Electronic flight progress strips....what system is the best

[square-head]

We are changing over to paper-less strips and had a look at various systems. But to get the most user-friendly one is difficult to judge. What is you experience on the best system?

[OA32]

Will you be using them in Tower, Approach, Area or all three? There are a few providers now including Selex, Frequentis, Nav Canada, Saab and Park Air Systems. For a radar environment Selex's SATCAS 2000 enables interaction through the data labels on the Radar screen so you can keep an eye on what is going on, or you can have electronic strips on the same screen with a smaller radar picture. Park Air uses electronic strips on a Wacom panel but there is no interaction through the radar screen which means you spend more time looking at your board while inputting data/instructions. I have no experience of the other systems, as for which is the best that depends on what you're looking for in the system. I will say this though, SATCAS, Frequentis' smartstrips, NavCanada and Saab are proven systems in a live approach/en-route environment as opposed to Park Air's which as far as I know is only in live use in the tower environment with Jersey being the guinea-pig for the approach versions later in the year.

[Gonzo]

At the end of the day, the most important factors are how much flexibility you have at your own unit to customise the system to your own needs, and how much resource is devoted to achieving that.

It's all very well selecting the 'best' system to use, but if it's not resourced and supported adequately, and you end up having to fight for that resource with other units, then it's not ideal.

[square-head]

We appreciate your feedback. The EFSS will be used only for the tower,. We tried to customise to our need, but the software engineers finds it extermely diffciult to achieve. Does anybody had experience with Thales systems?

[Tarq57]

Why would you want to adopt a system that would seem to offer most benefit to the enroute (centre) situation, and put that in an environment where it is important that those who use it are supposed to look out the window occasionally?

We've been using Frequentis strips on Wacom panels for about a year. I would move back to paper strips tomorrow, if given a choice.

The way the information is required to be processed seems to cause distraction out of proportion to any benefits (there are some benefits.)

Two things I utterly detest about them are (1) when a menu window is open, you must close it - actioned or not - before you can do anything else on the board. Some windows open sub-windows; serial closing of all is required, before you can do anything.
(2) the writing tool is crap. To get anything approaching legibility requires the strip to be expanded, and then precise writing on it. Pause for a few seconds and it minimizes itself. It is often easier to use the drop-down menus than to try and write, for anything involved. There is a lack of flexibility as to what can be written- a software issue - and inadequate symbols available.
(3) the brightness/contrast controls are software based, taking many button pushes to alter the screen. (most modern monitors have this "feature", however.)
(4) They are replacing our flight data assistants. It would be interesting to know how much money this will save; replacing three salaries with an expensive software/hardware package and follow on support.

I realize that's 4 not 2. I could think of another 4 without difficulty. What was particularly disappointing was all the PR from those I should have been able to trust concerning how good they were, and then finding the reality substantially different. Made me feel a loser, doubly so.

I view them as part of the dumbing down of the profession. No doubt ANS providers will embrace them with open arms, partly because of this.

[edit] I was informed that Frequentis are well regarded in the field. I have no reason to think that their product might be worse than any other. Perhaps it's the software, or the version purchased, that contributes to our issues with them. Sure results in a great deal of heads-down time, for sure.

[BDiONU]

I was informed that Frequentis are well regarded in the field. I have no reason to think that their product might be worse than any other. Perhaps it's the software, or the version purchased, that contributes to our issues with them. Sure results in a great deal of heads-down time, for sure.
NATS are working with Frequentis to install smart strips on a WACOM panel in both of our area centres. Our Human Factors team have done a lot of work with them in designing the User Interface to ensure it works for ATC and head down time is minimised. We'll be introducing it into service at Prestwick centre first in January next year.

BD

[kontrolor]

hi, we introduced estrips two years ago and we have almost no complaints. partialy it is due the fact, that atcos are part of the development team. Our extensive experience is at your disposal. send me a pm with email, I can elaborate in deatail how we managed that.

we don't use EUROCAT, but the Czech ANS who was the first customer of FDPS we are using is.

