Follow the greens !

[flyandbike]

Anybody here who's got some experience with this ground ops/taxi-guidance system?
Recently introduced in UAE?
Need some info/feedback from professionals from anywhere !

[Musket90]

Being instructed to "follow the greens" the assumptions are:

1. ATC has selected a safe route without informing you which route it is.
2. The taxiway lighting is designed to avoid conflict with other taxiway routes and runway.
3. ATC is aware of any airfield lighting design deficiencies when giving such instructions.

Taking the above into account I like to know which way the "greens" are taking me so prefer to be given the taxi routeing which helps with situational awareness and avoiding any potential conflict with other traffic.

[Sir George Cayley]

Heathrow have had this system for years and works really well. Never been sent the wrong way, always had confidence that the Lighting Control Panel Operator was ahead of the game.

If only this system was installed at JNB..................:ugh:

SGC

[Minesthechevy]

I'm a retired (7 years) ex-Heathrow Lighting Op, and being unfamiliar with the UAE system, I have to ask for some background. I think I am the only ex-EGLL L/Op on the forum, but stand to be corrected; just remember that I can only offer info that is possibly out of date.

Musket 90 has summed it up well, I think.

1. Is the UAE system switchable, ie does a single green route come up and simultaneously introduce red stop-bars at any junction? ISTR that Heathrow was not the only airport with switchable greens, but there were none with the same flexibility.

2. Is the UAE lighting system controlled by the GMC controller, or is it a 'team'? With respect to the ex-LL ATCOs in here, there would have been no way that a Heathrow GMC controller could have done both tasks with the same throughput, even if they could have 'magicced' the hardware down to fit into their desks.

3. If the latter, how much leeway does the Lighting Op in following the GMC instructions? In my day, there was no 'bottom-line' responsibility conferred on the L/Op; they were working 'under' the GMC man's licence, which in many ways put both parties into a no-mans-land scenario of real trust. I'd try and wriggle moving traffic around stationary a/c, eg a pushback onto a live taxiway, and would often do it without reference to the GMC man. OTOH, any specific taxiing instructions given to an a/c had to be followed by the L/Op.

Sorry about the long post, I'm intrigued by what's been installed in the UAE.

When Sir George says <<Lighting Control Panel Operator was ahead of the game> this only ever happened on my days off............:O

[Una Due Tfc]

I have spoken to a few friends at the other end of the mic about this before. They have nothing but praise for the LHR system, they say it is superb. Easy to follow, well laid out, no room for confusion. (their words not mine)

[BDiONU]

It is a full A-SMGCS (advanced - surface movement guidance & control system) which is being introduced at DXB. System works out where the aircraft needs to go and automatically does the route, taking into account other aircraft, does the greens, does the stopbars etc all using the ground radar to follow the aircraft. Controller can manually intervene if required. No lighting operator (there only ever is one during LVOs). Many airports are using A-SMGCS now at various levels.

[Minesthechevy]

OK, ta. Skynet meets ATC, then....... I mean, nothing ever goes wrong with technology, does it?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

It would have to be bl**dy good to beat you guys M....

[BDiONU]

OK, ta. Skynet meets ATC, then....... I mean, nothing ever goes wrong with technology, does it?And humans never ever make mistakes :ok:

[Crazy Voyager]

I will be watching this topi...

Does the system pick the taxiway route itself or is that done by the controller?

[flyandbike]

Is the DXB system working? How do the ATCOs like it? Is the data-feed from GMR or any other source?

[BDiONU]

But the DXB one sounds interesting - does it tick the boxes for level 3?Level 4. .

[flyandbike]

any more info available here?

Are DXB ATCOs working with that system and which level?
Is it american or british development?

Does anybody have experience either from ATC or flight-deck at DXB or any other location, if yes, where?

Is it really a usefull device for aircrew and/or ATCOS?

Thanks, mateys!

[JennyPolar]

A few days ago I saw a video about some large scale cockpit simulation trials which have been conducted in the context of the SESAR programme (European ATM Transformation Programme).

