Automation in ATC
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure many of the dinosaurs round here ( 
respect ) and even some of us greener types have seen automation make our lives easier in the day to day running of a sector. But who else can also cite instances where an all singing, all dancing automated system has increased workload (NATS FAST trial at TC anyone? ) There is no denying that familiarisation with a system allows for more efficient use by the controller, but how many systems now require the controller to "feed the machine", requiring more heads down time........ not providing the primary job of watching the damn radar (full time attentive flight monitoring as a certain ANS provider calls it)
AND what happens when it fails? YWG Terminal uses EXCDS/EFPS and it's quite a good system..........right up to the point where it fails in the middle of a busy arrival/departure sequence.
respect ) and even some of us greener types have seen automation make our lives easier in the day to day running of a sector. But who else can also cite instances where an all singing, all dancing automated system has increased workload (NATS FAST trial at TC anyone? ) There is no denying that familiarisation with a system allows for more efficient use by the controller, but how many systems now require the controller to "feed the machine", requiring more heads down time........ not providing the primary job of watching the damn radar (full time attentive flight monitoring as a certain ANS provider calls it)AND what happens when it fails? YWG Terminal uses EXCDS/EFPS and it's quite a good system..........right up to the point where it fails in the middle of a busy arrival/departure sequence.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Songbird'
Just one note to you... US ATCO pay bands have been slashed in the last couple of months. They are NO WHERE near what they once were. THe new kids coming in are going to make far less and the folks who are in training, now will never see what they were promised.
We are seeing many of the college trained folks turning down employment requests by the FAA, as we are people who were coming from the military side now turning down employment...
Oh and as to new and wonderful stuff coming down the line, take a look at the ERAM stuff that the FAA is working on to replace the old 9020 software from the early 70's.
regards
Scott
Just one note to you... US ATCO pay bands have been slashed in the last couple of months. They are NO WHERE near what they once were. THe new kids coming in are going to make far less and the folks who are in training, now will never see what they were promised.
We are seeing many of the college trained folks turning down employment requests by the FAA, as we are people who were coming from the military side now turning down employment...
Oh and as to new and wonderful stuff coming down the line, take a look at the ERAM stuff that the FAA is working on to replace the old 9020 software from the early 70's.
regards
Scott
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Centre of old Europe
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes SV, I am aware of what is going on between NATCA and the FAA. I should have added something like "until the setback last summer". Curious to learn whether or rather how long the FAA's policies to ignore ATCO's input will persist. In a way it is a repetition of a traditional FAA HQ attitude isn't it.
I am knowledgable with ERAM. While being in touch, is there still or again anything moving on passive CTAS down there at Dallas. What I remember is that the automatic sequencing advice worked promisingly under stable runway conditions, but was messy for about twenty minutes when there was a change in north-south runway orientation.
When I visited Dallas last, would you believe 10th September 2001, I was also told or given to understand that CTAS was halted by NATCA to counteract FAA's policies at the time, probably a previous round of salary negotiations.
I am knowledgable with ERAM. While being in touch, is there still or again anything moving on passive CTAS down there at Dallas. What I remember is that the automatic sequencing advice worked promisingly under stable runway conditions, but was messy for about twenty minutes when there was a change in north-south runway orientation.
When I visited Dallas last, would you believe 10th September 2001, I was also told or given to understand that CTAS was halted by NATCA to counteract FAA's policies at the time, probably a previous round of salary negotiations.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Songbird;
Actually it was PFAST part of CTAS that was stopped. The reason for it was that it was found that it was lacking and to get it to the level of what controllers did it would cost a pretty sum of money. NATCA convinced the FAA that it would be more prudent to spend that money on other projects such as ASDE-X and other things then to spend millions on a system to get it just as good as controllers. Of course the NASA folks had other ideas <G>...
regards
Scott
Actually it was PFAST part of CTAS that was stopped. The reason for it was that it was found that it was lacking and to get it to the level of what controllers did it would cost a pretty sum of money. NATCA convinced the FAA that it would be more prudent to spend that money on other projects such as ASDE-X and other things then to spend millions on a system to get it just as good as controllers. Of course the NASA folks had other ideas <G>...
regards
Scott
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Norway (DRA VOR)
Age: 63
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting stuff for me here......