[japanac]

Hi,

There are many suppliers of (Electronic Flight Progress Strips) EFPS solutions, but here you have to be careful and firstly to clarify what do you need exactly.
You said that you need it for Tower operations, fine, but it is only a starting point in defining your needs.
Some of the other factors that need to be defined are:
- which FDP is serving your tower operations today
- are you happy with all its functionalities
- is your intention to integrate EFPS with your existing FDP or you would need a new FDP to fully accomodate your needs/expectations
- do you want to automate certain ATCO tasks with your EFPS
- do you need SYSCO functionality
- do you need safety nets tools
- what are your needs for configuring sectorisation of CWPs
- do you need to have it integrated with SMGCS
- etc.....

Keep in mind that main enabler for all functionalities/tools that ATCO has in one ATC system (in your case TWR EFPS) is your FDP. What you see and interact with on the disply on your CWP has to be supported by good FDP in order to be useful.
Be awear that ATM system suppliers are very careful and precise in using the terms/expresions/vocabulary when you are ordering something from them.
Which can mean that you ask for electronic strips with the certain layout/look as an interaction device, you get it , but you do not get desired functionalities because they are enabled by another module/sub-system that you did not ask for. Of course this example I give is a bit of exaguration just to ilustrate what can happen during this process.

I had experiance with Thales system (Eurocat T) for me it works well in line with ATCO logic, it is modular which means can be deployed in several levels of complexity depending on requirements.

[ayrprox]

bd wrote:
NATS are working with Frequentis to install smart strips on a WACOM panel in both of our area centres. Our Human Factors team have done a lot of work with them in designing the User Interface to ensure it works for ATC and head down time is minimised. We'll be introducing it into service at Prestwick centre first in January next year.
this is subject to the end user finding it acceptable to work with ,i hope?

[BigDaddyBoxMeal]

this is subject to the end user finding it acceptable to work with ,i hope?

LMAO, You either don't work for NATS or are very out of touch with the current company strategy.

Ask the majority of current Scottish Airport ATCOs if they think the system that they've recently been lumbered with is "acceptable to work with" and I can take a pretty good guess at the answer :}

[BDiONU]

bd wrote:
this is subject to the end user finding it acceptable to work with ,i hope?
That's why they've done, and are still doing, lots of validation work and the reason that 'O' date slipped from November to January. The product as it was wasn't acceptable to the users, hence more functionality and improvements, which inevitably impacted on the 'O' date.

BD

[max1]

Square-head,

Does anybody had experience with Thales systems?

You've got quite a few (alot) of ex Aussie ATCs over in Germany now, suggest you grab a few and ask. The Eurocat enroute strips are good, but they actually used ATCs to design them!

[matsATC]

Which can mean that you ask for electronic strips with the certain layout/look as an interaction device, you get it , but you do not get desired functionalities because they are enabled by another module/sub-system that you did not ask for. Of course this example I give is a bit of exaguration just to ilustrate what can happen during this process.

Glad to hear we're not the only ones to have bad experiences with that sort of things :-p

Anyway, in Brussels, we use an in-house developed system at the tower, which works quite well for more than 8 years already.

More info at Belgocontrol - Airport Movement System - AMS (http://www.belgocontrol.be/belgoweb/publishing.nsf/Content/Tower~AMS)

[kontrolor]

We've never had any major problems with our estrips. There were some real minor hickups at the start of the operations...

as japanac pointed out, it is extremely important to pinpoint exactly what do you want to achieve with estrips. in our environemnt estrips are mainly substitution for MTCD since assistant ATCO is sorting out the strategic separation. We are puting more and more info on the radars screen, but very carefuly, in order to take the burden off the exe.

[CUNIM]

If you are planning to use Electronic strips, bear in mind your existing functions.

First, the primary source of information/control decision is outside on the apron and the manoeuvring area - will the electronic display reduce the look out time?

Second, do you have a runway blocked strip? The action of putting it there reinforces the mental picture. How will you reinforce runway activity in the electronic world?

Third, with the manual strip, the noise of the assistant putting a strip on the board alerts the controller. How will you replicate/highlight new information electronically so that there is no need to constantly monitor the screen?

Fourth, Has the wide variation in light in the tower been satisfactorily addressed?

For Approach and enroute the controller's main work area is the radar/FDP display in a light controlled environment, for the tower it ain't, so the problem of increasing efficiency is different and perhaps much more complex. Personally, I would like a head up display so that the information is overlaid on my main work area - outside.

