Scottish Airports EFPS

[BigDaddyBoxMeal]

Was wondering how preparation for the EFPS transition was going up in haggis land?

The rumour mill has it that the organisation of the whole project is about as polished and well though out as the Iraq conflict. i.e. a shambles. :ok:

[DC10RealMan]

How very dare you! It will be another NATS triumph and bonuses all round. HURRAH!!!!!

[Hootin an a roarin]

The rumour mill has it that the organisation of the whole project is about as polished and well though out as the Iraq conflict. i.e. a shambles.

Yes that really sums it up.

NSL as usual has tried to bring EFPS in on the cheap. It has not provided the correct resources i.e. an overbearing of valid controllers to release people to train but has managed to secure a few 'blip drivers'.

Whilst most people are reasonably happy with the twr/gnd side of things Approach is another matter. Quite a few of the LCE's believe that it is not fit for purpose and needs more work.

One final point.

I suspect that this would not have happened down south and correct resources (money) would have been more readily available! :ugh:

[Vortex Issues]

We're due to get it down south early next year and rumour has it that it's not going too well :rolleyes:, but I'm sure it will be introduced on time, on budget and NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE!

[eglnyt]

EFPS is the stripless system used by NSL, not to be confused with EFD which is the stripless solution for TC and PC. They come from different suppliers and are technically very different.

[M609]

What company got the contract for the EFPS?

[controller friendly]

And it's UCE, not LCE anymore!!:=

[Standard Noise]

Interesting. I thought it was meant to be working well for ATSOCAS and could be rolled out to all of us?

UCE/LCE? Oh, get her!

[BDiONU]

We're due to get it down south early next year and rumour has it that it's not going too well :rolleyes:, but I'm sure it will be introduced on time, on budget and NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE!
Since the Heathrow debacle D of S are very hot on making sure things are fit for purpose AND that staff are comfortable providing an ATS using it. So if the staff using it are not happy (and evidence will have to be provided to D of S) then it won't go live.

BD

[Glamdring]

Doesn't it run on Windows 2000?

EFPS runs on Windows XP.

[Standard Noise]

We should be thankful it's not based on Vista!

[Dan Dare]

Actually in the south we are using Windows NT.

Interestingly Windows NT has an end user licencing agreement with includes
NOT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR RESALE AS ON-LINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS

I brought this up when it was introduced and was told that we don't worry about such things:eek:

[Not Long Now]

There you go then, any failure would be a known system property not a failure.

[Crashing Software]

Dan Dare.

Um .. a little more accuracy and a little less FUD if you would please. The words at the start of that part of the EULA go ......

NOTE ON JAVA SUPPORT. THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR RESALE AS ON-LINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ............

So - Don't write your ATC software in Java and run it on Windows - but Micro$oft are quite happy for their operating system to be used to run applications written in other languages.

CS

[Hooligan Bill]

eglnyt wrote:

EFPS is the stripless system used by NSL, not to be confused with EFD which is the stripless solution for TC and PC. They come from different suppliers and are technically very different.

And by all accounts not compatible, so no chance of linking them together to make one seamless system:ugh:

[eglnyt]

And by all accounts not compatible, so no chance of linking them together to make one seamless system

Depends what you mean by compatible and seamless system. The thing really stopping that at the moment is the rather old FDP system in the middle. It's replacement will join up the EFPS towers and the centre systems.

[throw a dyce]

It would be interesting to work out the cost of this exercise.Multiple AVAAs daily and days off in lieu for the volunteer staff,against retaining the ATSAs and a system which works.
I would be surprised if the break even is 20 years,just like some other wonderful cost cutting measures.
As for the system then the jury is still out on being fit for purpose.There are serious issues with it,that are safety critical.
As has been said before no doubt it will be brought in,with much trumpet blowing and fanfares.Until some poor sod has the first nasty because of it.The controller will no doubt take the can.:suspect:

[BDiONU]

