Automation in ATC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Guildford
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Automation in ATC
I've been working on ATC systems for over 30 years. During all of that time everyone has agreed that full automation is the way forward but no-one has found a way to make it safe. I offer my own solution on my website www.sensus-dp.demon.co.uk for PPRuNe readers. There's even a working demonstrator! The arguments for this New Model for ATC are irrefutable and support is building rapidly. Do check it out and comment.
NewModel,
I have not had time to fully absorb all the information on your website and you have obviously put in a considerable amount of time and research into your work. Many of the points you raise are already being addressed with projects like iFACTS. The implementation of Mode S will also improve productivity.
The systems currently in use are capable of "paperless" control but Flight Strips remain in use at the moment to ensure that the UK does not rely on technology too quickly. Failures still occur and the Paper system is a very important fallback. If you have a failure without backup there will be carnage.
There are many studies ongoing at the moment within Europe to improve matters but I wish you well in your efforts.
I have not had time to fully absorb all the information on your website and you have obviously put in a considerable amount of time and research into your work. Many of the points you raise are already being addressed with projects like iFACTS. The implementation of Mode S will also improve productivity.
The systems currently in use are capable of "paperless" control but Flight Strips remain in use at the moment to ensure that the UK does not rely on technology too quickly. Failures still occur and the Paper system is a very important fallback. If you have a failure without backup there will be carnage.
There are many studies ongoing at the moment within Europe to improve matters but I wish you well in your efforts.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Guildford
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger,
Thanks for taking the trouble to look at the site. You may know me if you've worked at Hurn. There has been some truly excellent work done on FACTS but there has always been the need for other components to make up a full complement of tools for a future Flight Data Processing System. My proposal is for an integrated and unified ATC solution that removes the need for such separate tools and provides other benefits. The New Model works the same way from ground movement to oceanic and is so simple to understand that a beginner can operate it. It tackles the problem of failure by providing multiple independent processors. It keeps the controller in the loop. If there is a failure that knocks out a processor and the database then another processor can be used. The new traffic solution might not be identical to the old one but it will be workable and safe. Looked at from the right perspective we just don’t need strips any more. And conflict tools can’t manage flows or provide insights into timely route optimisations to save fuel. The New Model really does work but I’ll happily address any specific questions posed in this thread.
Thanks for taking the trouble to look at the site. You may know me if you've worked at Hurn. There has been some truly excellent work done on FACTS but there has always been the need for other components to make up a full complement of tools for a future Flight Data Processing System. My proposal is for an integrated and unified ATC solution that removes the need for such separate tools and provides other benefits. The New Model works the same way from ground movement to oceanic and is so simple to understand that a beginner can operate it. It tackles the problem of failure by providing multiple independent processors. It keeps the controller in the loop. If there is a failure that knocks out a processor and the database then another processor can be used. The new traffic solution might not be identical to the old one but it will be workable and safe. Looked at from the right perspective we just don’t need strips any more. And conflict tools can’t manage flows or provide insights into timely route optimisations to save fuel. The New Model really does work but I’ll happily address any specific questions posed in this thread.
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
Widger FYI paperless systems have been in use for a very long time. At Maastricht, for example, since the late 1980s.
Ongoing development work at Bretigny s. Orge parallels a lot of what I saw on NewModelATC's site during a quick browse through, However after more than 35 years in ATC, quite a few spent in the development of systems, I tend to shudder and move on when someone says their arguments are irrefutable or that theirs is the only way forward.
I remember endless arguments between ATCA in the States and a pilot who was convinced his vision of Free Flight was the only way to go. (Scott Voigt knows lot more about this
)
Controllers are a very conservative group, so if you are looking for support I suggest you remove some of the polemic statements if you are soliciting their support
Ongoing development work at Bretigny s. Orge parallels a lot of what I saw on NewModelATC's site during a quick browse through, However after more than 35 years in ATC, quite a few spent in the development of systems, I tend to shudder and move on when someone says their arguments are irrefutable or that theirs is the only way forward.
I remember endless arguments between ATCA in the States and a pilot who was convinced his vision of Free Flight was the only way to go. (Scott Voigt knows lot more about this
)Controllers are a very conservative group, so if you are looking for support I suggest you remove some of the polemic statements if you are soliciting their support
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember endless arguments between ATCA in the States and a pilot who was convinced his vision of Free Flight was the only way to go. (Scott Voigt knows lot more about this )
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hopefully Biada is busy with something else or finally figured out we were right <G>...