[Bring back Tridents]

We've found that the best system is the one that still uses paper strips!! Granted that's not going to be an option for you but you'll be amazed at all the things you'll find you can't do easily that you used to do easily. Our system (Nav Canada) works after a fashion with IFR traffic but when you introduce VFR traffic of any description (overflights, free calls, circuits etc.) or non standard IFR/VFR it seems to sulk! At least, that's my unit's experience in the UK.
:*:*

[throw a dyce]

Bring back tridents,
Sounds like the system isn't safe to use then.:uhoh:

[MrSandman]

Does anybody had experience with Thales systems?

Yes. Bring money.

[BigDaddyBoxMeal]

Sounds like the system isn't safe to use then.

Try telling management that! :}

[Bring back Tridents]

Throw a Dyce, you may say that. I couldn't possibly comment!!
;);)

[BrATCO]

The best system remains paper and pen. Never lets you down !
If it does... just be sure you've got a backup solution in a pocket. :)

[Bring back Tridents]

Couldn't agree more!
:D

[throw a dyce]

Well the management won't listen if the primary objective is to save money by reducing ATSA staff.I have heard that strips disappear,the system doesn't understand the various demands that VFR traffic put on it (at my old unit),and controllers are very much heads down on the EFPS panel.
But no doubt trumpets will have been blown.ATSA numbers will be slashed later in the year,and the management will be ordering their 60 plate limmos,and slapping themselves on the back.:rolleyes:

[Tarq57]

I wonder, if the main objective is to save an ATSA salary or two, how much the thing costs to purchase and install, how many extra software gurus will be required to service it, and what the ongoing cost of upgrades/replacements will be?
The business units are probably structured in a way that those costs are spread across many different ledgers.

As important as killing off a few jobs, what will the long term effect of this be on the way controllers control? I see it as another key step in the headlong rush to fill automation. The role of our profession will eventually become that of systems monitor. Possibly, even to a degree, in ADC.

[SimGod]

mmmmm...

This reminds me of a rather heated discussion that I started about 6 months ago, hey Tarq57? Although my agenda at the time was coming at this subject from a slightly different angle, and in the end I stirred the hornets nest intentionally to get people talking, I came to the conclusion that EFPS is not a mature product at this time.
It kind of falls into the same basket as voice recognition, sounds really good, but unless its smart enough to work out the difference between "number 1 at the holding point" and "the red piper holding short of RWXX" its not ready. The conclusion I came to is its fine for some aspects of ATC, especially en-route, but throw in VFR, military etc, and even the most mature of the systems (and I looked closely at a lot of them) are still left wanting.
One day though, I have no doubt that it will be the standard, or more likely voice recognition and EFPS will integrate seamlessly, I just cringe thinking that some controllers are basically working in a live lab that is feeding the industrial system engineers. Lets hope the worst doesn't happen due to an unforeseen piece of Swiss cheese...

The only part of the argument that I feel should be closed off is system reliability, if its designed properly, with the right engineering standards applied, and with the correct system maintenance planned for, it will be rock solid.

[Tarq57]

Oh yes, it's rock solid.
We only have to restart one of ours on average every three days, because of a lockup or similar.

Never mind.

The chance of this coinciding with something busy and non standard occurring are very low. So far brief system unavailability has only happened during light traffic. It's probably quite safe.

[BDiONU]

I wonder, if the main objective is to save an ATSA salary or two,
It's to allow 'the system' to know what the controller is doing. So long as the system remains dumb it cannot provide you with much in the way of tools to assist you in doing your job.
what will the long term effect of this be on the way controllers control? I see it as another key step in the headlong rush to fill automation. The role of our profession will eventually become that of systems monitor. Possibly, even to a degree, in ADC.
Headlong rush? How long has ATC been around and how long does it take to make any changes, we're an extremely conservative bunch. Systems monitor no, the human will always be in executive control but you could definitely do with a lot more help from system tools to make life safer, easier and move more traffic.

BD

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<but you could definitely do with a lot more help from system tools to make life safer, easier and move more traffic.>>

But surely, operating extra equipment distracts the controller from his primary task? The first "tool" which would supposedly assist the controller with radar sequencing required the controllers to input, via keyboard, every instruction they gave. It simply did not work. All I ever needed was a working pen... seemed to work pretty well!

