From the 80's... EnS? What happened? Why?
Guest
Posts: n/a
From the 80's... EnS? What happened? Why?
Another ATC History Question, for all our edification.
Can anybody tell me more about ENS? How good did it get at the ATCEU? Would it have worked? and Why was it cancelled?
I understand those involved are now all retired (great bash at EGLM) so please tell us the FULL story now...
Tks
BEX
Can anybody tell me more about ENS? How good did it get at the ATCEU? Would it have worked? and Why was it cancelled?
I understand those involved are now all retired (great bash at EGLM) so please tell us the FULL story now...
Tks
BEX
Guest
Posts: n/a
ENS was supposed to be "the next step" in AREA ATC. All super wiz bang electronics and electronic strip displays... that actually worked!
Considering this was in the early 1980's this was no mean achievement. Like many REALLY good ideas in went into the Project Cancelled file in 1984/5.
Reason? Financial? Political? Dunno, but around that time the Government Grant that CAA used to enjoy ended.
Rgds BEX
Considering this was in the early 1980's this was no mean achievement. Like many REALLY good ideas in went into the Project Cancelled file in 1984/5.
Reason? Financial? Political? Dunno, but around that time the Government Grant that CAA used to enjoy ended.
Rgds BEX
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bex,
I've been looking through my diaries.
In the early 80's I was involved in Simulations at Bretigny on electronic data displays and on colour radar display.
The same excercises were repeated over and over again using different colour conventions and data presentations. Amongst other things eye movement was measured: this could be linked to how easily the data could be perceived.
I forget which was the best, only that a mono screen with differing levels of brightness was one of the best and that more than about four colours was confusing.
At the wash up the U.K. delegates "took the hump" because their preffered configurations were deemed unacceptable and accusations were made that the results were distorted (alledgedly) to fit Eurocontrol's ideas.
Soon afterwards it was shelved in the U.K., development continued and Maastricht UAC went stripless in '93.
Further to the Linesman/Mediator discussion, ATCA 3s were to input the data into the computers, however the union wanted a bonus to be paid for the "extra" work, so it was given to the teleprinter operators who made a fortune on the overtime, taking home more than twice what we were earning.
It seems to me that there was (is?) a particular strong "Not Invented Here" mind-set amongst project leaders in the, then, CAA that has to some extent unfortunately carried through to the present day.
NATS seems to me to be a victim of its own publicity. If NERC had not been given such a high profile it would probably have been easier to patch over the problems until they could have been solved or even to have walked away from it.
Apologies for rambling on!
------------------
Lon More,just an ATCO
I've been looking through my diaries.
In the early 80's I was involved in Simulations at Bretigny on electronic data displays and on colour radar display.
The same excercises were repeated over and over again using different colour conventions and data presentations. Amongst other things eye movement was measured: this could be linked to how easily the data could be perceived.
I forget which was the best, only that a mono screen with differing levels of brightness was one of the best and that more than about four colours was confusing.
At the wash up the U.K. delegates "took the hump" because their preffered configurations were deemed unacceptable and accusations were made that the results were distorted (alledgedly) to fit Eurocontrol's ideas.
Soon afterwards it was shelved in the U.K., development continued and Maastricht UAC went stripless in '93.
Further to the Linesman/Mediator discussion, ATCA 3s were to input the data into the computers, however the union wanted a bonus to be paid for the "extra" work, so it was given to the teleprinter operators who made a fortune on the overtime, taking home more than twice what we were earning.
It seems to me that there was (is?) a particular strong "Not Invented Here" mind-set amongst project leaders in the, then, CAA that has to some extent unfortunately carried through to the present day.
NATS seems to me to be a victim of its own publicity. If NERC had not been given such a high profile it would probably have been easier to patch over the problems until they could have been solved or even to have walked away from it.
Apologies for rambling on!
------------------
Lon More,just an ATCO
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks LonMore, your input is always interesting to read.
There are two reasons I have brought up these "ATC History" type questions. One, I'm interested in them. Two, more importantly, I believe that we might actually LEARN something from the past.