As to paperless, in the US more than half the centers are more or less paperless with a conflict probe built in to the data display.
regards
Scott
As to paperless, in the US more than half the centers are more or less paperless with a conflict probe built in to the data display.
regards
Scott
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
Thanks Scott , that was the guy. he used a considerable amount of bandwidth in various chatrooms. Usually along the lines of if the FAA give me x million dollars I can prove that it works
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Guildford
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you to those who have taken the time to look at my site. BDiONU, I don’t think The New Model is really that similar to iFACTS. I have seen the reports from the FACTS work and I am aware of the background to the interim implementation. Is Rob W still responsible? For those that don’t know the work there’s a good outline at:
Airport International iFACTS Article
The New Model differs in that conflicts are eliminated by the system as soon as they are detected so that only the best conflict-free RT advisories are presented to the controller. There are therefore no windows to look at and evaluate and no problems to solve. I have tried to explain the logic behind this on my website.
Lon More, yes, there is an overlap between Eurocontrol’s work and mine but did you see the illuminating quotes on the first page of my site? I have a lot of support from individual researchers whose names I must be discrete about. My apologies if my assertions are controversial. I just hope we are all searching for improvements to the system and that my ideas are a useful contribution to a public debate. Controllers are emailing me from as far away as the USA and Australia.
And Scott Voigt, as for Free Flight, I think it was a worthy proposal that failed because there was no credible evolutionary path by which its final goals could be reached. It depended on too much changing at once. I actually favour a ground-based ATC concept but that’s a discussion for another thread. The New Model can be implemented within a single sector or across a whole ATCC and the aircraft need never know. Therefore there is an obvious evolutionary path to the future with the New Model.
As a final thought for this post I believe that the new imperative for ATC (after safety) is to show that traffic is being handled optimally from an environmental point of view. That means that trajectories must now be planned and continuously adjusted by computers to minimise CO2 emissions. In the UK the train drivers and the firemen handled the transition from steam to electric and diesel traction rather poorly and our railways have been a disaster ever since. I have confidence that present day air traffic controllers will want to manage the transition to automation more competently.
Airport International iFACTS Article
The New Model differs in that conflicts are eliminated by the system as soon as they are detected so that only the best conflict-free RT advisories are presented to the controller. There are therefore no windows to look at and evaluate and no problems to solve. I have tried to explain the logic behind this on my website.
Lon More, yes, there is an overlap between Eurocontrol’s work and mine but did you see the illuminating quotes on the first page of my site? I have a lot of support from individual researchers whose names I must be discrete about. My apologies if my assertions are controversial. I just hope we are all searching for improvements to the system and that my ideas are a useful contribution to a public debate. Controllers are emailing me from as far away as the USA and Australia.
And Scott Voigt, as for Free Flight, I think it was a worthy proposal that failed because there was no credible evolutionary path by which its final goals could be reached. It depended on too much changing at once. I actually favour a ground-based ATC concept but that’s a discussion for another thread. The New Model can be implemented within a single sector or across a whole ATCC and the aircraft need never know. Therefore there is an obvious evolutionary path to the future with the New Model.
As a final thought for this post I believe that the new imperative for ATC (after safety) is to show that traffic is being handled optimally from an environmental point of view. That means that trajectories must now be planned and continuously adjusted by computers to minimise CO2 emissions. In the UK the train drivers and the firemen handled the transition from steam to electric and diesel traction rather poorly and our railways have been a disaster ever since. I have confidence that present day air traffic controllers will want to manage the transition to automation more competently.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
traffic is being handled optimally from an environmental point of view
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NewModelATC
Rob W has been sacked and iFACTS has changed considerably from your days (assuming you're the person who set this up last year http://www.dmaviation.co.uk/atmmain.htm).
Lots of simulations have been run, lots of work is going on in NATS (in conjunction with Praxis).
BD
Lots of simulations have been run, lots of work is going on in NATS (in conjunction with Praxis).
BD
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NewModel etc...
An interesting concept, and one worth studying in detail... but still only a concept.
Not sure about the statement "full time automation is the only way to go". Full time automation isn't always flexible enough. Most of time, yes, but not always. That's why there are still pilots on todays very automated flight decks.
Not sure about the weather avoidance FAQ either. Real time info on Cb activity is not always available, nor are individual pilot reactions to Cb activity (see the uk over the last few days).
Metering for TMA / airfield arrival streams. Hmmm.. there is such a wide variety of variables e.g. a/c performances, wind, wake vortex, rwy closures, preferential rwys (continue here for as long as you like) that I have difficulty seeing an automated system cope safely without human intervention . Which may be what you are getting at, but saying that full automation is the only way to go suggests otherwise.