[PeltonLevel]

Back in the 80s, I had a non-ops ATCO colleague who had a flight strip pinned to his office noticeboard with '1940s technology' written on it and crossed out with '1950s technology', '1960s technology' and '1970s technology' all crossed out and '1980s technology' left clear. There wouldn't have been space to get up to '2010s technology'! Back then, we thought that paperless operation was just around the corner (a bit like nuclear fusion for power generation). The only change since then seems to be that strips have got a bit shorter.

[goldfrog]

When I joined NATS (well Board of Trade to be precise) I was a Radio Technician and I worked on the Marconi Myriad Flight Plan Processing System* at West Drayton. It did electronic flight strips for the military. Now 40 years later almost to the day I am working on EFD for Prestwick and Swanwick.

Have I spent the last 40 years in a time warp?

Anyway I'm out of here in 26 days so good luck to EFD :-)

* Sad techy fact, the whole system ran on three parallel running 24Kbyte computers :eek:

[BDiONU]

But surely, operating extra equipment distracts the controller from his primary task?
But that's the point, when you make your inputs electronically instead of on paper you facilitate system tools to do things for you, without additional input.
The first "tool" which would supposedly assist the controller with radar sequencing required the controllers to input, via keyboard, every instruction they gave. It simply did not work. All I ever needed was a working pen... seemed to work pretty well!
Yeah it did but we're looking to the future and what system tools can do for us. It's quite possible that some current controllers that go through the pain of transferring to electronics will never reap the benefits, but future generations of controllers will :ok:

BD

[ZOOKER]

"the pain of transferring to electronics'.
Says it all BD.
Pelton, it was odd that the strips got shorter, wasn't it?, - just when, (allegedly) more information needed to be written on each one.

[max1]

As I heard from a wise old pilot, 'the problem with automation and computers is getting the old guys to trust it , and the young guys not to trust it'.

Here in Oz, with our computerised TAAATS system, it seems to work pretty well. We have grown used to it after ten plus years and alot of upgrades to make it more user friendly. However it is only as good as the programs put into it. e.g a seemingly innocuous click from someone upstream can have repercussions downstream for the automatic co-ordination.

Many of our functions can be done either through the electronic strip or by interacting with the track/label on the screen, so you don't have to take your eyes away from the screen.

Those who have been on the system for years have evolved that unconscious competence that a glance at the electronic strip triggers something isn't quite right with the data displayed.

It is something you get used to. One of the problems with system alerting is spurious alarms. e.g. you have received a clearance for an aircraft to enter a Danger Area but the system will still have kittens if you have not turned the alarm off, which you maybe loathe to do as you need to remember to turn it on for controllers downstream. This also affects the alarms for Wx Div, STCA (Short Term Conflict Alert) when traffic has already been given, etc.

On the whole an electronic strip/ computerised system has been a big plus in the colony.

A word of warning though this may happen ( and I'm not saying this is my experience in Oz), management will be told by the sales people SELLING these systems that they will cost thrupence hapenny, can be safely run by two people and a tech, and run on the smell of an oily rag/ AAA battery. Management will be all agog at where they will spend the huge bonus coming their way when the system comes on line.

As the system evolves they will work out that it will end up costing many times what they were led to believe and a hell of a lot more to run/ upgrade as problems are encountered and 'consultants' are engaged. Some of the consultants may be the ex-managers who signed up for the system in the first place as they are now working for the company who sold them the system.
Realising that the only item they still have some control over , and not believing that the company selling the system may have gilded the lily somewhat to close the sale, the big push will be for a reduction in staff numbers, there may be also be a big push to dumb down the training as management may believe that people are now just helping the computer to do its job.

It is a constant cause of wonder to me that managers or organisations buy a computer system for a specific business, be it for rostering/ business reporting/ accounts/ travel buying/ etc, from a salesperson and then are shocked to discover that it is not completely suitable for their unique organisation, and that money needs to be sent to tailor it to their specific needs. The companies selling these products are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.

Most importantly refer to my comment at the top.

