EFPS at Stansted (Merged)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: On top of the world
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EFPS at Stansted
Can somebody shed any light on its progress. I have asked the question on the NATS forum - but got diddly squat back.
Must assume that the biggest bang to hit ATC airports is going as smoothly as .....
Must assume that the biggest bang to hit ATC airports is going as smoothly as .....
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you.......
I would like to start a related competition.
looking for a new set of four words for the acronym EFPS.
have a couple of choice selections myself but I will save them to show u all up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I would like to start a related competition.
looking for a new set of four words for the acronym EFPS.
have a couple of choice selections myself but I will save them to show u all up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As I understand it, EFPS will 'go live' at EGSS in the middle of next month. If you wish to see examples of successful EFPS installations in VCR's go to Zurich and/or Toronto. This thread follows many other in 'ATC Issues' in that a small number of outspoken ATC's [ I assume the contributors work in ATC], seem to enjoy slagging off changes and NATS in particular. NATS is one of the best ATS providers around, their staff and management consistently deliver superb service to their customers. I worked for NATS for 40 years in ATC and am proud that I worked for them. They were a good company to work for. NATS ATC terms and conditions of employment are some of the best in the world.
I believe that the change to Electronic data displays to replace the FPS is long overdue and has/will bring major advantages to Controllers including safety improvements and workload reduction. e.g The primary task of a VCR controller is to look out of the windows to observe the traffic he/she is providing a service to. Thus any feature which reduces the need for the controllers head to be down and eyes to be 'in the office' must be a safety advance. EFPS will do just that.
A mouse click can record instantly any transaction and transmit that transaction detail to any number of destinations, wherever they may be. i.e. The departure radar controller can be made aware instantly of the actual departure sequence prior to line-up. All actions and times can be accurately and invisibly recorded for record and performance monitoring purposes. One could go on.
I am sure that the Safety Case that has been produced by NATS for the EFPS at Stansted will have covered all the safety issues very comprehensively. Change in ATC, like life is inevitable. The majority of changes I have experienced during the last 40 years have been for the good. I am sure that good old 'Heathrow Director' will agree with me. So I wish NATS at Stansted success with EFPS and look forwards to reading about the projects progress.
I believe that the change to Electronic data displays to replace the FPS is long overdue and has/will bring major advantages to Controllers including safety improvements and workload reduction. e.g The primary task of a VCR controller is to look out of the windows to observe the traffic he/she is providing a service to. Thus any feature which reduces the need for the controllers head to be down and eyes to be 'in the office' must be a safety advance. EFPS will do just that.
A mouse click can record instantly any transaction and transmit that transaction detail to any number of destinations, wherever they may be. i.e. The departure radar controller can be made aware instantly of the actual departure sequence prior to line-up. All actions and times can be accurately and invisibly recorded for record and performance monitoring purposes. One could go on.
I am sure that the Safety Case that has been produced by NATS for the EFPS at Stansted will have covered all the safety issues very comprehensively. Change in ATC, like life is inevitable. The majority of changes I have experienced during the last 40 years have been for the good. I am sure that good old 'Heathrow Director' will agree with me. So I wish NATS at Stansted success with EFPS and look forwards to reading about the projects progress.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
e.g The primary task of a VCR controller is to look out of the windows to observe the traffic he/she is providing a service to. Thus any feature which reduces the need for the controllers head to be down and eyes to be 'in the office' must be a safety advance. EFPS will do just that.
Yes, I admit there are some ATCOs who resist change for the wrong reasons, but can you blame them sometimes? A few months ago I was showing a few visitors around from a well known ATC technology supplier. One of the engineers was asking me about the surface movement radar, which has labels for transponding a/c. I explained that it was a challenge to get new trainees who've not known anything else to look out the window, rather than just concentrate on the radar and strips. He said to me that surely that was the way forwarrd? That in a decade or so time it was his dream to build an airport ATC facility with no windows, and it would all be done on Mode S radar displays, and then could be co-located with Terminal Control.
Sometimes people get caught up in developing things just because they can.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thought that EFPS will deliver more head up is a huge mistake. It will force controllers to be more inside the office for very simple reasons. The fact that one is not able to physically touch the strips anymore has a huge impact on STM (Short Term Memory) You will forget data quicker. This will force you to look at the strip over and over again, hence more head down. Where we used to be able to know what what was on the strip after a glance, we now will have to process information in quite a different way. This takes away processing capacity from our already limited system. I am talking Human Information Processing now. Also the fact that you will not be able to physically put the strip where you want will have its consequences. Situation Awareness will decrease, which will force the controller to go back inside the office again. Hence EFPS creates more head down time then PFPS.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having just made the adjustment from a paper strip environment to using EXCDS (as EFPS is known as here in Canada), it's like anything new. Takes a bit of getting used to, but the functionality IMHO is very good (this is from an Approach side of things).