If NATS is really committed to it's New Horizons principles and really does want change it's exactly the attitudes that you have highlighted that need addressing.
Personally I would dearly like to see these sorts of changes take place, so NATS can truly become a company which has a climate where eveybody can make a contribution.
If it happens it will take a LONG time.
Thanks again for the informative posts.
Best rgds
BEX
There are two reasons I have brought up these "ATC History" type questions. One, I'm interested in them. Two, more importantly, I believe that we might actually LEARN something from the past.
If NATS is really committed to it's New Horizons principles and really does want change it's exactly the attitudes that you have highlighted that need addressing.
Personally I would dearly like to see these sorts of changes take place, so NATS can truly become a company which has a climate where eveybody can make a contribution.
If it happens it will take a LONG time.
Thanks again for the informative posts.
Best rgds
BEX
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi Bex
I think your "ENS" may in fact be "E and S" or "Executive and Support". Although I wasn't involved with it, I believe it was very similar to the Tactical and Planner concept at NERC - with the big difference that it made clear who was in charge of the sector. Perhaps somebody can shed further light ???
NN
I think your "ENS" may in fact be "E and S" or "Executive and Support". Although I wasn't involved with it, I believe it was very similar to the Tactical and Planner concept at NERC - with the big difference that it made clear who was in charge of the sector. Perhaps somebody can shed further light ???
NN
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi Numps. Yes, you are quite correct of course, it was E&S for Executive and Support. It's alleged similarity to NERC is one of the reasons I'd like to know a little more about it.
As for "who's in charge?" on a NERC suite it's not exactly clear is it? T or P? Perhaps another thread is in order... but I'll leave that to someone a bit more savvy about that system (can't be THAT many people, I'll admit)
Best rgds
BEX
As for "who's in charge?" on a NERC suite it's not exactly clear is it? T or P? Perhaps another thread is in order... but I'll leave that to someone a bit more savvy about that system (can't be THAT many people, I'll admit)
Best rgds
BEX
Guest
Posts: n/a
When I arrived at LATCC in the early 80's I was told that I would not do a mediator course as E and S was coming in! I have to admit that I knew it wasn't going to happen as my father was one of those on the trials and they said it wouldn't work without resectorisation. It would be interesting to see what sectorisation was needed for E and S and compare it with NERC sectorisation. Maybe NERC dusted off the reports from E and S trials to get their initial ideas.
Guest
Posts: n/a
stumlfg.....
Interesting thoughts.... It would indeed be good to see the comparison between the two systems.
Another thought occurs to me... WHO dreamed up DATALAND? What was his/her state of mind at the time? Have they reduced their medication yet?
I think we should be told....
Rgds BEX
Interesting thoughts.... It would indeed be good to see the comparison between the two systems.
Another thought occurs to me... WHO dreamed up DATALAND? What was his/her state of mind at the time? Have they reduced their medication yet?
I think we should be told....
Rgds BEX
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fascinating to see E and S come up again -LATCC 2 I seem to remember it was known as and was abandoned in favour of the development of TC. I was particularly interested in LM's comments about the trials at Bretigny in the early 80s and the loss of interest by the UK.
In June 1987, I was one of 5 LATCC ATCOs who spent a month at Bretigny carrying out trials on the use of colour in ATC (ODID1). We used an E and S system on the old Pole Hill/Irish Sea sectors with stripless electronic co-ordination and it worked extremely well.
At first, we were presented with data lines which were just electronic representations of strips - all in blue for westbound and all yellow for east with pink for crossers - which looked revolting and were difficult to read. Later, we were offered, and subsequently developed, a system which used colour much more sparingly to indicate when action needed to be taken rather than direction of flight. Using this system, it was simple to scan a whole screenful of datalines and immediately pick out which needed action and which did not. Incidentally, just to show there's nothing new under the sun, we reverted to the old JATCRU edge-lit board system where the callsign either "pushed" or "pulled" the level to show direction of flight!
We also use the datablocks (labels) in a very similar way to NERC with both levels showing if the actual level was different to the co-ordinated exit level and only one when the levels matched. Although we didn't have the sophisticated electronics and computer power available at NERC (??do I really mean that??) - we used touchwire screens or TIDs as they were known at Bretigny - the system did work reliably and would probably have made a good interim system before NERC.
