainly from RYR flights asking for the weather and being cleared to the BVS at FL50 if I recall correctly!

[Dizzee Rascal]

Oh yes, of course Redhill is 119.6, worrying that I got that wrong as I put aircraft to Redhill Tower 119.6 daily!

Maybe one shouldn't consume alcohol and post on PPRuNE:E:O

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Heathrow ATC- The First 50 years that I am about to own! Maybe I could get you and Talkdownman to sign it for me?>>

After all the work I put into that book serious money would have to change hands, my son!!

Interesting that the originator of this thread has never come back again.....

[Reflex]

He does have a point though.
In the area between Hyde Park and Brent there is often distortion. Sounds like Thames/Heathrow have had a bin put over their heads.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Reflex.. If that is true it's likely to be some sort of local QRM rather than at the transmitter. It would be an idea to bell Swanwick and talk to the telecomms people. Some time ago there was bad QRM on several Heathrow frequencies only heard over central London which turned out to be a pirate radio station. There were similar events effecting the ILS too (hence the R/T response from LL APC: "The IL'S are alive with the sound of music" - not appreciated by some bloke trying to do a Cat III!

[dazdaz]

Might be slightly off topic, but to do with the radio spectrum. It is well know in areas of London ie. Buck Palace/Downing St/MI5 building on the Thames that certain radio frequencies are blocked/distorted for security reasons of which I'm sure you might be aware of the reason for. Next time outside Buck Palace see does your mobile work?

Daz

[John Hill]

Just curious as you refer to a professional air traffic control officer as an "operator".

Oh dear! :E

[MikeStanton]

Whether I refered to ATC prople as officers, operators or contollers, as I have heard them call themselves, was not intended to offend. I just wanted to point out the poor audio quality , probably caused by a lack of bandwidth in the data link between themselves and the transmitter. The People on Thames radar do a great job! and dare I admit to being a PPL after all the negiative comments already posted.

[anotherthing]

As a current, license holding ATCO, I have no problem if a member of the public uses the word operator - anyone with a dictionary or a grasp of basic English will know that it is a valid noun for our profession, if not the one that we use ourselves.

Mike, one of the reasons mooted as possibly being responsible for the 'tinny' sounding R/T (which is evident on most of the TC frequencies) is the fact that it is all digitised and therefore somewhere in the process, quality is affected.

[BDiONU]

I just wanted to point out the poor audio quality , probably caused by a lack of bandwidth in the data link between themselves and the transmitter.
Rubbish, do you really think that NATS would use a voice comms system which didn't support the task? Both you and anotherthing need to understand what 'digital' means and how radio data transmission (indeed any digital data) works. dazdaz provides the more likely and probable explanation.

BD

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Rubbish, do you really think that NATS would use a voice comms system which didn't support the task?>>

Perhaps those on watch the day after TC moved to the seaside might have other views on the subject!!

[anotherthing]

BDiONU

DAZDAZ wrote:

It is well know in areas of London ie. Buck Palace/Downing St/MI5 building on the Thames that certain radio frequencies are blocked/distorted for security reasons of which I'm sure you might be aware of the reason for. Next time outside Buck Palace see does your mobile work?

and then you added:

dazdaz provides the more likely and probable explanation.


I appreciate that you know a more than bit about the VCCS and it's associated bits and pieces however I have a couple of points there -

firstly my post was heavily weighted by words which indicated that what I was saying was not the definitive answer, but I can guarantee it is one that is, as I said, being mooted in the OPs room. The veracity of it or otherwise is not within my remit.
This is a rumours and news network so I think it has a valid place here - especially as no one has come across with a definitive answer!

Secondly, are you honestly saying that Dazdaz's explanation is a likely answer? If so, why are frequencies that have transmitters nowhere near the City, and why are aircraft that are mid channel or near Daventry (to name just a few of the geographically distant areas) reporting the same phenomena? It is not by any means exclusively Thames radar that is affected.

Further, if dazdaz's explanation is deemed to be correct, why is it still happening? Playing about with the reception on someones mobile is one thing, however employing measures that have a detrimental effect on the frequencies used by a very busy ATC unit is a whole different ball game.

Finally, again if dazdaz's explanation is anywhere near true, why has it just started happening now that we have moved to Swanwick and are using a brand new piece of kit? It is not something that we suffered when working at West Drayton.

No one is saying that
Rubbish, do you really think that NATS would use a voice comms system which didn't support the task?

What many pilots and ATCOs are reporting is that the sound quality is not perfect or ideal. The fact of the matter is that it is suitable to carry out the task as required, but since when has 'good enough' been good enough?

And finally(honestly this time!) to quote you again

do you really think that NATS would use a voice comms system which didn't support the task?

No, I do not, which is the very same reason why I think that they would not allow

certain radio frequencies are blocked/distorted for security reasons

cheers,

Anotherthing (ex mil aviator, with several 'in depth' courses on electronic warfare under my belt)

[BDiONU]

Perhaps those on watch the day after TC moved to the seaside might have other views on the subject!!
And perhaps they no longer do? Personally I was/am impressed with how pragmatic the LTC staff have been. They knew that VCCS would not be perfect on day one and it wasn't but the glitches are being worked :)

BD

[BDiONU]

I appreciate that you know a more than bit about the VCCS and it's associated bits and pieces
I'm ATC and not an engineering expert but I do know about how 1's and 0's get squirted around on bits of wire.
I can guarantee it is one that is, as I said, being mooted in the OPs room. The veracity of it or otherwise is not within my remit.
There are lots of rumours floating around, the one that made me laugh most was that the board decided not to revert back to West Drayton on the Sunday because of a crash blocking the M3 :rolleyes: Of course there are no alternative routes up to London.