Are they implementing both mouse/keyboard input as well as touch screen?
Are they implementing both mouse/keyboard input as well as touch screen?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
26left
Sorry to come down to Earth, but operational controllers don't go on jollies to Zurich and/or Toronto, only the suit-and-tie brigade.
I cannot share your view that a mouse-click is simpler and quicker than the stroke of a pen which can be achieved almost sub-consciously and without direct eye monitoring; likewise I cannot share your view on the rationale of NATS' safety cases....they are purely to achieve the end result and are not transparent to the workforce that will be affected.
I can however sympathise with the multitude of ATC technology and equipment providers, must be darned difficult to find a profit out of selling paper strips, and frustrating as hell to know that the low-tech strip works.
Everything "actas" said is right, and London Area Control Centre at Swanwick has retained the paper strip which works in perfect harmony with the electronic side of the operation. For Area work I can write on a strip every second, each one a different aircraft; the electronic alternative requires hooking and diverting attention from the prime task....resulting in a capacity decrease of 30-40% when busy......and believe me.......we get really busy!
I cannot share your view that a mouse-click is simpler and quicker than the stroke of a pen which can be achieved almost sub-consciously and without direct eye monitoring; likewise I cannot share your view on the rationale of NATS' safety cases....they are purely to achieve the end result and are not transparent to the workforce that will be affected.
I can however sympathise with the multitude of ATC technology and equipment providers, must be darned difficult to find a profit out of selling paper strips, and frustrating as hell to know that the low-tech strip works.
Everything "actas" said is right, and London Area Control Centre at Swanwick has retained the paper strip which works in perfect harmony with the electronic side of the operation. For Area work I can write on a strip every second, each one a different aircraft; the electronic alternative requires hooking and diverting attention from the prime task....resulting in a capacity decrease of 30-40% when busy......and believe me.......we get really busy!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South-ish
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EFPS
EFPS is produced by NAV Canada. They develop new products with ATC by delivering limited functions and then working with ATC to refine them and then adding more functionality.
In this way ATC don't get hit by all the change in one lump and they also get involved with the process which means ATC get a tool that is more likely to work the way ATC want and need.
The current ADIS system is at end of life so something had to be done to replace it and that something has to cater for the here and now and the next ten years or so. So change is inevitable and EFPS is a lot better than the other contenders.
In this way ATC don't get hit by all the change in one lump and they also get involved with the process which means ATC get a tool that is more likely to work the way ATC want and need.
The current ADIS system is at end of life so something had to be done to replace it and that something has to cater for the here and now and the next ten years or so. So change is inevitable and EFPS is a lot better than the other contenders.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I, and the majority of my colleagues, are not at all confident with the new technology programmes.
In the past year or two we've had a Runway Incursion monitoring system (RIMCAS) active, which we are required to have switched on (fair enough). However, this system is STILL faulty. The alarm goes off quite regularly. In one forty five minute session of departures today it went off ten times, with the system believing there were two aircraft taking off in close formation and thus conflicting with eachother. This is causing a human factors problem in that it goes off with such regularity that nodoby actually takes a lot of notice anymore, even if it alarms for the proper reasons!
The tower supervisor is required to log all faults on this system on the RIMCAS fault sheet.
Our new ATM regularly fails to convert the squawk into a callsign. This happens maybe ten to twenty times an hour.
The tower supervisor is required to log these faults on the ATM 'fail to convert' fault sheet.
Our new ATM has an approach monitoring function (AFDAS), both height and azimuth, and regularly shows a/c are low/high/left/right/going backwards on the approach. This happened maybe once or twice an hour.
The tower supervisor is required to log all faults of this type on the ATM/AFDAS fault sheet.
Our new ATM often fails to display a/c for several seconds, ie. a/c drop out of radar cover, including the trail dots. Sometimes they pop up ten miles away from their actual position. This is why we are back to the stone age with Approach having to advise us of the order of landing.
The tower supervisor is required to log all faults of this type on the ATM/AFDAS fault sheet.
It's now been decided that the ATM is so
that it's effectively been taken out of service completely, but because it's been a bit of a fudge, we are not required to increase to minimum four miles spacing as the Part 2 states if the ATM is U/S.