It would be interesting to work out the cost of this exercise.Multiple AVAAs daily and days off in lieu for the volunteer staff,against retaining the ATSAs and a system which works.
Broaden your horizons and think of the impact on the ACC which your ATSA is phoning through to. Removal of the carbon based interface helps them in moving towards greater use of automation and electronics. EFD is the first stepping stone on the way to making much more use of the capabilities of computers to do checks but it's crucial that those computer systems 'know' the tactical decisions the ATCO makes, hence moving away from pen & paper. Automated CFL versus SFL checking is one of the first benefits to come from automation. Downstream, as we remove NAS and replace it with a system which has more automatic checking abilities and which can interface with adjacent ANSP's much better than current OLDI links, there will be a host of safety net benefits for the ACC.
As for the system then the jury is still out on being fit for purpose.There are serious issues with it,that are safety critical.
As has been said before no doubt it will be brought in,with much trumpet blowing and fanfares.Until some poor sod has the first nasty because of it.The controller will no doubt take the can.:suspect:
And as I said before the company has learnt from Heathrow and D of S will never allow it into service unless it's fit.

BD

[throw a dyce]

BDiONU,
OK why don't you broaden your horizons.Half our traffic is generated inhouse and never goes near NAS,or whatever comes next.In fact it doesn't even go to our ACC,because we actually are the inhouse ACC for this traffic.
As it stands today,because I asked,there is no way to input this data into EFPS.The ATSAs are not going to be allowed to touch it.No-one can answer this question.
Fine if you say that it won't be brought in until it's safe.Perhaps that is why the O date has been brought forward,while people are still scratching their heads to try and make it work.
Currently it isn't fit and in the environment we work,I doubt if it ever will be.At best the way we operate will have to change for the worse,to work in with the shortcomings of the system.Hardly benefits the customer does it.
I haven't even started on the radar side.:hmm:
I do have experience of state of the art computer systems,at a brand new airport the size of Heathrow,which were far more advanced than anything NATS has.

[BDiONU]

BDiONU,
Half our traffic is generated inhouse and never goes near NAS,or whatever comes next.In fact it doesn't even go to our ACC,because we actually are the inhouse ACC for this traffic.
I assume you're talking about choppers out to the rigs? So what's the answer, a split system with half done manually and half electronically? You'll disagree but my personal view is that certain ATC practices need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century and not left as is "because we've always done it this way". If the MOPS don't fit the modern way of working then the MOPS need to change.

BD

[Captain Spunkfarter]

BDiONU said.....Since the Heathrow debacle

What debacle? Every controller was provided with a minimum of 56 hours hands-on EFPS training, most of which was in a 360-degree tower simulator (btw, we moved to a new control tower on the same day as commencing EFPS operations). Whilst the transition date was put back a few months to April 2007, this was primarily to facilitate entire watch shadowing sessions in the New VCR, and the new date actually ended up being a better transition time for the airlines. In the end, all 55 controllers completed the training satisfactorily, some of them receiving extensive additional simulation time and support (believe me, I should know:ugh:!).

The New VCR opened with EFPS, and the flow restrictions that were put in place were lifted within hours in some cases. I wouldn't call that a debacle, I'd call it a kick-ass training plan led by a crew of instructors who had the balls to stand-up to Exec-level management and run the transition in a way that made it easier for the ATCOs to operate the equipment.

Believe me, the ATCOs have the power. If you don't think it's fit-for-purpose, only you can persuade your management. LHR had many, many issues with EFPS throughout the 18-months of training, and had it not been for the fact that LHR ATCOs are by their very nature mouthy gits, the EFPS user group would have shoved their off-the-shelf version straight into operation. Your EFPS working group (I trust you have one) should be working through every one of the concerns that you have, carrying out a full hazard analysis on each one, and coming up with strong mitigations. If one of these mitigations proves to be a reduction in capacity, your management will soon sit up and listen.

[Not Long Now]

I'm not on the working group and have only very briefly seen the new proposed set up for TC (the best was a demo of the new system on a weekend with the project lead answering questions, unfortunately the demo broke and noone was available to fix it, so it basically became a 'static' demo!).
I fully believe it is the future because nearly all projects in the pipeline rely on it being in place and NATS doesn't like changing direction. Will it be fit for purpose? Yes. What will that purpose be? Read the very small print and don't presume your idea will be the same as someone else. Does that mean it will make the ATCO's life easier? Not necessarily. Will it be able to handle more traffic? Certainly not immediately, personally I can't see it ever being quick enough to actually increase capacity in the TMA.Will it save money? Again presumably in the long term.
Now it's not for a lowly ATCO to decide if that's a good idea for the long term, that's presumably why board members and higher managers get thir bonuses.
I just hope it doesn't increase my workload too much, and I can get over the fact I've made 5 typing errors just writing this, let alone in a busy days worth of controlling.

