EFPS at Stansted (Merged)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SE UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the best of my knowledge;
- ATCO's have, and are being consulted, on the process and the functionality of the system. The three EFPS units are represented (mostly by experienced, operational ATCO's) and the implementation teams at the units are constantly being updated and included
- HF have made an assessment of the system and given it the nod
- EFPS is being prejudged. It's yet to go live at STN, and you never know, it may work....
If you feel you're not being consulted, what, apart from using an anonymous bulletin board, are you doing to find out what is fact and what is fiction? It's obvious there's a lot of mis-information about, and want it or not, EFPS is coming.
And Cossack's right, change happens. We have to get used to a new way of displaying our flight data, just like we did when we left DAT&S or moved to another unit. Some people aren't so lucky, they have to get new jobs.
- ATCO's have, and are being consulted, on the process and the functionality of the system. The three EFPS units are represented (mostly by experienced, operational ATCO's) and the implementation teams at the units are constantly being updated and included
- HF have made an assessment of the system and given it the nod
- EFPS is being prejudged. It's yet to go live at STN, and you never know, it may work....
If you feel you're not being consulted, what, apart from using an anonymous bulletin board, are you doing to find out what is fact and what is fiction? It's obvious there's a lot of mis-information about, and want it or not, EFPS is coming.
And Cossack's right, change happens. We have to get used to a new way of displaying our flight data, just like we did when we left DAT&S or moved to another unit. Some people aren't so lucky, they have to get new jobs.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Believe me, if EFPS works and is 'user friendly', then I'm all for it.
Many Heathrow ATCOs are worried because of the problems we've had here with the introduction of new kit in the last few years. It really doesn't give one confidence. Additionally, Stansted and Gatwick can keep putting off the introduction of EFPS until it's a decent system, but we're working to a deadline with the new tower. We've been told that Gatwick have 'dropped out', and that we'll be next after Stansted.
Our new ATM, as delivered, was very, very poor. Our previous, ancient ATM didn't have problems converting callsigns. Our previous, ancient ATM didn't allow aircraft AND their trail dots to drop off the screen for several seconds at a time. The same was true with the VCCS as delivered. It was laughable.
I don't have a problem with EFPS as a concept. I have reservations about it's implementation at Heathrow. The past record isn't good. We must have six or seven different types of LCD screen in the tower, and each has it's own button/menu/submenu/select process to decrease the brightness and contrast for night time. There's such a big variation that it's impossible to know which buttons to press in which order to get the desired result. Thus you end up with your 'head down' looking at the screen and those fiddly buttons along the bottom for literally a minute or so getting the screens changed. And if you don't get it done while there's still ambient light, then there's no chance of figuring out which buttons to press in the dark. Is it just me, or is it unreasonable to expect someone to have enough common sense to manage to buy the screens from the same manufacturer and range so the menus and buttons were all in the same place?
Cossack, we need to be anal about it because if Ops don't get a sheet with all the faults on it they don't believe us! In fact after a year or so we stopped reporting RIMCAS faults, nobody bothered to do so because everyone knew they kept ocurring. Someone in Ops was surprised recently when someone mentioned the RIMCAS faults still happening; they assumed the problem had gone away!
Many Heathrow ATCOs are worried because of the problems we've had here with the introduction of new kit in the last few years. It really doesn't give one confidence. Additionally, Stansted and Gatwick can keep putting off the introduction of EFPS until it's a decent system, but we're working to a deadline with the new tower. We've been told that Gatwick have 'dropped out', and that we'll be next after Stansted.
Our new ATM, as delivered, was very, very poor. Our previous, ancient ATM didn't have problems converting callsigns. Our previous, ancient ATM didn't allow aircraft AND their trail dots to drop off the screen for several seconds at a time. The same was true with the VCCS as delivered. It was laughable.
I don't have a problem with EFPS as a concept. I have reservations about it's implementation at Heathrow. The past record isn't good. We must have six or seven different types of LCD screen in the tower, and each has it's own button/menu/submenu/select process to decrease the brightness and contrast for night time. There's such a big variation that it's impossible to know which buttons to press in which order to get the desired result. Thus you end up with your 'head down' looking at the screen and those fiddly buttons along the bottom for literally a minute or so getting the screens changed. And if you don't get it done while there's still ambient light, then there's no chance of figuring out which buttons to press in the dark. Is it just me, or is it unreasonable to expect someone to have enough common sense to manage to buy the screens from the same manufacturer and range so the menus and buttons were all in the same place?
Cossack, we need to be anal about it because if Ops don't get a sheet with all the faults on it they don't believe us! In fact after a year or so we stopped reporting RIMCAS faults, nobody bothered to do so because everyone knew they kept ocurring. Someone in Ops was surprised recently when someone mentioned the RIMCAS faults still happening; they assumed the problem had gone away!
