Marked for Delete?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Marked for Delete?
Dear All,
I have been hearing rumours that the Marked for delete function at NERC is causing problems. Can somebody who is in the know explain the issue here and the "fix" if there is one?
This may well be of interest to non NATS ATC people and give them some idea of the complexity of NERC.
Thanks for info
Rgds BEX
I have been hearing rumours that the Marked for delete function at NERC is causing problems. Can somebody who is in the know explain the issue here and the "fix" if there is one?
This may well be of interest to non NATS ATC people and give them some idea of the complexity of NERC.
Thanks for info
Rgds BEX
Well, I won't claim to be an expert, but I'll attempt to explain the problem as I understand it.
In order to provide the electronic equivalent of "throwing the dead strips away" the NERC software detects when an aircraft has left the sector's airspace and then, after a pause of two minutes, marks it for delete. This involves electronically crssing the strip through (as we do now manually) and then physically removing it from the display.
So far, so good. However, particularly around the London TMA, there are some flights which pass through a sector, then enter an adjacent sector, before re-entering the previous sector. This can occur on either vertical or lateral profiles, or indeed both. So, in a worst-case scenario, an aircraft can make its first transit through a sector, be marked for delete and removed from the display, and then re-enter the sector with no electronic strip displayed and no electronic inputs possible.
I'm sure we can all envisage situations where this could be extremely embarrassing, or indeed dangerous, and it is rightly, if belatedly, causing real concern.
What the final solution will be I have no idea, but one colleague closer to the action suggests that the "marked for delete" function may be "switched off" to prevent the undesireable side effects. I assume that such a move will increase the planner's workload dramatically as he/she will have to manually delete all strips, but maybe I'm wrong on that.
Perhaps one of the NTT people will correct any errors in the above - thanks.
In order to provide the electronic equivalent of "throwing the dead strips away" the NERC software detects when an aircraft has left the sector's airspace and then, after a pause of two minutes, marks it for delete. This involves electronically crssing the strip through (as we do now manually) and then physically removing it from the display.
So far, so good. However, particularly around the London TMA, there are some flights which pass through a sector, then enter an adjacent sector, before re-entering the previous sector. This can occur on either vertical or lateral profiles, or indeed both. So, in a worst-case scenario, an aircraft can make its first transit through a sector, be marked for delete and removed from the display, and then re-enter the sector with no electronic strip displayed and no electronic inputs possible.
I'm sure we can all envisage situations where this could be extremely embarrassing, or indeed dangerous, and it is rightly, if belatedly, causing real concern.
What the final solution will be I have no idea, but one colleague closer to the action suggests that the "marked for delete" function may be "switched off" to prevent the undesireable side effects. I assume that such a move will increase the planner's workload dramatically as he/she will have to manually delete all strips, but maybe I'm wrong on that.
Perhaps one of the NTT people will correct any errors in the above - thanks.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London and the South Coast
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrong people doing the wrong things at the wrong time. Vested interest of a large number of arrogant people that continue to think that they know what ATC is all about, better than any ATC staff, even though they have never 'done it' themselves. £1Bn and a heap of poo later. 
The people that have been bought in in the last couple of years are doing an excellent job of trying to sort out this thing.
The REAL changes will come when the 'originals' are gone and operational staff get their hands on it.
The people that have been bought in in the last couple of years are doing an excellent job of trying to sort out this thing.
The REAL changes will come when the 'originals' are gone and operational staff get their hands on it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Numpo et al...
My own concern is that we are rushing towards "O" date without any CAUTION. It seems to me that nothing is going to delay this project, regardless of the safety implications. This cannot be right.
Anybody that raises any concerns is portrayed as a Nay-sayer and ostracised by NERC management.
A more constructive attitude from them might be to say to anyone that has concerns "Okay, tell me what's bothering you and let me show you why your concerns are unfounded." Not gonna happen though is it?
Rgds BEX
My own concern is that we are rushing towards "O" date without any CAUTION. It seems to me that nothing is going to delay this project, regardless of the safety implications. This cannot be right.
Anybody that raises any concerns is portrayed as a Nay-sayer and ostracised by NERC management.
A more constructive attitude from them might be to say to anyone that has concerns "Okay, tell me what's bothering you and let me show you why your concerns are unfounded." Not gonna happen though is it?
Rgds BEX
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bex, you hit the nail on the head. Look at
the witch-hunt which was reported on another thread, not just ostracised, but negative action taken against people who dare to question. Couldn't possibly be because they expressed genuine concerns could it? The strategy is to isolate these people and it is working.
the witch-hunt which was reported on another thread, not just ostracised, but negative action taken against people who dare to question. Couldn't possibly be because they expressed genuine concerns could it? The strategy is to isolate these people and it is working.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well from personal experience I can confirm that an overflight from W-E from BRS through Capital through LMS to CLN was marked for delete upon leaving BRS airspace and the processing stopped. The aircraft carried on, however, and transitted CLN S12 airspace as background and without an ACT being sent to EHAA. There was no way CLN S12 could get hold of the electronics as they had gone to a non-NERC sector and that, as far as the computer was concerned, was that.
Now of course this is only a simulator and in real life LMS would force an offer to themselves when CAP tried to coordinate, but it does seem a bit of an arse about face way to go about it, doesn't it? The thing that I simply can't reconcile is when I am told that it is impossible to do this or that. It is only a computer, and you can tell it to do what you like if you programme it right. I suppose the old equation **** In = **** Out applies.
The headlong rush to meet O date becomes more and more apparent as we are persuaded to accept these type of fudges.
Now of course this is only a simulator and in real life LMS would force an offer to themselves when CAP tried to coordinate, but it does seem a bit of an arse about face way to go about it, doesn't it? The thing that I simply can't reconcile is when I am told that it is impossible to do this or that. It is only a computer, and you can tell it to do what you like if you programme it right. I suppose the old equation **** In = **** Out applies.
The headlong rush to meet O date becomes more and more apparent as we are persuaded to accept these type of fudges.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just another reason that we went back to paper strips to get the displays out to the workforce... Now we add things slowly with a test a little deploy a little concept...
Thanks goodness...
regards
Thanks goodness...
regards
Guest
Posts: n/a
The trouble is Scott that our lot are too arrogant to admit even the slightest possibility that they might have made an error of judgement on the long road towards Swanwick. There is absolutely nothing wrong with paper strips being used for conflict detection and as a database. Similarly there is nothing wrong with a properly safeguarded electronic system for both tasks. Unfortunately the new system is very unfriendly towards it's users, does nothing to improve efficiency or safety and has the potential to go very wrong indeed.
On the subject of SRG, I believe that they are listening but there is no-one with the balls to stop this debacle.
Z
On the subject of SRG, I believe that they are listening but there is no-one with the balls to stop this debacle.
Z
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, we are working slowly towards electronic data for getting rid of strips as well as working towards a computer that can look at the routes of flight that are filed and correct them with all of the preferential departure and arrival routes as well as using the Standard Operating Procedures and Letters of Agreement routes and altitudes included in the first clearance <G>...
regards
regards