[BDiONU]

I wouldn't call that a debacle, I'd call it a kick-ass training plan led by a crew of instructors who had the balls to stand-up to Exec-level management and run the transition in a way that made it easier for the ATCOs to operate the equipment.
Prior to the delayed 'O' date and the instructors taking a stand it wasn't going too well, hence being termed a debacle. It shouldn't have come to it that the ATCO's had to 'fight' to get a working system.

BD

[Captain Spunkfarter]

It shouldn't have come to it that the ATCO's had to 'fight' to get a working system.

You do work for NATS, don't you??? Every project in NATS goes straight down this path, even though lesson-learning sessions and wash-ups take place. Speak to anyone involved in iFACTS right now; they're just at that critical stage where an engineering-led team has developed a product before the operational team tells them to go rip it up and start again due to the fact that it looks nothing like what was expected.

Let's not get into the LHR story. You don't know enough about it to contribute, but I'm happy to take it offline.

[ZOOKER]

Will EFPS talk to EFD?
What about links to the Military and 'Non-state' airfields?
Will these 2 systems communicate 'seamlessly' with other parts of the "Single european Sky". :E

[eglnyt]

Are there any 'state' airfields ?

[BDiONU]

You do work for NATS, don't you??? Every project in NATS goes straight down this path, even though lesson-learning sessions and wash-ups take place.
I do and I work on projects and none of mine have been like that.

BD

[BDiONU]

Will EFPS talk to EFD?
Initially it will in a roundabout way via NAS. Once iTEC goes in things will improve.
What about links to the Military and 'Non-state' airfields?
Only to airports with EFPS.
Will these 2 systems communicate 'seamlessly' with other parts of the "Single european Sky". :E
Eventually, that's certainly one of the intents of SESAR.

BD

[On the beach]

BD,

I think your previous post demonstrates that perhaps your new system isn't fit for purpose yet.

To quote you

Once iTEC goes in things will improve.

Only to airports with EFPS.

Eventually, that's certainly one of the intents of SESAR.

That's not to say it won't improve things in the future. But your answers seem to demonstrate the reservations that I and your colleagues have about introducing new technology that hasn't been thought through properly.

Why not wait until ITEC goes in and wait for things to improve?

Why not install EFPS to all airports?

If that's one of the the intents of SESAR, are we to assume that this technology is waiting for something else to occur?

Surely if you are waiting on all these events to happen then in the meantime someone has to cope with working the new system and also working around the problems and limitations of the new system that you have acknowledged yourself above.

If I had this many unanswered questions or concerns I think I would seriously question the Safety Case?

On the beach

[DC10RealMan]

I think that all of you are aware of the "Elephant in the room". The rationale of most of these projects is to reduce or eliminate your ATSA colleagues, jobs, and associated costs and as to whether a project is useable/safe/efficent etc is secondary to that main goal. In my opinion none of your reservations or concerns however well justified will be allowed to deflect that primary aim.

[BDiONU]

I think that all of you are aware of the "Elephant in the room". The rationale of most of these projects is to reduce or eliminate your ATSA colleagues, jobs, and associated costs.
Nope. Do you really think it's an effective use of a skilled persons time to put paper strips into a holder and walk them round to put them in front of the ATCO?

BD

[middles]

I suspect that any ATSA who has taken VR based on the introduction date of EFD in TC will be enjoying a lot more scrumptious LTCC canteen dinners than he/she expected. Re. TMA South EFD trial this week.

[Not Long Now]

"Do you really think it's an effective use of a skilled persons time to put paper strips into a holder and walk them round to put them in front of the ATCO?

BD"
Well given we've got to get the info somehow, and ATSAS do slightly more than that, then yes I suppose I do.

[BDiONU]

Well given we've got to get the info somehow, and ATSAS do slightly more than that, then yes I suppose I do.
And I specifically didn't mention all of the other things they do which they'll still be doing when EFD goes in. But without that mindless strip loading task there will be less of them required as the workload will reduce per individual.