I know of at least 3 more major ODID simulations after ours to further develop the system and I should be very surprised if the similarities between ODID and NERC are coincidental, especially as one of the participants was later very much involved with the NERC project before he returned to LATCC a couple of years ago.
NB
PS I hope our younger readers will forgive these "it's all been done before" ramblings - it's my age don't you know!
In June 1987, I was one of 5 LATCC ATCOs who spent a month at Bretigny carrying out trials on the use of colour in ATC (ODID1). We used an E and S system on the old Pole Hill/Irish Sea sectors with stripless electronic co-ordination and it worked extremely well.
At first, we were presented with data lines which were just electronic representations of strips - all in blue for westbound and all yellow for east with pink for crossers - which looked revolting and were difficult to read. Later, we were offered, and subsequently developed, a system which used colour much more sparingly to indicate when action needed to be taken rather than direction of flight. Using this system, it was simple to scan a whole screenful of datalines and immediately pick out which needed action and which did not. Incidentally, just to show there's nothing new under the sun, we reverted to the old JATCRU edge-lit board system where the callsign either "pushed" or "pulled" the level to show direction of flight!
We also use the datablocks (labels) in a very similar way to NERC with both levels showing if the actual level was different to the co-ordinated exit level and only one when the levels matched. Although we didn't have the sophisticated electronics and computer power available at NERC (??do I really mean that??) - we used touchwire screens or TIDs as they were known at Bretigny - the system did work reliably and would probably have made a good interim system before NERC.
I know of at least 3 more major ODID simulations after ours to further develop the system and I should be very surprised if the similarities between ODID and NERC are coincidental, especially as one of the participants was later very much involved with the NERC project before he returned to LATCC a couple of years ago.
NB
PS I hope our younger readers will forgive these "it's all been done before" ramblings - it's my age don't you know!
Guest
Posts: n/a
NBanker....
Thanks for the reply, exactly what I was after.
Ramblings? No, I don't think so, THIS is rambling (slips into fake Northern Accent)...but when I were a Cadet we used to get up before we went to sleep, work a 26 hour day, pay CAA for't privilege of working for 'em and still have change from a 10 shilling note...errr um..nurse!!!
Rgds
BEX
Thanks for the reply, exactly what I was after.
Ramblings? No, I don't think so, THIS is rambling (slips into fake Northern Accent)...but when I were a Cadet we used to get up before we went to sleep, work a 26 hour day, pay CAA for't privilege of working for 'em and still have change from a 10 shilling note...errr um..nurse!!!
Rgds
BEX
Guest
Posts: n/a
Meanwhile, back at the original topic....
Dredging back through the memory banks, I seem to recall that the system which was going to give us E&S was called EDDUS (Electronic Data Display Update System). I believe that it worked pretty well on single-sector simulations, but could not cope with the full-size LATCC environment. I think it ended up in use by the military in their MAS room, and a few input panels appear at the LATCC positions in EROR.
Then, around the same time, there was SIRS (Support Information Retrieval System) which was intended to be available on each sector to replace all those pieces of paper, etc. That DID work (well, it wasn't rocket science) but was discontinued because there was no space to fit it onto an en-route sector. It appears to have been re-born as SIS, with the psychadelic Dataland added to keep us all amused whilst the main system is down!!!
The third system being developed around the same time was MARETS. I can't remember the full title, but it was a system to provide rapid exchange of flight-plan and related information between military airfields and LATCC. I believe that it came to some kind of fruition, but don't know whether it actually entered operational use.
Hope this helps to jog a few other memories.
NN
Dredging back through the memory banks, I seem to recall that the system which was going to give us E&S was called EDDUS (Electronic Data Display Update System). I believe that it worked pretty well on single-sector simulations, but could not cope with the full-size LATCC environment. I think it ended up in use by the military in their MAS room, and a few input panels appear at the LATCC positions in EROR.