Without going into details I'm involved in doing specs for a planned AMAN system. Done lots off studies on available material, primarilly eurocontrol stuff....EATCHIP docs, feasability studies etc. One off the things we are pondering about is advanced advisories for optimization off final spacing, and I've read all I've come over about pFast in the US, and also FAST(NATS). Reading the comments from Scott Voigt and others (in particular Gonzos in this thread) gives me a clear understanding these systems didn't deliver as expected. Being an approach controller myself I'm also very sceptical to implement too many "bells and whistles" into our system, especially considering the place I'm at has veery adverse and changing wx/wind conditions and other variables.....
In short I think our focus will be kept on optimizing the inbound streams in a way that doesn't conflict with our "handywork"
Without going into details I'm involved in doing specs for a planned AMAN system. Done lots off studies on available material, primarilly eurocontrol stuff....EATCHIP docs, feasability studies etc. One off the things we are pondering about is advanced advisories for optimization off final spacing, and I've read all I've come over about pFast in the US, and also FAST(NATS). Reading the comments from Scott Voigt and others (in particular Gonzos in this thread) gives me a clear understanding these systems didn't deliver as expected. Being an approach controller myself I'm also very sceptical to implement too many "bells and whistles" into our system, especially considering the place I'm at has veery adverse and changing wx/wind conditions and other variables.....
In short I think our focus will be kept on optimizing the inbound streams in a way that doesn't conflict with our "handywork"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Guildford
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Optimise What?
Good to see you onboard with the discussion Highspeed. Although there are some points I ought to address from earlier posts I’ll just offer some thoughts on your area as my own experience in approach sequencing goes back about 15 years. The trail is littered with failures because some fundamental truths have not been recognised.
In the USA there was a proposal to eliminate holding stacks until some people pointed out that the problem is not deterministic but rather, that probability and queuing theory govern the results. Anyone still working on 4-D control?
NATS toyed with approach sequencing for CCF Stage 5 ‘Tunnels in the Sky’ until it became clear that the whole idea couldn’t work. The traditional rule ‘First Come First Served’ has no meaning if you extend your view outside a single sector or move away from the controller as the decision maker and final arbiter.
EATCHIP and eFDP missed much of the value they could have added by sprinkling the word ‘optimise’ everywhere in the requirements without saying what had to be optimised. Fuel? Time? Aircraft Aggregate Time? Aircraft Aggregate Fuel Burn? Passenger Hours? Landing Rate? Over what period?
You can only optimise against a SINGLE variable. If you want to optimise against more than one parameter then you have to relate them mathematically. As a minimum you will end up with partial differential equations. As a simple example, most aircraft use a cost index to optimise flight time and fuel burn. Time and fuel have to be given monetary values that can be traded off. You can’t have your cake and eat it.
Many years ago the London Ambulance Service tried to ‘optimise’ response times by sending the closest ambulance to an incident. Anyone who had encountered a Monte Carlo (Random Walk) Simulation would have known that this algorithm simply causes the ambulances to wander all over London and get lost. Some people believe that lives were lost when this happened in the real world.
So, please, if you want to optimise anything, write down exactly what it is and make sure you include ALL the dependent variables. And be aware that if you put this into a machine algorithm to influence the real world of ATC then I predict that the airlines will soon want to know exactly how it affects them.
Let’s suppose (for environmental reasons) that we have to minimise aggregate fuel burn. A simple algorithm would grade aircraft according to rates of fuel consumption and land the heaviest consumers as quickly as possible. So 747s would get close to straight in approaches while small business jets might have to hold until the tanks were nearly dry.