BD

[BDiONU]

I think your previous post demonstrates that perhaps your new system isn't fit for purpose yet.
In what way? The intent of EFD in it's first iteration is to move from paper to electronic.

But your answers seem to demonstrate the reservations that I and your colleagues have about introducing new technology that hasn't been thought through properly.
What hasn't been thought through properly?
Why not wait until ITEC goes in and wait for things to improve?
iTEC is a massive change as we're replacing the entire FDP system. Its not a good idea (in fact it's very risky) to make wholesale changes all at once. We're talking evolution not revolution, hence steps along the way to an entirely electronic system to support controllers with lots of safety nets.
Why not install EFPS to all airports?
Who will pay? For example Manchester isn't getting it as they're not going to pay for it, etc.
If that's one of the the intents of SESAR, are we to assume that this technology is waiting for something else to occur?
See my previous answer vis a vis evolution.

If I had this many unanswered questions or concerns I think I would seriously question the Safety Case?
Our regulator and the D of S examine the safety case, it'll be very robust.

BD

[BDiONU]

I suspect that any ATSA who has taken VR based on the introduction date of EFD in TC will be enjoying a lot more scrumptious LTCC canteen dinners than he/she expected. Re. TMA South EFD trial this week.
Split deployment, Approach first, TMA later.

BD

[goldfrog]

Split deployment, Approach first, TMA later.

BD

Not sure that is agreed yet BD :)

[ZOOKER]

BD, It's all spin.
What is the point in EFD, EFPS, iTEC, SESAR et al.
Allegedly, at this time, several of the airfields in my local TMA (and probably yours), don't even have the benefit of code-callsign conversion.
This means that controllers working in adjacent areas of (often very complex) airspace, are not even looking at the same radar picture!
For decades, (given the fragmented state of the UK ATC 'system'), the only reason that the unthinkable hasn't happened is due to the skill and professionalism of those working in these often under-equipped control rooms.
Let's get back to basics.
Let's get everyone singing from the same hynm-sheet. (sorry if this sounds like the management yuck-speak I so utterly detest).
Then, and only then, can we start talking about the future, because at this time, it appears we still haven't got the present working properly.

[Warped Factor]

What planet is your local TMA on zooker?

[On the beach]

Bd,

Okay, to answer some of your concerns. But before we do that perhaps we should deal with what appears to be a subjective approach that you seem to be adopting to justify your responses.

First:
But without that mindless strip loading task there will be less of them required as the workload will reduce per individual.

Now, from that statement we can only deduce that the whole exercise that you are embarking on here is one of cost-cutting. On that ground alone I would seriously question your Safety Case.

Second:
Do you really think it's an effective use of a skilled persons time to put paper strips into a holder and walk them round to put them in front of the ATCO?

Well, actually yes I do. Because your solution disregards the majority of airports in Scotland. i.e. those that aren't Edinburgh and Glasgow. I haven't included Aberdeen as they have already raised their own concerns re the fact that the new technology doesn't seem to cater for helicopters, which probably account for the majority of movements there. You can't introduce a system that only caters for a minority of the airports and users in an FIR and then wonder why the system doesn't work when interfacing with the airports and users that are not part of the new system. It has to be all-inclusive.

I know you will say, who pays? And the answer that I will throw back to you is it should be funded by the same people who are going to pay for it's introduction to NATS. i.e. the flying public. Unless you feel that only NATS operated and run airports are deemed suitable for the benefits of new and improved technology.

So we come back to the Safety Case. If the new technology improves the safety of air transport users, then shouldn't that apply to all air transport users, irrespective of which airport in Scotland they happen to be flying out of or into. I hope this explains my previous reference to the fact that the whole concept and it's introduction hasn't been thought through properly. It is a band-aid solution which refuses to accept the fact that the patient has cancer.

As some of the comments by others previously have indicated you need to start from a level playing field, for want of a better cliche. So my suggestion to you and the members of the D of S that read this is to do just that and if the technology can't be introduced throughout Scotland then you need to ask yourself the question - why? If, as I suspect it's cost then that's a question that the CAA, as opposed to NATS, needs to address. If it enhances safety, then.... well, you don't need me to state the obvious.

On the beach

[ZOOKER]

"What planet is your local TMA on zooker?"

The planet where many regional airfields aren't even connected to NAS.