From what I understood the 20 participating pilots from various airline attested significant improvements for situational awareness and workload.

I'll try to get a link and share it with you.

[Nimmer]

Now that is a surprise!!!!

[BDiONU]

Its not working in DXB. And its not level 4.Currently planned implementation date is October and is planned level 4.

[mrfancypants]

ASMCGS Requirements ICAO Level 4.
Check point - 3.5.2 Does not include

3.5 Level 4
The implementation Level 4 corresponds to the improvement of the functions
implemented at the Level 3.
3.5.1 Surveillance
At this level, the surveillance function will be the same as in Level 3.
3.5.2 Control
The Control function will be provided to controllers, pilots, and drivers in the
movement area. Moreover, the function will be complemented by a conflict
resolution function.
3.5.3 Route Planning
The route planning function will be extended to equipped mobiles. This implies
that the route proposed by the route planning function and validated by
controllers will be down-linked to pilots and drivers.
3.5.4 Guidance
The guidance function will be the same as in Level 3

[JennyPolar]

ASMCGS Requirements ICAO Level 4.
Check point - 3.5.2 Does not include

I couldn't find the above reference in the ICAO A-SMGCS Manual. In my version of that document (Doc 9830 AN/452, 1st Ed. 2004), the implementation levels I - V given in Annex B are introduced as a recommendation for airports depending on operations in the lowest visibility conditions, traffic density and aerodrome layout. For DXB, the following conditions are met:


Visibility Condition '3': Visibility sufficient for the pilot to taxi but insufficient for the pilot to avoid collision with other traffic on taxiways and at intersections by visual reference, and insufficient for personnel of control units to exercise control over all traffic on the basis of visual surveillance. For taxiing, this is normally taken as visibilities equivalent to an RVR of less than 400 m but more than 75 m
Traffic Density 'Heavy' (H): 26 or more movements per runway or typically more than 35 total aerodrome movements
Aerodrome Layout 'Complex' (C): An aerodrome with more than one runway, having many taxiways to one or more apron areas

These 3 criterias classify DXB as aerodrome type T-27, for which ICAO recommends implementation level IV, including the following functions to be provided by systems:


Surveillance (Glossary: "A function of the system which provides identification and accurate position information on aircraft, vehicles and obstacles within the designated area.")
Control (conflict prediction and/or detection, conflict analysis, conflict resoltion)
Routing: (section 2.5.2: "[...] the routing
function of an A-SMGCS should: a) be able to designate a route for each aircraft orvehicle within the movement area; [...])
Guidance (automatic switched centre line lights)

So it's up to you guys at DXB to decide if you're going to have a level IV system or not.

[flyandbike]

To what I got till now follow-the-greens is meant to reduce the ATCOs' workload in communication with aircrew on the ground trying to find their way
This is not always easy for non native-english speakers especially on major hubs

So my inquiries are to get some more info if anybody here has got some good points on that

@fancypants: did/do you work with that? what system (american/british) are DXB using? thanks

[flyandbike]

@jennypolar: did you find anything which might help?

[JennyPolar]

Hi all,

the video about the SESAR trials has been presented by Fraport on the booth of a company called ATRiCS at this year's World ATM Congress in Madrid (6-8 March 2014). The shown results are extremely impressive and somehow hard to believe, but since 20 pilots participated in the trials and conducted 90 missions there is a solid statistical base.

There are also two more videos, one on a controller HMI called TowerPad (integrated controller working position) and another one on A-CDM Pre-Departure Sequencing (priority-based offblock sequening to fit departure demand with available departure capacity).

Hope this helps - the videos are available here: ATRiCS on Vimeo

Love,
Jenny

[JennyPolar]

The ATRiCS demo system I have seen at the World ATM Congress in Madrid proposed a taxi route that takes into account wing span constraints, closed areas and also other traffic. I've been told that in most cases the controller (GMC for outbounds and AIR for inbounds) just needs to confirm the proposed route, see

ATRiCS TowerPad on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/atrics/towerpad)

The guys from ATRiCS told me that their system is in use in Incheon (RSKI, South Korea) since 2008 and for the inbounds the controllers wanted the taxi route to be assigned fully automatically.