[PeltonLevel]

Correction to Goldfrog's sad techy fact - the Myriad actually had 32K 24-bit words - 4 times as much memory as he suggests.
It was supposed to do the civil FDP as well but just wasn't big enough, hence the 9020. In order to support British industry, the latter was bought without controller input capabilities, which were going to be provided by Marconi but that project was cancelled in one of the many belt-tightening exercises of the 70s. Controller input was never provided.

[tczulu]

With all this enthusiasm(by some)for EFPS,can someone tell me if they work at an Area/Terminal unit, where one controller only does the r/t,many phone calls and still inputs info electronically?After 37 years in ATC,I'm not averse to new technology,but please give me something thats an improvement for :mad: sake.

[SimGod]

@ Tarq57

Perhaps you were unlucky? Frustrations should be directed at your procurement team and local engineers if thats happening!!

The ONLY time any system used in an operational environment should need to be rebooted is as part of an ongoing maintenance schedule, usually quarterly, and this should obviously be done during traffic troughs in coordination with the ATCO's:ugh:

Also, have you checked the terms and conditions of the support agreement with your supplier?

[Tarq57]

I normally consider myself pretty lucky. :}

There was a "constructive feedback folder" in the cab for a few months following the introduction of the technology.

It started to fill up pretty fast.
It's not only myself in the tower that feels that way.

Tell you what, in an environment where looking outside fairly frequently is important, and scanning, and having a few things "on the go", mentally, a system that forces one (a) into a linear/serial mode of operation, and (b) requires a fair bit of heads-down time, is not appropriate, even without the issues experienced.

[edit] not much has been addressed, from the items entered into the folder, by the way. It is "expected" the next version, due in 2 or 3 months, will resolve the issues. We'll see.

[SimGod]

Thats interesting. Did the supplier ask for the feedback or is this an AirwaysNZ product?

The fact that they're asking for constructive feedback would make me think this is not COTS software as feedback for change implies software amendments can be considered, which in turn implies in-house development. (just guessing)

I still think you need to talk to your safety and standards officer together with the senior engineer and find out why the system needs to be rebooted every 3 days. Sounds like the hardware solution is either not fit for purpose or the engineering standards should be reviewed. :confused:

For the heads-down time, does it really require more interaction time than paper strips where you have to write and sort the board manually? My study did not see this as a factor once the ATCO learnt how to interact with the HMI efficiently, which shouldn't be more than a matter of a couple of sessions in a simulator.

[goldfrog]

Sounds like the hardware solution is either not fit for purpose or the engineering standards should be reviewed.


If a system needs rebooting every three days it is very unlikely to be a hardware problem, almost certainly a memory leak somewhere in the software causing the free memory to be used up requiring a system reboot.

[Tarq57]

For the heads-down time, does it really require more interaction time than paper strips where you have to write and sort the board manually? Yes, very much so. My study did not see this as a factor once the ATCO learnt how to interact with the HMI efficiently, which shouldn't be more than a matter of a couple of sessions in a simulator. What efs system did your study use, and was this in an actual aerodrome control environment, an actual centre environment, or a simulator environment?
What light levels were present in the environment the study took place in?

[SimGod]

I'm not going to mention which suppliers we looked at, but we all know who the main players are. The systems were evaluated in simulated environments and then a winner was selected based on strict criteria defined in the tender process, just like all systems should be.

The aerodrome is in the top 5 busiest worldwide and is now using EFPS succesfully, however, and this is a big however, its almost exclusively IFR heavy traffic. I'm guessing Wellington has mixed IFR and VFR? Lights mixed with heavys? Which of course is a different animal....
The EFPS has integrated well, after some resistance of course, but the bigger picture, from the airport and airline operators viewpoint is the data generated from the EFPS system, and conversely the data feeding the EFPS which has improved the overall efficiency of the airport by a significant margin, which we projected in simulation and has now been proven in live operations.

The light levels varied, why is that of interest? This has not been an issue as far as I am aware.

[SimGod]

@ Goldfrog

Your analysis could be true but I wouldnt hang my hat on that one without investigation...

Also when I mention engineering standards, that includes traceable software quality assurance by the supplier and comprehensive acceptance testing by the customer. Sorry if I wasnt clear.