Guest
Posts: n/a
We don't get as anal as NATS does about stuff that may have glitches.
If a controller is asked to use a piece of equipment to enable him or her to control and separate aeroplanes it should work reliably. The first time there is an incident because the equipment works incorrectly and misleads the controller the person who carries the can is the controller.
The people who put the controller into that position will always have an answer ... usually that the controller is the one with the licence and is responsible for not using any faulty equipment.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A guy from NATS dropped in sometime last month to test the system on one of our MD-11's that had the new phase 3 ACARS, but it didn't work. May have progressed since then. Funny thing was he (the NATS guy) didn't have a ID validated for STN so the BAA refused him entry. Instructions were carried out by two airfield ops rangers via mobile phone whilst the NATS bloke sat in the car park! Don't you just love STN security!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Cheshire, England
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo has hit the nail on the head.
the heathrow VCR is just a clutter of different systems. OK, the new tower will be aesthetically more pleasing, with everything laid out in a more organised way, but thats not the issue.
What Heathrow has in terms of different technologies and equipment types is like having an office consisting of microsoft windows 3.1, windows XP, Apple Mac, Linux, VHS and DVD.
NOTHING is integrated at all. menu functions, commands, controls, etc are all accessed in a different way.
ATM
VCCS
SIS
TACT (whats tact?)
SMR
are all different in their operation.
Even the flatscreen monitors have different menus and controls
Not only is this a headache for controllers, but the Tels people have trouble remembering how each system operates, which causes delays when something needs fixing.
Lets not have new technology just for technologys sake! Heathrow's new VCR needs an integrated technology package that everyone can become familiar with in a short space of time.
I feel for the lighting operators. The new lighting panel is going to be yet another headache for everyone concerned.
What makes me laugh is that the actual airfield lights will still be the same old lights that are currently oh so reliable and well maintained. it seems that by plugging a jazzy new high tech interface into the vcr will suddenly fix the airfield lighting. (rather like buying a new keyboard for your PC when the motherboard fails!)
the heathrow VCR is just a clutter of different systems. OK, the new tower will be aesthetically more pleasing, with everything laid out in a more organised way, but thats not the issue.
What Heathrow has in terms of different technologies and equipment types is like having an office consisting of microsoft windows 3.1, windows XP, Apple Mac, Linux, VHS and DVD.
NOTHING is integrated at all. menu functions, commands, controls, etc are all accessed in a different way.
ATM
VCCS
SIS
TACT (whats tact?)
SMR
are all different in their operation.
Even the flatscreen monitors have different menus and controls
Not only is this a headache for controllers, but the Tels people have trouble remembering how each system operates, which causes delays when something needs fixing.
Lets not have new technology just for technologys sake! Heathrow's new VCR needs an integrated technology package that everyone can become familiar with in a short space of time.
I feel for the lighting operators. The new lighting panel is going to be yet another headache for everyone concerned.
What makes me laugh is that the actual airfield lights will still be the same old lights that are currently oh so reliable and well maintained. it seems that by plugging a jazzy new high tech interface into the vcr will suddenly fix the airfield lighting. (rather like buying a new keyboard for your PC when the motherboard fails!)
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo
I agree reporting action needs to be taken, but for how long? If you buy a new car and it doesn't work as advertised, you take it back. Does the dealer then say I don't believe you, make a log of what goes wrong?
A year or so! WTF! If something is not working for that long and your management can't or won't do anything then 1261 it and refuse to use it. See how long it takes to get fixed then. If you need more arrival space because the radar doesn't work, then get it. Don't roll over and accept it. If you do, you're your own worst enemy and have no grounds for complaint.
Why does NATS not seem to get a good deal when it buys new kit? For years I've heard stories of how new equipment was bought but doesn't work as it should and years later its still there. SMRs with masked areas etc.
The new tower wil give you the opportunity to get a more harmonised work environment with displays that match. If NATS transplant systems from the old into the new, you're not going to gain much more than a new building.
I agree. What has been bought has a proven track record in many Canadian towers and Terminal units. It does work. It is user friendly. Does it interface with what is being used by NATS now? Not sure. Will it interface with what NATS will use in the future? For your sakes, I hope so.
I agree reporting action needs to be taken, but for how long? If you buy a new car and it doesn't work as advertised, you take it back. Does the dealer then say I don't believe you, make a log of what goes wrong?
In fact after a year or so we stopped reporting RIMCAS faults, nobody bothered to do so because everyone knew they kept ocurring. Someone in Ops was surprised recently when someone mentioned the RIMCAS faults still happening; they assumed the problem had gone away!
Why does NATS not seem to get a good deal when it buys new kit? For years I've heard stories of how new equipment was bought but doesn't work as it should and years later its still there. SMRs with masked areas etc.