[Warped Factor]

Okay,

Which...

Allegedly, at this time, several of the airfields in my local TMA don't even have the benefit of code-callsign conversion.

... of the very few TMAs in the UK is this one?

[bratbaak]

BD,
You say that ATC has to be brought kicking into the 21st century, maybe there is a reason why it is kicking. Where does safety sit with regards to cost in the EFPS debate? Has anyone asked for a current procedure to be brought in only to be told the system cannot support this and the cost to make this happen is to restrictive? Are we adapting a 21st century system to accommodate our needs or are we adapting to accommodate a computer system?
From your posts you strike me as either naive or blinkered. Yes EFPS will bring many improvements but there are areas that are detrimental to current safe and accepted working practices. Which will give in, the current practices or the new system, you know the answer, now ask yourself if this is making a safer ATC environment or not?

[Air.Farce.1]

Can anyone shed any light on the rumour at PC that EFD will be delayed at Prestwick Centre till March 2011. If so, how will they manage when 20 or so ATSA's go in November this year ?

:confused:

[BDiONU]

Can anyone shed any light on the rumour at PC that EFD will be delayed at Prestwick Centre till March 2011.
TC is March 2011, PC is going in November this year. Dunno where your rumour came from but it's just that.

BD

[Air.Farce.1]

Thanks very much

[Air.Farce.1]

PC EFD


Can anyone shed any light on the rumour at PC that EFD will be delayed at Prestwick Centre till March 2011. If so, how will they manage when 20 or so ATSA's go in November this year ?



March 2011 is now an optimistic "O" date ..........:ouch:

The rumour is now reality :oh:

[BDiONU]

PC EFD
March 2011 is now an optimistic "O" date ..........:ouch:

The rumour is now reality :oh:
I dunno who's been feeding you a load of manure but that's what this rumour is. OCT timeline and 'O' date for PC has, quite literally, just been agreed and once ratified by the board will be announced very soon.

BD

[7000]

I don't think you totally understand the point behind safety cases. To say that any system is safe is not the same as to say everyone should have it. The business case still needs to stack up.
For example, let's say my car doesn't have any seatbelts - we all know seatbelts improve safety, so I should install them in all 5 seats in my car. However I never ever have any passengers in my car, so it wouldn't be cost effective to install all 5, so I save a few hundred quid by just installing a drivers belt. (OK, I know there is certain UK legislation which would be breached, but it's just an illustration!).
We have to use our Business and Safety cases in conjunction, neither can stand without the other. Our industry is one of risk management, the ultimate safety argument would be to stop issuing clearances (think ash), but the business would fall and none of us would get our pensions!

As for the use of ATSAs - I used to do that job, and there was nothing more soul destroying than having my skills and knowledge being wasted on "eastbound - buff... westbound - blue" ad nauseum! Yeah, lets allow some of our ATSAs who want to go to go, and lets get real value and contribution out of the rest who want to be there.

Finally - What is all this crap about a level playing field? Are people actually suggesting that we turn off electronic coordinations, mode C and S and TLPD just because not everyone has it? :confused: BD has hit the nail on the head, we need to change wee bits at a time, different units have different requirements, and there are a lot of hard working people both in the units and in narnia who are working hard to make sure those requirements are met!

Right rant over.

[Air.Farce.1]

BD

you are wrong on this one, I stand by my statement. If it has just been agreed in the last 48 hours I stand corrected

[BDiONU]

BD
you are wrong on this one, I stand by my statement. If it has just been agreed in the last 48 hours I stand corrected
I'm one of the people who negotiated the agreement which was concluded yesterday morning subject to board ratification (which is why I'm not giving dates in this forum, you'll find out officially soon) and March was NEVER discussed over the past few weeks. I stated November earlier in this thread, but as everyone at PC is undoubtedly aware there has had to be an additional build to accomodate the changes that came out of the simulations and were required for safety reasons.

BD

[TALLOWAY]

Hopefully all those ATSA Support staff who are leaving in October/November, because of EFD, will throw NATS' derisory offer to stay till EFD comes in, back at them.