Secondly, are you honestly saying that Dazdaz's explanation is a likely answer? If so, why are frequencies that have transmitters nowhere near the City, and why are aircraft that are mid channel or near Daventry (to name just a few of the geographically distant areas) reporting the same phenomena? It is not by any means exclusively Thames radar that is affected.
What I'm saying is that the digital transmission of data does not affect the quality of the product at the other end. How you encode analogue voice to send it by digital and then change it back to analogue at the far end may affect it but the amount of data is really quite small. Voice data is small, hence the ability to have VOIP phone networks (like that at the CTC) whilst also using the network for other data.
There are a lot of factors involved in radio reception (weather anyone?) and it seems obvious to me that if the transmissions sound peculiar in one area but not another which uses the same radio leg then its not the transmitter at fault.
Finally, again if dazdaz's explanation is anywhere near true, why has it just started happening now that we have moved to Swanwick and are using a brand new piece of kit? It is not something that we suffered when working at West Drayton.
You're now using a completely different system which is end to end but I'm cautious about accepting it never happened at WD. There are other factors which need to be looked at for example how are the staff using the new headsets, is the mic close enough to the mouth etc.

BD

[anotherthing]

Good to have a civilised exchange of views I think. And healthy.


There are other factors which need to be looked at for example how are the staff using the new headsets, is the mic close enough to the mouth etc.


That would not explain why the 'tinny' sound was experienced from both ends.

Yes there are many factors - however I think that from an ATCO perspective the confidence in the kit is high and getting better everyday; thanks to the sterling work by those in the background.

However, no matter how persuasive an argument anyone can come up with, I stand by the following, which I wrote in my last post


The fact of the matter is that it is suitable to carry out the task as required, but since when has 'good enough' been good enough?



Which was made in answer to your post

do you really think that NATS would use a voice comms system which didn't support the task?

I know that work is continuing on the system, and I am sure that in the long term it will be what we want it to be. As it is now, I still think that overall, it is a hell of an improvement (especially the functionality) on what we used to have :ok:

[BDiONU]

Good to have a civilised exchange of views I think. And healthy.
Come on outside, be a man and get your dukes up ;)
Yes there are many factors - however I think that from an ATCO perspective the confidence in the kit is high and getting better everyday; thanks to the sterling work by those in the background.
Took a bit of a dent on that Sunday methinks. The software we tested last week should deploy Weds night for a test and fully on Thursday.

However, no matter how persuasive an argument anyone can come up with, I stand by the following, which I wrote in my last post
My answer would be that you're still at Swanwick and not WD so its obviously 'good enough' to do the task.

I know that work is continuing on the system, and I am sure that in the long term it will be what we want it to be. As it is now, I still think that overall, it is a hell of an improvement (especially the functionality) on what we used to have :ok:
Blimey! A couple of years ago the projects understanding was that the system at WD was simply the best thing since sliced bread and couldn't possibly be replicated and improved upon ;)
It will take a little time in order to determine what/where the 'fault' with audio quality is and I'm certain that the project and other engineering staff are very keen on providing perfect audio quality.

BD

[anotherthing]

By saying that 'good enough is not good enough', I mean that one should not settle for something that is 'adequate'. Especially when the system in question is capable of so much.

Fortunately making do with 'adequate' is not the mentality of the engineers etc :)

[Gonzo]

BDiONU said:

do you really think that NATS would use a voice comms system which didn't support the task?I wouldn't go saying that too loudly at some airports....... :E

[renard]

I go into LCY most days and it isn't just Thames that are "Daleks" it goes further out than that - Daventry(?) 130.925 on the way out and the controllers near Clippy on the way in from Scotland.

It doesn't happen on all transmissions, but it never seems to happen at the start of a transmission.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<...ATCO perspective the confidence in the kit is high and getting better everyday; thanks to the sterling work by those in the background.>>

Forgive me for saying this, but shouldn't they have had absolute confidence in the equipment from the very start? It's quite ludicrous to say that the confidence of people who are dealing with the lives of thousands of people is "getting better". The question should never have arisen.

[Roffa]

VCCS works and is working well.

There were more than adequate back-up facilities to it on day one and there still are and always will be. In fact we have better back-up/redundancy at Swanwick than we ever had at West Drayton or even back in the halcyon days of operating in our ivory tower at LHR.

There is always a certain amount of mistrust in new equipment. With VCCS I think the rumour mill allowed what issues there were prior to going live to be somewhat blown out of proportion and it perhaps got a rap that wasn't entirely justified.

Whatever, it's here, it works, it's staying.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I remember moving from Heathrow Tower to LATCC well.. Having been very emphatically assured of the integrity of the equipment... one morning every other radar display in the ops room failed, leading to certain consternation among the troops and we craned to get a shufty over a colleague's shoulder. Things don't change.....

[Il Duce]

I know what a "dalek" is, but what's a DARLEK?

[Kiltie]

Beats me; I have no ideaR.