Add the above to the airfield lighting fault sheet, and three of four other fault sheets I've forgotten, it's very rare to actually get any other tasks done on the sup's desk. Last cycle I had a thirty minute period as supervisor where I was just logging faults one after another and got no other task done, even the latest weather was still hanging out of the fax machine.
It's quite ridiculous!
In the past year or two we've had a Runway Incursion monitoring system (RIMCAS) active, which we are required to have switched on (fair enough). However, this system is STILL faulty. The alarm goes off quite regularly. In one forty five minute session of departures today it went off ten times, with the system believing there were two aircraft taking off in close formation and thus conflicting with eachother. This is causing a human factors problem in that it goes off with such regularity that nodoby actually takes a lot of notice anymore, even if it alarms for the proper reasons!
The tower supervisor is required to log all faults on this system on the RIMCAS fault sheet.
Our new ATM regularly fails to convert the squawk into a callsign. This happens maybe ten to twenty times an hour.
The tower supervisor is required to log these faults on the ATM 'fail to convert' fault sheet.
Our new ATM has an approach monitoring function (AFDAS), both height and azimuth, and regularly shows a/c are low/high/left/right/going backwards on the approach. This happened maybe once or twice an hour.
The tower supervisor is required to log all faults of this type on the ATM/AFDAS fault sheet.
Our new ATM often fails to display a/c for several seconds, ie. a/c drop out of radar cover, including the trail dots. Sometimes they pop up ten miles away from their actual position. This is why we are back to the stone age with Approach having to advise us of the order of landing.
The tower supervisor is required to log all faults of this type on the ATM/AFDAS fault sheet.
It's now been decided that the ATM is so
that it's effectively been taken out of service completely, but because it's been a bit of a fudge, we are not required to increase to minimum four miles spacing as the Part 2 states if the ATM is U/S.Add the above to the airfield lighting fault sheet, and three of four other fault sheets I've forgotten, it's very rare to actually get any other tasks done on the sup's desk. Last cycle I had a thirty minute period as supervisor where I was just logging faults one after another and got no other task done, even the latest weather was still hanging out of the fax machine.
It's quite ridiculous!
Last edited by Gonzo; 7th Nov 2004 at 20:41.
Further to the posts by 055 and actas, I shall not have to get to grips with EFPS, but agree with all that they say. Another aspect, I have always felt, is that in an emergency situation (including an unexpected missed approach), it is very easy to move manual strips, cock them out, scribble on them etc, but with an electronic system, an inappropriate proportion of the controller's time would be taken up by updating the electronics - or, more likely, concentrating on the traffic and the electronics getting ignored.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuse me being cynical. Is the real reason something to do with the management thinking that if the EFPS are implimented then NATS can reduce the number of ATSAs in the VCRs and save money. The fact that it is, on balance not needed or wanted by the operational staff and/or potentially less safe is neither here nor there.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
General feeling is that yes it will allow a reduction of VCR atsa numbers, not a good idea.
Just as a side note the new VCR at Heathrow has no contingency for strip bays, ie. EFPS is the only system that has been allowed in the new desks. Wonder what will happen if EFPS gets abondoned??
Just as a side note the new VCR at Heathrow has no contingency for strip bays, ie. EFPS is the only system that has been allowed in the new desks. Wonder what will happen if EFPS gets abondoned??
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that abandonment of EFPS is your biggest headache. Your problem, once it is installed, is going to be "what happens when (not if!) EFPS goes t*ts up?
I understand that your EGLL ATSAs have no input into virtually anything to do with the new tower, including a contingency for EFPS failure, which is when you, the controller, may very well be expecting just a little bit of help from your one and only ATSA. It might just be prudent to get them involved before the event , rather than during.
I understand that your EGLL ATSAs have no input into virtually anything to do with the new tower, including a contingency for EFPS failure, which is when you, the controller, may very well be expecting just a little bit of help from your one and only ATSA. It might just be prudent to get them involved before the event , rather than during.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As one who has made the transition from paper to electronics, I have to say that although some of your concerns are valid, many are not. When the system was installed here there was for a time a paper back-up provided in case of a failure. I don't think they were ever needed.
The tower here is staffed by controllers only. There are no support staff, but the electronics do away with most of their task anyway, so why have them just in case? So much coordination can be achieved without resorting to using the telephone. We have a separate apron function who use the system and so stand allocation etc is done electronically. Airborne times, landing times and a host of other data is transmitted automatically (and much invisibly) without any input required from the controller.
One click or touch of the screen and the times are sent to whoever else needs to know them and is capable of receiving them. I don't spend any more time heads down than I used to. Instead of writing data in a box, I just click or touch and it's done.