And for those that allow it, what about VFR arrivals? How do they fit?
Don't get me wrong, there are some good ideas here and I am not Luddite enough to dismiss them out of hand.
Paperless operation in the UK? Yes, it will happen. Usual caviats though. Involve the end user at the BEGINING of the project, and get all the advice you can from those that are already without paper about the problems and advantages. Act on the advice / input.
Rgds BEX
An interesting concept, and one worth studying in detail... but still only a concept.
Not sure about the statement "full time automation is the only way to go". Full time automation isn't always flexible enough. Most of time, yes, but not always. That's why there are still pilots on todays very automated flight decks.
Not sure about the weather avoidance FAQ either. Real time info on Cb activity is not always available, nor are individual pilot reactions to Cb activity (see the uk over the last few days).
Metering for TMA / airfield arrival streams. Hmmm.. there is such a wide variety of variables e.g. a/c performances, wind, wake vortex, rwy closures, preferential rwys (continue here for as long as you like) that I have difficulty seeing an automated system cope safely without human intervention . Which may be what you are getting at, but saying that full automation is the only way to go suggests otherwise.
And for those that allow it, what about VFR arrivals? How do they fit?
Don't get me wrong, there are some good ideas here and I am not Luddite enough to dismiss them out of hand.
Paperless operation in the UK? Yes, it will happen. Usual caviats though. Involve the end user at the BEGINING of the project, and get all the advice you can from those that are already without paper about the problems and advantages. Act on the advice / input.
Rgds BEX
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Guildford
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bexil160,
Thanks for those constructive comments. I am indebted to you and others who have taken the time to visit my website. I believe the New Model does address all of the issues that you and others have raised. Naturally, any shortcomings in the explanations are entirely my responsibility. There is no sarcasm intended in that statement.
Full automation isn’t necessarily obvious but your analogy is almost perfect. I would have said a modern aircraft with autopilot, autoland, fly-by-wire controls, FMS, FADEC and so on is indeed fully automated in that the crew issue instructions and the system carries them out. In the same way the New Model will always require a human operator and even in the demonstrator there is the opportunity to ignore or override advisory instructions. However, I believe the New Model does represent the first ever proposal for an ATC tool where the system is expected to calculate the complete traffic solution. The demonstrator was produced to show that the algorithms are not particularly hard.
Some controllers feel that they may not be able to retain the mental ‘picture’ if they are not actually controlling the sector. My informal investigations show that, if anything, the mental picture is actually enhanced by monitoring a concise and complete list of RT advisories. The controller can then focus on any problem areas while the system continues to look after the more straightforward parts of the sector. It is part of the mathematics of the New Model to show that this independence is a property of a well designed piece of airspace.
For space reasons may I deal with metering, strips and VFR in a future post?
You also suggest crucially that the users should be consulted at the beginning of the project. I am sorry I may not have spoken to you personally but I have actually spent a great deal of time sitting with controllers and pilots. My managers opposed this approach. The New Model represents the fusion of what is needed, what is possible and what is wanted. Many controllers told me I was the first engineer who had ever come and asked them and I treasure the several friendships I have established.
But, if there are any controllers out there who feel they have not been heard why not post your requirements for a future ATC system here? This is one engineer who does want to listen. If a few appear and there is interest I will publish the essence of all the requirements that were expressed to me by practicing controllers and pilots over 30 years. That post will be shorter than this one.
Thanks again to everyone for taking time to look at this thread.
P.S. Would Bexil160 be a sector and a standing agreement?
Thanks for those constructive comments. I am indebted to you and others who have taken the time to visit my website. I believe the New Model does address all of the issues that you and others have raised. Naturally, any shortcomings in the explanations are entirely my responsibility. There is no sarcasm intended in that statement.
Full automation isn’t necessarily obvious but your analogy is almost perfect. I would have said a modern aircraft with autopilot, autoland, fly-by-wire controls, FMS, FADEC and so on is indeed fully automated in that the crew issue instructions and the system carries them out. In the same way the New Model will always require a human operator and even in the demonstrator there is the opportunity to ignore or override advisory instructions. However, I believe the New Model does represent the first ever proposal for an ATC tool where the system is expected to calculate the complete traffic solution. The demonstrator was produced to show that the algorithms are not particularly hard.
Some controllers feel that they may not be able to retain the mental ‘picture’ if they are not actually controlling the sector. My informal investigations show that, if anything, the mental picture is actually enhanced by monitoring a concise and complete list of RT advisories. The controller can then focus on any problem areas while the system continues to look after the more straightforward parts of the sector. It is part of the mathematics of the New Model to show that this independence is a property of a well designed piece of airspace.
