Swanwick Technical Handover
Guest
Posts: n/a
Swanwick Technical Handover
You'll all have heard and seen that NATS achieved Swanwick Technical Handover on the appointed date of 19th December 2000. This wonderful achievement was mentioned in various newspapers and on radio/TV. Doesn't it make you feel proud to part of such a successful company as NATS?
So just what was Technical Handover, and what are its implications? I will use a couple of quotes from "A Focus on NATS - Update" dated 19th December 2000, a document which is in the public domain.
Quote 1 -
"Technical Handover essentially means that .... the systems and equipment have been installed, tested and integrated properly"
Quote 2 -
"From here on, Swanwick has an operational capacity .... it could provide a live ATC service"
Impressive, heh?
So why has the Voice Communication System (VCS) been removed? After all, it's only that essential part that links the controller's headset with the telephones and R/T systems. Apparently, the contractor responsible for that part of the work has decided that the system is not good enough for the job, and will be providing a more capable system by October 2001.
Whilst it is lauable that the contractor has such a responsible attitude (and perhaps the improved system will actually include a real side-tone for the headsets), it is worrying that the impetus for its replacement does not appear to have come from the NATS team.
What is really puzzling (to refer back to the previously-quoted document) is how Close Coupled Parallel Operation (CCPO) can continue on its 6th until 17th March schedule. CCPO "brings together (for the first time) all the key elemments of the live operation". Now, I always thought that R/T was a key element in any ATC system. Perhaps some kind soul will explain where I've been going wrong all these years.
On a different topic, I hear that CC has been forced to write an apology for misleading(!) Parliament about controller numbers. Perhaps now he can make a similar apology to those IPMS members whose views he rubbished in his Radio 4 interview on 14th November 2000. You may recall that, when challenged about an across-the-board shortage of controllers, he stated "Well, it's simply not true and I can only assume that either they've got some other agenda or they don't have the facts".
So just what was Technical Handover, and what are its implications? I will use a couple of quotes from "A Focus on NATS - Update" dated 19th December 2000, a document which is in the public domain.
Quote 1 -
"Technical Handover essentially means that .... the systems and equipment have been installed, tested and integrated properly"
Quote 2 -
"From here on, Swanwick has an operational capacity .... it could provide a live ATC service"
Impressive, heh?
So why has the Voice Communication System (VCS) been removed? After all, it's only that essential part that links the controller's headset with the telephones and R/T systems. Apparently, the contractor responsible for that part of the work has decided that the system is not good enough for the job, and will be providing a more capable system by October 2001.
Whilst it is lauable that the contractor has such a responsible attitude (and perhaps the improved system will actually include a real side-tone for the headsets), it is worrying that the impetus for its replacement does not appear to have come from the NATS team.
What is really puzzling (to refer back to the previously-quoted document) is how Close Coupled Parallel Operation (CCPO) can continue on its 6th until 17th March schedule. CCPO "brings together (for the first time) all the key elemments of the live operation". Now, I always thought that R/T was a key element in any ATC system. Perhaps some kind soul will explain where I've been going wrong all these years.
On a different topic, I hear that CC has been forced to write an apology for misleading(!) Parliament about controller numbers. Perhaps now he can make a similar apology to those IPMS members whose views he rubbished in his Radio 4 interview on 14th November 2000. You may recall that, when challenged about an across-the-board shortage of controllers, he stated "Well, it's simply not true and I can only assume that either they've got some other agenda or they don't have the facts".