The time taken to build FDEs (strips) was one concern I read about. The system has the ability to have "quick-write" FDEs (for checkers and regular users etc) available in their own "NEW" page. By the time the person for whom I'm building the data, tug, vehicle or aircraft has finished speaking, the FDE is built and in its place in the display and I am able to carry on. It's much faster that handwriting and you know it's going to be legible!
The mistake that could be made is trying to integrate a stand alone system without making use of its capabilities in other agencies such as Approach control and the airport operators. If you install this system as just a strip display, you are only using a fraction of its qualities and frankly, wasting time and money. Why have somebody phoning down airborne times when it can be done automatically and safely?
Anyone at Manchester remember the VCR-ACC camera trial? All the effort that went into that only for it to be canned. You can have a mimic of the tower controller's display and see exactly what's coming, on what heading and in what order, on a screen that is perfectly readable and doesn't shake! That's got to be progress.
The system should be installed with ATCO input, but what you get isn't the final fit. It can be endlessly adapted to suit changing requirements and/or procedures as looneykeycode alludes to.
2 sheds
Your fears about emergency situations or go-arounds I don't think are valid. You can cock the strip (yellow or black here). You can coordinate a heading silently with Approach. What you feel the need to scribble, doesn't have to be scribbled on a strip. We're not completely electronic, we still have paper available, although some people's pens were replaced with crayons for their own safety!
Gonzo
We too have RIMCAS with some false alarms. We have a Tower Radar that occasionally doesn't convert. It also has a warning function for parallel approaches, but it works! We don't get as anal as NATS does about stuff that may have glitches. It's not very productive to have someone behind a desk filling in log sheets is it? What you need to ask is why doesn't it work, not how many times doesn't it work? Then either get it fixed or get your money back and buy something that does work.
Change shouldn't be feared. Yes jobs will be lost but that's true in the modern automated world. How many buses still have a conductor? Are they less safe? Yes things can fail. It's as true in aviation as in any other walk of life. The professionals that work within it though, are very capable and are well trained to cope when things fail. The benefits of this system far outweigh the perceived threats and failings.
The tower here is staffed by controllers only. There are no support staff, but the electronics do away with most of their task anyway, so why have them just in case? So much coordination can be achieved without resorting to using the telephone. We have a separate apron function who use the system and so stand allocation etc is done electronically. Airborne times, landing times and a host of other data is transmitted automatically (and much invisibly) without any input required from the controller.
One click or touch of the screen and the times are sent to whoever else needs to know them and is capable of receiving them. I don't spend any more time heads down than I used to. Instead of writing data in a box, I just click or touch and it's done.
The time taken to build FDEs (strips) was one concern I read about. The system has the ability to have "quick-write" FDEs (for checkers and regular users etc) available in their own "NEW" page. By the time the person for whom I'm building the data, tug, vehicle or aircraft has finished speaking, the FDE is built and in its place in the display and I am able to carry on. It's much faster that handwriting and you know it's going to be legible!
The mistake that could be made is trying to integrate a stand alone system without making use of its capabilities in other agencies such as Approach control and the airport operators. If you install this system as just a strip display, you are only using a fraction of its qualities and frankly, wasting time and money. Why have somebody phoning down airborne times when it can be done automatically and safely?
Anyone at Manchester remember the VCR-ACC camera trial? All the effort that went into that only for it to be canned. You can have a mimic of the tower controller's display and see exactly what's coming, on what heading and in what order, on a screen that is perfectly readable and doesn't shake! That's got to be progress.
...I don't think many ATCOs have had input either!
2 sheds
Your fears about emergency situations or go-arounds I don't think are valid. You can cock the strip (yellow or black here). You can coordinate a heading silently with Approach. What you feel the need to scribble, doesn't have to be scribbled on a strip. We're not completely electronic, we still have paper available, although some people's pens were replaced with crayons for their own safety!
Gonzo
We too have RIMCAS with some false alarms. We have a Tower Radar that occasionally doesn't convert. It also has a warning function for parallel approaches, but it works! We don't get as anal as NATS does about stuff that may have glitches. It's not very productive to have someone behind a desk filling in log sheets is it? What you need to ask is why doesn't it work, not how many times doesn't it work? Then either get it fixed or get your money back and buy something that does work.
Change shouldn't be feared. Yes jobs will be lost but that's true in the modern automated world. How many buses still have a conductor? Are they less safe? Yes things can fail. It's as true in aviation as in any other walk of life. The professionals that work within it though, are very capable and are well trained to cope when things fail. The benefits of this system far outweigh the perceived threats and failings.