Swanick
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
From: In la la land.......
Swanwick
Last edited by zoink; 22nd January 2004 at 23:28.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
From: New Zealand
There is another thread on this over at Rumours and News:
Swanwick Software Update After 2002 Near- Miss??
It will probably get moved to this forum in the next day or two.
Swanwick Software Update After 2002 Near- Miss??
It will probably get moved to this forum in the next day or two.
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
From: UK
NATS News at:
http://www.nats.co.uk/news/news_stories/2004_01_20.html
Says:
"Nats responds to media comments on 2002 airprox
A number of newspapers, radio and TV stations report today on an airprox involving a Virgin 747 and a Delta 767, in which track data blocks for the two aircraft were inadvertently swapped on-screen. Today's coverage highlights changes due to be introduced next month to the software at NATS' en-route centre at Swanwick in Hampshire.
It is important to note that this airprox actually took place in November 2002 and was subsequently assessed by the UKAB as category C (no risk of collision). The UKAB report was published in October 2003.
In fact, there have been no risk-bearing incidents at Swanwick since it became operational two years ago. Immediately after this particular incident, an instruction was issued to controllers reminding them of the correct procedure to follow when individual track data blocks are re-positioned, in order to prevent a repeat of these events."
While on P.18 of the UKAB Report:
"http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/423/Analysis of Airprox in UK Airspace Report No 9.pdf"
They classify the level of Risk as B (Safety Not assured).
Ooohh! Errrrr!
http://www.nats.co.uk/news/news_stories/2004_01_20.html
Says:
"Nats responds to media comments on 2002 airprox
A number of newspapers, radio and TV stations report today on an airprox involving a Virgin 747 and a Delta 767, in which track data blocks for the two aircraft were inadvertently swapped on-screen. Today's coverage highlights changes due to be introduced next month to the software at NATS' en-route centre at Swanwick in Hampshire.
It is important to note that this airprox actually took place in November 2002 and was subsequently assessed by the UKAB as category C (no risk of collision). The UKAB report was published in October 2003.
In fact, there have been no risk-bearing incidents at Swanwick since it became operational two years ago. Immediately after this particular incident, an instruction was issued to controllers reminding them of the correct procedure to follow when individual track data blocks are re-positioned, in order to prevent a repeat of these events."
While on P.18 of the UKAB Report:
"http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/423/Analysis of Airprox in UK Airspace Report No 9.pdf"
They classify the level of Risk as B (Safety Not assured).
Ooohh! Errrrr!
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
From: Just North of France
With regard to this incident, there were legal goings on, which probably delayed it's publicity.
Aside from that, it is worthy to note that I and several others have filled in observations with regard to label overlap and re-positioning of TDB's. Probably even before this incident.
The new labels and struts are far better, however, it has taken a lot longer than first hoped to bring them onto the system (hopefully in a month or so). They were originally planned to come in last April I think, then it was November and now Feb/Mar time. The last major build however had to include the Lakes changes which probably meant that they didn't have the bandwidth to include other significant changes? For the record, I would rather have had the labels than the lakes changes, and I don't think I'm alone
Also, at the moment if you "hook" a datablock, it supresses the strut of other labels which have been moved which can be very dangerous if left "hooked" in error (which they do say you shouldn't do)
They obviously don't appear to consider this a safety issue, but then again it probably costs money
Aside from that, it is worthy to note that I and several others have filled in observations with regard to label overlap and re-positioning of TDB's. Probably even before this incident.
The new labels and struts are far better, however, it has taken a lot longer than first hoped to bring them onto the system (hopefully in a month or so). They were originally planned to come in last April I think, then it was November and now Feb/Mar time. The last major build however had to include the Lakes changes which probably meant that they didn't have the bandwidth to include other significant changes? For the record, I would rather have had the labels than the lakes changes, and I don't think I'm alone
Also, at the moment if you "hook" a datablock, it supresses the strut of other labels which have been moved which can be very dangerous if left "hooked" in error (which they do say you shouldn't do)
They obviously don't appear to consider this a safety issue, but then again it probably costs money
Everybody's gotta be somewhere
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
From: Denham
Also, at the moment if you "hook" a datablock, it supresses the strut of other labels which have been moved which can be very dangerous if left "hooked" in error (which they do say you shouldn't do)
When I was writing software (not safety critical) I was very aware that for every idiot proof system there was a system proof idiot! Test, test and test again - then get someone else to have a go.
dd
p.s. I am so glad I didn't become an ATCO after all.
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
From: Sunny San Juan, Puerto Rico
Fact Funny as Fiction?
I ran across this link last week - a parody of the incident at Swanwick.
http://deadbrain.co.uk/news/article_2004_01_20_5549.php
Rich
http://deadbrain.co.uk/news/article_2004_01_20_5549.php
Rich