[Tarq57]

The light levels varied, why is that of interest? This has not been an issue as far as I am aware.
Towers generally have 360 degree windows. For the first and last 3 hours or so of daylight, if you live in a place where there are sunny days, a combination of reflection and insufficient contrast on the screens makes them difficult to read, unless up close, personal, and pretty much square-on to the display. At night time, the overhead lights are a factor for reflection, unless re-positioning/redesign of them is taken into account when the EFS is installed.

Wellington is mainly medium and light traffic, and the occasional heavy. There is a reasonable amount of VFR traffic. The typical routes through the control zone, of both IFR and VFR traffic, can be somewhat complex.

But it's not the traffic mix that's the problem. We've deal with that happily for years. It's the heads-down time, and the type of mental distraction that creates.

If I want to write something on a conventional strip, say, a VFR clearance, or a ground taxi route, I move my hand over the approximate entry area on the strip, check that the pen is armed, and write. I can do this with a single glance; once the pen is in the correct place, and write what I want, while at the same time watching the runway. Or the weather. Or glancing at final approach. Or whatever. Even talking on the radio. I can actually multi-task rather well. And I don't have to compensate for parallax error. Where the nib touches the surface is where the data magically appears when the tool is activated.

If I want to enter the same info in an electronic strip, I have to take the scribe and touch the strip within a millimetre or two of the entry point. Sometimes that opens the wrong menu, because silly old me has moved laterally since I last calibrated the screen, maybe to look around a window frame, or stand up, or to peer up at a departing flight, or whatever. (Tower controllers do move around, a bit.) So then I have to close that menu, move my head to pretty much exactly where it was when the screen was last calibrated, touch the screen in the correct location, select from the available options on a drop-down menu, or go into a sub-menu, tap it, exit out (maybe twice), tap it again when the pilot reads it back.

Or I can use the crap writing tool. Works well on delivery or SMC, where there is a bit of time to faff around doing that.

So far, the heads down time has not made a huge difference, because with the reduction in air traffic over the past couple of years, we aren't dealing with as many flights as we used to. But guess what? It feels like we're dealing with more.

When you work in a busy tower, which is a pretty tactical sort of operation, an extra couple of seconds actually does make a disproportionate difference to the workload, not only because of the increased heads-down time, but because of the nature of the distraction, requiring a different kind of thought process to deal with. And every time you issue an instruction to an aircraft, some kind of strip interaction is usually required.

Pen and paper= simplicity and reliability. Never had a paper strip fail. Never had to reboot a Bic pen, and wait for half a minute for it to work again, because the ink dried up. A replacement was always within reach. I can talk, watch, plan, listen peripherally and write all at the same time. (Or tiny bursts of separated time, that appear to occupy the same temporal space to the consciousness. Multi-tasking is more correctly called time-splitting, these days.)

That's without going into the involved types of different data sources humans use. There is more than just visual. Any controller will tell you that tactile was an important "mental reinforcement-type" action.

Maybe I'm just thick, but I can't do that successfully using an EFS system; or at least, our EFS system.

Anyway, that's my last semi-educated rant on the subject.

[Gonzo]

It's interesting to read the ongoing discussion here. I do wonder if, in a few years, someone will undertake some op analysis and the results of which show some unintended consequences of using an electronic system.

I always break out in a wry smile when I see one of the categories for the assessment of 'Day to Day Safety Measures' at my unit; the use of 'Tactile Methods to retain situational awareness'. Rather difficult on an electronic system.

[SimGod]

Tarq57, It sounds to me that your EFPS installation was deemed to be a stand alone system that was not properly thought out, as you hinted at, there is more to it than just putting a couple of screens in.

I am aware that towers are generally 360 :E but installing powered light filters on each window would resolve your dusk/dawn issue. (no vampire jokes please)

Question: Do you really have overhead lighting ON in your tower at night? How do you see outside?

The larger concern is the hardware you describe, sounds like a generation 1 system from the early 90's, I am confident a mid-life upgrade of the panel technology would make your interaction painless. Hell, even my kid's bedroom PC doesn't suffer from those issues, and thats just a $1000 COTS gaming system with a 24 inch touch screen, with a half hours practice you dont need a mouse to interact with windows anymore, and retina scanning technology is on the horizon so it will get even better. :cool:

L/J Series : VAIO and Computing : Sony (http://www.sony.co.uk/product/vd-l-series)

[towerguy]

am using same system as Tarq
I was one of biggest naysayers especially with regard to VFR, head down time, lighting, and writing without looking etc

have been using them in Auckland for a while now - reasonably okay traffic levels and a good mix from light singles through med turboprop and jets ( our biggest users ) to a good level of heavies.