[flyandbike]

Thanks for the link!
Looks very usefull for ground positions. Is that DXB they are showing?
Wonder why DXB have still not yet established a fully working position during their fog problems ?
EK certainly will like it, but maybe they don't know about that option?

[wobo63]

Hi everyone,

being an ATCO for almost 30 years and working ground (and tower) for the same time I wonder how they will live up to their promises.

Don't get me wrong - I think this is a great thing for pilots but for ATCOs? Entering the route is still an additional task which can create problems while being really busy. Heathrow has addressed this issue by implementing a dedicated position/person but all the others (by the way there are no other so far except Singapore switching it off during daylight because of the extra workload it generated).

The trials in Frankfurt are driven by a company working very hard to sell this stuff which means they are far away from reporting sort of critical about their own product!

In addition they promise a reduction of taxi fuel of more than 40% - imagine this happening in Kennedy or other such places. Everyone MUST run for it - but they don't. They promise 20% shorter taxi times - can this really be true in day to day operation?
Isn't it true that taxi time is determined by distance, speed and the queue at the holding point which is mainly driven by DMAN issuing reasonable TSATs?

They argue that pilots are working with them - yes pilots on their payroll!

They promise far less stops (>65%) but every GND ATCO learns from day 1 on to avoid stops be giving clearance well in advance like 'follow the aircraft from the right or at exit x give way to, behind landing x line up behind ...' and so on. This is done to avoid stops, is basic ATC and it works.

So what can be the truth - besides all the marketing statements? Is all the investment really paying off?

Any discussion more than welcome - thank you!

[wobo63]

....some more information/discussion input.

I was watching a colleague working GROUND in Vienna today; there is no dedicated ramp control in Vienna (LOWW) just for info - that means ATC is responsible from and until the stand.

Vienna is not one of the busiest airport earth - mid size with some 800 movements a day on annual average.

Today in 30 minutes GND East (two grounds existing) had 33 aircraft taxiing through the sector and there were exactly ZERO stops. All possible crossings have been avoided by 'in time instructions' to pilots.
So where could be the proclaimed benefit?

Any comments out there?

[EastofKoksy]

wobo63

It is very simple: Technology=GOOD, People=BAD

There is a lot of interest from industry in milking the aviation cash cow. There are billions of dollars available in the NEXTGEN and SESAR programs.

Technology appeals to managers as it costs less than people in the long run, especially if they can get a government grant to buy it!

Technology can effectively raise the skill level of a few but, if not managed carefully, can erode the skill level of the many. It would be interesting to see ground ops at airports that rely on these systems when they fail.

[wobo63]

Thank you for your reply. Basically I am very much 'pro-technology' when it really does deliver benefits.

Currently European ATC is driven by the industry with huge influence in SESAR (where they run dozens of workgroups without any OPS people) - exactly as you say. They just promise everything no matter what and all this is heavily subsidized by the European Commission. Impressive what good lobbying can achieve.

I am very much interested in experience with FTG from 'real-OPS people' not just hired marketing guys.
I think there's a lot of knowledge out there and I am always ready to learn!

And as you mention - experience of people using it would be great but I think no one is doing it (besides Singapore during night).

Thanks

[Voel]

Any results yet on the trials done at DXB recently? Confirm it also included a new tower pad

[Emma Royds]

Does TowerPad work with electronic strips, or do taxy instructions need to be inserted into the strip as well?

[3miles]

Does TowerPad work with electronic strips, or do taxy instructions need to be inserted into the strip as well?

Don't need strips - so 1980s!

Clearance , control of AGL and surveillance all combined in one position with safety nets etc.

Several trials been conducted in SESAR, SEAC, Munich, Frankfurt etc

All show positive results on a number of factors, not just the fuel claims but actual WL reductions for ATCO, increased Situational Awareness.

Far more ATCO friendly than clunky electronic strips, which s bad example of not implementing technology to do something new, but try and replicate something and then fail