At which point Prestwick Centre's current operation officially becomes stuffed. :ok:

NATS 'generous' offer is for ATSAs to stay on for their existing pay during the extra few months, but this means that due to the tax laws on lump sums, etc, it will cost those staff around £22K for the taxman if they stay on. And NATS expect them to take this up ? :uhoh:

[TALLOWAY]

I'm not sure you understand fully Yahoo, so here's a clarification :ok:

The ATSAs who are going want to do so. They will get a nice payout and can retire early or head off and do something else. They are all volunteers.

The existing operation requires a certain number of ATSAs to run the Ops Room. That number is currently stretched, with some of the former Manchester sectors struggling to keep their heads above the water.

NATS management agreed that EFD could reduce the requirement and volunteers were obtained and given pay off dates which met the original November implementation date. On that date, as things stand, these people will leave NATS.

BUT, when these people leave we will not be moving on to EFD for 2 (or more) months. The Ops Room which requires X ATSA staff to function today (just!), will now be running at X-Y (where Y is the number of staff given the 'early go). In other words, the current opertion will be compromised as there will not be enough staff available on the Support side.

NATS are therefore in the embarrasing position of having to try to fill a gap which they created.

ATSA staff who elect to stay on to help out, having been given their lump sum settlement, will actually lose money for staying, in the order of £20K. This is because they will go over the Inland Revenue tax threshold and so attract 40% tax, not only on their lump sum, but the rest of their earnings as well. Now why would NATS expect them to help them out and do that ?

[Air.Farce.1]

I believe they already need 800 o/t shifts to cover the normal operation till November. My source tells me they cant fill o/t at the moment and they are constantly working short :mad:

Some have been banned already from doing o/t due to excessive numbers of shifts and no time off ( 1 day off in 30 for example) :{

Clearly management have screwed up somewhere :ugh:

[BDiONU]

Hopefully all those ATSA Support staff who are leaving in October/November, because of EFD, will throw NATS' derisory offer to stay till EFD comes in, back at them.
But what if they all stay on an extra couple of months? Bummer huh?

BD

[Air.Farce.1]

None are staying on :uhoh:

[BDiONU]

None are staying on :uhoh:
ROFL! The letters have only just or are only just about to go out. Are you setting yourself up as a fortune teller in a little caravan in Killie? Cross your palm with silver dearie ;)

BD

[Air.Farce.1]

You on the wine already :p dearie. Best you wait till friday night :E

[BDiONU]

You on the wine already :p dearie. Best you wait till friday night :E
Your comment strikes me very much along the lines of the MACC move to PC when posts in this forum were stating that hardly anyone was going and it was doomed doomed! How many never made the move in the end, roughly? Fingers of one hand.

BD

[fisbangwollop]

BDI.......well would you stay on with that deal........I think not.....I think NATS management must think the PC assistants sailed down the Clyde on a bannana boat to give them a deal like that!!!!:cool::cool::cool:

[BDiONU]

BDI.......well would you stay on with that deal........I think not.....I think NATS management must think the PC assistants sailed down the Clyde on a bannana boat to give them a deal like that!!!!:cool::cool::cool:
Does anyone actually know what the deal is/had their letter yet? I think not, remember that this is a rumour site ;)

BD

[Air.Farce.1]

Wake up BD smell the coffee :E

They have all had their letters which are in the rubbish bin.

[Bring back Tridents]

Sorry, I seem to have blundered in here by mistake. I thought this thread was about Scottish Airports EFPS. Must have been mistaken.:rolleyes:

[BDiONU]

Sorry, I seem to have blundered in here by mistake. I thought this thread was about Scottish Airports EFPS. Must have been mistaken.:rolleyes:
Yeah this thread is about posturing, try here (http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/417208-good-luck-x-watch.html) :)

BD

[BDiONU]

Fuzzy 6988 What you're describing isn't facilitated by EFPS (nor the ACC EFD) but these electronic tools are a keystone building block to that sort of data sharing and NATS are planning to introduce it (although some years away). However what service you get will depend on whether independent (non NATS & MOD) service providers are willing to invest in the infrastructure.

BD

[fuzzy6988]

BDiONU - that's great. Thanks.

[Legrandprince]

I'm curious to get Scottish controllers' evaluation of EFPS after 2 (?) years in service.
I'm also curious to know what system you use for approach control.
Cheers.