The new tower wil give you the opportunity to get a more harmonised work environment with displays that match. If NATS transplant systems from the old into the new, you're not going to gain much more than a new building.
Lets not have new technology just for technologys sake! Heathrow's new VCR needs an integrated technology package that everyone can become familiar with in a short space of time.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does it interface with what is being used by NATS now? Not sure. Will it interface with what NATS will use in the future? For your sakes, I hope so.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SE UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mis-information, as I said, is rife.
LGW haven't dropped out will start training in January. They are working to a dead-line too as they're already starting to re-deploy their ATSA's.
But you're quite right when you say that the success of EFPS depends on its implementation. LGW have a simulator that is beyond anything I have seen in NATS and ALL THE EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN STANDARDISED. Same VDU's, same menus, and the same equipment in the same location in each position. That has been down to the hard work of ATCO's who have volunteered to get involved, Tels, Ops, and believe or not, Unit Management, who have provided the resource for the refurbishment.
Perhaps the LHR Tech Com (or any interested ATCO) should pop down to LGW to see how they're doing things...? It could, and probably would, answer a lot of questions
LGW haven't dropped out will start training in January. They are working to a dead-line too as they're already starting to re-deploy their ATSA's.
But you're quite right when you say that the success of EFPS depends on its implementation. LGW have a simulator that is beyond anything I have seen in NATS and ALL THE EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN STANDARDISED. Same VDU's, same menus, and the same equipment in the same location in each position. That has been down to the hard work of ATCO's who have volunteered to get involved, Tels, Ops, and believe or not, Unit Management, who have provided the resource for the refurbishment.
Perhaps the LHR Tech Com (or any interested ATCO) should pop down to LGW to see how they're doing things...? It could, and probably would, answer a lot of questions
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When they plug it in to HCS, it all falls over!
I was at work the other day and saw 3 pallets of nice new 20inch NEC LCD monitors (which we already use). There were about 30 of them. New toys in time for Christmas!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We've got some NECs too, but there are three different types that I can remember, and everything is in a different place!
Why does everything have to be push button menus? Surely an LCD screen with two knobs (steady!) for brightness and contrast would be far better! Like I said, sometimes it seems that progress occurs 'because we can'.
I know of a rusty old sub that needs a new home. Sunk the Belgrano.......Proven technology.......
Why does everything have to be push button menus? Surely an LCD screen with two knobs (steady!) for brightness and contrast would be far better! Like I said, sometimes it seems that progress occurs 'because we can'.
I know of a rusty old sub that needs a new home. Sunk the Belgrano.......Proven technology.......
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All joking aside, everybody's remarks about the fallibility of HCS/NAS is actually the reason why the ATSAs should be taking a look at backup scenarios for EFPS. If EFPS is to be linked in any shape or form to NAS then the potential for calamity should be self-evident.
This would be of particular importance to EGLL, primarily because ATCO control of this airfield presents a far more complicated overall scenario than at any of the others. If the ATCOs have lost their primary source of information, the info on EFPS - linked to the ever-so-reliable NAS - then where is the info going to come from, and in what format, so as to allow the job of controlling the live traffic to continue?
The ATCOs will have their hands full - so who's going to be tasked with providing some sort of backup/info supply if it isn't the ATSAs?
To all those who have expressed a view that this is just ATSA scaremongering, and EFPS is a reliable piece of kit, I would only say that, in the case of NAS, you should all look at the track record. If EFPS is in any way linked to NAS, then emergency contingency most certainly should be on the agenda, and especially for the new EGLL tower.
Hindsight can be a wonderful thing - it can also be very painful.
This would be of particular importance to EGLL, primarily because ATCO control of this airfield presents a far more complicated overall scenario than at any of the others. If the ATCOs have lost their primary source of information, the info on EFPS - linked to the ever-so-reliable NAS - then where is the info going to come from, and in what format, so as to allow the job of controlling the live traffic to continue?
The ATCOs will have their hands full - so who's going to be tasked with providing some sort of backup/info supply if it isn't the ATSAs?
To all those who have expressed a view that this is just ATSA scaremongering, and EFPS is a reliable piece of kit, I would only say that, in the case of NAS, you should all look at the track record. If EFPS is in any way linked to NAS, then emergency contingency most certainly should be on the agenda, and especially for the new EGLL tower.
Hindsight can be a wonderful thing - it can also be very painful.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cossak
The reason people stopped reporting the RIMCAS faults was because when we did we were told either its being worked on/its the new airbuses they dont have the right transponders/its virgin's equipment that is at fault.
When you are constantly reporting something and nothing gets done to fix it people tend to just say sod it and put up with it. Thats part of the problem with UK ATC, we just get on with it despite sub standard equipment, lack of staff, low morale. Our own worst enemies yes, but experience has taught us that in the end no-one really listens in NATS. And if they are listening the tend to tell you off for speaking out.