Having said all of that, the control of intermediate and final approaches by radar vectoring is one of the triumphs of the human mind. I agree that it may be almost impossible to design a machine to do as well by doing it the same way. What seems to be missing is the recognition that the airlines don’t want to do it this way. MLS is available and installed. The USA and many other countries are pushing towards GPS. I have read that EVERY new Boeing and Airbus aircraft has Multi-Mode Receiver (GPS/ILS/MLS) capability.
Airlines want curved approaches and continuous descents from cruising levels but these cannot be achieved using human beings, radar and VHF voice communications. The most impressive continuous descent approaches in the world are executed by the Space Shuttle. The night landing at Edwards AFB by Eileen Collins in Discovery was superb. I put it to you that the case for automation is proven (yes, proven) on all counts and that political factors are now the only reason for persisting with our current methods.
In the USA there was a proposal to eliminate holding stacks until some people pointed out that the problem is not deterministic but rather, that probability and queuing theory govern the results. Anyone still working on 4-D control?
NATS toyed with approach sequencing for CCF Stage 5 ‘Tunnels in the Sky’ until it became clear that the whole idea couldn’t work. The traditional rule ‘First Come First Served’ has no meaning if you extend your view outside a single sector or move away from the controller as the decision maker and final arbiter.
EATCHIP and eFDP missed much of the value they could have added by sprinkling the word ‘optimise’ everywhere in the requirements without saying what had to be optimised. Fuel? Time? Aircraft Aggregate Time? Aircraft Aggregate Fuel Burn? Passenger Hours? Landing Rate? Over what period?
You can only optimise against a SINGLE variable. If you want to optimise against more than one parameter then you have to relate them mathematically. As a minimum you will end up with partial differential equations. As a simple example, most aircraft use a cost index to optimise flight time and fuel burn. Time and fuel have to be given monetary values that can be traded off. You can’t have your cake and eat it.
Many years ago the London Ambulance Service tried to ‘optimise’ response times by sending the closest ambulance to an incident. Anyone who had encountered a Monte Carlo (Random Walk) Simulation would have known that this algorithm simply causes the ambulances to wander all over London and get lost. Some people believe that lives were lost when this happened in the real world.
So, please, if you want to optimise anything, write down exactly what it is and make sure you include ALL the dependent variables. And be aware that if you put this into a machine algorithm to influence the real world of ATC then I predict that the airlines will soon want to know exactly how it affects them.
Let’s suppose (for environmental reasons) that we have to minimise aggregate fuel burn. A simple algorithm would grade aircraft according to rates of fuel consumption and land the heaviest consumers as quickly as possible. So 747s would get close to straight in approaches while small business jets might have to hold until the tanks were nearly dry.
Having said all of that, the control of intermediate and final approaches by radar vectoring is one of the triumphs of the human mind. I agree that it may be almost impossible to design a machine to do as well by doing it the same way. What seems to be missing is the recognition that the airlines don’t want to do it this way. MLS is available and installed. The USA and many other countries are pushing towards GPS. I have read that EVERY new Boeing and Airbus aircraft has Multi-Mode Receiver (GPS/ILS/MLS) capability.
Airlines want curved approaches and continuous descents from cruising levels but these cannot be achieved using human beings, radar and VHF voice communications. The most impressive continuous descent approaches in the world are executed by the Space Shuttle. The night landing at Edwards AFB by Eileen Collins in Discovery was superb. I put it to you that the case for automation is proven (yes, proven) on all counts and that political factors are now the only reason for persisting with our current methods.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 42
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess it is normal that an airline does not take into account its competition may also be flying to an airport (at the same time), it shouldn't be taken as final wisdom regarding air traffic management though.
Or, to put it into a bit more simple terms - of course every airline wishes to be first. Doesn't mean they can.
Regards,
Robert
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
an airline does not take into account its competition may also be flying to an airport (at the same time)