[Hootin an a roarin]

EFPS is still poor in approach. Works a treat in the tower as it cuts down the phone calls. I still need pen and paper in approach as the system is too cumbersome for free callers. It hasn't really gained us any capacity, but was just an excuse to cull ATSA's.
I went on a visit to the area centre a while ago and was listening to the guys moan about EFD. However EFD is a far superior and advanced system than EFPS, it even has the ability to write freehand. I guess the airports got the sh**ty end of the stick again.

[Glamdring]

Agree with Hootin. I was on the same visit and EFD is absolutely amazing compared to EFPS. EFPS looks like it was knocked up on Visual Basic/Excel over a weekend. :ok:

[Bring back Tridents]

As I've said elsewhere, the paper strip never needed an upgrade. It always did what you needed it to do. Same can't be said about EFPS. It makes what used to be easy things difficult.

[BDiONU]

As I've said elsewhere, the paper strip never needed an upgrade. It always did what you needed it to do.But paper means that the computer systems and tools never know what you're doing and are unable to provide any support, automation etc. You need to weld man and machine together somehow.

[Not Long Now]

I'm fairly sure they key point of air traffic control is NOT to weld man and machine together.
Personally, I think the EFPS that went into Scottish was woeful. If you're going to 'go electronic' why on earth try to replicate what paper does better? Either make a new system with as much added wizardry as possible that actually does new useful better things, or do nothing. Spending millions creating an electronic version of paper with most of it's drawbacks and none of it's benefits seems crazy.

[Bring back Tridents]

"weld man and machine together somehow"

Maybe so, but EFPS is NOT its finest hour. If I can do things better with a paper strip and a pen there is NO benefit to me as an ATCO from having an electronic system. Yes it has got rid of some phone calls but not nearly as many as was expected. At my regional airport there has been no capacity increase from having it in Approach, it has no clue how to do and count circuits and doesn't do overflying or IFR training traffic simply. Perhaps I am a dinosaur but I'd have paper strips back in a heartbeat.

[eagleflyer]

Ohoh....our company has worked on an electronic flight strip system for the better part of 15 years and we still haven´t implemented it in our biggest center and another approach unit. The units working with it haven´t noticed any measurable increase in capacity.
I´ve recently found an old memo adressed to the flight data assistants about ten years ago, stating that most of them would be jobless within the next three years. A lot of them found themselves new ones and guess what...we are seriously short of FDAs and started training new ones a couple of years ago.

Traffic levels have increased by about 70% over all these years, we´re still doing paper and doing it fine!

The epitome of excellence in ATC management....

Any busy units around there working stripless and willing to give tours?

[BigDaddyBoxMeal]

In our cases, the development of EFPS had nothing to do with upgrading, or introducing an improvement or an advance in technology.

It was to get rid of staff and save money. If you believe there are any other driving forces, then you are delusional.

[Legrandprince]

"weld man and machine together somehow"

Maybe so, but EFPS is NOT its finest hour. If I can do things better with a paper strip and a pen there is NO benefit to me as an ATCO from having an electronic system. Yes it has got rid of some phone calls but not nearly as many as was expected. At my regional airport there has been no capacity increase from having it in Approach, it has no clue how to do and count circuits and doesn't do overflying or IFR training traffic simply. Perhaps I am a dinosaur but I'd have paper strips back in a heartbeat.

Was EFPS designed to be an approach tool, a tower tool or both? I wonder if the same system is used by Canadian air traffic controllers in their approach and tower units.

As I see it, most often capacity issues in approach and tower units are related to runway capacity or geographical issues, so I'm not surprised that moving to a paperless system hasn't brought about any capacity increase.

Still, by allowing a crosscheck between the controllers' inputs and the pilots' inputs (via enhanced mode S), and route adherence monitoring in the air and on the ground (coupled with an ASMGCS) those systems should bring a safety gain. And then there should be a benefit in sharing more data with adjacent sectors (see fuzzy6988 's post above).

Either make a new system with as much added wizardry as possible that actually does new useful better things, or do nothing.

I think the idea of electronic stripping is to actually get the benefits of feeding the system with the clearances you give without changing much work methods. The gap in work methods between a paper strip system and a stripless system looks a bit scary...

It seems that most ANSPs go for electronic stripping for tower control and for a stripless system for terminal control. I'm still trying to get a confirmation of this (thread (http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/504205-atc-system.html)).