Gonzo check your pms.
The reason people stopped reporting the RIMCAS faults was because when we did we were told either its being worked on/its the new airbuses they dont have the right transponders/its virgin's equipment that is at fault.
When you are constantly reporting something and nothing gets done to fix it people tend to just say sod it and put up with it. Thats part of the problem with UK ATC, we just get on with it despite sub standard equipment, lack of staff, low morale. Our own worst enemies yes, but experience has taught us that in the end no-one really listens in NATS. And if they are listening the tend to tell you off for speaking out.
Gonzo check your pms.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can report (as long as you keep it to yourselves) that it looks very much like EFPS will become operational in the very near future. All those involved seem very confident that they can pull it off (even some of the ATCO's !!) No doubt it will take some getting used to and we will get caught out now and again but progress marches on with or without us............wish us luck. ps. there is a back up system involving some hi tech system involving long narrow strips made from a reconstituted wood product, There is a machine which imparts the flight information onto these strips and they can then be placed in front of the controller organised in vertical metal racks...it will never catch on and lets hope we dont have to go back to it too often........
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Beautiful South
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heres the thing about EFPS,
There is actually NO improvement on the system we use already. When given a demonstration in the last week by one of the Nats gravy train brigade we were shown what would happen in the event of a go around.
"What we teach with this" she said " is to sort out the traffic and then get back to the strips",
Hang on a second,
I thought the whole point of a strip display is to give an accurate illustration of what is going on!
Even during the messiest go-around at EGLL I can still have a quick glance down and have a fairly good idea of who is where.
Heres a quick test, try without looking at it to use the calculator on your PC, just try to write a three figure number ( a heading for example!). Then try to write the same 3 figure number on a piece of paper with a pen you are already holding. Which is quicker?
Conclusive proof that EFPS reduces "out the window" time.
I am far from being your old dinosaur ATCO but this EFPS is a nightmare, what really bugs me is that there is no improvement on the system we have. There are no hints, no alarms if you stuff too many things on the runway, nothing that I think will help me with what I am doing.
However SRG has no idea what goes on in a busy tower today they have been bought too many good lunches by those shoehorning this into place, who in turn had that Canadian hospitality and felt obliged to buy it. Voila! certification!
So its coming, its useless, it is actively reducing safety, enjoy!
The s
t will only hit the turbofan when BAA and the airlines realise that the hourly movement rate at EGLL has halved!
There is actually NO improvement on the system we use already. When given a demonstration in the last week by one of the Nats gravy train brigade we were shown what would happen in the event of a go around.
"What we teach with this" she said " is to sort out the traffic and then get back to the strips",
Hang on a second,
I thought the whole point of a strip display is to give an accurate illustration of what is going on!
Even during the messiest go-around at EGLL I can still have a quick glance down and have a fairly good idea of who is where.
Heres a quick test, try without looking at it to use the calculator on your PC, just try to write a three figure number ( a heading for example!). Then try to write the same 3 figure number on a piece of paper with a pen you are already holding. Which is quicker?
Conclusive proof that EFPS reduces "out the window" time.
I am far from being your old dinosaur ATCO but this EFPS is a nightmare, what really bugs me is that there is no improvement on the system we have. There are no hints, no alarms if you stuff too many things on the runway, nothing that I think will help me with what I am doing.
However SRG has no idea what goes on in a busy tower today they have been bought too many good lunches by those shoehorning this into place, who in turn had that Canadian hospitality and felt obliged to buy it. Voila! certification!
So its coming, its useless, it is actively reducing safety, enjoy!
The s
t will only hit the turbofan when BAA and the airlines realise that the hourly movement rate at EGLL has halved!
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eddyboog,
You appear to have made an assumption (!) that New Technology = Improvement for the Workers.
Actually, the equation is New Technology = Cost Savings for management.
Its a wee bit more complicated as 'Hangers-On', 'Free Lunches' (part of 'Gravy Train' that you have ID'd), 'beancounters', 'Jobs for boys', 'Stuff You' and other variables are involved, but left out for clarity.
Yours cynically,
Bigears
You appear to have made an assumption (!) that New Technology = Improvement for the Workers.
Actually, the equation is New Technology = Cost Savings for management.
Its a wee bit more complicated as 'Hangers-On', 'Free Lunches' (part of 'Gravy Train' that you have ID'd), 'beancounters', 'Jobs for boys', 'Stuff You' and other variables are involved, but left out for clarity.
Yours cynically,
Bigears
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the rumour that i heard at a coffee establishment this morning true that EGSS movement rate was reduced when the same traffic situation was replicated on EFPS as compared to using the well tried and well trusted paper strips??