For space reasons may I deal with metering, strips and VFR in a future post?
You also suggest crucially that the users should be consulted at the beginning of the project. I am sorry I may not have spoken to you personally but I have actually spent a great deal of time sitting with controllers and pilots. My managers opposed this approach. The New Model represents the fusion of what is needed, what is possible and what is wanted. Many controllers told me I was the first engineer who had ever come and asked them and I treasure the several friendships I have established.
But, if there are any controllers out there who feel they have not been heard why not post your requirements for a future ATC system here? This is one engineer who does want to listen. If a few appear and there is interest I will publish the essence of all the requirements that were expressed to me by practicing controllers and pilots over 30 years. That post will be shorter than this one.
Thanks again to everyone for taking time to look at this thread.
P.S. Would Bexil160 be a sector and a standing agreement?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: France/Lyon
Age: 49
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello,
a very interesting web site even though, to be honest, I didn't read everything.
Your model is similar to a french project called ERATO (En Route Air Traffic Organizer) that has been developped since the early 90's by The CENA.
http://www.tls.cena.fr/divisions/CCC/ERATO/?L=en
(web site in english but that page only in french).
a very interesting web site even though, to be honest, I didn't read everything.
Your model is similar to a french project called ERATO (En Route Air Traffic Organizer) that has been developped since the early 90's by The CENA.
http://www.tls.cena.fr/divisions/CCC/ERATO/?L=en
(web site in english but that page only in french).
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, I believe the New Model does represent the first ever proposal for an ATC tool where the system is expected to calculate the complete traffic solution.
I guess they must have found insurmountable difficulties since I have never heard anything more about the project.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NewModelATC
The whole premise of this thread is based on a lie.
"everyone has agreed that full automation is the way forward"
Who is everyone:-
Employers that want to shed staff?
Manufacturers that want bucks?
Can't you people understand that sometimes the simple {and cheap } things work well......sorry there's not much profit in a paper strip.
How do I know?....I AM a controller, and I don't mean a "desk" either!
Whenever Mr Free-lunch meets Mr Expense-account we end up with the biggest bag of worms imaginable; just remember that although your tame rocket-scientist/brain-surgeon types nod furiously in agreement it will be the foot soldiers that have to make it work eventually.
"everyone has agreed that full automation is the way forward"
Who is everyone:-
Employers that want to shed staff?
Manufacturers that want bucks?
Can't you people understand that sometimes the simple {and cheap } things work well......sorry there's not much profit in a paper strip.
How do I know?....I AM a controller, and I don't mean a "desk" either!
Whenever Mr Free-lunch meets Mr Expense-account we end up with the biggest bag of worms imaginable; just remember that although your tame rocket-scientist/brain-surgeon types nod furiously in agreement it will be the foot soldiers that have to make it work eventually.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Model;
Yes I can see that the controller sitting there and overseeing can see more of what is going on, sort of like the handoff person who is not having to talk can generally see more of what is going on since they are not focusing on individual aircraft all the time, however the problem lies in not seeing all the traffic by being involved. It more of the problem of not being involved and STAYING involved in the traffic picture. In studies with both pilots and controllers, human factors folks have seen that we humans are TERRIBLE at keeping the picture on things when we aren't activly engaged in doing it. Just sitting and watching our attention wanders from time to time if we are not activly engaged in what is going on, which we aren't if we are just watching the machine do it. I see this as a huge problem in the future with the types of traffic levels we are talking about getting into.
Oh, earlier I gave you some places to go and talk with folks about human factors <G>. I just got back from doing some work with the FAA human factors folks... Boy are they doing some neat stuff <G>...
regards
Scott
Yes I can see that the controller sitting there and overseeing can see more of what is going on, sort of like the handoff person who is not having to talk can generally see more of what is going on since they are not focusing on individual aircraft all the time, however the problem lies in not seeing all the traffic by being involved. It more of the problem of not being involved and STAYING involved in the traffic picture. In studies with both pilots and controllers, human factors folks have seen that we humans are TERRIBLE at keeping the picture on things when we aren't activly engaged in doing it. Just sitting and watching our attention wanders from time to time if we are not activly engaged in what is going on, which we aren't if we are just watching the machine do it. I see this as a huge problem in the future with the types of traffic levels we are talking about getting into.
Oh, earlier I gave you some places to go and talk with folks about human factors <G>. I just got back from doing some work with the FAA human factors folks... Boy are they doing some neat stuff <G>...
regards
Scott