Then, around the same time, there was SIRS (Support Information Retrieval System) which was intended to be available on each sector to replace all those pieces of paper, etc. That DID work (well, it wasn't rocket science) but was discontinued because there was no space to fit it onto an en-route sector. It appears to have been re-born as SIS, with the psychadelic Dataland added to keep us all amused whilst the main system is down!!!
The third system being developed around the same time was MARETS. I can't remember the full title, but it was a system to provide rapid exchange of flight-plan and related information between military airfields and LATCC. I believe that it came to some kind of fruition, but don't know whether it actually entered operational use.
Hope this helps to jog a few other memories.
NN
Guest
Posts: n/a
hey BEX.....
You're sitting close to a bit of E&S history. The TC Ops Room furniture.........yup........you guessed it...........it was the furniture that was designed for E&S !!
If you have a look at some of the phone panels, they even have ES on them, where it should say COORD !!
Ahhhhhhhhh..........such is progress !! :P:P
You're sitting close to a bit of E&S history. The TC Ops Room furniture.........yup........you guessed it...........it was the furniture that was designed for E&S !!
If you have a look at some of the phone panels, they even have ES on them, where it should say COORD !!
Ahhhhhhhhh..........such is progress !! :P:P
Guest
Posts: n/a
Numps... So all that effort wasn't completely wasted then, which is good news. The SIRS your refer to wouldn't be anything like the SIRS that they had (have still?) at ScATCC would it?
SIS can only be "the bastard child" of SIRS, surely. As I may have mentioned, I'm not a fan. Mind you the NERC furniture has a nice BIG panel directly beneath the SIS where you could put paper maps, chinagrapgh reminders, red pen marks post-it notes etc etc (Watch those engineers shudder when they see this..ha ha ha)
Fedupwithitall (no change there then)...
Thanks for that snippet. No I didn't realise that the TC furniture was E&S inspired. Curious about the phone panels though, 'cos the ones in the current stage2/4 room aren't the same type as the ones in the original stage 1 room. They were appalling. I remember thumping the adjacent panel to get
the LCDs to come back on many an occassion.
You'll find the orginal type panels in the ARIES simulator now. They're still useless...
Rgds
BEX
SIS can only be "the bastard child" of SIRS, surely. As I may have mentioned, I'm not a fan. Mind you the NERC furniture has a nice BIG panel directly beneath the SIS where you could put paper maps, chinagrapgh reminders, red pen marks post-it notes etc etc (Watch those engineers shudder when they see this..ha ha ha)
Fedupwithitall (no change there then)...
Thanks for that snippet. No I didn't realise that the TC furniture was E&S inspired. Curious about the phone panels though, 'cos the ones in the current stage2/4 room aren't the same type as the ones in the original stage 1 room. They were appalling. I remember thumping the adjacent panel to get
the LCDs to come back on many an occassion.
You'll find the orginal type panels in the ARIES simulator now. They're still useless...
Rgds
BEX
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fedupwithitall..
E&S scrapped in, what, 1984/5? And the stage 2/4 room built early 1993. You mean all this stuff was stored somewhere for 8 YEARS?? Or do you mean the designs? Is there anymore stuff stored away somewhere?
I seem to recall going into what is now the 2/4 TC room and standing amongst cardboard mock-ups of the sups desk and what was to become FDS and GS desks.
Curiouser and curiouser...
Rgds
BEX
E&S scrapped in, what, 1984/5? And the stage 2/4 room built early 1993. You mean all this stuff was stored somewhere for 8 YEARS?? Or do you mean the designs? Is there anymore stuff stored away somewhere?
I seem to recall going into what is now the 2/4 TC room and standing amongst cardboard mock-ups of the sups desk and what was to become FDS and GS desks.
Curiouser and curiouser...
Rgds
BEX
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bex, nothing new in storing stuff for ages, the RV equipment room and L1 had 100s? of E&S displays stored for years - I think they eventually ended up as verticals in the ER suites - green screen 23 inch I think.
They had to be turned on once in a while to stop them detoriating and producing lotsa smoke!
They had to be turned on once in a while to stop them detoriating and producing lotsa smoke!