I'm sold.
lighting is not a problem ( and we get more sun than WN :ok:) learning to use the lighting adjustment controls correctly solved that one.
I calibrate as soon as I sit in position and very rarely have to redo it before handing over again.
With experience I find that the head down time is actually reduced as a single touch is quicker for most information ( and I can read it again afterward).

Yes we have had ,and are still having, some minor issues but a lot of these will be dealt with in the upcoming upgrade.

have to say that for me personally, I've gone from NAY to YAY.

[Tarq57]

Question: Do you really have overhead lighting ON in your tower at night? How do you see outside?

We have directional lighting overhead, in a tube w/ halogen spots, that illuminates just the workstation area. Including (unfortunately) the EFS tablets.
There are also overhead lights in the ceiling, that are long life (fluoro) bulbs, that personally I don't have on at night time, and mini LED spots low by each workstation. Like a lot of LEDs, these are intense, so I usually have them on the red colour only.

Powered light filters on the windows? Are you kidding? That would cost money, even if there was someone in NZ that make them.
The windows are tinted.

I doubt that Auckland gets more sunshine, or at least, more intense sunshine than Wellington. ;) The air is clearer down here. Less ozone, too.

Interesting that we are told the AA controllers like EFS. We were told the CH controllers like them, too. But the reality is that some actually don't. There might be a few controllers in WN that like them; I sure don't speak for everyone.

[Two Moocows]

Thales have a pretty cool looking system called Eurocat-T. I believe they are supplying to the UAE.

Scroll to the bottom of the page in this link and check out the video.

It's the only one I've seen that still allows the use of "pens" and gestures.
How it works in practice of course could be another thing entirely. Anyone here using Eurocat-T?

Thales's Media: 2010 in motion. ATC Amsterdam 2010 (http://events.thalesgroup.com/atc2010/medias.html)

Hope that helps. :ok:

[Wojtus]

Anybody has experience with Indra's EFPS or is Poland the world's first FIR to have them?

[BrATCO]

Thales' thing seems to be a beautyful video game !

The ATCOs seem to hesitate a lot when filling their e-strips , strips move slower than real ones.
When the girl writes something, it's unreadable. Surely, that' a simulation, the &quot;ATCOs&quot; are actors, they are not used to the system. They can't be qualified on it.
When a strip moves (slower than paper ones), their size changes... must be disturbing for a real controller.
The available documentation that shows on the screen is irrelevant : I hope ATCOs know their sector (they shouldn't need that). And it takes a place on the screen that could be useful otherwise.
Of course, this film shows a demonstrator, not the final system, which will have to be used for years in an operational safety context. After 2 years of heavy duty, what will that screen look like? My daughter's game's touch screen shows lots of scrapes after only 6 months...
The pen they use is a special one. It is not linked to the control position. How is the pen issue dealt with ? Does every ATCo have his own, or is there a pen per position ? How much does such a pen cost ? Who pays when the pen is lost ? When a pen is broken, is there a backup system?

I don't think they use e-strips in LFBO (IAC shown) they already have electronic co-ordination between TWR and APP and between APP and ACC, even though the result is a paper strip.

How much does this system cost ? For what improvement ?
Could anyone tell me what is better in e-strips vs paper strips ?
Not only the usual : &quot;That's the future, you must live with your time&quot; . I'd like to know what do controllers win by changing to an e-strips system.

[Voel]

I believe they are supplying to the UAE

Jip, but does not meet our expactions :{

[wesleymarques]

We are changing over to paper-less strips and had a look at various systems. But to get the most user-friendly one is difficult to judge. What is you experience on the best system?

A little bit late (lol), but that's the answer: >> www.saipher.com.br (TATIC System).

[wesleymarques]

A little bit later, but that's the answer >> www.saipher.com.br (TATIC System).

[sejo]

Eurocontrol NOP23MAR 08:22Tactical update
EDDF (Frankfurt)
Arrivals regulated due to ATC Equipment (Paperless Strip System problems).
Moderate to high delays.

Anyone know which is in use here?